PROPRIETY: CANON 4

DEFENDING AND AMENDING THE CONTEXT OF IMPROPRIETY

The New Code of Judicial Ethics dictates that a Judge, in his capacity,
must observe Propriety.
He should maintain high ethical principles and sense of propriety,
without which the faith of the people in the judiciary so indispensable in an
orderly society cannot be preserved. A judge should not only be impartial,
independent, and honest but should be perceived to be impartial, independent
and honest.
In all other Canons of the New Code of Judicial Ethics only one
encompasses all others, that is Propriety.
Propriety is defined by Merriam-Webster as behavior that is accepted as
socially or morally correct and proper. That is to say that Judges as members
of the BAR and the Judiciary are expected to do the right things, choose the
right choices, and say the right words, as these acts reflect not just the Judge
himself, but also the entire legal and judicial profession.
A judge should both be courteous both in his conduct and in his language
especially to those appearing before him. xxx. He should refrain from conduct
that demeans his office and remember always that courtesy begets courtesy.
Above all, he must conduct himself in such a manner that he gives no reason
for reproach. ( Ruis v. Bringas, 330 SCRA 62, 68(2000))
This is a rather heavy burden if understood properly, for the Judge
himself is to be judged and must be confined to the rules of Propriety so to
avoid the ever enigmatic grasp of impropriety, but are the rules flawless? Are
they absolutely perfect? Or are they misscripted rules that have a need for
improvement?

Here are the Sections of Canon 4 of the aforementioned Code:

Canon 4. PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of
all the activities of a judge.
Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all their activities.
Impropriety is a defined term in the Terminology Section of the Code. Actual
improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for
appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a
perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects
 adversely on the judges honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
This test differs from the formerly applied common law test of whether a significant
minority of the lay community could reasonably question the courts
impartiality.(Pensylvania Code of Judicial Conduct)
This section is quite clear, but the main flaw observable thereof is
the ambiguous definition of the term propriety, leaving us clueless as
to what is to be done exactly, the construction of this section gives us an
impression of Generality and an impression of it being encompassing.
A remedy to said flaw is that it should have defined what propriety
and impropriety are. Likened to an Oxford-Oregon Debate, having a
definition which prescribes boundaries will greatly improve its imposition
as it would give a clear thought as to the tangency of the whole Canon,
that is to say, that if such definition has been given then it will much
easier for Judges to determine whether one action is socially and morally
accepted or not.

Section 2. As a subject to constant public scrutiny, judges must accept

personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary
citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct
themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
This section emanates the idea that a judge must essentially be
perfect in the eyes of the people, it gives the judge a job similar to that
of a dartboard, that the judge must accept restrictions willingly so as to
protect the pristineness of the dignity of the judicial office.
A flaw therein is the essence of expectation, that is, the judge is in
a position where every person laid with crab me ntality and a high knack
to scrutiny will simply love to strike, the Judge is also a person, but being
a highly educated one, this puts him on a track of presumed excellence
and greatness.
A solution thereof must be that advocacies to open-mindedness be
enculturated to the people, especially to those who have nothing to
prove but whose opinions on other people are very lethal.
Moreover, Conduct that gives rise to disciplinary sanctions must be
distinguished from a failure to observe professional standards.
Professional standards represent best practice, which judges should aim
to develop and towards which all judges should aspire. They should not
be equated with conduct justifying disciplinary proceedings. However,
the breach of professional standards may be of considerable relevance,
 where such breach is alleged to constitute conduct sufficient to justify
and require disciplinary sanction. Unless there is such a filter, judges
could find themselves facing disciplinary proceedings brought at the
instance of disappointed litigants.

