Standing up to the Supreme Court is a constitutional duty of the executive and legislative branches under the principle of checks and balances

This latest clash between the executive and judicial branches of government is testing the limits of our constitutional democracy and, to my mind, rightly so. Clearly, the old ways and the old approaches in our efforts to fight corruption and lawlessness have failed us. The system of justice thus far has failed to ensure respect for the rule of law. Hence, we see the prevalence of lawlessness and, most unfortunately, the Supreme Court in a string of controversial rulings has helped little in restoring faith and respect for our system of justice.

These rulings include: the flip-flopping on the case involving the League of Cities, wherein the SC flip-flopped four times in a span of two years; the flip-flop in the FASAP PALEA case; the TRO against the House of Representatives when it initiated impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Mercy Gutierrez, who was accused of protecting the ARROYOS by sitting on cases filed against them; the voiding of the Truth Commission meant to investigate the Arroyos; and the TRO last week to allow the Arroyos to leave for abroad without any certainty as to whether they are to return, nor any definitive finding as to whether her condition was indeed life threatening (See dissenting opinions of Justice Sereno and Carpio).

In fact, in all of the above-mentioned cases, the SC has courted insubordination and disrespect for what many have described as the whimsical and arbitrary exercise of judicial authority.

It is in this context that, as a member of the legislative branch of government, I am convinced that we need to push the and test the limits of our constitutional democracy and see how far we need to go, how far we need to test its efficacy to effect sweeping change and reform. Yes, this is out of the norm. Yes, this is non-conventional because, clearly, we cannot do the same thing over and over again and expect to see real change happen. We need to do things differently. We need to take risks and venture into unfamiliar legal and constitutional terrain if necessary. We need to experiment with new approaches. We need to be bold and daring and--yes--even irreverent, if we wish to see real change happen.

Hence, we support the position taken by Secretary Leila De Lima, and we urge the Supreme Court to read the writing on the wall. Arbitrary and whimsical court orders, directed towards a co-equal, have no place in a constitutional democracy. It must be opposed vigorously. In fact, both the executive and legislative branches of government must unite in its exercise of its constitutional duty and its obligation to serve as a check on a wayward judiciary.

No, this is not anarchy. This is democracy at work. It is the principle of checks and balances at work. It is, to my mind, the sworn duty of the executive and the legislative departments to act as a check on a wayward judiciary. We will respect the Supreme Court, yes, but we will do so as a co-equal and not as a meek, submissive and inutile subordinate.

My statement on the latest clash between the executive and the judiciary

This latest clash between the executive and the judiciary is testing the limits of our constitutional democracy—and rightly so. The old ways and old approaches in our efforts to fight corruption have failed us. The system of justice has by and large failed to ensure respect for the rule of law. This explains why lawlessness and disregard for the rule of law continue to plague us.

The Supreme Court, in quite a number of recent decisions, most unfortunately, has not helped much in restoring faith and respect for our justice system. In fact, it has courted insubordination and disrespect for its almost-whimsical and arbitrary exercise of judicial authority in a number of recent cases.

It is in this context that we must, in fact, push and test the limits of our constitutional democracy and see how far we can go to effect sweeping change and reforms. We need to think out of the box. We need to do things differently. We need to be bold and daring and, yes, bordering on near-recklessness if we wish to effect genuine change for our nation.

It is also in this context that we support the position taken by Secretary Leila de Lima, and we urge the Supreme Court to read the writing on the wall. Arbitrary and whimsical court orders that show utter disrespect for a co-equal, whether the executive or the legislative branch of government, will be faced frontally. In fact, both the executive and the legislative branches must come together and ensure that a wayward judiciary is put in its proper place.

No, this is not anarchy. This is democracy at work. This is checks and balances at work. It is the sworn duty of the executive and the legislative departments to act as a check on a wayward judiciary.

Whether it the legislative or the executive branch, to stand up and oppose the Supreme Court is to fulfill our constitutional duty to serve as a check on a co-equal branch. The Supreme Court should think long and hard before it punishes Secretary de Lima. They may have to cite many others in contempt and there won't be enough jails in the land to place all those who have grown sick and tired of the pervasive corruption and inutility in the justice system we have all come to know all these years now.

