Supreme Court's Chief Justice Sereno and newly appointed Associate Justice Leonen

[victoryliner]

JBC gets personal with CJ nominee Herbosa
By PATRICIA DENISE CHIU, GMA News July 27, 2012 5:11pm


Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Teresita Herbosa is not the only woman on the list of 20 to be interviewed by the Judicial and Bar Council for the chief justice post. But Hermosa, who was first to undergo scrutiny Friday, found herself answering questions about her womanhood, and why, at 61, she remains single.

Herbosa, who has never been with the judiciary, said she didn’t think it mattered, whether the next CJ is an insider, or outsider. "Unusual times call for unusual solutions,” she said. “It's more of whether person is equipped with skills to unite and lead the group to overcome the present crisis and go for a common goal," she added.

The SEC chair has 33 years of law practice under her belt. She said that being appointed the chief magistrate would cap a long career, and that she feels she is qualified for the position. Herbosa also said that if she does not become CJ, she would like to apply as associate justice.

“I believe I have a strong personality,” she said. Hermosa pointed to her experience in SEC as qualification. “Even when I was the newest appointee, I think that there was no problem,” she said.

Herbosa, like the four women nominees before her, was asked about gender issues. Being unmarried, she was additionally asked about her marital status. Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, JBC chair, asked how a woman would run the judiciary differently, while Justice Aurora Lagman wanted to know if Herbosa was single by choice.

“I don't think it would be much different from a man,” she said. “There's no difference, you just have to be prepared,” Herbosa added.

On her civil status, she said: "I'm sure it's by accident.”

“There were opportunities where I could have changed my status,” she added.

Retired Justice Regino Hermosisima quoted Genesis, and asked if Herbosa thought the Lord should have given her a partner. Herbosa laughed when she answered, “I'm used to being alone.”

Herbosa also expounded on her opinion that women are not the weaker sex. “Lady Justice represents the underprivileged, including women, children,” she said. “The Lady Justice is not soft-hearted, not weak. She's supposed to represent the underprivileged,” she added.

The SEC chair is a direct descendant of a sister of Jose Rizal. Her great grandmother Lucia was the national hero's sister. Hermosa also said that she is in favor of divorce.

If she is appointed CJ, she said she will campaign for additional budget, give hazard pay to judges assigned to far-flung areas and improve assignment rotations.

“We should have more special courts to deal with special cases,” she said. Hermosa also suggested that law schools train students into becoming judges, and that there should be emphasis on little-known fields of law.

When asked about her judicial philosophy, Herbosa said she defers to the Constitution, and that she is for judicial restraint. “The Constitution is adequately worded,” she said. “If unclear, the intent of framers should be considered,” she added.

“I will consider the Constitution as the rule of the land,” she said. — RSJ, GMA News

source: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...ominee-herbosa

[victoryliner]

JBC pushes back vote on search for chief justice to August 2
MARK D. MERUEÑAS, GMA News July 27, 2012 7:46pm

President Benigno Aquino III will have to wait a few days longer for the shortlist from which he will choose the next chief justice because the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) decided to move to August 2 its vote on the aspirants who will be on the list of nominees.

The original date of the JBC vote was July 30.

"We just needed more time considering Friday na ngayon," JBC member Attorney Jose Mejia told GMA News Online.

The JBC concluded Friday afternoon, its four days of public interviews with the 20 candidates still in the running to become the next chief justice.

Under the Constitution, the President has 90 days—or until August 27—to fill the post left vacant with the impeachment of former Chief Justice Renato Corona. — ELR, GMA News

source: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...ce-to-august-2

[Crestfall_Rage]

Para sakin ayos si Carpio or Abad.

Kung outsider si Diokno mukhang ok.

Insider na lang para hindi mahirap. Malamang kung outsider, lalamunin ng buhay ng mga Mahistrado sa loob yan.

[Aquinorroyo]

The next chief justice, says ex-energy chief Rafael Lotilla, should be the most senior member of the tribunal. That is so “to insulate the post from the patronage system.”

He laments that today’s search for a new justice seems to ignore that time-honored tradition. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in particular was in the habit of flouting that tradition, appointing Artemio Panganiban to replace Hilario Davide over the most senior magistrate then, who was Reynato Puno, and Renato Corona over everybody else, and look what happened.

