Evelio Javier vs COMELEC & Arturo Pacificador Due Process – impartial and competent court
Javier Javier and Pacificad Pacificador, or, a member member of the KBL under under Marcos, Marcos, were were rivals to be members members of the Bata Batasan san in Ma !"#$ !"#$ in Anti%u nti%ue e 'urin 'urin( ( elect election ion,, Javier Javier com)l com)lai ained ned of *mass *massive ive terror terroris ism, m, intimidation, duress, vote+buin(, fraud, tam)erin( and falsification of election returns under duress, threat and intimidation, snatchin( of ballot boes )er)etrated b the armed men of PacificadorCOMELEC .ust referred the com)laints to the A/P On the same com)laint, the 0nd 'ivision of the Commission on Elections directed the )rovincial board of canvassers of Anti%ue to )roceed with the canvass but to sus)end the )roclamation of the winnin( candidate until further orders On June 1, !"#$, the same 0nd 'ivision ordered the board to immediatel convene and to )roclaim the winner without )re.udice to the outcome of the case before the Commission On certiorari before the 2C, the )roclamation made b the board of canvassers was set aside as )remature, havin( been made before the la)se of the 3+da )eriod of a))eal, which the Javier had seasonabl made Javier )ointed out that the irre(ularities of the election must first be resolved before )roclaimin( a winner /urther, O)ini O)inion on,, one one of the the Commi Commissi ssione oners rs shou should ld inhib inhibit it himse himself lf as he was was a former former law )artne )artnerr of Pacificador Also, the )roclamation was made b onl the 0 nd 'ivision but the Constitute re%uires that it be )roclaimed b the COMELEC en banc 4n /eb !"#5, durin( )endenc, Javier was (unned down 6he 2olicitor 7eneral then moved to have the )etition close it bein( moot and academic b virtue of Javier8s death ISSUE: 9hether or not there had been due )rocess in the )roclamation of Pacificador HELD: 6he 2C ruled in favor of Javier and has overruled the 2ol+7en8s tenor 6he 2C has re)eatedl
and consistentl demanded demanded *the cold neutralit of an im)artial .ud(e- as the indis)ensable indis)ensable im)erative of due )rocess 6o bolster that re%uirement, we have held that the .ud(e must not onl be im)artial but must also a))ear to be im)artial as an added assurance to the )arties that his decision will be .ust 6he liti(ants are entitled to no less than that 6he should be sure that when their ri(hts are violated the can (o to a .ud(e who shall (ive them .ustice 6he must trust the .ud(e, otherwise the will not (o to him at all 6he must believe in his sense of fairness, otherwise the will not see: his .ud(ment .ud(ment 9ithout such confidence, confidence, there would would be no )oint in invo:in( his action for the .ustice the e)ect 'ue 'ue )roce )rocess ss is inten intende ded d to insure insure that that confi confide denc nce e b re%uir re%uirin( in( com)l com)lia iance nce with with what what Justic Justice e /ran:furter calls the rudiments of fair )la /air )la calls for e%ual .ustice 6here cannot be e%ual .ustice where a suitor a))roaches a))roaches a court alread committed to the other )art and with a .ud(ment alread made and waitin( onl to be formali;ed after the liti(ants shall have under(one the charade of a formal hearin( Judicial
INHIBITION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES
6he rule on inhibition and dis%ualification of .ud(es is laid down in 2ection !, >ule !?1 of the >ules of Court@ 2ection ! 'is%ualification of .ud(es o .ud(e or .udicial officer shall sit in an case in which he, or his wife or child, is )ecuniaril interested as heir, le(atee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either )art within the sith de(ree of consan(uinit or affinit, or to counsel within the fourth de(ree, com)uted accordin( to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been eecutor, administrator, (uardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has )resided in an inferior court when his rulin( or decision is the sub.ect of review, without the written consent of all )arties in interest, si(ned b them and entered u)on the record A .ud(e ma, in the eercise of his sound discretion, dis%ualif himself from sittin( in a case, for .ust or valid reasons other than those mentioned above 6he >ules contem)late two :inds of inhibition@ com)ulsor and voluntar nder the first )ara(ra)h of the cited >ule, it is conclusivel )resumed that .ud(es cannot activel and im)artiall sit in the instances mentioned 6he second )ara(ra)h, which embodies voluntar inhibition, leaves to the sound discretion of the .ud(es concerned whether to sit in a case for other .ust and valid reasons, with onl their conscience as (uide 4n denin( the motions for his inhibition, Justice ernande; e)lained that )etitioner failed to im)ute an act of bias or im)artialit on his )art, to wit@ 9hat can reasonabl be (leaned from .uris)rudence on this )oint of law is the necessit of )rovin( bias and )artialit under the second )ara(ra)h of the rule in %uestion 6he )roof re%uired needs to )oint to some act or conduct on the )art of the .ud(e bein( sou(ht for inhibition 4n the instant Motions, there is not even a sin(le act or conduct attributed to Justice ernande; from where a sus)icion of bias or )artialit can be derived or a))reciated 4n fact, it is oddl stri:in( that the accused does not even ma:e a claim or im)utation of bias or )artialit on the )art of Justice ernande; nderstandabl, he sim)l cannot ma:e such alle(ation all because there is none to be told 4f alle(ations or )erce)tions of bias from the tenor and lan(ua(e of a .ud(e is considered b the 2u)reme Court as insufficient to show )re.ud(ment, how much more insufficient it becomes if there is absent an alle(ation of bias or )artialit to be(in with
