More than a covenant, amending the Court of Appeals rules and going back to the basics by observing the “highest standards of morality and ethical behaviour” are key ways of reforming the second highest court in the land.

Former Supreme Court Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, who also served nine years in the CA, made these recommendations in an essay written for abs-cbnNEWS.com. She proposed that the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA) be amended to include a provision “mandating an actual deliberation and debate among the members of each Division on every decision and resolution of each motion or incident raised in all cases.”

During the hearings on the alleged bribe offer to a Court of Appeals justice that had to do with the corporate row between Meralco and the Government Service Insurance System, it surfaced that the justices who decided on the case did not meet as a division to deliberate on it. The case was raffled off to Justice Vicente Roxas, who penned the decision, and passed it on to other members of the division who agreed with him and signed it. Roxas was eventually dismissed for improper behaviour.

This practice, we have learned, is not unique to the Meralco-GSIS case. The ponente studies the case, drafts the decision, which other members either concur with or dissent from. Division meetings are not usually held to talk about a case.   

The bribery scandal, which unearthed various kinds of unethical behaviour by the justices, starting from Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr., has hurt the credibility of the Court of Appeals. Following this, the justices forged a covenant to redeem themselves and show the public that they were taking steps to reform Court.

But Sandoval-Gutierrez says that a covenant may not be the answer to the problems the CA faces. Apart from amending the IRCA, she recommends the following:

1. A justice should not sign a decision of his or her colleague in the Division until he or she shall have read and re-read it and is convinced of its correctness;           
2. No justice should hold on to a case if under the rules, he has no authority to do so;
3. A justice should immediately take appropriate action against any person attempting to influence his decision by offering bribe money, promotion, or other considerations;
4. Every justice should avoid dealing with lawyers who are handling cases in the court; and
5. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) should be more vigilant and strict in the selection of candidates for nomination to the Court of Appeals.

But, at all times, she says that the justices in the Court of Appeals should observe the highest standards of morality and ethical behaviour. – Marites Danguilan Vitug/abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak

The full text of Sandoval-Gutierrez’s essay follows:

Is the covenant the answer?

by Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (ret.)

Prior to my appointment as associate justice of the Supreme Court in 2000, I worked in the Court of Appeals for nine years.  Looking back, I can proudly say that period was a defining chapter in the history of the appellate court.  

Eighteen members of my batch were elevated to the Supreme Court, namely: Justices Rodolfo Nocon (deceased), Jose A.R. Melo, Reynato S. Puno, now Chief Justice, Santiago M. Kapunan, Vicente V. Mendoza, Ricardo Francisco (deceased), Justo P. Torres, Antonio Martinez, Bernardo P. Pardo, Arturo B. Buena, Minerva G. Reyes, Consuelo Y. Santiago, yours truly,  Alicia A. Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.,  Conchita C. Morales, Cancio C. Garcia, and Ruben T. Reyes.

Moreover, not one among the then incumbent fifty-one justices was administratively sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

But times have changed.  Being a former member of the Court of Appeals, I was not prepared to believe that several justices of that court could commit improprieties which tarnished its integrity, eroding the trust and confidence of the people in our entire judiciary.  It was the first time such magnitude of scandal has rocked the appellate court.

Hurt by the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing one member, suspending another for two months, and reprimanding two others, the justices of the Court of Appeals signed, under oath, a Covenant wherein they commit themselves “to dispense justice with honor, independence, impartiality, and integrity; to be subservient only to the truth; to give our outmost in everything that we do; to continue doing good; and to hold ourselves accountable to the
Supreme Judge so that our court may be a haven of fairness and righteousness.”

But how effective and binding is the Covenant on those magistrates?  It has been said that corruption is fever in the blood.  Consequently, those suffering from such ailment can easily violate the Covenant clandestinely. 

What I want to stress here is even without the Covenant, the justices, in performing their noble and sacred role, have only to follow the dictates of their conscience, remembering that for every injustice they commit, they will be judged accordingly by the Highest Magistrate.

Many well- meaning friends asked me what steps should the justices pursue in light of the Supreme Court Decision.  Following are my suggestions:

1. The justices in the Court of Appeals should observe at all times the highest standard of morality and ethical behaviour;
2. The Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA) should be amended to include a provision mandating an actual deliberation and debate among the members of each Division on every decision and resolution of each motion or incident raised in all cases;
3. A justice should not sign a decision of his or her colleague in the Division until he or she shall have read and re-read it and is convinced of its correctness;           
4. No justice should hold on to a case if under the rules, he has no authority to do so;
5. A justice should immediately take appropriate action against any person attempting to influence his decision by offering bribe money, promotion, or other considerations;
6. Every justice should avoid dealing with lawyers who are handling cases in the court; and
7. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) should be more vigilant and strict in the selection of candidates for nomination to the Court of Appeals.

At this point, I am reminded of the poem written by J.G. Holland relevant to the Court of Appeals’ controversy, thus: