Preface

 

          The year 2006 is my last as a member of the Philippine judiciary.  On December 7, 2006, I shall turn 70 years old.  At midnight of the day before, December 6, I shall compulsorily retire as Chief Justice, pursuant to the constitutional provision[1] that magistrates of all levels “shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years x x x.”

 

          Liberty and Prosperity is also the last book I will author as a sitting justice of the highest court of the land.  As my faithful readers know, I write one volume annually as my way of reporting on my activities as a magistrate.  Because I took my oath as a member of the Supreme Court on October 10, 1995, all my past books were current as of October 10 of their year of publication, and their printing deadline had to fall on that same date.

 

          The present volume, however, is current only as of July 31, 2006.  I wanted it to be printed by the first week of October 2006 and circulated in time for the “Global  Forum on Liberty and Prosperity,” to be held in Makati City on October 18-20, 2006.  Should it become necessary, I may write a separate update to make the book current as of October 10, 2006, which is my normal printing deadline.

 

          Part I.  Like many of my previous books, this volume is divided into two main parts.  Part I, entitled “A Judicial Philosophy and Program,” presents the various facets of my one-year stint[2] as Chief Justice.  My judicial philosophy and program may be summarized in six separate items, culled from my pronouncements reported in this book, as follows:

 

1.       “I vow to lead a judiciary characterized by four Ins:  independence, integrity, industry and intelligence; one that is morally courageous to stand its ground against the onslaughts of influence, interference, indifference and insolence; and that is impervious to the plague of “ships” -- kinship, relationship, friendship and fellowship.” 

 

Parenthetically, when I first announced this vow a few days after my oath-taking, several well-meaning people expressed some doubt about how a Court dominated by appointees of the current President[3] could decide critical cases against her.  Typical of those apprehensions was the remark of then Senate President Franklin M. Drilon, quoted in Philippine Star:[4] “Chief Justice Panganiban certainly has an unblemished record.  He has integrity.  He has industry. He has the intellect that certainly makes him extremely qualified as a Chief Justice.  The nation, however, will be watching the fourth ‘in’ that Justice Panganiban mentioned -- that is the independence of the Panganiban Court.”

 

I hope, however, that by its Decisions on the three so-called “litmus-test” cases involving Executive Order 464, the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) Policy, and Presidential Proclamation 1017,[5] this question has already been more than sufficiently answered.

 

In the ultimate, the Court is not interested in who, but in what, wins.  It is keen only to make the law and the Constitution prevail and truth and justice victorious.

 

          2.       “I also pledge to continue and revitalize the Supreme Court’s ongoing Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) initiated by my illustrious predecessor, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., with special focus on the four ACID[6] problems that corrode justice in our country; namely, (a) limited access to justice by the poor, (b) corruption, (c) incompetence, and (d) delay in the delivery of quality judgments.  These ACID problems (and what I have done to solve them) are discussed in Chapter 10. 

 

          I am particularly glad to note that our efforts to eradicate corruption have been appreciated by the business community.  In the 2006 Social Weather Stations Survey on corruption, the respondents gave the Supreme Court the second highest rating for sincerity in fighting corruption, next only to local church leaders.[7]  The results indicate that among government institutions, the Supreme Court was perceived as the most sincere in tackling corruption.

 

          May I add that I considered delay so important that I created a Committee on Zero Backlog[8] to immediately monitor the flow of cases and to resolve old ones as soon as possible.

 

3.       “I also envision a revitalized legal profession that is responsible, dependable and morally upright; one that courageously upholds truth and justice above everything else; and from whose ranks shall emerge competent and ethical lawyers.  These are lawyers who shall be willing and able to stand for their convictions against all odds; to carry on in spite of seemingly insurmountable opposition; and to be fearless advocates for the weak, the oppressed and the marginalized.”  This topic is elucidated in Chapter  6, “A Revitalized Legal Profession.”

 

4.       “Internally, to the 26,000 judicial employees nationwide, I lay down a firm policy of granting maximum financial and fringe benefits allowed by law and within my discretion to give.  In turn, I ask the employees for three things encapsulated by the code DHL:  dedication to duty, honesty in every way, and full loyalty to the judiciary and to the Supreme Court.”  How I have implemented this policy is discussed in Chapter 16 entitled “Maximum Benefits for All Judicial Employees.”

