Who will next lead the Court?
The next Chief Justice must possess the competence, integrity, independence and leadership necessary to guide the Court and maintain public confidence in the Judiciary as a whole.
Text size
The next Chief Justice must possess the competence, integrity, independence and leadership necessary to guide the Court and maintain public confidence in the Judiciary as a whole.
With Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo set to retire on 6 November 2026, attention will soon turn to the selection of the next head of the Supreme Court.
It is an important selection, not only because the Chief Justice leads the country’s highest court, but because the Judiciary plays a fundamental role in upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of every Filipino.
The Constitution sets clear qualifications for members of the Supreme Court. A Justice must be a natural-born Filipino citizen, at least 40 years old, and have at least 15 years of experience as a lower court judge or in the practice of law in the Philippines. The Constitution places equal emphasis on competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
As Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo nears retirement, the selection of his successor raises questions about seniority, judicial independence, leadership and the role of the JBC.
The process of selection begins with the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which screens and evaluates candidates, reviews their qualifications and records, and submits at least three names for the President’s consideration. The President makes the final choice from the JBC list, without the need for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
This raises an interesting question: what role should seniority play in choosing the Chief Justice? There is a practical argument for giving it a role that is greater than what it is given at present.
The most senior Associate Justice typically has spent years on the Court and possesses considerable experience in its work, tradition, and administration.
Seniority can also provide continuity and predictability during a time of change. Best of all it fosters unity within the Court in that it avoids the suspicion that somehow personal considerations or secret arrangements had infected the selection of the one who will lead the Court.
The example of India may be mentioned. There, a longstanding convention generally favors the most senior Supreme Court Justice for Chief Justice. The idea is not that seniority automatically makes someone the best person for the position, but that it provides a good neutral starting point for succession.
Our own experience shows how Presidents have exercised their choice. In 2005, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Artemio Panganiban, although Reynato Puno was the most senior. In 2010, she appointed Renato Corona while Antonio Carpio was more senior.
President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III appointed Maria Lourdes Sereno in 2012 despite several more senior Justices on the Court. In 2021, President Rodrigo Duterte selected Alexander Gesmundo from a shortlist that included Estela Perlas-Bernabe, then the most senior Justice.
These examples demonstrate that seniority is indeed not a constitutional requirement, and that the President may choose the person he believes is best suited to lead the Court from among those on the JBC list.
Still, perhaps seniority can serve as a useful presumption. It preserves the President’s constitutional authority while providing an objective starting point grounded in experience, institutional knowledge, and continuity.
Ultimately, however, seniority should never outweigh the qualities that matter most. The next Chief Justice must possess the competence, integrity, independence, and leadership necessary to guide the Court and maintain public confidence in the Judiciary as a whole.
As Chief Justice Gesmundo prepares to conclude his tenure, the question is no longer simply who is next in line. It is who is best prepared to lead the Court and the judiciary into the next chapter.
