Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises › Legal and Judicial Ethics › Judicial Ethics (CJCA) › Standards of Ethical Conduct of Judges and Justices › Propriety (Canon IV)

iii. Rules on the Use of Social Media

Rules on the Use of Social Media

Concept

Social media conduct is part of propriety for court officials and personnel. They must be free from impropriety and must also be perceived to be so in both professional and personal conduct. Their online activity can affect the dignity and reputation of the Judiciary. (Provision, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)1 (Sec. 15, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)2

Governing provisions

Under A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC, court officials and personnel must exercise restraint and caution when using social media and artificial intelligence. Their online posts must respect the law, uphold the dignity of the Judiciary, and shield it from disrepute, whether the posts are public or made under restricted privacy settings. (Sec. 13, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)3 (Sec. 15, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)2

Requisites / Rules

  • Do not use an online post to take advantage of the prestige of judicial office, or allow another person to do so, to advance anyone’s interest. (Sec. 15, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)2
  • Do not communicate with lawyers, litigants, or their representatives about a pending matter before the office, including through a social networking platform, except on official matters when the rules allow it. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)4
  • Do not permit family, social, or other relationships to influence official conduct. Maintain the independence of the Judiciary in and out of court. (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)5 (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)6

Distinctions

The rules for court officials and personnel address both actual impropriety and how their conduct is perceived. For judges, the CJCA separately requires impartial performance of duties and an appearance of impartiality to a reasonable, fair-minded, and informed observer. These standards make the appearance created by an online interaction relevant even when its author considers it informal. (Provision, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)1 (Art. 1, CJCA)7 (Art. 2, CJCA)8

Key doctrines

In Lorenzana v. Austria, the Court addressed a judge’s impropriety involving social media communications viewable by the public. The case underscores that judicial temperament and propriety extend to online conduct that creates an appearance of impropriety. (Lorenzana v. Austria, A.M. No. 00-8-10-, 2 April 2014)9

Belo-Henares v. Guevarra concerned a lawyer, not a court employee. Its practical lesson about the medium is that limiting a Facebook post to “Friends” does not guarantee absolute privacy: tagging or sharing can extend its reach. This is consistent with the express rule that restricted settings do not remove a court official’s duty to post with propriety. (Belo-Henares v. Guevarra., A.C. No. 11394, 1 December 2016)10 (Sec. 15, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)2

Exceptions

Communication about a pending matter is permitted only for official matters when allowed by the rules. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)4

Bar tip

For an online post or message, identify the speaker, the audience, any pending matter, and whether the conduct uses the office’s prestige or undermines the Judiciary’s dignity. Do not treat a restricted privacy setting as a safe harbor. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)4 (Sec. 15, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC)2

Authorities

  • Art. 1, CJCA
  • Art. 2, CJCA
  • Belo-Henares v. Guevarra., A.C. No. 11394, 1 December 2016
  • Lorenzana v. Austria, A.M. No. 00-8-10-, 2 April 2014
  • Provision, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC
  • Sec. 1, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC
  • Sec. 13, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC
  • Sec. 15, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC
  • Sec. 2, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC
  • Sec. 4, A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC