By AMADO P. MACASAET
MALAYA
MALAYA
‘It is necessary for all aspirants of court positions, again particularly the Chief Justice, to take the psychological test. Aspirants who flunk it should not be included in the short list submitted to the President.’
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is known to have objected to psychological tests by the Judicial and Bar Council to evaluate aspirants for top positions in the judiciary, including and particularly the Supreme Court.
I believe the objection, if sustained, may impede sound, impartial disposition of justice.
If some of us are not making a direct or indirect relationship between her “solo en banc” resolution revoked by her Court and her alleged failure to pass the psycho tests with flying colors, her opposition to the tests would be valid.
The problem is that her objection may well be against the results of her own tests. In a manner of speaking, she is objecting to what may have hurt her. Little do we realize that it was possible that even if there were no such tests Mrs. Sereno did not pass, she would still have issued that solo en banc resolution.
The act leaves suspicion in people’s mind that her behavior, but never her competence in law, would still border on the need for psychological examination.
People who voluntarily take psycho tests or do so to comply with a requirement such as that imposed by the JBC should not curse the test if they flunk it. More importantly if the tests are given to determine the fitness of a person for a position like that of Chief Justice, only those who pass with the highest satisfactory marks should be considered for appointment. We have a problem with anybody who objects to taking a test after he or she took it but did not pass with satisfaction.
We do not see any problem with the JBC giving the test. However, the JBC made a big, near-fatal mistake when it included in the short list of five nominees from whom a President would pick the successor of convicted Chief Justice Renato Corona, the names of one or two or several who may not have passed the psycho tests.
Was Mrs. Sereno one of them? We do not exactly know because the JBC refuses to make public the results of the tests. Public disclosure of the results is most necessary for people to believe that the President picked the most competent head of the Highest Court.
Now she objects to the tests. We may have a problem here similar in magnitude and consequence to the Chief Justice’s solo en banc resolution revoked by her peers. She objects to the tests but meekly surrendered to her equals when the solo resolution was revoked.
In effect, President Aquino, under the theory of command responsibility, must take the blame for the revoked resolution.
Although the Supreme Court is a co-equal and co-independent branch of government, the Chief Justice may be considered an extension of the President if only in the sense that under the Constitution, only the President can pick the members of the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice as recommended by the Judicial and Bar Council.
The humble submission, in fact surrender, by the Chief Justice to her peers on the solo en banc resolution issue denies her the meaning and import of what sages used to say, “Tests do not really test.”
That might be true in other areas of discipline including law but it may be highly questionable in psychology.
Being fully, completely, and undoubtedly well lettered in law as the Chief Justice has proven as a student and practitioner, does not completely sit with psychological behavior. This alone makes necessary for all aspirants of court positions, again particularly the Chief Justice, to take the tests. Aspirants who flunk them should not be included in the short list submitted to the President.
But since it is obvious that such a list was submitted to the President, the Chief Executive should have been able to discern the negative effects on him and on the law of appointing a candidate who did not pass the tests.
The inclusion of flunkers makes the tests useless and unnecessary precisely because the tests do not test. The public has not even been informed in the case of Chief Justice Sereno. What mark did she get in the tests?
If she failed why did the JBC include her name in the short list? If she failed, why did President Aquino appoint her?
Doesn’t the appointment of a candidate for Chief Justice who did not make the grade required by the JBC make a mockery of the tests? If this logic is to be pursued, the blame must be laid squarely at the door of the President.
However, it is worth repeating that the situation would not have come to that point if the JBC had not included the names of the flunkers in the short list.
We have several people to blame. The whole episode of issuing or releasing a solo en banc resolution has deeply divided the Supreme Court in the sense that the rest of the magistrates, learning the lesson from the solo en banc resolution, would constantly be on guard against the actions or “rulings” of the Chief Justice if only to make sure that she does not presume that she is the mind of the Court.
It is sad to note that the Chief Justice did not show any sign of capability to lead the Court.
That kind of division will rule the Court for the next 18 years.
The terms of the majority of the members of the Court appointed by former President Arroyo will expire beyond President Aquino’s term.
We should be intelligent enough to assess the consequences of Chief Justice Sereno serving for 18 years while the majority of the Court appointed by Gloria Arroyo will serve at least a year or two after President Aquino steps down.
The purpose of impeaching Chief Justice Renato Corona was to maim the so-called Arroyo Court.
email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment