Chapter 14

Engendering the Judiciary*

 

          Magandang umaga po sa inyong lahat.  I feel honored to join you today during this special month, celebrated the world over as Women’s Month.   Just last week, on March 8, the Court held an exhibit honoring the female Supreme Court justices through the theme “Gender-Responsive Philippine Judiciary: KKK (Kamalayan, Katarungan, Kababaihan).” Judging from its success, I must concede that women are better and more effective event organizers than men. 

 

Invading the

Legal Profession

 

It is amazing how far and how fast women have influenced the shape and course of the legal profession over the years.  The growth of the female population in law schools is phenomenal, to say the least, considering that law was once a predominantly male enclave.  

 

Enrollment figures from three leading colleges of law in our country show that for the last five years, more than 50 percent of their graduating classes are females.[1]  As more and more women are venturing into the study of law, some old time-professors have expressed the apprehension that male law students may become an endangered species in the next 10 or 20 years. 

 

          Correspondingly, the number of female lawyers has also risen tremendously in recent years.  If it is any indication, only 287 women, as compared with 7,846 men, were admitted to the practice from 1901 to 1945; but in the last ten years (1996 to 2005), 4,430 females have hurdled the bar examinations successfully, as compared with 6,493 males.[2]  In percentage, from only 3.5 percent in pre-World War II times, women now account for 40.6 per cent of bar passers in the last 10 years.  Thus, I daresay that in the next few years, they will most likely outnumber the males in the bar exams.

 

A study[3] conducted by the Supreme Court, with the aid of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, shows a higher percentage of female lawyers in the academe and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). 

 

Female Factor

in the Judiciary

 

 

Women have been making their mark even in the judiciary.   The Supreme Court is perhaps the best example of how strong their force has become.  As of today, we have five female, as compared with ten male, justices.[4] 

 

The picture is no different in the other courts. The Court of Appeals has 17 female, as compared with 45 male, justices.  The Sandiganbayan, which is headed by a woman presiding justice, has 3 women as against 11 men.  Two of the six justices in the Court of Tax Appeals are females; and in the lower courts, there are 419 female, as compared with 1075 male, judges.[5]

 

Of course, I need not go any further to show you how many more women are in the judiciary.  I only have to hear your clap today to show your overwhelming number and to prove the statistics right.

 

Gender Sensitivity

 

In recognition of the important role of women in the judiciary, the Court has adopted the Strategic Gender and Development Mainstreaming Plan.  The plan was formulated by the Supreme Court Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary.  The first of its kind in Asia, the committee follows the pioneering spirit of the Philippines in mainstreaming gender and development, long before the effort became an international norm.[6]  With the plan in place, we expect more gender-responsive judges, lawyers and court personnel; as well as gender-responsive rules, procedures and facilities.

 

The Supreme Court has also promulgated the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children, the Rule on Administrative Procedure in Harassment Cases, and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary. We also have the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary[7] and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, both of which stress gender equality.

 

Already, the Committee is proposing an exhaustive audit of rules, circulars and other issuances of the Court to check against gender-insensitive language and to recommend revisions accordingly.

 

Speaking of rules, the Court just very recently promulgated a new Manual of Judicial Writing, which encourages the use of more gender-sensitive language in decisions and resolutions of the Court.   Those of you who are interested in securing a copy of that manual may download a copy from the Supreme Court website.

 

As all of you know, the English language is not gender-friendly.  In fact, it has a pronounced bias in favor of males.  For this reason, the framers of our Constitution, laws, and rules of procedure have been using masculine pronouns quite extensively.  Let me just cite a few examples.

 

1.  Paragraph 2 of Section 14 of the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution provides that the accused shall, among others, “enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel [and] to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him x x x.”  Section 17 of the same Article III also provides that “[n]o person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

 

 

2.  Still on the Constitution, the qualifications for the top positions in the three departments of government are as follows:

·        Section 3 of Article VI:  “No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines x x x.”

 

 

·        Section 2 of Article VII: “No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines x x x.”

 

           

·        Section 7, paragraph 1 of Article VIII: “No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. x x x.”

 

 

 

3.  Article 1305 of the Civil Code defines a contract as a   “meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.” 

 

         

4.  Section 1 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which lays down the procedure for the arraignment of the accused, provides that “[t]he arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. x x x.”

