By Atty. Howie Calleja
In a democratic state, the balance of power rests upon three co-equal branches of government. While the executive and legislative branches are often swayed by the tides of public opinion, the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, stands as a bulwark of reason, its strength derived from the merit, independence, and legal scholarship of its justices. Recent criticisms directed at the judiciary serve as a somber reminder that this branch, too, is vulnerable to public perception, signaling a potential crisis for our democracy – a crisis that demands a renewed commitment to judicial humility.
Judicial humility is not weakness, but rather a profound recognition of the limits of one’s own knowledge and the potential for error. It is an acknowledgment that justices, like all individuals, are fallible, and that their interpretations of the law are not the only valid perspectives. This humility manifests in several key ways: a deep respect for the roles and decisions of the other branches of government, a deference to established legal precedents, and an openness to considering diverse viewpoints.
Thus, the importance of judicial humility cannot be overstated. First, it fosters public trust. When justices demonstrate humility, they are perceived as impartial and trustworthy, which is essential for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. Second, it promotes sound decision-making. By acknowledging the potential for error, justices are more likely to approach cases with careful consideration, avoiding hasty or ill-considered judgments. Third, it encourages legal development. A willingness to learn and adapt is crucial for the ongoing evolution of the law. Judicial humility creates an environment where new ideas and perspectives are welcomed and thoughtfully considered.
The recent impeachment attempt against Vice President Duterte, and the Supreme Court’s role in navigating the legal challenges that ensued, underscores the importance of judicial humility. In such politically charged cases, the temptation to succumb to public pressure or partisan interests can be immense. However, it is precisely in these moments that the justices must remain steadfast in their commitment to the law, setting aside personal biases and striving to reach a decision that is grounded in legal principles and precedent.
Our Supreme Court’s willingness to revisit and, when necessary, correct its own decisions is a testament to the principle of judicial humility. The very existence of motions for reconsideration and appeals recognizes that justices are not infallible and that their judgments are subject to further scrutiny. This process of self-correction is not a sign of weakness, but rather a demonstration of intellectual honesty and a commitment to the pursuit of justice.
In these turbulent times, when the foundations of our democracy appear to be shaken, the Supreme Court must serve as a sanctuary of truth and the rule of law. By embracing judicial humility, the justices can strengthen the Court’s legitimacy, foster public trust, and ensure that the scales of justice remain balanced for all. For in the end, it is not power or prestige that defines a great judge, but rather the wisdom, humility, and unwavering commitment to justice that guides their every decision.
