Judge X was invited to be a guest speaker during the annual convention of a private organization which was covered by media. Since he was given the liberty to speak on any topic, he discussed the recent decision of the Supreme Court declaring that the President is not, under the Constitution, proscribed from appointing a Chief Justice within two months before the election.
In his speech, the judge demurred to the Supreme Court decision and even stressed that the decision is a serious violation of the Constitution.
a. Did Judge X incur any administrative liability? Explain. (3%)
b. If instead of ventilating his opinion before the private organization, Judge X incorporated it, as an obiter dictum, in one of his decisions, did he incur any administrative liability? Explain. (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
a. Yes, Judge X incurred administrative liability. b. Yes, Judge X still incurred administrative liability. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must observe propriety, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and show respect for the Supreme Court. While
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
May a judge publicly denounce a decision of the Supreme Court during a media-covered convention?
Publicly attacking Supreme Court rulings degrades the dignity of the judiciary and violates judicial propriety.
What administrative offense is committed by a judge who uses an obiter dictum in a decision to attack Supreme Court precedent?
Using court decisions to air personal grievances against Supreme Court precedents constitutes conduct unbecoming a judge.
What is the obligation of lower court judges regarding decisions and doctrines rendered by the Supreme Court?
Lower court judges are duty-bound to apply Supreme Court precedents under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Does a judge's constitutional freedom of expression allow public disparagement of final judicial rulings?
Choices available with full access.
Why is incorporating personal criticism of Supreme Court decisions as an obiter dictum ethically improper?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Judicial Public Criticism
Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are bound to observe propriety, prudential restraint, and respect for the Supreme Court. While scholarly discussion of legal principles is permissible in academic settings, publicly denouncing a decision of the High Court in a media-covered event degrades the dignity of the judiciary. Judges must refrain from making public comments that undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or disparage final judicial rulings.
2. Obiter Dictum Abuse
A judge who uses a judicial decision as a personal forum to attack Supreme Court rulings through an obiter dictum commits administrative misconduct. Trial judges are duty-bound to apply precedents laid down by the Supreme Court with deference and fidelity. Expressing personal disdain or judicial arrogance within court decisions distorts the proper judicial function, undermines statutory doctrine, and constitutes conduct unbecoming a member of the bench.
3. Respect for Precedents
Lower court judges are bound by the doctrine of stare decisis and must respect decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of constitutional issues. While a magistrate may entertain personal intellectual disagreements with established jurisprudence, expressing such disagreement in public speeches or court orders erodes institutional authority. Inferior court judges must adhere to superior court precedents to maintain stability, predictability, and public trust in the judicial system.