Scrapping the Chief Justice Interviews

Rizalist pointed out Ricky Carandang’s take on the Judicial and Bar Council’s decision not to push through with the public interviews of the candidates for the post of Chief Justice. They did this because 12 of the Justices of the Supreme Court sent a letter to the JBC expressing their objections to the interview upon the following grounds:

The justices pointed out that from the time the 1987 Constitution was adopted, the JBC never interviewed nominees who are already incumbent SC justices.

They also stressed that the Chief Justice was not the chief executive of the judiciary nor of the high court. Hence, if the JBC was interested in finding out how the nominees intended to manage or administer the judiciary, the exercise was pointless, the 12 justices said.

Instead of interviewing the nominees, they said the JBC should examine their judicial philosophy expressed in their written decisions.

As before, I can’t help but disagree with the High Court.

Ricky Carandang is right.  It’s all about transparency.  To that, I add that all of the Justices seem to be oblivious to the conflict-of-interest here.  After all, this precedent exempts all of them from being interviewed should any of them be  nominated to the position of Chief Justice.  On that ground alone, the JBC should have dismissed the letter out of hand.  After all, like the Supreme Court, the JBC is a Constitutional body.

More importantly, the JBC was created as a replacement to the open-house grilling of candidates before the Commission on Appointments.  The High Court’s move to put a veil on the proceedings leads me to believe that perhaps a return to the CA would be a better move.  In this sense, perhaps it’s good Constitutional changes are being discussed.  This should be thrown into the mix. 

The Justices also say that the CJ is not the “chief executive of the judiciary nor of the high court.”  Is that really true?  Isn’t the CJ, the administrative head of the judiciary?  I thought CJ Davide was being impeached because he approved fund disbursements — in much the same way a head of an agency does.  So, I’m not sure if the Justices are correct on this point. 

Lastly, I find it amusing that they wish to direct the JBC to the nominees’ “judicial philosophy.”  I’m no expert but I have yet to hear a Philippine Constitutional scholar speak about a Filipino Justice’s “judicial philosophy.”  Our Supreme Court isn’t like the US Supreme Court where philosophical debates about constitutional interpretation are the norm.  I seriously doubt any of our Justice have a “judicial philosophy” other than rudimentary notions of justice.   The reason is that, unlike the US Supremes, the Philippine Supreme Court doesn’t have much opportunity to create law. 

In a dizzying number of cases, they merely clarify doctrine or worse, remind everyone else what the law already says (just in case we lawyers have a tendency to forget).  Because of the sheer workload, the Justices have no time to ruminate on their judicial philosophy.  They’re much too busy churning out mind-numbingly simple resolutions — not their fault; it’s the nature of the beast.  I imagine the docket is so full that many decisions don’t bother to even hint at their philosophical underpinnings.

The bottom line is that the Justices should not have so openly interfered with the JBC process when they have so much at stake.  Worse, the JBC should have ignored the letter instead of acceding to the will of the Justices. 

Maybe what this all means is: “What’s the point?  We all know who’s getting appointed?  Let’s not waste the time of the other candidates.”