Learn from CJ Panganiban

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. All that the JBC needs to do is to look at the process implemented by the JBC under the leadership of then CJ Panganiban. Under his leadership, the JBC was able to reduce the vacancy in the judiciary to 16 percent from a high of 32 percent.Today it is back to 25 percent. Instead of pushing on to bring the vacancy to single digit levels, the process regressed under succeeding chief justices and hence the vacancy rate ballooned back to unacceptable levels.

The workshop should review the minutes of previous JBC meetings held during CJ Panganiban's time. Here they will discover that at one point the JBC interviewed up to thirty applicants daily for a period of four months, thereby speeding up the nomination process tremendoulsy. If we, in the JBC, were able to reduce the vacancy rates from 32 percent to 16 percent then, there is no reason why the JBC cannot do it now. We slashed the vacancies in half. The JBC today should be able to accomplish this and more. The target should be to reduce the vacancy rate to single digits in a year's time. This will require an aggressive recruitement effort where the JBC goes to the provinces to urge lawyers to take on the challenge of public service.

CJ Sereno who is young and energetic should lead the charge and undertake an all encompassing search for the best and the brigtest to join the judiciary and help in putting in place the reforms it so urgently needs.

On JBC impasse: Exhaust all efforts to de-escalate tension

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) should not hurry to vote for the selection of shortlisted candidates for the next Chief Justice. We have ample time to wait for the resolution of the motion for reconsideration regarding the legality of having representatives to the JBC from the House and the Senate. The JBC should wait for the court's ruling on this motion. We have four weeks. Let us wait for the court's decision to resolve this and not rush into voting. Let us not have any issues hanging over the selection process.

The issues, including questions raised by having replacements for the Chief Justice and Secretary of Justice to sit in as ex-oficio in the JBC, must be properly ventilated.

We are talking about the power to select from nominees and about submitting a shortlist to the President for the appointment of the next Chief Justice. It is but normal that tensions will rise. We need to de-escalate the tension. After all, we do not want the next CJ to be appointed in a process wherein there are questions that have remained unresolved. We need to ease the tensions. Let us de-politicize and remove all issues.

Perhaps the JBC should initiate moves on how to proceed. Even without the ex-oficio members—the Chief Justice, the DOJ Secretary, and members of House and Congress—they would still have quorum with just its regular members. Let the body rule on resolving the issues and move on with the process. Perhaps all ex-oficio members should just inhibit themselves on the process so that there would be no cloud of doubt in the shortlisting of candidates to be submitted to the President.

No less than Fr. Joaquin Bernas has admitted that they made a mistake in not amending provisions that will accommodate a bicameral Congress. It was a mere inadvertence on the part of those in the Constitutional Convention. The question is: do you perpetuate the mistake, or correct it? I say it's about time we correct this inadvertence.

On the live media coverage of JBC selection process

We welcome media coverage of JBC selection and believe that it will increase the quality of public debate.

Politically, we have long been hung up on personalities instead of issues and platforms. The live coverage of the JBC interviews gives our countrymen a deeper understanding of the pressing issues in our justice system and allows us all to look deeper beyond names and first impressions. The quality of public debate is improving, and this should put the needed pressure on our government to wisely select the next leader of the judiciary.

We earlier wrote the JBC requesting that the selection process be made available to the public. In our letter to JBC we suggested that the body ask nominees difficult questions regarding increasing conviction rates, filling up vacancies, and curbing corruption.

Now that we have achieved a small but crucial victory in making the JBC process and interviews more transparent to the public, hard part begins. We must make judicial reform a top priority and choose a Chief Justice based on competence, moral ascendancy, and the determination to institute much needed-reforms on an antiquated and slugging justice system.

Questions that must be asked of shortlisted nominees for Chief Justice

In our letter to the JBC last June 28, we put forth questions we believe every candidate for Chief Justice must address. Below are some of my questions but if you have your own, feel free to share them here.


1. How will you maintain your independence regardless of your relationship with the President or any of his political allies and/or critics?

2. What is your stand on the use of the JDF and on allegations regarding the lack of transparency in utilizing this fund?

3. Is the conviction rate of 16 percent in criminal cases acceptable to you? If not, what do you intend to do to raise conviction rates in the country comparable to that of Hong Kong, for example, which has a conviction rate of 79 percent?

4. How will you ensure that our judges and justices do not succumb to corruption?

5. What is your plan to fill up the massive vacancies in courts around our country?

6. The vacancy rate for judgeship positions is now pegged at 25 percent. Is this acceptable to you? If not, then what do you intend to do to address this problem?

7. The average case life in the first-level courts is six years. Is this not a clear violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial? If you become Chief Justice, what do you intend to do to shorten the trial period? How do you intend to ensure that the average of six years is reduced considerably?

