SAn 8LuA CCLLLCL ALA8AnC

CCLLLCL Cl LAW
8L8A8 1lS Cn !uulClAL L1PlCS
8LA8Lu 8? !uS1lCL 8Cu8lCC v CCSlCC
CcLober 12 2011
1 WlLh Lhe blrLh of Lhe hlllpplne 8epubllc ln 1946 Lhe ueparLmenL of !usLlce whlch had
admlnlsLraLlve supervlslon aL LhaL Llme over all [udges adopLed Lhese Canons whlch creaLed
sLandards for boLh offlclal and prlvaLe [udlclal conducL buL were noL effecLlve because Lhey
lacked prescrlbed sancLlons

A 1he Canons of !udlclal LLhlcs
8 1he 1989 Code of !udlclal ConducL
C 1he new Code of !udlclal ConducL
Answer A 1he Canons of !udlclal LLhlcs
2 1o correcL Lhe deflclency Lhls Code was adopLed ln 1989

A 1he 1989 Code of !udlclal ConducL
8 1he new Code of !udlclal ConducL
C 1he Canons of !udlclal LLhlcs
Answer A 1he 1989 Code of !udlclal ConducL
3 1hls Code whlch became effecLlve on !une 1 2004 ls now Lhe prevalllng Code of !udlclal
ConducL

A 1he new Code of !udlclal ConducL for Lhe hlllpplne !udlclary
8 1he 1989 Code of !udlclal ConducL
C 1he Canons of !udlclal LLhlcs
Answer A 1he new Code of !udlclal ConducL for Lhe hlllpplne !udlclary
4 1he new Code of !udlclal ConducL was based on

A 1he 8angalore drafL of [udlclal conducL
8 1he Amerlcan 8ar AssoclaLlon's code of [udlclal conducL
C 1he 1989 Code of !udlclal ConducL
Answer A 1he 8angalore drafL of [udlclal conducL


3 1he hlsLory of Lhe new Code of !udlclal ConducL daLes back Lo november 2326 2002 when Lhe
8ound 1able MeeLlng of Chlef !usLlces was held aL Lhe eace alace 1he Pague 1he hlllpplne
Supreme CourL was Lhen represenLed by a former Chlef !usLlce of Lhe Supreme CourL ln Lhe
person of one of Lhe followlng

A lormer Chlef !usLlce Pllarlo C uavlde !r
8 lormer Chlef !usLlce ArLemlo anganlban
C lormer Chlef !usLlce Andres narvasa
Answer A lormer Chlef !usLlce Pllarlo C uavlde !r
6 1he age quallflcaLlon of Supreme CourL and CourL of Appeals !usLlces

A AL leasL 40 years of age
8 AL leasL 33 years of age
C AL leasL 43 years of age
Answer A AL leasL 40 years of age
7 ursuanL Lo !8C 8ule 009 of Lhe !udlclal and 8ar Councll ln relaLlon Lo Sec 7 ArL vlll of Lhe
hlllpplne ConsLlLuLlon Lhe age quallflcaLlon of a 8eglonal 1rlal CourL !udge ls

A AL leasL 33 years of age
8 AL leasL 30 years of age
C AL leasL 40 years of age
Answer A AL leasL 33 years of age
8 Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe age quallflcaLlon of a Munlclpal 1rlal CourL !udge ls

A AL leasL 30 years of age
8 AL leasL 33 years of age
C AL leasL 40 years of age
Answer A AL leasL 30 years of age
9 WhaL dld Lhe Supreme CourL show ln Lhe celebraLed case of Co vs CourL of Appeals 206 SC8A
163 when lL ordered Lhe conducL of a prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon and ordered Lhe suspenslon of
Lhe Lrlal desplLe wldespread bellef lnfluenced by medla LhaL Lhe accused ls gullLy?

A !udlclal lndependence
8 !udlclal compeLence
C !udlclal lnLegrlLy
Answer A !udlclal lndependence


10 Sec 4 Canon 1 of Lhe new Code of !udlclal ConducL sLaLes LhaL [udges shall noL allow famlly
soclal or oLher relaLlonshlps Lo lnfluence [udlclal conducL or [udgmenL 1he Lerm famlly" here
shall lnclude Lhose relaLed by blood or marrlage up Lo Lhe slxLh clvll degree 1hus when a [udge
ls relaLed Lo anyone of Lhe parLles wlLhln Lhe slxLh degree of consangulnlLy or afflnlLy hls
dlsquallflcaLlon ls