9e find the above e)lanation well+ta:en and thus u)hold the assailed >esolution u)on the (rounds so stated 9e have ruled in Phili))ine Commercial 4nternational Ban: v ' on( Pi, 7> o !1!!?1, June 3, 0DD", 3## 2C>A 5!0, 5?0 that the mere im)utation of bias or )artialit is not enou(h (round for inhibition, es)eciall when the char(e is without basis Etrinsic evidence must further be )resented to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corru)t )ur)ose, in addition to )al)able error which ma be inferred from the decision or order itself 6his Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the .ud(e clearl indicative of arbitrariness or )re.udice before the latter can be branded the sti(ma of bein( biased or )artial An alle(ation of )re.ud(ment, without more, constitutes mere con.ecture and is not one of the .ust or valid reasons contem)lated in the second )ara(ra)h of 2ection !, >ule !?1 of the >ules of Court for which a .ud(e ma inhibit himself from hearin( the case 6he bare alle(ations of the .ud(es )artialit, as in this case, will not suffice in the absence of clear and convincin( evidence to overcome the )resum)tion that the .ud(e will underta:e his noble role of dis)ensin( .ustice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor eril, for bias and )re.udice to be considered valid reasons for the involuntar inhibition of .ud(es, mere sus)icion is not enou(h Petitioner contends that his motions were based on the second )ara(ra)h of 2ection !, >ule !?1, but a closer eamination of the motions for inhibition reveals that )etitioner undoubtedl invo:ed the second )ara(ra)h b underscorin( the )hrase, for .ust or valid reasons other than those mentioned above 6his was an e)ress indication of the rule that he was invo:in( Moreover, it was s)ecificall stated in )ara(ra)h 1 of both motions that in accused mind, such circumstances militates a(ainst the on Justice ernande; and constitutes a .ust and valid (round for his inhibition under the 0nd )ara(ra)h, 2ection ! of >ule !?1, in so far as the cases a(ainst accused are concerned ence, there is no %uestion that )etitioner relied on the second )ara(ra)h of the >ule which contem)lates voluntar inhibition as basis for his motions for inhibition And even if we were to assume that )etitioner indeed invo:ed the first )ara(ra)h of 2ection !, >ule !?1 in his motions to inhibit, we should stress that marital relationshi) b itself is not a (round to dis%ualif a .ud(e from hearin( a case nder the first )ara(ra)h of the rule on inhibition, o .ud(e or .udicial officer shall sit in an case in which he, or his wife or child, is )ecuniaril interested as heir, le(atee, creditor or otherwiseF 6he relationshi) mentioned therein becomes relevant onl when such s)ouse or child of the .ud(e is )ecuniaril interested as heir, le(atee, creditor or otherwise Petitioner, however, miserabl failed to show that Professor Carolina 7 ernande; is financiall or )ecuniaril interested in these cases before the 2andi(anbaan to .ustif the inhibition of Justice ernande; under the first )ara(ra)h of 2ection ! of >ule !?1 <>amiscal Jr v Justice ernande; et al, 7> os !1?D31+1$, 2e)tember 0D, 0D!D= 4n male v illalu;, !3!+A Phil 35?, 35#, Ma 03, !"1?, the Court traced the histor of the second )ara(ra)h of the above+%uoted )rovision, which had been added onl as an amendment to the >ules of Court in !"5$ Prior to that ear, the %uestion on whether to ta:e co(ni;ance of the case did not de)end u)on the discretion of the .ud(es not le(all dis%ualified to sit in a (iven case 4f those concerned were not dis%ualified, it was their official dut to )roceed with the case or else ris: bein( called u)on to account for their dereliction 6he could not voluntaril inhibit themselves on (rounds of )re.udice or bias, etreme delicac, or even if the themselves too: (reat interest and an active )art in the filin( of the case 7utierre; v 2antos !!0 Phil !#$, Ma ?D, !"5! and 'el Castillo v Javelona !!5 Phil $3!, 2e)tember 0", !"50 )aved the wa for the reco(nition of other circumstances for dis%ualification Gthose that de)ended u)on the eercise of discretion of the .ud(es concerned 6he .ud(es ri(ht, however, must be wei(hed a(ainst their dut to decide cases without fear of re)ression eril, the second )ara(ra)h of 2ection ! of >ule !?1 does not (ive .ud(es the unfettered
discretion to decide whether to desist from hearin( a case 6he inhibition must be for .ust and valid causes 6he mere im)utation of bias or )artialit is not enou(h (round for them to inhibit, es)eciall when the char(e is without basis 6his Court has to be shown acts or conduct clearl indicative of arbitrariness or )re.udice before it can brand them with the sti(ma of bias or )artialit 7ohu v 2)ouses 7ohu, ?"1 Phil !05, October !?, 0DDDH Abdula v 7uiani, ?#0 Phil 131, /ebruar !#, 0DDD=
