“TO threaten our judges and lawyers is no less than an assault to 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 civil society like ours. This cannot go un-denounced on the court’s watch.”
The En Banc statement of the Supreme Court on the killings and threats to lawyers and judges has been universally welcomed. Its concern on and taking note of the welfare of the officers of the court, including those who experienced threats among the lawyers in the petitions questioning the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and the red-tagging of Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court Judge Monique Quisumbing-Ignacio, is an important declaration. Even if it took some precious time to happen, it is generally both comforting and reassuring to the legal community.
At this crucial juncture when other institutions have “defaulted” on lawyers, those bold and unequivocal declarations of the Supreme Court are initial steps in addressing this security concern. It is crucial for the high court to act in a timely and relevant manner on these threats. Since June 2016, at least 54 lawyers and judges have been killed, according to the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers.
So what steps is the high court taking to protect lawyers and judges? In gist, these are:
* request relevant information from the lower courts as well as the various law enforcement offices to shed light on the threats and killings of lawyers and judges within the past 10 years; the high court also urged organizations, lawyers and judges’ groups to provide them with vetted information on any incident threats or killings. Based on these, the Supreme Court will decide if it is necessary to amend relevant rules or create new ones.
* to work on, deliberate and promulgate rules on the use of body cameras for the service of search and arrest warrants
* ordered the Court Administrator to coordinate with law enforcement agencies to investigate the recent incident linking Judge Monique Quisumbing-Ignacio of Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court Branch 209 to communist groups
* ordered the Court Administrator to survey among the trial court and Shari’a judges the extent of threats they have received in the past 10 years; the court will also base their next course of action after a report on this has been made
* referring all letters that contain specific incidents to the relevant trial courts, which will then order the parties to convert such letters into petitions for the writs of amparo and habeas data; the two writs are legal remedies for victims of human rights violations.
In all these processes, the Supreme Court said it will coordinate with all concerned groups through existing mechanisms.
Indeed, the Supreme Court must continue to stand by its own magistrates, its officers of the court, and our people, and ensure or provide more effective and timelier remedies, especially against grave abuse of power and attacks on liberties.
It must assert the rule of law.
