Appointments

The Supreme Court’s (SC) final ruling that appointments of SC Justices particularly the SC Chief Justice (CJ) are not covered by the Constitutional ban on midnight appointments is expected. But somehow the feeling of disappointment is still there. One way or another people held on to a thin thread of hope that the nine SC Justices would be guided by the spirit rather than by the hazy letters of the law as they reconsider their initial decision on the matter.

Interestingly, these justices say that “appointments in the judiciary” are not covered by the prohibition, yet in the same breath they ruled that only appointments of the SC Justices including the CJ are allowed. Four of them still believe that appointments to judicial positions below the SC cannot be made because they are covered by the ban. This lack of consistency between their premise and their conclusion somehow taints their ruling with instability and weakness. It shows that their minds are not firmly made up thereby creating the impression that they do not speak with authority. A doctrinal ruling that the exemption to the ban on midnight appointments applies to the entire judiciary would have been more forceful, authoritative and consistent. It would have expressly overturned the 1998 SC decision voiding the appointments of RTC Judges Valenzuela and Vallarta for violating the constitutional ban on appointments two months before the next presidential election.

Another sore point sticking out in the decision is about the main reason behind the ban on midnight appointments. The nine Justices believe that the ban ensures “unhurried and deliberate” appointments to the judiciary. Obviously they overlooked the more important and overriding reason, which is, to shield the judicial appointments from politics; to prevent judicial appointments from being tainted with any political color. Hence the period of the ban is two months immediately before the next presidential election and up to the end of the term of the outgoing president. Ensuring unhurried and deliberate appointment in the judiciary is the reason behind the creation of the JBC, not the reason behind the ban on midnight appointments.

The SC has spoken, more specifically the nine Justices who constitute a majority. As I said before, they may not speak with authority because many do not believe or cannot accept as correct their pronouncement on this issue. But since they have the authority to speak with finality as members of the court of last resort, what they say must prevail and must be followed over and above any other opinions on the matter. This is how our democracy under the rule of law works. We may not agree with them because their decision appears to be really wrong but we cannot defy their ruling.