PR/via Pauline Requesto – PTV News
On 27 June 2019, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to inhibit Justice Antonio T. Carpio from participating in Writ of Kalikasan petition filed by the group led by Monico A. Abogado.
“It is interesting that even before the OSG filed its motion for inhibition, Justice Carpio already told the media that he will not inhibit in this case. This puts the OSG in a bind. Our motion will be an exercise in futility if the issue of his inhibition will be solely left for him to decide. It should be the Supreme Court, as a collegial body, which should decide on our motion,” Calida said.
Ordinarily, the issue of whether or not a judge should inhibit from deciding a case is left to the sole discretion of that judge, who can voluntarily disqualify himself from a case or upon motion of a litigant.
According to the OSG, the grounds for Carpio’s inhibition are his personal bias and manifest partiality, as evidenced by: (1) his active participation in the South China Sea (SCS) Arbitral Proceedings; and (2) his continuing public pronouncements against the actions taken by the government in relation to the SCS Arbitral Award.
The OSG said that the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which was promulgated by the Supreme Court, demands the disqualification of a judge who is unable to decide a case impartially or who appears to a reasonable observer that he is unable to decide impartially. In addition, the Code enumerates instances when a judge is mandated to recuse himself from handling and deciding a case, such as when he has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings, or he previously served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy.
Carpio himself acknowledged that he was part of the team which handled the case of the Philippines in the SCS Arbitral Proceedings before the International Arbitral Tribunal. The case involved the disputed maritime resources in the West Philippine Sea, which are at issue in the Abogado petition.
According to the OSG, Carpio’s mere appearance as a Philippine representative in the arbitral proceedings is sufficient to disqualify him from sitting on and deciding the Abogado Petition. Having represented the Philippines before the arbitral tribunal, he cannot sincerely claim the neutrality or impartiality demanded by judicial ethics and due process of law.
“Justice Carpio’s participation before the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal and knowledge of the facts and issues therein, coupled with his personal pronouncements and issuances leads to the impression he has already reached a conclusion and prejudged this case, even before the petitioners can present their case,” Solicitor General Jose C. Calida said.
In its motion, the OSG stated that through his public statements on the Arbitral Award, Carpio has shown a “penchant for projecting a foreign policy regardless of its alignment with the policies of the current administration.”
“In the constitutional order of our government, the President has always been the chief architect of foreign policy. The Supreme Court has recognized this in several cases. A sitting member of the Court cannot supplant the authority of the President to direct our foreign policy,” Calida said.
