New Chief Justice (CJ) Rodil V. Zalameda, like his immediate predecessor, Alexander G. Gesmundo, is soft-spoken, shy, low-profile, and prefers to work on and write his decisions in privacy, away from the glare of floodlights, microphones, and prying journalists and podcasters.
IN A RARE TALK DURING THE RETIREMENT CEREMONY of CJ Gesmundo at the Supreme Court Session Hall last Nov. 5, CJ Zalameda publicly toasted the outgoing chief as a “fellow Atenean” and vowed to imitate him in upholding the Jesuit motto: “Ad majorem Dei gloriam” (Latin for “For the greater glory of God”). He pledged to continue the reform program initiated by CJ Gesmundo, the “Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovation 2022-2027,” until the end of his term in 2033.
Fully aware that he was not the most senior or second most senior justice, he immediately reached out to Senior Associate Justice (SAJ) Marvic MVF Leonen, who graciously agreed to administer his oath of office before the Court en banc.
This is a signal that again—like his Ateneo buddy—Zalameda wants all his colleagues to participate actively in decision-making and in the administration of the judiciary. Indeed, his seven-year term, like Gesmundo’s five years, will be marked by continuity, collegiality, and spirituality.
PRIOR TO HIS ASCENSION, Zalameda was only seventh in the Supreme Court hierarchy. Ahead of him were (aside from Gesmundo) Leonen, Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting. However, Hernando, Javier (who will retire on Nov. 16), and Inting declined nomination to the post.
To understand the cruciality for Zalameda to befriend Leonen and to secure the presence of his colleagues during his induction, let me briefly discuss the unwritten seniority tradition.
Historically, since the Court was founded 125 years ago, only the most senior or second most senior justice (in length of service to the Court) became chiefs. Even the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. adhered to this rule in naming six chiefs during his long reign: Roberto Concepcion, Querube Makalintal, Fred Ruiz Castro, Enrique Fernando, Felix Makasiar, and Ramon Aquino. Twice bypassed was the most senior justice and martial law critic Claudio Teehankee.
As a consequence of the peaceful 1986 Edsa Revolution, all incumbent justices resigned. Democracy icon Cory Aquino reorganized the Court, elevated Teehankee as her first chief justice and dated the appointments of succeeding chiefs Pedro L. Yap, Marcelo B. Fernan, and Andres R. Narvasa ahead of veteran Justices Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera and Hugo Gutierrez. In so doing, she theoretically upheld seniority that continued through the years with the appointments of (chronologically) CJs Hilario G. Davide Jr., yours truly, Reynato S. Puno, and Renato C. Corona.
Two major reasons justify this tradition. First, senior justices have an unparalleled mastery of the tribunal’s internal processes. The Court operates primarily through its three divisions. Composed of five justices each, they decide about 85 percent of all cases raised to the Court, leaving only the most vital 15 percent to the banc, composed of all 15 justices.
The first division is chaired by the chief, the second by the most senior associate justice, and the third by the second most senior. These two seniors serve as “little chiefs” who lead and guide the members in arriving at sober, wise, and judicious decisions. For them, elevation to the chief magistracy is a natural, seamless progression.
Second, the two little chiefs naturally possess moral ascendancy and jurisprudential command. Due to their long tenure and expertise in recent jurisprudence, they carry the Court’s institutional memory to stabilize judicial thought.
Conversely, elevating junior justices prematurely risks offending the senior peers. Twelfth-ranking CJ Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno struggled to lead her resentful senior colleagues, who ultimately ousted her controversially via quo warranto, not via the constitutionally prescribed impeachment.
THEREAFTER, THE SENIORITY TRADITION was observed again with the short tenures of CJs Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Diosdado M. Peralta. Later, tradition was once more interrupted when fourth-most-senior Gesmundo jumped over the three seniors at the time: Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Caguioa. However, by sticking to congeniality, collegiality, and spirituality, he was able to secure the seniors’ respect through his humility in greatness (per my column last week).
Hearteningly, CJ Zalameda immediately reached out to Leonen (who, at the time, had been bypassed at least twice already) and set the right track for internal harmony, collegiality and mutual respect.
Much like his predecessor, may the enduring dedication of CJ Zalameda to “proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence” carry the heavy weight of his office. May the Court under his watch remain what it was always meant to be: the final, unassailable bulwark of truth and fairness. As I said before the Senate impeachment court, “The Supreme Court may not always be right, but it is never wrong.”
