CANON 2

INTEGRITY
Integrity

is
essential not only
to
the
proper
discharge of the
judicial office but
also
to
the
personal
demeanor
of
judges.

INTEGRITY
The New Code of Judicial Conduct has
separated the values of INTEGRITY and
INDEPENDENCE.
Why?
To emphasize the need for
judges to maintain a life of
personal
and
professional
integrity in order to properly
carry out their judicial functions.

The Court is extraordinarily strict with

judges
because,
being
the
visible
representation of the law, they should set
a good example to the bench, bar and
students of the law. The standard of
integrity imposed on them is and should
be higher than that of the average person
for it is their integrity that gives them the
right to judge. (Samson v. Judge Caballero)

INTEGRITY

CONDUCT ABOVE
REPROACH
Sec. 1. Judges shall ensure that not
only is their conduct above reproach,
but that it is perceived to be so in the
view of a reasonable observer.
The personal behavior of a
judge, not only upon the bench
but also in his every day life,
should be beyond reproach and
free from the appearance of
impropriety. [Tan V. Rosete A.M. NO.
MTJ-04-1563, 2003]

In ruling against Judge Rosales, the SC stated that

judges must be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence. A judge must not only
be pure but above suspicion. The strict standards
of conduct demanded from judges are designed to
promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary because the peoples
confidence in the justice system is founded not
only on the legal knowledge of judges, but also on
the highest standard of integrity and moral
uprightness they are expected to possess.

Some acts judges have been

penalized for:
a) Demanding and/or
accepting bribes
b) Fraternizing with
litigants and/or
lawyers
c) Altering orders
d) Delay in rendering
e) Sexual harassment
of employes
f) Ignorance of the law

f) Keeping and/or
flaunting a
mistress
g) Inebriated
behavior
h) Frequenting
casinos and cock
fights
i) Incompetence
j) Conducting
hearings in their
residence

Is the refusal of the judge to wear the

mandated judicial robe
reprehensible?
Yes, a judge was admonished for not
wearing the judicial robe in the
performance of judicial function.
Consequently, a judge must take care
not only to remain true to the high
ideals of competence and integrity his
robe represents, but also that he
wears one in the first place. (Chan v.
Majaducan A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1697, 2004)

Doctrines in Macalintal v. Teh

When the inefficiency springs from a failure to
consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or
principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is
either too incompetent and undeserving of the
position and title he holds, or he is too vicious that
the oversight or omission was deliberately done in
bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority.
Decisions of courts need not only be just but must
be perceived to be just and completely free from
suspicion or doubt both in its fairness and
integrity.

REAFFIRM PEOPLES FAITH

Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges
must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity
of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
done but must also be seen to be done

"Justice must not merely be done

but must also be seen to be done
This phrase emphasizes the importance of
the public perception of the judiciary, not
because the judicial department intends to be
influenced thereby, but because it is essential
that public confidence is always reposed in
the judicial systems and processes.

A judge has the duty to not only render a just and impartial decision, but also
render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness
and impartiality. Like Caesars wife, a judge must not only be pure, but also
beyond suspicion. While judges should possess proficiency in law in order that
they can completely construe and enforce the law, it is more important that
they should act and behave in such a manner that the parties before them
should have confidence in their impartiality. (Sibayan-Joaquin v. Javellana,
A.M. NO. RTJ-00-1601, 2001)

A judge must not only be honest but

also appear to be so; not only be a
good judge, but also a good person.
[Dawa v. De Asa (1998)]

DISCIPLINARY ACTION
Sec. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against lawyers or court
personnel for unprofessional conduct of which
the judge may have become aware.

A judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with

respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to
his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual.
There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also
judged by his private morals. [Castillo v. Calanog (1991)]

Oftentimesleniency
provides
the
court employees the opportunity to
commit minor transgressions of the
laws and slight breaches of official
duty ultimately leading to vicious
delinquencies.

The respondent judge should constantly keep a watchful

eye on the conduct of his employees. He should realize
that big fires start small. His constant scrutiny of the
behavior of his employees would deter any abuse on the
part of the latter in the exercise of their duties. Then, his
subordinates would check that any misdemeanor will
not remain unchecked. The slightest semblance of
impropriety on the part of the employees of the court in
the performance of their official duties stirs ripples of
public suspicion and public distrust of the judicial
administrators. The slightest breach of duty by and the
slightest irregularity in the conduct of court officers and
employees detract from the dignity of the courts and
erode the faith of the people in the judiciary.
[Buenaventura v. Benedicto (1971)]

INTEGRITY