Appointments to the High Court made purely on religious grounds would not bode well for the independence of the Supreme Court (SC), Chief Justice Reynato Puno said during the last set of public interviews of SC contenders last Friday. 

Puno raised this argument as one of the two Muslim aspirants for the SC, Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Japar Dimaampao, invoked the representation provision in the 1996 peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) as a fundamental ground for Malacañang to appoint him as replacement of Justice Adolfo Azcuna, who retired on February 16.

Another Muslim candidate, CA Justice Hakim Abdulwahid, also raised this point in his interview last Wednesday.  He maintained that the Philippine government promised to appoint a Muslim to the SC in its 1996 peace agreement with the Moro separatist group.

The last Muslim SC justice, Abdulwahid Bidin, was appointed three decades ago. 

But Puno said that if people would be appointed to the SC on the sole basis of their religion or ethnic background, the High Court would be forced to accommodate candidates from all religious groups, including indigenous communities.

He maintained that the appointment of SC justices should be beyond religion. 

Been there, done that

Meanwhile, the topic of judicial reforms also took centerstage during the interviews.

Dimaampao, the youngest possible SC justice at 45 years old, was grilled on how he would plug leaks of decisions in the judiciary.  He recommended the conduct of a survey on the credibility of SC applicants, and an intensified system of background checking.

But Puno pointed out that the junior jurist’s ideas have already been implemented by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

The JBC, which Puno chairs, vets nominees for the judiciary to the president. It recently piloted a survey of SC aspirants among court employees.

Puno added that the JBC has also pored over the suggestion by local SC watchdog Bantay Korte Suprema to enlist the help of the National Bureau of Investigation in verifying the records of candidates for the High Tribunal.

He then asked Dimaampao about the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), which was initiated by then Chief Justice Hilario Davide in 2005.

Dimaampao suggested that in order to implement the APJR’s goal of increased access to justice, the SC should ask the Integrated bar of the Philippines (IBP) to provide free services for the poor and marginalized.

He later backtracked, however, after Puno questioned his proposal’s “legality.”

Puno stressed that the SC does not have the power to compel the IBP to direct its services to the underprivileged, adding that the IBP’s independence should also be respected.

Anti-martial law

On the other hand, human rights lawyer Pablito Sanidad, another SC contender, shared recollections of the martial law years with Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez during the public interview. Sanidad and Gonzalez were on the same side against the Marcos government in the 1980s.

However, their views clashed on policies of the Arroyo administration. For instance, Sanidad is one of the petitioners on the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). 

The SC upheld the constitutionality of the VFA last February 11.

But on the right of reply bill pending in Congress, Sanidad and Gonzalez have the same opinion. They agreed that  media should be mandated to give public figures ample airtime and newspaper space to reply to criticisms and issues raised against them.

Amelita Tolentino

The last to be placed on the hot seat was Justice Amelita Tolentino, best known for convicting Hubert Webb of rape with homicide in the Vizconde Massacre when she was still a Parañaque Regional Trial Court judge in 2000.

During the interview, she admitted before the JBC that she still faces an administrative complaint.

A certain Ramon Gonzalez sent Puno a letter which assailed Tolentino for reasons not yet made known to the public.

She emphasized though that the complaint is still in the informal preliminary investigation (IPI) stage.

According to Rule 4 Sec. 6 of JBC rules, however, judges who face administrative complaints under IPI may also be disqualified if the JBC deems that the charges are “serious or grave as to affect the fitness of the applicant for nomination.”

This is not the first time Tolentino is facing an administrative complaint.

In 2000,  an administrative complaint was filed against her by a party whose case on appeal was thrown out by Tolentino because the party allegedly failed to pay legal and docket fees. The complaint was withdrawn after three days, Tolentino said.

Six years later, Tolentino was one of  three justices accused of engaging in a “decision for sale” practice.

Col. Brigido P. Mesina, Jr., president of the National Association of Corruption Prevention Units Foundation, Inc., alleged that Tolentino and fellow justices Vicente Veloso and Roberto Barrios of the Ninth Division “employed” a certain Atty. Padrenal, who reportedly asked for P5 million for a favorable decision from the said division.

The complaint was later dismissed.