The administration of justice is one of the most important functions of the state. If it is not able to serve justice, living within said state becomes unbearable. Justice is associated with sternness or strict adherence to rules, but it is also about symbolism. In this day and age, we probably think that symbolism is no longer important because what matters most is the substance. While many of the symbols of the past have been abandoned or forgotten, symbols remain among us in our churches, government, and elsewhere. I have always pointed out the fact that elected officials are symbols of democracy themselves, that they occupy their respective offices because they have been elected by the sovereign- the people. In our courts, much of the symbols are no longer used. Philippine courts only retained the gavel and judicial robe as probably the most recognizable articles in a court room. The judge of course remains as one of the symbols of justice. Unlike in other parts of the world, lawyers are required to wear their robe or gown and even a wig when appearing in court. In other countries, accused are still held in the “dock” at the center of the court room while judges place a piece of cloth on their head when reading out a sentence on an accused. In the Philippines, judges are required to wear a black robe when in the discharge of their judicial functions. But what if the judge refuses to wear his black robe?
Administrative Liability
Circular No. 25 dated 9 June 1989, (“Circular No. 25”) provides: Pursuant to Sections 5 and 6, Article [VIII] of the Constitution and in order to heighten public consciousness on the solemnity of judicial proceedings, it is hereby directed that beginning Tuesday, August 1, 1989, all Presiding Judges of all Trial Courts shall wear black robes during sessions of their respective Courts. The Supreme Court made this explanation: “[J]udges [are] xxx clothed in robes, not only, that they who witness the administration of justice should be properly advised that the function performed is one different from, and higher, than that which a man discharges as a citizen in the ordinary walks of life; but also, in order to impress the judge himself with the constant consciousness that he is a high priest in the temple of justice and is surrounded with obligations of a sacred character that he cannot escape and that require his utmost care, attention and self-suppression.” (Chan vs. Hon. Majaducon, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1697, October 15, 2003) Judge Majaducon was reported to the Supreme Court for not wearing his black robe during hearings among other violations and in his reply or explanation he said that it was his doctor’s recommendation that he skip wearing his robe since he suffers form hypertension and will resume wearing it when his condition becomes better. The SC said: “While circumstances, such as the medical condition claimed by respondent judge, may exempt one from complying with Circular No. 25, he must first secure the Court’s permission for such exemption. He cannot simply excuse himself, like respondent judge, from complying with the requirement. Neither does the fact that respondent judge, if he is to be believed, has resumed wearing the robe exculpate him from liability. Such does not alter the fact that at the time the complaints in the present case were filed, respondent judge was openly violating Circular No. 25. Respondent judge’s medical condition and his subsequent compliance serve only to mitigate his liability.”
10,000 Fine
At the time of the hearing of his case, the judge already retired and the complainant also withdraw his complaint. The SC nevertheless continued with the case and decided to impose a fine of 10,000.00 pesos which was two times higher than what was recommended by the Court Administrator. This violation might appear trivial to some, but in dispensing justice appearance is very important. The SC in many cases made it clear: “a judge must not only be impartial, but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just.” (Berso vs. Rabe, 23 November 2021) In the same manner, the parties have to believe that the judge representing justice by wearing the robe, has done what is right and just.