Section 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual members of

the legal profession who practice regularly in their court, avoid situations
which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism
or partiality.
Canon 3 specifically points out the prohibited acts constituting
partiality in the proper discharge of judicial office. It specifically points
out that judges should perform their judicial duties without favor, bias, or
prejudice. Hence, this section becomes a repetition of the mentioned
Canon. The addition of personal relations with individual members of the
legal profession who practice regularly in their court may just be included in
the previous Canon so it will not become superfluous.
Furthermore, this section is ambiguous because it gives many
interpretation as to what are those specific circumstances or situations
which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of
favoritism or partiality. Since Judges are one of the most notable
persons in the society in view of their wide knowledge of law, it
cannot be avoided that they become well-known to other people
specially to individual members of the legal profession who may have
personal relations with them in view with their affiliations, family
kinship and other factors even before their appointment in the
judiciary. Thus, it would be fitting if these circumstances or situations as
mentioned in this section will be further elaborated to avoid confusion
or ambiguity as to its interpretation with the prohibitions imposed on
Judges.
SEC. 4. Judges shall not participate in the determination of a case in which any
member of their family represents a litigant or is associated in any manner
with the case.
In such situations, however, it is advisable for the judge to inform
counsel and the parties of the situation The Canons, when read as a
whole, encourage the prompt disposition of cases in the courts. Recusal,
when not required by the canons, necessarily delays the business of the
court, and judges should not routinely recuse themselves merely because
 they may know an attorney, party or witness. Whether required or not,
recusal imposes additional stress on parties and witnesses, increases the
expense of litigation, and delays the resolution of issues before the
court. Recusal is particularly disfavored where replacing the judge would
cause a significant waste of judicial resources. Judges should be keenly
aware that frequent recusal by a judge may lead the public to conclude
that the judge is avoiding unpleasant cases or that the judge is not
carrying his or her appropriate share of the court's work. Further, when
a judge recuses himself/herself frequently, attorneys and litigants may
well be encouraged to use recusal motions as a means of judge
shopping.

SEC. 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a member of the
legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of other members of the
legal profession.
A flaw thereon is by chances when a judge has an attorney wife or
child living in the same house with him,
In such cases, with the kind of culture that Filipinos have, there is a
high probability that clients will visit the house of such judge and
attorney.
To correct this, it can be suggested that exemptions and further
guidelines be included in the section like the allowing of reception of
clients in the house of a judge and attorney but should be solely
entertained and spoken to by the attorney and not the judge.

SEC. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression,
belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall
always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the
judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
A flaw in this section is that it in itself can already be presumed
present, that is, there is almost no need for it to be present, due to the
fact that Judges are citizens who are entitled to freedom of expression,
belief association and assembly, this has already been pre-established
and given that it may not be mentioned anymore,
Additionally, preservation of the dignity of judicial office is also an
implied obligation to the judge as common sense will tell that every
person must preserve the dignity of his sworn position and its
 counterparts.
It is a basic right of each citizen as provided in the Constitution its
right to exercise his freedom of expression, belief, association and
assembly. However, in view of the prestige of its position, a Judges
conduct is regulated at all times to maintain freedom from improprieties
even in the judges private life. Hence, to reconcile this provision with
respect to the fundamental rights provided in the Constitution, this
section must provide certain acts or limitation as to the extent on how a
Judge can exercise this right without impairing public confidence and
respect to the judicial office. It seems that even a judge will exercise this
right without malice and bad faith, public criticism arises in view of their
position.

SEC. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary and
financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about the
financial interests of members of their family.
R. A. 6713 also known as An Act Establishing a Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, to Uphold the
Time-Honored principle of Public office being a Public Trust, Granting
Incentives and Rewards for Exemplary Service for Exemplary Service,
Enumerating Prohibited Acts and Transactions and Providing Penalties
for violations thereof and other Purposes provides a clearer and more
specific implementing rules and regulations in promoting high standards
in public service in the discharge of their duties with utmost
responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and
justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal
interest.
Sec. 7-8 of R.A. 6713 provides a more comprehensive scope where
prohibited acts and transactions declared to be unlawful with respect to
their personal fiduciary and financial interests outside their employment
and other elated activities thereto during their tenure of office.
Furthermore, Public Officials and Employees are obliged to accomplish
and submit declarations under oath of, their assets and liabilities, net
worth and financial and business interest including those of their spuses
and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their
households.
Therefore, to make this Section to have more force and effect, it is
 better if this will be correlated with R.A. 6713 since Judges are
considered to be Public Officials also.

