Income from SC
never enough
I cannot help but recall the words of the late Justice
Mariano H. de Joya. He resigned from the Supreme Court. He told President Manuel
A. Roxas that "my income from the Court cannot support the needs of a growing
family."
He never aspired for an appointment in the bench but
President Quezon made him a fiscal and promptly promoted him to judge of the
Court of First Instance.
As far as I know, he was the only jurist who went straight to
the Supreme Court from the Court of First Instance only to resign after two
years of service.
He had 13 children to raise and did not have any source of
income except from law practice.
Born in my barrio in Lipa City of extremely poor parents, he
was sent to the United States as a scholar by the Americans in the Commonwealth
government when he was only in his third year of high school in Batangas.
He finished high school in Sta. Barbara, California and would
have been the valedictorian if he had had the residency.
No money in
the Court
A successful practicing lawyer or one who has been in the
bench for search is presumed to have only one motive or desire in aspiring for
the Supreme Court: Defend the Constitution at all cost.
If it is money that a lawyer wants, he cannot make enough in
salaries, allowances, etc. from the Court.
I do not know how much a jurist makes in one year, but
whatever it is, the amount could be equal to the fees in one big case in private
practice.
A jurist plucked from private practice makes a lot of
financial sacrifices unless, it must be stressed, he was born to wealth or has a
rich wife.
There is no money in defending the Constitution. There is no
money interpreting the laws.
A lawyer or one who is already in the bench like the Court of
Appeals aspires to go to the Highest Tribunal to cap his career with the honor
of being a jurist.
A jurist owes
nothing to the President
A member of the Supreme Court can is appointed by the
President but can be removed from office only by impeachment.
The authors of the Constitution made sure that a jurist owes
no loyalty to anyone, not to the President who appointed him, not to his family,
not to his friends.
The Constitution is his only friend. He must defend it with
his life if necessary. His tenure is protected by the Constitution until he
retires at age 70. Of course, he can be impeached.
The members of the Supreme Court are untouchables. They can
defy the President in defense of the Constitution. Other appointees of the
President can be removed at the drop of a hat.
No place in government service is safer than the Highest
Tribunal.
Pressure from
the President
The fatal flaw in the justice system is pressure exerted by
the President when doing so is to his advantage, not necessarily in defense of
the Constitution.
If the Court yields or succumbs to pressure from the
president, democracy is brought closer to its grave. The Court is this case
defends the president, not the Constitution.
There is conspiracy between the president who enforces the
law and the Supreme Court which interprets the Constitution and the laws when
the jurists succumb to the pressure from the Executive.
After a member of the Court is sworn in, he becomes his own
man. It may not have worked this way all the time.
There could be favors to exchange.
Political instinct or survival forces the president to
pressure the Court. On the other hand, the sole and sworn duty of defending the
Constitution should prevent the Court from yielding to pressure.
The Court has only one master, the Constitution.
Not even the
wife
Associate Justice Renato Corona who supported President
Arroyo in grabbing power from a president with the biggest mandate should not
have been appointed, to begin with.
His loyalty to President Arroyo cannot be reconciled with the
presumed loyalty to the Constitution.
He should not be in the Court for that reason. But then, in
the present Court, majority of the jurists would have been appointed by the
President before her term expires in 2010.
Justice Corona is in the Court anyway. That cannot be
changed.
But he should have inhibited himself from participating in
the Neri case because his wife signed a manifesto supporting the regime of
President Arroyo.
He is, in a manner of speaking, caught between his wife and
the Constitution. Which of course is not saying that a wife of a jurist
expressing support for a President who was never elected by the people is a
violation of the Constitution.
The wife put her husband in a spot that opens him to
suspicion of partiality. If only in this sense, Justice Corona should have
inhibited himself from the Neri case.
No co-terminus
appointments
To keep the integrity and respect of the Court, the President
should not appoint officials or employees whose jobs are co-terminus with the
Chief Executive.
I maintain the highest respect for the integrity, brilliance
of mind, and honesty of Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing.
I have the same attitude for his wife Puring who is chairman
of the Commission on Human Rights. She is tough. She is doing a fine job in
protecting human rights.
So has their daughter Coco, a brilliant TV newscaster and
host. She is in the Office of the President as human rights consultant or
assistant.
Knowing Justice Quisumbing and his wife as well as their
daughter, I am certain the jurist will vote on an issue in his best lights,
always in defense of the Constitution.
But if his vote, even cast in his best lights, happens to be
in favor of Malacañang, there arises the suspicion that his loyalty is split
between the President and the Constitution.
Suspicion is worse than the truth. Suspicion is never laid to
rest.