Well, Panganiban proved the opposite. Being appointed over the most senior prospect doesn’t necessarily produce bad results, it can always lead to perfectly good ones. It was so in his case. He did not prove to be abjectly slavish, he proved to be magisterially independent. He struck down Arroyo’s plan to assume emergency powers in 2006 not unlike those of Marcos. As did Puno, who succeeded him and who struck down Arroyo’s plan of changing the Charter.

The problem with Corona was not that he was appointed over the most senior candidate, it was that he was appointed over the fittest candidates. Among all the candidates, he was the least fit. You know that from the fact that he was appointed in the midnight hour. That suggested, one, that his credentials did not inspire belief in the majesty of the law, a thing that would soon come to light from the work of enterprising journalists. And, two, that he was put there for one thing and one thing only, which was to protect Arroyo from having to pay for 10 years of benighted and (after 2004) illegitimate rule.

In fact seniority doesn’t insulate one from the patronage system, it often only guarantees it. At least it often only systematizes corruption, if not guarantees patronage. That system may have a lot of time on its side, but not so a lot of honor. The honor is honored only in the breach and not the observance.

That is the system in the military, a thing its officer corps objects to violently to the point of mutiny when it is disturbed. The reason for it being that seniority assures that once you get to the top you get the pabaon and all the other things chiefs of staff get at the expense of the foot soldier. You wait your turn, so you get mutinous when your turn is deferred or entirely skipped. So natural has the funneling of spoils to the top become, you are reminded of Angelo Reyes earnestly wanting to know what he did wrong. Or in his immortal words, “Was I greedy?”

No, seniority is not a guarantee of avoiding patronage. It’s not even a guarantee of avoiding folly, which we expect chief justices to do. Certainly not so in this country, which teems with people who keep proving that older isn’t necessarily wiser, it is often dumber. Or greedier. That’s true as much of our bishops as of our lawyers, our generals as of our politicians, our journalists as of our activists. Tumanda nang paurong is more the rule than the exception in these parts.

Age and/or seniority are extraneous criteria in selecting the next chief justice. As indeed the notion that we should get one who is not patently “pro-government” or “anti-Corona.” A proscription that’s meant to exclude some of the most decent legal luminaries in this country who supported, and continue to support, P-Noy’s campaign against corruption, and who helped in the effort to impeach Corona. Specifically that excludes Leila de Lima, Conchita Carpio Morales, and Kim Henares, all of whom are government officials and all of whom testified against Corona. And all of whom are anticorruption, and all of whom are projustice.

The separation of powers is best guaranteed not by having a chief justice who is not pro-government, it is guaranteed by having a chief justice who is pro-principle. The idea of being pro-government is a specious concept, anyway: You can always agree with, and be supportive of, government’s anticorruption campaign but disagree with, and oppose, some of its other thrusts, like its stoking of “special relations” with the United States to deal with our crisis with China. I do hope the next chief justice has something to say about the latter.

The best guidepost to follow is Corona himself. Ultimately, the issue in his impeachment was fitness. Corona was impeached, and convicted, for being dishonest and lacking independence.

Ultimately, the issue in the appointment of the new chief justice is fitness. We need one who is honest and has a mind of her, or his, own.
Panganiban and Puno showed that you need not be beholden to your appointer, that you can come into your own and rise to surprising heights.

Certainly, the three women mentioned above are capable of it. It is not the fact that they are women that commends them to the position. That, too, is not a guarantee of wisdom, as we know from having had a Cory and a Gloria. It is simply the fact that, to a woman, they are fit.

De Lima it was who probed the Luneta massacre of visiting Chinese tourists a couple of years ago, and did it so feistily she was criticized by colleagues for not being the good soldier that her position presumably entailed. Carpio Morales made such a masterful presentation in Corona’s trial and showed a depth of legal learning that rattled even Serafin Cuevas: That’s a combination of knowledge and wisdom that has few peers. As to Henares, anyone who’s willing to risk public ire by going after Manny Pacquiao must be willing to risk private ire by going against P-Noy.

Those are the only things to consider in choosing the next chief justice: honesty and independence, being anticorrupt and projustice. Those are what make the candidate fit for the job. As that goes, any one of those three is as fit as a fiddle.

They won’t be sintunado, legally at least, if not musically.

