‘ASSAULT ON THE JUDICIARY’: Supreme Court speaks out on violence vs lawyers, judges

By Joseph B.A. Marzan

 

After weeks of calls from members of the legal profession to address the growing attacks and killings of lawyers and judges, the Supreme Court (SC) broke its silence on Tuesday, Mar. 23, 2021.

Calls for the protection of lawyers and judges intensified in early March after Atty. Angelo Karlo Guillen, one of the counsels in petitions against Republic Act No. 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020), was attacked in a stabbing incident in Iloilo City last Mar. 3.

Guillen, a member of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), was also said to have lost some of his case files after the incident.

The statement signed by outgoing Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta and all 14 Associate Justices of the high court acknowledged the multiple letters and manifestations submitted to them concerning threats to judges and killings of lawyers.

They specifically mentioned the manifestations submitted by some of the lawyers and parties in the cases questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020), the statement of concern of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the letter from the University of the Philippines College of Law, and the Free Legal Assistance Group.

The SC condemned threats, attacks, and unfair labels to lawyers and judges, also acknowledging its duty to ensure that they may be able to perform their duties, and called them as an “assault on the judiciary”.

“The Judiciary is one of the three pillars of our republican democracy, which itself hangs on a careful balance between and among governmental powers. To threaten our judges and our lawyers is no less than an assault on the Judiciary. To assault the Judiciary is to shake the very bedrock on which the rule of law stands. This cannot be allowed in a civilized society like ours. This cannot go undenounced on the Court’s watch,” the high court said.

The SC also acknowledged the public’s fears over these incidents, explicitly calling them as legitimate and essential to the enjoyment of rights and freedoms.

“We are aware that there are wayward elements who, in their zeal to do what they think is necessary, would simply brush aside the limitations in our law as mere obstacles. This should never be countenanced, for it is only in the enjoyment of our inalienable and indivisible rights that our freedoms become meaningful,” they stated.

The high court outlined five courses of action in addition to their statements:

– Requesting the lower courts and law enforcement offices for relevant information on the numbers and context of threats or killings of lawyers and judges in the past 10 years, and urging the public to provide vetted information on any incidents of threats and killings, to be submitted to the SC Public Information Office before the last week of April 2021;

– Deliberation and promulgation of rules on the use of body cameras for the service of search and arrest warrants, without prejudice as to whether or not buy-bust operations under Republic Act No. 9165, as amended (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) would also be covered;

– Ordering the Office of the Court Administrator to coordinate with law enforcement agencies on investigation into linking Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court Branch 209 Judge Monique Quisumbing-Ignacio to organizations considered by law enforcers as communists and rebels, and a survey of lower and Shari’a court judges on threats they have received over the last 10 years;

– Referring letters stating specific incidents to the relevant trial courts and order parties to convert the letters into proper remedies, such as, but not limited to, the writs of Amparo and habeas data; and

– Endeavoring to coordinate with all concerned groups on existing mechanisms.

The high court said that it will act based on the information it had gathered from the lower courts, lawyers, and the public.

The SC also encouraged lawyers and their clients who have experienced harassment to file necessary motions in their pending cases so that the relevant courts may provide the necessary relief.

Judges, lawyers, and the public were assured that the high court will “comply with their constitutional duty to act decisively when it is clear that injustices are done”, and encouraged judges and lawyers to “remain strong, steadfast, and unwavering” in their duties.

“At no more fitting time than now should the Judiciary remain undaunted, with a clear vision of taking courage, enforcing the law, and upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. (sic) True to the just virtues we all must fight for, our resolve is unqualified. We recognize the bravery of all the judges and lawyers who show up to administer justice in the face of fear. Let there be no doubt, the Supreme Court stands with them,” said the court.

In a statement to Daily Guardian, Bayan Muna chairman and NUPL chairperson Atty. Neri Colmenares welcomed the SC’s move and expressed hope in the investigations and the requirement of the use of body cameras.

But he also addressed “weaker” points, such as the use of the writ of Amparo to protect against threats, and the attacks on lawyers and judges prior to 2010.

Colmenares called on the court for a review of the rules on the writ of Amparo, which he said had “been thwarted by state security forces in many instances in the past few years”, and also for extending the investigation to killings up to the time of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

“The position of the Court today is a very good start on the road to reform. We are happy that before Chief Justice Peralta retires, the Court has come out strongly in the defense of lawyers and judges. We will await the final reforms that the Court will institute particularly on the rules on the issuance of warrants as well as those that seek to protect lawyers and judges.  We ask the new Chief Justice to pursue these reforms and fulfill what the Court committed today—that it will act with decisiveness where there is injustice,” Colmenares said.