SHADOW OF DOUBT:

PROBING THE SUPREME COURT

I. Legal Problem Areas / Issues

a. Impartiality and Undue Diligence on Adjudicative Responsibilities of the Justices

The author pointed out several occasions where the Justices of the Supreme Court
showed partiality through their decisions and there is also undue diligence in their adjudicative
responsibilities. It was cited that it is common among the Justices that they reverse themselves
and in effect the Court decision flip-flops. This would indicate, as its effect, that there is
partiality on the part of the Justices. In one instance where Justices Quisumbing and Azcuna just
reversed their own decision on a second motion for reconsideration where there were no new
facts or information presented and that the reversal was caused by lobbying. Another instance
cited is when Justice Puno’s shifting decisions based on circumstances with the influence on
principles and personal interests as he was meeting with party litigants. The Court also showed
lack of diligence in their adjudicative responsibilities as they were accepting prohibited second
and third motions for reconsideration and in effect, they were violating its own rules and
procedures.
The above stated acts are in violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct where
it mandates that “a judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and
diligence adjudicative responsibilities.”
In order to deal with this problem, I believe that the Justices to be appointed should be the
ones who are highly qualified for the position and that they really show independence,
impartiality, and competence. Their past performances should be studied by the JBC as to the
fact to prove that they are qualified to be nominees as Justices of the Supreme Court for they
would not show partiality and that their decisions would be independently through studying the
facts of the case personally and extensively. It should be ensured that application of law should
be observed to a particular instance or facts of the case, not basing on his personal opinion or
belief on what should be applied. A Justice should also be reminded all the time that they are the
visible representation of the law and of justice. He should be a man of learning. To this end, they
should be the first to observe their promulgated rules and procedures and show an example for
others to follow. There will also be faith in the administration of justice only if on the part of the
litigants that they believe that occupants of the bench cannot be justly accused of insufficiency in
their grasp of legal principles.

b. Impropriety on the Part of a Justice

 2

There are unethical behaviors made by Justice Velasco which were explicitly mentioned
by the author. Such corrupt behaviors took place when he was in the Justice Department, in
charge of the Commission on Settlement of Land Disputes, where he showed that he used his
position for his own benefit. Another was when he sat at the Court of Appeals, he met with party
litigants and lobbied their cases to his associates in favor of such litigants, went golfing with
buddies who had dark characters, and acquainted with wealthy Chinese businessmen who
financed the golfing activities for the judiciary. He also intercedes for litigants in the Court of
Appeals and in lower courts through calling the presiding judge or relaying through other judges.
All of these enumerated acts of Justice Velasco would show impropriety which defeats the
integrity and independence of the Court for him being a Justice of the Court.
Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is violated by the said Justice. This rule
provides that “a judge should refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.”
To address this issue, he should maintain high ethical principles and a sense of propriety
for it would destroy the faith of the people in the judiciary when such propriety does not exist.
As a Justice, he should keep his act together rather than taking advantage of his position to
control the administration of justice in favor of his friend-litigants and for personal interest. He is
obligated to deal with the administration of justice to maintain peace, prosperity, and security for
the people. These unethical behaviors should be corrected and they should not let this pass.

c. Failure to apply Due Diligence in Deciding Cases

An adjudicative officer of the court, a Judge or Justice, has the obligation to ascertain all
the facts and applicable laws without any influence from other parties. It is also their obligation
to cite all the reasons why they come up to a certain decision to informing the parties involved in
the case and that the parties could also appeal certain facts in the decision that they want to raise.
The author pointed out certain facts and events which would show that Justices does not
personally study the cases before them. On example involving the ponente system, other Justices
would only depend on the ponente’s decision without even reading the case. These would show
that Justices vote only “in the result”. Another instance also is when Justice Puno did not
encouraged a full debate on a case and made the Justices vote without reading the decision first.
An issue was also raised involving Justices not stating the reason why they did not take part or
dissents in the decision as they are obligated to do so.
These are in violation of Rule 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states that “in
every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law
unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.” It is also in violation of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics, number 17 in which it is mandated that in disposing of controverted
cases, judges should indicate the reasons for their action in opinions showing that they have not
disregarded or overlooked serious arguments of counsel. They should show their full
 3