- A matter of fitness
By: Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
9:07 pm | Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

[Aquinorroyo]

http://opinion.inquirer.net/20957/vultures

Vultures
By: Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer January 12th, 2012

excerpts

"If Malacañang is truly serious about cleaning up the Judiciary, unnamed sources say, why don’t they look into the properties owned as well by Antonio Carpio who has been feuding with Corona and casting a moist eye at his position?

Specifically, at an 800-square-meter unit atop the Avignon Tower on H.V. De La Costa Street in Salcedo Village?"

"As to the suggestion that Carpio also be investigated for his own condo and other properties, why ever not? I’m all for it, as well indeed as investigating the other justices, notably Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s appointees, for the same reason. I agree: Justice is not justice if it is selective. Justice is not justice if it is not universal.

Frankly, I don’t mind that Corona’s defense exposes the extent of Carpio’s and the other justices’ wealth with a view to questioning how honest judges could possibly have come by it. It should allow the people to say like the dying Mercutio in “Romeo and Juliet,” “A plague on both your houses!”

"Why should the fear of Carpio becoming chief justice deter us from ousting Corona for being the biggest obstacle to the prosecution of Arroyo? I have heard friends express that fear: We might leap from the frying pan into the fire with Carpio, a pillar of the so-called “Firm,” replacing Corona. In the first place, I haven’t gleaned any signals from Malacañang pointing in that direction. That seems either like a ploy of Corona’s friends, to put the fear of God, or the Firm, in people, or that of Carpio’s friends themselves to put the suggestion in P-Noy’s head or ram it through as a fait accompli.

In fact, why should Carpio naturally replace Corona? Or indeed, why should a justice naturally replace Corona? Why shouldn’t Corona be replaced by someone outside the Supreme Court, by any one of the judges in the regional trial courts or Court of Appeals who have shown exemplary conduct in private and public life? Or who have practiced law in the grand manner, showing a grasp of it beyond its superficial aspects, showing a wealth of wisdom and compassion and imagination, as befits most judicious person in the land?

By itself, knowing the statute books inside and out does not a chief justice make. Nor indeed experience, if all that experience consists of is how to profit from knowing those statute books inside and out."

[victoryliner]

Palace aide: JBC has a lot of issues to resolve
July 28, 2012 1:12pm

link: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...ues-to-resolve

[dogster_jr]

by Marites Dañguilan Vitug
Updated 07/30/2012 10:47 AM

The spotlight is on the Judicial and Bar Council, the body composed of 7 men and women who will choose a shortlist of candidates for chief justice. From the 20 aspirants, some with more audacity to show than anything else, the JBC will select at least 3 (and stretch it to a maximum of 5 or 6) and send this to President Aquino who will make the final choice.

The President has a deadline to meet: August 29, or 90 days after the position was vacated when Renato Corona was convicted for declaring untruthful assets statements.

The big question is: will the JBC allow itself to be swayed by Malacañang? Will its members show independence from a president, no matter how popular, sincere, and reform-minded?

De Lima in or out?

Before the JBC decides on its shortlist this week, it will first settle the question of whether de Lima, with pending disbarment cases, is qualified to join the race. The JBC has set a rule that candidates with administrative cases are automatically disqualified.

During the time of Arroyo, the JBC dropped then Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera from the roster of candidates for the Supreme Court because she was facing cases filed with the Ombudsman.

With the new transparency sweeping the JBC, the members are well aware that their choices should withstand the sunlight of public scrutiny. This is the only check—apart, of course, from each individual’s integrity—that bears down on them.

Source: http://www.rappler.com/thought-leade...s-independence

[dogster_jr]

http://opinion.inquirer.net/20957/vultures

Vultures
By: Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer January 12th, 2012

excerpts

"If Malacañang is truly serious about cleaning up the Judiciary, unnamed sources say, why don’t they look into the properties owned as well by Antonio Carpio who has been feuding with Corona and casting a moist eye at his position?

Specifically, at an 800-square-meter unit atop the Avignon Tower on H.V. De La Costa Street in Salcedo Village?"

The allegations against Justice Antonio Carpio sounds like a broken record, played for the Nth time by the so called "unnamed sources" to which Chief already responded:

Carpio: “`I do not own the so-called 800 square meter penthouse unit with a swimming pool,”

“My family owns one of the two units on the floor below the penthouse, and there is no swimming pool in our unit. Our unit is reported in my SALN,”

Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/126829/...g-makati-condo

http://opinion.inquirer.net/20957/vultures
Frankly, I don’t mind that Corona’s defense exposes the extent of Carpio’s and the other justices’ wealth with a view to questioning how honest judges could possibly have come by it.

