"I may not agree with the words that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"-Voltaire

Shouting on a red painted streamer at the Sandiganbayan building are the words of Jose R. Hernandez which read: AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY IS THE BULWARK OF DEMOCRACY. We presume the signatory is the current justice of the Sandiganbayan’s 4th Division.

True enough, the Supreme Court and all other lower courts would argue the same, that an independent judiciary is indispensable in a democratic and republican state. Former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee once observed that without that independence, no Supreme Court, no judiciary can be either respectable or useful. At the very least, such independence being raised by the defenders of the Chief Justice is that independence from political interference of the Executive and the Legislature, as manifested by the seemingly “clash of ideas”, “challenge to status quo”, and “power struggle.”

But when did the judiciary, the Supreme Court being at the helm, attain such independence under the doctrine of separation of powers? What is the real “test of judicial independence” in our jurisdiction?

Often the Supreme Court is associated with the Malacanang, justices being associated with the President who sworn them in to their sacred and solemn duty as magistrates of the highest court of the land. Counting the majority from the minority in terms of votes is tantamount to counting the votes in favor of the Executive. Public perception of such mindset over the SC seems a glaring contrast with the very essence of independence of the judiciary. And to say that the Court is an obstruction to Malacañang’s policies is neither always a good basis of “court-packing plan” nor always a solid ground of impeaching the members of the Supreme Court.

And where is independence of the judiciary here?

Former Supreme Court justice Isagani Cruz once remarked in his Inquirer column that he doesn’t believe in the Judicial and Bar Council though, he had recognized that Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution considerably enhanced the independence of the judiciary. Justice Antonio Carpio lectured that institutional and individual independence are both necessary for a court to render impartial justice based only on the facts and the law, without any improper influence from the Executive and the Legislature. Ideally, we may conclude that this must be judicial independence.

Further, Justice Carpio lamented that a judiciary can be institutionally independent, but if the Judge rendering the decision has no individual independence, then one cannot expect impartial justice. He also underscored that if a judge is individually independent, but the Judiciary is under the control of the Executive, one cannot also expect impartial justice, especially if the Government is a litigant.
In the recent turn of events, where the Supreme Court is under intense scrutiny, the issue of independence of the judiciary is under paramount consideration. Does the impeachment of the Chief Justice equal to a frontal attack against judicial independence and autonomy?

Indeed, an independent judiciary is the bulwark of democracy. And these should not just be mere words and phrases within the contemplation of the co-equal branches of the government. This is no lip service, an independent judiciary should be for real.