THERE was a notice sometime ago from the Judicial and Bar Council announcing the names of persons who have “applied/been nominated” for two positions of associate justice in Supreme Court. The public was allowed to “submit any information,written report, sworn complaint or opposition” against any of the applicants not later than July 15.
The list contained 21 names, many of which are unfamiliar to me. Popularity, however, is not a criterion for appointment to the highest tribunal. Some of those obscure persons may be eminently qualified except that they are not or have not sought to be in the limelight. As the poet says, “full many a flower is born to blush unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert air.”
I have no complaint against any on the list, whether prominent or not, as long as he has not “applied” to be a member of the Supreme Court. Conversely, I express my respect for those listed, whether prominent or not, who have been nominated by others instead of directly presenting themselves for a seat in the highest tribunal.
It is said that the position must seek the person and not the other way around. This is generally true of the appointive office, and especially so of membership in the Supreme Court. A justice of the highest court in the land is a cut above ordinary citizens in prestige, competence, and no less important, decorum.
Justices of the Supreme Court are not politicians or cease to be so once they don judicial robes. Politicians from the President down to the barangay kagawad must ingratiate themselves with the public to get or retain their votes. President Macapagal-Arroyo has worn many tribal costumes because she things that is expected of her. Justices, and even only judges, do not engage in such artificialities.
Politicians must act that way if they are to survive the rough-and-tumble of the hustings. They are essentially cheap because they have to go down to the level of the cheap voters. Some upright officials have resisted that demagoguery like the very proper Sergio Osmeña Sr., who did not even choose to campaign during his last hurrah. But his was already a vanishing breed even during that time.
To succeed in politics today, one must be able to warble a song, dance a jig, or dunk a basketball. These extra-constitutional qualifications may trounce the serious candidate who is only honest and intelligent. It is not wholly the fault, though, of the cheap politician; the greater share is with the bakya crowd. The best proof of their inimical influence is the election of Joseph Estrada as President of the Philippines.
My friend and colleague, the late Celing Fernan, was fond of singing in public even when he was already a member of the Court. But he voluntarily denied himself that pleasure when he became Chief Justice. Judges, and especially justices of the Supreme Court, must conform to a stricter code of decorous conduct. Their function is to interpret and apply the law, not cater to the popular will or be intimidated by the hooting throng.
That is why I am disturbed by the JBC list that included some persons who have “applied” for appointment as associate justice of the high tribunal. From my own viewpoint, their application is unthinkable and impermissible; it is clearly conduct unbecoming a judge. The JBC does not think so, however; it has accepted and even publicized the debasement of the Court and the presumptuous applications themselves.
When I chaired some years ago a committee to choose the best criminal case decision written by a regional trial court judge, I laid down the rule that any entry saying that the accused was “charged of” the crime should be automatically disqualified. I submit the JBC should also disqualify any person who has such a meager respect for himself as to further cheapen it by directly applying to be a justice of the Supreme Court.
I suppose it would be permissible for a person to apply for a judgeship in the lower courts, but a stricter degree of humility, or plain propriety, is required of an aspirant for the Supreme Court. There should be at least one person who believes in the candidate’s eligibility and is willing to spare him the indignity of himself touting his own virtues. If there is not a single person who can do that for him, the applicant is obviously lacking not only in modesty but also ability.
As far as I know, none of the members chosen for the reorganized Supreme Court in 1986 applied for their appointment. I myself was never interviewed by the selection committee, whose membership I have yet to learn. It might have included Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma because it was her husband, the late Dean Rodolfo Palma, who asked me for my resumé. I can only guess who the other members were.
I hope the JBC will confine its recommendations to those who were nominated by others, excluding those who nominated themselves. The applications of these impertinent persons should never have been accepted at all.
Justice Isagani A. Cruz 
Joseph Estrada, Judicial and Bar Council, Judiciary, Politics, Social Comment
Cheapening the Court, July 20, 2002
In 2002 on June 20, 2014 at 7:02 amTHERE was a notice sometime ago from the Judicial and Bar Council announcing the names of persons who have “applied/been nominated” for two positions of associate justice in Supreme Court. The public was allowed to “submit any information,written report, sworn complaint or opposition” against any of the applicants not later than July 15.
The list contained 21 names, many of which are unfamiliar to me. Popularity, however, is not a criterion for appointment to the highest tribunal. Some of those obscure persons may be eminently qualified except that they are not or have not sought to be in the limelight. As the poet says, “full many a flower is born to blush unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert air.”
I have no complaint against any on the list, whether prominent or not, as long as he has not “applied” to be a member of the Supreme Court. Conversely, I express my respect for those listed, whether prominent or not, who have been nominated by others instead of directly presenting themselves for a seat in the highest tribunal.
It is said that the position must seek the person and not the other way around. This is generally true of the appointive office, and especially so of membership in the Supreme Court. A justice of the highest court in the land is a cut above ordinary citizens in prestige, competence, and no less important, decorum.
Justices of the Supreme Court are not politicians or cease to be so once they don judicial robes. Politicians from the President down to the barangay kagawad must ingratiate themselves with the public to get or retain their votes. President Macapagal-Arroyo has worn many tribal costumes because she things that is expected of her. Justices, and even only judges, do not engage in such artificialities.
Politicians must act that way if they are to survive the rough-and-tumble of the hustings. They are essentially cheap because they have to go down to the level of the cheap voters. Some upright officials have resisted that demagoguery like the very proper Sergio Osmeña Sr., who did not even choose to campaign during his last hurrah. But his was already a vanishing breed even during that time.
To succeed in politics today, one must be able to warble a song, dance a jig, or dunk a basketball. These extra-constitutional qualifications may trounce the serious candidate who is only honest and intelligent. It is not wholly the fault, though, of the cheap politician; the greater share is with the bakya crowd. The best proof of their inimical influence is the election of Joseph Estrada as President of the Philippines.
My friend and colleague, the late Celing Fernan, was fond of singing in public even when he was already a member of the Court. But he voluntarily denied himself that pleasure when he became Chief Justice. Judges, and especially justices of the Supreme Court, must conform to a stricter code of decorous conduct. Their function is to interpret and apply the law, not cater to the popular will or be intimidated by the hooting throng.
That is why I am disturbed by the JBC list that included some persons who have “applied” for appointment as associate justice of the high tribunal. From my own viewpoint, their application is unthinkable and impermissible; it is clearly conduct unbecoming a judge. The JBC does not think so, however; it has accepted and even publicized the debasement of the Court and the presumptuous applications themselves.
When I chaired some years ago a committee to choose the best criminal case decision written by a regional trial court judge, I laid down the rule that any entry saying that the accused was “charged of” the crime should be automatically disqualified. I submit the JBC should also disqualify any person who has such a meager respect for himself as to further cheapen it by directly applying to be a justice of the Supreme Court.
I suppose it would be permissible for a person to apply for a judgeship in the lower courts, but a stricter degree of humility, or plain propriety, is required of an aspirant for the Supreme Court. There should be at least one person who believes in the candidate’s eligibility and is willing to spare him the indignity of himself touting his own virtues. If there is not a single person who can do that for him, the applicant is obviously lacking not only in modesty but also ability.
As far as I know, none of the members chosen for the reorganized Supreme Court in 1986 applied for their appointment. I myself was never interviewed by the selection committee, whose membership I have yet to learn. It might have included Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma because it was her husband, the late Dean Rodolfo Palma, who asked me for my resumé. I can only guess who the other members were.
I hope the JBC will confine its recommendations to those who were nominated by others, excluding those who nominated themselves. The applications of these impertinent persons should never have been accepted at all.
Share this:
Related