By Farah G. Decano 

 

THE Philippine judiciary is safeguarded by two dedicated bodies established by the Supreme Court through Administrative Order 185-A-2018: the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and the Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office (CPIO).

The JIB oversees misconduct and integrity issues concerning judges and court personnel, regardless of severity. It can initiate investigations with or without a formal complaint. The CPIO, a proactive office, focuses on corruption and related offenses, conducting investigations, surveillance, and lifestyle checks, also with or without a filed complaint. Both bodies ensure that judicial officials operate within legal and ethical boundaries.

Citizens play a vital role in upholding judicial integrity by reporting corruption or inappropriate behavior, even anonymously. Active participation in this oversight safeguards the judiciary.

Judges, as public officials, bear immense responsibility, and their conduct is subject to scrutiny. Their strongest defense against unfair attacks lies in a clear conscience and adherence to ethical principles.

However, the public must understand that judicial officers differ from other government officials. Citizens are discouraged from openly and recklessly attacking this branch of government due to the sensitive nature of their positions which include the power to decide controversies, among others. Those in these roles must constantly ensure equal footing before the law for all – the rich and the poor, the influential and the powerless, the knowledgeable and the ignorant. Erosion of trust in the judiciary risks people taking the law into their own hands.

The cooperation of the citizenry is essential for judges to consistently uphold their ethical and legal limits.  While we must observe restraint in  publicly criticizing erring judicial officers, we can make use of these newly-created offices to vent our grievances.

Examples of reportable conduct addressed by the JIB or CPIO would be a good topic for further discussion, perhaps through the Lyceum Northwestern University Legal Education and Advocacy Discourse (LNU LEAD) Talks.

Abangan!

*          *          *          *

My most recent article sparked a crucial conversation by highlighting allegations of anomalous practices within some registry offices. 

Reports suggest a troubling network of “falsifiers” operating with connections to certain public officials. Do these innuendos have a basis in fact, or are these mere gossip? 

This informal system potentially exploits vulnerable landowners and facilitates questionable land acquisition.  Among these reported falsifiers are individuals with “golden hands” and unethical notaries public. 

More alarmingly, these perpetrators are so skilled that they can, allegedly, make freshly notarized documents appear decades old by falsifying a deceased notary public’s signatures on aged paper. These supposed nefarious practices seriously threaten property rights and the integrity of legal processes. 

Another purported instance of ill practice in one of the registries is the alleged refusal to accept personally delivered letters of inquiry. This seems to circumvent the legally mandated period for official responses. Despite some individuals prudently sending inquiries via registered mail as an alternative to personal delivery, this official reportedly continues to refrain from responding, seemingly undeterred by the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The grapevines suggest his strong connections with a former Congressman. Alam kaya ni Congressman ito? Baka ginagamit lang ang pangalan nya? 

By bringing these critical issues to light, we only aim to encourage greater accountability and integrity from those entrusted with government functions.  There seems to be no reason for government employees to want more compensation.  They are paid better than most of the population and their retirement pension is first-rate.

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments