Justice Lourdes Sereno

Selecting a Supreme Court Justice is an important and delicate task. Many lawyers are undoubtedly up to the task. Of late they have come with impeccable academic credentials, advanced degrees, prior judicial experience, teaching experience (especially abroad), or a list of scholarly publications. With an increasingly homogeneous pool of nominees, the trick for the President is to determine who should be appointed. Is there something different about a candidate that stands out? Is there something in this mass of data that suggests how a potential Justice will conduct herself if appointed?

There was perhaps one bit of information that could have caught the President Aquino's attention when he was examining the latest list submitted by the JBC. When Chief Justice Renato Corona was appointed Chief Justice towards the end of President Gloria Arroyo's term, there was a genuine issue as to whether the President was then covered by a constitutional ban against "midnight appointments." The Supreme Court ultimately resolved the issue in favor of the President.

Interestingly, in her column in BusinessWorld, Solita Monsod wrote that Lourdes Sereno then sent a fax to the new Chief Justice protesting his midnight appointment. Her decision to send a fax, regardless of the possible implications on her career, demonstrated her commitment to her principles. Others might have avoided making politically risky statements to preserve ties with members of the Court (which has influence on the JBC) and to avoid ruining their chances of appointment. Principled stances can ruffle feathers and endanger professional goals. Professor Lourdes Sereno sent the fax anyway and faced the Chief Justice and the Judicial and Bar Council's interrogation.

Justices should demonstrate the same mettle and commitment to principle. They should make decisions based on what is right, not what personal affiliations dictate and regardless of what personal consequences may befall them. For that reason alone, Justice Sereno stood out as an outstanding appointee to the Supreme Court.

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