The scandal that rocked the nation’s second highest court, culminating in the discipline of five of its members, serves to confirm what has been talked about on the ills of our judicial body. While the presence of corruption, dishonesty, incompetence, and unethical conduct in various forms are taken for granted, it is seldom, if ever that wrongful deeds of higher court justices are officially acknowledged and corresponding penalties meted out publicly.
In our scheme of government, our courts are the embodiment of our laws. What they say in applying or interpreting the Constitution, and the statutes made under it, is the Law of the land.
Judges have a unique power and responsibility not possessed by any other government officer. By the force of their adjudicating power, judges can limit the acts of the whole government itself.
Not only they define the rights and responsibilities of private citizens but also that of public officers high and low.
It is mostly for that reason that judges are invested with trust, faith , confidence and respect to an extent not usually accorded to politicians and elected public men/women. The Philippine Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct require that “a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, probity, and independence”. Thus, he is required to “be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever sources intended to influence the performance of official functions.
Unlike elective officials and political appointees, judges get to occupy their position on the basis of proven integrity and competence. Like Caesar’s wife, they must be beyond reproach, as the classic cliche goes. Take away any of the two and a judge is rendered unfit to judge others. Acts of corruption and bribery go to the heart of one’s character.
This writer believes that a failure of any judge, who has been found to have feet of clay, to voluntary relinquish his/her post for that reason alone is a character flaw that should make him/her undeserving of continuance in office.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Well said Bencard, well said.
Sadly, delicadeza seems to have gone out of style, what with Camilo Sabio of the PCGG thumbing his nose at everybody by saying he won’t quit even if disbarred. In effect he does not care if the judiciary remains tainted by HIS telephone calls, even including his own brother, Jose.
But I have a question.
Just as Julius Caesar divorced Pompeia for not being above suspicion, (and reportedly without proof that she was actually doing Publius Clodius), why didn’t the Supreme Court dismiss them all to demonstrate that it means biznuz and understands the point made by Julius Caesar?
Surely they saw all the soiled underwear and used condoms on the bed.
Besides the CA has had a very bad reputation for being the place to fix things before they get up to where the uhmmm, fees are higher. (Only the Lucio Tans play in that league!) Some heads rolling could help to clean up the Augean stables.
Here’s that Code of Judicial Conduct for everyone’s benefit. About 2 pages, short and sweet, worth the read.
The almighty SC thought they could give a placebo, a cure all, by giving those found sleeping not with the enemy, but with Caesar’s wife, a slap in their wrists.
Now, everybody wants a jerk-off.
well, djb. i wish its only a matter of delicadeza that should impel the tainted body to cleanse itself. it’s the whole judiciary as an institution, whose very rationale for existence is at stake, that needs to be preserved more than the tenure of the justices composing it. as i said, the court is not a political office where usually the holder can cling to only for as long as the electing or appointing power doesn’t mind his indiscretions. in contrast, a court’s purgation must come from within.
Bencard,
Chief Justice Reynato Puno “led” the National Day of Prayer and Reconciliation Saturday in Cagayan de Oro City.
Does Chief Justice Puno pass muster under the Code of Judicial Ethics regarding the making of political speeches.
Philman, placebo?
Maybe we should let the generals take charge to employ a “targeted and area-limited” aerial bombardment of CA and debate about collateral damage later?
Like Ceasar’s wife for the judiciary, like Bart Simpson* for the Executive. Why the different standards?
*Ididntdoitnobodysawmeyoucantproveathing
Gentlemen, methinks the Supreme Court resisted lowering the boom hard given that the justices knew the judgmental index finger would have the thumb pointing back in their direction.
djb, canon 5, rule 5-11 of the code you linked provides that “a judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. but to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge should not make political speeched, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political activities.”
now, i haven’t heard nor read cj puno’s speech in cagayan de oro. i trust that it was apolitical. i know for a fact that cj puno is one of the most active speechmakers in sc, along with former cj panganiban. some of the speeches, i believe, borders on politics that should be left to others not occupying their exalted position.
i believe that it should be a given that when a citizen accepts the position of a judge, let alone, a justice of the highest court, he/she makes a pact with the people that he/she would refrain from expressing publicly his political thoughts. if he has a problem with that, he is free to reject the appointment, or else resign if he has already accepted it. i think he is not doing the country a favor by serving and insisting on his “rights” to free speech like an ordinary citizen.
cvj, yeah, it seems that way. but theoretically, at least, a political officer’s service can easily be terminated (without impeachment which is like going through the eye of a needle) through election. moreover, in the political world, as contrasted with the judicial, a transgression of a poltician need not affect the entire institution of which he is a part. a judge’s indiscretions could wreck the very foundation of the court, i.e., the trust that makes its decision binding to, and obeyed by, all.