Pulse Asia recently conducted a poll survey from Sept. 10-14, 2023, revealing the awareness, approval, trust, and performance ratings of our esteemed officials. Despite a decline in overall ratings, President Marcos still managed to achieve a commendable approval rating of 65 percent. Vice President Sara Duterte received a noteworthy approval rating of 73 percent, while Senate President Migz Zubiri garnered a modest rating of 50 percent. Speaker Martin Romualdez trailed behind with a rating of 41 percent, and Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo received the lowest approval rating at 34 percent. It’s disheartening to note that no Chief Justice in the past 15 years has surpassed a 50-percent approval rating.
I want to express my utmost respect for Pulse Asia’s exceptional credibility and scientific approach in conducting these surveys. However, I firmly believe that unelected Chief Justices should not be included in the same approval, awareness, trust, or performance surveys as our elected leaders. The standards and metrics for evaluating elected officials differ significantly from those for justices. In my humble opinion, these surveys only serve to embarrass and potentially harass the Chief Justices and the Supreme Court.
Our Constitution mandates that the top officials of the three branches of government – the president, vice president, senators, representatives, and Supreme Court justices – possess certain basic qualifications, such as natural-born citizenship, minimum age, and the ability to read and write. Their terms of office also vary, with the president, vice president, and senators serving for six years, representatives serving for three years, and justices serving until the age of 70. However, justices and judges are held to even higher qualifications, including proven competence, integrity, probity, independence, and membership in the Philippine Bar. These additional qualifications are not required for officials who attain their positions through popular mandate and political prowess. In fact, the Constitution does not prohibit individuals with limited education, dishonest reputation, history of dropping out, sycophantic tendencies, or even criminal backgrounds from running for and being elected to top positions in the executive and legislative branches, unless otherwise disqualified by law or a final judicial decision.
Furthermore, unlike elected officials, justices are appointed based on their possession of these five essential qualities rather than their popularity or political skills. Nevertheless, they should still prioritize public trust and the general welfare. CJs and the judiciary, as a whole, require the enduring confidence and trust of the people to navigate the changing tides of public perception and opinions. Of the five additional qualifications, independence is the most highly regarded. To safeguard this independence, our Constitution and laws grant justices certain privileges, such as security of tenure, protection from removal via impeachment (and arguably, through quo warranto as well), and fixed compensation that cannot be diminished by Congress. Justices receive continuous compensation even in retirement until their passing. These provisions enable them to impartially and objectively fulfill their sacred duty as the last line of defense for democracy. It may seem ironic, but it is imperative that unelected individuals, rather than those elected, serve as the final guardians of our people’s freedom and prosperity under the rule of law.
“The rule of law” is a fundamental principle guiding the work of jurists. They must judge cases based on what is fair and humane, following due process as prescribed by law rather than succumbing to the influence of the wealthy and powerful. They cannot emulate Pontius Pilate, who condemned Jesus Christ according to the whims of the mob, or the Spanish conquistadores, who executed Jose Rizal under the sway of the powerful. Judicial independence often requires standing against popular sentiment. Therefore, a senator or former president should not be acquitted solely due to their popularity, nor should a judgment of conviction be withheld for fear of sparking public disenchantment or protests. Decisions should never be swayed by personal connections, friends, family members, critical media, investigative journalists, or opinion writers, including myself. Even social media influencers and practitioners should have no bearing on the judicial process. Justices must adhere to their conscience and make decisions in accordance with the law, regardless of public opinion, the powerful, the media, or the influential. Litigants may attempt to reach justices through various means such as their spouses, children, close relatives, schoolmates, doctors, or even those administering religious confessions. Jurists must steadfastly avoid such attempts at all costs.
Based on these reasons, in my humble opinion, Chief Justices should be exempted from popularity surveys conducted by pollsters. As they were not elected by the respondents of these surveys, they are politically unknown to the public. Consequently, they will consistently rank lower than their elected counterparts, as has been the case over the years. Let us spare them the discomfort and potential harassment of being unfavorably perceived in comparison to our elected officials. I would be greatly concerned if the day comes when Chief Justices vie for popularity instead of upholding their independence, seek validation from the crowd rather than seeking the truth through fair trials, and prioritize personal gain and fame over the pursuit of justice, even if the heavens crumble.
If you have any comments or thoughts on this matter, please feel free to email me at [email protected].