4 Proposed Solutions to Help Fix the Philippines (part 2 of 4)

Last week, I started reposting my old blog entry "4 Proposed Solutions to Help Fix the Philippines." I'll be posting one proposal a day until we get to Proposal No. 4. To read Proposal No. 1, click HERE.


2. Ending Pervasive Corruption; Modernizing the Justice System

Pervasive corruption will not cease unless we punish more and punish swiftly. We cannot punish more and punish swiftly unless we modernize our Judiciary and provide it with the necessary resources to do so. So many politicians decry corruption yet apart from exposes, they have not presented concrete steps to address corruption. Here are concrete, doable steps to address the scourge.

Increase conviction rates. The conviction rate of the Ombudsman in the Sandiganbayan (the country's anti-graft court) for corruption cases is pegged at an estimate of less than 20 percent. For every 10 cases filed, less than two end up in conviction; the rest of the cases are dismissed. No wonder there is no fear of committing corrupt acts. More than 8 out of 10 get away it. This is in sharp contrast to the conviction rates in Hong Kong for corruption cases which is pegged at 79 percent. Nearly 8 out of 10 are convicted.

Image courtesy of the Sandiganbayan website

Hence if we are to punish more we must focus on upping the conviction rates to 50 percent within a three-year period and perhaps reach 65 to 70 percent within 6 years from 2010. When more are punished and punished swiftly, respect for the rule of law will return. It is the certainty of punishment that instills fear and respect for our laws. It is the task of the Justice system to ensure that the conviction rates are upped. An anti-corruption task force must be organized at the highest levels to monitor the big cases and to ensure that government resources are harnessed to ensure convictions within a period of 18 to 24 months from the time of its organization. The proverbial big fish must not be allowed to get away.

Double the Judiciary budget. In addition, we must modernize the Judiciary. The Judiciary Executive Legislative Advisory Council (JELACC) was created in 2007 precisely to address the budget woes of the Judiciary. The Philippine Judiciary receives a measly sum of less than 1 percent of the national budget. The remaining 97-plus percent goes to the Executive Department while some 2 percent goes to the Legislative Department. The bulk of the funds are with the Executive.

Image courtesy of The Daily PCIJ

By upping the budget of the Judiciary to, say, 2 percent of the 1.17 trillion national budget, we give rise to the swift dispensation of justice, the creation of more courts, the construction of justice halls, the filling up of vacancies of existing courts, the augmenting of the compensation and benefits of judges, prosecutors and court personnel. Through the JELACC, the budgetary target of 2 percent--or, in real terms, some 20 plus billion pesos--can be achieved within a period of 6 years or within the term of a sitting president.

Reduce the average case life/Create more courts. It takes 6 long years on average for a case to be decided upon in the first-level courts. This is too long. With the increase in budgetary support for the judiciary, our courts through the leadership of the Supreme Court must endeavor to reduce the average life span of a case that remains pending before our courts. Today, data reveals that the average case life is 6 years--not yet including appeals. This is totally unacceptable. Within a period of six years and with the creation of more courts, appointment of more judges, the filling up of vacancies in the judiciary the life span of a case on average should be reduced to 2 years maximum.

Research provided by the Supreme Court shows that the ideal ratio of the number of judges per number of people is one judge for every 10,000. Our situation is that there is one judge for every 50,000 or 5 times more than the ideal number.

We must create more courts to be able to reach the ideal level and to speed up the disposition of cases. When cases are resolved swiftly and fairly then the respect, trust and confidence in our justice system is reinforced immensely.

If the nation is likened to a computer, the judicial system is the hard drive and its natural resources, its educated workforce, and its economic investments among others its software. No amount of the latest software made available will matter if the hard drive is not effectively in place.

An appointment of doubtful legality will harm the image and reputation of the Supreme Court; let the next President appoint the new Chief Justice

We call on the Arroyo administration to shield the Supreme Court from scandal and controversy by not appointing the next Chief Justice. It will be a black eye for the Supreme Court if the appointment of the next Chief Justice is shrouded with questions of legality and constitutionality. A questionable appointment will tarnish the image and reputation of the Supreme Court. We urge President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to steer clear of this controversial path by allowing the next President to appoint a new Chief Justice when Chief Justice Puno retires in May.

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.