Sources of Judicial Ethics

New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Bangalore Draft)
o The SC adopted a New Code of Judicial Conduct for Philippine
Judiciary, which took effect on June 1, 2004.
o The Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the
Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity was deliberated
upon and approved during the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices
held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, November 25-26, 2002.
o The Bangalore Draft is intended to be the Universal Declaration of
Judicial standards applicable in judiciaries.
o The Bangalore Draft is founded upon 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; 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 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. (Agpalo, 2009)
Code of Judicial Conduct
o To promote justice by administering it fairly, impartially and
promptly.
o Administration of justice is a joint responsibility of the judge and the
lawyer.
Qualities
Independence
o The conduct of judges and court personnel at all times must not only
be characterized by propriety and decorum but must also be above
suspicion. (Agpalo, 2009)
o What is required of judges is objectivity. An independent judiciary
does not mean that judges can resolve specific disputes entirely as
they please. There are both implicit and explicit limits in the way
judges perform their role. Implicit limits include accepted legal values
and the explicit limits are substantive and procedural rules of law.
(Agpalo, 2009)
Integrity
Impartiality
o Cold neutrality of an impartial judge is a requirement of due process.
(Agpalo, 2009)
o He should not only be impartial, independent and honest but should
be believed and perceived to be impartial, independent and honest.
(Agpalo, 2009)
Propriety
o All activities, even personal life. (Agpalo, 2009)
o His conduct at all times must be characterized with propriety and
must be above suspicion. (Agpalo, 2009)
Equality
Competence and Diligence
Discipline of Members of the Judiciary
Members of the Supreme Court (Impeachment)
o Grounds: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust (Article
XI, 2, 1987 Constitution)
o Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than
removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the
Republic of the Philippines.
Lower Court Judges and Justices
o The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all
courts and the personnel thereof. (Article VIII, 6, 1987 Constitution)
o The SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon. (Article VIII, 11, 1987 Constitution)
o Supreme Court Justices are removable only by impeachment. While
justices and judges of courts inferior to the Supreme Court are
removable only by the Supreme Court sitting en banc.
o Administrative cases against erring justices of the CA and the
Sandiganbayan; judges, and lawyers in the government service may
be automatically treated as disbarment cases. (Heck v. Santos)
Grounds
o Grounds for administrative sanctions against judges (Section 67 of the
Judiciary Act of 1948; Section 1, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of
Court)
Serious misconduct implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a
mere error of judgment (In re: Impeachment of Horrilleno)
Inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance and
carelessness (In re: Climaco)
Unjustifiable failure to decide cases within
reglementary period is gross inefficiency (Lambino v.
De Vera)