Introduction

Introduction JOJO Manikan II JOJO 3 76 2002-01-08T01:55:00Z 2002-01-14T04:12:00Z 2 1299 7409 SUPREME COURT 61 14 9098 9.2720 90

INTRODUCTION

I. JUDICIAL POWER AND THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY [1]

The Philippine Constitution vests judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. [2] Judicial power is described by the same section of the Constitution as follows:

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

The use of the word 'includes' connotes that the provision is not an exhaustive enumeration of what is comprised in judicial power. The use of the word 'duty' emphasizes the obligation of the courts of justice to exercise the judicial power in actual controversies. The inclusion of the duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government is in accord with the role of the judiciary as the last bulwark of the constitutional rights and liberties of the people. However, it does dispense with the doctrine that purely political questions are beyond the pale of judicial review.

The importance of the Judiciary in Philippine society is succinctly spelled out in the Preamble of the Code of Judicial Conduct: [3]

An honorable, competent and independent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-being of the people.

This is an improvement of Canon 2 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which provided that "The courts exist to promote justice; and thus to aid in securing the contentment and happiness of the people." [4]

The role of the Judiciary has been depicted in florid language

Nowhen as now is the duty of the Supreme Court in upholding the moral tenets of our Constitution and laws more imperative. In no idea is the moral sense more inherent and manifest than in justice. By the nature of their social function, the organs of judicial power are placed in the dominant position of the highest moral leadership. Never was the need of such moral leadership � inspired, dynamic, militant � felt with more acuteness than in the present stage of our travel toward national destiny. Wickedness and lack of scruples are on a rampage in every social strata, private and official. Flagrant violations of the fundamental law are committed with callous nonchalance, while robbery, banditry and gangsterism are practiced in broad daylight. Fundamental rights and privileges, liberties and immunities, whether private or official, are trampled down with satrapic insolence, while murders and wanton attacks against honor are perpetrated as exciting sport; graft, corruption, and absolute lack of principles in many high places; black market, gambling, shady negotiations, and exploitation of the innocent and the weak in some other spheres.

The ultimate hope to escape collapse must be pinned on the judiciary for the latter to fulfill with unrelentless straight-forwardness the duties of moral leadership entrusted to it by the Constitution. The judiciary should be the mighty euphroe that must link the loosened or severed moral cords and strengthen the bonds which will keep society from disintegrating. [5]

Twenty-one years later, the Supreme Court came up with a more pragmatic description linking the judiciary to the rule of law, thus:

Law stands for order, for the peaceful and systematic adjustment of frictions and conflicts unavoidable in a modern society with its complexities and clashing interests. The instrumentality for such balancing or harmonization is the judiciary and other agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers. When judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals speak, what they decree must be obeyed, what they ordain must be followed. A party dissatisfied may ask for a reconsideration and, if denied, may go on to a higher tribunal. As long as the orders stand unmodified, however, they must, even if susceptible to well-founded doubts on jurisdictional grounds, be faithfully complied with. Such is the way of the law. So it has been in the past. So it should continue to be. If it were otherwise, the intellect no longer holds sway, the dictates of moderation are ignored, and passion takes over . [6]

In administering justice, the judiciary decides controversies between the party litigants. At the same time, it also contributes to the establishment of the Rule of Law without which there will be chaos in the community. What is more significant, however, is that the judiciary achieves such goal by relying on the moral force generated by the quality of its work in administering justice. It has been pointed out that:

Among the three powers of government, the judiciary is in the material sense the weakest. Although its function in society is as noble and important as the ones entrusted to the legislative and executive powers, and there is none loftier that our mind may conceive or to which the most ambitious heart may aspire, it needs the active and positive help of other agencies to make it effective. Congress must provide for the adequate budget, and the executive power the necessary force to make effective the orders and decisions of tribunals.

To compensate for that comparative physical weakness of the judicial power, it is necessary that judges and courts should acquire the unbounded moral force which springs from the general faith and confidence of government and people alike. That moral force, although intangible, immeasurable and imponderable, is as effective as any cosmic force, if not more. We hold as an axiom that spiritual energy is stronger than atomic energy, the mighty basic force of material universe. But to obtain and retain public faith and confidence, it is necessary that courts and judges should show by their acts that they are actually entitled to such faith and confidence. Recalcitrant insubordination and indiscipline are not the means. On the contrary, they will only provoke public suspicion and distrust, if not popular wrath and condemnation. [7]

To gain and maintain such confidence of the people, the judiciary must, in the words of the Code of Judicial Conduct, be �honorable, competent and independent.�

Having efficient judges is one of the basic means to achieve this end, and this Benchbook for Trial Court Judges aims to help judges attain that necessary efficiency.

II. THE BENCHBOOK AS A TOOL FOR JUDGES

Proceedings before courts can take different forms that are governed by different rules which cannot be found in any single law, or rule, but must often be taken from pronouncements of the Supreme Court or inferred from a process of reading rules together. While rules of procedure may appear to be straightforward and uncomplicated, jurisprudence uncovers nuances and introduces subtleties that are less obvious.

Likewise, for Judges to dispense true and meaningful justice, they must have the ability to decide when it is proper to adhere to precedent, and when it would best serve the interests of justice to innovate. This is a balancing act that will defy even the most learned of jurists. Judges require a handy reminder of which rules are inflexible, and what principles provide the foundation for flexible rules.

The printed Benchbook was born from the need for a single source of direct but complete answers to the most frequently raised questions. Its online counterpart promises to bring that utility to Judges across the Philippines.

Experts in the relevant fields were tapped to compile the information in the Benchbook. They were assisted by personnel from the Supreme Court and the International Development Law Institute.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera, current Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy, remarks that with the Benchbook, 'There should be less reason now for uncertainty in matters pertaining to remedial law principally, and, we hope, less reason to find judges remiss in their duty of applying the law correctly, intelligently and judiciously.'

Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo credits the Benchbook with 'providing a standard reference work that will tirelessly remind our judges of both the immutable fundamentals of the law and the ceaseless evolution of legal thought and jurisprudence.' The Benchbook thus 'makes it that much easier to strike that golden middle way between stability and dynamism.'

The Benchbook, however, is not the single solution to a Judge�s every problem. While the Benchbook is intended to enhance the quality of performance of Judges, constant learning by the Judge must complement its use. The Benchbook is thus nothing less, and nothing more, than a tool to help Judges dispense justice more efficiently, but the maximization of its potentials will depend on the skills of the Judge involved.

[1] Excerpted from the draft on 'Judicial Ethics' by retired Court of Appeals Justice Hector L. Hofile�a.

[2] Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1.

[3] Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 6, 1989.

[4] Administrative Order No. 162, Department of Justice, August 1, 1948.

[5] Iloilo Provincial Warden, 78 Phil. 599 [1947], dissenting opinion of Justice Gregorio Perfecto.

[6] Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v. Salvador, G. R. No. L-29471, September 28, 1968, 25 SCRA 393.

[7] Talabon v. The Provincial Warden, 78 Phil. 599 [1947].