To date, nothing has been proven that would assail Carpio's honesty and integrity. He has declared all his assets and liabilities in his SALN.

He even went further by directing all Justice's SALN to be disclosed to the public (subject to some guidelines). I agree, the public has the right to know how honest our Magistrates are.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/20957/vultures
I have heard friends express that fear: We might leap from the frying pan into the fire with Carpio, a pillar of the so-called “Firm,” replacing Corona.

The record speaks for itself - Carpio has inhibited in "ALL" cases brought before the SC, involving CVCLaw "The Firm" and its partners for the past ten (10) years. Carpio vowed to maitain this 'standing inhibition' from this cases until his retirement. Now, that's probity and independence!

http://opinion.inquirer.net/20957/vultures
In fact, why should Carpio naturally replace Corona? Or indeed, why should a justice naturally replace Corona? Why shouldn’t Corona be replaced by someone outside the Supreme Court, by any one of the judges in the regional trial courts or Court of Appeals who have shown exemplary conduct in private and public life? Or who have practiced law in the grand manner, showing a grasp of it beyond its superficial aspects, showing a wealth of wisdom and compassion and imagination, as befits most judicious person in the land?

The fact of the matter is, Justice Carpio highly respects the sole power of the President to appoint the next Chief Justice whether from the incumbent Justices or an outsider, as provided for by our Constitution.

He however pointed out, it may demoralise the Justices in the SC if the next CJ is an outsider, but to him - personally it's a non issue.

It's also worth mentioning, the tradition to appoint the most Senior Magistrate to the highest post is not exclusive to the Supreme Court.

This practice is observed in the RTCs and Court of Appeals. Unlike in the United States, this tradition works as the greatest motivation for Judges, that one day it will be their turn as the most Senior to get promoted and take on the Leadership. This also prevents any lobbying for the position.

I will say it again, especially now that the JBC's public interview is completed.

Carpio is the most qualified to lead the Supreme Court.

When you have a Justice who is committed and faithful "only" to the Constitution. We can never go wrong!

At the end of the day, it's up to the President.

Antonio "Tony" Carpio for Chief Justice!

'Like' his Official Fan Page:

www.facebook.com/sc.antonio.carpio.ph

[dogster_jr]

With Due Respect
By: Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10:12 pm | Saturday, July 28th, 2012

Since it was founded 111 years ago on June 11, 1901, the Supreme Court (SC) has always been led by an insider, except only once during World War II when the country was occupied by a foreign power. In fact, the exception, former Speaker Jose Yulo, was named chief justice by the occupying Japanese military command, not by a duly elected President.

Starting the tradition. Moreover, since it was institutionalized in 1987, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has always, without any exception, nominated only insiders to the top judicial post. In its 25-year history, the JBC has included in its short list only incumbent Supreme Court justices.

In the past, the nomination process for the post was relatively easy. The JBC simply chose the most senior Supreme Court justices and left the appointment of the most deserving among them to the sound discretion of the President. In this way, the JBC preserved the long-held tradition of choosing only insiders for the top post.

The insider tradition is entrenched on the rationale that the highest judicial post is career in nature, and that an appointment thereto requires maturing and seasoning that are best acquired through actual high court experience. It also discourages shady politicians from using the vacancy as a bargaining chip in chaotic partisan games. By limiting the field only to worthy incumbent Supreme Court justices, the JBC can better assure judicial independence, so concludes the rationale.

Understandably, incumbent justices frown on complete outsiders, believing that the new chief, like them, should queue up, learn the job hands on, and await his or her turn. An outsider, especially a young one who would dislodge those waiting for their turn, would naturally find difficulty leading the high court and reforming the judiciary.

However, times are changing. Can the JBC now justify the nomination and possible appointment of an outsider? Will it dare break the age-old insider tradition? And for what reasons? Starting tomorrow, the JBC will confront these questions and answer them.

Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/33525/br...ider-tradition

....

I'm inclined to be in favour of the insider tradition in the Supreme Court, unless an outsider can prove otherwise.

The performance of the incumbent Justices and outsiders in the JBC public interview was very telling.

[dogster_jr]

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who claims to have the edge among candidates for Chief Justice, was nowhere among the top picks in a mock vote conducted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the vacant post.

