The Impeachment trial's "hear no evil" fiasco, who is wrong?

"Then you’re not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to          me because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students      are created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all             lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being that we        all are created equal in His form and substance."

These are the statements that prompted Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane to   charge Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of Branch 36, RTC Calamba City, of “demeaning, humiliating and berating” him during the hearing on February 27, 2006 because he is a "MLQU" graduate.

The  Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)  earlier ruled that  "Respondent judge’s insulting statements which tend to question complainant’s capability and credibility stemming from the fact that the latter did not graduated [sic] from UP Law school is clearly unwarranted and inexcusable. When a judge indulges in intemperate language, the lawyer can return the attack on his person and character, through an administrative case against the judge, as in the instant case."A judge’s official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial duties should be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. A judge must at all times be temperate in his language.

On its Decision dated June 30, 2008, in A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119,  the Supreme Court  imposed upon the erring judge the penalty of reprimand under the following principle.

 "An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations which this Court administers, taking of the Lawyer’s oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his law degree.  For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem. A judge must address the merits of the case and not on the person of the counsel.  If respondent felt that his integrity and dignity were being “assaulted,” he acted properly when he directed complainant to explain why he should not be cited for contempt.  He went out of bounds, however, when he, as the above-quoted portions of the transcript of stenographic notes show, engaged on a supercilious legal and personal discourse.  This Court has reminded members of the bench that even on the face of boorish behavior from those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court Judges should always be aware that disrespect to lawyers generates disrespect to them. There must be mutual concession of respect. Respect is not a one-way ticket where the judge should be respected but free to insult lawyers and others who appear in his court. Patience is an essential part of dispensing justice and courtesy is a mark of culture and good breeding. If a judge desires not to be insulted, he should start using temperate language himself; he who sows the wind will reap a storm.It is also noticeable that during the subject hearing, not only did respondent judge make insulting and demeaning remarks but he also engaged in unnecessary “lecturing” and “debating”. . .Thus, it is our view that respondent judge should shun from lecturing the counsels or debating with them during court hearings to prevent suspicions as to his fairness and integrity."

          

A revisit on  above ruling is very timely due  to the incident that occurred last week as a member of the Senate, Miriam Santiago, used abusive language in an impeachment proceeding, on live TV, and no one in the Senate has raised issue over her actuations. By placing his cupped hands over his “hurt ears” while in full view of cameras,prosecutor Vitaliano Aguirre II caught the ire of Santiago. However, he lectured back to the lecturing legislator, telling Santiago “If you demand respect, respect also these lawyers because human dignity has no equal.”

A posting from the facebook group  "You Know You are from UP LAW"  said  that "If the Philippine Senate were made of men and women of character, Miriam Santiago should have been  slapped with a disciplinary action at the same time that Aguirre of the hear-no-evil fame was held for contempt. Is the Senate any better -- or any worse -- than than the Supreme Court in protecting its own? Actions speak louder than words. It's really about who holds the power. In this country, as current history shows, those who hold the most power -- in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government -- treat that power as something to be abused as a matter of right."

In May 2007, the Supreme Court in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1955 admonished a judge to “maintain composure and equanimity” and “always be temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and language” because “as a dispenser of justice” a judge “should exercise judicial temperament at all times, avoiding vulgar and insulting language.A judge, even on the face of boorish behavior from those he deals with, ought to conduct himself in a manner befitting a gentleman and a high officer of the court.”

Another posting i saw was from the October 15th Episode of The People's ,Court  Judge Milian gives a University of Miami law student a piece of her mind after he disrespects her.