‘Justice is hope’: Here are Leonen’s 9 promises as aspiring chief justice

The Judicial and Bar Council is the body that interviews and evaluates candidates for important judicial appointments. For the chief justice selection, it helps identify qualified nominees before the appointment is made. This matters because the process can test a candidate’s plans, values, and understanding of judicial independence in public.

In the article, the Council held public interviews for five candidates. Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was the first to appear. He presented nine promises, including better judicial expertise, wider access to justice, stronger accountability, and continued court digitalization.

The Council’s interview stage gives candidates a chance to explain how they would lead the Supreme Court. It also lets the public hear their positions. The article does not state the Council’s full membership or the final appointment process. It says Leonen was seeking to become the country’s 28th chief justice.

Leonen’s nine promises form a broad plan for improving the Philippine judiciary. They cover better judges, transparent case decisions, full digitalization, accountability in public office, business consultation, more courts, judicial independence, laws for people needing protection, and reform of the legal profession. Together, they aim to make courts more capable, open, reachable, and responsive.

Examples include continuing mandatory free legal service, remote hearings, translation, and community exposure for judges. Leonen also proposed telling parties when cases should be decided, completing large-scale corruption cases filed by the Ombudsman before the end of 2027, and building at least 10 halls of justice in poor provinces. He would publicize interference attempts and review legal rules.

The promises would continue Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo’s innovation plan. They also include customary-law rules for Indigenous peoples, a Writ of Kalayaan concerning detention conditions, and improvements for Shari’ah counselors and lawyers. Leonen linked all proposals to people who still depend on courts for redress.

The article gives no numerical estimate for how many people or institutions would be affected. Instead, it describes a system-wide reach. The proposals concern judges at every level, lawyers, Supreme Court parties, prosecutors, trial and appellate courts, court employees, government agencies, businesses, poor provinces, Indigenous peoples, and people held in detention facilities.

The mechanisms show this breadth. Free legal service would involve lawyers and people needing representation. Digitalization would extend from Department of Justice prosecution through regional trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. New halls of justice and traveling courts would reach poor communities. Reviews would also affect the legal profession, regulatory actions, and corruption cases.

The scale is therefore institutional rather than a stated population figure. More people could encounter the reforms as litigants, lawyers, judges, witnesses, or public officials. Their practical effect would depend on funding, implementation, staffing, and court cooperation, none of which the article quantifies.

These measures could reduce practical barriers that keep marginalized people from using courts. Free legal aid could help people who cannot afford counsel. Remote hearings could reduce travel, while translations could make proceedings easier to understand. More courts would bring services closer to communities that currently face distance, cost, or language barriers.

Leonen proposed continuing mandatory free legal service through the Unified Legal Aid Service. He also cited remote hearings and translation. In poor provinces, he proposed at least 10 halls of justice. Where a building remains too far away, he said courts could travel, as one did from Bongao to Simunul in Tawi-Tawi.

The likely result would be wider participation and fewer access barriers, especially for marginalized litigants. However, the article does not promise automatic success. These changes would require implementation, reliable technology, available lawyers, functioning facilities, and judges prepared to engage with communities. The proposals identify tools, not guaranteed outcomes.

Full digitalization would connect the justice system’s major stages. Prosecution, trials, appeals, and Supreme Court work could use digital records and processes. This matters because information could move more easily between institutions, and parties might participate without always traveling to a courthouse. Digital access could be especially useful for people far from courts.

Leonen said digitalization should cover the Department of Justice’s prosecution, regional trial courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. Combined with his proposal to tell parties the expected decision date, digital systems could make case progress easier to monitor. Electronic records might also make filings and decisions easier to access.

The article does not provide timelines, technical details, or evidence that digitalization alone would speed every case. Its forward effect would depend on implementation and access to technology. If carried out well, it could support faster communication, clearer tracking, and broader access while preserving the courts’ responsibility to decide cases properly.

A chief justice needs to protect independence because courts must decide cases according to the Constitution and law, not pressure from powerful people. Confidential deliberations can give justices room to debate candidly. Protecting dissent allows minority views to be recorded rather than silenced. Full explanations help the public understand why the Court ruled.

Leonen said the Supreme Court should publicize attempts at interference, including who officials or employees met, what was discussed, and what was requested. He also said a chief justice should protect deliberation confidentiality, encourage justices to speak, explain decisions fully, and protect dissent. These measures combine private judicial reasoning with public accountability.

The broader consequence is trust in the judiciary as a check on power. If political or economic interests control outcomes, people may doubt whether courts can protect rights or enforce constitutional limits. Leonen argued that the judiciary should hold government to its conscience: the Constitution. The article presents this independence as essential during political and economic challenges.

Separation of powers divides government authority among branches so no single institution has unlimited control. The judiciary’s checking role is to decide whether actions by the president, agencies, or officials comply with the Constitution and law. This protects people who challenge government decisions and gives legal meaning to constitutional limits.

The article connects this role to Leonen’s call for an independent Supreme Court. He said the Court should expose interference attempts, protect deliberations, encourage dissent, and explain decisions fully. He also promised quicker resolution of corruption cases and review of alleged exactions or extortions by court officials or employees. These mechanisms support accountability inside and outside government.

An independent judiciary does not mean courts govern instead of elected officials. It means judges can make lawful decisions without serving powerful interests. The article says the judiciary should be where government is held to its conscience, the Constitution. Without that role, people could lose a neutral forum for grievances against public power.