In several policy addresses extensively covered by media since his appointment on December 21, 2005, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban vowed to leave a judiciary characterized by “four Ins” and to focus in solving the “four ACID” problems that corrode the administration of justice in our country. Explain this “four Ins” and “four ACID” problems.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Upon assuming his office, Chief Justice Panganiban vowed to lead a judiciary characterized by the “four Ins:” Integrity, Independence, Industry and Intelligence; one that is morally courageous to resist influence, interference, indifference and insolence. He envisions a judiciary that is impervious to the plague of undue influence brought about by kinship, relationship, friendship and fellowship. He calls on the judiciary to battle the “Four ACID” problems corroding our justice system:
(1) limited access to justice by the poor;
(2) corruption;
(3) incompetence; and
(4) delay in the delivery of quality judgments. The judicial department should discharge its functions with transparency, accountability and dignity.
(NOTA BENE: It is respectfully suggested that all Bar Candidates receive a 2.5% bonus for the above question regardless of the answer)
2. The Chief Justice also said that the judiciary must “safeguard the liberty” and “nurture the prosperity” of our people. Explain this philosophy. Cite Decisions of the Supreme Court implementing each of these twin beacons of the Chief Justice. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Chief Justice’s philosophy “Safeguarding Liberty, Nurturing Prosperity” embodies the Supreme Court’s approach in decision-making in the exercise of its constitutional power of judicial review which provides: In cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weight heavily against government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak; and that laws and action that restrict fundamental rights come to the court “with a heavy presumption against their constitutional validity. On the other hand, as a general rule, the Supreme Court must adopt a deferential or respectful attitude towards actions taken by the governmental agencies that have primary responsibility for the economic development of the country; and only when an act has been clearly made or executed with grave abuse of discretion does the Court get involved in policy issues.
Decisions implementing the “safeguarding of liberty” in-clude those involving the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171390, May 3, 2006); the validity of Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) and B.P. Big. 880 or the Public Assembly Act (Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169848, April 25, 2006); and the legality of Executive Order No. 464 and the President’s exercise of Execu-tive Privilege (Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006).
On the other hand, cases that relate to “nurturing the prosperity” of the people include the question the constitutionality of the Mining Law (La Bugal-B’Laan v. Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, Dec. 1, 2004) and the WTO Agreement (Tanada v. Angara, G.R. 118295, May 2,1997).
