And so, we surrender to the might of the law.

The hotly contested Supreme Court ruling which validated the midnight appointment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona hugged the headlines and animated the anger of the Filipinos at what they saw as ex-Pres. Gloria Arroyo’s attempt to booby trap the halls of power of the next administration while entrenching her legal protections versus potential suits as she whiles away her time in her home province of Pampanga.

The new president Noynoy Aquino, a fellow Ateneo alumnus of the Chief Justice -- perhaps succumbing to social and moral pressures from powerful sectors within the Jesuit university and perhaps mellowing under the mechanical application of the doctrines of separation of powers and res judicata – has surrendered to the majesty of the Court and its new leader. (See Ex. Order No. 2, s. 2010).

As a lawyer myself, I shall do so, too. But do not expect my conscience as a human being to kowtow to what I see as the patent lack of morality and delicadeza in the much-maligned ruling of the Court. I am entitled to cling to my honest beliefs. That is what freedom of conscience is all about.

I was reading the recent column of former Chief Justice Art Panganiban, who, like me, had vehemently opposed Corona’s midnight appointment. Below are some of his new thoughts in the midst of the changed circumstances. New praises are coming in for Corona:

1. To be transparent, I myself believe that Supreme Court justices are covered by the constitutional ban on midnight appointments. My stand is consistent with my concurrence in the earlier case of “In Re Valenzuela” (Nov. 9, 1998) written by then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa. But the present Court has spoken clearly that Supreme Court justices are exempted from the ban. Even though I disagree with this new decision, I respectfully bow to it. This is the essence of democracy and the rule of law.

2. Historically, the new chief has always been selected from the three most senior justices of the Supreme Court. And being the second most senior, Corona would surely have been nominated to the top post by the Judicial and Bar Council. Thus, even if the appointment of the new chief were made today outside of the prohibited period, he would still have been a serious contender for the post.

3. Consensus builder. Named associate justice at age 53, Corona is one of the youngest ever to join our highest court. Set to retire on Oct. 15, 2018, he would be chief justice for over eight years, giving him the distinction of serving the longest in that office since 1961.

4. He obtained his Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws with honors from the Ateneo de Manila, and his Master of Laws from Harvard University where he focused on foreign investment policies and the regulation of corporate and financial institutions. For over 17 years, he taught commercial law, taxation and corporation law at the Ateneo Law School. This background should endear him to those who believe that jurists should have some understanding of business and economics.

5. We were together in the Court for over four years—from his appointment on April 9, 2002 till my retirement on Dec. 7, 2006. Amiable and soft-spoken, he is more of a low-profile consensus builder rather than a quixotic advocate of lonely causes. Not given to fire-and-brimstone speeches, he prefers person-to-person persuasion. To me, his most memorable decision thus far is “Republic vs. Sandiganbayan” (July 15, 2003), which ruled that the $658 million deposited in Swiss banks by President Ferdinand Marcos constituted ill-gotten wealth.

My own words of caution: Let us wait and see how Corona will behave in the Court. Let us not be intoxicated by premature praises. Always be on guard. Be vigilant. Praises are nothing. Medals and credentials do not mean anything. It is the substance and the spirit of the person and the fruits of his actions -- in other words, his mind -- that matter most.

See:

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100814-286831/Enhancing-executive-judicial-relations