One agreed with the view that the Hello Garci tape should not be aired for being illegally obtained, while another agreed that the Supreme Court (SC) was right in upholding the executive privilege case of former National Economic Development Authority director-general Romulo Neri on the botched $329-million National Broadband Network deal.

Still, another agreed with the observation that being bypassed by the President six times is an indication of independence while another said being able to resist pressure on how to handle the Oakwood mutiny case was a manifestation of such judicial attribute.

These were the positions that surfaced in Monday’s public interview by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) as it ascertained, in various modes, the judicial independence of four candidates in the SC.

The burning issue of charter change, and how Congress should vote, also surfaced on two occasions and one batted for a parliamentary system of government under a federal form.

Four applicants---Court of Appeals Justices Andres Reyes Jr. and Josefina Salonga, Sandiganbayan Justice Edilberto Sandoval, and businessman Amado Robles--- took the hot seat as they tried to convince JBC members why they should be included in the short list to be submitted to the President for consideration.

They are vying to the position to be vacated on January 2 by Justice Ruben Reyes, one of the forthcoming seven openings in the High Court next year.

CA's Andres Reyes

Andres Reyes, the fourth most senior in the CA and the first to be grilled, said he would avoid social gatherings in an effort to preserve his independence.

Asked by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez on his position on the issue of voting requirement in Congress for constitutional amendments, Reyes quoted constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas that the intention of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is for Congress to vote separately and not jointly.

The unresolved issue of the voting requirement has resurfaced following fresh moves in the House of Representatives to amend the Constitution.

Sec. 1 Article XVII of the1987 Constitution mandates that “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of three fourths of all its members, or by a constitutional convention.” It does not say whether Congress should vote separately or jointly.

Gonzalez raised the issue noting that the final interpretation would “eventually” be elevated to the High Court. Critics said the charter change initiative is a not-so-subtle move by President Arroyo to prolong her stay in power beyond 2010.

Reyes said he will have to refer to the minutes of the deliberations of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in making a position. He agreed, however, with Gonzalez that in cases where the Constitution is silent, the provision could be interpreted in its “literal meaning.”

The CA justice also agreed with Gonzalez that it was well within the government’s power to “admonish” media entities that aired the controversial Hello Garci tape, which showed the President directing orders to a poll commissioner at the height of the canvassing of the presidential results in 2004.  

The Supreme Court, however, had ruled that the admonition by the justice secretary and the National Telecommunications Corporation on media entities is a form of prior restraint.

Former Con-Con delegate Robles

Amado Robles, the only one interviewed who did not come from the judiciary, said historical and textual context show that the House and Senate should vote separately in joint session.

He noted that the framers of the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution intended that voting should be held separately, and that framers of the 1987 Constitution forgot to adjust the wordings “to adjust it to the bicameral system.”

“It is tradition and accepted practice that voting should be separate, in joint session,” he said.

However, Robles, who was a member of the Con-con delegate in the 1973 Constitution, said he favors a parliamentary form of government, considering the “geographical situation” and the centrist form of government, which he noted does not reach the “far-flung” areas of the country.

“It is the best way for government to be closer to the people,” he asserted.

As for independence, Robles said he was able to resist temptations when he was a Con-con delegate to support the parliamentary form, which was being pushed by Marcos. He said he also refused to resort to election cheating when he ran for Congress in the 1990s just to win. He lost the election.

Asked for his position on the death penalty, Robles, a devout Catholic, said he is against it. But he said he favors death penalty in “extreme cases.”

He also agreed with the SC ruling upholding the executive privilege case of Neri.

In a separate interview, SC Chief Justice Reynato Puno said the recent cases and possible issues were asked of the candidates “to determine their independence.”

We asked Gonzalez and JBC member former Justice Regino Hermosisima if the answers given by the candidates could be used as ground for inhibition in case they are appointed to the SC. Gonzalez and Hermosisima said the questions were only for academic purposes. “They can always change their mind once they are in the SC,” Hermosisima said.

But Gonzalez said any party could file a case of inhibition against the future justices if they so desire.

CA's Josefina Salonga

Salonga, who is 9th in seniority in the SC, said she proved her mettle of being independent when she ruled, despite outside pressures, to hold the hearings of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s petition for habeas corpus at the CA instead at Camp Aguinaldo which the military wanted.

She said she prevailed upon then Presiding Justice Romeo Brawner to take her side. “I told him we cannot surrender the right of the Court to hear the case (in the CA),” Salonga said.

Salonga also batted for public disclosure of the justices Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networth (SALN) as part of transparency. The SALN of justices, despite the absence of exemptions in the law, are not open for scrutiny by the public.

Disappointment, not appointment

Sandoval, who was the last to take the hot seat, was hardly interrogated as he had been nominated thrice before and bypassed  to the SC. He was also nominated thrice as presiding justice of the Sandiganbayan and was also bypassed.

Asked by Puno if his non-appointment by far is a sign of lack of qualification or a proof of his independence, Sandoval said : “As I told my wife, I did not get my appointment, I got disappointment.”

He said he is hoping that before his retirement, “ I will be in Padre Faura,” referring to the street where the High Court is located. This prompted Puno to say, in jest: “But the CA is just within the vicinity of Padre Faura.”

Sandoval was also asked by JBC member Aurora Lagman for the real reason why he “asked to be excused” from trying the plunder case of Estrada in the anti-graft court’s special division. Sandoval said “there was a sort of disagreement” with a former Chief Justice  whom he did not name. He said being bypassed when he sought the position of Presiding Justice in the Sandiganbayan and his health condition were also his considerations.