BBM’s Supreme Court

President Marcos’ expected choice as the new chief justice has rekindled debates about the state of the Philippine judicial system.

Rumors that BBM had picked Rodil Zalameda as the next CJ swirled even as he was still being interviewed by the Judicial and Bar Council on Oct. 26. The Palace merely advised the marites crowd to wait for an official announcement.

Because of those rumors, there was early criticism of Zalameda’s possible promotion over five more senior SC justices – and not because of the seniority issue, which the appointing power has the prerogative to ignore.  

The bigger issue against Zalameda, raised notably by former hidden wealth hunter Ruben Carranza, was that he was the author or ponente of the SC First Division ruling this year that overturned the 2018 conviction of BBM’s mother Imelda on seven counts of graft related to the Marcoses’ Swiss bank deposits. By the time the ruling was made public, the period for filing a motion for reconsideration was long over.

The return of the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth to the Philippines was part of transitional justice following the people power revolt. What we have today, it seems, is transactional justice.

Other critics dredged up the other significant detail, that Zalameda also penned the landmark SC en banc ruling that junked the petitions seeking to disqualify BBM from the 2022 presidential race because of his conviction for tax evasion from 1982 to 1985. The SC unanimously ruled that the offense did not constitute moral turpitude.

In what was probably his last ponente before his promotion, Zalameda also penned the ruling allowing the nth postponement of the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections by an amazing two years, giving the lucky incumbents a total three-year extension (so far) of their terms.

By 2028 when the BSKE rolls around, we can expect Congress, packed with members whose relatives and supporters are barangay officials, to again pass a law giving BSK officials a 10-year term, with another postponement of the BSKE tacked on.

BBM, a member of one of the fattest, most entrenched political dynasties, will gladly sign the law. And the SC under Zalameda can be expected to uphold such laws, ad infinitum.

Zalameda has not yet earned a reputation as the umbrella bearer of BBM, like CJ Enrique Fernando for Imeldific when she was first lady. But the betting at this point is that the SC under a grateful Zalameda will go along with anything Marcos wants for the remainder of his presidency.

*      *      *

Diplomats who have been in the country long enough have described our legal system as “malleable,” and one of the major hindrances to national development. Apart from snail-paced justice, foreign chambers have long complained about the wanton bending of laws, rules and regulations to suit whichever gang is in power.

Joseph Estrada, at the height of his popularity as vice president and then president, often railed against “hoodlums in robes” and “fix-cals.” Unfortunately, he lost the moral authority for that campaign.

Recently, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said the judiciary should undergo “soul-searching” because of its “issues.” Remulla also lamented the grant of bail to former senator Bong Revilla by the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division, grousing, “mukhang natrabaho” – Pinoy slang for case fixing.

The Supreme Court found it necessary to respond, asking Remulla for specifics and urging him to file a complaint.

Perhaps Remulla should take on the challenge. The SC has the sole authority to investigate such cases and impose disciplinary sanctions on erring members of the judiciary, but the ombudsman can file complaints.

Presumably, adjudication is faster because such cases no longer have to go through the judicial mill before final judgment by the SC.

Over the years the SC has dismissed judges and justices for corruption. Several trial court judges have been sent to prison, but not higher court justices.

Gregory Ong was dismissed as Sandiganbayan associate justice by the SC in 2014 for dishonesty, gross misconduct and impropriety related to the pork barrel scam. He was barred from public office and lost his retirement benefits, but he was not sent to prison.

A case will still have to be put together, however, for the SC’s consideration. If ill-gotten or unexplained wealth is tough to prove for public officials under the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, it must be even more complicated when members of the judiciary are the ones suspected of receiving bribes or “gifts” a million times larger than what is allowed by law. The SC, not the ombudsman, is the repository of the official asset declarations of judges and justices.

*      *      *

Presidents have the prerogative to pick the CJ, and they can be expected to choose someone they trust. Presidents who expect to face lawsuits upon retirement also need insurance against conviction.

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo scraped up an excuse to appoint Renato Corona as chief justice, just weeks before her term ended.

Even after Corona was ousted following conviction in an impeachment trial and Noynoy Aquino had installed Ma. Lourdes Sereno as CJ, GMA had some insurance against conviction before any court. In January 2010 in the twilight of her presidency, she signed Republic Act 9946, giving judges and justices hefty retirement pensions, pegged at current salary rates, like those in the uniformed services.

The judiciary is supposed to be an independent and co-equal branch of government, but the executive can influence that independence through the exercise of the president’s appointing power.

That appointing power can’t be withdrawn. But legal minds should find ways of reducing presidential discretion and political influence in appointments and promotions in the judiciary. This has been done to a certain extent in the military.

It should also be possible to prohibit members of the Supreme Court, upon retirement, from accepting an appointment from the incumbent president to another post, including sinecures in government corporations. This will enhance the impartiality of SC members.

Also, the system of accountability and punishment of hoodlums in robes must be improved. Dismissal from the service is not enough; corrupt members of the judiciary must also be sent to prison and their ill-gotten assets seized.

Whether such reforms are possible with Zalameda as SC chief remains to be seen.

It’s just his first week as CJ. He has time to dispel perceptions that this won’t be the Zalameda Supreme Court, but the Marcos Supreme Court.