News & Activities
UP PORTIA SORORITY STATEMENT ON MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
"That the power of judicial appointment was lodged in the President is a recognized measure of limitation on the power of the judiciary, which measure, however, is counterbalanced by the election ban due to the need to insulate the judiciary from the political climate of presidential elections."
-Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales in
De Castro v. JBC
Justice. Fair play. Equity. Integrity. In its ideal form, the law should reflect these principles. It should be able to translate these concepts into concrete form, because any law worth its salt should relate such standards of civilization to the common man. As law students, we are taught not merely to bear in mind these principles, but to practice them whenever we are faced with injustice, falsehood, corruption, and lawlessness.
The case of In Re: Valenzuela illustrates this exacting commitment, wherein the Supreme Court en banc held that midnight appointments to the judiciary are prohibited by the Constitution. Valenzuela reinforces what we have always been taught? that no power remains absolute and unchecked. The law itself strikes a balance not only among the three departments of government, but more importantly, it strikes a balance between the government and its people.
Even after several constitutional changes, the doctrine in Valenzuela has been upheld and in fact carried on to Art VII, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution, to wit:
Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
Clearly therefore, the general rule states that the prohibition applies to all kinds of midnight appointments. Moreover, the Constitution expressly enumerates the exception to the rule, therefore excluding all others.
And yet the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in De Castro v. JBC reversed Valenzuela, effectively allowing President Arroyo to appoint the next Chief Justice. The justices have read a distinction into the law not warranted by the text itself, by any principle of statutory construction, or even common sense. This decision has not only disturbed the precept of checks and balances so basic in our Constitution; it has also signaled to us that that the very principle our aspired profession stands for?the rule of law?is no longer what we believe it to be.
Despite this, we find among us persons of integrity who assure us that, in the face of partisanship, someone will always stand by the rule of law. We laud the dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio-Morales, who intelligently countered all the "legal" arguments in the main ponencia.
But we laud her not for her powerful analysis, overarching perspective, and application of legal doctrines in good faith. After all, these are things that we expect from Justices from no less than the highest tribunal of the land. What we do laud is her courage to speak out against her peers' willingness to be blinded by (and to blind others with) strained interpretations of the law. To Sis Justice Carpio-Morales, thank you for inspiring us to continue practicing our noble motto, that ?All excellent things are as difficult, as they are rare?. You may be the solitary dissenter in the Supreme Court, but know that you are not alone.
To our other Justices: please know that you have let us down. You who we expected to rise above the politicking, have failed us? ordinary citizens, lawyers, law students? with your initial decision. It is one thing to be made fools of by our elected officials; yet another, if it is done by the very arbiters whom one trusts and turns to in times of conflict. Such acts elicit not just anger, but grave disappointment and feelings of betrayal.
If there is anything that must be subjected to judicial notice, it is that there is already very little nobility left of this profession. But we assure you that we will not stand idly by and let the judiciary threaten what little of it remains, even if this means supporting and actively participating in social protests and meta-legal actions to uphold the rule of law, and to defend our democratic institutions.
We place our hope on the pending Motions for Reconsideration. For now, we urge the Supreme Court:
PLEASE, STOP UNDERMINING YOUR OWN INDEPENDENCE.