Chapter 18

Anchoring the Ship of State*

 

          Ladies and gentlemen, good evening.  The ASEAN Law Association does me great honor tonight by tendering this testimonial dinner.  I must especially commend Atty. Ave Cruz , ALA-Philippines chapter president, for his persistence and patience in ensuring my acceptance of your gracious invitation. 

 

Frankly, I was quite hesitant to accept this rare privilege of being feted by the best and brightest jurists, prosecutors and legal professionals who comprise the first and only lawyers’ association in the 10 Asean countries.  I felt thoroughly unworthy of this honor bestowed upon this humble public servant.  However, Ave was insistent and would not accept a “no”; not even a “some other time.” 

 

That is the reason why my distinguished Supreme Court colleagues are in attendance at tonight’s dinner, and I myself had to motor for five hours from Baguio City, where the Supreme Court is holding its summer sessions until the first week of May.  On the other hand, this testimonial provides me with the welcome opportunity to renew fellowship with friends in ALA.

         

Let me first thank Justice Leo Quisumbing, a senior member of our Supreme Court, for all the good things he has said about me.  But even if he is known for his objectivity and judicial prudence, he sometimes also becomes overzealous in praising his Chief Justice. 

 

          The Honorable Chao Hick Tin -- the former senior justice of the Singapore Supreme Court, newly minted attorney general of that prosperous island republic, and president of ALA -- has also spoken very kindly of me.  His presence at this testimonial dinner gives me added honor, considering that there must be a hundred and one demands on his time.  I remember that, because of his hectic schedule last year, he was unable to attend the International Conference and Showcase on Judicial Reforms, which the Philippines hosted on November 28-30, 2005.  Thus, for him to make it to this dinner reception says a lot about his friendship with us.

 

          I also thank Atty. Cruz for his generous introduction, although it would have been enough for him to state that I was -- and still am -- a great admirer and supporter of ALA.  From being one of its pioneers in the 1980s as well as a founding member of the ALA Golfers Club, I get to enjoy a lifetime privilege to play golf with ALA members.  Now that should tell you how committed I am to our association.  In fact, upon my appointment and in reply to the generous congratulatory message of Justice Chao, I immediately pledged my continuing support of ALA.

 

         

Allow me to thank all of you -- especially those who have traveled great distances to be here, like my friends Justice Dato Hashim Yusoff and Justice Dato James Foong of Malaysia and Hon. Dato Sero Paduka Haji Kifrawi of Brunei -- for the warm welcome you have given me and for that round of friendly and interesting golf we played this morning. 

 

          Friends, normally, a testimonial dinner is punctuated by a message from the honoree.  Tonight, however, let me go a little beyond the usual appreciation and fellowship talk to dwell shortly on some recent developments in Philippine judicial history. 

 

Executive-Legislative

Scuffle over EO 464   

 

Three days ago, the Philippine Supreme Court promulgated a landmark Decision[1] partially voiding Executive Order No. 464, which had blocked the appearance of executive officials in congressional inquiries in aid of legislation, unless there was prior approval by the President.  

 

In simplest terms, the Decision held that Congress had the right to compel the appearance of executive officials in congressional investigations, because the power of legislative inquiry was as broad as the power to legislate.  Hence, ruled unconstitutional were the EO 464 provisions that had allowed the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information, unless executive privilege had properly been invoked in recognized instances.  Nonetheless, the Court directed Congress to indicate -- in the latter’s invitations to executive officials -- the subject matter of the inquiry and related questions, so that the President or the executive secretary could properly invoke executive privilege if necessary.

 

I cited that Decision, because it highlights the interplay of powers in our governmental system.

 

Philippine Structure

of Government

 

As you know, there are now moves to shift to a parliamentary or federal system, like that which obtains in many ASEAN countries. In our current system,[2] governmental powers are shared by three main branches:[3]   Congress, which makes the laws; the President, who executes the legislative enactments; and the Supreme Court, which interprets them. 

