Judicial rogues

Costa Rica has established independent oversight mechanisms and focused on preventative measures to combat corruption within its judiciary

The deep-seated issue of corruption in the Philippine government has once again reared its ugly head with the recently released National Trade Estimate (NTE) report of the US Trade Representative Office.

Foremost among the agencies flagged in the NTE report for corruption was the Bureau of Customs (BoC), an unsurprising finding given longstanding reports of irregularities within the organization.

The BoC, despite purported attempts at modernization, has remained plagued with corruption, according to the NTE, leading to undue delays, inconsistent fee assessments, and other malpractices that hinder legitimate commerce.

However, it’s not just the Bureau of Customs that’s under scrutiny. The US trade agency also raised concerns about corruption within the judiciary, citing reports of temporary restraining orders for sale, bribery, and justices and judges on the payroll of business interests, if not syndicates.

This revelation is deeply troubling, but again, is nothing new as rogues in the judiciary have been known to subvert the rule of law. As any crusading lawyer would tell us, when bribery and corruption infiltrate the courts, it undermines public trust in the judicial system and erodes the very foundation of democracy.

A year back, the gravity of the problem was admitted by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen of the Supreme Court during the 19th National Convention of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Leonen at the time issued a stark warning, calling on individuals to report any instances of corruption involving current and retired members of the judiciary who offer to fix cases in favor of the highest bidders.

The Supreme Court, recognizing the urgency of addressing corruption within its ranks, has taken steps to root out malfeasance and other judicial shenanigans. Initiatives such as the Judiciary Integrity Board (JIB) and the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations (SPJI) promote — at least on paper — transparency, accountability, and fairness within the judiciary.

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo has also rallied the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to help it weed out corrupt justices and judges, which is undoubtedly something that the Department of Justice should undertake against corrupt government prosecutors and state defense lawyers.

Recently, the SC removed from the lower courts the authority to judicially determine if probable cause to prosecute a potential crime exists, thereby making prosecutors doubly powerful as cases they file would lack a critical initial check by the courts for probity.

The SC and DoJ should indeed collaborate with the IBP in removing the bad eggs within the judicial system. After all, the lawyers are the most exposed, with some also being involved in legal machinations, thus the need for them to be held accountable too.

As the judiciary continues to confront the scourge of corruption, it must prioritize impartiality, integrity, and justice. As such, the proposed SC reforms, including the revision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, are not enough. Embracing innovation and leveraging technology are also much needed to enhance the efficiency and accessibility not only to judicial services but also their law enforcement aspects (eg. issuance of electronic warrants).

Expanding our lens beyond the Philippines, it becomes evident that judicial corruption is a global challenge.

Factors such as low salaries and inadequate resources create an environment ripe for malpractice.

Countries like Brazil and India have grappled with high-profile cases of judicial corruption, highlighting the pervasive nature of the issue in these regions.

In nations like Guatemala and civil strife-wracked Haiti, corruption within the judiciary has impeded efforts toward establishing the rule of law and fostering trust in democratic institutions.

Even in developed countries, where institutional frameworks may be stronger, instances of judicial corruption are not unheard of. Italy, for example, has experienced cases where judges have been influenced by organized crime, underscoring the universal nature of this phenomenon.

However, several countries have made strides in addressing judicial corruption through innovative approaches. Singapore, for instance, has implemented streamlined procedures and robust anti-corruption measures, while Costa Rica has established independent oversight mechanisms and focused on preventative measures to combat corruption within its judiciary.

Back in the Philippines, judicial corruption must be addressed with urgency and resolve. The so-called “hoodlums in robes” have no place in the dispensation of justice, and it is incumbent upon all stakeholders to work together to send them to pasture, along with corrupt prosecutors and government defense lawyers.

*****
Credit belongs to: tribune.net.ph