The insiders, led by Associate Justice Roberto Abad, edged the outsiders in the vote cast by the nine members of IBP’s board of governors and 13 national officers.

The main national organization of lawyers in the country released on Monday the 10 names of those who landed on the top eight slots in the vote among the 22 nominees (two were later disqualified) for the post of ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The top choices were

1. Abad

2. Associate Justice Lourdes Sereno

3. Associate Justice Arturo Brion

4. Former University of the Philippines law dean Raul Pangalangan

5. Associate Justice Leonardo de Castro

6. Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and Presidential Commission on Good Government Chairman Andres Bautista

7. Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza

8. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairperson Teresita Herbosa and former Representative Ronaldo Zamora

“Please note that these votes reflect only the individual preferences of the members of the Board and the national officers and should in no way be construed or interpreted as IBP’s official vote in the JBC deliberations,” said IBP spokesperson Trixie Cruz-Angeles.

Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/239693/...e-abad-is-no-1

[dogster_jr]

1:04 am | Tuesday, July 31st, 2012

The Senate unanimously passed a resolution on Monday calling on the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to suspend its selection process for ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona’s successor until the Supreme Court has made a final ruling on the Congress representation in the screening panel.

Meeting in a caucus, the chamber approved Senator Joker Arroyo’s resolution urging the JBC to defer the vetting of the nominees and the preparation of a short list of three candidates for the consideration of President Benigno Aquino until the court decides on a motion for reconsideration on the legislature’s representation in the council.

“We are asking for a deference of the JBC’s decision to vote on the short list on Thursday until this matter is resolved by the Supreme Court. Obviously, we recognize that the Supreme Court has the final say in this controversy and we are proceeding with that in mind,” Senator Francis Pangilinan said in an ambush interview Monday.

Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/239697/...tice-selection

[dogster_jr]

MANILA, Philippines - In a last-minute bid to avert her possible disqualification from the chief justice selection process, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima asked the biggest lawyers' group in the country on Wednesday, August 1, to reverse its decision to probe further the disbarment cases filed against her.

Rappler learned from reliable sources that De Lima has filed a motion for reconsideration before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), asking the group to dismiss two disbarment cases against her without conducting a formal investigation.

De Lima's move came days before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the body that screens candidates for judicial posts, votes on a shortlist of candidates for chief justice on Monday, August 6.

This gives the IBP Board of Governors no choice but to tackle her appeal within the week. Lawyers told Rappler that a former government official has been calling up IBP governors to come to Manila to convene a meeting.

Source: http://www.rappler.com/nation/specia...-your-decision

[dogster_jr]

MANILA, Philippines – Are lawmakers acting like spoiled children?

Former Solicitor General Frank Chavez chided Congress for saying it might boycott the search process for the next Chief Justice.

During Supreme Court oral arguments on Thursday, August 2, Chavez responded to the statement of Sen Joker Arroyo that the Senate and the House might withdraw from the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) if only one representative of Congress will be allowed in the body.

“The alternative is there is gridlock,” Arroyo told the court. “Just supposing the Senate and the House decide to withdraw their membership from the JBC, it’s a blight on our system ….We cannot compel the Senate and the House to send representatives.”

Chavez rejected the scenario.

“That is a childish threat. Growing old is inevitable but sometimes, growing up is an option …. The JBC cannot be held hostage by the recalcitrance of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.”

Source: http://www.rappler.com/nation/specia...m-jbc-childish

[dogster_jr]

MANILA, Philippines - President Benigno Aquino III admitted Thursday, August 2, that Malacañang's legal staff is helping Justice Secretary Leila de Lima deal with her problems in the ongoing selection process for chief justice.

Asked by reporters about the issues facing De Lima before the Judicial and Bar Council, the President said: "Tinatrabaho ng ating legal staff, tinutulungan siya at siguro hintayin na nating matapos ang processes ng JBC before I make a comment because as you know, I have to wait for them before I can decide. (Our legal staff is working on it, it's helping her and it's best to wait for the JBC process to end before I can make a comment.)

Source: http://www.rappler.com/nation/specia...solve-jbc-woes

[dogster_jr]

The JBC is set for deliberation on Monday, 6th August.

Who do you think are the top 3 most qualified candidate, that will make it to the JBC shortlist?

State your reason.