understanding of the case, avoid the suspicion of arbitrary conclusion, promote confidence in
their intellectual integrity and contribute useful precedents to the growth of the law.
In order to ensure that every Justices have read up the case, each of them should have a
copy of such case and the ponente or the senior Justice could refer to every one of them
regarding the case before them to assure knowledge. They should have a system that could check
each of the Justices that they complied with their obligations and that they had personally studied
the facts of the case. Regarding the statement of reasons for the decision in affirmative or dissent,
it should not be overlooked by the presiding Justice and that the obligated Justice should be
compelled to perform his obligation. They should not be allowed to just pass on and neglect such
obligation. If he may have a different view involving the case before him where he has
something against the law that should be applied, he may state his own opinion concerning such
fact but should decide the case in accordance with the law or doctrine.

d. Disclosure of a Court Deliberations and Promulgated Decision

Promulgated decisions are made public only when such judgment is declared in court,
other than that, such decision is still kept safely and are not pronounced until the day of the
judgment. Court deliberations are done inside a room with closed doors. This is to ensure that no
influence from partisan interests, public opinion or criticism would affect the decision of the
Justices regarding a case. This would also prevent from scrutiny from partiality. However, there
are facts revealed by the author that even with the preventive measures undergone by the Court,
their promulgated decisions and court deliberations were leaked and disclosed to litigating
parties involved. In one instance where there is a case involving a convicted drug dealer, the
court deliberations were leaked to the accused party as one of the Justices was in favor of the
accused. Justice Velasco was the one who was suspected for the leakage in this case. There is
also another situation concerning leakage of a promulgated decision where the person disclosing
to the party litigant pretended that he would help in securing the latter in winning his case even
though he had knowledge that such party would win the case. He took advantage of his
knowledge of such fact and for his personal interests.
Rule 5.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that “no information acquired in a
judicial capacity shall be sued or disclosed by a judge in any financial dealing or for any other
purpose not related to judicial activities.”
For this issue to be dealt with, it should be reasonable that promulgated decisions should
be kept only by the presiding Justice or to certain trusted court personnel to prevent leakage and
if there is any, it would not be hard to track down the possible person guilty of such act. Court
decisions should be secured before it is declared to the public since it is one of the aspects in the
judiciary that people could take advantage. Court personnel or officers could pretend to party
litigants that they will help them win even though they are already winning, as the case stated
above. These could also be a factor that party litigants would be taken advantage by people in the
 4

court or even from the opposing litigants. The Supreme Court should strengthen their security
and the people in the Court should be those who are highly independent and competent that no
one can even influence them or that they would not prioritize their personal interests.

e. Self-interest of a Justice
There are facts alleged in the book which showed that certain Justices’ decisions are
influenced by their self-interest and for personal reasons specifically the effects of favors. One of
these cited instances of the author involves Justice Velasco where there was a perception that he
rendered a decision in favor of Iglesia Ni Cristo as he was paying his dues for its support for the
Justice to join the Court. Another instance involving self-interest was with Justice Tinga where
he was being in favor of cases for President Arroyo as he was appointed by her for the Court
through favors and not through their qualifications. Lastly, an instance involving Justice Ong
where he was favoring cases involving Imelda Marcos also for personal reasons.
Personal interests are discouraged by the Canons of Judicial Ethics, specifically number
28. It provides that a judge should “abstain from participating in any judicial act in which his
personal interests are involved.”
Justices should be impartial, independent, and competent. This is one of the qualifications
required in order to sit on the bench. However, human as we are, influence from other people
could affect our judgment and especially Filipinos have this principle involving indebtedness to
people who helped us and did favors for us. To prevent this, representatives of justice should
obtain their positions through their own terms and in their own time as the case may be. They
should be chosen for the facts that they have the capability of being independent and free from
partiality. This is a hard reality that exists not only in the judiciary but also in the other branches
of the government. Honesty is always a virtue and should rest in everyone’s heart.

