CANON 3: IMPARTIALITY – Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.

It
applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.

Impartiality is a state of mind of the judge where there is no consciousness or sense of favor, or bias, or
prejudice against any party in a case.

In common, Chief Justice Serreno imputes actual bias on said Justices for having testified before the
House Committee on Justice on the impeachment complaint.
In particular,
1. Justice Bersamin,
a) Justice Bersamin's allusion to Chief Justice Serreno as a "dictator";
b) His personal resentment about the supposed withdrawal of the privilege previously
enjoyed by the members of the Court to recommend nominees to vacant positions in
the Judiciary; and
c) For having wore a touch of red during the "Red Monday" protest on March 12, 2018
wherein judges and court employees reportedly called on Chief Justice Serreno to
make the supreme sacrifice and resign.
2. Justice Peralta,
a) As then acting ex officio Chairperson of the JBC when Chief Justice Serreno was
nominated for appointment, he have personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceedings; and
b) For having served as a material witness in the matter in controversy.
3. Justice Jardeleza,
a) His testimony before the House Committee on Justice reveals that he harbors ill
feelings towards Chief Justice Serreno on account of the latter's challenge to his
integrity during the nomination process for the Associate Justice position vice Justice
Roberto A. Abad which he characterized as "inhumane".
4. Justice Tijam
a) On the latter's statement as quoted in a Manila Times article to the effect that if Chief
Justice Serreno continues to ignore and to refuse to participate in the impeachment
process, she is clearly liable for culpable violation of the Constitution.
b) For having wore a touch of red during the "Red Monday" protest on March 12, 2018
wherein judges and court employees reportedly called on Chief Justice Serreno to
make the supreme sacrifice and resign.
5. Justice De Castro
a) For having allegedly prejudged the issue as regards the validity of Chief Justice
Serreno's nomination and appointment in 2012 when Justice De Castro testified under
oath during the House Committee on Justice hearings that Chief Justice Serreno
should have been disqualified from the shortlist on account of the SALNs she allegedly
failed to submit.
6. Justice Martires
a) For his purported insinuations during the Oral Arguments questioning her "mental" or
"psychological" fitness on the basis of her belief that God is "the source of everything in
(her) life."
Section 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.

Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must perform their duties without favor, bias or
prejudice. The accusation of bias and prejudice however was defined on various jurisprudence. In the case
of Dimo Realty & Dev Inc. v. Dimaculangan, the Supreme Court requires that such accusation be proven by
a clear and convincing evidence. Thus

Bias and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of judges, must
be proved with clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will
not suffice. These cannot be presumed, especially if weighed against the sacred obligation of
judges whose oaths of office require them to administer justice without respect to person and to do
equal right to the poor and the rich. (Dimo Realty & Dev Inc. v. Dimaculangan, G.R. No. 130991,
March 11, 2004)

It is for this reason that the named justices cannot be guilty of violating Section 1, Canon 3 of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct. As the Supreme Court ruled over Chief Justice Serreno’s motion for inhibition,

Chief Justice Serreno's call for inhibition has been based on speculations, or on distortions of
the language, context and meaning of the answers the Justices may have given as sworn
witnesses in the proceedings of the House Committee on Justice.
It would be presumptuous to equate the justices’ statement to a personal resentment as Chief
Justice Serreno regards it. There has always been a high degree of professionalism among the
Members of the Court in both their personal and official dealings with each other. It cannot also be
denied that the statement reflected a natural sentiment towards a decision reached and imposed by
a member of a collegial body without consultation or consensus.
Absent strong and compelling evidence establishing actual bias and partiality on the part of the
Justices whose recusal was sought, Chief Justice Serreno's motions for inhibition must perforce
fail. Mere conjectures and speculations cannot justify the inhibition of a Judge or Justice from a
judicial matter. The presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in
accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor, should not be abandoned without
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. (Republic v. Serreno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11,
2018).

Thus, the accusation of Bias and Prejudice, for having failed in evidence, it is not surprising that the
motion for inhibition was denied. The named justices cannot be found guilty of violating Section 1, Canon 3
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Section 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the
confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.

However, while the accusation of Bias and Prejudice must fail, the named justices can be found guilty of
violating Section 2, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. It is not only required that judges and
justices must act without bias and prejudice, Section 2 of Canon 3 also requires that judges and justices
must appear to be without bias and prejudice. Their conduct, both in and out of court, must maintain and
enhance the confidence of the public in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary. In Gutierrez vs.
Santos, the Supreme Court said,
 No judge should handle a case in which he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be
susceptible to bias and partiality. His judgment must not be tainted by even the slightest suspicion
of improbity or preconceived interest. The rule is aimed at preserving at all times the faith and
confidence in courts of justice by any party to the litigation (Gutierrez vs. Santos, 112 Phil. 184)

Also in, Montemayor v. Bermejo,

A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The appearance of bias or prejudice can be as damaging to public
confidence and the administration of justice as actual bias or prejudice (Montemayor v. Bermejo,
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1535. March 12, 2004.)

Thus, from the enumeration of each particular act of the named justices, it can be deemed that these
justices are guilty of violating Section 2, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Such acts are easily
misunderstood as some sort of bias or prejudice.
While the motion for inhibition on the ground of actual fraud must fail, there was a clear violation of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, these justices must be held liable.