What a Wellknown Orator Once Said on the Dangers of Mixing Politics with the Judiciary.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text: STATEMENTS OF SECRETARY OF JUSTICE TUASON THE STATEMENTS OF SECRETARY OF JUSTICE TUASON MADE DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HELD AT THE SESSION HALL ON MARCH 17, 1954, BEFORE HONOHABLE AUGUSTO FRANCISCO; CHAIRMAN; DOMINGO VELOSO, VICE-CHAIRMAN; RODOLFO GANZUN, MARIO RENGZON, JOSE R. NUGUID, ROGACIANO MERCADO, GUILLERMO SANCHI::Z, ISIDRO C. KINTANAR, MEMBEHS. THE CHAIRMAN. The hearing is de<:Iared open . 9:25 a.m.) <It was In order to avoid your having to come here on subsequent dates, we would like you to consider one of the bills presented during the last few days, namely: House Bill No. 1632 introduced by the Speaker, Congre.'3Sman Corpus, and The chairman of the ·Com.. mittee on Judiciary with reference to the abolition of the positions of auxiliary judges, judges.at-large, and cadastral judges and the creation of positions of auxiliary district judges, Me.y we request the Secretary of Justice to testify and give his comment o~ this bill? SECRETARY TUASON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABOGADO. I would like to find out the opinion of "the Secretary on House Bill No. 1632 regarding the abolition of the judges-at-large and cadastral jurlges. Is he in favor of that? SEC. TUASON. I am in favor of that, because as I aaid, judges should be equal in rank . They do the same kind of work. MR. ABOGADO. I understand that there are thirty-three (33> judges that will be affected by the approval of this Bill. Now, what will be your recommendation in order to protect these judges. at-large and cadastl'al judges who are performing their duties properly and efficiently? SEC. TUASON. Well, I think that these judges cannot be removed. They ce.nnot be legislated out, If the positions of judges-at-large and cadastral judges are abolished, these judges will have to be appointed to thc districts. MR. ABOGADO. So, upon apflrOval of this bill, those judge~at-large and cadastra.l judges will have to be reappointed as district judges? SEC. TUASON. Yes, because they cannot be removed in my opinion. MR. AROGADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN. Eve~ if the position is abolished'? SEC. TUASON. Even if thf' pdsitions are abolished, because the positions are not abolished; only the names of the positions P.re changed. The posit ions are therC'. As a matter of fact, the positions are increased. l\lR. BENGZON. Mr. Secretary, would you recommend a provision in this bill which would make possible the removal of these judges who are inefficient? SEC. TUASON. I would, if that could be done. Unfortunately, under the constitution, we cannot do it because the constitution provides the causes for removal Cif judges. TUE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, do you remember the organization act approved during the time of Ex-President Quezon, wherein judges had to be reappointed? SEC. TUASON. I doubt the constitutionality of that law, and I think that the constitutionality of that law was challenged in the case of Zandueta. versus de la Costa. In that case, as I remember, Zandueta's removal was sustained not hecause t._e law was declared constitutional but because he voluntarily abided by the questioned provision. MR. BENGZON. Don't you think this would be a good chance to eliminate inefficient judges? SEC. TUASON. That would be a good chance, but as I say, the constitution is in the way, because the tenure cf office is prc<;cribed by the constitution, and it would be nullified, it would be a dead letter if the Congress at any time can say: "All positions of judges are hereby abolished and all judges are hereby declared out of office." MH. BENGZON. In your opinion, Mr. Secretary, is there no way to remedy this situation by which lhese inefficient jud'!'ell may be eliminated? WHAT A WELLKNOWN ORATOR ONCE SAID ON THE DANGERS OF MIXING POLITICS WITH THE JUDICIARY The year wa11 1934, the place was the old Manila Grand OJl<'rn 1-huse on Hizi..1 AvP.nuc. The occasion was the First Inter.University Oratvrical Contest and the prize-winning oration was entitled: "For an Independent Judiciary. '' From the winniug orator's masterpiece, the following appeared: "The fate of our judges should not be left to rise and fall with the galling insolence to whkh 1iolitical parties are suLjected. The fountain of justice should not be polluted and poisoned wit.h the 'pestilential breath of faction.' Prostrate your judges at the feet of p~rty ar.d you break ciown the mounds which hold the protective embankment against the dashing torrents and waves of political passions and excitement. l\lake their tenure and comp~nsation dependent upon the mercy of the Legislature and you destroy that without which justice is a mockery and popular government a farce.'' <PrtJl011.ged applause.) "Courts should be the ready asylum, nay the indestructible cotta11, of the people's rights and liherties, They should be tl1e trusted guardians of individual securities and immunities, The present members of the constitutional convention should ei::pecially guard against legislative domination and encroachment," <More applause.> ''In a republic that is ours ·- ours to live, to honor and to defend - I envisage the day when il can safely and truly be said that if the right of the most humble citizen is trampled upon, indig_ r.ant of the wrong, he will demand the protection of our tribunals ar.d, safe, in the shadows of their win~s. will laugh his oppressors to scorn." (Very prolongetl appfrmse.> That was the year 1934. And it was merely an inter-unive1·sity oratorical contest. Today, 20 years later, the orator who delivered that prize-winning piece, for which he was awarded a gold medal and his university a trophy, would have created a sensation if he had stood up in the last session of Congress and delivered the same speech while the controversial bill l'evamping the judici~ry was under consideration. As a result of that bill, now a law, over 30 judges-at-large and cadastral magistrates, supposed to hold office for life and during good behaviour, were "reorganized." out of their jobs. Some were reappointed, Eleven were left out in the cold. The eleven "revampees" were all appointees of the past administration. But the orator who won a gold medal in 1934 for his moving speech on the sanctity of the judiciary did not repeat his prizewinning oration of 20 years ago. Then he was merely a university student orating for an audience. Today, he is Speaker of the House of Representatives. The prize-winning orator Was Jose B. Laurel, Jr. CB11llseye, August 23, 1954) 302 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL August SI, 1954 8EC. TUASON. None, <>Xcept the filing of charges for in. the Supreme Court &nd ask it to order the corl'esponding office or C"fficien('y, bec:i.u~c gross incfficie>ncy is one of the causes of remO\'al. the Budget Commissionel' or whoever the official maybe, to provide THE CHAIHMAN. Which is hard to prove or establis:h. Mr. Secretary, would you favor the presenting of charges against judges who <!.re not only inefficient but have engaged in electioneering acti\'ities and have allowed themselves to be ui:cd as tools, with the final 1·esu!ts in the loss of confidence by the people in the judiciary? SEC. TUASON. Well, clectioneeri11g is a \'iolation of law, and not only do I favor the fi ling llf charges bnt I ha\'e hired lawyers to prosecute ::i.nd asked public-spirited people to come forward, get evidence and file those charges, and in some cases I have taken a hand in the fit:n~ of tl1ose chargPs. MR. VELOSO (J). Mr. Secretary, I undei·stand frem you that should the positions of judges-at-large are abolished, th.:' judges cannot be ousted, is that right? SEC. TUASON . Yes. !\ffi. VELOSO <Il. Now, they may be re-appointed, to district judges, but suppose the Commission of Appointments do not confirm their .appointme11ts, what would be the status of those juditrs? Recause this is a new appointment. SEC. TUASON. Well, that is what I mean to say that i:uch law ~!1ould not require new app".Jintment to be confirmed by the Senate, beer.use if such a requirement were made, such requirement would be \'a lid. The President could even refuse to appoint them, and they might be put out before reaching first base yet. But as I say, that would not be legal. I don't believe it would De legal and those judges could i·efuse any such appointment in order not to run the risk of being turned down. "'No. I am not appointed as :iuxiliary judge. I am a judge-aUa1·ge," they can say. ''I want to remain as judge-at-large," and any provision to the contrary notwithstanding. Now, if the law should provide that all these judges shall be<:ome district judges and their districts are to· be determined by the President or by the Secretary of Justice, 01· :inybody, that wou1d be all right. MR. VELOSO. (J ). But suppose th~ bill as now proposed intends to abolish the judges-atw large and cadastral judges, would you think that this bill is unconstitutional? SEC. TUASON . Well, that is why I say - in order to 1n·event the bill from being unconstitutional, the abolition must contain the proviso tha.t these judges al'e not to be ousted, the~· a1·e not to be re-appointed but they are to continue as ~listrict judges and their districts are tf> be determined by somebody or by the Deparhmmt of J ustice. MR. VELOSO (J ). So, pl'actically, we are not here abolishing the judg~s.at-large and cad astral jud~es . sr;c. TUASON. No, we are not &bolishing. Only the 1w·m111 m·e o.bolisl.ed bul not the position. We a.re not abolishing the tenure of office vf these veople. MH. VELOSO (I). Suppose there is no proviso as you h:we ;-lated? SEC . TUASON. If there is no such proviso the measure would be unconstitutional if its purpose or effect is to legislate judges out. MR. RENGZON. l\lr. Secretai·y, I have just. heard your opinion here that even if these cadaslral judges are converted i:ito district judges, still they may 1·emain and may not be eliminated even if they are inefficient. Su!1posing Congl'eSs d('(!ms it fit to strike out from the budget the salary corresponding to an inefficient judge, do you think he can still remain? SEC. TUASON. The Congress cannot do indi1 ·ectly what it cannot do directly. If the salary of a judge is eliminated from the budget, I think it would be the right of that Judge to go to money fo1· the se.lary of that judge. THE CHAIRMAN. May Congress be ordered hy the Sup1·eme Court to appropriate funds for the salary of a judge whose sala1·y has been eliminated from the budget? SEC. TUASON. It is not the Congress that the Supreme Court would order. It is the budget Commissioner or whoever has the money. The Conifress does not hold the money. The Treasurer or somebody else does. THE CHAIRMAN. Rut it is illeg·al for the President, I mean the Treasurer of the Philippines, to pay out funds unless be is authorized by law. How may the SuJH"CITif> Court order the Treasurer tf> do so? SF:C. TUA SON . It is not illegal if it is ordered by the Sup1·eme Cou1t which previously C:ecidi!!'. that it is in accordance with the constitutio11. It is the act of Con~ress that is illegal. After all, 1t is the Supreme Court that ha.s the last word in that case. l\fR. BENGZON. Now, the 11osition is there but there is no money as there is no law permitting the appropriation of that money, may the Auditoi: General, the Budget Commissioner, or the Treasurer disburse from thi:? public funds witl1out ::iclion by Congress'! SEC. TUASON. Thal is what I said a while ago. The Supreme Court could protect the tenure of office of that particula1· judge by demanding from the officer who holds the money, to appropriate money to pay him that amount, and he cannot say that Congress has not appropriated, be<cause the Court would say that the failure of the Congress to appropriate, if intentional, is unl'Onstitutional, 2.nd if it is an oversight, it ean be disregarded. MH. BENGZON. In other words, J\11·. Seoreta1·y, it is yow· co11sidered opinion, even on the matter of the salary of ::ueh official, th::it he will be paid hi;; salary? Because it is possible, rtfr. Secretal'y, that lhis situation may ai·ise, so we wa11t to get your · legal opinion on this point, beduse it seems to me that this is the sense of Congress: to weed out the inefficient judges. SEC . TUASON. I wish \'OU could do that in order to eliminate those who are L"eally not. dcse1·ving, but unfortunately, the constitution is very positin• and very stl'Ong in that 1 ·espe<'t. MR. BENGZON. Let us take an extreme case. Let us suppose that Congress should desire to abolish and eliminate al! items fol' salaries of justices of lhe Supreme Court., what would hapren? SEC. TUASON . They could not do that because that will be interfering with the functions and abolishing another branch of the government which under the constitution, can not he done. MR. BENGZON. But supposi11;_~ there is no money appro. p1·iated, tl.erefore, they may be ading without compensation. SEC. TUASON . No; pl'obably not, t.:!cause if that were allowed, then thr:y could legislate out the ent-ire Supreme C{lurt by not' appropriating salaries. MR. BENGZON. But there is a pl'ovision in the constitution which says that no money should be paid out of public funds exce11t in pursuance of luw. SEC. TUA SON. That is true, but that is subject to some qualification. Iu that case, as I said, the Supreme Court would step in and sey, "No." When the Supreme Court orders the Trf!a~urer to pay the salary of such judge, the Supreme Court does not orde~· those officials tC" vivlate the law or do something against the law. As a matter nf fact, the Court can say: "You should pay this because the constitution says that you ~hould do it. If there is no law, then there is somethlng above the law and it is the constitution. The comtitui.ion says that if the legislature ..\ug-ust 31, 1954 TH E LAWYBHS JOURNAL 393 fails to make any appropriation for this man who, under the con~ t.itution, should stay in his office fo1· life, then, it is my duty undl'-r the constitution to tell )·ou to pay this man his salary a.s fong as there is money from whil'!h that salary can bi? taken." MR. BENGZON. Supposing, Mr. Secretary, that the Au<litol' General will say that he would not pay because there is no appropriation for the judge's salary prc.'vided by Congrvss? SEC . TUASON, Well, they will go tCl jail for contempt of court and he will have to stay in jail until he pays the salary of that man. When the Supreme Court speaks, that is the last word s.nd that is the thing to be obeyed and not what the Presi<lent or the Congress tell~ them. MR. BENGZON. Thank you, Mr. Secretn1·y. MR. VELOSO cm. Mr. Sec1·etary, I agree t.hat the tenurC' uf office of judges is e.xplicitly provided in the constitution, but are you aware that the1·e is also that power ')f Congress to incrC<1.se the number of jud~es, in the same ma.nner that it can al1!0 decrease the number of judges of courts Oi first instance? SEC. TUASON . Congress can increase, but it cannot <lecrea~e if by <lecl'easing it would legislate out or put out of office judges who have already been aypointed an<l who havtl already· qualified, MR. VELOSO <D>. Don't you believe that that would be defeating the right 'or authority of Congress to incl'ease the number 9 f personnd that it sees fit to be 1irovided in the budget? SEC. TUASON. Well, I don't think so because it could not happen, if the reason is that there is no money, that the government of the Phili1iJ.1ines does not have money to pay the salaries of the judges. MP.. VELOSO <m. Now, I think I remember tlu•t there was u. time when the members of the Supreme Court have been increased and there was also a time when their number was decreased, What was the reason why the questior. 1~f constitutionality was not raised when their number was decreased'? SEC . TUASON, Well, I am glad you asked me that question. The Cong1·ess can increase the number of the members of the Supreme Court s!ly to eleven. Now, none of the eleven justices can be removed or can be put out of office because of lack of money. The Congress can reduce that number but not while all those eleven justices are there. It must wait until some of them resign and then say that the number of justices in the Supreme Court shall be like that number. And what I said with respect to Justices of the Supreme Cou1t ;pplies also with equal force in the case of judges of court of first instance, You can reduce the judges of court of fil'st instance, or number of districts for that matter, but only according to the number of judgt:s existing. You cannot reduce the number of judges if by doing so you have to eliminate or oust some of the judges. MR. VEL0$0. Ir. other w:>rds, y~.u are concerned with protecting the interests of judges -:>nee they :ire appointed, but are you not i·ather limiting the '90Wer of Congress lo legislate out h)' sh·iking out the item corresponding to a judge who has been abusive? Because that is the only way by which we can wipe out unnr.cessuy eleme-nts in the judici11ry, SEC. TUASON. \Veil, I am 1.nly exp1·essing my opinion ns to the extent 3.nd intent of the constitution. What I say is that under the constitution, those things cannot be done. If there are judges that are unfit for· one reason or another to stay in office, the cnly remedy, according to the constitution, is to file chariei;. against them and iet them bC! i·emoved for cause. MR. VELOSO. Without considering your opinion as correct, don't you l:elieve that will be a limitation by the judiciary or the Supreme Court on the legislatfre powers of Congress to pass over the number of offices in a<'COl'dance with its will? Bethat is also a constitutional mandate to Congress. SEC. TUASON . Well, the powers of the Supreme Courl are defined by thf' constitution and so with the powers of Congress. At least, the constitution places .a, restriction on the power of Congress in certain re8pects. 1 beg to disagree with you whC>n you say that the 11ower of Congress is abMlute or exclusi,·e 01· something of that import, beciiuse the power of Congress with respect to judges is not absolute. It is restricted by the constitution itself and that restriction is that the Congress cannot by dircet or indirect legislation remove any judge contrary to the tenure of office of judges. MR. VELOSO. We don''· believe that Congress can be limited by a mere opinion of the Supreme Court or even the President if it chooses to eliminate one position as we have- done in the pai;.t in many instances. SEC. TUASON. Yes, but t~is powel' is subject to the system of check and balances and subjed to certain provisions of the constitution. There is no branch of the government that has absolute power. All powers arc defined .'.l.nd are limited by the constitution. MR. VELOSO. You mean to s:iy, Mr. Secretary, that after the Pl'esidrnt hllfl .!:submitted tl1e ;\ppropriation for the Depa1·tmcnt of Justice, CongTesc will just accept what has been so provi.'.led by the Prc:;idcnt? SEC. TUASON. No, by no means . I don't: intend to make that inference. It depends upon the nature of the item. The 'legislature can modify or reduce the l;udgct submitted by the President. Whal I mean to say is that Congress cannot aboli!<h a po.<>ition of judi.:-e or cannot indirectly abolish that position by elimi· nating the item for salaries of that judge~ because the constitution provides that surh judge should hold office until he 1·e&ches 70 years of age. MR. VELOSO. What would hsppen in this contingency wherein the RC!public fails to i·ealize it.ii projected income for a definile fiscal ye:i.r and Congl'ess should see it fit to adjust its income to its exJlenses a.nd it shall reduce the number of jud~es?: Would you still limit the action of Congress just because these 11eop\e are so provided with definite tenure of office or are occupying a position of such nature that it cannot be legisbted out? SEC . TUASON. In that case, it would be necessary to reduce items but I am afraid you can suppress the salary of the Secretary of Justice but not the salaries of thl! judges, b~ause the Slo!cretary of Justice is not officially provided by the constitution and you can do away with it as you please, a.nd eliminate his position. MR. VELOSO. l\h. Secretary, I h!lve one more question . Actually, we have 16 judicial districts. SupJlOSe we reduce the number of judicial districts, because this is within the competency of the power of Cong1·ess, we reduce the number to 12 from 16, and thereby l'C'ducing the number of judges in accordance with the wishes Clf Congress because it believes that the country cannot maintain IG districts. Taking this as an example only, would you still insist that these people who :i.re affected cannot be legislated out? SEC. TUASON. Well, I think that unless there is rcu.lly no money to pay the numbC!1' of judges n~w existing, I am afte.id that Congress will have to content itself with accommodati11g all the judges in lhe 16 judicial districts within the 12 judicial districts and wait until some of ihem resign or die, Not until then can the Congress 1 ·t<dU<'C the number of judges. MR. VELOSO, Thank ycu, Mr. Secretary. THE CHAIHMAN. Wet.hank you very much, !\Ir. Seeretary for coming here . SEC. TUASON. Thank you too. I was anxious to come here becP.nse I thought I might be :.:ble to say £omething that will erase the misgivingl!_ that ~ight exist With reference to the proposed legislation. I hope I have accomplished tha.t. MR, CHAIP.MAN. 1 can assur" you 'that you l1ave, Mr. Secretary. Thank you again. 394 'I'Hf.; J ... AWYERS JOUP.NAL August 31, 1954
Date: 1954
Rights