Only the JBC is immune to public scrutiny

Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s lukewarm response to pressure to make the Judicial and Bar Council’s records open to the public is even more disappointing in light of the fact that the Chief Justice has made significant steps to address other issues gripping the country. For his work, and there is a lot of it since he became Chief Justice at the end of 2006, was recognized by the Manila Times when the broadsheet chose him to be “Times Person of the year.” (Rene Q. Bas, Chief Justice Puno: Times Person of the Year, Manila Times, December 30, 2007.”)

The Times recognized the Chief Justice’ accomplishments which include the introduction of the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data to stop the spate of extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the country. They are intended to address the weakness of the petition for habeas corpus. The Chief Justice noted that petitions for habeas corpus usually end up with state agents simply denying they had the missing person in their custody.

The writ of amparo bars military officers from simply denying that they are involved in disappearances or extrajudicial executions. Habeas Data compels military and government agents to release information about the “desaparecidos” and requires access to military and police files. These are bold moves that challenge those who wield guns and use force to terrorize and intimidate others. It is an attempt to enforce the Rule of Law that is teetering at the brink of lawlessness.

It is ironic that while these writs are designed to open up the records of other branches of the government, the JBC remains tucked away with its own secrets. The Judicial and Bar Council just celebrated its 20th Anniversary on 10 December 2007. It might be a good time to start thinking about making the JBC more transparent to the public.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Alternative to Oposa

I do not mean to suggest that the Philippine Supreme Court has abandoned the environment. Sometimes the solutions to our problems need not be remedies that straddle generations or excite international attention. There is still one alternative that the Supreme Court has preserved: local governments. Local governments in the Philippines are not all allies of the environment. Too many local officials equate economic development with large-scale resource extraction activities such as mining and logging. But when cases reach the Supreme Court, the Court has been remarkably supportive of local governments and community efforts to protect the environment. Two decisions of the Court come to mind. The first is Tano v Socrates (G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997). In that case the Supreme Court upheld the power of the local governments to enact laws to protect the environment pursuant to the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. The Court pointed out that the Code seeks “to...
Read more

Local government avalanche is Congress' fault

A recent Newsbreak report, GMA Creating Too Many LGUs , by Miriam Grace Go (August 22, 2007), unfairly blames President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the increase in the number of local government units in the Philippines. This increase, particularly in the case of cities has been going on ever since the Local Government Code of 1991 took effect. It is encouraged by two features of the Code: (a) the formula for the distribution of the internal revenue allotment that favors cities, and (b) the relative ease in making cities. Politicians determined to increase the financial resources of their governments have been campaigning to upgrade into cities ever since they discovered these weaknesses in the Code. In 1986, there were 73 provinces, 60 cities, and 1,530 municipalities in the country. Just before the Estrada administration collapsed, there were already 110 cities. On March 5, 2001, less than two months into office, President Arroyo signed 14 bills on the conversion of municipalities i...
Read more

Clinton: End Game

Image
Senator Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House has ended and even she knows it. The math has not been in her favor for some time now. She tried to run on her strengths as a US Senator and her "34 years of experience" in government service to no avail. Her record could not stand up to Senator Obama's charm. She was unlikable; he was eloquent, even enchanting. His record is not so bad either. She was part of the old Washington crowd that was part of the problem. Obama was a fresh face who promised change "we can believe in." So Clinton tried different angles. She tried drama by shedding tears and launching sharp angry attacks against Obama. She tried comedy--by doing the comedy circuit on television. She tried adventure by claiming to have survived sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia. All these tricks worked a little; it kept the campaign alive, if barely. They tried to change the rules--bring in Florida and Michigan despite the fact that they were penaliz...
Read more