Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Alfredo Caguioa is reportedly seeking to inhibit as the ponente in charge of the election protest filed by Bongbong Marcos, the 2016 vice presidential bet against Leni Robredo, the vice president whose victory is being questioned by protestant Marcos.

Allegations of conspiracy and bad faith in Caguioa’s handling of the pending Presidential Electoral Tribunal election case against Robredo, who ran under the yellow Liberal Party, are now being defended by the associate justice by inhibiting himself. Manila Times yesterday reported that a copy of an internal memorandum addressed to acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and the other justices of the en banc was obtained by the newspaper wherein he was said to have informed the SC of his recusal from the protest case as the member in charge to avoid any suspicion against him.

Truth is, Caguioa, fairly or unfairly, is generally seen as being a loyal ally of the yellow president, who had appointed him to his post as associate justice and, this being the perception, he should have recused himself immediately after he was picked as the ponente for the Marcos protest case.

The yellow strain he has been identified with, again fairly or unfairly, generated the stronger perception that as he was appointed by the yellow president to the High Court, his opinions in the majority seem to have favored then President Aquino and his administration when they were in power and position.

This perception grew even stronger when the presidency and administration underwent a change. It was no longer the yellows in power but the Duterte presidency and administration.

Caguioa’s opinions went along with the majority decisions then under the Aquino presidency, but are now dissenting opinions aligned with the other yellow appointees in the SC, being generally opinions against what the Duterte presidency and administration have sought before the High Court.

In the case of the Marcos burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani or the so-called Heroes’ Cemetery, his was a dissenting opinion, together with the usual appointees of yellow president who are known to dissent in such cases.

It would have been better had Caguioa recused himself immediately in this Marcos protest case against Robredo and saved himself the allegations leveled against him, which apparently have basis.

Marcos Jr., through his lawyer, submitted an “extremely urgent motion” for Caguioa to inhibit himself from the poll protest recount, after protestant Marcos said he had discovered through Facebook entries that Caguioa’s wife, Pier Angela “Gel” Caguioa, was not only anti-Marcos but also an ardent supporter of Robredo, having actively campaigned for her during the May 2016 elections, the report stated.

Caguioa was quoted as saying that his recusal from the case is being done for the best, “as any resolution on this sensitive issue would certainly give rise to another round of politicking and it is ideal that this be resolved by the en banc with me no longer being the member-in-charge.”

However, Caguioa must have known that his wife was anti-Marcos and, worse, a supporter of Robredo early enough. His dissenting opinion in the case of the Marcos burial seems to suggest that he, too, is anti-Marcos. Caguioa should have exerted delicadeza early enough, being aware of fact that he and his wife being seen as anti-Marcos and with his wife’s all out support would be openly discovered and bared.

But Caguioa still appeared to be making more excuses despite his seeking to recuse himself from the protest case, as he pointed out that he had been a very fair ponente when the case was raffled off to him.

He said: “From the beginning, I have been vilified and pilloried in both the press and social media as having intentionally delayed the start of the revision process and that, to date, I continue to delay and derail the process.”

But he should have foreseen such a scenario would be realized sooner or later and precisely, Caguioa should have weighed immediately the consequences of his acceptance in handling the protest case and just as quickly he should have recused himself, given his and his wife’s political leanings, especially during these political times when the nation has become much too polarized.

The protest case would have gone on anyway, even if Caguioa recused himself immediately and he would have been spared the allegations of his and his spouse’s anti-Marcos leanings and their pro-Robredo political views.

Caguioa may honestly think of himself as a fair ponente and associate justice of the SC. Maybe he is, but this is hardly the point since he must have been aware of the fact that perception outweighs protestations of fairness.

As the judicial quote goes: “It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

Or, to put it more simply, a judge must not only be seen as fair, but should be perceived as fair.