What is happening in two countries not far from us must be giving President Arroyo the chills.

Last week, Thailand’s Supreme Court ruled that former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra should be stripped of more than half of his contested $2.3 billion fortune.

These assets, the Court said, were gained illegally when Thaksin was prime minister. He abused his power to benefit the companies that he owned.

Earlier, in January, Pakistan’s Supreme Court ordered the government to reopen cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, citing President Ferdinand Marcos and other heads of state who were taken to court to answer corruption charges. The Supreme Court asked the government to account for $600 million in Zardari’s bank accounts in Switzerland.

The Court also threw out an amnesty that shielded hundreds of powerful Pakistanis from prosecution.

What is remarkable about Pakistan is that the Court is going after a sitting president and other powerful officials.

In Thailand, Thaksin has been out of power for more than three years. He was ousted in a coup in 2006. Corruption investigation began immediately after he left and his family’s assets were frozen in 2007. Prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to seize these in 2008.

These rulings from Thailand and Pakistan show the resolve of these two countries’ highest courts to seek justice, no matter that the cases involve top officials.

In another part of the world, a Peruvian Supreme Court 3-member panel in April 2009 sentenced former President Alberto Fujimori to 25 years in prison for his involvement in a military death squad during a conflict with guerrillas in the 1990s. The verdict came after more than a year of trial that was broadcast on national television.

“Justice was finally delivered—by one of our own courts,” wrote Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno of Human Rights Watch. “This suggests that next time Peruvians may be able to put their trust in democratic institutions.”

Human rights, corruption

Segue to the Philippines.

In this light, it is easy to see why the Palace insists that President Arroyo should appoint the next chief justice despite a constitutional ban on appointments 60 days before elections and up to the end of the President’s term.

It’s really all about fear. On two grounds—human rights violations and corruption—President Arroyo may find herself vulnerable.

Human rights and public-interest law groups have said that they plan to file suits versus the President and her family. The experiences of Thailand, Pakistan and Peru will be quite helpful.

Personalities on the Court matter a lot as well. The most senior justice on the Court, Antonio Carpio, has shown his independence in various decisions, especially when he thwarted President Arroyo’s allies’ move to amend the Constitution and extend their terms and that of Arroyo’s in the famous people’s initiative case.

The next most senior, Renato Corona, is a loyal ally of President Arroyo. His voting record on the Court speaks for itself; he shares top billing with a couple of other justices when it comes to voting in favor of President Arroyo. He and Carpio have been on opposing sides in a number of cases that affect the interests of the Palace.

Puno not a Chaudhry

The battle of wills between Malacañang and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the body that vets nominees to the Court, has shifted to the Supreme Court because the JBC, so far, has stood its ground. It has not succumbed to pressure to submit to the President a list of candidates to fill up the vacancy that has yet to happen when Chief Justice Reynato Puno retires on May 17, more than two months away.

The JBC has dutifully started the process of selecting nominees, but they still have a few more steps to complete. But even at this early stage, some impatient groups have brought the issue to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to compel the JBC to give the President its shortlist.

Chief Justice Puno has not taken a position on this raging controversy except to joke about it, saying that his birthday, which is the day he retires, has become such a public event. And when the JBC became a respondent in various petitions urging the Council to give the President its list, Puno said he would inhibit himself in the Court’s deliberations because he chairs the vetting body.

Compare this to Pakistan’s Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry who, just a few weeks ago, clashed with President Zardari over the appointment of a Supreme Court member. Zardari backed down, withdrew his choice, and submitted a candidate whom Chaudhry did not oppose. The top judge of Pakistan enjoys national popularity after he was removed by former President Pervez Musharraf. He was reinstated after a series of protest marches led by lawyers.

What happened in Thailand, Pakistan and Peru hit close to home. These countries’ experiences are telling us that our own legal systems—led by the Supreme Court—can take on the powerful.