Chapter 3

Jurist and Leader*

 

I thank Secretary Condring Estrella, Philconsa Board chairperson; and Secretary Lolong Lazaro, Philconsa president, for inviting me to be your guest of honor and speaker on your yearly observance of Constitution Day.  I am greatly privileged, because I know that Philconsa is very selective in its choice of guest speakers.  It opts only for those who, in its opinion, are worthy of its avowed goal to make “freedom and justice prevail in our country forever.”

 

May I also congratulate all the Philconsa governors and officers whom I have just inducted.  May they constantly and perseveringly uphold your association’s noble goals and traditions, which have been enshrined by several distinguished past presidents, who are now in the Great Beyond.  Among them are President Sergio Osmeña Sr.; Senators Felixberto Serrano, Oscar Ledesma, Lorenzo Sumulong and Arturo Tolentino; as well as Supreme Court Justices Felix Angelo Bautista, Jose Ma. Paredes and Roberto Regala.

 

Triple Twenty-One

 

Ladies and gentlemen, on the 21^st of December 2005, as the clock struck 2:56 p.m., I took my oath as the 21^st Chief Justice of the Philippines, the first to be sworn in as such in the 21^st century.  In less than three minutes, the ceremony at Malacañang Palace was over.  But my sacred journey to spearhead the judiciary and to preserve the rule of law had just begun.

 

Dual Role

of the Chief Justice

 

 

          To be sure, the Chief Justice has at least two roles: first, he is primus inter pares, the first among equals, in the highest court of the land; and, second, he is the leader of the entire judiciary of about 2,000 justices and judges plus about 26,000 employees nationwide.  It is my purpose tonight to discuss how these two roles uphold the Philconsa Creed “to preserve and defend the Constitution.”

 

Primus Inter Pares

 

 

          As primus inter pares, the Chief Justice presides over all en banc sessions of the Supreme Court.  He is thus able to control the flow of the proceedings.  He shapes the Court’s agenda, opens the discussion of the cases and summarizes the arguments.  Nonetheless, like his fourteen colleagues, he has only one vote.

         

Despite their moral ascendancy, all Chief Justices from Cayetano Arellano to Hilario G. Davide Jr. have sometimes found themselves among the minority in important litigations.  Indeed, this phenomenon has happened and will happen again, thanks to the absolute freedom of discussion and choice that justices in our country enjoy.

 

          Because of their role as primus inter pares, however, Chief Justices are generally looked upon by our people for guidance as to what direction and pace our Supreme Court would take during their specific watch.  I suppose you have invited me today, because you want to know in what direction and at what speed the present Chief Justice will lead the Supreme Court.  This matter has become significant, especially in the face of many critical litigations of national significance -- those that have been brought, and are expected to be brought, before our High Court.

 

Open Track Record

 

          My judicial philosophy and track record are open to all for scrutiny.  As all lawyers know, all Supreme Court decisions and resolutions are published in full, officially in the Philippine Reports and unofficially in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated or SCRA.

 

          On November 19, 2004, the Court launched its fully searchable electronic library (e-library), the first of its kind in our region of the world, from which all decisions of the High Court -- from its founding in 1901 up to the present -- can be researched and downloaded.

 

          Furthermore, I have written 10 books -- one for every year of my 10-year incumbency in the Supreme Court.  These volumes detail my views on many subjects, from mathematics to the biosciences to the new economic paradigms; and summarize the controversial Supreme Court cases I participated in during that period, either as the ponente or as the writer of a separate, concurring or dissenting opinion.[1]

 

 

          To synthesize these available sources, I will now be even more transparent and summarize my judicial philosophy in one sentence:  During my term as Chief Justice, I will endeavor -- as I have always done during my past 10 years of membership in the Supreme Court -- to safeguard the liberty and nurture the prosperity of our people, while upholding the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.  Because of lack of time, I cannot exhaustively explain these twin beacons of LIBERTY and PROSPERITY.  But because Philconsa is an outspoken apostle of freedom, grant me a few minutes to explain them briefly.

