What about the Supreme

Court?
By: Bartolome C. Fernandez Jr. - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:21 PM May 08, 2013

An item titled “SC sacks judge for inefficiency” (Across the Nation,
Inquirer, 3/28/13) reported that another lower court judge, this time of a
Municipal Trial Court in Cebu City, was dismissed from the service by the
Supreme Court “for failure to resolve cases on time” and for other
infractions. The judge was found to have failed to render decision in 11
criminal cases despite the lapse of a “considerable length of time,” with
two of those cases pending for 10 years. The Supreme Court also found
that at least 112 criminal and 83 civil cases that have been submitted to
the judge for decision remained pending beyond the reglementary period
of 90 days. The judge was likewise found to have procrastinated on 223
cases and failed to take any action on 3,491 others.

Really now. What about the Supreme Court? Has it sanctioned itself for
similar infractions?
ADVERTISEMENT

Under the 1987 Constitution (Section 15, Article VIII), the Supreme Court
is mandated to decide or resolve cases within 24 months from the date of
submission and, upon the expiration of the period, to issue forthwith a
certification to that effect, signed by the Chief Justice, stating why no
decision or resolution has been rendered within the period. Also, despite
the expiration of the applicable mandatory period of 24 months, the
Supreme Court is mandated to decide the case without further delay,
without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof.
It is of record and a matter of public knowledge that the Supreme Court
has failed to comply with these constitutional provisions. The Court has
repeatedly violated these provisions with impunity. In “Culpable
violation of the Charter” (Opinion, Inquirer, 5/5/12), I expressed my
concern about this violation. Also, on July 11, 2012, I brought the matter
to the attention of the Philippine Constitution Association, specifically
challenging the group to spearhead a move toward the possible
impeachment of all the Supreme Court justices for culpable violation of
the Constitution. I have not received any reaction to these letters.

As retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban candidly pointed out (“First

among equals,” Opinion, Inquirer, 6/24/12), “The Court has about 6,000
pending cases, some of which exceed the constitutional limit of two
years.”

In the same vein, former senator Ernesto Maceda, in his column “Search
for Truth” (Philippine Star, 7/14/12), stated that “[s]ome Supreme Court
cases take 15-20 years to decide. Recall the Hubert Webb case. There’s
something wrong here.” Maceda should have added the long-pending
Marcos ill-gotten wealth cases languishing in the Supreme Court.

What really emboldened me to air my concern over the Supreme Court’s

perceived disrespect for the Constitution is the pointed remark of
respected constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, in his “Commentary on
the 1987 Constitution” (2009 ed. at p. 1031). He said that the failure of the
Supreme Court to comply with the earlier cited mandatory provisions of
the 1987 Constitution “can subject a Supreme Court justice to
impeachment for culpable violation of the Constitution.” According to
Father Bernas, there is now a growing number of lower court judges
whom the Supreme Court has disciplined for their failure to render
decisions within the prescribed deadlines.

While this is so, it baffles me that there is no record of any disciplinary

action or sanction imposed by the Supreme Court against its members for
the same violation. I have yet to hear of the Court sanctioning itself for
such blatant infraction of the Constitution. On one occasion, during a chat
with a retired Supreme Court justice, I called his attention to the
constitutional mandate for the Supreme Court to render decisions within
24 months. His retort floored me: “Alam mo Bart, hindi namin pinapansin
yan.”

During my teaching days in the UP College of Law (1967 to 2009), I always

impressed upon my political law students the need for the courts to
strictly comply with the deadlines for deciding cases, as an effective
solution to the perennial problem of case backlogs that have long
bedeviled our courts. As the late retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani A.
Cruz ruefully observed, “it is not a rarity for a case to drag for years and
years and even decades.” (Cruz, Phil. Political Law, 2001 reprint, at p. 291)

Indeed, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” It is frustrating for me to

realize that Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution has receded
into meaninglessness and has been reduced to nothing by its cavalier
treatment by no less than the Supreme Court itself.

I daresay that the “responsibility” the Supreme Court may have incurred
for failing to render decisions within the 24-month mandatory period is
an impeachable violation of the Constitution.