A MandaLory
8 ulscreLlonary
C none of Lhe above
Answer A MandaLory
11 MosL members of Lhe [udlclary have recelved appolnLmenLs Lhrough Lhe grace of presenL and
pasL pollLlcal leaders lL ls naLural Lo suppose LhaL conslderaLlons of fealLy and uLang na loob"
would lead Lhe [udge Lo conslder such facLs when renderlng hls declslon AcLlng upon such
conslderaLlons would Lhe [udge vlolaLe Sec 3 Canon 1 of Lhe new Code of !udlclal ConducL
whlch sLaLes LhaL !udges shall be free form lnapproprlaLe connecLlons wlLh and lnfluence by
Lhe execuLlve and legslaLvle brances of governmenL?

A ?es acLlng upon such conslderaLlons would vlolaLe Lhe new Code of !udlclal ConducL
8 no acLlng upon such conslderaLlons would noL vlolaLe Lhls new Code
C none of Lhe above
Answer A ?es acLlng upon such conslderaLlons would vlolaLe Lhe new Code of !udlclal
ConducL
12 lL ls oplned LhaL mere congenlallLy beLween a [udge and a governor may noL necessarlly be
uneLhlcal buL would creaLe Lhe appearance of lmproprleLy under Lhe new Code?

A ?es lL may sLlll creaLe Lhe appearance of lmproprleLy under Lhe new Code
8 no lL may noL creaLe Lhe appearance of lmproprleLy under Lhe new Code
C none of Lhe above
Answer A ?es lL may sLlll creaLe Lhe appearance of lmproprleLy under Lhe new Code
13 under Sec 6 Canon 1 of Lhe new Code !udges shall be lndependenL Lo socleLy ln general and
ln relaLlon Lo Lhe parLlcular parLles Lo Lhe dlspuLe whlch he or she has Lo ad[udlcaLe" under Lhls
provlslon are [udges requlred Lo llve a hermlL's llfe?

A no Lhey should soclallze and be senslLlve Lo soclal concerns and may [oln clvlc rellglous or
professlonal organlzaLlons provlded LhaL Lhelr membershlp ln Lhese organlzaLlons would noL
lnLerfere wlLh Lhelr [udlclal duLles
8 ?es Lhey should noL soclallze and [oln clvlc rellglous or professlonal organlzaLlons
C none of Lhe above


Answer A no Lhey should soclallze and be senslLlve Lo soclal concerns and may [oln such
organlzaLlons provlded LhaL Lhelr membershlp Lhereln would noL lnLerfere wlLh Lhelr [udlclal
duLles
14 under Sec 1 Canon 2 of Lhe new Code !udges shall ensure LhaL noL only ls Lhelr conducL
above reproach buL LhaL ls percelved Lo be so ln Lhe vlew of a reasonable observer" under Lhls
provlslon !udges have been dlsclpllned for lack or loss of good moral characLer

A 8oLh ln Lhe performance of Lhelr duLles and ln Lhelr prlvaLe llves
8 ln Lhe performance of Lhelr offlclal duLles
C none of Lhe above
Answer A 8oLh ln Lhe performance of Lhelr duLles and ln Lhelr prlvaLe llves
13 WlLh regard Lo professlonal lnLegrlLy may a [udge be sancLloned for fraLernlzlng wlLh llLlganLs
and/or lawyers (ue la Cruz vs 8ersamlra 336 SC8A 333)?

A ?es because Llme and agaln Lhe Supreme CourL has held LhaL [udges should noL fraLernlze
wlLh llLlganLs and Lhelr counsel
8 no because a [udge need noL llve a hermlL's llfe
C none of Lhe above
Answer A ?es because Llme and agaln Lhe Supreme CourL has held LhaL [udges should noL
fraLernlze wlLh llLlganLs and Lhelr counsel
16 ln Chavez vs ubllc LsLaLes AuLhorlLy 403 SC8A 1 (2003) Lhe Supreme CourL held LhaL [udges
and [usLlces who have wrlLLen arLlcles on Lhe law lnvolved ln Lhe case

A Are noL dlsquallfled from parLlclpaLlng ln a case slmply because Lhey have wrlLLen legal
arLlcles on Lhe law lnvolved ln Lhe case
8 Are dlsquallfled from parLlclpaLlng ln a case because Lhey have wrlLLen legal arLlcles on Lhe
law lnvolved ln Lhe case
C none of Lhe above
Answer A Are noL dlsquallfled from parLlclpaLlng ln a case slmply because Lhey have wrlLLen
legal arLlcles on Lhe law lnvolved ln Lhe case