By AMADO P. MACASAET
MALAYA
MALAYA
‘A Chief Justice who has so far remained in the minority appears to have lost the capability to influence the Court towards her own mind in interpreting the law.’
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno seems to have produced enough evidence that she cannot lead the Court. It is not the fact that her adversaries, Associate Justice Teresita de Castro in particular, were appointed by former President Gloria Arroyo that creates the division in the Highest Tribunal.
The Court has not reached a point where the majority of at least eight justices appointed by the former leader had to make a critical choice between their best lights and loyalty to her. It is presumed that should that situation come about, the justices would vote according to their conscience and knowledge of the law.
This is where leadership in the Court becomes most critical. Unfortunately, President Aquino appointed the most junior member of the Court who will be Head Magistrate for the next 18 years covering the terms of office of three presidents.
It must be stressed, however, that the fact of being a junior associate justice is not a bar to getting appointed as Chief Justice, although traditionally, although not always, the most senior associate justice succeeds the Chief when he retires.
Mrs. Sereno, acknowledged as a brilliant lawyer and successful practitioner trained by the most respected retired Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, may not have learned or was not taught the ropes of being Head Magistrate.
Chief Justice Sereno made two “blunders” never before committed by any magistrate, least of all a Chief. She issued as an en banc ruling the creation of an administrative branch of the Court in Cebu. This en banc decision had only one signature, that of Chief Justice Sereno. She was roundly rebuked by the en banc.
The latest unfortunate incident was what appears to be the usurpation, or at best or worst ignoring the responsibility of Justice De Castro to rule on a party list controversy. Mrs. De Castro now says that the TRO issued by the Chief Justice was not remotely similar to what she had recommended. Truth is if the Chief Justice had believed that Justice De Castro’s recommendation was not proper or did not sit with law, Mrs. Sereno could have summoned her for a private discussion in an effort to change the mind of the former. But the qualities of leadership would have prevented the Chief from taking up the matter privately. The respect for one’s mind is most important in the Court.
There was a first lesson that Mrs. Sereno refused to learn. In her first days in the Court as Head Magistrate, hardly any associate justice ever attended the Monday ritual of flag raising. This “insult” was hard to take but Mrs. Sereno took it on the chin. Unfortunately, she failed to understand the import of being boycotted. The boycott was a most manifest sign that her peers were not willing to cooperate with her even in a very simple matter, such as flag raising ceremony, not exactly over questions of interpretation of the Constitution and the laws.
Again, unfortunately, the Chief Justice created a situation where questions of law, propriety and decency were involved. She was roundly rebuffed by her own peers sitting en ban over the TRO on the party list question. Now there is a continuing exchange of words between the Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro and her Chief. The en banc is supporting Mrs. De Castro in the TRO controversy. The Chief’s ruling was practically revoked. The rebuff was an embarrassment that Mrs. Sereno practically asked for.
It should have occurred to Mrs. Sereno that Gloria Arroyo packed the Court with a majority who will retire after President Aquino steps down in 2016. The former leader sensibly thought that the majority will remain loyal to her, knowing that she would face serious charges of plunder and other heinous crimes.
It is reasonable to believe that President Aquino appointed a Head Magistrate he believes could convince the Court to convict Mrs. Arroyo based on evidence.
By her own series of actions her peers reversed, it would seem difficult for Mrs. Sereno to lead the Court towards conviction of the former president even if the evidence may so warrant.
It must not be forgotten that the Court created its own record of infamy in a few cases. One bad example is the reversal by the Court of a case decided with finality and in fact entered in the Book of Judgment.
It should be the duty of the present Chief Justice to make sure that these things never happen again. She may be doing the opposite although not exactly in the matter of flip-flopping or reversing a final decision that is presumed to have become part of the law of the land.
Based on her own decisions reversed by the en banc, Chief Justice Sereno may remain in the minority for 18 long years but it must not be presumed that she does not have the capacity to change.
Without saying that the majority appointed by Gloria Arroyo will remain loyal to her and not the Constitution and the laws, the Chief Justice by her failure to lead may find it difficult to lead the Court towards her own interpretation of the Charter and the laws as applied to Mrs. Arroyo.
If this happens to be so, it would appear that the conviction of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona did not change the mind of the Court.
It is not pleasant to note that the Highest Tribunal may remain in the present situation of being deeply divided between the majority appointed by Gloria Arroyo and the Chief Justice for 18 long years.
In the final analysis, the biggest victim of the “division” is President Aquino himself if his Chief Justice fails him in the impartial dispensation of justice.
It should not be forgotten that voters elected President Aquino on the solemn promise that he would leave no stone unturned to make sure that justice is done to Mrs. Arroyo.
As it has appeared so far, the unturned stone is the Chief Justice herself the President appointed in the belief that she is possessed with cold neutrality in applying the law. If Mrs. Sereno cannot lead the Court that neutrality presumably possessed by her may not necessarily be absorbed as a matter of cooperation by the rest of her peers.
A Chief Justice who has so far remained in the minority appears to have lost the capability to influence the Court towards her own mind in interpreting the law.
In a manner of speaking, the cause of justice is paying for the mistake of President Aquino in appointing Mrs. Sereno as Head Magistrate. We do not seem to have any choice but to grin and bear it.
There is nothing that time does not heal. But the time – the waiting – is too long, all of 18 years.
***
email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment