What judicial autonomy means | Inquirer Opinion
"x x x.
It is different, however, when judges march in the streets to protest the impeachment of a chief justice. They are taking sides on an issue that is already under the jurisdiction of the Senate acting as an impeachment court. Are they doing so as ordinary citizens or as judges? Are they not violating the law when they declare a court holiday and march on the streets on government time? They must know that street protest is not a medium available to judges as judges.
Are they not undermining the authority of their own courts when they express their partiality on a case that belongs to another co-equal branch of government?
This brings us to what is perhaps the crux of the matter. Immediately after he was impeached by the House of Representatives, Chief Justice Corona spoke publicly against President Aquino, accusing him of wanting to control the high court by seeking the appointment of a chief justice “he could hold by the neck.” He must know that that was not the proper venue in which to defend himself nor was the polemical language he used the medium appropriate to his position as a magistrate. The question now is: Can Corona continue to sit in judgment over cases in which the Aquino administration or Mr. Aquino himself is a party?
I suppose not. If he does not take a leave from his position while he is on trial, he would have to inhibit himself from taking part in such cases. This is why it is very important for the rest of the associate justices to steer clear of any action that might be interpreted as taking sides on this issue.
Autonomy does not mean immunity from criticism or pressure. What it means rather is that, in the face of all these, an institution can summon enough will to protect and stay within the basic code of its operating system. The flipside of autonomy is authority, the legitimate power to command or make decisions. When an institution loses its autonomy, it thereby also undermines its authority."
