By Farah G. Decano

 

THIS is a traditional phrase used by lawyers who appear before the Supreme Court during oral arguments.  It is supposed to be a very respectful expression of reverence and respect for the honorable occupants of the august judicial chambers.

Former undersecretary and NT-ELCAC spokesperson, Lorraine Badoy, rubbed the members of the judiciary and the legal profession the wrong way when, on her September 23, 2022 Facebook post, she pleaded for leniency if out of her political beliefs she killed Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar. It will be remembered that Judge Malagar penned the recent decision that refused to tag the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army as terrorist groups.  In a later post, Ms. Badoy continued and wrote about her wish to build an organization that will bomb the offices of corrupt judges who are friends of terrorists even if they kneel and beg for their lives.

Whew.  The outspoken anti-insurgency spokesperson was obviously angry with the decision.

But, the next day on September 24 an organization of trial court judges was quick to call out Ms. Badoy’s alleged reckless insinuations.  This organization is a progressive bloc of judges whose membership is reserved only to those of similar minds and courage.  Affiliation is by invitation only and only after a thorough and discreet background check.  Two days later, the Philippine Judges Association (PJA) followed suit, then the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and so on.

In a rare move on September 27, 2022, the Supreme Court, motu propio, issued A.M. 22-09-16-SC to directly address Ms. Badoy’s statements against Judge Malagar.  It issued a stern warning against those who incite violence which will endanger lives of judges and their families.

Has Miss Badoy displeased the Court?  Is displeasing the Court not part of our freedom of expression?

It may be argued that judges, like politicians, are public officials whose services are paid by taxes of the people.  In fact, they are among the highest paid government officials, very much like city and municipal mayors.  Should they not be under public scrutiny too, like the rest of our public servants?  Can we not use the same standard of reasonable criticism against them because they too are capable of excesses that we observe from politicians?

The judiciary is the last bulwark of democracy and our ultimate succor in the right interpretation of the law.  Public faith in the institution is necessary for a lingering order in society.  The erosion of trust in the judicial department will result to chaos and will ultimately encourage individuals to take law in their own hands.

This was what Ms. Badoy was probably suggesting – for people to take the law in their hands, albeit, hypothetically.  And she was successful in doing this when numerous comments to her post echoed her sentiments. The University of the Philippines countered that her allegations remain dangerous even if it was stated “hypothetically.”

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take heed of the UP College of Law faculty’s request to take Ms. Badoy to task.  I join my college in urging the Highest Court to rule on the case of the former spokesperson so we will be apprised of the standards of reasonable criticism against the judiciary.

Meantime, to the litigants and lawyers who have been victimized by corrupt judges who interpret, “may it please the court,” to mean personally gratifying themselves, please take note that we have a new law, RA 11691 otherwise known as “the Judiciary Marshals Act.”  Section 3(d) of RA 11691 empowers the office of the Judiciary Marshalls to conduct investigations concerning allegations of irregularities including corruption.

Maybe, we should change this traditional phrase of “[M]ay it please the court” in oral arguments to avoid the possible consequences of narcissism among the predisposed.  I suggest that the lawyers’ state, something else.  I propose –

“May this approximate justice.”

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments