Not a question of confidentiality

Editorial

It is hardly a question of confidentiality, but a question of the members of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), now headed by a new chief justice who scored low in the psychiatric test, wanting to perhaps cover up their serious mistake of placing Justice Lourdes Sereno in the shortlist, despite her very unsatisfactory results in the psychological-psychiatric test all applicants to the high court chief justice post were required to take.

Now the JBC says it wants to abolish that requirement of having applicants to the judiciary take the exams because it is now being claimed by them that the test results are anyway not conclusive.

If such were really the case, why then did the JBC have the applicants undergo such tests, if the JBC now says these are not conclusive, and presumably, have no bearing on the selection of candidates for the shortlist to be submitted to the Malacañang tenant.

Justice Chief Leila de Lima even came up with an astounding statement in defense of the abolition of these tests, saying that sanity is not a requirement of the Constitution.

Well, neither does the Constitution bar idiots from applying for a post in the judiciary and perhaps making it.

In any case, if sanity were not important in the JBC’s book, why then did it disqualify a judge who says he speaks to dwarfs? He should have been eligible for the post then, just as an idiot or even a mentally impaired applicant is eligible for the top judicial post because sanity is not a requirement of the Charter.

If, however, such is the logic of De Lima and the JBC, why then does that collegial body’s Rule 6 says that “good physical health and sound mental/psychological and emotional condition of the applicant play a critical role in his capacity and capability to perform the delicate task of administering justice.

“The applicant or the recommending party shall submit together with his application or the recommendation a sworn medical certificate or the results of an executive medical examination issued or conducted, as the case may be, within two months prior to the filing of the application or recommendation.”

And the JBC wants to abolish this rule, when it is a logical and sound rule. It follows that a candidate for the top judicial post especially, is expected to be of sound mental, psychological and emotional condition, because those applicants who make it to the posts in the judiciary — especially those who apply to become associate justices of both the appellate court and the high court — decide the fate of an individual, and more importantly, decide on national and constitutional issues that will always have an impact on the country, the nation and the people, all of whom are taxpayers and have guaranteed rights and freedoms under the Constitution.

There is no reason for the abolition of the psychological tests on applicants precisely because that rule is not only logical and sound, but also serves as a protection for the people from having judges and justices who are mentally and emotionally impaired.

How are we, as a people, expected to trust a chief justice who has been found to be psychologically and psychiatrically very unsatisfactory for the post, and worse, has mood swings with depressive markers deciding the fate of the people?

What is evident about the JBC’s refusal to make public the results of the tests, especially the results in the case of Sereno, is that the body will be found to have placed Sereno’s name in the shortlist despite the very low marks she had obtained, and for which she should have been disqualified for the post — according to the JBC rules.

The baring of her test results may also just reveal how much of a presidential puppet the JBC has become, to put in one who should have been disqualified for the post in the shortlist.

It will have to be recalled that all the JBC members voted for Sereno, save for two, one, an incumbent SC associate justice, and the other, a retired SC justice and member of the JBC.

So why did the JBC members — except two — vote for her, despite their rule of disqualifying any applicant that gets a grade of 4, the second to the lowest score in the psychological-psychiatric test, knowing that she is dramatic and emotional and tend to make decisions based on current moods, and shows depressive markers, making her thoroughly unfit for the job?

Sen. Chiz Escudero says none of this matters, as we now have a chief justice who has been appointed.

What? It no longer matters that the nation is stuck for 18 long years with a top judge whose mental and emotional state is seriously in question and impaired?