INTRODUCTION
I. JUDICIAL POWER AND THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY 1[1]
The Philippine Constitution vests judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts
as may be established by law. 2[2] Judicial power is described by the same section of the Constitution as
follows:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the government.
The use of the word 'includes' connotes that the provision is not an exhaustive enumeration of
what is comprised in judicial power. The use of the word 'duty' emphasizes the obligation of the courts of
justice to exercise the judicial power in actual controversies. The inclusion of the duty to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government is in accord with the role of the judiciary as the
last bulwark of the constitutional rights and liberties of the people. However, it does dispense with the
doctrine that purely political questions are beyond the pale of judicial review.
The importance of the Judiciary in Philippine society is succinctly spelled out in the Preamble of
the Code of Judicial Conduct:3[3]
An honorable, competent and independent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus
promote the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-being of the people.
This is an improvement of Canon 2 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which provided that "The
courts exist to promote justice; and thus to aid in securing the contentment and happiness of the
people."4[4]
The role of the Judiciary has been depicted in florid language
Nowhen as now is the duty of the Supreme Court in upholding the moral tenets of our
Constitution and laws more imperative. In no idea is the moral sense more inherent and manifest than
in justice. By the nature of their social function, the organs of judicial power are placed in the
dominant position of the highest moral leadership. Never was the need of such moral leadership —
inspired, dynamic, militant — felt with more acuteness than in the present stage of our travel toward
national destiny. Wickedness and lack of scruples are on a rampage in every social strata, private and
official. Flagrant violations of the fundamental law are committed with callous nonchalance, while
robbery, banditry and gangsterism are practiced in broad daylight. Fundamental rights and privileges,
liberties and immunities, whether private or official, are trampled down with satrapic insolence, while
murders and wanton attacks against honor are perpetrated as exciting sport; graft, corruption, and
absolute lack of principles in many high places; black market, gambling, shady negotiations, and
exploitation of the innocent and the weak in some other spheres.
The ultimate hope to escape collapse must be pinned on the judiciary for the latter to fulfill
with unrelentless straight-forwardness the duties of moral leadership entrusted to it by the
Constitution. The judiciary should be the mighty euphroe that must link the loosened or severed moral
cords and strengthen the bonds which will keep society from disintegrating.5[5]
1[1]
Excerpted from the draft on 'Judicial Ethics' by retired Court of Appeals Justice Hector L. Hofileña.
2[2]
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1.
3[3]
Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on September 6, 1989.
4[4]
Administrative Order No. 162, Department of Justice, August 1, 1948.
5[5]
Iloilo Provincial Warden, 78 Phil. 599 [1947], dissenting opinion of Justice Gregorio Perfecto.
Twenty-one years later, the Supreme Court came up with a more pragmatic description linking the
judiciary to the rule of law, thus:
Law stands for order, for the peaceful and systematic adjustment of frictions and conflicts
unavoidable in a modern society with its complexities and clashing interests. The instrumentality for
such balancing or harmonization is the judiciary and other agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers.
When judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals speak, what they decree must be obeyed, what they ordain
must be followed. A party dissatisfied may ask for a reconsideration and, if denied, may go on to a
higher tribunal. As long as the orders stand unmodified, however, they must, even if susceptible to
well-founded doubts on jurisdictional grounds, be faithfully complied with. Such is the way of the law.
So it has been in the past. So it should continue to be. If it were otherwise, the intellect no longer
holds sway, the dictates of moderation are ignored, and passion takes over.6[6]
In administering justice, the judiciary decides controversies between the party litigants. At the
same time, it also contributes to the establishment of the Rule of Law without which there will be chaos in
the community. What is more significant, however, is that the judiciary achieves such goal by relying on
the moral force generated by the quality of its work in administering justice. It has been pointed out that:
Among the three powers of government, the judiciary is in the material sense the weakest.
Although its function in society is as noble and important as the ones entrusted to the legislative and
executive powers, and there is none loftier that our mind may conceive or to which the most ambitious
heart may aspire, it needs the active and positive help of other agencies to make it effective.
Congress must provide for the adequate budget, and the executive power the necessary force to
make effective the orders and decisions of tribunals.
To compensate for that comparative physical weakness of the judicial power, it is necessary
that judges and courts should acquire the unbounded moral force which springs from the general faith
and confidence of government and people alike. That moral force, although intangible, immeasurable
and imponderable, is as effective as any cosmic force, if not more. We hold as an axiom that spiritual
energy is stronger than atomic energy, the mighty basic force of material universe. But to obtain and
retain public faith and confidence, it is necessary that courts and judges should show by their acts that
they are actually entitled to such faith and confidence. Recalcitrant insubordination and indiscipline
are not the means. On the contrary, they will only provoke public suspicion and distrust, if not popular
wrath and condemnation.7[7]
To gain and maintain such confidence of the people, the judiciary must, in the words of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, be “honorable, competent and independent.”
Having efficient judges is one of the basic means to achieve this end, and this Benchbook for
Trial Court Judges aims to help judges attain that necessary efficiency.
II. THE BENCHBOOK AS A TOOL FOR JUDGES
Proceedings before courts can take different forms that are governed by different rules which cannot be
found in any single law, or rule, but must often be taken from pronouncements of the Supreme Court or
inferred from a process of reading rules together. While rules of procedure may appear to be
straightforward and uncomplicated, jurisprudence uncovers nuances and introduces subtleties that are
less obvious.
Likewise, for Judges to dispense true and meaningful justice, they must have the ability to decide when it
is proper to adhere to precedent, and when it would best serve the interests of justice to innovate. This is
a balancing act that will defy even the most learned of jurists. Judges require a handy reminder of which
rules are inflexible, and what principles provide the foundation for flexible rules.
6[6]
Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions (PAFLU) v. Salvador, G. R. No. L-29471, September 28, 1968, 25
SCRA 393.
7[7]
Talabon v. The Provincial Warden, 78 Phil. 599 [1947].
The printed Benchbook was born from the need for a single source of direct but complete answers to the
most frequently raised questions. Its online counterpart promises to bring that utility to Judges across the
Philippines.
Experts in the relevant fields were tapped to compile the information in the Benchbook. They were
assisted by personnel from the Supreme Court and the International Development Law Institute.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera, current Chancellor of the Philippine
Judicial Academy, remarks that with the Benchbook, 'There should be less reason now for uncertainty in
matters pertaining to remedial law principally, and, we hope, less reason to find judges remiss in their duty
of applying the law correctly, intelligently and judiciously.'
Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo credits the Benchbook with 'providing a standard reference work
that will tirelessly remind our judges of both the immutable fundamentals of the law and the ceaseless
evolution of legal thought and jurisprudence.' The Benchbook thus 'makes it that much easier to strike
that golden middle way between stability and dynamism.'
The Benchbook, however, is not the single solution to a Judge’s every problem. While the Benchbook is
intended to enhance the quality of performance of Judges, constant learning by the Judge must
complement its use. The Benchbook is thus nothing less, and nothing more, than a tool to help Judges
dispense justice more efficiently, but the maximization of its potentials will depend on the skills of the
Judge involved.