CIRCULAR NO. 15, November 27, 1986

Quoted hereunder, for the information and guidance of all
concerned, is the Resolution of the Court En Banc, dated November 27,
1986, in Administrative Matter No. 86-11-3690-Tel.- Re: Query of the
Municipal Trial Judges League of Zamboanga del Norte:

“Adm. Matter No. 86-11-3690-Tel.- Re: Query of the Municipal
Trial Judges League, Zamboanga del Norte. – Acting on the telegraphic
message to the Chief Justice of the Municipal Trial Judges League of
Zamboanga del Norte thru its President, Judge Pacifico M. Garcia of the
Municipal Trial Court at Dapitan City, expressing the judges’ desire to
get involved in the campaign for ratification of the Draft Constitution
and requesting advice as to the possible legal implications that may
arise relative to their public positions, stating that ‘we feel we are
in a better position to shed light on the provisions of the proposed
charter for the better understanding by our people especially those in
the rural areas, the Court Resolved to DECLARE, for the information and
guidance of all judges concerned, that -they should refrain from public
involvement in the said campaign for ratification of the Draft
Constitution as approved by the Constitutional Commission. Such campaign
is best left to the officers and members of the Constitutional
Commission who are already conducting ti.e information campaign, and to
the Executive and leaders of the administration, together with the
officers and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, who are
so minded. It is, of course, understood that they are free to express in
private discussions their views for or against the. provisions of the
proposed charter, as well as to state how they intend to vote at the
plebiscite called for the purpose.

“The Court adopts and reiterates as its own the compelling considerations now Chief Justice in Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections, 73 SCRA 333, 427-428, joined by then Justices Felix V. Makasiar and applicable, mutatis mutandis,
‘that the non-participation of judges in such publi discussions and
debates on the referrendum-plebecite questions would preserve the
traditional non-involvement of the judiciary issues.This is essential
for the maintenance and enhancement of the peple’s faith and confidence
in the judiciary. x x x

“The lifting of the traditional inhibition of judges from
public discussion and debate might blemish the image and independence
might blemish the image and independence of the judiciary. Aside from
the fact that the fixing of a time limit for the acceptance of their
courtesy resignations to avoid an indefinite state of insecurity of
their tenure in office still pends, litigants and their relatives and
friends as well as a good sector of the public would be hesitant to air
wiews contrary to that of the judge.’

“Let copies hereof be circulated to all courts.”

November 27, 1986.