Topic: The delineation of proper and improper conduct of the judiciary in

the utilization of social media

Thesis: The members of the judiciary should conduct themselves in a manner that
preserves the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of
the judiciary.

Body:
Q1: The members should conduct themselves in a manner that preserves the
dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
○ New Code of Judicial Ethics
§ Canon 1 (Explain in the application in the Soc Med)
Independence
An independent judiciary has been described as “one free of inappropriate
outside influences.”1 Judges frequently experience pressures in the exercise of their
judicial functions. Common sources of pressure upon a judge include political
patrons, family members, friends and associates, colleagues on the bench, media,
civil society, militant groups, criminals and criminal syndicates, and rebel groups.
Canon 1 requires that judges reject pressure from any source by maintaining
independence in the pursuit of their duties.
Canon 1 also requires judges to rule fairly regardless of public opinion. In the
Philippines, the media is one of the more prevalent forces that exert pressure on
the judiciary. By promoting public opinion for or against one party, the media
attempts to improperly influences the outcome of judicial decisions. In the
performance of their judicial duties, judges must ignore public opinion.
Nothing more clearly touches the welfare and security of the average citizen
than his sense that he can rely on the certain and prompt administration of justice.
Compared to other public functions and duties, the dispensing of justice, being
extremely important, is both delicate and singular. To be sitting in judgment over
another, to pass upon their controversies involving their rights and fortunes, and in
criminal cases, determine their innocence or guilt, is no ordinary chore. It is a
serious task and must be independent from any outside pressure. Judges are
tasked to administer justice according to his own conscience and the dictates of
reason free from any interference and pressure of any third party.
The use of social media has grown at a phenomenal rate. One form of social
media is Facebook, which is the most popular social networking site with almost 2
billion users, a number that has increased exponentially since its introduction. In
general, “judges use social media just like everyone else.” 2 There is no doubt that
many Facebook users tend to post a lot of personal opinions, even including those
regarding a judicial matter. With regards to OCA NO. 173-2017, “judges are not
prohibited from becoming members of and from taking part in social networking

1
ABA Annotated Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, Commentary; See also Vincent R. Johnson. The Ethical
Foundation of American Independence, 29 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1007 (2002).
2
. MICHAEL CROWELL, ADMIN. OF JUSTICE BULLETIN, JUDICIAL ETHICS AND SOCIAL MEDIA 2 (2015),
http://sogpubs.unc.edu/electronicversions/pdfs/aojb1509.pdf.
activities, but they are reminded that they do not thereby shed off their status as
members of the judiciary.”3 Hence, Canon 1 does not necessarily only apply to the
personal, offline lives of members of the judiciary but rather it must also apply to
their online lives. Whether online or offline, members of the judiciary must refrain
from being affected or persuaded by a certain post on Facebook or tweet on Twitter
with regards to their duties and functions as members of the judiciary.

§ Canon 2 (Intent)
Integrity
Aside from independence, the Code of Judicial Conduct provides for integrity.
A judge should not only act with integrity, but also that he or she should so behave
at all times so as to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. As
held in Rural Bank of Barotac Nuevo, Inc. vs. Cartagena, “judges must be models of
uprightness, fairness and honesty.” 4 The behavior of a judge reflects negatively on
or taints the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.
One of the most common reasons to why the integrity of the judiciary is
tainted is because of incompetence from its members. Ignorance of the law is a
mark of incompetence. Despite being members of the judiciary and administrators
of the law, judges have been penalized for demanding and/or accepting bribes, 5
fraternizing with litigants and/or lawyers,6 and altering orders.7 With respect to
personal integrity, judges have been penalized for transgressions in their private
lives such as keeping and/or flaunting a mistress, 8 inebriated behavior,9 and
frequenting casinos and cock fights.10
The people's confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the
competence and diligence of the members of the bench, but also on their integrity
and moral uprightness. A judge must not only be honest but also appear to be so;
not only be a good judge, but also a good person.
The average citizen looks up at the judiciary and its members as
administrators of the law. This being said, the judiciary should not be tainted with
any immoral act or dishonesty. As administrators of the law, judges should be able
to follow the law. There is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the
exacting standards of judicial competence and integrity. Although every office in the
government is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. 11
When using social media, judges are not prohibited from posting, liking,
commenting, nor sharing. However, they must be cautious with regards to their
activities on social media. Just to reiterate, judges do not shed off their status as

