OPINION
Chief Justice Zalameda
His appointment would certainly be welcomed by his colleagues and would not generate any case of imbroglio and dissension within the Supreme Court.
Historically, the appointment of the next chief justice once the post becomes vacant follows the seniority rule. This means the President would traditionally choose the associate justice who has served the longest on the Supreme Court.
The purpose of this is to remove the “excessive” exercise of discretion on the part of the chief executive and therefore insulate the high court from political pressure, partisanship and executive interference, treating length of service in the judiciary as the primary merit-based queue.
In other words, nobody wants a chief magistrate who is beholden to the appointing authority.
This tradition, though, is not absolute and may be set aside, as there is no legal or constitutional requirement to follow seniority. Under Section 9, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the President appoints the chief justice directly from a shortlist of at least three nominees submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council without needing confirmation from the Commission on Appointments.
However, if this is to be done, it always makes sense to appoint someone with extensive experience and a solid track record of service to avoid any controversy. Such is the case of Chief Justice Rodil Zalameda.
He may not be the most senior of the nominees but is definitely the most veteran when it comes to a career in the judiciary. In fact, he rose from the ranks, starting from the bottom as a branch clerk of court in Makati following the 1988 Bar Exams, later serving as Mandaluyong City prosecutor starting in 2002 and receiving the Ulirang Mandaleño award in 2010.
Subsequently, he served as an associate justice of the Court of Appeals before his 2019 appointment to the Supreme Court. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated merit and impartiality rather than political favor. Most of all, he has never been involved in any allegation of wrongdoing and has never been made the subject of any administrative, civil or criminal proceeding.
In fact, the new chief justice authored the landmark 2023 Deduro v Vinoya decision, which expressly states that red-tagging threatens fundamental rights and can warrant a writ of amparo, thereby upholding people’s constitutional rights in the process.
More importantly, he penned the 2026 Supreme Court decision that acquitted Imelda Marcos of graft. His detractors may use this against him, but the fact remains that his ruling on the issue of unauthenticated evidence and gaps in the prosecution’s case is not only a solid and sound basis for acquittal but also shows objectivity and competence.
During his Judicial and Bar Council interviews, Zalameda pledged to address case backlogs through infrastructure building (courthouses), technology integration and complexity-based case distribution, alongside improving court staff benefits and addressing allowance discrepancies between trial and appellate courts.
His appointment would certainly be welcomed by his colleagues and would not generate any case of imbroglio and dissension within the Supreme Court.
Hail to the new chief!