100% found this document useful (1 vote)
194 views4 pages

New Code of Judicial Conduct For The Philippine Judiciary

This document discusses the importance of judicial independence and ethics for judges. It outlines several key principles: 1) Judges must be independent, honest, fair, diligent and competent, and be perceived as such by the public. 2) Judicial independence is essential to maintaining the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights. It has both institutional and individual aspects. 3) Safeguards of judicial independence include security of tenure, adequate remuneration, and protections from undue interference or influence over judicial decisions. 4) Threats to judicial independence can come from political pressures, relationships with other parties, or threats of legal or physical retaliation. Upholding independence and ethics is crucial for public trust in the impartial

Uploaded by

Marie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
194 views4 pages

New Code of Judicial Conduct For The Philippine Judiciary

This document discusses the importance of judicial independence and ethics for judges. It outlines several key principles: 1) Judges must be independent, honest, fair, diligent and competent, and be perceived as such by the public. 2) Judicial independence is essential to maintaining the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights. It has both institutional and individual aspects. 3) Safeguards of judicial independence include security of tenure, adequate remuneration, and protections from undue interference or influence over judicial decisions. 4) Threats to judicial independence can come from political pressures, relationships with other parties, or threats of legal or physical retaliation. Upholding independence and ethics is crucial for public trust in the impartial

Uploaded by

Marie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

LEGAL ETHICS JUDGE E.G.

NERY

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY

GENERAL PRINCIPLES ON JUDICIAL ETHICS

A. More than all the other functionaries of government, judges are expected to act at
all times with rectitude and to live an honorable life.

B. The demand of uprightness upon a judge pertains not only to this public conduct
and behavior but also upon his private acts and deeds.

C. It is imperative that a judge should not only be independent, honest, fair, diligent
and competent but must be perceived by the public to be so.

D. The test to determine whether an act or behavior of a judge is ethical or not is:

Would a fair-minded, informed and reasonable person apprehend


an unethical conduct in a particular act or behavior of a judge?

1. Canon 1 – INDEPENDENCE
A. Concept:

Judicial independence is the capacity of the courts to perform their constitutional


function free from actual or apparent interference, and to the extent that it is
constitutionally possible, free from actual or apparent dependence upon any person or
institution, including in particular, the executive arm of the government.1

B. Two Aspects of Judicial Independence:

1. Institutional Aspect

The capacity of the judiciary to function effectively and


independently of the executive and legislative departments of the
government.

2. Individual Aspect

The capacity of a judge to perform jis judicial task without any


interference from anybody of any office and to render a decision
based upon the established facts and applicable laws.

C. Importance:

1. Judicial independence is essential in maintaining and strengthening the


rule of law.
2. Judicial independence is essential for the protection of the rights of the
people against the strong arm of the State, hence, it preserves and
maintains political and social stability.

1
Chief Justice of Tasmania, quoted by Justice R.D. Nicholson, SC Justice of Western Australia
D. Safeguards of judicial independence:

1. Institutional Safeguards:

1.1 The Supreme Court

a. Cannot be abolished nor its membership be changed by mere


legislation.2
b. May not be deprived of its minimum original and appellate
jurisdiction.3
c. Has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and their
personnel.4
d. Exclusive power to discipline judges of lower courts.5
e. May formulate rules of court.6
f. Only it can order the temporary assignment of judges to places
other than their regular stations.7
g. Can appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary.8
h. May not be burdened with an increase by law of its appellate
jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence.9

1.2 Members of the Supreme Court can be removed only by


impeachment.10

1.3 All justice and judges of all levels of court have security of tenure
which cannot be undermined by a law reorganizing the judiciary.11

1.4 Justices and judges shall not be designated to any agency performing
quasi judicial or administrative functions.

1.5 The salaries of justices and judges may not be reduced during their
continuance in office.12

1.6 The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.13

2. Individual safeguards:

2.1 security of tenure


2.2 security and adequacy of remuneration
2.3 immunity from civil and criminal liabilities for their judicial acts.
2.4 Firm but reasonable mechanism for disciplining erring judges.

2
Article VIII, section 4 (1), Phil. Constitution
3
Art VIII, section 2
4
Art. VIII, sec. 6
5
supra
6
Art. VIII, section 5 (5)
7
Art. VIII, sec. 5 (3)
8
Art. VIII, se, 5 (6)
9
Art. VI, section 30
10
Art. IX, sec . 2
11
Art. VIII, sec. 6
12
Art. VIII, sec. 10
13
Art. VIII, sec. 3
E. Most Important Aspects of Judicial Independence:

1. Selection
The selection process of judges and justices must be rigid and based
upon merit of the highest quality.
2. Tenure
The tenure of judges should be secured and for a comparatively
longer period that other public officials.
3. Removal
The grounds for removal of judges must be clearly defined and
limited only to serious misconduct affecting their fitness to occupy
a judicial position. The process of removal should be fair and with
full observance of the rule on due process.

F. The Traditional Sources of Threat, Pressure, or Influence Against or Over


Judges Which May Impair Their Independence:

1. Influence from relatives, friends, associates or colleagues.


2. Pressure from political patrons and other benefactors.
3. Threats with legal undertones, to:
1. File administrative, civil or criminal suit against him.
2. Expose a judge in media.
3. Be the object of mass demonstration.
4. Threats to life or limb from
1. Criminal elements
2. rebels
3. desperate litigants

G. Jurisprudence:
Normative Cases:
1. Ocampo vs, Cabangis, 15 Phil. 626 [1910]
Legislature has no power to prescribe the manner in which the
courts may exercise their constitutional functions. To concede that
authority to the legislature is to allow it to control the courts.

2. Alzua vs, Johnson, 21 Phil. 30814


The Judge in exercising the authority vested upon him by law, shall
be free to act upon his own convictions without apprehension of
personal consequence to himself.

3. Government of Tarlac vs. Gales


The Court cannot maintain its dignity and independence if other
agencies of government should determine what the court should
have or use in the discharge of its functions and when and how it
should obtain
14
Citing Bradley v. Fisher, 80 US 336
2.Contemporary Cases:

2.1 Judicial independence in regard to supervision of court personnel and


management:
Alfonso vs. Alonzo-Legasto, A.M. MTJ-94-995 (Sept. 5, 2002)
For judicial independence to be a reality, the least interference by or
influence from other governmental departments is of the essence.

2.2 Judicial independence and administrative and disciplinary supervision


over judges.

Caoilbes vs. Ombudsman, G.R. 132177 (July 19, 2001)


The principle of judicial independence demanded that the Office of
the Ombudsman refer to the Supreme Court to make a
determination first of whether or not there is any administrative
liability in order to forestall the absurd situation where the SC
declares that the Respondent judge is free of administrative liability
while the Office of the Ombudsman prosecute him for a crime on
the basis of the very same facts.
Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15 (Apr. 13, 2001)
The motion for the disqualification of most of the members of the
Supreme Court was tantamount to depriving the Court of judicial
power, and thus constitutes a direct attack on judicial
independence.
Re: Suspension of Judge Jacobo, A.M. 93-10-1296-RTC (Aug. 12, 1998)
Congeniality between a judge and a governor was not necessarily
detrimental to judicial independence, provided that there was no
showing that such relations were for corrupt ends.

In the Matter of Impeachment Complaint Against the Chief Justice Hilario


J. Davide15

“Fears that the Court's conclusion today would yield a constitutional


crisis, that the present controversy would shake the judicial institution to its very
foundations, I am confident, would not come to pass. Through one seemingly
endless martial rule, two bloodless uprisings, three Constitutions and countless
mini-revolts, no constitutional crisis erupted; the foundations of the Court did not
shake. This is not because, in the clashes between the great, perhaps greater,
Branches of Government, the Court is "Supreme" for it holds neither sword nor
purse, and wields only a pen. Had the other Branches failed to do the Court's
bidding, the Court would have been powerless to enforce it. The Court stands firm
only because its foundations are grounded on law and logic and its moorings on
justice and equity. It is a testament to the Filipino's respect for the rule of law
that in the face of these "clashes," this Court's pronouncements have been heeded,
however grudgingly at times. Should there be more "interesting" times ahead for
the Filipino, I pray that they prove to be more of a blessing than a curse.”16

15
G.R. No. 160261 November 10, 2003, and 17 other Petitions against the House of Representatives
16
Separate concurring opinion of Justice Dante Tinga

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy