Naked truth militates vs Leonen

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor Leonen should be the clear choice for the next Chief Justice because he has spent years pushing for reform within the judiciary and holding other branches to the law.

In the real world, though, his record is his liability, since the man who will pick the Chief Justice is not looking for a straight arrow.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. will appoint the next Supreme Court (SC) head after the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) submits a list from which he can choose whomever he wants — and he is expected to pick the one who will help him survive politically.

Leonen just made it doubly hard for himself during his interview at the JBC, telling the panel that he had voted against the President who appointed him and against every President after that.

He said this was the only assurance worth giving the public, since he would refuse to offer his loyalty or protection and would not trade principle for the post.

A President under pressure would think about his survival first.

The Supreme Court may be asked to rule on cases that touch his allies. At such a time, he would want a Chief Justice he can trust when the hard cases arrive.

Leonen cannot promise that kind of trust, explaining that the Chief Justice holds only one vote of 15 and should not dictate a case’s outcome. This is bad news for a president who wants a sure outcome.

His plans also cut close to the people in power, as every large corruption case filed by the Ombudsman should be decided at first instance before the end of 2027. He said that he named no case and no person. Still, any listener in Malacañang would count the cases and ask who might be in them.

Leonen also proposed a study on what happened to the big corruption cases since 1986, so that the country can learn how accountability was won and how it was lost. A President with allies in trouble would not enjoy that study.

He went further and said the Court would publish the attempts to interfere with it. It would also publish the names of the people it meets with from the other branches, what was discussed, and what was asked. That is a fine rule for a court, yet it would shut the door to the quiet talks presidents are known to have to get comfort from the bench.

Leonen has written decisions that limit officials’ powers, and he has dissented often, sometimes against the very leaders who now sit near this President.

Leonen is the most senior Associate Justice, with almost 14 years on the Court. He has worked under five Chief Justices, served as Acting Chief Justice, and chairs the Senate Electoral Tribunal. He helped lead the Court’s judicial innovation plan.

Few candidates can match that résumé, and many lawyers and judges would welcome him. If merit alone mattered, he would likely win.

But the choice does not rest on merit alone. Marcos has to think about what each candidate could do for him, as well as what they could do for the courts. A weaker, friendlier candidate asks for little and offers comfort, while a strong, independent candidate asks for much and offers nothing. A President in a fight for his political life will often take the comfort.

Another point that works against Leonen is his tone. He speaks about oppression, hegemony, and the need for courts to stand against dominant interests.

He means those words as a promise to the poor, but the powerful may hear them as a warning. When a man says he will be a counter-hegemonic force, those who hold power hear that he may one day turn on them.

So his chances look slim. If Marcos were secure in his post, he could afford to reward the most able man on the list, but since he carries political baggage, he is more likely to choose someone he can live with.

If Leonen does not get the post, the loss will not come from a lack of fitness. It will come from the fact that he refused to promise what a worried President most wants to hear.