INDEPENDENCE IN BOTH ITS INDIVIDUAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS

149

ACADEMICS CHAIR:LESTER JAY ALAN E.FLORES II

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S Q: What is the importance of Judicial

independence?

A: Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall, therefore, uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects. (Canon 1, NCJC)

Note: Individual Judicial Independence focuses on each particular case and seeks to insure his or her ability to decide cases with autonomy within the constraints of the law. It is a “pre-requisite to the rule of law” and a “fundamental guarantee of fair trial”

While Institutional Judicial Independence focuses on the independence of the judiciary as a branch of government and protects judges as a class. (In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet Published in Malaya dated September 18, 19, 20 and 21, 2007)

Note: The treatment of independence as a single Canon is the primary difference between the new Canon 1 and the Canon 1 of the 1989 Code.

Q. What is the difference between the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and Code of Judicial Conduct?

A. They differ in three ways:

New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

Code of Judicial Conduct Focuses on the

institutional and personal

independence of judicial officers

Concerned primarily with the institutional independence of the judiciary.

Contains eight norms of conduct that judges “ shall follow”

Contained three guidelines explaining what judges “should do”

* Canon 1 of the 1989 Code created a weaker mandate.

The treatment of independence as a single canon

Note: Judges should inspire public confidence in the judiciary which can be attained only if judges are perceived by the public to be fair, honest, competent, principled, dignified and honorable.

Accordingly, the first duty of judges is to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that is beyond reproach.

Judges must reject pressure by maintaining independence from, but not limited to the following:

1. Independence from public officials – the public laid their confidence on the fact that the official is mentally and morally fit to pass upon the merits of their varied intentions.

2. Independence from government as a whole – avoid inappropriate connections, as well as any situation that would give rise to the impression of the existence of such inappropriate connections.

3. Independence from family, social, or other relationships – Do not sit in litigation where a near relative is a part of or counsel; be independent from judicial colleagues (Sec. 2) and avoid such actions as may reasonably tend to wake the suspicion that his social or business relations constitute an element in determining his judicial course.

4. Independence from public opinion – only guide is the mandate of law.

Q: In a civil case submitted for a decision, Judge Corpuz-Macandog acted on it based on a telephone call from a government official telling her to decide the case in favor of the defendant, otherwise she will be removed. The judge explained that she did so under pressure considering that the country was under a revolutionary government at that time. Did the judge commit an act of misconduct?

A: Yes. A judge must decide a case based on its merits. For this reason, a judge is expected to be fearless in the pursuit to render justice, to be unafraid to displease any person, interest or power, and to be equipped with a moral fiber strong enough to resist temptation lurking in her office.Here, it is improper for a judge to have decided a case based only on a directive from a government official and not on the judge’s own ascertainment of facts and applicable law.

(Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandog, A.M. No. R-351-RTJ, Sept. 26, 1986)

Section 1, Canon 1, NCJC: Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

Q: Mayor C was shot by B, the bodyguard of Mayor D, inside the court room of Judge Dabalos. Consequently, an information with no bail recommendation was filed against B and D.

The murder case was then scheduled for raffle but before the scheduled date, the son of Mayor C together with their counsel, Atty. Libarios, and other sympathizers staged a rally demanding immediate arrest of the accused. Judge Dabalos then issued an order without prior hearing directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused. Did the judge commit an act of misconduct?

A: Yes. The judge should not issue warrant of arrest without personally evaluating the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence to establish judicial probable cause (Sec.6, Rule 112, Rules of Crim.Pro). A judge in every case should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan or personal interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. Here, the judge should not have allowed himself to be swayed into issuing a warrant of arrest. (Libarios v. Dabalos A.M. No.

RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991)

Note: In the performance of their judicial duties, judges must not bow down to public opinion, and disregard editorials, columns or TV or radio commentaries on cases pending before them.

The highest degree of independence is required of judges. Once a judge gives in to pressures from whatever source, that judge is deemed to have lost his independence and is considered unworthy of the position. More than just a breach of the rudiments laid down in the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges who succumb to pressure and, as a result, knowingly ignore proven facts or misapply the law in rendering a decision commit corruption and face both administrative and criminal prosecution under R.A.

3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Art.

204, RPC.

Q: May a judge consult with staff and court officials?

A: No. The highest degree of independence is required of judges. He must be independent in decision-making. However, he can ask colleagues

purely academic or hypothetical questions but not to the extent of asking them to decide a case.

Note: It is every judge’s duty to respect the individual independence of fellow judges.

Note: A judge is prohibited from making public statements in the media regarding a pending case so as not to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

(2007 Bar Question)

This section affirms that a judge’s restraint from exerting influence over other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies is required for more than just propriety.

Q: Is the influence exerted by a judge required to be successful in order to constitute misconduct?

A: No. Any attempt, whether successful or not, to influence the decision-making process of another judge, especially one who is of lower rank and over whom a judge exercises supervisory authority constitutes serious misconduct.

Q: Judge Villamor, in his capacity as the executive judge, designated Judge Pitao as the acting MCTC judge of a municipality. Thereafter, Judge Villamor sent a letter through the wife of a certain accused in a criminal case, which had long been pending before the MCTC. The note is to the effect that Judge Pitao should acquit the accused but when Judge Pitao decided otherwise, Judge Villamor directed the former to forward the record to the latter’s sala. Judge Villamor then acquitted the accused. Did Judge Villamor commit an act of misconduct?

A: Yes. A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. A judge shall not influence in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court. This is so because such interference does not only subvert the independence of judiciary but also undermines the people’s faith in its integrity and impartiality. Here,Judge Villamor’s act of sending a note to Judge Pitao for the latter to decide a case in favor of the accused constitutes undue interference (Sabitsana, Jr. v.

