We hear it everywhere: Ikulong na yan, mga kurakot! The call to jail all the corrupt, whether from the Marcos or Duterte camps, demands more than just political resolve from the Marcos Jr. government and the Ombudsman. It also requires a judiciary that delivers justice, through convictions, with integrity and urgency.

Ensuring that investigations are conducted thoroughly and that appropriate charges are laid against all participants in corruption are big enough challenges. But even the most meticulous investigations and well-grounded charges will go to waste unless the judiciary is onboard with the people’s desire to obtain accountability for the massive and widespread acts of corruption.

Unfortunately, public trust in the judiciary is shaky. Decades of acquittals in high-profile corruption cases have cultivated doubts that accountability can be had through the judicial process. The creeping pace of the proceedings and the recent pattern of acquittals in the Sandiganbayan and the reversals by the Supreme Court of its few convictions have reinforced the perception that justice in the Philippines is unequally applied.

In fact, it is not uncommon to hear of low-ranking public officials receiving convictions while their high-ranking counterparts walk free. Indeed, the judiciary’s lack of achievements in this regard is a big part of the reason why corruption never dies. Thus, the corrupt continue not only to walk free but to rule.

The latest developments underscore these concerns.

Must Read

[OPINION] The Philippines awakens as generations of corruption face resistance

Just recently, after many years of protracted proceedings, the Sandiganbayan acquitted Juan Ponce Enrile and his co-accused in the pork barrel plunder case. This means all three senators who were implicated in the Napoles pork barrel scam and charged with plunder by the Aquino Jr. government have avoided any punishment. The big fish have escaped.

The record of convictions for criminal cases committed by members of the Marcos family and their cronies is equally appalling. In the rare event when Imelda Marcos was convicted by the Supreme Court through one of its divisions, her influential defense counsel has incredibly been able to convince the rest of the justices to reconsider and reverse the decision.

As a result, Imelda has not seen the inside of a jail cell. In the equally rare event when the Court of Tax Appeals convicted Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. for a tax offense, it imposed only the penalty of fine, inexplicably omitting to impose the three-year jail sentence provided by law for such offense. Thus, the Supreme Court eventually ruled that Marcos Jr. was not disqualified from running for president under the Election Code which provided that anyone sentenced to imprisonment for more than 18 months was disqualified.

Rise above past record

Can the judiciary rise above its past record and do better in the current and upcoming corruption cases before it? People are incredulous that investigations will lead to transformative change given their frustration with the judges and the judicial system as a whole. Their doubts are not unfounded. Experience teaches that when justice moves too slowly or inconsistently, public confidence erodes. This leads the public to believe that judges will be unlikely to protect the people’s interest and instead allow for corruption to be perpetuated and impunity to take hold.

Clearly, the challenge before the courts is not simply procedural but also moral.

That is, judges must not condone delay in resolving cases; that they themselves must be above bribery and corruption; and that they will not be deaf to the people’s cry for accountability. It is for them to prove that they can serve as guardians of the people’s trust.

How might the judiciary arrest the quick decline of people’s trust in judges? The judiciary must take a hard look inward and take the people’s call to jail all the corrupt seriously. Because the Supreme Court exercises leadership over the judicial branch, it is ultimately responsible for its failings and successes. The highest court needs to demonstrate to the people that it understands the gravity of its role in abating corruption. During the exposé of the Napoles scam, the Supreme Court made a grand gesture towards this end by quickly ruling that the existing pork barrel system was unconstitutional. This act demonstrates that decisive action is possible, though the decision itself has proven to be inadequate; ironically, it has unintentionally bred innovations in the way legislators, officials and contractors orchestrate their crimes.

The Supreme Court could more meaningfully demonstrate leadership in breaking the cycle of corruption by seeking to end the judiciary’s own contribution to the culture of impunity. Filipinos cannot afford to have judges who will treat corruption cases like business as usual. If the Supreme Court were responsive to the people, it would explain by now how corruption cases will be resolved expeditiously and with integrity.

Special rules

Are special rules needed for designated courts? How are they watching over the Sandiganbayan? If the Supreme Court were sensitive to the sentiments of the times, it would explain by now what it is doing to prevent judges from being bribed and corrupted. Is whistleblowing even encouraged within the judiciary? Are they strictly enforcing the code of judicial conduct? Why aren’t we witnessing the release of the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) of judges and justices?

We wish to see a Supreme Court that acknowledges the importance of its role in dismantling systemic corruption through its decisive and transparent action.

This is not to say that every judge lacks integrity. Many within the judiciary continue to serve with courage and fairness under challenging circumstances. However, it is clear that institutional mechanisms for ensuring accountability and upholding integrity must evolve if the judiciary is to earn back the public’s confidence.

Alongside, the anti-corruption movement should immediately develop a monitor or watchdog over the judiciary to channel some of the scrutiny Filipinos are now devoting to nepo babies on judges. Judges who fail to uphold their duty to protect the people’s interests need to be subjected to the same strict accountability and strong public censure currently faced by corrupt public officials and politicians.

Finally, despite best efforts, the judiciary may still fail to heed the call to reform, and accountability may prove unavailing within the existing justice system. What then? We believe this situation entails the creation of extraordinary mechanisms, perhaps inspired by but exceeding mechanisms familiar within the transitional justice field.

As Filipinos continue to wait for the verdicts in these high-profile corruption cases, the spotlight will inevitably and eventually turn towards the judiciary. The question will be asked: are judges and justices truly living up to their sworn duty to deliver justice? The judiciary can either stand as a pillar of accountability, or risk being remembered as an obstacle to it. The choice is theirs. – Rappler.com

Jayson Lamchek is an incoming Lecturer at Western Sydney University, Australia. As a lawyer at the Public Interest Law Center (PILC), he represented people’s organizations seeking accountability for plunder by President Estrada and the Marcos family. Anthea Magpantayis a lawyer who served 14 years at the Office of the Ombudsman, investigating and prosecuting major corruption cases, including the 2004 Fertilizer Fund Scam. She now champions good governance and ethical leadership as an executive coach.