THE newspapers were abuzz about the appointment of a new Associate Justice to the Supreme Court, the first appointed one by President Benigno C. Aquino III.

Thus, it was difficult to turn down an invitation to interview her, right here in Davao City, where she was attending a grand family reunion.

Yes, newly appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Aranal-Sereno has roots in Davao, she's married to a Sereno from Davao. And thus she was partying with the Aledias and Porrases and Lozanos and kin on the evening right after news of her appointment broke out in Manila newspapers.

Having been described as among those who opposed then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's appointment of a new Chief Justice towards the end of her term, Justice Sereno in that hastily called interview gave us a glimpse of her mettle and refusal to prance around the grays between blacks and whites as she stands firm on her insistence that the judiciary should be independent so as to ensure that justice is served. Following is an excerpt of the interview last August 14 at the Tulip Grand Plaza in Matina.

SSD: What is it that most needs to be done at the Supreme Court?

MLAS: The judiciary can only be as effective as the trust that people have in it. Even if it functions on a normal day to day basis the way it has been doing the past so many decades, if there is no groundswell of support with people believing that it has kept faith with the rule of law, the constitution, and the deepest aspiration of the people, then it underutilizes its potential to be a strong stabilizing force and a platform for national development. Any modern society any democracy needs a strong jucidiary, a strong judiciary that connects with the deepest aspiration of the people. That is what I think the judiciary has to strive to achieve and I am willing and eager to work with the community of justices in the Supreme Court to bring this about...

We may disagree, but we will know how to agree to disagree in a very respectful manner and I think if we continue to engender this atmosphere of genuine discussion about the issues that are most important to our people, we can learn to gain each other's trust and maybe we can restore the faith of the people in the judiciary.

SSD: After what the SC has gone through in the past administration, how long do you think it take for people to have that faith?

MLAS: It's a day to day step by incremental step process. We are not giving it any timeline. But we must remember that there is this wellspring of hope for the future with the people investing so much trust in the new president and he has a mandate to fulfill in the next six years. The judiciary must show its complete independence that it pays fealty only to rule of law. But at the same time, it must show a response to the urgent requirement of people to see really concrete changes, more transparency in the judiciary, more stability in its decisions, more understanding of the plight of the oppressed and those who really cannot afford the services of the lawyers. Something must really be done and I think many reforms programs have already been conducted it just has to be accelerated.

SSD: Regarding the poor, there are those who are disinclined to seek judicial help because of the very slow judicial process, how can we address that?

MLAS: I think technology can help a lot. We are not tapping fully the potential of technology because in many jurisdictions, technology is used to bring about faster administration of justice and young people instinctively know technology, thus more social networking comes about, more information comes about, and there is no reason why it cannot be applied to judicial processes.

With respect to the poor, for small claims, we already have the small claims court it just must be propagated and people must learn that actually cases can be expedited in a summary way in the small claims court. And there must be faster and better integration of the understanding of the basis of the judicial system in the education system so that people will learn that there must be better ways of resolving all these cases because we can't keep on having a society where conflicts take ten years to resolve. At a certain point in time, people want to move on with their lives. So we must give ourselves time bound targets.

What is the ideal or life cycle of a case, those hard questions must be asked. Is it a problem of too little judges, few resources. But resource constraints notwithstanding, we should think out of the box in order to bring about genuine change in the way people see how justice is served.

SSD: Can the judiciary do this?

MLAS: It must not be forgotten that there are many selfless people in the judiciary, they are just waiting for the greater sense of energy from a collectively mandated leadership and of course the chief justice is there to lead us and the associate justices are there to give him all the support possible so that reforms can really be felt immediately at the grassroots level.

SSD: So what's your marching orders from the President?

MLAS: Ay, hindi po ako pwedeng utusan ng presidente. Unang-una, I am grateful to him but I am fully independent of him. I will act and rule according to my conscience but not according to the dictates of any man. We have the deepest imperatives of justice and that may depart from what the president wants but we must be able to show the independence of justice.

SSD: Sige, expectations na lang.

MLAS: Sabi niya na ang aking buhay na malalaking batos and nilabanan ko, like yung international litigation natin sa NAIA Terminal 3, he wants to bring in a fresh set of ideas. In other words, new energy and new blood and perhaps it can ride also with the wave of reform that he is trying to push, I hope I will not fail the people in the desire to helping the reform process.

SSD: Can you define your objectives for us?

MLAS: Yung sa judiciary, meron tayong body of laws. Pero may mga question whether we still have a stable set of doctrines, there are questions on whether some decisions were politically motivated or not. We have to convince people that this judiciary is willing to be non-partisan, non-political and that all our loyalties are only to the Constitution and not to any one person.