8. Do you think the JELACC should be convened to help address key problems of the justice system? How can the JELACC be an instrument for modernizing the judiciary?

9. Is it fair for the judiciary to be receiving one percent of the national budget? Would you have any proposals in regard to budgetary reforms for the justice system?


Thank you in advance for considering this letter. We fervently hope the JBC members will consider raising these questions to nominees during the public interviews.

Our letter to the Judicial and Bar Council

Below is a scanned copy of the letter that we sent to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) last June 5, 2012.





June 4, 2012



JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
2ND Floor, Centennial Building
Supreme Court
Padre Faura, Manila




TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE JBC:



Hon. Antonio T. Carpio, Acting Ex-Officio Chairman
Hon. Leila M. de Lima, Ex Officio Member
Hon. Francis G. Escudero, Ex Officio Member
Hon. Niel C. Tupas, Jr., Ex Officio Member
Hon. Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr., Retired Sc Justice Representative
Hon. Jose V. Mejia, Academe Representative
Hon. Aurora Santiago Lagman, Private Sector Representative
Hon. Maria Milagros N. Fernan-Cayosa, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Representative



Re: Proposed Amendments to the JBC rules



In the recently concluded impeachment trial, we have seen how accountability has allowed the people to participate in governance and be involved in the change process. There is an obvious need to institute the necessary reforms in our justice system. As such, we should make the process of selection of the Chief Justice transparent. The appointment of our public officials is a matter of public interest. The Constitution guarantees our people the right to information on matters of public interest. No less than the Supreme Court has allowed the public disclosure of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALNs) of the justices of the High court, as well as the other judges and justices of the judiciary.

In view of the foregoing, I respectfully propose that with the exception of executive sessions dealing with matters that are confidential in nature, which shall be made available to the public only upon majority vote of the members of the Council present, the voting process for any judicial post in the Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court, or Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman, including all meetings and deliberations prior to the voting shall be open to the public.





Thank you.



Very truly yours,

KIKO N. PANGILINAN

Amend rules to allow for JBC meetings, deliberations to be open to public

We urge the Judicial and Bar Council to take the lessons learned from the recently concluded impeachment process against former Chief Justice Renato Corona in implementing much-needed reforms in the Judiciary.

There is an obvious need to institute necessary reforms in our justice system. The first step would be to make the processes transparent. We have seen how accountability has allowed the people to participate in governance and be involved in the change process. It has also put pressure to officials in disclosing their SALNs despite their invoking of the foreign currency act. The people are the crucial element in instituting reforms in government.

We call on the government to reconvene the Judicial Executive Legislative Advisory Consultative Council to aid in instituting reforms in the Judiciary, specifically budgetary assistance.

The Judiciary receives only 1% of the national budget—that is unacceptable. We cannot hope to have a first-world system of justice with a third-world budgetary allocation. When the JELACC reconvenes, this matter may be tackled as well as mapping out long-term institutional reforms to address the languishing backlog of court cases and the many vacancies in our courts.

Fill up unfilled judgeship positions

We urge the Supreme Court to prioritize the filling up of unfilled positions in the judiciary as court cases continue to pile in the country’s courts’ backlog.

As it stands one fourth of the positions of judges nationwide remain unfilled. This is totally unacceptable because it is one major cause of delays. Today the average case life is six years in the first level. Six years to dispose of a case is ridiculous. Wala pa ang apela dito. And we find out that 25 percent of the salas have no judges. Cases languishing in courts where there are no judges is lamentable.

In 2007, as chair of Justice Committee and Senate JBC rep and with the leadership of then Chief Justice Panganiban, we were able to reduce the vacancies to 16 percent. Instead of moving forward however, the subsequent Supreme Court leaders allowed the vacancy rate to balloon. Paatras at hindi pasulong ang ginawa ng hudikatura.

We will support the measure to have savings placed under the stewardship of the DBM unless the judiciary commits to correcting this anomalous situation and drastically reduce the number of unfilled positions. How do we expect the people to have faith in a justice system that allow for cases to drag on for six years or more? The system is obviously broken and is in need of urgent repairs. No wonder there is wanton disregard for the system. It isn’t working and there can be little or no respect for damaged goods.

JBC should refuse to be made a tool for the violation of the Constitution

In order to prevent Malacañang from making a midnight appointment for the post of Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, all the JBC has to do is refuse to submit a shortlist to Malacañang. By doing this, Malacañang will have no basis to issue an appointment, as a shortlist prepared by the JBC is a constitutional requirement for a valid appointment to the Judiciary.

The JBC should refuse to be made a tool for the violation of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments spelled out in Section 15 Article 7 of the Constitution. We urge the JBC to maintain its independence as a constitutional office. Let the next President make the appointment.