THE NEW PHILIPPINE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Hon. Reynato S. Puno Senior Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines A. The Critical Issue The members of the Philippine judiciary have been governed for a long time by a rigid set of rules and regulations, some already ravaged by the ages. Upon assumption of office as Chief Justice, CJ Hilario G. Davide, Jr. lost no moment of time and immediately initiated a comprehensive reform program for our judiciary. A keystone of the reform program is the concern for the unsullied integrity of the members of our judiciary. The program has to find an anchor on a code of conduct that can withstand the amorphous challenges of the 21st century. CJ Davide, Jr.s vision of the future of the judiciary was 20-20, a perfect vision, for he focused on the need to insulate the integrity of judges. This need is nothing less than a world wide concern. Arguably, the best effort to draft a Code of Judicial Conduct applicable to all judiciaries of the world is the Bangalore Draft. It is founded upon certain principles set in stone: (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. Given its importance, the Bangalore Draft was the sole subject of the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace, the Hague on November 25-26, 2002. I had the rare privilege to attend that meeting of Chief Justices and let me say, in public and in print, that I never felt so proud of CJ Davide, Jr., after his command performance in the conference. He was a very influential personality in that high level conference and many of the amendments of the Bangalore Draft came from his discerning mind. The Bangalore Draft espousing a universal declaration of standards for ethical conduct of judges was therefore unanimously endorsed by the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices at the Hague with several amendments. CJ Davide, Jr. knew that an improved Code of Conduct is a cornerstone of his reform program. He wasted no time in submitting to our Supreme Court the Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct, as amended, for adoption. Again, with certain amendments tailored to suit our distinct legal and judicial culture, the Philippine Supreme Court adopted a New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary effective June 1, 2004. Unless refuted, it appears that the Philippine judiciary is the first to adopt the draft Bangalore Code of Judicial Conduct as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices at the Hague.

presented during the International Conference and Showcase on Judicial Reforms held last November 28 30, 2005 at the Makati Shangri-La Hotel, Makati City, Philippines

With your leave, let me shortlist the content of our New Code of Judicial Conduct. It is not a prolix code for it has only 6 canons: one, on independence; two, on integrity; three, on impartiality; four, on propriety; five, on equality, and six, on competence and diligence. B. Facts and Figures How does the new Code impact on the members of our Judiciary? Given the fact that the Code is hardly two year in effect, there is yet no authoritative answer on the matter. But allow me to offer some tentative thoughts on the basis of available empirical evidence. By and large, I like to submit that on the basis of these data, the members of our judiciary have lived up to the canons of our New Code of Judicial Conduct. Let us consider our judges performance in relation to the canon calling for competence and diligence. The statistics on the big number of cases decided by our High Court for the year 2004 are revealing. They show that some 48,229 pleadings were filed for consideration by the 15 justices of the High Court. They disposed by minute resolution 4,617 cases. They resolved by long decisions 5,691 cases. Their collective total case disposition is about 10,000 in a year time. By any reckoning, this output is substantial. When a visiting justice of the Supreme Court of Israel learned of the number of cases the High Court Justices dispose every year, he quipped: I wonder why all of you are still alive. We next consider our judges compliance with the canon of integrity. Again, let us study the statistics staring at us. For the year 2004, nine cases were filed against some of the Justices of the Court of Appeals and none against the Justices of the Supreme Court. Not one of the cases prospered. In the case of the Sandiganbayan (Anti-Graft Court), one case was filed against a member and the same was dismissed. For the year 2005, no complaint has been filed against any of Justices of the Supreme Court and the Sandiganbayan, 6 cases were filed against justices of the Court of Appeals but all were found to be without merit. Let me slide to our judges in the trial courts. The data reveal that for the year 2004, some 246 complaints were initiated against judges of our Regional Trial Courts. After investigation, 215 of these cases were dismissed. For the year 2005, some 238 complaints were filed against them. Again, 178 were dismissed. Next, let us see the statistics in our lowest courts, the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs. For the year 2004, some new 145 complaints were filed against the judges. Including the old pending complaints carried over from previous years, the records show that 147 of the complaints were dismissed. For the year 2005, some 132 new complaints were filed against them. Again, 106 of the complaints were dismissed. This is not to say that not one of our judges has been penalized for some misfeasance or malfeasance. Some of the complaints prospered. In year 2004, the High Court admonished 2 RTC judges, 4 were censured, 45 were dismissed from the service, 5 were fined and 4 were reprimanded. In year 2005, 8 RTC judges were admonished, 27 were dismissed from the service, 6 fined and 4 suspended. In the
2

