Chapter 10
Beyond Excellence*
Among the many activities held to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Supreme Court (SC) four years ago was the year-long Centenary Lecture Series. One of the distinguished lecturers then was Israeli Justice Dorit Beinisch. During a dinner held in her honor, she felicitated me for reporting in my book Transparency, Unanimity & Diversity[1] our effort to dismiss, suspend or fine many misfits in our judiciary. In turn, I asked her whether the Israeli Supreme Court also disciplined errant judges.
“Well,” she replied after a pause, “during the last half century, our Court has received only one complaint against a magistrate. When our Chief Justice privately confronted the judge about the matter, he immediately resigned.”
While I had been pleased that Justice Beinisch praised our Court for its vigilance in sanctioning erring judges, my pleasure turned to embarrassment upon hearing her response. It appeared that there were just too many misfits in our judiciary.
Indeed, because hundreds of our magistrates have been sanctioned over the past several years, the impression that the judiciary is inhabited by the inept and the corrupt has unfortunately been formed in the minds of certain sectors. That is why, in many speeches, I have repeatedly explained that the competent and honest judges far exceed the incompetent and dishonest.[2]
Purposes and Expected
Outputs of the Conference
Because of this conversation with Justice Beinisch, I promised myself that I would do my best to emphasize the many positive things about our judiciary. The institutional opportunity to do this came a year ago when I was named chairperson of the SC Committee on Judicial Excellence, which was tasked with the search for outstanding judges and clerks of court. I have always believed that the recognition given to the winners should not end with the award ceremonies. The pursuit of excellence should be a conscious and continuing endeavor.
Consistent with this effort, the Committee on Judicial Excellence is sponsoring today this Conference, which is participated in by all the judicial awardees since 1991 -- when the Foundation for Judicial Excellence began the search -- until last year when the SC took over. Specifically, this Conference has been called for a threefold purpose:
1. To encourage awardees to continue with their habits of excellence
2. To inspire others to aspire for excellence
3. To formulate an action plan to promote excellence in the entire judiciary
It is my hope that this gathering will be able to crystallize activities and projects that will veer the focus from the errant to the exalted, from the penalized to the persevering, and from the corrupt to the incorruptible. As many of you may have noticed, our Committee on Judicial Excellence has already started implementing, along this direction, some programs like the following:
1. The awardees are now being invited as guest speakers during many judicial functions, especially those related to the Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR).
2. Our SC Public Information Office has arranged for them to be interviewed over radio and TV networks and to be written about in print media.
3. The awardees are given priority when occasions for judicial promotion come up.
I am sure there are many other projects you can propose, like the recognition of exemplary awardees (such as those who have reached the appellate courts) during judicial programs similar to those given to national artists during cultural shows. You may also suggest ways to improve our yearly Awards for Judicial Excellence. In fact, we are already contemplating a Search Committee composed of awardees, with the function of nominating deserving judges and clerks of court who may feel it below their sense of dignity to apply personally for the awards.
The Need to Practice
Excellence All the Time
Having discussed the goals of our Conference, let me take a few more minutes to talk about the qualities that I believe we should look for in our quest. The first quality is of course EXCELLENCE in the magistracy. To me, excellence demands mastery of our chosen vocation plus a working knowledge of all the other branches of human endeavor. It is not enough that judges be walking databases of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence. It is also necessary that they have a general knowledge of the arts, history, philosophy, mathematics, physics, psychology, medicine, economics, health, computers and the latest in biosciences and biotechnologies.
Expertise in the law and basic learning in other disciplines are essential, because litigations span all known branches of knowledge. Let me cite briefly some recent instances:
1. To rule on the constitutionality of the Philippine adherence to the World Trade Organization, the Court had to discuss in Tañada v. Angara[3] in 1997 the then emerging economic paradigms of globalization, trade liberalization, privatization and deregulation. As ponente of the Decision, I had to peruse and understand, among other references, the 36-volume WTO Treaty.
2. To reduce legal principles into a mathematical equation or formula for us to determine the legal question of who may be proclaimed winners in the Filipino-style party-list system, the Court had to dig deep into the science of mathematics in Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec.[4]
.
3. To understand “psychological incapacity” as a new ground to declare a marriage void, the Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals[5] and Republic v. Molina[6] had to refer to and understand Catholic Canon Law, from which Article 36 of the Family Code was adopted.
4. To rule on the conclusiveness of DNA testing as a method of determining identity, the Court in People v. Vallejo[7] and People v. Yatar[8] had to rely on the new biosciences and biotechnologies. DNA testing is just the beginning of the new
learning. After attending two bioscience seminars in Hawaii and Canada, I now realize how the bio-age is just dawning, and how it will deeply affect everyone on this planet by prolonging life spans and enhancing well-being. I have written about this subject in my two latest books, The Bio-Age Dawns on the Judiciary[9] and Leveling the Playing Field.[10]
5. To appreciate the “battered woman syndrome” as a mitigating circumstance or as a viable defense in a prosecution for parricide, the Court in People v. Genosa[11] had to wade into recent psychological studies on this novel phenomenon.
6. To decide on the constitutionality of the 1995 Mining Law, the Court in La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association v. Ramos[12] had to deliberate on and discuss several diverse but related topics: environmental (how sustainable mining operations would be),
7. financial (how to determine “other sources” of governmental income from mining), technical (how mining was different from logging and oil exploration), and social (how mining would impact on the nation at large vis-à-vis indigenous communities).
The foregoing is just a sampling of cases that required excellence; that is, knowledge not only of law but also of many other branches of knowledge.
Necessity for Ethics
But excellence is not enough. I believe there are at least two other qualities that awardees must possess: ethics and eternity. Those aspiring to be included in the judicial “who’s who” must rigorously follow the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.[13] Indeed, our awardees are expected to be epitomes of integrity, courage, fidelity, prudence and selflessness.
A quick look at the various administrative cases decided by the Supreme Court involving judges and judicial employees shows that most of them have been penalized for various ethical violations, like bias, dishonesty, misconduct, immorality, abuse of discretion, undue delay in rendering decisions, knowingly rendering unjust judgments, dereliction of duty, negligence, and unbecoming conduct.[14]
To reform the judiciary, there is a need not just for a change of men, but a change in men; as well as a need to transform old habits of laziness, ineptness and duplicity into ethical values of industry, competence and honesty.
Legally knowledgeable judges who have no regard for ethics are dangerous to society; they may turn out to be worse than the criminals they sentence to jail. They are the scum and the scourge of the judiciary.
Visions for Eternity
Finally, ideal judges must set their visions beyond the here and now to the hereafter and forever. They must act with the knowledge that their decisions and actions will be remembered in eternity -- not only in this life, but also in the next. Judges who firmly believe they are born both of the flesh and of the spirit will act prudently and wisely. They will realize that while the body may die and turn to dust, the spirit will live on eternally. Hence, they will act and decide not only because they want to be remembered today, but also because they want a place in a zillion tomorrows.
Just as there are human and physical laws, there are also spiritual laws. And just as there are consequences for violations of human and physical laws, there are penalties for the transgression of God’s commands. For example, civil laws protect contracts. A party who breaches them may be liable for damages. In the same manner, one who injures another violates criminal laws and may be jailed as a consequence. So, too, a violation of the laws of physics implies consequences; hence, when one jumps out of a window, one falls to the ground and is likely to be injured in accordance with the law of gravity.
By the same token, spiritual laws operate on our spirit, whether we like it or not. For instance, when we transgress the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes, our spirits suffer the necessary consequences by being damned in eternity. But just as there is reparation for violation of human and physical laws, there is also salvation from our sins -- through repentance, restitution and reformation.
Final Exhortation
As I conclude, may I leave this final exhortation: if my presence today and my 15-minute keynote address should have any value at all, please remember the 3 Es of a life worth living -- Excellence, Ethics and Eternity. Let us constantly and fervently practice them in our lives and livelihoods. Let the 3 Es be our guiding lights and standards of behavior, our special supplications to God. Let the Catholics among us, during the Prayer for the Faithful at Mass, quietly ask for moral courage to absorb and radiate them, not by empty words but by our daily example. And may all of us, during moments of solitude and reflection, always bear them in mind and have the will and the determination to carry them out every day of our lives.
Maraming salamat po.
* Keynote address I delivered before the Conference on Judicial Excellence, sponsored by the Supreme Court on January 28, 2005, at the Westin Philippine Plaza Hotel.
[1] Printed in 2000 by the Supreme Court Printing Office.
[2] For instance, in a major address delivered before the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA) held at the Makati Shangri-la Hotel on May 29, 2002, I stressed: “[W]hile there are some undesirable judges and lawyers, the vast majority are honest, competent, hardworking and God-fearing.” See Panganiban, Reforming the Judiciary (2002), p. 64.
[3] 338 Phil. 546, May 2, 1997.
[4] 342 SCRA 244, October 6, 2000.
[5] 240 SCRA 20, January 4, 1995.
[6] 335 Phil. 664, February 13, 1997.
[7] 431 Phil. 798, May 9, 2002.
[8] GR No. 150224, May 19, 2004.
[9] Printed in 2003 by Rex Printing Company, Inc.
[10] Printed in 2004 by the Print Town Group of Companies.
[11] GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004.
[12] GR No. 127882, December 1, 2004.
[13] This was promulgated in AM No. 03-05-01-SC, effective June 1, 2004. The new Code is based on the universal declaration of standards for judicial conduct embodied in the “Bangalore Draft,” as revised during the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices at The Hague.
[14] Latest statistics from the Docket and Clearance Division under the Office of the Court Administrator show that from January 1, 1986 to December 1, 2004, a total of 642 first-level court (METC, MTCC, MTC & MCTC) judges have been meted sanctions ranging from reprimand to outright dismissal from the service. Penalized during the same period were 582 regional trial court judges, of whom around 56 were dismissed from the service. The data are reproduced below:
DATA ON ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS
(January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2004)
RTC JUDGES
|
|
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
TOTAL |
|
Cases Filed |
57 |
92 |
126 |
165 |
189 |
159 |
145 |
185 |
164 |
150 |
174 |
233 |
166 |
237 |
238 |
251 |
305 |
283 |
246 |
3565 |
|
Complaint Dismissed |
4 |
8 |
42 |
53 |
77 |
200 |
176 |
169 |
149 |
129 |
101 |
71 |
62 |
162 |
220 |
155 |
285 |
189 |
204 |
2456 |
|
PENALTY |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
TOTAL |
|
Admonished |
2 |
3 |
6 |
11 |
4 |
7 |
8 |
12 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
23 |
8 |
1 |
12 |
8 |
2 |
123 |
|
Benefits Forfeited |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Censured |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
|
Dismissed from the service |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
56 |
|
Fined |
1 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
15 |
10 |
15 |
6 |
13 |
7 |
22 |
43 |
30 |
23 |
37 |
41 |
285 |
|
Reprimanded |
0 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
10 |
5 |
3 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
7 |
5 |
78 |
|
Suspended |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
24 |
|
TOTAL |
3 |
9 |
11 |
26 |
19 |
17 |
34 |
31 |
29 |
20 |
35 |
22 |
51 |
65 |
47 |
50 |
57 |
56 |
582 |
METC, MTCC, MTC & MCTC JUDGES
|
|
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
TOTAL |
|
Cases Filed |
49 |
92 |
106 |
124 |
133 |
120 |
113 |
157 |
124 |
127 |
168 |
238 |
178 |
196 |
160 |
191 |
175 |
181 |
145 |
2777 |
|
Complaint Dismissed |
3 |
26 |
40 |
65 |
153 |
93 |
116 |
115 |
89 |
94 |
92 |
71 |
47 |
90 |
176 |
148 |
233 |
121 |
138 |
1910 |
|
PENALTY |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
TOTAL |
|
Admonished |
4 |
1 |
4 |
9 |
2 |
5 |
7 |
16 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
8 |
11 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
108 |
|
Benefits Forfeited |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Censured |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
|
Dismissed from the service |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
3 |
64 |
|
Fined |
1 |
3 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
6 |
26 |
19 |
20 |
17 |
9 |
13 |
16 |
45 |
33 |
31 |
45 |
35 |
340 |
|
Reprimanded |
1 |
0 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
6 |
5 |
7 |
7 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
5 |
6 |
94 |
|
Suspended |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
24 |
|
TOTAL |
8 |
5 |
20 |
25 |
15 |
19 |
43 |
48 |
35 |
37 |
23 |
35 |
38 |
78 |
52 |
51 |
61 |
49 |
642 |
COURT PERSONNEL
|
|
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
TOTAL |
|
Cases Filed |
40 |
110 |
129 |
110 |
142 |
129 |
109 |
230 |
112 |
137 |
169 |
188 |
172 |
237 |
251 |
267 |
272 |
319 |
297 |
3420 |
|
Complaint Dismissed |
4 |
22 |
37 |
42 |
110 |
84 |
105 |
101 |
78 |
71 |
80 |
71 |
46 |
56 |
123 |
142 |
275 |
178 |
167 |
1792 |
|
PENALTY |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
TOTAL |
|
Admonished |
1 |
8 |
6 |
15 |
10 |
7 |
7 |
16 |
9 |
9 |
11 |
8 |
12 |
17 |
20 |
26 |
13 |
10 |
205 |
|
Benefits Forfeited |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
|
Censured |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
19 |
|
Dismissed from the service |
1 |
4 |
1 |
7 |
9 |
7 |
18 |
16 |
12 |
12 |
14 |
6 |
16 |
11 |
15 |
11 |
24 |
13 |
197 |
|
Fined |
1 |
4 |
8 |
7 |
4 |
14 |
17 |
21 |
19 |
21 |
12 |
6 |
16 |
17 |
38 |
37 |
33 |
32 |
307 |
|
Reprimanded |
2 |
4 |
2 |
11 |
2 |
16 |
10 |
6 |
5 |
15 |
4 |
3 |
7 |
8 |
11 |
34 |
34 |
50 |
224 |
|
Suspended |
2 |
2 |
1 |
9 |
11 |
6 |
12 |
10 |
9 |
10 |
13 |
6 |
8 |
18 |
14 |
18 |
33 |
32 |
214 |
|
Stricken from the roll |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
TOTAL |
7 |
22 |
18 |
51 |
40 |
50 |
66 |
70 |
54 |
69 |
57 |
29 |
63 |
81 |
102 |
130 |
137 |
139 |
1185 |