 

5.       “I look forward to a school par excellence for judges, one that will be a center for judicial education not only for the Philippines, but also for the whole ASEAN region.”  I am particularly elated at the Japanese government’s “no-strings” grant of P300 million given on January 26, 2006, through Ambassador Ryuichiro Yamazaki, for the construction of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJA) Development Center in Tagaytay.  Of great value to judicial education also is the Cooperation Agreement we concluded with the General Council for the Judiciary of the Kingdom of Spain on June 30, 2006.  For details, please see Chapter 7.

 

6.       “All the foregoing five programs should converge [upon] two loftier end goals:  (a) safeguarding the liberty and (b) nurturing the prosperity of our people.  These twin beacons of LIBERTY and PROSPERITY constitute my core judicial philosophy.”  During the Court’s recess on May 10-28, 2006, I discussed these twin beacons before various audiences -- judicial, bar, academe, business, civil society, and even the local Filipino communities -- in major cities of the world: New York, Washington, Madrid, Paris and London. 

 

I was very much elated at the favorable responses I received.  So I invited many Chief Justices, bar leaders (including the incoming president of the International Law Association, Fernando Pombo), law deans, civil society heads, and business vanguards to come to our country and attend the “Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity” on October 18-20, 2006.

 

          May I just stress that my philosophy of Liberty and Prosperity may be new to some, but not to me.  I have espoused it for a long time as a practising lawyer and have written/spoken on it even during my early years in the Court.  The liberty portion is evident in my many ponencias, too numerous to cite.  I am especially pleased that during my term as Chief Justice, my philosophy was expressly cited with approval in two important Decisions: on the Calibrated Preemptive Response policy[9] and on Presidential Proclamation 1017.[10]

 

          On the other hand, the prosperity portion is gleaned from many Supreme Court Decisions, particularly from two ponencias I wrote: one on the validity of the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization Treaty[11] and another on the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Law of 1995.[12]  Significantly, the doctrines in La Bugal were unanimously reiterated very recently in Didipio Earth-Savers Multi-Purpose Association v. Gozun.[13]

 

          The final chapter (Chapter 18) of Part 1 is a kind of Epilogue.  Here, I foresee the ultimate role of the Supreme Court not only as the “last bulwark of democracy” and “guardian of the rule of law,” but as the “anchor of the ship of state” during political turbulence and social storms in the country.

 

          Part II.  In all my past books, I discussed only the significant Decisions of the Court in which I had written an Opinion, whether majority or dissenting or concurring.  For the present volume, however, I have included all significant Decisions promulgated by the Court during my first seven months in office as Chief Justice (a period that ended on the printing deadline of this book, July 31, 2006, my seventh  month in office).  I have done so because as Chief Justice I feel that, whether I wrote them or not, all those significant Decisions issued from the Panganiban Court.

 

          The cases summarized in Part II include not only those I concurred in, but also one that I dissented from (Estrada v.  Escritor, summarized in Chapter 25).  May I just add that this Decision was the continuation of an earlier one of the same title, promulgated on August 4, 2003, before I became Chief Justice.  On these two connected cases, I voted consistently in the negative.

         

          Functions of the Chief Justice.  In an earlier volume, Leadership by Example,[14] I wrote that “[n]o university on earth teaches a course on how to be a Supreme Court justice.”  True, our Philippine Judicial Academy and similar judicial schools abroad have programs for continuing judicial education, as well as some courses to orient/educate lower court judges.  But there is none that I know of specifically for Supreme Court justices.  And now, I daresay there is no curriculum, either, on how to be a Philippine Chief Justice.  But I hope that this book will give my readers an idea of the nature and extent of the responsibilities and duties of the head of our Judicial Department.

 

          To sum up, the Chief Justice (also called “President of the Supreme Court” in many European, Asian, African and Latin American countries) has the following roles:

 

1.       As primus inter pares.  Among the 15 members of our Supreme Court, the Chief Justice (CJ) is the first among equals who, in presiding over the sessions, is able to control the flow of proceedings, shape the Court’s agenda, summarize discussions, and influence the direction and pace of the Court’s work.  (On my part, I have tried to steer the direction and pace towards the safeguarding of liberty and the nurturing of prosperity.)  Nonetheless, the CJ has only one vote.  Thus, Chief Justices have sometimes found themselves voting with the minority in important litigations.

