By Farah G. Decano

 

WE call the structure that houses several Philippine courts as the Hall of Justice.  These courts are expected to dispense justice. Anything less is prejudicial to either or both of the contending parties.  It is, therefore, the Court Administrator’s task to ensure that each edifice is a beacon of fairness, and each judge that sits therein, a staunch defender of the rule of law, human rights, and decency.

The ethical standards for the members of the judiciary are more stringent than that for lawyers or any other government official.  They are supposed to be the last bastion of democracy and the so-called bulwark of the rule of law.  There should be no room for ignorance or any perception of prejudice about them.  Hence, they must behave in a manner that no possible bias can be observed from them.  They cannot be seen socializing with lawyers who have cases before them. They must not even entertain litigants or lawyers privately in their own chambers.  The more prudent judges would entertain any litigant’s query or any lawyer in full view of the court staff.

Unlike judges, political leaders are expected to harmonize interests. Hence, they are expected to hit a compromise among conflicting interests.  Their jobs do not require an almost hermitic life. They must immerse themselves in the world so they can respond properly to the needs of various constituencies.

Perhaps, the other government officials I expect more from, are those who exercise quasi-judicial powers.  Just like members of the judiciary, they are empowered to interpret and apply the law to specific cases or to specific individuals.   In the exercise of their duty to decide cases, they must exercise the same brilliance and prudence that are required from members of the judiciary.

There are many ways to convert the supposed radiant hall or department or agency of justice into the Dark Shadowy Dungeon of Injustice.   Let me count the ways:

1. When those exercising judicial powers also employ unusual skills in trade – meaning sale of decisions and rulings. We do not want any of them in these positions.  Please report either to the Ombudsman or the Court Administrator.
2. When the dispenser of fairness exhibits behavior that is better manifested in kingdoms and fiefdoms. They expect entitlements even outside their courts, agencies and offices like free dinners, free coffee, free trips, and free whatever.  Worse, they demand exemptions from liability and utilize these exemptions for themselves or for persons close to them.  In other words, judicial power wielded by these individuals tend to make the application of the law selective.
3. When magistrates do not study and shabbily resolve their cases, the litigants suffer in the end. Any learned practicing lawyer would know if a resolution was not painstakingly researched and analyzed.  The discussion will obviously be shallow and lazy.  If the issues are thoroughly dissected and analyzed and the decisions or resolutions are scholarly written, these dispensers of justice, in fact, win the admiration of lawyers even if the latter would lose their cases.  Oh yes, lawyers keep tab of the brighter ones.
4. We also have heard of so-called adjudicators who behave like banshees resurrected from the underworld. I hope they take stock of their temperament and behavior. I know there are lawyers and litigants who will push their mental stability to the edge.  The officer of justice must resist from jumping.  They would turn out only as the laughing stock in the end, if they did take the plunge.

It is every citizen’s duty to prevent our halls and agencies of justice from deteriorating into a dungeon of injustice.  Report to proper authorities, if we must.

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments