SOME people say that the President is a master troll, and that one of his strategies is to float controversial ideas or issue problematic statements just to flush out the real character of people. In fact, someone told me that he deliberately sets up his own people for a confrontation among themselves in order to see how they react.
Some may find problems with this seemingly undisciplined approach to governance. Playing language games with people, or allowing his own people to issue statements that run contrary to his stated policies, can have the effect of derailing major initiatives. For example, the seemingly contradictory stance of his economic managers on federalism has seriously rankled those who support it. His statements that he is already tired and that he wants to resign also tend to complicate matters. His supporters try to deflect the fall-out from this by saying that such statements had the effect of forcing his political enemies to show their cards, from Leni Robredo declaring her eager readiness to take over the helm to Joma Sison peddling the canard that the President was in coma which mainstream media helped spread without verifying if it was true.
And once again, the President seems to have played his critics with his decision to appoint Teresita Leonardo-de Castro as chief justice. It was a master stroke designed both to irritate them and to force them into making a move that will have the effect of exposing their pretensions and hypocrisies.
And the first to fall are his critics who accuse him of misogyny. The President, in the aftermath of the ouster of Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno from the position of chief justice which she undeservedly held, was reported to have said that he is averse to appointing women. But given the chance to appoint a new chief justice, the President chose de Castro, a woman.
With this appointment, feminists and other women activists who have been very vocal in calling out the President are now forced to be selective in their advocacies, that in fact they are not fighting for every woman, but only for those whose politics are convenient for them. Judy Taguiwalo, who was the President’s first appointee for the social welfare and development secretary but was unfortunately not confirmed, even posted on her Facebook account that the President preferred women like Chief Justice de Castro, House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Ilocos Norte governor Imee Marcos. The subtext, of course, though unsaid but glaringly obvious, is that these are the wrong kind of women.
Yet, when one examines the record of Chief Justice de Castro, what one sees is a woman who has been at the forefront in advancing and mainstreaming gender issues in the judiciary. She is the president of the Philippine Women Judges Association, and held the same post in the International Association of Women Judges. She pushed for the conduct of training programs on gender responsiveness in the judiciary, particularly on issues relating to juveniles and in family courts which have been implemented through the Philippine Judicial Academy. She led the initiative in conducting a gender analysis of Court of Appeals decisions, one that will be expanded to include all other trial courts.
Critics of the President make it appear that the appointment of Chief Justice De Castro is a political accommodation of an unqualified nominee. This is another shining moment where the President, through this appointment, provided an opportunity to reveal a monumental case of hypocrisy, if not of amnesia, on the part of his critics.
These critics are vocal supporters of Sereno. In trying to impugn the appointment of de Castro as chief justice, they failed to recall that it was Sereno’s appointment that was a classic example of political accommodation of an unqualified nominee. Former president Noynoy Aquino appointed Sereno, his classmate and the most junior member of the high court at the time. Sereno was the lone member of the court who voted for Aquino’s family interests in Hacienda Luisita. Her lack of qualifications was finally revealed during the hearings of the House committee on justice, and during the proceedings in the quo warranto petition that eventually ousted her from a post she was not qualified to hold.
And the contrast is just too glaring to be ignored. Chief Justice De Castro was properly vetted by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). She was short-listed. She has an impeccable record of years of service in government, from clerk of court in the Supreme Court, to prosecutor with the Department of Justice, to associate justice and later presiding justice of the Sandiganbayan, and finally associate justice of the Supreme Court. In 2012, when she applied for the post of chief justice to replace Renato Corona, she was the only nominee who garnered the highest score of 1 in her psychological test. And the President appointed her not for any other reason but because from among the names given to him, she was the most senior. The fact that the President ignored the reality that she will be retiring in October 7, and will only hold the post for 41 days, the shortest in the history of the judiciary, meant that her seniority was the clincher.
It is obvious that critics of de Castro have no other issue except that she voted against Sereno. And this is why the gang of Representatives Lagman, Alejano, Baguilat and Villarin filed an impeachment complaint against her and six other members of the Court who granted the quo warranto petition.
However, De Castro’s appointment may have also provided another avenue to assault the position of these critics who continue to believe that Sereno’s ouster was unconstitutional. It is expected that they will make a move to push for the appointment of a favorable chief justice, if not Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, perhaps others who voted against the quo warranto, to succeed de Castro. And if this happens, they will simply have to deal with the contradiction of pushing for someone to fill a post that they, in the same breath, believe has been unconstitutionally vacated.
In appointing Chief Justice de Castro, the President said that he would always go for seniority, one that Justice Antonio Carpio theoretically deserves, but did not get because he refused the nomination. It is now interesting to speculate if Justice Carpio will change his mind in October.
No comments:
Post a Comment