II. Critique
As I was reading the book, I never thought that there were many controversies that are
happening inside the walls of the Supreme Court. Some of it, I would say that it within the nature
as a human being that our judgments and other aspects in life could be influenced and can be
bent by other people even though we do not want it to happen. I could say that these situations
are normal if it involved ordinary men which are not in this case.
The book’s subjects were the Supreme Court Justices who is the representative of justice
and law. They are known to be honorable, competent and independent as they represent the
judiciary to administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country, the stability of
government, and the well being of the people. This is found in the preamble of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. This declaration encompasses everything that an officer of the court should be
and should maintain to be in his lifetime. Every unethical act done by them would reflect to the
 5

judiciary and that it would result into incompetence, lack of independence, and people would
lose faith towards justice.
As a law student, I would consider that some of the facts cited by the author should not
be judged directly since it needs to be investigated and that these facts came mostly from what
other people say. Some of it could only be hearsays. People should deal with this book with an
open mind considering all of the factors that could lead to the truthful or false statements that are
mentioned therein. There is a possibility that due to certain negative factors, persons who were
sources of these facts have negative intentions to get back on the Supreme Court Justices.
However, I am also considering that these instances are very possible to happen as officers of the
court are no different from other department officers regarding on personalities and how to deal
with life. The difference now is that the judiciary has the highest obligation to administer justice
that to its effect it renders peace, security and faith of being defended or repaired concerning the
people. The Supreme Court decisions forms part as the law of the land which would render every
Filipino people to respect and abide to such law. When such decisions are influenced by other
parties rather than the application of justice and of the applicable law, the people would only be
following rules that could be an opposite on what the law has provided and people could be
confused especially when these are reversed from time to time.
The unethical behaviors cited in the book would show impropriety, dishonesty, partiality,
and sometimes selfishness. The acts of the Justices reflect on the judiciary. Even in their personal
activities, they should act with modesty since they are the Supreme Court Justices and they are
rendered supreme. It enables people to believe on our Court that justice will be given to them.
The showing of such behaviors would make people question on whom to trust whenever
rendering of justice is needed. People would question if they would ask justice from the court
that would it be given to them. I see that there is selfishness since their bad behaviors are cause
by self-interest. Due to what they want and what they want to do, they take advantage of their
position instead of being in that position to help other people, not to help their own selves. The
question now is that who would be able to check on the Supreme Court? Who can review the
Justices? They can only be checked through impeachment and it also needs qualified and strong
proof. When they commit mistakes, who can correct them?
In viewing the book as it is, without considering all the rules of evidence and the proving
of allegations beyond reasonable doubt, grey clouds would already be in my mind. My belief and
trust to the Highest Court of the Land would go down as I would be questioning their integrity on
whether justice would really be rendered or not. It would also show that the Court tolerates
unethical behaviors even though they have the duty and responsibility to correct those who does
not follow the law, their rules and regulations, and to those who does not respect them. Within
the walls of the court, the officials are also disrespecting the law, its rules and regulations but
they are not corrected. The Court is being unfair to the public. If it is their personnel, they would
tolerate it. But if it involves another person, they automatically subject such person from
 6

corrective measures. They are men of law and if I could say, the most learned men. They study
every rule of law, every facts of a case, and every situation that is presented to them for them to
find a solution. They could be an answer to most of the questions that other people could not
answer. They are not one but many in the Court, one Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. Fifteen great minds. If they could really inhibit themselves from every people and
adjudicate cases as it should be adjudicated, I would really believe that justice would be
rendered. Those fifteen great minds could be great examples for the development of the country
and the upholding of democracy, if they live their lives with strong virtues to be independent,
competent, and honest. Being supreme brings with it huge obligations.