choosing a chief justice
read Why the next CJ should be an insider, sent to malaya by a lawyer who requested anonymity, and published in the spirit of, heed the message, don’t shoot the messenger.
read also solita collas-monsod’s The best candidate for chief justice. after disposing of the four major objections to the appointment of acting chief justice antonio carpio, she turns to what his actual performance has been in the supreme court:
…I have read his opinions, whether majority or dissenting, in a number of cases which I followed closely because of their importance to either the Philippine economy or its polity. And I have come away deeply impressed by the clarity and logic of his thinking, the solidity of his arguments, the homework he so obviously has done. No strain to credulity, no mental gymnastics, no decision-first-justification-later.
Moreover, as Tony La Viña of the Ateneo School of Government puts it, “He is consistently on the right side of environmental social justice and public accountability cases.” Some of these opinions I have written about, and I invite the Readers to refresh their memories—from people’s initiative to Radstock, to Koko Pimentel, to La Bugal and mining, to martial law.
But wait. A chief justice also has to be an excellent administrator. Does Carpio have what it takes? Just ask the Supreme Court staff how he has handled the administrative tasks assigned to him. Accomplished. Soonest.
And the latest proof, of course, is how, in his first meeting en banc as acting chief justice, he led the high court in reversing its stance on the disclosure of statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
What are we waiting for?
i agree with the lawyer who prefers to remain anonymous, better an insider than an outsider for all 10 reasons he listed. and mareng winnie has just sold me on carpio. thank god she wasn’t selling justice lourdes sereno, just because, hey, she’s the one who wants to raise compensation for hacienda luisita to some 10B bucks instead of just the ordered 200M. no wonder the prez is keen on a new CJ in the Sereno mold.
right after the corona conviction, my kneejerk reaction to carpio as the next cj was a big no. following the president’s logic, that corona was gma’s man, carpio would only be the president’s man. but then, again, following that logic, anyone aquino appoints would be aquino’s man. surely there’s something not right about that.
googled it and found this from todd e. pettys, university of iowa college of law:
After identifying the original rationales for our longstanding tradition of permitting the President and Senate to decide which of the Court’s nine members will serve as Chief Justice, I argue that those rationales are anachronistic, that the tradition creates unnecessary conflicts of interest and separation-of-powers concerns, and that the Court’s members should be permitted to decide for themselves which of them will serve as Chief Justice.
way to go. or we’ll never have a truly independent judiciary.