Understanding Judicial Impartiality: Bias and Inhibition in Philippine Election Protests

The Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) has settled an important question about how judges should handle requests for their own disqualification in election cases. In a 2020 resolution involving the vice-presidential election protest filed by Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr. against Maria Leonor "Leni" Robredo, the Tribunal denied motions seeking the inhibition of Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen. The ruling clarifies the legal meaning of judicial bias and explains why a magistrate's past opinions or rulings do not automatically disqualify them from future cases.

The Facts of the Case

The election protest arose from the 2016 vice-presidential race. Marcos, the protestant, asked the PET to nullify Robredo's victory. After the case was raffled to Justice Leonen as Member-in-Charge, Marcos filed a motion seeking the Justice's inhibition and a re-raffle of the case. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), acting as "the People's Tribune," filed a similar motion.

The movants argued that Justice Leonen should inhibit because:

• His dissenting opinion in Ocampo v. Enriquez (the Marcos burial case) showed bias against the Marcos family;
• As former Chief Peace Negotiator, he allegedly harbored resentment because Marcos, then head of the Senate Committee on Local Governments, blocked the creation of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity;
• A news article claimed he circulated a "Reflections" paper recommending dismissal of the protest before it was deliberated;
• The delay in resolving the protest showed partiality; and
• He allegedly showed ignorance of the law by referring matters to the Commission on Elections and the OSG only a year after the case was raffled to him.

The movants cited Republic Act No. 1793, which required the PET to decide election contests within twenty months after filing.

The Sole Issue

The only question for the Tribunal was whether Justice Leonen should inhibit from the case. The PET unanimously denied the motions.

The Ruling: What Bias Really Means

The Tribunal first noted that none of the arguments cited a clear ground for inhibition under Rule 8, Section 1 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court. That rule requires inhibition only for specific reasons—such as prior participation in the case, pecuniary interest, or relationship to a party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. None applied to Justice Leonen.

More importantly, the Tribunal corrected the movants' misunderstanding of bias and impartiality. Bias means a preconceived notion favorable or unfavorable to a party—not simply a ruling that does not go your way. Impartiality does not require a judge to come to court as a "blank slate" (tabula rasa). Judges bring their experiences, philosophy, and values to the bench. What matters is their ability to remain open to changing their initial views based on the evidence.

The Tribunal emphasized that the Supreme Court is a collegial body. Decisions are not rendered by a single Justice but through majority vote. The Member-in-Charge only recommends action; the full Tribunal decides. Accusing Justice Leonen of "incompetence" for referring matters to the COMELEC and OSG was, in effect, accusing the entire Tribunal of ignorance.

Past Opinions Do Not Prove Prejudice

The Tribunal rejected the argument that Justice Leonen's dissent in the Marcos burial case showed bias against Marcos, Jr. The protestant is not former President Marcos—they are two different people. When Justice Leonen analyzed the evidence and reached a conclusion in that case, he was exercising his judicial function, not exhibiting bias.

Following the movants' logic, the Tribunal noted, would lead to an absurd result: every Justice who voted either way in Ocampo would have to inhibit from any future case involving the Marcos family. That conclusion is plainly unacceptable.

The Tribunal also found that the alleged delay was unfounded. Republic Act No. 1793's twenty-month rule is no longer good law—it was impliedly repealed under the 1973 Constitution and replaced by Batas Pambansa Blg. 884, and the PET is now governed by the 2010 PET Rules and the Constitution itself, which contain no such deadline.

Practical Takeaways

• Inhibition requires clear and convincing evidence. A party seeking a judge's disqualification must prove bias with tangible evidence, not speculation or opinion pieces.
• Past rulings are not proof of prejudice. A judge who decides against a party in one case is not automatically biased against them in the next. Dissenting opinions are part of a judge's legitimate judicial function.
• Impartiality means openness, not a blank slate. Judges may hold personal views and experiences; what disqualifies them is an unwillingness to rule according to the evidence.
• The Supreme Court acts collegially. Decisions are made by the majority of the Tribunal, not by the Member-in-Charge alone. Accusations against one Justice are effectively accusations against the entire body.
• Statutory deadlines for election protests have evolved. The twenty-month rule under Republic Act No. 1793 is no longer in force; the PET now operates under the Constitution and the 2010 PET Rules.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.