 

          Under the so-called tripartite allocation of authority, the powers exercised by each branch are separate and independent.  But none of the three great departments of government is intended to be either antagonistic or subservient to any of the others in the discharge of official responsibilities.  Rather, the three branches are expected to coordinate their functions to achieve governmental objectives; and, at the same time, to check one another to prevent abuse in the exercise of their respective powers.[4]  These functions of coordinating and checking characterize our government and differentiate it from many other countries in our region of the world. 

 

 

 

People’s Refuge

 

 

 

In the scheme of things, the Philippine judiciary thus plays an important role in settling justiciable controversies.  Refuge has been sought within the halls of justice for every conceivable conflict between and among individuals (in civil relations), and between and among individuals and the state (as when criminal laws are transgressed).  Clashes between the individual’s constitutional rights and the state’s privileges or prerogatives have also been brought to courts for resolution. And occasionally, so have conflicts that arise between the organs of government -- as in this case, between the legislature and the President over EO 464. 

 

          I believe it is this dependence on and resort to the Judicial Department that gives the Philippine judiciary strength and respect.    For sure, the bench is no match to the power of the executive to command the armed forces and the police.  Neither can the judiciary match the authority of the legislature to control the budget of the country; or to impeach the President, the Vice President, and other government officials including Supreme Court justices, whose terms of office have otherwise been fixed by the Constitution. 

 

Nonetheless, in every confrontation, on every occasion, in which the Supreme Court has been called upon to wade into legal disputes -- such as the controversy over EO 464 -- it has always taken courage and performed its constitutional duty with integrity and independence.  Its very weakness -- its lack of powers over the budget and the police -- has become its strength whenever it dares speak through objective and well-reasoned decisions that uphold the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.  The true strength of our Supreme Court (and of the entire judiciary) lies not in brute power or patronage, but in its moral courage -- born of competence, independence and integrity -- to perform its constitutional mandate at all times and against all odds.[5]

 

Anchoring the Ship of State

 

          Our judiciary may be likened to the titular heads of government in other countries -- the King in the case of Thailand, the Queen in England, or the Governor General in Australia as representative of the Queen.  In spite of having no direct power, constitutional monarchs command respect and obedience through their sheer presence; they serve as stabilizing figures when winds of turmoil rock the ship of state. 

 

In the same manner, the Philippine Supreme Court -- despite having very little physical power -- wields influence on the lives of our people by the sheer strength of reason, law and persuasion.  By standing steadfast in upholding the rule of law, it anchors the Philippine ship of state on steady and calm waters.

 

Twin Beacons of

Liberty and Prosperity

 

Though court decisions are not made on the basis of what is popular or newsworthy, the Philippine judiciary believes it essential to continue to retain the trust and confidence of the litigants and the public. 

 

For this reason, upon assuming the chief justiceship of our country on December 21, 2005, I vowed to lead a judiciary characterized by four Ins:  integrity, independence, industry and intelligence; and one 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, all of which corrode the people’s trust and confidence in our courts.

 

I have emphasized, however, that efforts to build public trust in the judiciary should be directed towards the much loftier objectives of protecting the liberty and nurturing the prosperity of our people.  Simply put, this judicial philosophy postulates the following:

 

                1.  In cases involving civil liberties, the scales should weigh heavily in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed, and the weak. 

 

          2.  In conflicts affecting prosperity and development, deference must be accorded to the political branches of government; namely, the Presidency and Congress.

         

        I would not want to impose much further on your time by discussing these twin beacons of liberty and prosperity.  For the moment, suffice it to say that political liberty -- the clarion call of the past -- must be continuously safeguarded in the present and in the future.  But beyond that, the prosperity of our people must also be nurtured by the courts, as much as liberty has been accorded protection.  To be relevant, courts must be constantly attuned to the needs of the present and the vagaries of the future, so that they can respond in a timely and prudent manner to the people’s ever-expanding well-being.

 

Closing

 

History will judge how the Philippine Supreme Court has acted and will act on the burning issues of today and tomorrow, including EO 464.  Along with the other members of the Panganiban Court, I hope that history will judge us kindly and fairly, and on the strength of the judiciousness and wisdom of our decisions.  More important, we hope that by our rulings, we would continue to serve as the anchor of the Philippine ship of state in the most trying times of our history.

 

Maraming salamat po.