Transcript of Sen. Kiko Pangilinan's press conference

ON THE INHIBITION OF ASPIRING CHIEF JUSTICES

Siguro and una lang ay ang ating posisyon bilang kinatawan ng Senado sa Judicial and Bar Council at kasalukuyan ay pinoproseso natin at tinatanggap natin yung applications for and nominations for the post of Chief Justice which will be vacated by December 7 this year. Ang deadline kasi ng ating nominations and applications will be October 30 which is in a few days. And then we start the whole process of deliberations on kung sino ang magiging final list of nominees natin for the post of Chief Justice. And in the light of this and given itong recent pronouncements na nanggagaling sa iba't ibang mga panig, particular halimbawa kay Chief Justice Panganiban on the issue of petition for Charter change, the People's Inititative, at ang bitiw na rin ng mga salita ng Malacanang, ng Speaker, na tungkol din sa Inititative, ay tayo ay nananawagan at umaapela na i-konsidera ng ilang mga aspirante sa posisyon ng Chief Justice ng Supreme Court, i-konsidera na mag-inhibit sa pagpapasya o pagpa-participate dito sa binubuong petition o posisyon sa People's Initiative. We feel that inhibition is an option for any of those who are aspiring to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court come December 7. Particularly because by inhibiting themselves, the aspirants free themselves from the possible pressure that has been already mentioned earlier by no less than the Chief Justice. And by relieving themselves of the pressure, they free the Supreme Court itself, as an institution, from being accused of being partial, of being open to influence. I myself believe in the long run that the Supreme Court justices will decide on the basis of merit. However, of course, for us to be able to address the issue of perception, ika nga, eh mas mainam na i-konsidera yung inhibition para talagang yung mga agam-agam at yung mga muni-muni na maaaring maimpluwensyahan ang Korte Suprema ay mawalang bisa dahil sa inhibition na ito. So this is our position on the matter of their applications or their nominations to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Dapat siguro ay bigyang diin December 7, ifi-fill up yung vacancy na yan, ngayon ay end of October na, baka sakaling magkaroon ng public interviews yan as we go along, so masyadong malapit, it's too close for comfort, this issue of deciding on the People's Initiative and then the appointment by Malacanang of the next Chief Justice of our Supreme Court.

Under our rule sa JBC, 5 sitting Supreme Court Justices, the most senior are automatically nominees. But in the last selection of the Chief Justices which was undertaken last year, 3 of the 5 nominees declined the nomination. So we will have to wait, but if they are going to decline anyway, it might be good to decline early so that that frees them from the perception that they too are being pressured one way or the other.

I am asking them to consider inhibiting themselves. Inhibition is really left to the sound discretion of each justice. They cannot be forced on them, that is really up to them, based on their own appreciation of the situation.

I don't really know how the vote will go if they are to inhibit themselves. I haven't gone into how it will affect the vote. The important thing here is that you free the Supreme Court as an institution from possible accusations of being biased one way or the other.

I am really more concerned with the statement that there is pressure so that the air is clear of any possible perception of impropriety, mag-inhibit nalang sila dun sa petition, para pagna-appoint silang Supreme Court Chief Justice, walang masasabi ang publiko na sila ay nagging Chief Justice dahil sila ay nagboto one way or the other. So this is really a question of the perception in view of 1) the statement of the Chief Justice precisely that there is pressure and 2) the statements of the proponents of Charter change that they want the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Charter change.

Again, this is really proof that medyo unprecedented itong mga statements calling on the Supreme Court to vote one way or the other. I'd like to stress here, I'm not calling on the Supreme Court to vote one way or the other. How they decide is up to them. But the process of arriving at that decision must not be marred by perceptions of impropriety.

Dapat ihiwalay yung pagpapasya ng Korte Suprema, we have to distinguish between the ability and the power of the Supreme Court to make a decision and the issue of inhibition. These are 2 different things. They can still decide, even if they are only 10 provided that they have the number. Mahalaga rin yung masmatubunan yung agam-agam ng publiko na maaaring gamitin yung posisyon, o maaaring maging reward yung pagiging Chief Justice ng Supreme Court sa desisyon ng isang mahistrado. The independence of the Supreme Court and the integrity of the Supreme Court is at stake, in a sense. And that is very important, we wouldn't want to have a Supreme Court that is viewed by the public as having been compromised. So that is really the objective here. We would like to shield the Supreme Court and free it from that situation where there might be this perception of impropriety, that the post of Chief Justice becomes a reward for a job well done. This is what we'd like to avoid, and inhibition is an option. Again, I'm not saying that justices can be influenced, all I'm saying is that the Chief Justice said there is pressure and we would like to free the Supreme Court from possible perceptions that it's independence has been undermined.

If they refuse to inhibit, if they feel that inhibition is not proper, and they are entitled to that, they can also declare na hindi sila interesado sa posisyon ng Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They can inhibit themselves from the petition for People's Inititative or they can declare they are not interested in the post of Supreme Court Chief Justice and that if they are appointed, they will decline the appointment. Pwede rin yun, again, to free the Supreme Court from possible accusations in the future that they have been swayed one way or the other. And to avoid itong conceptions na maaaring lumabas. So these are other options available to our honorable members of the Supreme Court.

So in a sense, never in the history of our constitutional democracy has so much depended on a few good men.

ON THE NO-EL

Hindi maganda yung scenario ng 'no elections'. Dahil magiging malaking epekto nito sa ating demokrasya, sa ating imahen, di lamang sa lokal kungdi sa ibang bansa, na sinasabi natin we are a democratic nation and our inability to conduct regular elections at a time when they should be conducted will have a direct bearing on the image that we are able to protect as a stable and strong democracy. That is one. Of course, internally, locally, minsan na nga sa 3 taon nagkakaroon ng elecksyon at hinihintay ng ating mga kababayan yan dahil yan lamang ang pagkakataon na ang tinig nila ay talagang direktang maririnig. Hindi dapat padalos-dalos. We should not treat lightly the issue of postponement of the elections. If you ask me, we should move towards holding these elections and moving heaven and earth to do so rather than so easily say na maaaring ma-postpone yung elections.

If elections are to be postponed, that would have to require amendments to the Constitution. Therefore, any functioning democracy would have to move heaven and earth to ensure that would happen.