 

 

Of course, when we quote verbatim from our laws, we cannot avoid these gender-biased pronouns.  The convenient excuse is to hide behind the rule of statutory construction that “in construing a statute, the masculine, but not the feminine, includes all genders, unless the context in which the word is used in the statute indicates otherwise.”[8]

 

Long before our Manual of Judicial Writing was published, I had already taken special care in my Decisions to avoid gender-unfriendly language by various means.

 

One of the ways by which I have been applying gender-sensitive language is by using the plural form.  Thus, instead of using the accused as singular, I refer to it as plural.  That is, instead of writing, “Arraignment consists simply of reading to the accused the charges leveled against him,” I write, “Arraignment consists simply of reading to the accused the charges leveled against them.” [9]

 

Using the same approach, I would say, “Persons accused of crimes enjoy the right to be heard by themselves and counsel [and] to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them.”

 

Regarding contracts, I am wont to say, “One who is not a party to a contract, and for whose benefit it was not expressly made, cannot maintain an action on it.” [10]  I do not say, “He who is not a party to a contract and for whose benefit it was not expressly made cannot maintain an action on it.”

 

There are times when the structure of a sentence has to be changed in a way that would avoid the use of a pronoun.   For instance, I do not say, “By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed unfit to uphold the administration of justice as he is no longer possessed of good moral character.”  Rather, I say, “By such conviction, a lawyer is deemed unfit to uphold the administration of justice and no longer possessed of good moral character.”

 

Going back to the qualifications of our highest officials, the constitutional provisions quoted earlier can easily be rephrased thus: “The President” or “A senator” or “A member of the Supreme Court” shall be “a natural-born citizen.”  Here, we avoid sexist language.

 

Role of Women Judges

in Reforming the Judiciary

         

 

As you may know, upon assuming office as Chief Justice of the Philippines on December 21, 2005, I immediately declared my vow to lead a judiciary characterized by four Ins:  integrity, independence, industry and intelligence; a judiciary that is morally courageous to stand its ground against the onslaughts of influence, interference, insolence, and indifference.  Verily, I envision judges who are impervious to the plague of “ships” -- kinship, relationship, friendship and fellowship. 

 

Furthermore, I look forward to a judicial branch of government that battles what I call the ACID problems of (1) limited access to justice by the poor, (2) corruption, (3) incompetence and (4) delay in the delivery of quality judgments.  This battle for the four Ins and against the four ACID problems that corrode justice in our country should lead to the fulfillment of two lofty goals: the safeguarding of the liberty and the nurturing of the prosperity of our people under an environment of transparency, accountability and the rule of law.

 

 

Today, I would like to enlist your help in this call for a reformed judiciary. More than enriching the judicial and the legal professions by mere statistics, female judges have a lot more to contribute in both cerebral and ethical terms.  Not just by their quantity should their presence be felt; more important, the philosophies, values and inspiration with which they infuse and enthuse the judiciary should make a difference.   

 

Women judges need not look far for models of ethical and courageous magistrates.  Until very recently, we had in our midst a shining example of a great woman, who showed us how to stand up for our principles regardless of the personal consequences.  An inspiration for male and female judges alike, Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma was a magisterial model of independence, integrity, industry and intelligence.  Independence she displayed when the time came to face up to a dictator who was her appointing authority.  Integrity she manifested by intellectual decency, a deep sense of personal honor, and exemplary moral courage. Industry she pursued through a life of selfless public service even beyond retirement.  And intelligence she exhibited through her impressive academic and professional track records.

 

          The Court is likewise blessed with a true gem of a woman justice in the person of Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera, the indefatigable chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy.  Justice Amor has brought honor to the High Court with her indomitable spirit, sharp intellect and tireless passion for work.  That same fire and passion she has brought to PhilJA.  In showing great wisdom and distinction, she continues to be an icon in the judicial firmament.

 

Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino also continues to invigorate the profession as chairperson of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Governing Board.  Equally impressive are Justice Carol’s academic and professional achievements, which include topping the 1950 bar examination, 20 years of successful law practice, and 42 happy years of marital partnership with the late Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino.

 

Conclusion

 

Ladies, I am sure there are many of you who are like Justices Muñoz-Palma, Herrera and Aquino -- all worthy and exemplary pioneers of woman power in the judiciary; valedictorians and bar topnotchers who are ethical and courageous, decent and hardworking.  That you have chosen to serve in the judiciary is affirmation enough of your willingness to take the less traveled road, the narrow and straight path that I hope will engender the judicial renaissance we all aspire for.

 

          Maraming salamat po.