(Second of three parts)

The image of the Court of Appeals has hit rock bottom with the bribery scandal that has dragged the names of at least eight justices. 

“It casts a heavy cloud, not only on us but on the entire institution,” says a CA justice.

How did it come to this?

At the core of the issue is the breakdown of ethical conduct among some CA justices where impartiality, propriety and integrity have been sacrificed.

It was not what it used to be.

Retired CA justices recall the time when the CA post was honored and coveted. It was a step closer to join the gods of Padre Faura. “It was a position of public trust. Discipline and ethics were deeply ingrained among us,” recalls one retired SC justice who came from the CA ranks.

As their number grew with more divisions being created (there are 69 CA justices at present, from 15 during the early years), the background of the CA justices also became diverse. “There are those who come from the academe, government and private practice,” notes a former CA justice.

It was a smorgasbord of background as well as of personalities.

There are the more sociable types while others avoid being too friendly, mindful of the strict demeanor required of the position. “We only see each other during flag ceremonies, or during special occasions like retirement ceremonies,” one female CA justice in active service.

But, in recent years, a lounge was provided on the ground floor of the CA building. It  has become a convenient venue where justices can discuss and seek out advice on cases with colleagues not necessarily belonging to their division. A coffee shop was also provided where retired justices can stay when they visit the CA.

‘Overly familiar’

Retired Justice Hector Hofilena, vice-chair of the ethics committee of the Philippine Judicial Academy (Philja), says that in a collegial body, it is expected that justices confer with each other. “There are those who are more expert in one field and you benefit from their views.” Hofilena’s colleagues in the CA included Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez,, Sabio, SC Justices Ruben Reyes, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Presbitero Velasco, and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez.

Still, the interaction among justices, whether personal or professional, was clearly delineated, retired Justice Hilarion Aquino, chair of the Philja ethics committee, says. Aquino spent more than seven years in the CA, retiring in 2002. “We try not to be overly familiar,” Aquino said.

Hofilena and Aquino, who are also lecturers at Philja, recall that justices strictly observed the Internal Rules of the CA or the IRCA, which the panel of retired SC justices that investigated the bribery scandal found to have been disregarded in the Meralco case.

“We deliberate, then a report is prepared to be distributed to the three members and we initial the minutes. We observed strict confidentiality when it came to decisions,” Aquino said.

Because justices were conscious of the rules, nasty rumors were far and between. And in instances where a rumor on one justice circulates “the Presiding Justice talks to the justice involved to find out if there is a kernel of truth to it. It has a curtailing effect on other justices,” Aquino said.

The retired CA and SC justices we interviewed were aghast about the demeanor of some current justices, particularly those appellate justices involved in the Meralco case. Basic professional standards, court practices and courtesy are now being dispensed with and there is nagging suspicion that the Meralco case is not an isolated one.

New code of conduct

One active CA justice said the diverse personalities in the CA may be a contributing factor to the breakdown of judicial conduct. “We come from different backgrounds; we were exposed to different social milieus. Values and standards may differ.”

A former SC justice agrees that judges and justices “may have different perceptions about their role” as members of the judiciary. To avoid differing interpretations, the SC decided to adopt a written code of conduct.

In June 2004, a new Code of Judicial Conduct for the judiciary and court personnel was adopted. It puts in black and white how they should conduct themselves at work and in public. 

The former SC justice said that “there was debate whether there should be written ethics.” One school of thought argued that ethics is ingrained in one’s system while another school argued that a written rule could eliminate gray areas.

Those who were opposed to the written rule noted that improprieties were unheard of in bygone years since ethics was deeply ingrained among members of the judiciary. Those who wanted a codified rule pointed to the deteriorating mores among the bench.

“But the more we codify, the more it is difficult to follow the rules,” argued the former SC justice. Conflicting interpretations on the rule also made it more difficult to impose it.

Garbage in, garbage out

The Meralco case has shown that no matter how clearly ethics are laid out, it has little effect on how justices should compose themselves professionally and personally. Five of the eight investigated were found to have committed improprieties and irregularities in the conduct of their job, with Justice Vicente Roxas being dismissed for violations of the Code of Conduct,  dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the interest of service.

Majority of those we interviewed say the problem lies in the screening process.

They say that the Judicial and Bar Council, a constitutionally created body, has failed in its task to screen, select and recommend nominees to the positions in the judiciary.

The principle of garbage in, garbage out applies to the JBC.

Considered an innovation, the JBC was meant to spare the judiciary from the influence of politics. It restrains the power of the President, as the appointing authority, from stacking the courts with favored appointees. The President can only appoint one from the list provided for by the JBC.

But it didn’t take too long for the JBC process to be politicized. Applicants and nominees, in an effort to secure coveted slots, have sought endorsements from politicians and power brokers, those we interviewed noted.

Simply, the JBC has become an avenue for job referrals.

Those we interviewed say the JBC, instead of being pro-active in searching for good candidates in the judiciary, has become a fence-sitter. “The JBC must be more conscious in searching for candidates, It should go out and do away with recommendations,” says Hofilena.

Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban once said that during his tenure, the JBC engaged in active search for good candidates. Court vacancies during his one-year term went down from 30 percent to 15 percent. 

Another retired justice says the JBC should do a serious background check of prospective judges and justices. “Those with flaws in character should not be allowed to enter the judiciary. One flaw is the penchant of candidates to secure padrinos for their appointment.” (abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak)

TOMORROW: Does the Supreme Court set the example?

RELATED STORY
Part 1: Court of Appeals scandal: the many faces of bribery

---

INTERACT WITH THIS ARTICLE