No ‘utang na loob’ for this applicant to the SC

He vowed not be swayed by utang na loob (debt of gratitude) and would serve as a neutral judge if appointed to the judiciary.

But this early, Justice Secretary Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, touted to be the front-runner for the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy, made it clear that President Aquino should not be held liable for the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), a stimulus program parts of which the high court struck down as unconstitutional in 2014.

Caguioa, a college classmate of Mr. Aquino, is among 16 candidates for the seat to be vacated by retiring Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr. on Jan. 16, the last slot in the high court that the President would have to fill before his term ends in June.

The final selection, to be based on a short list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), would become Mr. Aquino’s  sixth appointee to the Supreme Court, currently  dominated by appointees of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Undergoing scrutiny by the five-member JBC, Caguioa had the DAP on top of his mind as the Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed.

“I don’t believe he (Mr. Aquino) should be charged because of the operative fact doctrine, and he doesn’t fall under the author (designation),” Caguioa told the JBC Thursday morning.

“He merely exercised his discretion to augment savings. It is an act that is completely allowable,” Caguioa replied when the JBC executive committee chair, Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, asked him if the President “could be charged criminally or otherwise.”

“I don’t think he should be charged but, in today’s world, he probably will,” Caguioa said.

Caguioa was the chief presidential legal counsel when the DAP issue came up. The court struck down the DAP as unconstitutional in July 2014 for the reallocation of savings to projects not covered by the General Appropriations Act.

On appeal, the court issued a revised ruling in February last year, allowing greater flexibility for funding authorities to augment specific projects so long as they fell under a general heading under the GAA. It also upheld 116 DAP projects as valid under the “doctrine of operative fact,” a legal principle that applies to situations “where nullification of the effects will result in inequity and injustice.”

The court, however, ruled that the same doctrine may not be invoked by “authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP” to evade criminal, civil or administrative liability, “unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals.”

The government hailed the February decision as a “de facto reversal” of its DAP defeat. “I think the Supreme Court rectified itself,” Caguioa said.

Maria Milagros Fernan-Cayosa of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines asked Caguioa if he would remain loyal to the Aquino administration if appointed to the Supreme Court. The son of a former Court of Appeals justice said: “My father was a judge for 12 years. I know exactly how a judge thinks.  I will wear an altogether different hat as judge.”

On questioning by Aurora Santiago Lagman, the private sector representative in the JBC, Caguioa tackled a “cultural question that will bedevil us until the next generation”—the utang na loob mentality.

“Judicial independence is to be impervious to any kind of influence, whether monetary, filial or any kind. The primary duty of the judge is resolve controversies on the basis of facts and evidence, applying the law. If he (a judge) does that, I assure you, he is already independent,” Caguioa said.

As to why he applied for the Supreme Court post, he said: “I am at that point of my life where I listen to where God wants me to be. I am on this personal journey of trying to contribute as much as I can. I’ve assessed myself, looked at myself, I have some things to contribute to the Supreme Court.”