CANON 5:

EQUALITY
• Equality had been exercised in all nations by
mere conduct which was socially acceptable
to all people.

• “If we look to the laws, they afford equal

justice to all in their private differences; if no
social standing, advancement in public life
falls to reputation for capacity, class
considerations not being allowed to
interfere with merit; nor again does poverty
bar the way." (Pericles, 431 BC)

• “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW”

 EQUALITY AS TO JUDGES
• In rendering decisions, there should be
no bias that may cause injury or
prejudice to the ones being affected.

• A judge should be familiar with the

international and regional instruments
that prohibit discrimination against
vulnerable groups in the community.
• Article 14, Paragraph 1, of the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights
– “All persons are equal before the courts”
• Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
– …Recognizes the right of every individual to a
fair trial without any distinction whatsoever as
regards race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other convictions, national or social
origin, means, status or other circumstances.
 CANON 5: EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of
treatment to all before the
courts is essential to the due
performance of the judicial
office.
•New Canon. Not found in the
previous two Philippine Codes of
Judicial Conduct.

•It expands the measures to

promote equality required by
international human rights
agreements.
•The drafters of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct were well aware
of the basic principles found in
many U.N. documents and thus
included principles of equality and
non-discrimination as a
reaffirmation of equality in the
enjoyment of human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
• As the guardians of justice, courts must
adhere to the principle of equality.
People expect the courts to be
unaffected by differences in social
status, degree of education, and even
physical abilities.

• Canon 5 Preamble: “ensuring equality

of treatment to all before the courts is
essential to the due performance of the
judicial office.”
 SECTION 1
Judges shall be aware of and
understand diversity in society and
differences arising from various
sources, including, but not limited to,
race, color, sex, religion, national
origin, caste, disability, age, marital
status, sexual orientation, social and
economic status, and other
like causes.
• Judges should be mindful of the various
international instruments and treaties
ratified by the Philippines.
• Everyone must be treated equally under
the law regardless their race, gender,
national origin, color, ethnicity without
privilege, discrimination or biases.
• Judges should not yield to first
impression, reach hasty conclusions or
prejudge matters.
• They have a duty to ensure
that the minority status of the accused
plays no part in their decisions.
• Judges may not use derogatory or
condescending language in their
judgment when dealing with a rape
complaint.
• Due process cannot be satisfied in the
absence of objectivity on the part of a
judge sufficient to reassure litigants
that the judicial system is fair and just.
•Judges should attempt by
appropriate means to remain
informed about changing attitudes
and values and to take advantage
of suitable educational
opportunities that will assist them
to be and appear to be impartial.

•Case of “Castillo v. Judge Juan, 62

SCRA 124”
• Inappropriate conduct may arise from a
judge being unfamiliar with cultural,
racial or other traditions or failing to
realize that certain conduct is hurtful to
others.
 SECTION 2
Judges shall not, in the
performance of judicial duties,
by words or conduct, manifest
bias or prejudice towards any
person or group on irrelevant
grounds.
• Judges must accord themselves at all
times in such a manner that their
conduct can withstand the highest level
of public scrutiny. They should strive to
ensure that his or her conduct is such
that any reasonable observer would
have justifiable confidence in his or her
impartiality.
• The Case of: “Candia v. Tagabucha, A.M.
No. 528-MJ, September 12, 1977”
• Judges should avoid comments,
expressions, gestures or behaviours
that may reasonably be interpreted as
showing insensitivity or disrespect.
• A judge’s critical comments about
ethnic origins, including the judge’s
own, are also undignified and
discourteous.
• The Case of: “Castillo vs. Juan, January
28, 1975, 62 SCRA 124
• A judge must not make improper and
insulting remarks about litigants,
advocates, parties and witnesses.
• In the case of: “Espayos v. Lee, A.M. No.
1574-MJ, April 30, 1979”
• In the case of: “Siasico vs. Sales, A.M.No.
687-MJ, May 31, 1976, 71 SCRA
139,146”
• In the case of: “De la Paz vs. Inutan 64
SCRA 540»
 SECTION 3
Judges shall carry out judicial duties
with appropriate consideration for
all persons, such as the parties,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff and
judicial colleagues, without
differentiation on any irrelevant
ground, immaterial to the
proper performance of
such duties.
Judge’s Personal conduct
• Judges should be conscientious, studious,
courteous, patient and punctual in the
discharge of their judicial duties, recognizing
that time of litigants, witnesses and counsel is
of value.
• Judges should act with decorum toward
jurors, parties, court staff, and spectators
alike.
• Judges should act with decorum toward
jurors, parties, court staff, and spectators
alike.
Judge’s conduct towards parties
and witnesses
• A judge should not examine or cross
examine a witness if the questioning
reveals information that destroys the
theory of one party.
• Judges should not make insensitive and
sarcastic comments in rape cases or use
vulgar language in solemnizing
marriages—even off the record.
 Judge’s conduct towards lawyers,
court staff and judicial colleagues
• Unequal and disparate treatment in the
courthouse, whether intentional or
perceived, is unacceptable and can
negatively impact the professional lives of
attorneys and employees, the assessment
of claims of litigants, and the respect and
credibility of the justice system.
• Judges must also be concerned with the
public’s impression of the judiciary.
•Judges, being dispensers of justice
should not act in a way that would
cast suspicion in order to preserve
faith in the administration of
justice.