[dogster_jr]

With Due Respect
So far so good
By: Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:24 am | Sunday, August 5th, 2012

The nomination process being conducted by the Judicial and Bar Council has thus far been transparent, accountable and dignified. Under the glare of live TV and radio coverage, the JBC members asked probing and searching questions without crossing the limits of decency and civility. Devoid of circus-like harangues, the JBC sessions truly become the Judicial Department, of which the council is constitutionally an integral part.

Public interviews. True, the interviews are not the be-all and end-all of the selection process. But they are the windows through which the public can peer at the applicants. Like witnesses in courtrooms and resource persons in congressional inquiries, the candidates were weighed and scrutinized by our people.

The JBC interviewed 20 candidates—too many in my view. It included some outsiders who, by their lean bio data and utter lack of stature, really had no chance at all of being nominated, however excellent their oral tests may have been. But I suppose the council wanted to show its fairness and thoroughness.

SC peculiarities. The interviews brought out a number of Supreme Court peculiarities. For example, many TV viewers were surprised to learn that while the justices may write stirring and strongly worded opinions, they do not keep grudges against one another.

Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Maria Lourdes

P. A. Sereno explained during their interaction with Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the acting JBC chair, that there are no partisan blocs or permanent alliances in the high court. Those voting together in one case may be miles apart in the next. Normally, there are more than 200 items in the agenda of a single session, whether en banc or in division. And in that single session alone, the justices could debate and vote disparately.

Contrary to popular impression, the verbal debates in the Supreme Court are pretty short. When discussions on a single item lag for 10 minutes or more, the chief justice would usually postpone further deliberations and ask the protagonists to write down their arguments. To be credible, arguments should be backed by authorities, with appropriate footnotes on the law, jurisprudence and other references.

Bottom line: while the chief justice is the leader and CEO of the judiciary, he still needs the help, cooperation and assistance of the 14 other justices who constitute the judiciary’s “board of directors.”

Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/34081/so-far-so-good

[imanh0rn]

With Due Respect
So far so good
By: Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:24 am | Sunday, August 5th, 2012

The nomination process being conducted by the Judicial and Bar Council has thus far been transparent, accountable and dignified. Under the glare of live TV and radio coverage, the JBC members asked probing and searching questions without crossing the limits of decency and civility. Devoid of circus-like harangues, the JBC sessions truly become the Judicial Department, of which the council is constitutionally an integral part.

Public interviews. True, the interviews are not the be-all and end-all of the selection process. But they are the windows through which the public can peer at the applicants. Like witnesses in courtrooms and resource persons in congressional inquiries, the candidates were weighed and scrutinized by our people.

The JBC interviewed 20 candidates—too many in my view. It included some outsiders who, by their lean bio data and utter lack of stature, really had no chance at all of being nominated, however excellent their oral tests may have been. But I suppose the council wanted to show its fairness and thoroughness.

SC peculiarities. The interviews brought out a number of Supreme Court peculiarities. For example, many TV viewers were surprised to learn that while the justices may write stirring and strongly worded opinions, they do not keep grudges against one another.

Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Maria Lourdes

P. A. Sereno explained during their interaction with Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the acting JBC chair, that there are no partisan blocs or permanent alliances in the high court. Those voting together in one case may be miles apart in the next. Normally, there are more than 200 items in the agenda of a single session, whether en banc or in division. And in that single session alone, the justices could debate and vote disparately.

Contrary to popular impression, the verbal debates in the Supreme Court are pretty short. When discussions on a single item lag for 10 minutes or more, the chief justice would usually postpone further deliberations and ask the protagonists to write down their arguments. To be credible, arguments should be backed by authorities, with appropriate footnotes on the law, jurisprudence and other references.

Bottom line: while the chief justice is the leader and CEO of the judiciary, he still needs the help, cooperation and assistance of the 14 other justices who constitute the judiciary’s “board of directors.”

Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/34081/so-far-so-good

and this got posted AFTER the cj trial?

[victoryliner]

JBC to finally carry out twice-delayed vote on SC shortlist
August 6, 2012 1:52am

link: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...n-sc-shortlist

[kleenexlambot]

its monday evening. is jbc done with the shortlist?

[legendpba]

^ wednesday continuation. pinostpone nila kasi may plan sila na idisbar din si carpio na pamato ni pangulong Noynoy aquino..


and now.. the latest news.. eto na nag file na ng disbarment case sila kay carpio.. baka bukas imbestigahan kagad para hindi ma nominate sa shortlist si carpio.