EDITORIAL
The judicial branch of the government is so strict that a lawyer cannot be a judge if he is involved in some form of immorality, such as having a child out of wedlock.
The position of judge is powerful, with rulings and decisions taking the character of permanence, unless of course a higher court reverses them.
Wielding power behind the bench, a judge can most often swing his/her ruling one way or the other, directly affecting the lives of litigants. This is the rationale behind holding judges to a more stringent code of judicial conduct than that imposed on ordinary government employees.
The case for judicial integrity takes on an even greater importance when such court rulings involve the literal snuffing of one person’s life—the capital punishment. Decisions of this nature should be based on evidence established beyond any doubt because a human life is at stake. The renderer of decision cannot afford to be wrong, for a life snuffed in the electric chair or the lethal injection bed is lost forever.
The death penalty was abolished in the Philippines in 1987, but was restored seven years later. During the term of former President Joseph Estrada, the death penalty was again implemented after 23 years. Leo Echegaray, who was convicted of raping his 10-year-old stepdaughter, was executed by lethal injection in 1999.
There’s this story which we believe isn’t apocryphal because it was about a Quezon City judge who once relished the title “Hukom Bitay.” He had said that when the death penalty was restored in 1994, he wanted to be popular by being the first judge to impose it. And why was he so desirous of popularity then? It turned out that the judge wanted to run for office in his home province of Cavite.
In fine, not all judges are beyond reproach. Only that they have varying temptations strewn their way. Often, it is all about money. Thus, we hear about the Supreme Court ordering the preventive suspension of a judge and a clerk of court who were implicated in a bribery scandal last week.
In a resolution, the SC En Banc initiated administrative proceedings against Judge Alberto Cansino and Officer-in-Charge/Acting Branch Clerk (OIC-BCC) of Court Mariejoy Lagman, both detailed at the Pasay City Regional Trial Court Branch 108, for allegedly accepting P6,000,000 from a litigant in exchange for a favorable judgment in a civil case.
“To enable the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) to conduct an unhampered formal investigation, the Court ordered Judge Cansino and OIC-Acting BCC Lagman be preventively suspended for 90 calendar days,” the SC said in a statement.
Court Administrator Raul Villanueva reported that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) arrested Lagman in an entrapment last week following an anonymous complaint received by the JIB via email. After the NBI verified the information, the operation was set using five marked one-thousand peso bills and about P6,000,000 in boodle money.
In addition to the money, a copy of the Order bearing the signature of the judge on the civil case was also confiscated. The report stated that both the judge and court employee are now the subject of criminal investigations before the Department of Justice (DOJ). For sure, their side of the story would be heard and evaluated fairly, for the case involves the lives of court officials with promising government careers, and these careers are also on the line.
As this is an ongoing investigation, it is unfair to comment or pass judgment on any persons involved in this bribery case. The Supreme Court, which exercises supervisory functions on all judges and personnel of the judiciary, should be praised for its continuing efforts to uphold judicial integrity.