•A humane court is essential for due

process.
 SECTION 4
Judges shall not knowingly
permit court staff or others
subject to his or her influence,
direction or control to
differentiate between persons
concerned, in a matter before
the judge, on any irrelevant
ground.
 DUTIES OF JUDGES
1. To ensure that the Court personnel under their
supervision do not discriminate by dispensing
special favors or disclosing confidential
information to any unauthorized person,
regardless of whether such information came
from authorized or unauthorized sources.

2. To organize their Courts to ensure the prompt

and convenient dispatch of business and should
not tolerate misconduct by clerks, sheriffs and
other assistants who are sometimes prone to
expect favors or special treatment due to their
professional relationship with the judge.
 SECTION 5
Judges shall require lawyers in
proceedings before the court to
refrain from manifesting, by words or
conduct, bias or prejudice based on
irrelevant grounds, except such as are
legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be
the subject of legitimate
advocacy.
• Rule 3.03, Canon 3 of the 1989 Code of
Judicial Conduct
– Judges should conduct proceedings in
court with dignity and in a manner that
reflects the importance and seriousness of
proceedings.
• Since judges set the tone and
environment of the court proceedings,
they should censure lawyers who use
sexist language or inappropriate
behavior in court.
 Rights and Obligations of Witnesses
(Rule 132, section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court)

1. To be protected from irrelevant,

improper or insulting questions and
from a harsh or insulting demeanor.
2. Not to be detained longer than the
interests of justice require.
3. Not to be examined except as to
matters pertinent to the issues before
the court.
4. Not to give an answer which will tend
to subject him to a penalty for an
offense unless otherwise provided by
law.
5. Not to give an answer which will tend
to degrade the witness’ reputation, but
a witness must answer the fact of any
previous final conviction for a criminal
offense.
 CRITICISMS
1. Our constitution does not announce
that equality is to prevail completely in
principle.
2. One should for once consider whether
equality and/or equal rights – in
substance or in procedure, real or
formal – is really at all a goal to be
aimed at, or in fact the production of
equal rights is generally the means to
cope with political, economic,
psychological and physical oppression.
 CONCLUSION
In deciding cases and in their everyday
dealings, Judges must put in mind the 6 Canons
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct especially
to CANON 5 (Equality) as a new Canon of the
said Code which was based on the
international human rights agreement; and
that the law’s strong societal commitment
places concern for equality at the core of justice
according to law.
 Equality before the law is a basic
right in the constitutions of democratic
countries, and its content appears in all
conventions on human rights. It is the
legal as well as moral appeal of everyone
who opposes discrimination. Basic rights
are the supreme goods. They formulate
the basic consensus of the citizens on
which the community is built.
 Judges should be aware of
the Article 7 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) which states
that “all are equal before the law and are
entitled without any discrimination to
equal protection of the law.”
Consequently, a judge can't say or
do anything that shows bias to any
person or group on irrelevant grounds
while in the performance of his official
duties.
 The judge should always do her
or his best to strike the right balance
in the exercise of equality.
 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Equality should be applied in general or
as a whole, not only to those protected
under the Constitution which pertains to
political views.
2. Judges should have a high degree of
professional awareness. They should
ensure that they maintain a high degree
of professional competence through
basic and further training, providing
them with the appropriate qualifications.
3. Judges should not be isolated from the
society in which they live, since the
judicial system can only function
properly if judges are in touch with
reality. Moreover, as citizens, judges
enjoy the fundamental rights and
freedoms protected (freedom of
opinion, religious freedom, etc). They
should therefore remain generally free
to engage in the extra-professional
activities of their choice.
4. Judges should discharge their duties
without any favouritism, display of
prejudice or bias. They should not reach
their decisions by taking into
consideration anything which falls
outside the application of the rules of
law.

5. In view of the exercise of equality, right

to a fair trial and legitimate public
expectations, judges should show
restraint in the exercise of public political
activity.
6. Judges who are not exercising equality in
rendering decisions, upon clear and
convincing proof, should not only be
suspended or dismissed, but should be
disbarred and be taken out in the Roll of
Attorneys.
7. There should be additional Canons in the
New Code of Judicial Conduct to further
strengthen the role of Judges worldwide.
8. Judges should treat his personnel in
Court as a man who performs with the
highest degree of responsibility and not
to treat him as a “puppet” for his
advantage.
THANK YOU!
