Judiciary to House: Hands off!

Supreme Court Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan has slammed a proposal to change the process for selecting the presiding officers of the Judiciary.

Demapan said the proposed constitutional amendment should not originate from the House of Representatives, as the legislative body does not currently have a hand in appointing or confirming the chief justice of the Supreme Court and presiding judge of the Superior Court.

Sponsored by Rep. Ray N. Yumul, the legislative initiative proposes to have the judicial officers elected by their peers.

Currently, the chief justice and the presiding judge are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. No criteria have been set for the selection of these officials.

“The stakeholders that this house initiative would impact the most are not being involved in the initial decision making process. The governor, who has the constitutional authority to nominate a chief justice and presiding judge, was not consulted for input. The Senate, which exclusively holds the power to confirm or reject the governor’s nominee for these positions, has also not been involved in this important process,” Demapan said.

“For these reasons, absent any clear showing of willingness by the governor to relinquish his authority to nominate the chief justice and presiding judge, or the Senate’s willingness to surrender its authority to confirm nominees for these two positions, this initiative should fail,” he added.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s Office has said the selection process for judicial officers is “a public policy question well within the sound discretion of the Legislature.”

Attorney General Matthew T. Gregory said that Yumul’s proposal has its advantages. He said that having the judges or justices choose one of their own promotes judicial independence and self-sufficiency. It is more flexible and efficient than the confirmation process. Further, it could promote “greater collegiality and responsiveness of the presiding officers to the concerns of their associates.”

On the other hand, he said, it could also worsen internal tensions and behind-the-scenes politicking.

“Moreover, since the duties of the presiding officer involve leadership affecting the entire Commonwealth, there is something to be said for letting the people, through their elected representatives from each municipality, having input into the selection of these critically important positions,” Gregory said.

Under Yumul’s proposal, the chief justice must be chosen by two of the three justices to serve a term of four years. The presiding judge must have the approval of at least three of the five judges to serve for three years.

The initiative also proposes to prevent the chief justice or the presiding judge from serving consecutive terms “to allow different justices and judges to bring a broader range of ideas and programs to the Judiciary.”

A legislative initiative requires the approval of three fourths of the members of each house of the Legislature. Once it clears the Legislature, it is placed on the ballot for the voters’ ratification.