Exalted position

This case is really quite unique and rare as it involves a judge who is administratively charged of immorality and dishonesty for openly admitting that he is a homosexual.

The judge here is a judge of the Municipal Trial Court. He has already been married for more than 28 years with two daughters when he still decided to file a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage allegedly because he and his wife are both psychologically incapacitated to comply with their essential marital obligations. He alleged in his petition that he is psychologically incapacitated because he is a “homosexual who could not be intimate with his wife unless he imagines that he is with another man.” He further alleges that as a result of his homosexuality, his wife had affairs with other men which he did not bother to stop or question anymore.

His wife opposed the petition and claimed that the judge only wanted their marriage annulled so that he could marry another woman with whom he was having a relationship. Thus, aside from opposing the petition, the wife and her two daughters (complainants) also filed administrative charges for immorality and dishonesty against the judge: immorality on account of his affair with another woman and on account of his admission of homosexuality; and dishonesty on account of falsely claiming that he is a homosexual.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) assigned the administrative case for investigation to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of their province (Investigator). In said investigation, the wife pointed out that her husband, the judge, is not homosexual because he married her and had two daughters with her. So the wife claimed that the judge was lying in his petition for declaration of nullity of marriage when he alleged that he was a homosexual. No evidence however was presented about the judge having a relationship with another woman.

So in his report to the OCA, the Investigator found that the judge is not guilty of immorality; first because his admission of homosexuality does not make him automatically immoral, and second because there was no evidence that he had a relationship with another woman as claimed by the wife.

The Investigator also said that the judge is not guilty of dishonesty because the fact that he had two children with his wife is not a proof that he is not a homosexual and thus it cannot be said that he is lying in his petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage.

The OCA agreed with the report of the Investigator and declared that the complainants really failed to prove that the judge had relationship with another woman. Neither were they able to prove the charge of immorality on account of his being a homosexual. The OCA also said that the judge was not guilty of dishonesty because his allegation of homosexuality in his petition for declaration of nullity of marriage could only be proven before the trial court where it has been filed so it cannot rule on whether the judge is falsely claiming that he is homosexual.

The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the recommendations of the Investigator and the OCA to absolve the judge from the charges of immorality and dishonesty. According to the SC, no evidence was presented to prove that the judge was having an affair with another woman. As to the respondent’s alleged homosexuality, the SC said that such issue is for the determination of the trial court where the petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with his complainant wife is pending. Besides, according to the SC, the fact that the judge got married and had children is not proof against his claim of homosexuality. It is possible that respondent was only suppressing or hiding his true sexuality. So he could not also be guilty of dishonesty.

Apparently, the SC here did not categorically declare that being homosexual is immoral. It merely reminded respondent of the New Code of Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary providing that “as a subject of constant public scrutiny, he must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen; conduct himself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office; comport himself at all times in such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice. This is the high price he must pay for occupying an exalted position in the administration of justice (Campos, et. al vs. Campos, Am.M. No. MTJ-10, February 8, 2012)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]