Some 200 judges and court personnel attended the ethics consultative caravan in Tacloban City on 12 September.

The morning session consultation was led by Supreme Court Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva, other members of the Supreme Court, and the Sub-Committee for the Review of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.

Should court personnel be responsible for social media posts of their immediate family members? Should judges refrain from appearing in music videos?

These were just some of the questions raised during the Supreme Court’s Ethics Consultative Caravan (Ethics Caravan) in Tacloban City on Thursday, with more than 200 judges and court personnel from the first- and second-level courts in Eastern Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar, Southern Leyte and Biliran in attendance.

The Ethics Caravan sought to solicit comments on the Proposed New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and the Proposed New Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which will govern the conduct of judges and court personnel.

The proposed new Codes will take the place of the existing guidelines which were promulgated in 2004.

The Supreme Court delegation for the morning session for court personnel was led by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva, vice chairperson of the Sub-Committee for the Review of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and the members of the said Sub-Committee, namely, Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ma. Consejo Mapa Gengos-Ignalaga, Court of Tax Appeals Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Baccoro-Villena, Presiding Judge Juris S. Dilinila-Callanta, Presiding Judge Bernard P. Bernal, Presiding Judge Anne Beatrice G. Aguana-Balmaceda, Edmund De Javing, Atty. Rene Enciso and Adelberto Juan.

Meanwhile, Court of Appeals — Cebu City Station Executive Justice Pamela Ann A. Maxino led the members of the Sub-Committee for the Review of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary in discussing changes to the guidelines for judicial conduct. Executive Justice Maxino was joined by Associate Justice Bacorro-Villena, Executive Judge Maria Josefina G. San Juan-Torres, Presiding Judge Pia Cristina B. Bersamin-Embuscado, Presiding Judge Romeo D. Tagra, Presiding Judge Carlo D. Villarama, Presiding Judge Rosalyn M. Loja, Presiding Judge Juvenal N. Bella and Dean Joan S. Largo.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh is the chairperson for both sub-committees.

Court Administrator Villanueva led a discussion with court personnel, who were reminded that soliciting any form of gifts from litigants is not allowed and that they should use their social media accounts responsibly.

A key question during the discussion revolved around Section 18 of Canon II on Propriety of the Proposed Revised Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which requires court personnel to be “attentive of social media activities of immediate family members within their knowledge that could reflect adversely on the Judiciary.”

A court employee raised the difficulty of monitoring the social media activities of their family members.

Allaying her concerns, members of the Sub-Committee assured her this could be used as a defense and promised to revisit the provision.

Associate Justice Bacorro-Villena explained the rationale behind the provision: “Even though we are not expected to know everything, it positions us to be aware of key matters, as we are the guardians of our own institution. So, if you hear or learn about something — whether from a non-relative, a family member, or someone not on good terms with you — it remains your responsibility to be proactive. You must address or take action against any behavior or actions that could negatively impact the institution or its integrity by someone connected to you,” she said.

A judge during the afternoon session asked if the new rules would prohibit her from appearing in music videos which she created primarily for her children, following the death of her husband.

Members of the Sub-Committee said there was no violation but reminded the judge to avoid excessive use of social media if it adversely affects the performance of her judicial duties, a violation of section 26 of Canon IV on Propriety under the Proposed New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.