Philippine Supreme Court Appointments 2009


I am a little puzzled over the concern over the coming vacancies in the Supreme Court. In 2009, the Supreme Court will have seven vacancies and constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas and civil society groups are calling for increased citizens’ participation in and closer scrutiny of the choice of nominees to the Court.

I have reservations about these efforts and what they seek to achieve.

President Macapagal-Arroyo has already appointed 14 different Justices after she became President in 2001, 12 of whom are still sitting on the Court (two have already retired). Of those who are retiring next year, two of them—Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Leonardo Quisumbing—were appointed by other Presidents. This means that in 2009, Arroyo would have increased the number of her appointees from 12 to 14. Chief Justice Renyato Puno, who was appointed by President Ramos will be the only one Justice not appointed by President Arroyo.
President Arroyo already appointed 80% of the membership of the Court. After she fills all seven vacancies next year she will increase the number of appointees to 14 or 93% of the membership of the Court. Will this increase really matter considering the fact that the Supreme Court decides by majority vote?

There is nothing extraordinary about next year. The turn over rate at the Supreme Court is so high that there is at least one vacancy every year. All Philippine Presidents get a chance to appoint Justices. Corazon Aquino appointed the entire membership of the Court before the Judicial and Bar Council began operations and appointed seven more Justices thereafter. Fidel Ramos appointed 14 Justices when he was President. Arroyo had a similar opportunity to fill six vacancies in 2002. Even Joseph Estrada who was booted out of office after only 31 months in office was able to appoint 6 Justices.

The sheer number of appointees alone does not make the Justices’ objectivity suspect. If this was the case, then Arroyo should have won every time her administrations actions have been challenged before the Supreme Court. But this is not the case.

These efforts to check the President’s power to appoint Justices of the Supreme Court assumes that the selection process under the 1987 Constitution is basically flawed. Is it? How do we rally civil society to this latest cause without some categorical empirical conclusion that the JBC’s operations are flawed?

I think it sheer luck that Arroyo has this opportunity to control the composition of the Court. But that is all that it is: luck. Because we are unable to remove Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from office—and this is a whole other story—we should learn to live with the consequences of her continued stay in office.

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

Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al., G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015.

The Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority is an instrumentality of the government; thus, its properties actually, solely and exclusively used for public purposes, consisting of the airport terminal building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots on which they are situated, are not subject to real property tax and respondent City is not justified in collecting taxes from petitioner over said properties. [1] MCIAA is vested with corporate powers but it is not a stock or non-stock corporation, which is a necessary condition before an agency or instrumentality is deemed a government-owned or controlled corporation. Like MIAA, petitioner MCIAA has capital under its charter but it is not divided into shares of stock. [2] [1] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015. [2] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015.
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