 

2.       As leader of the entire judiciary.  The 2,000 judges and 26,000 employees of the judiciary hold the Chief Justice up for inspiration and example.  The CJ is looked up to as the leader who “inspires, motivates and leads other officials to work unceasingly, to rise above their puny limitations, to excel beyond themselves and to achieve collectively their loftiest dreams and highest aspirations.”  While “the judge in him impels him to follow tradition, to uphold precedents and stabilize judicial thought, the leader in him requires him to innovate, to re-engineer, to invent new and better ways of moving forward.”[15]  As a testament to the CJ’s headship of the third branch of government, new ambassadors routinely make courtesy calls on the Chief Justice upon the latter’s assumption of office.[16]

 

3.       As passionate reformer and action person.  Because the judiciary, like the other branches of government, must cope with the fast-changing judicial, social, economic and technological environment brought about by new sciences and economic paradigms, the Chief Justice has to institute reforms.[17] 

 

This mission requires not only knowledge of law and related fields of endeavor, but also interaction with other offices, agencies, persons -- both public and private – and even with foreign governments and international aid institutions.  Indeed, to keep up with the Information Age, the judiciary must automate and computerize.  It needs also to relate better with its various publics.  Without surrendering or compromising judicial independence and integrity, the CJ must have rapport with other officials, local and foreign, as well as with the judiciary’s various publics.

 

4.       As uncrowned leader of the bar.  Because supervision over admission to the practice of law and the integrated bar itself is vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution, all lawyers look up to the Chief Justice for guidance in their practice.  This is the reason why all bar associations want to listen to the CJ, especially a new one, for direction and inspiration.

 

5.       As a person of the academe, being an ex-officio chair of the Philippine Judicial Academy.  Thus, the Chief Justice must be a scholar, guru and teacher, who is expected to make the education of judges a necessary component of the judiciary.  For this reason and because of lack of government resources, the CJ is constrained to turn to outside assistance, again without compromising judicial independence and integrity.

 

6.       As chairperson of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).  The Chief Justice is expected to find new and better ways of searching for, screening and selecting applicants for judgeships.  This job is critical.  The need for quality judgments begin with quality judges.  This imperative impels the CJ to wade into nonjudicial endeavors, like working for better compensation, better security for judges especially those assigned to remote areas, and better working conditions and facilities.  Only by securing better pay, better security and better facilities will it be possible for the JBC to entice the best and the brightest attorneys to join the judiciary.

 

          In the past many years, the vacancy rate was 30 to 40 percent in the trial courts.  When I took over, the vacancy rate was about 30 percent.  This figure translates to vacancies in about 600 courts nationwide.  I have made it my self-imposed duty to get the JBC to select nominees for about 300 vacant courts, which will mean a drastic reduction of the vacancy rate to 15 percent.  This is a monumental task.  At an average of 10 applicants per position, the JBC will have to process, interview, screen and select from 3,000 applicants (300 x 10).  Should the CJ fail to lead the JBC in its functions of searching, screening and selecting new judges, the judicial reform program cannot result in any major breakthrough.  The problem of delay in the trial courts cannot be solved.

 

          In anticipation of these appointments, I have set aside a sufficient amount from the Judiciary Development Fund to procure facilities and equipment for these 300 new judgeships.

 

7.       As administrator, manager and financial wizard, all rolled into one.  The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court “administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof,” as well as the appointment of its officials and employees.  In actual practice, however, it is really the Chief Justice who discharges these administrative functions.  In fact, several laws -- like the Administrative Code and the General Appropriations Act -- recognize the CJ as the administrative head of the Judicial Department.  More pointedly, the Judiciary Development Fund Law (PD 1949) and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) Law (RA 9227) specifically place “exclusive sole power” upon the CJ to disburse the JDF and the excess SAJ funds.

 

When I assumed the chief justiceship of our country, I was aghast to learn that the CJ had literally been given menial administrative functions, like the approval of leaves of absence and the acceptance of the resignations of all 26,000 employees nationwide.  Thus, pursuant to elementary management principles, I had to decentralize these functions to give time to more important endeavors.

 

8.       As role model and exemplar of public service.  The Chief Justice is looked up to by our people, especially by the young, as a model of a life worth emulating.  Because of our inquisitive media and open society, about every public official (sometimes including the CJ) is subjected to minute scrutiny and oftentimes vilified unreasonably.  Our people therefore need exemplars and role models.  In their search for heroes, they often look up to the CJ as their choice of an ideal public servant. 

