Bold challenge to the Supreme Court

With the way things are going at present, there appears to be no sacred cows in the government that are exempt from the Office of the Ombudsman’s anticorruption campaign.

Even the Supreme Court has not been spared from that drive. Earlier, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla called on the SC to do some “soul searching” in the administration of justice in the country.

During the deliberations of the budget of his office in the House of Representatives, Remulla said he will inform the public of the alleged institutional issues that disturb the credibility of the judiciary.

Stung by that remark, the SC, whose moral authority as the final arbiter of all issues of law rests on the public’s trust and perception that it decides cases fairly or purely on the merits, called on Remulla or other parties to file complaints against judges and justices and submit supporting documents.

It said it takes seriously accusations against members of the judiciary, but it cannot act on broad allegations against an entire appellate court based on public statements.

As if on cue, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the organization that all Filipino lawyers are required to be members with or without their consent, echoed the SC’s reaction to Remulla’s comments.

Remulla’s pushback was immediate and sharp.

He asked the SC to give an update on the administrative complaint that his predecessor, Samuel Martires, filed last year against seven justices of the Court of Appeals (CA), two of whom have already retired, for ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the public interest in connection with the disciplinary action that Martires had earlier imposed on a high-ranking provincial official.

Note that Martires has impressive credentials in the judiciary, having served prior to his appointment as ombudsman as regional trial court judge, justice of the Sandiganbayan, and SC associate justice.

In other words, his esteem and loyalty to the institution he served for almost two decades cannot be discounted or undervalued. It is reasonable to assume that he would not have filed that complaint unless he was convinced (perhaps beyond the shadow of doubt) that the acts in question were committed and the justices deserve to be disciplined by the SC.

So what’s keeping the SC from expeditiously resolving that complaint? Has it been archived for one reason or another without the public, more importantly the legal community, being informed about it?

(Incidentally, some incumbent SC justices were former members of the CA.)

If the prosecution in a criminal case fails to present its evidence in court within, say, seven years from its filing, the case would be dismissed on the ground that the accused has been deprived of his or her right to speedy trial.

If a lower level court judge is unable to decide a case submitted for decision within, for example, four years, he or she could receive severe disciplinary action from the SC for the same reason earlier mentioned.

Note the provision of the Constitution on court decisions: “All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of submission for the Supreme Court and unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.”

The word used for the 24-month period for the SC is “must” and the provision has no ifs or buts, or any qualifying clause so it is mandatory or compulsory.

But that word has been interpreted by the SC as discretionary or noncompulsory, so much that, unless a case is a matter of grave public concern, it is not uncommon for it to take years to decide.

It is not as if the individual SC justices do not have a corps of highly paid assistant lawyers, researchers, and consultants who cannot make the decision making process move faster so the litigants are able to enjoy their right to speedy trial from the highest court of the land.

Take the case of then Overall Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang who was dismissed by then President Rodrigo Duterte in 2018 for alleged unlawful disclosure of information about his personal wealth.

In spite of the fact that, as early as 2014, there was already an SC decision on the limits of the president’s power to dismiss a high-ranking official of the Office of the Ombudsman, it was only last year that the SC rendered the decision declaring Carandang’s dismissal as illegal.

Fortunately, Carandang is still alive to see his name cleared and receive the retirement benefits he was unceremoniously deprived of.

Remulla’s call on the SC regarding the state of the administration of justice in the country resonates with lawyers who have pending cases with the CA and the SC.

Unlike Remulla who enjoys constitutional protection on tenure, they cannot come out in the open to complain about the slow pace of justice in the halls of Padre Faura without risking a citation for contempt of court or disciplinary action.

It remains to be seen whether Remulla’s dig on the SC will have beneficial results or it will be business as usual.

—————-

raul.palabrica@inquirer.net