SEC. 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to
advance their private interests, or those of a member of their family or of
anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the impression
that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence them in the
performance of judicial duties.
Again, R.A. 6713 of Sec. 4 provides specific Norms of Conduct of
Public Officials and Employees as standards of personal conduct in the
discharge and execution of official duties. It further stated that public
officials and employees shall always uphold public interest over and
above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their
respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, honestly and
economically to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.
Moreover, public officials and employees are required to act with
justness and sincerity as provided with the same section, third
paragraph. They shall at all times, respect the rights of others, and shall
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall
not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to their
relatives whether by consanguinity of or affinity except with respect to
appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly
confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are
coterminous with them.
Citing this provision, the New Code of Judicial Conduct must be
correlated with R.A. 6713 to supplement the deficiency or absence of
specific provisions. This section of the New code of Judicial Conduct is
just one of the provisions which needs to be supplemented with existing
laws and jurisprudence.
SEC. 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity
shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose related to their judicial
duties.
The only concern found within this section is that, it merely
suggested confidential information without providing for the
boundaries of such idea, that is, there is no provision as to when or how
an information is accepted as confidential.
 Additionally, this may run counter to the canon of Impartiality,
because in certain conditions, a judge may come to know of some facts
crucial to the case like when he himself is a live witness of a crime, but it
cannot be determined as to such information is confidential in nature or
not.
In In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the
Attendance of Court officials and employees as witnesses under the
subpoenas of February 10, 2012 and the various letters for the
Impeachment Prosecution Panel dated January 19 and 25, 2012. It was
enumerated:
To summarize these rules, the following are privileged documents
or communications, and are not subject to disclosure:
(1) Court actions such as the result of the raffle of cases and the
actions taken by the Court on each case included in the agenda of the
Courts session on acts done material to pending cases, except where a
party litigant requests information on the result of the raffle of the case,
pursuant to Rule 7, Section 3 of the IRSC;
(2) Court deliberations or the deliberations of the Members in
court sessions on cases and matters pending before the Court;
(3) Court records which are predecisional and deliberative in
nature, in particular, documents and other communications which are
part of or related to the deliberative process, i.e., notes, drafts, research
papers, internal discussions, internal memoranda, records of internal
deliberations, and similar papers.
(4) Confidential Information secured by justices, judges, court officials
and employees in the course of their official functions, mentioned in (2)
and (3) above, are privileged even after their term of office.
(5) Records of cases that are still pending for decision are
privileged materials that cannot be disclosed, except only for pleadings,
orders and resolutions that have been made available by the court to the
general public.
(6) The principle of comity or inter-departmental courtesy
demands that the highest officials of each department be exempt from
the compulsory processes of the other departments.
(7) These privileges belong to the Supreme Court as an institution,
not to any justice or judge in his or her individual capacity. Since the
Court is Notice of Resolution - 25 - February 14, 2012 higher than the
 individual justices or judges, no sitting or retired justice or judge, not
even the Chief Justice, may claim exception without the consent of the
Court.
An explanation as to how any of these are either confidential or
not is needed to be included to the section for clarity.
The Supreme Court has consistently stressed the importance of
maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority
and integrity of the judiciary. Thus it is that while we already had Canons of
Judicial Ethics and a code of judicial conduct, the Supreme Court saw fit to
promulgate the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary on
April 27, 2004 patterned after the Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
A code of judicial Conduct, no matter how wisely crafted, does not
necessarily translate into ethical conduct on the part of magistrates and
officers of the law. It is however, certain that without a Code of Conduct a
judge will find it difficult to navigate ethically through the mined waters of
professional conduct and even in their everyday life as a judge. Prudence is
certainly a necessary virtue, but the gray areas are many and questions they
raised, difficult.
The Supreme Court has done its job. It has promulgated the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. What remains to be done is the
important thing- to make the Code a living reality in the honorable, decent,
respectable and inspiring conduct of our justices, judges and judicial officials.
No code can ever achieve the disposition and the decision to conduct oneself
ethically, but the direction one must go, the guidepost to use when one
chooses to conduct oneself with honer and to hold oneself out to the public as
the Republics credible agent for the administration of justice, is what a Code of
conduct fundamentally is.
 PROPRIETY: CANON 4
DEFENDING AND
AMENDING THE CONTEXT OF
IMPROPRIETY
Prepared by:
John Alex Taguiam
Erwin Butch Bulala
Mary Grace Martin

Submitted to:
ATTY. JEANNA ONGAN
PALE Professor