New Code of Judicial Conduct_Canon 1 Sec 5

8/12/2019 New Code of Judicial Conduct_Canon 1 Sec 5

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-code-of-judicial-conductcanon-1-sec-5 1/10

New Code of Judicial Conduct

Canon 1 Sec. 5

SEC. 5.

Judges shall not only be free from

inappropriate connections with, and influenceby, the executive and legislative branches of

government, but must also appear to be free

therefrom to a reasonable observer.




Canon 1 Sec. 5

• new section adopted in the Code of Judicial Conduct.

• While this section seems to share similarities with some

provisions of the Canon on Propriety, it deals specificallywith the avoidance of inappropriate connections.

– as well as any situation that would give rise to the

impression of the existence of such inappropriate

connections – with the executive and legislative branches of

the government.




Canon 1 Sec. 5

• Judges are expected to exercise judicial power.

CONSTITUTIONS, Art. VIII, Sec. 1, 2

• The rule set forth in Section 5 has both legal and practical value.

Legally, it affirms the independence of the judiciary from the two otherbranches of government, as required by the Constitution. Thus, as co-equalbodies, neither the executive nor the legislative branch can dictate or exertinfluence upon the judiciary.

Practically, considering that the appointments, promotions and movements

of judges are subject to executive approval, and that the organization, budgetand resources of the judiciary are matters that require legislative grace, theprovisions of Section 5 require judges to uphold their solemn duty to render

justice freely without any obligation to reciprocate whatever beneficencethat might have been bestowed on them by the other two branches.




Canon 1 Sec. 5

Comparative

Rule 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct

A. A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.

B. A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or otherinterests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.

C. A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey theimpression that any person or organization is in a position to influencethe judge.

American Bar AssociationModel Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2.html

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2.html




Canon 1 Sec. 5

Jurisprudence

Alfonso vs. Alonzo-Legasto

A.M. MT J-94-995, September 5, 2002, 388 SCRA 351

Facts:

A judge did not act independently of the Local GovernmentUnit (LGU) when she downsized her staff at the MTC and

asked the city to re employ the laid- off workers withoutdiminution of compensation or dis advantage with regardto location of work assignment.




Canon 1 Sec. 5



Held:

• The SC rules that the respondent Judge has actedimproperly in not informing the High Court through theoffice of Court Administrator of the need to streamline

her court and of its personnel needs, instead asking LGUto employ those who were displaced due to herdownsizing.




Canon 1 Sec. 5



Held:

• The high court cited Bagatsing vs. Herrera, explaining the judicial independence is the reason for leaving exclusivelyto the Court the authority to deal with internal personnel

issues, even if the court employees in question is fundedby the local government.




Canon 1 Sec. 5



Held:

• Because a reasonable person could conclude that theLGU maintained some influence over the MTC judge,under the New Code of Judicial Conduct , respondent

judge’s actions created an improper connection with anexecutive/ administrative body - the LGU




Canon 1 Sec. 5



Held:

• ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge Rose Marie Alonzo-Legasto, in her capacity as then Executive Judge of theMetropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City, is FINED

P10,000.00 to be paid within twenty (20) days fromnotice of this Decision for abuse of authority




Canon 1 Sec. 5

Appearance of impropriety.

A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC, August 12, 1998, 294 SCRA 119.

RE: SUSPENSION OF CLERK OF COURT ROGELIO R. JOBOCO, RTC, BRANCH 16 NAVAL, BILIRAN

Facts:

The case of Suspension of Clerk of Court Jacobo illustrates this point. The judge in that case wason congenial terms with the governor from whom he borrowed vehicles on several occasions totravel to his judicial station.

Held :

The Supreme Court held that this congeniality was not necessarily detrimental to judicialindependence, provided that there was no showing that such relations were for corrupt ends.

However, had this case been tried under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the judge’s actswould likely have created an “appearance” of an improper connection. To the common person,the accommodation may seem a reason for the judge to ingratiate himself towards hisbenefactors, which may ultimately be perceived as affecting the judge’s ability to ruleindependently. Therefore, whether or not the congenial relationship was indeed used for corruptends, it would be advisable for judges to avoid becoming dependent on other parties, especiallyfor basic needs like transportation to the judge’s workstation.

New Code of Judicial Conduct_Canon 1 Sec 5

Documents

Transcript of New Code of Judicial Conduct_Canon 1 Sec 5