By Amado P. Macasaet
Two justices of the Court of Appeals, Elvi John Asuncion and Vicente Roxas, were dismissed by the Supreme Court for ignorance of the law.
This tells a lot about the quality of people the President appoints to the judiciary. but this also tells a whole lot more about the capacity of the Judicial and Bar Council to discern which nominee should be recommended to the President for appointment.
Would Asuncion and Rivera have been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments if its authority over judges had not been transferred to the JBC? Probably not!
The biggest anomaly in creating the JBC is that it can actually be the President. It is entirely possible that a friend or supporter of the President wants to be a judge in some courts may yet get the job.
All the President to has to do is to send an emissary to the JBC and suggest the inclusion of the name of his friend. That is his exclusive right. If the name is not included the President can again exercise his right to return the list to the JBC, although that means he cannot fill the position as long as it remains vacant. .
The President appoints the members of the JBC. The Chief Justice who is chairman of the council, the secretary of justice, and two members of Congress are there by operation of law. The other members were appointed after their nominations were confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. They are from the academe, one from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court.
The members of the CA come from the Senate and the House of Representatives elected by the people. They are of different persuasions. Their loyalty is, presumably, to the people who elected them.
The appointive members of the JBC owe loyalty to the President, That makes a whole lot of difference from the fact that the members of the CA are elected by the people.
Setting that aside, the CA calls for a series of hearings to determine the fitness or lack of it of nominees of the President. They grill the candidates. The CA turns them inside out.
In fairness, the JBC also calls for hearings for the same purpose. But most of the time, the hearing rooms are half empty. The JBC may not be as tough as the CA in examining the qualifications of nominees to the judiciary and other departments of government.
One example is the case of Gregory Ong, justice of the Sandiganbayan. While in office he was investigated, on behalf of the Supreme Court, by former Associate Justice Helena Sandoval Gutierrez for alleged improprieties.
Mrs. Gutierrez confirmed acts of improprieties by Ong. The Supreme Court separated him from the service and banned him from seeking public office.
Might it have been possible his future demeanor could have been discovered if the CA had authority to confirm, by pass or reject his nomination? Hard to say, but the CA has a justice committee that has exclusive jurisdiction over nominees to the courts.
The CA has 25 members and several committees. The JBC has five members. Two heads better than one is applicable in this case. The CA has several committees which examine the qualifications of the Presidential appointments. One of the most important committees is the committee on justice.
There is a rule in the CA that a member of the commission can invoke to freeze action on a nomination.
The JBC was created to insulate the courts from politics. The same JBC made appointments more political if only in the sense that, as said, above the President could well be the JBC if he wants to.
The President can extend a new appointment to a nominee bypassed by the Commission. That is not the same as the Chief Executive returning the short list to the JBC if he does not find one name worth appointing.
The big difference between the JBC and the JBC is the fact that the latter recommends names for appointment. The CA, on the other hand, confirms the nomination of a candidate for an office.
The reality of politics in this country as it is in the rest of the democratic world is the President has friends and supporters he cannot refuse. However, he has to make an intelligent assessment on whether or not those people are fit for the job they are seeking or the President wants them to have.
Anybody can recommend a name to the JBC. There is a world of difference between these two situations.
Justice may be served better if appointments to the judiciary are examined by the CA.
***
email:amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment