1 hour ago
3
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
At a time when standards for choices of elective officials seem to be on the decline, many still look to the SC as a stronghold of justice and fairness to which high standards still apply. Has it lived up to those expectations?
On Thursday, October 22, the Judicial and Bar Council began public interviews for those vying for the post that will be vacated by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, who is retiring on November 6.
His replacement will be the country’s 28th chief justice (CJ) in a court still packed with Rodrigo Duterte appointees. At present, 12 justices out of 15 were appointed by the former president.
You might want to read stories related to the CJ appointment.
- 5 Supreme Court justices vie to become next chief justice
- Appellate court justices, SolGen among candidates for next SC justice
Incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s next choices for the Supreme Court (SC) will be his second and third, respectively — replacements for Gesmundo and Associate Justice Amy Lazaro Javier, who will retire on November 16. If you recall, Marcos’ first appointee was Associate Justice Raul Villanueva in 2025.
Justice reporter Jairo Bolledo profiles the candidates competing to replace Javier in this first of a two-part report.
Scheduled for CJ interviews on Thursday are Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, appointed to the High Court in 2012 at age 49, and Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, appointed in 2016 when he was 56. Both were hand-picked by former president Benigno Aquino III.
Thus far, Leonen is the second youngest justice to be appointed to the SC after Justice Manuel Moran, who joined the High Bench at age 45. Leonen had served as government’s chief peace negotiator with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, carved a name for himself in the field of human rights, was dean of the UP College of Law, and had even weathered an impeachment complaint in 2021.
Critics, however, remember the Leonen-penned unanimous SC decision, which said in 2025 that the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte was unconstitutional owing to a redefinition of the one-year bar rule and violation of due process. If you want to recall the reasons for that ruling, read more here.
Of course, critics hit what they described as a “grossly unfair” decision that sounded very didactic and which imposed new requirements for impeachment. It fueled perceptions of an interventionist Supreme Court that did not respect separation of powers.
More recently, Leonen, along with the majority, voted against a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by Senator Bato dela Rosa to block an arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity.
Caguioa also voted against the TRO, saying in his closing statement: “This case will define the Court. For too long, power has found ways to outrun justice. It has hidden in office, in influence, in violence, and now, in the language of due process. That ends here.”
The SC also recently voted unanimously against three petitions filed by supporters of the Vice President challenging the conviction threshold set by the impeachment court. Only 14 votes out of 20 active senator-judges will be required for a conviction of Sara Duterte, the impeachment court ruled.
Citing procedural grounds, the High Court junked the petitions, saying they were premature since no final judgment had been rendered and there was lack of legal standing. One of the petitions argued that senators who are still in office should be allowed to vote even if they are in hiding (Bato dela Rosa), detained (Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta), or have medical conditions (Loren Legarda).
Their inclusion would have set the voting base at 24 instead of 20 and raised the threshold to 16 for a Duterte conviction. The number 16 would be equivalent to two-thirds of “all the Members of the Senate” as required by the Constitution, the reasoning goes.
Nothing stops the petitioners from refiling their petitions but the unanimous decision already sends a strong signal that cannot be ignored. The impeachment trial court should have the final say on the voting threshold, seems to be the underlying message if you read the fine print.
Is the Supreme Court totally immune to political winds and oblivious to presidents? Perhaps not. But at a time when standards for choices of elective officials seem to be on the decline, many still look to the SC as a stronghold of justice and fairness to which high standards still apply. Has it lived up to those expectations? Let me know your thoughts.
After today’s interviews, the next set of chief justice candidates is scheduled on Monday, October 26, and will feature Associate Justices Rodil Zalameda, Japar Dimaampao, and Jose Midas Marquez.
Till Thursday after next!
– Rappler.com
Rappler Investigates is a bimonthly newsletter of our top picks delivered straight to your inbox every other Thursday. Visit rappler.com/newsletters to subscribe.
