Judicial Ethics I. Definitions Ethics- discipline dealing with what is good or bad, or right or wrong.

- we consider something that right or good when what one does conforms with what he/she ought to do - presupposes a standard Legal Ethics- science treating of what an attorney ought to do in relation to the court, to his client, to his colleagues and the public. Judicial ethics- branch of moral science which treats of the right and proper conduct to be observed by judges in administering justice. A legal and moral mechanism that keeps and maintains the trust and confidence of the people in the judicial system. Importance to Lawyers: The administration of justice is a joint responsibility of the judge and the lawyer. The judge expects a lawyer to properly perform his role in the same manner that the lawyer expects a judge to do his part. Their relation shall be based on mutual respect and on a deep appreciation by one of the duties of the other. Only in this manner can each of them minimize occasions for delinquency and help attain the ends of justice. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, took effect on June 1, 2004. It adopts the Universal Declaration for Ethical Conduct of Judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft as revised at the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices held at the Hague on Nov. 25-26, 2002. The Philippine Supreme Court was represented by then Chief Justice Davide and Senior Associate Justice Puno. III. Purpose/s, Canons and Rules a.) The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct An honorable, competent and independent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country, the stability of the government and the well being of the people. (Preamble 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct) Principles/ Canons in the 1989 Code CANON 1: A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES CANON 3: A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY CANON 4: A JUDGE MAY ENGAGE IN EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE CANON 5: A JUDGE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY b.) The New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary - Is intended not only to update and correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial

ethics adopted for the Philippines, but also to stress the Philippines' solidary with the universal clamor for a universal code of judicial ethics. - Is founded upon a universal declaration that: 1. A competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential if the courts are to fulfill their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law; 2. Public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of outmost importance in a modern democratic society; and 3. It is essential that judges, individually and collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system. (Preamble, New Code) 7 cardinal values in the judiciary incorporated in 6 canons in the NEW CODE: independence integrity impartiality propriety equality competence diligence CANON 1INDEPENDENCE Judicial independence is a per-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. SECTION 1. 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 Possible sources of influence: internal- biases, prejudices, preconceived notations external- political, social, familial example: Judge dismissed criminal case on vague grounds, upon his receipt of death threats. Ramirez vs. Corpuz-Macandog, A.M. No. R-351-RTJ, Sept. 26, 1986 - A judge acted improperly when she rendered rulings based on directives from a government official. - The judge, in her defense, said that it being a revolutionary government, she succumbed to the pressure of the government official. - SC denounced the judges act as a patent betrayal of public trust and a revelation of her weak moral character. - The judges should not allow government officials, local or national, to influence their decisions and action in judicial proceedings before them. Libarios vs. Dibalos. A.M. No. RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991 - Judges should not be influenced by overwhelming public opinion. A judge who issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the bail of the accused without the required hearing, on account of a rally conducted by the supporters of the complaint, was declined. - There was unjustified haste in the actions of the judge. A judge is expected to endeavor to diligently ascertain the facts and applicable law, unswayed by partisan or personal interests. SECTION 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent from judicialcolleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently.

 Regardless of good relations, camaraderie and companerismo among judges, they shall not be influenced by their fellow judges insofar as decisions they have to make independently. SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation ordispute pending before another court or administrative agency. The prohibition in Sec. 2 is extended by the prohibition to wield influence upon other courts, quasi-judicial and administrative agencies. Example: The judge wrote to the NLRC Commissioners to tell them that his wife's allegations are untrue. SECTION 4. 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. Definition of Family under the New Code: Those related by blood or marriage within the 6th civil degree, as well as persons who are companions or employees of the judge who live in the judge's household. This section is to discourage and avoid influence peddling by members of the judges inner circle. In some US States, e.g. Denver and Florida, judges were advised to drop lawyer friends in social networking websites. Judges should brace themselves knowing that by their assumptions to judicial office, people close to them might in the future, seek favors or intend to influence them. Judges should be prepared to handle these situations and must already be ready to maintain their independence in the midst of all these external influences. SECTION 5. 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. Considering that the appointments, promotions and movements of judges are subject to executive approval, and that the organization, budget and resources of the judiciary are matters that require legislative grace- judges should still uphold their duty to render justice free without any obligation to reciprocate whatever beneficence that might have been bestowed on them by the two branches. All throughout the New Code, appearance is just as important as the actual embodiment of the cardinal virtues of judgeship. Allowance from LGU's? Case: Judge who makes it a point to invite sanggunian members to his chambers for a quick chat. SECTION 6. 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. SECTION 7. 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. CANON 2 INTEGRITY Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office, but also to the personal demeanor of judges.

SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer. Judges have been disciplined for lack of good moral character, both in their public and private capacities. Accepting bribes; going to cockpits, cacinos, racetracks to bet horses, fraternizing with litigants and their lawyers, delay in rendering decisions;ignorance of the law Ignorance of the Law -Is a mark of incompetence; and where the law involved is elementary, ignorance thereof is considered an indicium of lack of integrity. - The judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the title he holds, or he is too vicious that the oversight was deliberately done resulting to a travesty of justice. SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the Judiciary. Justice must not merely be done, but must also be seen to be done. - Judges must not only render just, correct and impartial decisions, but must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality and integrity. SECTION 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware. - Judges are administrators and protectors of the administration of justice. Their vigilance should go beyond themselves, but also to their staff, subordinates and to the lawyers who are officers of the court.