Business World
Introspective
When the administration let it be known that it would consider external nominees for a soon-to-be-vacant post in the bench, a number of us in the Foundation for Economic Freedom, an advocacy group for good governance, had the same idea of nominating one of our Fellows: the honorable Popo Lotilla. I use honorable advisedly with a small h. It is not a title (as in The Honorable Congressman Manikmanaog of TV series Abangan fame ), but a description of the man who - wherever life brings him, especially in public service - serves with honor.
Indeed this is Popo, a true public servant. How he lived and lives his life - whether as a highly esteemed professor and internationally noted legal scholar at the UP College of Law, as a very effective Undersecretary at the NEDA during the Ramos and Estrada administrations and Energy Secretary in the last one.
His reputation and experience were also the basis for his current engagement as an international public servant, Regional Director of a UN program in environment and management of the seas. The Philippine government continues to seek his expertise on UNCLOS issues, especially at this time where we are in the middle of a highly charged dispute with China. His character and commitment to the public good, as much as his track record of achievement in law, justice and development, made us think he should be considered for the post of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
(N.B. With honesty and simple living becoming the threshold issue for the nation, Popo has got to be the gold standard, or if you will, the foreign currency account standard. The joke going around was that the only reason he left student dormitory housing in UP campus, even when he was already working as a professional, was that they may throw him out for overstaying. He moved to a small Bliss-like faculty and staff walk-up apartment near the stud farm. This gave rise to a criticism later when he was Energy Secretary that he could not properly appreciate the problem of high cost of power because his electricity bill only came from only using one light bulb and a computer and thus qualified him for the subsidized lifeline rate.)
The nomination was made by six of us in our personal capacities - Bobby de Ocampo, Toti Chikiamco, Gloria Tan Climaco, Bong Montes, Simon Paterno and myself. We promptly received a letter response from Popo, which I though is worth sharing with the public. I will refrain from commenting on it.
As lawyers say, Res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. And if I may add, it speaks profoundly as well of the person who wrote it.
I have considered thoroughly the nomination that you have submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council, and I can only express to you my sincere thanks, but regretfully have to decline.
In the past, I took the position that in a highly politicized context as in the Philippines, appointment to the office of the Chief Justice based on seniority is a tradition that minimizes the jockeying for appointment from within and outside of the Court. I still have to be convinced of the wisdom of departing from that view.
Without any legal compulsion behind it, this tradition was, in instances few and far between, set aside. But, time and again, its restoration has been welcomed with relief, like a lost valued symbol of character regained anew. Today, we have an opportunity to restore the tradition - or completely to overturn it. It reminds me of a story told, apocryphal perhaps, that the much venerated Justice Jose B.L. Reyes - who was older in age but less senior in tenure in the Court than the respected Roberto Concepcion - was considered for appointment as CJ to allow him to occupy the Court's highest position. J.B.L., it is said, would have none of it.
The tradition of seniority has a way of muting political ambitions and insulates to some degree the office of Chief Justice from the patronato system. Over the long term, particularly under future presidencies whose virtues we are unable to anticipate at this point, adherence to the principle of seniority may still be our best option. Restoration of the tradition, which is entirely of Philippine innovation, would then shift the national focus to the quality of every future appointment to the Court, and away from the position solely of the Chief Justice. Would not this be in better keeping with the collegial character of the Republic's Supreme Court?
I suggest that only for overwhelming reasons, such as the inability of the incumbent members of the Court to redeem themselves and the institution, should we consider appointing from outside of the Court. Whether these weighty considerations exist, the appointing power can be a better judge from the unobstructed view of the leader's lair. But my own individual assessment is colored with undisguised optimism: that the members of the Court, individually and as a collective, have distilled from recent experience lessons of primordial import for rebuilding and strengthening national institutions including the Court itself.
Wishing you all the best with a reiteration of my profound thanks,
Sincerely yours,
Popo/ Raphael P.M. Lotilla
Res ipsa loquitur.
Romeo Bernardo is a Board Director of the Institute for Development and Econometric Analysis and is Vice-Chairman of the Foundation for Economic Freedom.
