(1) Discuss and illustrate each of the canons of the New Code of Judicial Conduct of the

Philippine Judiciary;
New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary

Canon 1
INDEPENDENCE

Independence, in its broadest sense, is the state of being free from influence from any
external power or body. It's the complete freedom from the power of others. Judicial
independence, on the other hand, is a condition for the rule of law and a basic guarantee of a
fair trial in which judges must be able to decide on their own. Judicial independence in this
sense should also imply that judges must be separated from and clear of any and all sources of
undue control, including all types of intimidation, threat or abuse, whether direct or indirect from
the government, leaders, officials, families, neighbors, interested parties, fellow judges, chief
justices, judicial bodies or organizations.

Because the highest degree of independence is required, judicial independence simply means
that such judges must be free from improper outside influences, allowing them to continue to
avoid interference from any source by retaining independence in the execution of their duties,
such as being separate from the influence or coercion exerted by the judges' peers or
contemporaries when deciding cases. In addition, judges are often required to avoid having any
effect on the result of the case or conflict before another tribunal, which means that they should
refrain from interfering in the decision-making process of their fellow judges.

Being collectivist in nature, it is inculcated in the Filipino community to treat the family
with the highest possible importance by maintaining a smooth interpersonal relationship with
each other. Nonetheless, this does not extend to cases involving these family members,
because family, social or other relationships are not permitted to affect judicial behavior or
judgment. In addition, when a judge relates to one of the parties within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, his disqualification is compulsory. Judges must also bear in mind to
avoid these people who can be potential influence peddlers and must ensure that these people
refrain from creating the impression that they are in a position to influence the judge; that they
are not in the judiciary to give out favors but to dispense justice. 

In summary, judges should always maintain the independence of the judiciary and
defend it from outside interference. They must, at all times, refrain from creating some kind of
link that may tend to give rise to suspicions that these connections can influence his judgment,
thus preventing an unbiased attitude of mind in the administration of judicial duties. In carrying
out their duties, they must always be directed with a strong sense of duty and obligation to the
timely and proper administration of justice.

Canon 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles. Integrity is
essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor
of judges. Judges must be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty.

In order to promote public trust in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, judges shall ensur
e that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is considered to be so in the view of a 
fair observer. This is because the people's confidence in the judicial system is based not only on 
the degree of the legal competence and diligence 
of the members of the bench, but also on the highest levels of integrity and moral uprightness th
at they are supposed to uphold. 
The conduct of a judge must be free from the whiff of impropriety, not only with regard to the ex
ecution of his judicial duties, but also with regard to his conduct outside the courtroom and as a 
private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his private
morals.

With regard to professional integrity, judges have been penalized for demanding and/or
accepting bribes, fraternizing with litigants and/or lawyers, altering orders, sexual harassment of
employees, among others.
With respect to personal integrity, judges have been penalized for transgressions in their
private lives such as keeping and/or flaunting a mistress, inebriated/drunk behavior, and
frequenting casinos and cockfights. 

Another responsibility of judges is that their actions and conduct will reaffirm the people's confid
ence in the integrity of the judiciary. 
Justice must not only be served, but must also be seen to be served. 
It is the duty of a judge not only to make a fair and impartial judgment, but also to make it free fr
om any doubt as to its fairness and impartiality, as well as of the integrity of the judge.
It is also clear that, while judges should have legal competence to interpret and administer the la
w competently, it is more critical that they behave and rule in such a way that the parties before 
them will have faith in their impartiality.

Finally, judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary action against lawyers or court staf
f for unprofessional conduct which the judge may have been aware of. Judges should not be len
t to the administrative supervision of their employees. The judge must ensure that the administr
ation of justice is carried out efficiently and promptly by all court personnel. The slightest violatio
n of duty and the slightest irregularity in the actions of court officers and staff undermines the int
egrity of the courts and undermines the confidence of the people in the judiciary.

Canon 3
IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality is the capacity of a judge to enforce the law and to deliver justice equally, without fav
our, bias or discrimination. 
It is both the duty of the judge to make a reasonable decision and to do so in a way
that is absolutely free from criticism of fairness and integrity. The primary responsibility of the co
urts of justice is to apply the law in a uniform and impartial manner.

While a judge should have legal competence to completely understand and execute the law, it is
more critical that he should behave and act in such a way that the parties before him should
have faith in his impartiality. Verily, a judge will still show the clear neutrality of an unbiased
judge. The judge should be absolutely free, disinterested, impartial and unbiased at all times. It
should therefore not only be impartial, but should also appear to be impartial.
In handling a criminal case, a judge will avoid acting as an attorney for any side. It is also
unethical for a judge to deliberately press for an amicable solution against the wishes of a
group. Although it is true that a judge may ask questions from witnesses, these questions
should be designed to expose the mystery of the testimony and to produce sufficient relevant
evidence to fill the gaps in the testimony. Therefore, it is forbidden for a judge to ask any
questions of an adversarial or defamatory nature. The unwelcome persistence of the judge
leaves the judge susceptible to accusations of favoritism.

A judge may intervene during the presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent
unnecessary waste of time and to propound clarificatory questions. However, the judge must
limit himself only to clarificatory questions and not to ask searching questions after the
witnesses in the case had given their respective testimonies. Such acts must be done sparingly
and not throughout the proceedings. If the judge will extensively propound questions to the
witnesses which will have the effect or tend to to build or bolster the case of one of the parties, it
is considered to be an undue interference in the presentation of evidence for he would come out
biased against or partial in favor of a party. The judge’s act will then violate the canon of
impartiality. His interference may likewise prevent the proper presentation of the case, and the
ascertainment of the truth in respect thereto. 

The Rules of Court, specifically Section 1 of Rule 137, a judge who is related within the
sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity to a party in a case is disqualified from sitting in the
case without the consent of all parties, expressed in writing, signed by them, and entered upon
the record. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also the
appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge. If a judge is present in a meeting of his
relatives in any judicial proceeding,he need not utter any word for his presence alone, as a
member of the judiciary, would be sufficient suggestion of persuasion and influence. 

Also under the Rules of Court, judges are not allowed to practice law. The basis for the
prohibition is public policy for there is no question that the rights, duties, privileges and functions
of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official functions,
duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge. It also aims to ensure that judges give their
full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special favors to their
own private interests and assure the public of their impartiality in the performance of their
function. 

A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might not reasonably
be questioned and he should administer justice impartially and without delay. The appearance
of bias or prejudice can be as damaging to public confidence and the administration of justice as
actual bias or prejudice. If a judge shows signs of partiality and pre-judgement in a case, he can
be inhibited from further trying the case. Partiality and pre-judgment can be just and valid
reasons for the judge to voluntarily inhibit himself. But mere suspicion that he is partial is not
enough. There must be evidence to prove the charge. A litigant is entitled to the fairness and
cold neutrality of an impartial judge. 

Canon 4
PROPRIETY

Propriety stresses the importance of propriety and the appearance of propriety to the
performance of all the activities of a judge. The judge’s own perception of motives is not
relevant when considering the appearance of impropriety. 
 Judges should bear in mind that they should avoid impropriety in all of their activities.
Furthermore, judges and members of their families are prohibited from asking for or accepting
any gift, bequest, loan, or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done
by him in connection with the performance of judicial duties. The community holds judges to
higher standards of integrity and ethical conduct than attorneys or other persons not invested
with the public trust. Given that they are also human, their acceptance of the judicial position
means that more is expected from them than from ordinary citizens, as their acts, both public
and private, color the public’s perception of the judiciary as a whole. Thus, being in the position
as judicial officer, one is subject to scrutiny for both public and private conduct. Such is
unavoidable consequence of occupying a judicial position. 

Judges should refrain from inviting the counsel of a party into his chambers before or
after the sessions in court without informing the other side or counsel the reason for such
meetings. If a judge is seen eating and drinking in public places with a lawyer who has pending
cases in his or her sala will lead to public suspicion, thus tending to erode the trust of litigants in
the impartiality of the judge. For a constant company with a lawyer tends to breed intimacy and
camaraderie to the point that favors in the future may be asked from the judge which he or
shem may find it hard to resist. A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the
duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to fairness and integrity. To
preserve the people’s faith and confidence in the courts of justice, no judge should preside in a
case in which the judge is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. Further, it is
also inappropriate for a judge to welcome or entertain a litigant in his house particularly when
the case is still pending before his sala. Even though judges are not expected to live a hermit-
like existence or cease functioning as citizens of the Republic, they should remember that they
do not disrobe themselves from their duties and functions upon leaving their salas. They should
be mindful of their civil liberties and that their continuing commitment to upholding the judiciary
and its values places upon them certain implied restraint to their freedom.

A judge should not use judicial office to advance private interests and should not give an
impression that he or she can be influenced to use the judicial office to advance the private
interests of others. However, they are not prohibited to participate in legal academia and public
discourse on legal matters with the proviso that there shall be no interference in the
performance of the judge’s primary functions with respect to their jurisdiction. Municipal judges
can administer oaths or execute certificates on matters related to their official functions, they
cannot notarize private documents. However, it should be noted that judges assigned to
municipalities and circuits may act as notaries public provided that all notarial fees charged be
to the government’s accounts and certification be made in the notarial documents attesting to
the lack of lawyers or notary in the municipality or circuit. Lastly, judges are allowed to accept
token gifts, awards, or benefits when given as a consequence of a special occasion. The gift
should be of nominal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy. 

Canon 5
EQUALITY
Equality is ensuring individuals or groups of individuals are not treated differently or less
favourably , on the basis of their specific protected characteristic, including areas of race,
gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age. Ensuring equality of treatment to
all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office. Judges shall be
aware of and understand diversity in society and differences arising from various sources.
Judges shall not manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.
Jurisprudence teaches us that Bias and prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an
extrajudicial source, and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis either than what the
judge learned from his participation in the case. Opinions formed in the course of the judicial
proceedings, as long as they are based on the evidence presented later on as erroneous, do
not prove personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. Extrinsic evidence is required to
establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be
inferred from the decision or order itself. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate
considerations for all persons. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others to his or
her influence, direction or control to determine between persons concerned on any irrelevant
ground. Lastly, judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds. Judges have the power to declare a
person in contempt of court. This is an inherent power lodged in the court of justice. This is to be
used as a means to protect and preserve the dignity of the court, the solemnity of the
proceedings therein and the administration of justice from callous misbehavior, offensive
personalities and contumacious refusal to comply with court orders. Judges are enjoined to
exercise utmost retrains in the use of their contempt powers. They are expected to avail of the
contempt power only as a last resort.

Canon 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
In the performance of judicial office, it is necessary for judges to have competence and
diligence. The judge’s judicial duties are superior to all his other activities. All the judge’s duties
must be performed with efficiency, fairness, and reasonable promptness. In addition, judges are
required to keep themselves updated with regards to the developments of international law,
including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms.
Order and decorum should be observed by judges in all proceedings before the court. Legal
representatives, court staff and others subject to the judge’s influence, direction or control are
also required the same.