d. Impartiality (Canon III)

IMPARTIALITY

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office and applies to:

• The decision itself; and
• The process by which the decision is made.

NOTE: The time honored rule is that a public official whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice, be he a judge of lower court or a justice of the appellate courts, should not only be impartial, independent and honest but should be believed and perceived to be impartial, independent and honest. (Nazareno v. Almario, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1195, 26 Feb. 1997)

Q: Cacai, a law student, filed an administrative complaint against RTC Judge Casimiro Conde, her professor in law school, based on the following allegations:

• In a school convocation where Judge Conde was the guest speaker, Judge Conde openly disagreed and criticized a recently-decided Supreme Court decision and even stressed that the decision of the Supreme Court in that case was a serious violation of the Constitution.
• In his class discussions, Judge Conde named Cacai’s mother, an MTC judge, as one of the judges involved in a marriage scam. At that time, the case against her mother was still pending. Judge Conde also included in his class discussion Cacai’s brother whom he referred to as a “court-noted drug addict.”

Cacai asserted that the acts of Judge Conde were open displays of insensitivity, impropriety, and lack of delicadeza bordering on oppressive and abusive conduct. She also alleged that Judge Conde acted with absolute disrespect for the Court and violated the “subjudice rule” when he discussed the marriage scam involving her mother because, at that time, the case was still pending. In his defense, Judge Conde argued that the case he discussed in the school convocation was already of public knowledge and had been published after it had become final. He also said it was part of his academic freedom to openly discuss and criticize a decision of the Court since it was already decided with finality, was patently erroneous, and clearly a violation of the Constitution.

With respect to discussions in class about Cacai’s mother, he said that the marriage scam where her mother was charged scandalized the Judiciary and became public knowledge when the Office of the Court Administrator held a press conference on the matter and, that as a citizen, he could comment thereon in the exercise of his rights to freedom of speech and expression. He also asserted that his discussions in both fora could not be the subject of an administrative complaint because they were not done in the performance of his judicial duties. Rule on each of the charges raised by Cacai, and the corresponding defenses raised by Judge Conde. (2018 BAR)

A: The Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability (CJCA, A.M. No. 25-04-04-SC) provides that judges, like any other citizens, are entitled to freedom of expressions, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such right, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality of the judiciary. Judge Conde, however, should not have criticized in public the Supreme Court decision as a serious violation of the Constitution. He should have avoided any discussion in order to preserve the traditional non- involvement of the judiciary in public discussion of controversial issues (In re: Query of the MTC Lawyers of Zamboanga del Norte, A.M. No. 86-11- 3690).