 

Safeguarding Liberty

 

Springing from our people’s struggle for respect of human dignity, our 1987 Constitution mandates the protection of civil liberties, especially of the poor and marginalized.[2]  As all Philconsa members must know, the Charter is promotive of social justice,[3] responsive to the role of women,[4] protective of labor,[5] cognizant of the rights of indigenous cultural communities,[6] and respectful of human rights.[7]  In fact, it is so protective of human rights that it has granted the Supreme Court quasi-legislative powers to “[p]romulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights x x x.”[8] 

 

Consequently, when pitted against the enormous powers of the State and of governmental institutions, individual liberties -- whether civil, political or economic[9] -- must be fully safeguarded.

 

Reasoning along these lines, I took the occasion to emphasize the essence of social justice when I wrote for the Court Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec.[10] Below I quote the pertinent portion:

 

“Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those who have less in life should have more in law.  The party-list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have less in life.  It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine power.  It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced, and even to those in the underground, that change is possible.  It is an invitation for them to come out of their limbo and seize the opportunity.”

 

 

Any case restricting or impinging on fundamental rights comes to the courts with a “heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.”[11]  Because laws limiting freedom of expression are particularly suspect, they must be subjected to strict scrutiny.  Laden with the presumption of invalidity, they are indeed difficult to justify. 

 

Decisions on Public

Opinion Polling

 

 

Recently, the Court was called upon to interpret political rights arising from new scientific methods of measuring public perceptions; namely, public opinion polls. In ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Commission on Elections,[12] a Decision I had the honor of writing, the Court emphatically explained: “[W]hen faced with borderline situations in which the freedom of a candidate or a party to speak or the freedom of the electorate to know is invoked against actions allegedly made to assure clean and free elections, this Court shall lean in favor of freedom.”[13]

 

This new ruling recognizing public opinion polls as a species of the freedom of expression was reiterated in Social Weather Stations v. Comelec.[14]  In this case, the Court stressed that “because of the preferred status of the constitutional rights of speech, expression, and the press, a law prohibiting the publication of pre-election surveys is vitiated by a weighty presumption of invalidity.”

 

Calls to protect freedom of expression from undue State restriction have reverberated throughout our nation’s history, and the Court has always been there to ensure a free market of ideas. Since 1918 in United States v. Bustos[15] to the recent cases I cited on election exit polls,[16] the Court has stood as a dependable guardian of free speech and expression.

 

To reiterate, in cases involving civil liberties, I firmly believe that the scales should weigh heavily in favor of the people, especially the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed, and the weak.  But in conflicts over issues affecting prosperity and development, I respectfully submit that deference must be accorded to the political branches of government.

                                                                                                                            

Laissez-FairePolicy

on Economic Issues

 

 

The Constitution itself is a testament to these principles.  Section 1 of Article VIII grants courts the duty not only to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. 

 

Popular Constitutionalism

 

However, the duty of courts to strike down grave abuse of discretion does not -- as a general rule -- include unnecessary meddling in matters of economic policy.  On these issues, I believe that courts should lean in favor of the government.  Thus, they should not pass upon the merits or wisdom of trade liberalization and economic globalization as economic policies.  These are matters that the people have left to the President and Congress to evaluate and decide.  

 

To quote from Tañada v. Angara,[17] “as to whether the nation should join the worldwide march toward trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that our people should determine in electing their policy makers x x x.  Let the people, through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.” This laissez-faire stance in regard to economic policies was reaffirmed recently in La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. Ramos,[18] another decision I had the privilege to write.[19] 

 

In his December 23, 2005 column, former UP Law Dean Raul C. Pangalangan,[20] citing Stanford Law Dean Larry Kramer, called people empowerment in economics as “popular constitutionalism.”

