The Manila Times.Net
Editorials
24 July 2012
“Hoodlums in robes” was what we called the magistrates some years ago. That was because atrocious decisions and news about malfeasant judges had become the talk of the town day in and day out.
Unfortunately, the perception that ours is a corrupt judiciary makes most of our citizenry forget that many judges are persons of unassailable integrity devoted to their difficult job. Some judges do heroically uphold the highest principles. For letting justice win in their courtrooms, a number of judges have been murdered. They should be honored as martyrs. Sadly, their martyrdom has done little to reverse the image of the Philippine judiciary as a corrupt institution.
All of these goings on served to flush down the reputation of the Philippine courts into the dark caverns of a septic tank.
Not just a grave image problem
For the truth is that the judiciary not only has a grave image problem. It really has serious moral shortcomings. Not only have the Supreme Court’s probers themselves found some judges to be corrupt, incompetent, lazy and irresponsible. Conversations with lawyers of great probity as well as those of low ethical constitution also reveal that some justices and judges can be bought outright or be approached politely and induced to yield.
That is why the Judicial and Bar Council must do its duty more rigorously than ever before. The JBC must find the most virtuous among the most qualified of the applicants for chief justice.
The new chief justice must not only be a man (or woman) of integrity guided by the highest sense of morality and patriotism. He or she must also be an inspiring figure and a decisive chief executive officer who has the personal skills to reform the entire Philippine judiciary and rid it of scalawag justices, judges and clerks.
Anyone who has been a protagonist in destructive partisan politics and a contributor to creating the sorry state of the judiciary today must be screened out at once.
Any aspirant who has benefited from corruption, bent the laws to promote his or his group’s interests, abused his power to attain his desired goal must be cast aside.
And this brings us to the crucial need to examine the life and career of the present Acting Chief Justice, the honorable Antonio T. Carpio.
He seems to be the frontrunner. But, more than any other applicant, Acting CJ Carpio appears to have contributed the most to creating the dire state of our judiciary.
The key premise is this: That the present judiciary is corrupt—and even criminal—as seen in actions committed, in court decisions made, by corrupt magistrates.
That being so, who peopled the judiciary with hoodlums in robes?
For one reason or another, some lawyers say that these past two decades Justice Antonio Carpio and some of his colleagues in the law firm he founded, CVC Law, have been among the most influential in shaping the corrupt state of the judiciary.
CVC Law is reputedly the most powerful law firm in our country. Now also known as Villaraza Cruz Marcelo & Angangco, this group of legal eagles is fearsomely nicknamed “The Firm.”
The first C in CVCLaw stands for “Carpio.” The V stands for Atty. F. Arthur Villaraza. The second C, for Atty. Avelino Cruz.
What role did Acting Chief Justice Carpio—and his colleagues in The Firm—play in the appointment of their chosen nominees to the judiciary?
Did Acting CJ Carpio have a hand in these appointments as early as 1992 when he was the chief presidential legal counsel of then president Fidel V. Ramos? Is it true that in that capacity he required all prospective appointees to the judiciary to secure his approval? Did he also direct these prospective appointees to go to the CVC Law office to be interviewed by and obtain the approval of CVC Law name partners?
Did Mr. Carpio and his colleagues in The Firm play a role in the ouster of former president Joseph Estrada? Were he and his colleagues the brains that made it possible for then vice-president Gloria M. Arroyo to become president and replace the ousted president Estrada?
Did Acting CJ Carpio and his colleagues in The Firm influence the CJ Hilario Davide Supreme Court’s interpretation of former president Joseph Estrada’s actions as his “constructive resignation” from the presidency, thus justifying the accession of then vice-president Gloria Arroyo to the presidency?
After working for then president Fidel V. Ramos, did Acting CJ Carpio return to The Firm? Was The Firm’s office at the LTA building in Makati? Was the office of former First Gentleman Juan Miguel Arroyo also in the same building? Was the former first gentleman, a client of The Firm?
Not long after Mrs. Arroyo became president, she appointed Mr. Carpio associate justice of the Supreme Court. Did he continue to have professional contacts with his colleagues in The Firm even after assuming office as SC justice?
Did he— and his colleagues in The Firm, who had become leading members of the Arroyo Cabinet— have a hand in the appointment of judges and justices by then president Arroyo? Did The Firm’s Mr. Avelino Cruz, as president Arroyo’s presidential legal counsel, sometime acting executive secretary and finally secretary of defense, vet nominees for positions in the judiciary? Did The Firm’s Mr. Simeon Marcelo also? Did Mr. Carpio participate in this vetting process—even when he was already a
Supreme Court justice?
Did Mr. Carpio also meet and have conversations with nominees to the judiciary, whose inclusion in short lists were not owed to The Firm, to make them feel beholden to The Firm for their appointment?
There were at least 15 lawyers of The Firm who held top positions in the Arroyo administration. All except one of them returned to The Firm upon resigning from the government, following the example set by Mr. Carpio, former Defense secretary Cruz and former Solicitor General (later former Ombudsman) Simeon Marcelo.
Did The Firm, through all its people in key government positions, help shape not just the corrupt judiciary but also the questionable policy-making and governance of key government agencies of the previous administration?
Did Acting CJ Carpio and The Firm cause the termination of the services of the executive director of the Supreme Court’s Information Technology (IT) program? Did Justice Carpio subsequently cause the hiring of an IT expert recommended by CVCLaw?
Is it true that this new IT expert provided CVC Law access to advance information on forthcoming resolutions and decisions of the High Court? Is it true that by reason of this advance information, CVC Law gained undue advantage and profited financially? Was the connection between CVC Law and the SC IT expert ever disclosed to the other justices of the Court?
Questions that involve moral torpitude
Some questions we have been urged to ask—by persons opposed to Mr. Carpio’s appointment— involve suggestions of moral torpitude.
One asks if it is true that Mr. Carpio had a relationship with a female clerk in a law firm other than CVC Law and got her pregnant. Did he recognize the child and provide full support for its upbringing and education?
Another has to do with the much-publicized objection of Lauro Visconte to Mr. Carpio’s appointment. Is it true that Mr. Carpio testified as a witness in favor of Hubert Webb and lobbied with fellow justices for the acquittal of Hubert Webb? Did Mr. Carpio have a relationship with a relative of Hubert Webb?
Our wish is both to give Acting Justice Carpio the opportunity through our pages to show that all the negative perceptions of him and The Firm are not true and to help the Judicial Bar Council find the best nominees among the applicants.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment