In the advent of technological sophistication coupled with liberalization in terms

of personal and ideological expressions and manifestations, it truly revolutionizes every

inch of our societal platform in general and the bench in particular. Every sector of our
civilization benefitting from the blessings of modernization have taken radical
transformations as manifested in its ever-changing ideological paradigm in flaunting
personal rational stand to a more collective scream of redress being one of the
foundations of our democracy.
Expressing oneself is primordial and central to living in an open, just and fair
society as cornerstone of social justice and human rights. It has been emphatically
stressed under our present charter, Article III, Section 4, “No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” 1 More than an
ability, expression is an inherent right devoid from any vulnerabilities and
encroachment of foreign influences. Antecedent to the foregoing, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights asseverated that human expression relative to his
thoughts, ideological dispositions, emotional orientations and the like are fundamental
human rights recognized in a republicanism as it adheres to its general applicability
regardless of one’s station, position and condition in life albeit members of the bench. 2
Humanity’s yearning for expression is matched by the urge of suppression and
censorship. Expression and censorship pull in different directions. 3 Their objectives and
aspirations are conflicting. For ten sages who wish to speak and spread the truth as they
deem fit, there are thousands of fools who do not wish to hear especially if what is said
or written challenges or besmirches conventional dogmas, practices and time-honored
principles. Manifesting oneself without fear and prejudice is vital for the attainment of
truth, for individual fulfillment, for being an active member of the society in political
and social decision making process, and for the efficiency of democracy. It is one of the
most cherished values of a free democratic society, whose basic theorem is the
government that shall be based from the consent of the governed. Consent should not
only be free but also be well-informed by debate and discussion.
Considering the foregoing asseverations, OCA Circular 173-2017 was issued
addressing members of the bench to be more judicious and circumspect in utilizing
social media platforms4. Such issuance does not undermine constitutional guarantee on
freedom of expression. Canon 1, Section 8 of the New Code of Conduct for Philippine
Judiciary aptly provides that, “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.” 5 Judges inter alia are
symbols of justice, as such are being perceived to exhibit an extraordinary deportment
of morality and ethics by nature, incidence and consequence of their judicial offices as a
radical actuations and pursuit to promote trust and confidence in the judicial system.
Judges can never be allowed to curtail the veil of their judicial robes and
condescend to the status of a private citizen imbued with all the liberties. Members of
the bench are purveyors of impartiality and neutrality shall forever be upheld in
pursuance with the truth, candor, fairness and equality. As subject of constant public
scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions and limitations that might be viewed
as burdensome by the society one of which is the injudicious and unconscionable use of
social media as it is reflective to the majesty and dignity of the judiciary.

________________________
1
Consti. (1987), Article III,
2
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
3
http://legalrate.net
4
OCA Circular 173-17
5
Canon 1, Section 8 New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary