NewsRecord Weekly Publication

Friendly Observer

By Arthur Keefe

The new CJ

The appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice was initially welcomed by most of the press. Partly, no doubt as it seemed a breath of fresh air was being injected into a not wholly respected Supreme Court, and partly, as a radical departure from the "Buggins turn" process by which senior members of the court are often elevated to the top position.

Noting her age of only 52, some expressed concern that if she did not fulfill her promise, the people could be stuck with her for 18 years. Another impeachment process, as the only way of evicting her, perhaps by a new president, would only bring the Supreme Court into further disrespect.

Since the announcement, there has been wider research and reflection, well summarized by Rigoberto Tiglao in the Inquirer's August 30, 2012 issue. Her experience and lack of flair in her career to date form much criticism, but the main charge is that she is a presidential crony.

The main evidence for this is her dissenting view in the Hacienda Luisita case, whereby she argued for the compensation payment to the Cojuanco family to be updated for inflation, in the process, substantially inflating its value.

Whilst the public might reasonably resent the State paying a very large sum to one of the richest Filipino families, the case for revaluing the compensation to present day values was logical and equitable. The fact that she argued for this as a dissenting voice in the Supreme Court, could be seen, not as cronyism, but as a sign of an independent person willing to put fairness before political expediency.

Even the charge of inexperience has a counter argument. To be part of the established judicial elite, may mean you share the mindset of those of long service. It is less likely to lead to fresh or imaginative thinking. If the track record of the Supreme Court had been exemplary, then continuity may be a virtue. However, this is not the case, and the record of 'flip flopping' and inconsistent decision-making by this body means that a fresh-yes may be inexperienced-mind could well be what is needed.

Of course, much of the argument, both for and against is speculative.

The proof of this pudding will be in the eating!

An impartial approach, not fearful or beholden to any special interest group, including the president and his office, is how she must make her mark.

Constitutionally, her job is to interpret the law, not to make it, but in reality, Supreme Courts do move the law along, often reflecting the public mood when parliamentarians are nervous to upset one side or another. The role of the Supreme Court in the USA in the abortion debate and more recently in the medicare stand-off between President Obama and the Congress are examples of this.

In the UK, the (newly established) Supreme Court has upset the government by ruling in favor of Human Rights litigants, especially regarding asylum.

As chief of the Supreme Court, Sereno's role is one of leadership and influence. She does not make unilateral decisions and she has to carry a majority of the 13 judges with her.

The open hostility of many of her fellow judges does not bode well. They may well try to shackle her, by refusing to follow her lead, or worse, by trying to deliberately trip her up and so embarrass and disable her (and by implication, the President).

To some extent, the test of her ability will be how she copes with this less than helpful environment. It is to be hoped that her colleagues will at least give her the benefit of the doubt and only undermine her if she shows she is incapable of the tasks ahead of her, or worse, if she attempts to use her position to support the President, either the one or another (president), when her role and that of her colleagues should be strictly political neutrality.