8/2/2019 Debate Corona Art.5

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/debate-corona-art5 1/1

For a credible and effective system of administration of justice, a person in the judiciary must

 possess supreme integrity with a duty of applying the law and dispense justice “should not only

be impartial, independent and honest but should be perceived to be impartial, independent and

honest” as well. 

Respondent, however, betrayed the public trust through flip-flopping these celebrated cases: The

League of Cities vs. COMELEC case involving the creation of 16 new cities, the case of Navarro

vs. Ermita which involved the promotion of Dinagat Island from municipality to province, and

the FASAP vs. Philippine Airlines Inc, et al case which involved the retrenchment of the flight

attendants by the nation’s flag carrier.Flip-flopping of decisions has a given effect on public trust

thus disregarding the code of Judicial Conduct, specifically CANON 1.

“CANON 1 – A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.” 

At least two of these flip-flops are known to have been instigated through personal letters or ex-parte communications addressed to the Respondent based on the above quoted CANON 1 which

also applies the “rule 1.03. –  A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the

independence of the judiciary and resist any pressure from whatever source. On the above stated

rule, which the Respondent should have its clear that a mere personal appeal letter can ruin the

integrity regarded as the “Supreme Court.” The Supreme Court, under Respondent’s leadership,

violated its own internal rules according to Associate Justice Brion in his Dissenting Opinion,

particularly:

A. The rule on reconsideration by allowing a motion for reconsideration contrary to the

rule against second motions for reconsideration and after the proceedings had alreadyterminated;

B. The rule on finality of judgments, by re-opening a case that already attained finality

through the artifice of a motion to “recall entry of judgment”; and 

C. The rule on intervention by allowing intervention after the proceedings had already

terminated.

Thus as provided a somersault of rules and decisions rendered it is also contrary to our

constitution that even his associates show disgust of the Respondent’s amazing manuever  

wherein according to our constitution Article VIII Sec. 7 Par. 3 provides:

A member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity,

priority and independence.

Uplifting the canons of judicial conduct and the constitution requires its members to live by its

rules to render a moot and academic judgment.