Upload
verdeth-marie-wagan
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.