Like other collegial bodies, the Judicial and Bar Council has been described as an old boys’ club. Its mantra, it seems, is to maintain the status quo, uphold secrecy and resist reforms. 
 
But recent scandals in the Court of Appeals and growing concern that recent appointees to the Supreme Court were based on political connections have put pressure on the JBC to be rigorous. 
 
Civil-society groups are now closely watching over its performance. After all, it is from its short list that the President chooses justices to the Supreme Court and lower courts.
 
Critics point out that the JBC, apart from President Arroyo, is equally to blame for questionable appointments, failing in its mandated duty to pick out the best of the lot. This is even acknowledged by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, who wrote in his book, Liberty and Prosperity, that the JBC is being criticized “for allegedly being complacent—if not ineffective—in its role….” He noted that “some critics have even proposed its abolition and a return to the old system. They claim that the appointment and then confirmation by the Commission on Appointments is more effective in rejecting unqualified applicants.”
 
Expectedly, it is a criticism that does not sit well the JBC. One member we interviewed argued the JBC may have it faults, but it cannot be totally blamed for being remiss in its duty.
 
The JBC process
 
At a glance, the JBC’s regular screening and selection process may serve its purpose. Panganiban explained that candidates are sized up based on track record and personal background. Educational background, bar ratings, books and papers published, and employment record are also considered. For the career applicants, the length of stay in the judiciary, quality of decisions and speed in disposition of cases are important.
 
The public interviews may also make or break an applicant, but one member, Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor, tells us that he prefers not to interview nominees to the SC. “Candidates to the SC should be entitled to a certain degree of dignity,” he argues. He said candidates should be invited to apply instead.
 
But there are factors that ultimately determine an applicant’s fate. For one, while it is supposed to insulate the judiciary from politics, the JBC remains a natural magnet for endorsements and lobbying. The biases, political inclinations and convictions of the members also play a crucial role.
 
Representatives from both Houses are well too familiar with the pressure coming from their colleagues. A staff of Senator Francis Pangilinan, who sat in the JBC for eight years, says senators write or personally endorse or lobby for a candidate. Defensor tells us of having a similar experience.
 
Candidates, too, are not beyond lobbying. They would seek backers, from political to Church officials, to boost their campaign. Sometimes, they would pay personal visits to the offices of the JBC members.
 
Malacanang also engages in lobbying. We learned that in his first years in the JBC, Pangilinan got phone calls from a Malacanang official to vote for a particular candidate.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) J Conrado Castro however says that no one lobbies with him, not even Malacanang. He also says rejects invitations to social dinners.
 
Lobbying by friends, colleagues and backers may spell the difference. Defensor says that “all things equal (among the candidates) I’ll consider the one recommended by a friend.” He explains that at least, the qualification of the candidate can be vouched for by the one who recommended him or her.
 
This is where the members’ personal convictions and biases come into play. We learned that there are JBC members who are open to compromises and accommodate requests—at the expense of the standards of probity, excellence, integrity and independence sought of judicial candidates.
 
One member apparently sees no impropriety in receiving candidates, in the guise of courtesy calls, inside his office.
 
Thus, there are candidates with questionable integrity who get the nod of the JBC and get appointed to the SC.
 
Changing mindsets
 
In our interviews with observers and insiders, present JBC members can be classified into two—those who are open and espouse reforms and those who are comfortable with the status quo. Some appear to be independent, while others are tied to their political inclinations and those of the appointing power.
 
Those for reforms appear to outnumber those who resist it.
 
The adoption of open voting is one indication that the JBC, as a whole, is responding to calls for greater transparency and accountability. Of the eight members, only Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and former Supreme Court Justice Regino Hermosisima Jr., representing retired justices, voted to maintain secrecy.
 
The open voting, first proposed by Castro, took sometime before it gained support. We learned that even Pangilinan initially was lukewarm about it.
 
But the growing sensitivity of some JBC members to criticism led to a change in mindset. Castro, who was unsure if the open voting will be adopted, himself was pleasantly surprised that his proposal gained the support of majority members. “It was a drastic change,” he says.
 
Castro hopes that more reforms will be considered by the body in response to calls for a more responsive JBC.
 
Challenge to JBC
 
Panganiban, in his book, noted that the “quality of the judiciary hinges on the worth of members composing it; in turn, their worth depends on the quality of the nomination process.” With the winds of change blowing on the JBC, can it rise to the challenge of its mandate?
 
Although it is supposed to be independent in its process, the presence of Malacanang’s alter-ego in the person of the justice secretary and political allies in the JBC undermines this. The nomination of Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory Ong, who was supposed to be Malacanang’s choice, illustrates this. He garnered enough votes to get into the short list and was appointed over more qualified candidates. His appointment was later withdrawn after questions on his citizenship surfaced, causing embarrassment not only to the Palace but to the JBC as well.
 
Moreover, the President is not averse to using her power of appointment to undermine the system. Our sources confirm there was a time when the Palace sent back the short list to the JBC after its choice failed to make it. But the JBC stuck to its short list.
 
It would appear that the credibility and strength of the JBC hinges heavily on the character of the Chief Justice, as ex-officio chair. While members are independent of each other, those we interviewed said the Chief Justice has the power to influence the others. If the Chief Justice is not open to new ideas, the ‘reformists’ in the JBC can only do so much.
 
For instance, the open voting proposal would not have taken off if the Chief Justice was not supportive. Puno sent a “subtle signal” that he was for it, says an insider.  “That gave us hope it has even chances of being adopted.”
 
During Panganiban’s time, he initiated an activist search, in contrast to the passive search and screening process before. Qualified and ethical candidates were invited to join the judiciary. It was also during his time that the JBC adopted a new rule where a candidate is disqualified if he gets a negative vote of a single member on an issue of integrity.
 
Yesterday, (Monday), the JBC postponed voting on its short list for the position to be vacated by Justice Ruben Reyes in January 2009. The quality of its short list will provide a peek into how far the winds of change have swept through JBC.