Inquirer·Philippines·

Zalameda is new Chief Justice

Translate

Kathleen de Villa, Luisa Cabato

MANILA, Philippines — With the promise of stamping out corruption in the judiciary and keeping it capable and independent, Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda is taking the helm of the Supreme Court as its 28th Chief Justice.

President Marcos appointed Zalameda to take over from Alexander Gesmundo, who is retiring, Communications Secretary Lino Cayetano announced on Thursday.

Zalameda, 63, has more than three decades of service in the justice system, starting as a court official and public prosecutor before moving to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, Cayetano said.

Article continues after this advertisement

“He has devoted his professional life to the administration of justice,” Cayetano said.

Other candidates

The President chose Zalameda from a Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) shortlist of candidates that included Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Japar Dimaampao and Jose Midas Marquez.

Article continues after this advertisement

Seniority among the 15 justices is based on length of service, not on age. Leonen, 63, has been associate justice since Nov. 21, 2012; Caguioa, 67, since Jan. 22, 2016; Dimaampao, 62, since July 2, 2021; and Marquez, 60, since Nov. 16, 2021.

Marcos expressed confidence that Zalameda would discharge the responsibilities of chief justice with “integrity, impartiality and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law,” Cayetano said.

“We congratulate Justice Zalameda on his selection and wish him well as he prepares to assume this important responsibility to the Filipino people,” he said.

“We also extend our gratitude to Chief Justice Gesmundo for his dedicated service to the judiciary and our nation,” he added.

‘Respect for boundaries’

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the organization of all Filipino lawyers in the country, welcomed Zalameda’s appointment and expressed confidence that the new Chief Justice would ensure judicial integrity and faithful administration of justice.

Zalameda said that he had always been guided by the separation of powers of the three branches of government whenever he decided cases.

“Each branch of government is bound by its own constitutional mandate. Respect for these boundaries is one of the foundations of a constitutional government,” he told the JBC during his public interview on Oct. 26.

He recognized that court decisions “do not operate in a vacuum” as they have real-world consequences, “not only for parties before the Court, but also for institutions, communities, and the public.”

If appointed to the top post in the high tribunal, Zalameda vowed to be a leader that would be a “servant of the judiciary”—someone who is “attentive” to litigants, lawyers, court employees, judges and his fellow justices.

“I have always believed that one who cannot be a good follower cannot be a good leader. Some of history’s worst leaders have been those who take pleasure that leadership meant only being obeyed,” he said. “The role is to create an environment where problems are heard, solutions are developed, good ideas are supported, and people are given the tools to fulfill their responsibilities.”

Planned reforms

Zalameda laid down a number of “data-driven and people-centered” reforms to be implemented in phases.

Apart from continuing the plans and gains of Gesmundo’s “modernization” program, Zalameda also wants to strengthen anticorruption initiatives and address allegations of misconduct in the judiciary to ensure that transparency and accountability are prioritized on his watch.

He also plans to fix the system which leads to case delays that continue to burden litigants in seeking timely justice through the proper use of technology and a “reliable data and case-weighting framework.”

“I recognize that not all cases require the same amount of time and effort,” he said. “Reliable data and a case-weighting framework can help further improve case management, distribute judicial workloads fairly, and direct resources where they are most needed.”

Investing in safe, accessible and equipped halls of justice, especially in geographically isolated areas, is also part of his plans. Court facilities “reflect the judiciary’s commitment to the dignity of every person seeking justice,” he said.

Pro-Marcos decisions

Zalameda authored the June 2022 decision dismissing two petitions questioning the candidacy of then presumptive president Marcos and the June 2026 decision reversing the graft conviction of the President’s mother, former first lady Imelda Marcos, by the Sandiganbayan.

The decision on the questioned candidacy of Marcos rejected the grounds raised by the petitioners that he committed “moral turpitude” in an alleged tax evasion case, which the Supreme Court said was just a failure to pay taxes. The conviction also did not impose the penalty of imprisonment and disqualification from public office, according to the ruling penned by Zalameda.

In the Imelda Marcos case, which involved Swiss-based foundations, the Court said the Swiss documents were not properly authenticated, and the prosecution presented no credible witness to attest to their genuineness.

Stand vs Red-tagging

One decision authored by Zalameda, for which human rights groups hailed the Supreme Court, struck down Red-tagging—the vilification, labeling and guilt by association of activists and human rights workers. It said the practice by security forces threatened a person’s right to life, liberty or security.

When pressed on how the administration would respond to criticisms about Zalameda’s appointment following his rulings that favored the Marcoses, Cayetano said the incoming Chief Justice held extensive experience in the judiciary since the administration of the late President Fidel V. Ramos.

He said the Marcos administration believed in Zalameda’s “impartiality.”

“We look forward to working with the new Chief Justice,” Cayetano said.

‘A striking contrast’

Taking note of the rulings on the Marcoses and the Red-tagging, the support group for political prisoners, Kapatid, said that “preserving public trust in the judiciary rests heavily on its independence, particularly from executive influence.”

The group said that Zalameda’s judicial record “presents a striking contrast.”

“In light of these contrasting rulings, we look to the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Zalameda’s leadership to consistently uphold civil liberties and deliver justice, especially for those most vulnerable to state abuse,” it said.

It added that the lives of political prisoners and those whose human rights were at risk would depend on “a judiciary that rejects the weaponization of legal processes and places the protection of human rights above all.”

“Ultimately, the Supreme Court must be a refuge for those whose rights are violated, not an instrument of the very power from which they seek protection,” Kapatid said.

Pending cases

In the coming days or weeks, the Zalameda court will have to rule on highly political cases involving the Dutertes and their allies:

• The habeas corpus petitions by the ex-President’s children, which challenge his handover to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Solicitor General asked the court to dismiss them, arguing that as such a writ could not be enforced outside the country.

• The petition by Duterte and Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa challenging their arrest, the government’s cooperation with the ICC and the enforcement of an international tribunal’s arrest warrant in the country.

• Dela Rosa’s Oct. 27 motion for reconsideration on his request for a temporary restraining order against his arrest, which the court had denied.

• The reconsideration of petitions challenging the Senate impeachment court’s ruling that would lower the conviction threshold in the impeachment trial of the Vice President, from 16 to 14 votes if six senator-judges are unable to participate. The petitions had been dismissed by the court for lack of legal standing and premature timing.

• A possible motion for reconsideration from the administration regarding the court’s ruling declaring parts of the 2024 and 2025 national budgets unconstitutional. Zalameda was among the justices who dissented from the ruling, arguing that Congress was not barred from proposing new programs, activities and projects that were absent from the National Expenditure Program.

Started out as clerk

Zalameda began his career in law as branch clerk of the Makati Regional Trial Court after passing the bar examinations in 1988. He graduated a year earlier from the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law under a scholarship grant.

From 1990 to 1995, Zalameda briefly left government service to engage in private practice. He returned to government service in 1995 as a public prosecutor until his appointment as the city prosecutor of Mandaluyong in 2002.

On Sept. 11, 2008, Zalameda was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA).

In 2010, he was named “Ulirang Mandaleño” by the city government of Mandaluyong in recognition of his distinguished career in public service.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

He was chair of the CA 17th Division when he was appointed by Duterte to the Supreme Court. —With a report from Inquirer Research

View the original on Inquirer →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.