THE LEGAL FRONT

Problems appear to be knocking at the US Supreme Court’s door as senators take a dim view of negative Court developments that may potentially affect the Court’s integrity and the interests of the litigating public.  One senator extended an invitation to Chief Justice John Roberts to appear at a Senate Justice Committee hearing called to look at the ethical guidelines applicable to the members of the Supreme Court. As many expected, Chief Justice Roberts turned down the request, citing the independence of the Court as his reason. Among the causes of the senatorial concern are reports that one sitting Justice has been travelling on the sponsorship of parties with pending cases before the Court.  The actions of the Justice’s wife has likewise been previously highlighted after reports that she had been in touch with the camp of former President Donald Trump whose affairs the Court was looking into. Another sitting Justice is reportedly a party to the sale of real property to a vendee with existing interests in pending Court matters. There was, lastly, the nagging issue of the leak of the draft of the Court’s abortion ruling, a confidential record usually made available only to sitting Justices for their consideration and review. As an aside, judicial ethics take into account everything that happens in the life of a magistrate, whether publicly or privately, especially those that relate to or touch on his or her official life. At the local judicial front, Philippine Court watchers observe that some concerns about judicial behavior had also been voiced out in the past. I hinted at some examples in my book, A Judicial Journey (published by and available at Central Book Store), which I prepared and published soon after my retirement from the Supreme Court in 2016. To insulate the administration of justice against any future unethical behavior at all levels, our Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, a former Sandiganbayan Justice and noted stickler for ethical behavior pointed out early in his term the need for a review of our Supreme Court’s ethical rules, not only for the lower courts and for lawyers who are officers of the Court, but for the members of the Court itself. Thus, among his first announcements after assumption to office, was the projected review of the ethical rules applicable to the bar and the judiciary.  This is a responsibility specifically assigned by the Constitution to the Supreme Court.  The Court recognized in this regard the existence of two sets of existing rules, representing the two halves that sound administration of justice requires. The first half is the code of conduct governing lawyers in the practice of law.  The Court issues this code in the exercise of its constitutional authority over the practice of law and the Integrated Bar.  The second half is the code of conduct applicable to the lower courts and the Supreme Court itself.  The Court promulgates this code in the exercise of the judicial power that the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court and in lower courts created by law.  Together, these rules govern the actions of the three parties whose roles are critical in administering justice in our country. The most critical role is the actual resolution of the disputes that the public may bring to redress the violation of their law-based rights by others. This is the strictly judicial side of the administration of justice.  Another role is that undertaken by lawyers – members of the bar – who, in the exercise of their profession, represent the litigating public and who, on their own, deal with their clients.  The third role relates to the relationship of the Court with the lawyers whose pleadings, practice and procedures the Supreme Court supervises pursuant to the express terms of the Constitution. Responding to Court’s directive, the assigned Court subcommittee – the Sub- Committee for the Revision of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) met starting January 2022 to review and make recommendations on the ethical rules applicable to lawyers.  The sub-committee was chaired by Justice Amy C. Lazaro with JJ. Samuel H. Gaerlan and Filomena D. Singh as co-vice chairperson. The sub-committee quietly worked for eight months, assigning tasks, investigating, consulting nationwide with affected parties, deliberating, and drafting.  It was not an easy task, especially for the Justices who have their regular load of en banc and division cases, not to mention time spent in considering other Justices’ recommendations in their own assigned cases.  But everyone persevered and in August 2022, the sub-committee presented its  recommendations to the Court en banc for consideration and approval.  After its own deliberations, the Court gave its nod on April 11, 2023.  Two days after, the CPRA was formally launched. The Court, as usual, is never still.  Next in line after the CPRA is the Code of Judicial Conduct whose initial committee meeting will take place late this month.  In this way and pace, life goes on in the Supreme Court. (Email: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]))