 

A good example is my esteemed predecessor, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.  He was named, among others, “Person of the Year” by the Philippine Daily Inquirer and hailed as a Ramon Magsaysay Awardee, as well as a “Rule of Law” Awardee by the American Bar Association.  All the successors of Chief Justice Davide, not just I, will carry this heavy responsibility to measure up to that level of public esteem.

 

          All the foregoing roles take a lot of time from the basic work of decision-making.  Indeed, these multifarious functions no longer allow the Chief Justice to savor the old-time luxury of total judicial seclusion that CJs had enjoyed under our previous Constitutions.  Indeed, these functions no longer allow the Chief Justice to shun public appearances and speaking engagements, which require reasonable visibility in many functions and receptions. 

         

Judicial work load.  In recognition of these leadership, administrative, managerial, financial and other functions, only one third of the new cases given to associate justices are raffled to the Chief Justice.  Thus, for my part, I am expected to produce only one third of my usual ponencias.  I have tried, however, to write one half of my usual 50 (which means that I wrote about 25) ponencias for the first half of the year.  I expect to write another 25 before I retire.  Most of these were old ones that had been re-raffled to me as a result of our effort to resolve such cases.[18]  My own docket had no backlog; that is, none of my cases had reached the 24-month constitutional limit. 

 

By the time I retire, I shall have written a total of about 1,200 full blown, signed ponencias during my over eleven-year service in the High Court.  Of course, this count does not include the many thousand extended and minute Resolutions I wrote, Resolutions that gave short shrift to patently unmeritorious Petitions.  May I say that I feel personally fulfilled with this production total.  If I may say so myself, I have written a number of trail-blazing, even if sometimes controversial, Decisions.  I shall make no attempt to comment on each of them and instead leave that task to posterity.

 

          Seating protocol.  When I was promoted Chief Justice, a vacancy in the associate justiceships was created.  Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., our former court administrator, was named to take my seat.  As a result, the seating protocol around the Court’s horseshoe-shaped conference table is now as follows:

 

 

Supreme Court of the Philippines

En Banc

 

Seating Protocol

as of July 31, 2006

 

(The retirement dates are in parenthesis.)

 

 

          One of the first things I did upon assuming office was to reorganize the composition of the three Divisions to conform to the seniority tradition in arranging perks and procedures inside the Supreme Court.  Thus, as Chief Justice, I chair the Banc and the First Division.  As the most senior member, Justice Reynato S. Puno heads the Second Division; the next most senior, Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, chairs the Third Division. Then, the justices are distributed to the First, the Second or the Third Division, according to their seniority (dates of appointment to the Court), as follows:

 

FIRST DIVISION

 

SECOND DIVISION

 

 

THIRD DIVISION

 

          High tech.  This book is also available in digital form.  A CD version, which is placed inside a special pocket attached to the inside front cover, is fully searchable.  As a publication of the Supreme Court (SC), it bears the same search engine that is used for the SC e-library.

 

          Appreciation.  May I acknowledge the Foreword generously written by my lifetime guru, former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga, who at 86 is still as mentally prodigious as when he was 46.  It is amazing how he has kept himself mentally alert and physically fit, notwithstanding the many bits of shrapnel still lodged in his frail body as a result of that grenade explosion on August 21, 1971, at Plaza Miranda, Manila. 

 

Even if I know I can never equal or even approximate his achievements, I look up to him as my role model.  He has a habit of excelling in whatever he does:  Bachelor of Laws at the University of the Philippines, Master of Laws at Harvard, Doctor of Science in Jurisprudence at Yale;  No. 1 in the bar examinations of 1944 (tied with Jose W. Diokno); No. 1 in three senatorial elections, in 1965, 1971 and 1987.  Indeed, he is the best President this country never had.  He wrote the Preface of my first book, Love God, Serve Man.  I thought it fitting that he should also write the Foreword of my last book as a sitting jurist.

 

          I also express my deep gratitude to my esteemed colleagues in the Court, who have helped enrich my own perceptions through by their own writings (Decisions and Opinions) and verbal argumentations.  I have always looked forward to our collegial deliberations, which are constant sources of delight and enlightenment.  Our debates have been intense, sometimes even passionate, but our personal relations and friendships have always remained cordial.

 

          May I also thank several SC officials[19] and my legal staff[20] for their research and help in producing this book.

 

          July 31, 2006.

 

                                                ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN