Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 33

New Code of Judicial Conduct

Sources
• 1946 – Canon of Judicial Ethics
– Based on the American version.
– “For the guidance and observance by judges.”
– Lacked prescribed sanctions for violations.
• December 26, 1988 – Creation of Committee
• October 20, 1989 – Code of Judicial Conduct
– “All judges shall strictly comply with the Code.”
– Imposition of penalties in administrative cases.
• November 25-26, 2002 – Roundtable Meeting of
Chief Justices
*Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct
- Intended to be the Universal Declaration of Judicial
Standards applicable in all judiciaries
(1) a universal recognition that 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) that public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral
authority and integrity of the judiciary is of utmost
importance in a modern democratic society; and
(3) that 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.

• New Code of Judicial Conduct


– A.M. No. 03-05-01 SC, June 1, 2004
• Canon 1: INDEPENDENCE
• Canon 2: INTEGRITY
• Canon 3: IMPARTIALITY
• Canon 4: PROPRIETY
• Canon 5: EQUALITY
• Canon 6: COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE
CANON 1. INDEPENDENCE

Judicial independence is a prerequisite


to the Rule of Law and a fundamental
guarantee of fair trial. A judge shall
therefore, uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and
institutional aspects.
Canon 1: Independence
Sec. 1-8
• Free of extraneous IIPT.
• From judicial colleagues.
• Refrain from influencing cases in another court or
administrative agency.
• Free from FSO influence.
• Free from inappropriate connections and influence.
• In relation to society and particular parties.
• Encourage and uphold safeguard in discharge of
duties.
• Exhibit & promote high standards of judicial conduct.
• Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandog
–A judge is expected to be fearless in
the pursuit of rendering justice, to be
unafraid to displease any person,
interest or power and to be equipped
with a moral fiber strong enough to
resist temptation.
• Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor
–A judge who tries to influence the
outcome of a litigation pending in
another court not only subverts the
independence of the judiciary but also
undermines the people’s faith in its
integrity and impartiality.
• Hurtado v. Judalena
–When a judge is related to one
of the parties within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or
affinity, his disqualification is
MANDATORY.
• Padilla v. Zamora
• Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed
intimacy and camaraderie to the point that
favors in the future may be asked from
respondent judge which he may find hard to
resist. The actuation of a Judge of eating and
drinking in public places with a lawyer who has
pending cases in his sala may well arouse
suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to
erode the trust of the litigants in the impartiality
of the judge. This eventuality may undermine the
people’s faith in the administration of justice.
• Tan v. Rosete
• The judge’s act of sending a member of his
staff to talk with 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. They constitute gross
misconduct which is punishable under Rule
140 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• CANON 2. INTEGRITY

Integrity is essential not only to the


proper discharge of the judicial
office but also to the personal
demeanor of judges.
Canon 2: Integrity
Sec. 1-3
• Conduct is above reproach.
• Reaffirm people’s faith in the
integrity of the judiciary.
–Seen and done.
• Take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures.
• Pascual v. Judge Bonifacio
–In the judiciary, moral integrity is more
than a cardinal virtue; it is a necessity.
–Not only must a judge render a just
decision, he is also duty bound to
render it in a manner completely free
from suspicion as to its fairness and
its integrity.
• Sibayan-Joaquin v. Javellana
– In pending or prospective litigations before them,
however, judges should be scrupulously careful to
avoid anything that may tend to awaken the
suspicion that their personal, social or sundry
relations could influence their objectivity, for not
only must judges possess proficiency in law but
that also they must act and behave in such
manner that would assure, with great comfort,
litigants and their counsel of the judges'
competence, integrity and independence.
– Like Caesar’s wife, a judge must not only be pure
but also beyond suspicion.
• CANON 3. IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality is essential to the proper


discharge of the judicial office. It applies
not only to the decision itself but also to
the process by which the decision is
made.
Canon 3: Impartiality
Sec. 1-6
• Without favor, bias, or prejudice.
• Conduct maintains and enhances
confidence in the impartiality of the judge
and judiciary.
• Minimize being disqualified to hear and
decide cases.
• Refrain from making comments that would
affect the outcome of proceedings.
• Disqualify themselves due to the ff reasons:
1. Actual bias or prejudice /personal knowledge;
2. Previously serve d as a lawyer or material
witness;
3. Possesses economic interest;
4. Served as EAGTLW
5. Relationship- consanguinity or affinity
- Party Litigant (w/in 6th civil degree), counsel
(w/in 4th)
6. Financial interest of spouse or child as HLCFO
• Or disclose the basis of disqualification.
– Written agreement
• Parayno v. Meneses
• The rule of disqualification of judges must yield
to demands of necessity. A judge is not
disqualified to sit in a case if there is no other
judge available to hear and decide the case.
When all judges would be disqualified,
disqualification will not be permitted to destroy
the only tribunal with power in the premises.
The doctrine operates on the principle that a
basic judge is better than a no judge at all.
Under such circumstances, it is the duty of the
disqualified judge to hear and decide the
controversy, however disagreeable it may be.
• Chavez v. Public Estates Authority
• Judges and justices are not
disqualified from participating in a
case simply because they have
written legal articles on the law
involved in the case.
• CANON 4. PROPRIETY

Propriety and the appearance of


propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a
judge.
Canon 4: Propriety
Sec. 1-15
• Avoid impropriety and appearance of
impropriety.
• Accept personal restrictions.
• Avoid suspicion or appearance with favoritism
and partiality.
• Non-participation in a case where a family
member represents a litigant or is associated.
• Not allow residence to be used.
• Preserve dignity of the office in the exercise of
rights.
• Be informed of their personal fiduciary interest
and their family members’ financial interests.
• Not use the prestige of the office to advance
interests.
• Keep confidential information.
• Subject to proper performance, may:
1. Write, lecture, teach and participate ;
2. Appear at a public hearing before an official body; &
3. Engage in other activities
• Not practice law while a holder of judicial
office.
• May form or join associations.
• Not ask for or accept any GBLF.
– Judges and members of their families.
– Court staff or others subject to their
influence, direction or authority.
• May receive a token gift, award or benefit
appropriate to the ocassion.
• Campos v. Campos
• Complainants failed to present any proof
of respondent’s alleged relationship with
another woman, so as to justify a charge
for immorality. There was no
evidence presented that respondent
engaged in scandalous conduct that
would warrant the imposition of
disciplinary action against him.
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge
Usman
• While every office in the government service
is a public trust, no position exacts a greater
demand on moral righteousness and
uprightness of an individual than a seat in the
Judiciary., Hence, judges are strictly
mandated to abide with the law, the Code of
Judicial Conduct and with existing
administrative policies in order to maintain
the faith of our people in the administration
of justice.
• CANON 5. EQUALITY

Ensuring equality of treatment to


all before the courts is essential
to the due performance of the
judicial office.
Canon 5: Equality
Sec. 1-5
• Understand diversity and difference.
• Not manifest bias or prejudice.
• Carry out duties with appropriate
considerations.
• Not knowingly permit court staff or others to
differentiate between persons concerned.
• Require lawyers to refrain from manifesting
bias or prejudice based in irrelevant grounds.
• CANON 6. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Competence and diligence are


prerequisites to the due performance of
judicial office.
Canon 6: Competence and Diligence
Sec. 1-7
• Judicial duties take precedence.
• Devote professional activity to judicial duties.
• Maintain and enhance knowledge.
• Keep informed of relevant developments.
• Perform duties efficiently, fairly and with
reasonable promptness.
• Maintain order and decorum in all proceedings.
• Not engage in conduct incompatible with the
diligent discharge of judicial duties.
Discipline of Judges and Justices of the
Sandiganbayan and Court of Appeals
• Grounds:
–Serious Misconduct: implies malice or
wrongful intent and not mere error of
judgment.
–Inefficiency: negligence,
incompetence, ignorance and
carelessness.
• Effect of Resignation/Retirement of Judge
• Institution of Disciplinary Charges
– Motu prorio by the Supreme Court or upon
a verified complaint supported by affidavits
of persons who have personal knowledge of
the facts alleged or anonymous complaint
with public record of indubitable integrity.
• Quantum of Evidence Required
–Beyond reasonable doubt- same as in
criminal trials.
–Impeachment: sui generis governed by rules
created by the impeachment court.
• Reinstatement: no indication that he is inspired
by corrupt motives or reprehensible purpose
in the performance of his functions
• Factors to consider:
1.Unsullied name and service record prior to
dismissal
2.Commitment to avoid situation that spur
suspicion of arbitrary conditions;
3.Complainant mellowed down in pushing
from his removal; and
4.Length of time separated from service.

Вам также может понравиться