case of our judges in the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs for the year 2004, the High Court admonished 3, censured 3, dismissed 38 from the service, fined 6 and reprimanded 3. For year 2005, the data show that 7 were admonished, 23 fined, 4 reprimanded and 5 suspended. In sum, the complaints against justices of our appellate courts, including the Highest Court, are nil. On the other hand, complaints against judges of our trial courts are not too many either, percentage-wise. We have some 1,486 sitting trial judges and they dispose of hundreds of thousands of cases every year. It is not unexpected for losing litigants to be dissatisfied and to complain against adverse decisions but we have yet to see a deluge of complaints against our judges. Even then, a higher level of performance ought to be targeted by our incumbent trial judges. We now come to our compliance with the Canon on independence. Let me focus on the record of the High Court since in our scheme of government, it wields the power as the ultimate interpreter of our Constitution and other laws. There is no iota of doubt that our High Court has been unflinching in striking down as null and void acts of the President and laws of Congress that violate the Constitution. For the year 2004, let me just cite a case where the High Court voided a law on the ground that its continuing enforcement violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. I refer to the seminal case of Central Bank Employees Association Inc. v. Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas.1 In this case, Republic Act No. 7653 created the new Central Bank, our foremost monetary authority. Two classes of employees were created by the new law: one, its officers who were exempted from the Salary Standardization Law; and two, its rank-and-file employees who were not exempted from the coverage of the Salary Standardization Law. The exemption from the Salary Standardization Law is significant. It means those exempted can be given salaries above the cap set the law. By current standards of living, the salary cap is too low for comfort. Thereafter, 7 laws were enacted by Congress exempting rank-and-file employees of similar government financial institutions from the Salary Standardization Law but the non exemption of the rank-and-file employees was not lifted by Congress. The Central Bank rank-and-file employees challenged the constitutionality of the law in the High Court. The High Court held that the continuing implementation of the law against the rank-and-file employees forthwith of the Central Bank was discriminatory and unconstitutional. It reasoned out: xxx 2. Although Rep. Act No. 7653 is a valid measure enacted by the legislature within its powers, the enactment of subsequent laws exempting all rank-and-file employees of other GFIs from the SSL leeched all validity out of the challenged proviso. In the first place, under the concept of relative constitutionality, a valid statute may become void on account of altered circumstances. Thus, in Rutter v. Esteban,2 the Court upheld the constitutionality of the moratorium law as a valid
1 2

G.R. No. 148208, 15 December 2004 93 Phil. 68 (1953).

3

exercise of police power but ruled that the continued enforcement of the otherwise valid law would be unreasonable and oppressive. Secondly, a statute nondiscriminatory on its face may be grossly discriminatory in operation. There is no distinction between a law which denies equal protection and a law which permits such denial. Thirdly, the enactment of at least seven laws exempting from the Salary Standardization Law rank-and-file employees who are similarly situated resulted in unconstitutional discrimination. Fourthly, the challenged law classifies employees on the basis of salary grade or officer-employee status. It is akin to a distinction based on economic class and status, with the higher grades as recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the lower grades. The Central Bank rank-and-file employees represent the politically powerless who should not be compelled to seek a political solution to remedy their unequal and iniquitous treatment. It is the Courts duty to save them from reasonless discrimination. The decision revived questions on whether the Court roamed beyond the traditional perimeters of its powers. In our jurisdiction, therefore, the debate is not whether the High Court is independent but whether it is too independent. C. Problems As I said, it may be too early to essay a dogmatic conclusion on the impact of our New Code of Judicial Conduct considering that it was fully implemented only last 2004. We do not expect the new Code to work like a magic bullet that will drive to the valley of death all our judicial problems relating to independence and integrity. We are bereft of an infallible vision of the future. But looking at the visible horizon, we can see some difficult roads to negotiate as we implement our New Code of Judicial Conduct. For one, the pernicious influence of politics poses a continuing threat to the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Politics is a major preoccupation in the Philippines. Our elections are hotly contested, where both ballots and bullets are used to persuade voters. Necessarily, the evil effects of partisan politics flow over the mainstream of the judiciary and pollutes its purity. For the courts ultimately resolve political contests, hence, some politicians exert fair and foul means to influence the appointment of judges and justices. Needless to stress, they work for the appointment only of those with canine devotion to their vaulting ambitions. For another, the economic stagnation of the country works against the judiciary, just as it infects the interest of all. Due to our financial crisis, the judiciary gets less than 1% share of our national budget. This is a pittance and tragically translates into lack of decent halls of justice, poor court facilities, low salaries, etc. Resultantly, the judiciary is bedeviled by vacant salas; worse, it finds difficulty to attract top of the line lawyers; and worst, it tempts some to entertain unholy acts.
4

We know that an ignorant mind and a corrupt heart are not the vital organs of a good judge. Finally, the legal ambiance can stand improvement. The perception is that our lawyers interest in their umbrella organization is waning; thus, we see the sprouting of alternative groups committed to such causes as human rights, feminism, childrens protection, access to justice of the poor, etc. Likewise, the number of complaints against lawyers is on the rise. In the year 2004, the High Court disbarred 10 lawyers, suspended 40, reprimanded 10 and fined 36. For year 2005, it disbarred 5, suspended 31, reprimanded 6, and fined 34. The number of lawyers undergoing investigation is much more and disquieting. D. Conclusion While all these may appear as high hurdles, they are nonetheless, not impossible hurdles for the judiciary to overcome. For one, the intrusion of politics in the judiciary has been minimized. This has been accomplished thru the Constitution itself. Indeed, we are currently reexamining our Constitution for possible amendments and chances are that there will be proposals to further strengthen the independence and integrity of our Courts. Our efforts to upgrade the quality of our judges thru their continuing education is relentless in its pace. PHILJA has also designed a course for lawyers who desire to become judges. It is a tough course and not too many survive the course. But it is a step in the right direction. This is similar to the Judicial Examination test given to Korean judges where out of some 27,000 test takers only some 170 make it. According to the Koreans, this test gives them high quality judges, judges with a strong sense of pride, judges with near invulnerability to temptations of all kinds. We need this kind of judges who work with pride, judges who worship before the altar of righteousness for the Book of Life tells us that it is only righteousness that exalts a nation. In the end, let me say that the search for justice is the search of all mankind. Justice is universal and knows no boundaries. Justice has also no color, no pigmentation. There is no different justice for the whites, no different justice for the blacks, no different justice for the yellows, no different justice for the browns. Justice is also one and indivisible. An attack against justice anywhere is an attack against justice everywhere. In the world of justice, we are all brothers and we are our brothers keepers. Where the light of justice is yet to shine, let us help light it, where the light of justice is flickering, let us help it flare, where the light of justice is flaring, let us keep it flare eternally. Good day to all of you.

---oo0oo---