Judicial language

Metropolitan Manila Trial Court Judge Jorge Emmanuel Loredo last week decried what he dubbed as “Palace” pressure on him. Purportedly, the judge was being asked to inhibit himself from hearing the perjury charges filed by former presidential chief of staff Michael “Mike” Defensor against Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, the Senate whistleblower on the scuttled government’s national broadband network (NBN) contract with ZTE Corp. of China.

We commiserate with Judge Loredo. And if it is true that there are parties pressuring him to inhibit, they should be advised to leave the good judge alone. If Judge Loredo eventually inhibits himself from this case, it should be upon his own volition or upon the order of his superiors at the judiciary.

It cannot be denied, however, that the good judge himself may have provided the very reason for the move or call to inhibit him from this case. The question that many people are asking is whether or not judge Loredo is still capable of maintaining his impartiality of hearing this perjury case with fairness after he issued a rather strangely-worded order committing Lozada to the custody of the Senate.

I may not be a lawyer. But my long years of covering the justice beat exposed me enough to the legal circles for me to appreciate the beauty and clearly understand the judicial language in these court decisions as enshrined in the annals of Philippine jurisprudence.

So it was a complete surprise to me after reading the judge’s order in this perjury case. We would not dare pass judgment on Loredo. We will presume that he is a man of extensive academic preparations and of wisdom. He could not have worded his order in that strange manner were it not for some good reasons that we don’t know or aware of.

But it is also fair that we echo the questions that many of our friends and readers have been asking our view about how can Judge Loredo still be fair? If you have read his order, the following items would be glaring examples of how strange it was for the judge to use colorful language in his choice of words and phrases.

For example, why did he refer to Defensor as “Mr. Railroad Man?” Was that phrase meant to berate Defensor who is now the head of the moribund state-run Philippine National Railways (PNR)? Or was the judge already making a statement of facts that means nasty in terms like railroading or scuttling something?

Another part of the order appears to bolster the suspicion that the judge has a strong personal dislike for the complainant. Loredo said, “He (Defensor) used to be presidential chief of staff, now he just has old, dilapidated, rusty trains to play with.” Why would an impartial, objective, fair and detached judge say those words to the complainant?

Then, he threatens President Arroyo- whom he never referred to as such but merely called “Gloria” - to be arrested by deputizing Mayor Fred Lim, or Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, or even Senator (Antonio) Trillanes “and his comrades.”

The good judge has only to read his order again if only to understand why his impartiality and objectivity are now under a cloud of suspicion. Why would a judge speak in that manner if he has not already made up his mind on what to rule on case before him?

But then again, we say that we cannot pass judgment on Loredo’s motive. We have to respect his views and understand his recent cry that he is under pressure to inhibit from the case. But we also understand the grounds of the legal eagles like Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and Cabinet Secretary Silvestre “Bebot” Bello III who find his order as enough justification for Judge Loredo to be taken out of this case.

These people have based their views that he must inhibit from what the New Code of Judicial Conduct say. That Code, adopted in 2007, has a specific Canon in Impartiality, a whole section on the subject. According to the Code, “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.” The Code adds: “Judges shall perform their duties without favor, bias or prejudice.” Did Loredo’s order hint at any bias or prejudice? We don’t know and we dare not make any conclusion. It is up to the public to decide what they make out of it.

The Code continues: “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.”

If you were litigant Defensor, would you still have confidence on the judge after the remarks contained in his order? Did the stinging words against Defensor and the President enhance the public’s confidence in the impartiality of Judge Loredo?

Again, we don’t know and we dare not come up with our own conclusion. Let our vigilant readers who raised these questions form their own opinion. Impartiality is a principle of justice that is upheld by all decent and civilized nations. It is protected even by the declarations of the United Nations and human rights organizations.

For example, the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights define “impartiality” as a principle whereby judicial decisions are made based on objective criteria rather than on the basis of bias or prejudice.

Do the condescending references to Defensor and the First Couple show a bias or prejudice against them by Judge Loredo? Does his reference to “Mr. Railroad Man” and to Defensor’s “old, rusty, dilapidated trains” betray any bias against this litigant? Does his threat to mobilize Mayor Lim, Senator Lacson or Senator Trillanes “and his comrades” show a prejudice?

Again, we don’t know. We still prefer to give the judge the benefit of the doubt. How about his reference to the Catholic nuns and priests guarding Lozada and his view that they are guarding him because he is telling the truth? Does that betray a bias in favor of litigant Lozada?

Again, we don’t know and we dare not form our own conclusion. At the end of the day, those questions should probably be directly asked the good judge. Can he look at us all straight in the eye and tell us with a clear conscience that he is still impartial and fair despite all that he has said about the characters in this legal conflict?

We can only reiterate that only Judge Loredo can respond to those questions begging to be answered with clear, straightforward judicial language.