Villamor, RTJ No. 90- 474, Oct. 4, 1991) Sec. 2, Canon 1, NCJC: In performing judicial

duties, Judges shall be independent from judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently.

Sec. 3, Canon 1, NCJC: Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.

(Principle of Sub-judice)

151

ACADEMICS CHAIR:LESTER JAY ALAN E.FLORES II

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S Note: If the consultation is purely on an academic or

hypothetical basis, and the judge does not surrender his or her independent decision making, there can be no breach of Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 1 of the New Code.

Q: What is the purpose of Sec. 4 Canon 1 of NCJC?

A: It is intended to ensure that judges are spared from potential influence of family members by disqualifying them even before any opportunity for impropriety presents itself.

Q: What does the term “judge’s family” include?

A:

1. Judge’s spouse 2. Son

3. Daughter 4. Son-in-law 5. Daughter-in-law

6. Other relative by consanguinity or affinity within the sixth civil degree, or

7. Person who is a companion or employee of the judge and who lives in the judge’shousehold (NCJC of the Philippine Judiciary-Annotated, February 2007) Q: When is a judge’s disqualification to sit in a case mandatory?

A: When the judge is related to one of the parties within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity.

Note: Judges should ensure that their family members, friends and associates refrain from creating the impression that they are in a position to influence the judge. Judges should, therefore, at all times remind themselves that they are not in the judiciary to give out favors but to dispense justice.

They should also make it clear to the members of their family, friends and associates that they will neither be influenced by anyone, nor would they allow anyone to interfere in their work.

Note: Affirms the independence of the judiciary from the two other branches of government.

Q: Is it enough that a judge is free from inappropriate connections with executive and legislative branches of the government?

A: No. Judges must also appear to be free from such to a reasonable observer.

Note: Mere congeniality between a judge and a government official may not necessarily be unethical, but it may still create the appearance of impropriety.

Q: Several employees of the city government of Quezon City were appointed and assigned at the office of the Clerk of Court-MeTC QC to assist the organic staff of the Judiciary. However, the executive judge of MeTC QC, in view of a reorganization plan, returned those employees to different offices of QC government saying that the court is already overstaffed. The judge also requested the QC Mayor to re-employ the laid off employees. Did the judge commit any improper conduct?

A: Yes. An executive judge has no authority to cause the transfer of court employees as the jurisdiction to do so is lodge solely upon the SC through the Office of the Court Administrator.

This is so because of the need to maintain judicial independence. Moreover, a judge shall be free from inappropriate connections with and influence from the executive and legislative branch. Here, the judge did not act independently of the LGU when she asked the Mayor of QC to re- employ the displaced employees instead of informing the SC through the OCA of the need to streamline her court of its personal needs (Alfonso v. Alonzo-Legasto, A.M. No. MTJ 94-995, Sept. 5, 2002)

Note: Judicial independence is the reason for leaving exclusively to the Court the authority to deal with internal personnel issues, even if the court employees in question are funded by the local government(Bagatsing v. Herrera, G.R. No. L-34952, July 25, 1975)

Sec. 4, Canon 1, NCJC: Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

Sec. 5, Canon 1, NCJC: Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer.

Note: It is desirable that the judge should, as far as reasonably possible, refrain from all relations which would normally tend to arouse suspicion that such relations warp or bias his judgment, and prevent an impartial attitude of minds in the administration of judicial duties.Judges should not fraternize with litigants and their counsel; they should make a conscious effort to avoid them in order to avoid the perception that their independence has been compromised. A judge’s act of sending his staff to talk with the complainant and show copies of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by members of the bench. (Tan v.

Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563, Sept. 8, 2004) Q: Are judges allowed to join religious and professional organizations?

A: Yes. Section 6, Canon 1 of the NCJC does not require a judge to live a hermit’s life. Judges should socialize and be sensitive to social concerns and developments. They may join religious or professional organizations but their membership in these organizations should not interfere with their judicial tasks.

Note: Sections 7 and 8 of Canon 1 are intended to serve as catch-all provisions for all other acts that would guarantee the independence of the judiciary.

There can be no sure guarantee of judicial independence than the character of those appointed to the Bench.

Q: Who are good judges?

A: Good judges are described as those who:

1. Have the mastery of the principles of law, 2. Discharge their duties in accordance with

law,

3. Are permitted to perform the duties of the office undeterred by outside influence, and

4. Are independent and self-respecting human units in a judicial system equal and coordinate with the other two departments of the government (Borromeo v. Mariano, G.R. No. 16808, Jan. 3, 1921).

Judges must remain conscious of their character and reputation as judges and should avoid anything which will indignify their public positions and demean the institution to which they belong, in whatever atmosphere or environment they may happen to be.

Note: The judge should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly administer justice. He must view himself as a priest for the administration of justice is akin to a religious crusade(Dimatulac v. Villon, G.R. No. 127107, Oct.

12, 1998)

Note: A judge should act with integrity and behave with integrity at all times so as to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

Q: Is integrity required only in the discharge of judicial duties?

A: No. Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges. (Canon 2, NCJC) Note: The integrity of the judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice but also upon the perception and confidence of the community that people who run the system have done justice. Justice must not be merely done but must also be seen to be done. (Panaligan v. Judge Ibay, A.M. No. TJ-06-1972, June 21, 2006)

Note: In the Judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity (Pascual v Bonifacio, AM No. RTJ-01-1625, March 10, 2003).

Sec. 6, Canon 1, NCJC: Judges shall be independent in relation to society in general and in relation to the particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to adjudicate.

Sec. 7, Canon 1, NCJC: Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the judiciary.

Sec. 8, Canon1, NCJC: Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.