These interviews were conducted by the Judicial and Bar Council on Nov. 19, 20, and 24. The last batch of interviews is scheduled on Dec. 2. The public is not allowed to record the interviews. We relied on notes taken by our researcher, Purple Romero.

Question: What would be your biggest challenge in the Supreme Court?

Former BIR Comm. Jose Mario Buñag: To decide with utmost objectivity

Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Mariano Del Castillo: To focus on small cases and gain the acceptance of peers

CA Justice Juan Enriquez: Cases on Constitutional issues

CA Justice Remedios Salazar Fernando: When I decide a case, I should be perceived as independent and honest

Q: How would you handle outside pressures? How will you assure the public that you’re independent?

Buñag: Start with a lot of prayer. Decide in accordance with the law.

Del Castillo: Would not be totally closed to influences.

Solicitor Gen. Agnes Devanadera: “I have been subjected to so much pressure in all the offices I’ve handled. I’ll have a better insulation…I take independence to mean not succumbing to pressures not only from powers-that-be, but from your peers.”

Enriquez: “They (pressures) come and go.”

CA Justice Remedios Salazar Fernando:  Track record in government service will show. “If people know you cannot be approached, they will not attempt to. “

Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Diosdado Peralta:  “I would not sacrifice my independence just to accommodate somebody else.”

CA Justice Andres Reyes: “I’ll tell my friends not to meddle in my life. I promise that I’ll be independent.”

CA Justice Josefina Salonga: Would discourage parties in a case from approaching her

Sandiganbayan Justice Edilberto Sandoval: I’ll tell them, “I’ll try to see what you are suggesting me to do,” but I would decide on my own.

Q: What is the most important quality of a Supreme Court justice: probity, competence, integrity and independence?

Bunag: Integrity. “The Supreme Court should be accountable to the country and God.”

Fernando: Integrity

Q: Do you believe in the revival of death penalty?

Buñag: Should be deliberated in Congress

Del Castillo: The matter should be left to Congress.

Devanadera: Not in favor. “There should be the opportunity to be reformed.”

Fernando: Would not espouse re-imposition of death penalty law.

Landphil Chairman Rodolfo Robles:  “In extreme cases, I would be in favor of  death penalty, but as a general rule, I am not in favor.”

Q: What would you suggest to JBC to help it weed out unworthy applicants?

Buñag: Do rigorous screening.

Del Castillo: Conduct a survey on nominees.

CA Justice Portia Hormachuelos: Scrutinize decisions of nominees from the judiciary, and writings of those who are not from the judiciary.

Robles: Expand sources of candidates, should come from across the country. Ask independent groups for their nominees.

Salonga: Conduct psychological exams.

Q: Do we have an activist court or a passive court?

Buñag: It’s hard to judge.

Devanadera: Activist, because of the Supreme Court’s expanded powers in the 1987 Constitution.

Reyes: The SC is mandated to be an activist court in the 1987 Constitution, as judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies and to determine if there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the two other branches of government.
 

Q: What would be your contribution to the Supreme Court?

Devanadera: Putting people first.

Enriquez: Service to the judiciary.

Robles: “Contribute all experiences — in business, law, [1971] Constitutional Convention. I would be very happy to be active in the Action Program for Judicial Reform.”

Fernando: Election background (Fernando is former election commissioner)

Salonga: “I’ll be bringing with me my wealth of experience, integrity, competence and independence.”

Sandoval: Have decisions that are based on logic, clarity, and enhance the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Q: How would you decide on a case that is legally correct but morally wrong?

Del Castillo: Uphold the rule of law at all costs.

Devanadera: “I’ll stick to the framework of the Constitution.”

Fernando: “Strike a balance [between morality and legality].”

Salonga: “I would always abide by the law. If there is any doubt, I would apply equity.”

Q: How many of your decisions have been reversed by the SC?

Del Castillo: Three decisions

Enriquez: Ten decisions

Fernando: “0.8 percent of the decisions I made.”

Hormachuelos: “Ten percent of all the decisions I made.”

Q: How would you interpret the Constitutional requirement in amending the 1987 Charter? Should the Congress vote jointly or separately? Do you think that the time has come for the Constitution to be amended or revised?

Devanadera: Both houses would vote as one.

Fernando: “The House of Representatives and the Senate should vote separately because the lower House could outnumber the Senate.”

Reyes: “In some aspects, like economic matters, it could be amended. The limit also on elections—[elections] should be conducted every 4 years, not 3 years.”

Robles: “They should be in joint session, voting separately…I believe that we should now have a parliamentary form of government, coupled with federalism.”

Q: What is your judicial philosophy? Why is judicial philosophy important?

Fernando: “I adhere to the Constitution and the laws.”

Reyes: Philosophy comes from the ideal of what judicial activism is.

Salonga: “On substantive matters, I would stick to the law. If procedural, I would be more liberal.”

Q: Is the Supreme Court a policymaker?

Buñag: The Supreme Court is there not to apply laws.

Reyes: There is the provision on social justice which mandates it to form rules.