Rallying behind the chief
It is time to put an end to insinuations that his appointment was a reward for writing the decision acquitting former First Lady Imelda Marcos.
The appointment of a chief justice will seldom satisfy everyone. We have different beliefs, political opinions and preferred candidates. Some place greater weight on seniority; others on judicial philosophy, experience or temperament. These differences are understandable. But with Chief Justice Rodil Zalameda assuming leadership of the Supreme Court, the time has come to rally behind him.
The institution he leads belongs to all of us. Its strength matters to every Filipino, whatever our political affiliation or personal circumstances. Giving its new leader a fair opportunity to serve is an expression of respect for the judiciary and of hope for what it can accomplish.
In legal circles, Chief Justice Zalameda is known for intellectual depth, eloquence and an ability to build consensus. His careful choice of words reflects a mind attentive to both meaning and consequence. His capacity to listen and bring people together is particularly valuable in leading a Court whose members have different perspectives, experiences and judicial persuasions.
A chief justice must work with colleagues who think independently and may disagree strongly. Leadership in that setting requires patience, persuasion and respect. Intellectual ability helps clarify difficult questions; eloquence helps communicate the answers; consensus building helps translate individual convictions into institutional action. These qualities deserve recognition as he begins his stewardship.
It is also time to put an end to insinuations that his appointment was a reward for writing the decision acquitting former First Lady Imelda Marcos. The sequence of a judicial ruling and an appointment, by itself, cannot establish an improper bargain. Suspicion should never substitute for proof, especially when it affects confidence in an institution entrusted with administering justice.
Equally important, that ruling was a decision of the Court, rendered through its First Division. Chief Justice Zalameda was the ponente, the member tasked with writing the decision expressing the Court’s judgment. He did not exercise the judicial power of the Division alone. His colleagues participated in resolving the case and concurred in the result.
To attribute the ruling exclusively to its writer overlooks the collegial character of the Supreme Court. The ponente bears responsibility for his reasoning and vote, as every participating justice does. But authorship does not transform a collective judgment into a personal decree.
We should likewise move beyond condemning decisions simply because they displease a particular group. Judicial reasoning may be examined and respectfully challenged. That is part of a healthy legal culture. The standard, however, should be the Constitution, the law and the evidence, rather than whether the outcome favors our side.
Our support should encourage independence, integrity and faithful service. We can hold the Chief Justice to these expectations while giving him the fairness we ask courts to extend to everyone. Disagreement need not become distrust, and vigilance need not descend into hostility.
Chief Justice Zalameda deserves the opportunity to lead on the strength of his abilities and the merit of his work. Let us offer him our prayers, goodwill and cooperation in advancing a judiciary worthy of the people’s trust. Whatever our earlier preferences, we share an interest in his success in serving justice for all.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.