Midnight appointments

EDITORIAL

It did not come as a big surprise that as soon as Alberto Agra was appointed acting Justice Secretary, he didn’t waste any time peddling the notion that the constitution does not ban “midnight appointments” in the Judiciary.

It is interesting to note what Philippine Star columnist Jarius Bondoc wrote in his column a day prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling allowing the President to appoint a “midnight Chief Justice.” Bondoc said: “As if midnight deals were not bad enough, President Arroyo too is coming closer to naming a midnight Chief Justice. That’s if what a braggart at Malacañang is saying is true.

“The showoff claims to have scored at the Supreme Court for Arroyo. Allegedly he has convinced most justices to rule that the constitutional ban on midnight appointments does not apply to the judiciary. This would let Arroyo name a replacement when CJ Reynato Puno retires on May 17.” Further, he said,“ And the boastful Palace operator claims to have clinched it for her. The next step supposedly is to petition the Court to resolve the issue once and for all.”

The following day, by a 9-1 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional ban on midnight appointments does not apply to the Chief Justice. Did Agra have a hand in convincing nine justices to turn a blind eye to the law and give Arroyo her last wish to satisfy their “utang na loob” (debt of gratitude) to Arroyo for bestowing on them the highest honor a magistrate could dream of?

Recently, the Judicial Bar Council assailed the Supreme Court’s March 17 decision allowing Arroyo to appoint the next Chief Justice during the constitutional ban on midnight appointments. The JBC sent its comment to the High Court signed by seven members. The only member who did not sign the comment was Agra. Instead, Agra, in his capacity as Solicitor General, filed a separate comment “asking the high court to state that the President can appoint all vacancies in the judiciary and not just in the Supreme Court during her final three months in office despite the ban against midnight appointments.”

Now, not only did Agra insist that Arroyo can appoint a midnight Chief Justice, but also she can appoint all vacancies in the judiciary including the one soon to be vacated by retiring Chief Justice Puno. Makes one wonder who Agra had in mind to fill the last seat in the Supreme Court?

With the Supreme Court’s final ruling on April 20, affirming the President’s power to appoint the next Chief Justice, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Agra would be Arroyo’s next Supreme Court appointee. Interestingly, the High Court failed to make a “doctrinal ruling” on whether the exemption to the midnight appointment ban applies only to the Chief Justice or to the entire judiciary. But the fact that the justices did not make a ruling would be enough for Arroyo to insist that she appoint a vacancy as soon as Puno retires. What has she got to lose by doing it?

Agra may have had his eyes wide open for that opening. It would seem that he had been “working” on it from the first day he took over the Justice department. He has served his master very well and appointment to the High Court would be his if he asked for it. The only thing that would stop him from being appointed to the High Court is if a lawsuit or disbarment petition is filed against him.

Agra’s “aggravated assault” on the wheel of justice, as legal luminaries say, could be his Achilles heel. What he did in exonerating the Ampatuans is contemptuous, cowardly, and lacking the balanced mind required of those who dispense justice.

Agra has dishonored the legal profession and thus should lose his place among the honorable men and women who are entrusted in upholding the law of the land and in protecting the people from criminal elements. Therefore, he should be disbarred from his profession and barred from serving in the government for the rest of his life. The people deserve no less.