At the opening of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) Dialogue with Stakeholders in the Visayas held at the Radisson Blu hotel in Cebu City last Monday, JBC member Jose Mejia joked about the public’s negative perception of the legal profession.
The dialogue was attended by justices of the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court judges, officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines chapters in the Visayas including lawyers from the Public Attorney’s Office, prosecutors, deans of law schools and members of the media.
I thought Mejia’s introduction of bashing lawyers will upend the audience, but he overturned our expectations.
Fortunately for lawyers, according to Mejia, doctors are more reviled in general because whenever lawyers doubt the authenticity of a certain document, their standard line is “Baka dinoktor mo yan” (Did you doctor it)?
The JBC member’s banter brought the house down. I spotted Executive Justice and Chairman of the 18th Division in the Court of Appeals-Visayas Pampio Abarientos laughing heartily, but from then on the discussion took on a serious tone because many issues struck a sensitive chord among members of the bar and bench.
It was retired Judicial and Bar Council member and Court of Appeals Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman who gave an overview of the screening, and selection of applicants for judgeship. Throughout her discourse she kept repeating the qualities of a good judge: he must have integrity and probity on top of having a good academic background and sterling record of practice either as a judge, private lawyer or public prosecutor.
For her part, Milagros Fernan-Cayosa, a member of the JBC representing the IBP underlined the stakeholders’ vigilance and active participation for the JBC to succeed in its role as “gatekeeper” of the judiciary.
Selecting a good judge with unquestionable integrity redounds to institutional integrity, Fernan-Cayosa said.
In emphasizing integrity and probity as main criteria in the JBC’s search and selection process, Justice Santiago-Lagman cited the example of then Cebu RTC Branch 58 Judge Gabriel Ingles, who applied for the vacant post of Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals Visayas in 2010.
In going over Ingles’ papers, Lagman said she was stunned to learn the applicant refused to accept special allowances given by the governments of Cebu City and province. According to Lagman, it was the first time she came across a judge who waived the privilege granted by local government units (LGUs).
It was in 2008 when members of the bench received monthly allowances from Cebu City and the province. Cebu City gave P5,000 while Capitol granted P6,000 monthly allowances to judges.
A controversy arose that year when the provincial government then led by governor Gwendolyn Garcia cut off the monthly allowance to Judge Bienvenido Saniel.
Judge Saniel had dismissed the petition filed by the province questioning the authority of then Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña to appoint directors of the Metropolitan Cebu Water District. The loudest whisper at that time was the decision cost him his monthly P6,000 allowance from Capitol.
Saniel hogged the headlines but it was the refusal of then RTC Judge Gabriel Ingles to accept allowances from LGUs that caught public attention.
Sec. 5, canon 1 of the New Code of Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary states that “Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connection with, and influence by the executive and legislative branches of government and must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.”
Ingles believes the rule practically compels the judge to promote confidence in the judiciary; he can only achieve this by not just acting independently but also avoid situations where the public might perceive him to be less than so, like accepting special stipends from local government units.
By the way, the perks courtesy of Cebu City and province have substantially increased. From P6,000 in 2008, Capitol has doubled it to P12,000. In 2010, Cebu City gave judges as much as P35,000 or the equivalent of their monthly salary as allowances.
In any case, Justice Lagman confided that when Ingles’ application for the vacant position of Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals Visayas came up for JBC review in 2011, his stance on the special monthly allowances caught her attention and eventually won the day for the Bohol-born judge.
In hindsight, the anecdote shared by Justice Lagman should have preempted the question I raised during the open forum but I needed the JBC to make a pronouncement in light of speculation that the monthly allowances given by the province of Cebu was a factor in the conviction of broadcast journalist Leo Lastimosa in the case for libel filed by former Cebu Gov. Gwen Garcia.
Judge Rafael Yrastorza who issued the verdict said his acceptance of monthly allowances from Capitol led by Gwen Garcia has nothing to do with his decision.
Whatever it is, the JBC program revealed that Supreme Court justices are uneasy over the issue but they seem irresolute in putting a stop to the practice.
To solve the nagging issue, the SC is studying the option of pooling the allowances into a common fund and dispensing it not just to specific judges but to all members of the judiciary.
With all due respect, the solution could hardly be called Solomonic because the funds that local government units give to judges are not for services rendered. In that sense, judges need to step back and ask themselves if accepting perquisites from local governments, although legal, is moral.
On the other hand, LGUs are beset with so many social problems that giving government resources to judges who are already paid well instead of pouring them to marginal sectors is unjust.