The Judicial and Bar Council on Wednesday (December 3) interviewed the last batch of 14 candidates to the Supreme Court: Ateneo College of Law Dean Cesar Villanueva, Court of Appeals Justice Martin Villarama, and Sandiganbayan Justice Francis Villaruz.  The JBC does not allow recording of interviews. Our researcher, Purple Romero, took down notes. Excerpts:

Question: What can you contribute to the Court? How will you improve the judiciary?

Cesar Villanueva, Ateneo law dean: My academic background in commercial law, years of experience in dealing with businessmen, investors, litigants and my contributions to the Philippine Judicial Academy (as chairman of the commercial law department and member of the academic consultants group).

Court of Appeals Justice Martin Villarama: Appointment of SC justices should be lodged in the Supreme Court. The SC by 2/3 of the vote should determine justices. Implement small-claims courts nationwide and strengthen adjudication in barangay level. 

Q: How do you intend to meet pressures?

Villanueva: With the same type of integrity that I have displayed in my career. Almost everyday, lawyers meet pressures.

Villarama: There will always be pakiusap, but as long as you don’t succumb to them, it would be okay. In the end, I’ll decide on my own.

Q: Are you in favor of retaining the expanded jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Villanueva: Yes. Our people are safer with the power of judicial review.

Q: How could you help maintain the independence of the court?

Villanueva: Actions more than words. Not only in decisions that I write, but also in my conduct.

Q:  There’s a growing sentiment to amend the Constitution. Will you recommend amendment of provisions on the economy?

Villanueva: Some of the nationalization aspects of the Constitution should be amended. Our businessmen could compete with the rest of the world…fear of foreign domination should be taken out of the Constitution.

Villarama: The government should always be there [in ownership of public utilities and utilization of natural resources]. The suggested amendment is not urgent at this point.

Q: Suppose the law is not in accordance with your conscience, will you still follow it?

Villanueva: I will follow it. My sworn duty as justice is to rule in accordance with the law.

Q: Are you in favor of the revival of death penalty?

Villanueva: No I’m not. I do not believe in death penalty.

Villarama: I am in favor of the restoration of death penalty. Anyway, the powers of the president are there—commutation, reprieve.

Q: What is your net worth?

Villanueva:  P20-P25 million.

Q: Would you be willing to submit your Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth?

Villanueva: Yes. Transparency in net worth is important for those who wish to serve the public.

Q: What are your thoughts on open voting?

Villanueva: That would be ideal. But coming from the private sector, there are certain decisions that should be done through secret balloting.

Q: What are your thoughts on procedures of the Supreme Court that are not known?

Villanueva: Like the executive privilege, procedures of the SC should best be kept secret to preserve their solemnity. Justices would be vigilant if they know that exchange of discussions is done in closed fashion.

Q: What should be the manner of amending the Constitution?

Villanueva: For purposes of academic discussion, the Senate and the House of Representatives should vote separately.

Villarama: I prefer voting separately in a constituent assembly. I also do not want any Charter change before 2010.

Sandiganbayan Justice Francisco Villaruz: I believe that Charter change should now be adopted. There are a number of provisions that should be reviewed. The matter of the power of the Congress to conduct investigation should be circumscribed.

If we interpret the Constitution on its face, Congress should vote as one.  But if we base it on the intent, voting of Congress is required separately.

Q: What is your concept of the separation of Church and the State?

Villanueva: I believe that the clergy should not meddle in the matters of the State.

Q: Which form of government should best suit the country?

Villaruz: A unitary form of government. It would be cheaper, there would be less harassment, more efficiency. There would be no need for the concurrence of the Senate.