 

          Having postulated this no-interference rule, I want to stress, though, that the Supreme Court will not hesitate to strike down -- on the ground of grave abuse of discretion -- any legislative or executive policy or act (1) that clearly violates the Constitution, the laws, or settled jurisprudence;[21] or (2) that have been issued with arbitrariness, whim, caprice, bias or personal hostility.[22]

 

Leader of the Judiciary

 

          Thus far, I have discussed only the first role of the Chief Justice, as primus inter pares.  Let me now speak of his second role, as the leader of the third branch of our government.

 

          Although the Constitution[23] apparently lodges the management of the judiciary in the whole Supreme Court en banc, several High Court resolutions,[24] laws,[25] traditions and actual practice virtually make the Chief Justice the chief executive officer of the entire judiciary.

         

Outside the realm of decision-making in which he has one solitary vote, the Chief Justice is the unquestioned boss; in the management of the entire judicial department, nothing happens without his say-so.  But more than a boss, he is the leader of the judiciary.  The 2,000 justices and judges, as well as the 26,000 court personnel all over the country, hold him up for inspiration and example.  Indeed, the Chief Justice is looked up to as the leader who would “inspire, motivate, and lead 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.”[26]

 

          As a jurist, the Chief Justice is expected to be detached, mysterious, unreachable, untouchable and even unfathomable; yet as a leader and CEO, he must be transparent, knowable, accountable and reachable.  The judge in him impels him to follow tradition, uphold precedents and stabilize judicial thought; while the leader in him requires him to re-engineer, innovate, or reinvent new and better ways of managing and moving forward.

 

          Grappling with my role as the leader of the third branch of government, I have, upon assuming my office, announced publicly that (1) I envision to lead a judiciary characterized by four Ins -- integrity, independence, intelligence and industry; and (2) in reforming the judiciary, I will focus on four items that I have code-named ACID: limited access to justice, corruption, incompetence and delay in the delivery of justice.

 

Integrity

 

          Integrity, the first of the four Ins, goes beyond mere honesty in dealing with fellow human beings.  It is not a mere refusal to tell a falsehood; it encompasses the moral courage to denounce a wrong and promote the truth.  By their actions and decisions, sometimes by their stunning dissents, justices and judges reveal their character and herald the truth.

 

          Integrity also includes intellectual decency and a deep sense of personal honor, which transcend a desire for personal acclaim or recognition.  Persons of true integrity perform their tasks faithfully, regardless of whether their work is recognized by others, and whether it leads to their promotion.

 

          Integrity likewise encompasses impartiality.  Judges with integrity perform their duties without fear or favor, bias or prejudice.  They ensure that their conduct is above reproach.  Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the proper performance of their duties.  Thus, their credibility is maintained at all times.  It goes without saying that they avoid, as far as possible, any undue social contact and unnecessary fellowship with litigants and lawyers.

         

Independence

 

          The second In of a good magistrate is independence.  While this attribute refers both to the judicial institution and to the person of the judge, I shall speak here only of the latter.[27]  Magistrates decide litigations only on the basis of the rational relationship between the law and the facts, free from any extraneous influence.  They should not allow the “ships” that plague public service -- kinship, relationship, friendship and fellowship -- to interfere in their judgments.

 

          Independence requires the men and the women who wear the black robes to be free not only of mental and intellectual biases, but also of emotional baggage brought about by a misplaced sense of gratitude to the appointing or recommending authority.  Indeed, they must be independent of all forces seeking to influence them unduly, including the President, Congress (which holds the purse strings of government), media (which has enormous persuasive capability), nongovernment groups, critics, litigants, lawyers, and about everyone else.

 

          It is said that the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government because, unlike the executive branch, it has no army or police to enforce its judgments; and unlike the legislature, it has no money to entice patronage.  I daresay, however, that “the strength of the judiciary lies not in its lack of brute power or money, but in its moral courage to perform its constitutional duty at all times and against all odds.  Its might is in its being right.”[28]

 

Industry

          Industry, the third In of a good judge, demands a personal passion for work not only during office hours, but also in the evenings and early mornings, when -- free from the hustle and bustle of office and trial routines -- judges find the solitude to wrestle with their consciences; as well as to pray and to gather courage to accord what is due every person, pursuant to the letter and spirit of the law, regardless of personal consequences.

 

          The work load in the Supreme Court is backbreaking.  At present, there are about 6,000 pending cases, divided among the 15 incumbent justices who get an average of 400 cases each.  In addition, about 25 to 30 new cases[29] are raffled to every justice every month.  Thus, to update their dockets, they must each dispose of at least 30 cases per month -- by outright rejection (through minute or extended resolutions) of obviously unmeritorious petitions or by signed decisions known as ponencias.

 

          By requiring magistrates to decide cases within a limited period -- 3 months for trial courts, 12 months for appellate courts, and 24 months for the Supreme Court[30] -- the Constitution effectively wants not just speed, but also industry, from magistrates.  The bottom line is that there is just too much work to do.  The judiciary is not a place for the slothful and the fainthearted.

 

Intelligence

 

          The fourth In, intelligence, refers to both knowledge and wisdom.  Judges must master the law.  To earn the respect of lawyers and litigants, they must be able to preside authoritatively over trials and rule reasonably well on fine points of law and evidence brought before their courts.

 

Intelligence, for purposes of our present discussion, may be equated with excellence, which in turn demands mastery of our chosen vocation and familiarity with practically all branches of knowledge.  Simply put, this trait involves knowing everything about something and something about everything. 

 

ACID Corrodes Justice

         

Ladies and gentlemen, I have already used up 30 minutes, and I have yet to discuss judicial reform in relation to its four areas, which I have code-named ACID: limited access to justice by the poor, corruption, incompetence and delay in the delivery of justice.  To explain my program of action involving these items will require a minimum of another 30 minutes, a luxury I do not have tonight.  Perhaps, on another occasion, I will have the time to discuss them.  For the moment, let me just say two things.

 

          One, the Supreme Court’s Action Program for Judicial Reform or APJR, which was started by my esteemed predecessor Hilario G. Davide Jr., and which I shall continue to invigorate and implement, has been adopted by many countries of the world.  During the International Conference and Showcase on Judicial Reforms (ICSJR) held in Makati two months ago on November 28-30, 2005, the APJR was hailed as a model reform program that other developing countries should emulate.

 

          Two.  This International Conference and Showcase voted the Philippine Supreme Court as the secretariat and repository of judicial reform initiatives in the world.  The Court will also operate the ICSJR’s official website, JRN21 (short for “Judicial Reform Network in the 21^st Century”), which can be accessed through the Supreme Court’s official website, www.supremecourt.gov.ph.

 

          Significant is the fact that the administrator of the APJR, Evelyn Toledo Dumdum, has been asked by the Supreme Courts of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Armenia to assist them in setting up their own separate judicial reform offices similar to ours, in preparation for the implementation of their own reform programs.

 

Conclusion

 

          Looking at the enormity of the task before me, many people have asked:  What can Chief Justice Panganiban really accomplish when, by constitutional mandate, he shall retire on December 7, 2006, after a term of only 11 months and 16 days?  Will he not be a mere footnote to the illustrious history of our judiciary?

 

          My answer is, so be it.  But remember that Christmas comes only one day in a year, yet its message of love for our God and love for our neighbor reverberates for all time.

         

Please note also that at the entrance of the main building of the Supreme Court on Padre Faura Street are two giant bronze statues of the two greatest Chief Justices of our country:  Cayetano Arellano, the first Chief Justice who served for nearly 20 years; and Jose Abad Santos, our martyred Chief Justice, who served for barely six months.

 

          So, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps greatness is not to be measured in terms of the length of one’s service, but in terms of one’s real contribution to instill lasting values, inspire confidence in ourselves, and nurture the germinal plant from which will bloom the sturdy tree of a reformed and transformed judiciary.

 

          Maraming salamat po.