3
Lorenzana v. Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200 April 2, 2014.
4
G.R. No. A.M. No. 707-MJ, July 21, 1978, 84 SCRA 128.
5
Tan vs. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563, September 8, 2004.
6
Dela Cruz vs. Bersamin, A.M. No. RTJ-00-567, July 25, 2000, 130 SCRA 353.
7
Rallos vs. Gako, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1484, March 18, 2000, 328 SCRA 324.
8
In Re Judge Marcos, A.M. No. 97-253-RTC, July 6, 2001, 380 SCRA 539.
9
Lachica vs. Flordeliza, A.M. No. MTJ-9-921, March 4, 1996, 254 SCRA 278.
10
City of Tagbilaran vs. Hontanosas, A.M. No. MTJ- 98-1169, November 29, 2002, 375 SCRA 1.
11
Baria vs. Bercacacio, A.M. No. 561-MJ, Dec. 29, 1976.
members of the judiciary when engaging in social media. Every post, comment, and
like contributes to the people’s opinion not just of the judge but of the entire
judiciary of which he or she is a part of.

§ Canon 3 (Intent)
Impartiality
Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded judges that they are the
visible representations of the law and of justice. A judge must, therefore, apply the
law and render justice impartially, without any favor, bias or prejudice. The concern
is not only with the judge’s actual decision but the manner in which the case is
decided. As the Supreme Court has put it, a judge has both the duty of rendering a
just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as
to his fairness and as to his integrity. 12 It is the duty of all judges not only to be
impartial but also to “appear impartial.”13
**di ko masyado maconnect impartiality and the use of socmed dito haha pero try
ko pa magbasa basa baka may mahanap pa ako

Q2: The standards by which the members of the judiciary are upheld in their
conduct in Social Media platforms do not infringe their Constitutional Right of
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression
§ Canon 4 (Explain)
Propriety
In the case of Lorenzana v. Austria, the Supreme Court ruled that while
judges are not prohibited from becoming members of and from taking part in social
networking activities, they are reminded that they do not thereby shed off their
status as judges.14 They carry with them in cyberspace the same ethical
responsibilities and duties that every judge is expected to follow in his/her everyday
activities. The New Code of Judicial Conduct does not prohibit a judge from joining
or maintaining an account in a social networking site such as Facebook. Section 6,
Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct recognizes that judges, like any other
citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression. This right "includes the freedom to
hold opinions without interference and impart information and ideas through any
media regardless of frontiers." Joining a social networking site is an exercise of
one’s freedom of expression. However, they should always conduct themselves in a
manner that preserves the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the Judiciary.

There are limited circumstances in which a judge may properly speak out
about a matter that is politically controversial, namely, when the matter directly
affects the operation of the courts, the independence of the judiciary (which may
include judicial salaries and benefits), fundamental aspects of the administration of
12
Geotina vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 26310, September 30, 1971, 41 SCRA 66.
13
People of the Philippines vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, January 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 533
14
Lorenzana v. Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200 April 2, 2014.
justice or the personal integrity of the judge. While a judge may properly make
public representations to the government on these matters, the judge must not be
seen as
“lobbying” government or as indicating how he or she would rule if particular
situations were to come before the court. Moreover, a judge must remember that
his
or her public comments may be taken as reflecting the views of the judiciary; it
may
sometimes be difficult for a judge to express an opinion that will be taken as purely
personal and not that of the judiciary in general.15
The Commentary also notes that, “A judge may participate in discussion of
the law for educational purposes or to point out weaknesses in the law. In certain
special circumstances, a judge’s comments on draft legislation may be helpful and
appropriate, provided that the judge avoids offering informal interpretations or
controversial opinions on constitutionality. In general, such judicial commentary
should be made as part of a collective or institutionalized effort by the judiciary, not
of an individual judge.”16
The Commentary also states that: “Occasions may arise when a judge - as a
human being with a conscience, morals, feelings and values - considers it a moral
duty to speak out. For example, in the exercise of the freedom of expression, a
judge might join a vigil, hold a sign or sign a petition to express opposition to war,
support for energy conservation or independence, or funding for an anti-poverty
agency. These are expressions of concern for the local and global community. If
any of these issues were to arise in the judge’s court, and if the judge’s impartiality
might reasonably be questioned, the judge must disqualify himself or herself from
any proceedings that follow where the past actions cast doubt on the judge’s
impartiality and judicial integrity.”17
**wala kasing specifics about dun sa limitations under canon 4 (sec. 6) kaya
kumuha nalang ako sa Bangalore churva

15
Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (UNODC/Judicial Integrity Group, 2007), pp. 96.
16
Commentary, pp. 96-97.
17
Commentary, pp. 97.