UNIVERSITY OF CEBU- COLLEGE OF LAW

BANILAD, CEBU CITY

BASIC LEGAL ETHICS

DISCUSSION AND ILLUSTRATION OF THE NEW CODE OF

JUDICIAL CONDUCT OF THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY’S
CANONS

Submitted by:
LORENZ MOISES ENRICK BINGHAY

Submitted to:
ATTY. CARLO VINCENT GIMENA
Introduction
As an effective institution, group or an organization, it is rather
important that a set of ground rules should be placed. This is to bring
order and a systematic approach on matters being tackled. This is
true and the same to the Judiciary system and its personnel
especially, the honoured judges.
In the most basic sense, the benefits of such code of conduct
benefit not just the Judiciary system but also the constituents it is
protecting from unforeseen probable malpractices. Hence, the
construction of the New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine
Judiciary.

Canon 1 INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and
fundamental guarantee of fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and
exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional
aspects.
It is expressly stated in this canon that a judge should
independently adjudicate cases assigned to him on the basis of their
sole assessment on facts presented to him/her and in accordance to
a conscientious understanding of the law that is free from external
factors such as; influence, inducement, pressure, threat, interference
whether direct or indirect, for any reason chartered.
This must be uphold true to judges that they must be free from
inappropriate connections or network to the other branches of the
government, or individuals related to a particular dispute to avoid
skewed adjudication.
The purpose of such is to safeguard the integrity of a judge for
the discharge of his judicial duties in the highest standard. This is to
ensure that the Judge will always have its priority to gain public
confidence over its constituents.

Canon 2 INTEGRITY
Integrity always play a vital role in all walks of life, and for a
judge who is holding a position to maintain, it is rather essential not
only for the proper discharge of his or her judicial office but for their
personal demeanor.
 Being a judge not only mean adjudicating on particular case, it
is also a position that values highest outward behaviour. It would be
rather disappointing if a judge initiates appropriate disciplinary
measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct that he is aware of and acts the same.

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.
Judges are expected that in their performance of their judicial
function, they should be doing it without any favour, bias nor
prejudice over the case reviewed.
Judges should be conscious on comments they are giving
pertaining to case proceedings. Unwanted remarks coming from a
judge may affect the fair outcome of the proceedings may be
impaired due to the comments given. The provision is also explicit
when it comes to giving comments publicly that affects the fair trial of
any persons, is highly discouraged. The judge commiting such said
acts is ground for impartiality of his judicial duty.
Impartiality does not limit itself from just giving impartial
remarks, but it also includes the disqualification of judges from
adjudicating any cases in which they may appear in conflict to the
reasonable observer. Such proceedings includes, but not limited to,
instances where the judge has actual bias or prejudice over the
concerned party; the judge previously served as a lawyer; or a
material witness over the case; the judge’s family has an economic
interest over the outcome of the controversy; the judge served as
executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, counsel over the matter in
controversy; the judge’s ruling in a lower court is subject for review;
the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant
within sixth civil degree or to counsel within fourth civil degree; or the
judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest, as
heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in
controversy or in party of proceeding, or any other interest that could
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings;
A judge that happens to fall under the circumstances stated
above has the responsibility explain his disqualification and to
disclose all the information as to his involvement pertaining to the
case in controversy rather than withdrawing from the proceeding. If
based upon the disclosed information the parties, lawyer,
independent from the judge’s participation, all agree in writing that the
reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may
participate in the proceeding. The agreement however, should be
signed by all parties involve and shall be incorporated in the records
of the proceedings. This is to avoid unwanted confusion as the case
proceeds and to protect the individuals involved.

Canon 4 PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a judge.
This is held also in their personal lives as the statute is clear
that propriety and the appearance of propriety shall be observed in all
of their activities.
In regards to personal relations with other individual members
who are regularly practicing in court, judges are advised to avoid
situations that give rise to unwanted suspicion or appearance of
favouritism or partiality to other members.
Although the provision does not stop a judge from socializing, it
is clear that it also comes with certain limits as to how far you can
socialize and to who you can be socializing with.
A part of a judge’s act of propriety is to inform themselves about
their personal fiduciary and financial interest with reasonable effort
about the financial interest of their family. This is to ensure that once
a conflict may arise, the parties involve are aware and certain
protocols will be followed.
Confidentiality plays a role in propriety. It is also a core principle
as a judge who performs with propriety to not use or disclose
information they acquired in their judicial capacity that could affect
their judicial duties.
The statute gave an avenue for judges to write, do lectures and
participate in activities relating to law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice or related matters as long as it is subject to
the proper performance of judicial duties. The judges may also
appear in a public hearing which concerns matter pertaining to law,
the legal system and the administration of justice and other related
matter.
The propriety of a judge does not limit to his or herself but can
be held also to his or her family. Especially, receiving or asking gifts,
loans, and favour in exchange for an act to be done by the judge in
his judicial duties and functions. This is also applicable to court staff
or other subjects that is under the influence of the judge.
The reason for such is to avoid debt of gratitude that may cause
partiality, bias or prejudice over the case in controversy involved.
However, the provision is also transparent that judges may
receive a token gift, award or benefit as appropriate to the occasion it
is made, provided that the gift presented is not reasonably perceived
as intended to influence the performance of the judge’s judicial duties
and functions that may gave rise to partiality.

Canon 5 EQUALITY
Equality is an essential conduct of the Philippine judicial system
and for a judge. This is to ensure that a judge, in his or her
performance of judicial duties has a fair and equal treatment over his
or her constituents.
A judge should be fully aware and understand the diversity of
the society that is arising from different sources, including but not
limited to, race, color, gender, religion, national origin, case, disability,
age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status
and other like causes. It means, regardless the statute of a person or
individuals involve in the case of controversy, judges shall perform
their utmost judicial duty by words or conduct without the
manifestation of bias or prejudice towards the person or groups on
irrelevant grounds.
Diversity of an individual or group is immaterial in an
adjudication and does not serve any other purpose in making a
judicial assessment or in any way of the judge’s performance of his or
her judicial duties.
Judges also are responsible for their subjects pertaining to the
acts of inequality and clearly does not allow such. This is also held
true to lawyers who is under the presence of the judge, and the judge
has the responsibility to require the lawyers to refrain unnecessary
remarks by words or conduct on any irrelevant ground that is biased
or prejudiced, except to those that are legally relevant to an issue of
proceedings.

Canon 6 COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Competence and diligence are natural prerequisites of the due
performance of judicial office. A judge who is responsible for
adjudicating cases can only be as effective as he can be only if he is
professionally equipped with the right knowledge and wisdom and
such judicial duties shall take precedence over all other
responsibilities.
Judges are expected to fully devote themselves to their
professional responsibility to the fullest, not only their functions and
responsibilities in court, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial
office or court’s operation.
Judges can only acquire optimal performance of their judicial
duties by maintaining and enhancing their knowledge, skills and
personal qualities necessary for their judicial responsibility and
functions. One of the ways mentioned in the provision is by updating
oneself about relevant developments of the international law,
including international conventions, and other establishments
promoting human right norms.
On the other hand, Judges has the responsibility to perform
their judicial functions with fairness, efficiency and promptness,
especially to the delivery of reserved decisions.
As a judge of competence, he or she is responsible for the
court’s order and shall present himself as an example to his or her
constituents. Showing the virtue of patience, dignity and courtesy in
relation to the litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the
judge deals an official capacity will also ensure the constituents
involve shall do the same.