Can SC amend retirement law for Carpio?

“The past two years saw Carpio opposing China’s illegal territorial claims in the South China Sea, much to the prejudice of the Philippines and to the displeasure of surrounding nations like Vietnam and Malaysia.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio of the Supreme Court (SC)officially retires on 26 October, his 70th birthday.

Carpio had five chances to become chief justice but the post was not destined for him. On three of those occasions, Carpio turned down his automatic nomination by the controversial Judicial and Bar Council.

The post of chief justice may seem an apolitical public office, but history indicates otherwise.

When Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano retired in 1920, the American colonial authorities by-passed the most senior justice, Florentino Torres, and installed the next most senior, Victorino Mapa.

During the Marcos regime, Senior Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee was by-passed twice for the post of chief justice.

Under the Arroyo administration, Senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno was by-passed for Artemio Panganiban. Upon Panganiban’s retirement, however, Puno was appointed chief justice.

The past two years saw Carpio opposing China’s illegal territorial claims in the South China Sea, much to the prejudice of the Philippines and to the displeasure of surrounding nations like Vietnam and Malaysia.

As an incumbent justice of the SC, Carpio delivered lectures on the subject before universities and private organizations. He also wrote a book on the Philippine claim to the contested waters and shoals in the West Philippine Sea.

Carpio insists that Manila should not scuttle its victory in the arbitral case at the international arbitration court of the United Nations in The Netherlands. That arbitral ruling declared Beijing’s maritime claims illegal and a violation of International Law.

Many observers consider Carpio’s public statements regarding the maritime dispute between Manila and Beijing as an unwarranted intrusion in the foreign affairs policies of the executive department of the government, the Department of Foreign Affairs in particular. They say that pursuant to the principle of separation of powers in Philippine Constitutional Law, a justice of the SC like Carpio should not be publicly interfering in foreign policy.

The other issue raised against Carpio is that the time he spent on the lecture circuit was official time, which he should have spent deciding cases filed in the SC. He is paid his salary from the public treasury to attend to judicial work, and not to deliver public speeches on a topic that is the exclusive concern of the DFA.

Last week, the media reported that the Supreme Court unanimously passed (without any participation from Carpio) a resolution granting Carpio the retirement benefits of a chief justice, in recognition of his 18 years in the High Court. Whether or not Carpio accepted the additional grant in retirement benefits was not disclosed in the news.

Nonetheless, the retirement benefits a member of the civil service is entitled to is fixed by law. Since the SC is part of the civil service, then the retirement benefits of its justices should also be fixed by law.

As every student of political science knows, only Congress has the power to amend existing laws.

Carpio will retire not as a chief justice but as an associate justice of the SC. Thus, his retirement benefits must be those of an associate justice, and not those of a chief justice. That is what the law provides.

The mere fact that the justices had to pass a resolution is already an indication that the existing law does not allow the additional retirement benefits granted to Carpio.

Certainly, the power of the Supreme Court to interpret existing legislation applies only when there is ambiguity. As stated in one of its decisions, where there is no ambiguity, there is no room for interpretation, only implementation.

Considering that the High Court cannot amend the law governing retirement benefits, its resolution granting Carpio retirement benefits of a chief justice amounts to a judicial usurpation of legislative power and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

The additional grant of retirement benefits to Carpio must be disallowed by the Commission on Audit. It’s either that, or the justices concerned should be impeached for a culpable violation of the Constitution.

By the way, a retired chief justice reported that a certain Lucio Singh is very close to President Rodrigo Duterte. Is he related to Court of Appeals Justice Maria Filomena Singh, who has been nominated to the HIgh Court?