The most telling of these vilifying remarks which even Erap himself seems reluctant to impute -- publicly that is, is that the court’s decision was dictated to legitimize the Arroyo Administration. Now if that is not a remark sufficient to denigrate and cast a doubt on the integrity and independence of the court, I don’t know what is.
While every losing litigant and lawyer is entitled to express disappointment over the court’s decision, there is a big difference between questioning the court’s correctness and integrity. The first is limited to misappreciation of the facts of the case or incorrect application of the law while the second entails accusations of wrongdoing.
After Erap was convicted, his supporters wasted no time to mock the Sandiganbayan by calling it a “kangaroo court.” Instead of merely questioning the correctness of the court’s decision, as eloquently albeit arguably done by former solicitor general Estelito Mendoza, Erap supporters and allies questioned the court’s independence.
Although this is not something new, as shown by the barrage of criticisms and accusations hurled at the Supreme Court when it upheld the legality of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidency and nullified the impeachment complaint against former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, the judiciary’s strength as the final arbiter of rights is weakened every time its integrity and independence is put in question.
It is not difficult to see the dangers of a weakened judiciary. A seriously tarnished judiciary will almost certainly deter anyone seeking to redress his grievances. Instead of resorting to the courts to resolve disputes people will apply their own version of justice, thereby seriously undermining the functioning of an orderly society.
*****
The tug-of-war taking place at the Pampanga Provincial Capitol right now, for example, will see no end unless the court will step in and declare its verdict. The same thing is true with the present deadlock confronting the executive department and Congress regarding the attendance of Cabinet secretaries in ongoing legislative investigations. Imagine how public service will tremendously suffer if the parties to these controversies will not submit to the court’s jurisdiction.
*****
For fear of not getting fair judgments, people with private grievances will settle scores not by the prescribed legal processes but by the might of their own force, or what their money can command. Our streets will become veritable war zones in fashion approximating that of present-day Iraq or recently in Somalia.
While concededly our judiciary is prone to outside influences, and has in fact been subjected and succumbed to it at times, I firmly believe that it remains generally as an independent and effective instrumentality in the resolution of disputes.
As pointed out by retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz in his Inquirer column, “there are many occasions where it (the Supreme Court) has rectified the mistakes of lower courts, and even its own fallibility, to uphold justice in the finest traditions of the judiciary. The Supreme Court is still the most trustworthy among the three major branches of the government.”
It would, therefore, be for the best interest of everyone, especially lawyers and government officials, to refrain from inflammatory remarks that serve nothing but to erode public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
