Supreme Court Revamps Body Handling Disciplinary Cases
MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has recently reorganized the body handling disciplinary cases within the judiciary, replacing the former five-member Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) with a new Judicial Integrity Office (JIO). This office will be led by a single judicial integrity officer, marking a significant shift in managing administrative disciplinary cases.
According to officials, the reorganization aims to fine-tune and streamline procedures related to the handling, management, and resolution of administrative disciplinary cases filed against judiciary members, officials, employees, and personnel. This change reflects the court’s commitment to uphold high standards of public accountability and maintain the people’s faith in the justice system.
Expanded Authority of the Judicial Integrity Office
The Judicial Integrity Office now holds explicit authority to conduct fact-finding investigations and recommend penalties or clemency against presiding and associate justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, and Shari’ah High Court. This also covers judges from first- and second-level courts, including Shari’ah District and Circuit Courts.
Furthermore, the JIO’s jurisdiction includes officials and employees of all courts, including the Supreme Court, as well as personnel from offices under the Supreme Court’s supervision such as the Office of the Court Administrator, Philippine Judicial Academy, Judicial and Bar Council, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Office, and the Office of the Judiciary Marshals, sources reported.
Procedures for Administrative Complaints
Under Resolution A.M. No. 23-12-05-SC, the JIO will directly receive administrative complaints against judiciary members within its jurisdiction. However, complaints against Supreme Court members, whether anonymous or not, will be referred to the high court’s ethics committee.
Additionally, the JIO is empowered to initiate motu proprio administrative complaints or act on directives from the Supreme Court. It may also handle referrals from administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, Office of the Ombudsman, or Department of Justice, local leaders noted.
The resolution further authorizes the JIO to recommend preventive suspension of any respondent in an administrative complaint pending before it and to issue subpoenas for involved parties.
New Grievance Mechanism for Minor Offenses
The Supreme Court introduced a mandatory preliminary grievance conference for complaints involving less serious or light offenses, particularly where the complainant and respondent belong to the same office, branch, or court station. Instead of immediately assigning a docket number, cases will first be referred to the judicial integrity officer to explore possible dispute resolutions, community members said.
Transition from Judicial Integrity Board to Judicial Integrity Office
The Judicial Integrity Board was established in 2020 with a chair, vice chair, and three regular members appointed by the Supreme Court en banc. Since then, the Court conducted an evaluation of the JIB’s structure, functions, and management.
Following recommendations from a technical working group, the Supreme Court approved the creation of the Judicial Integrity Office, replacing the five-member board with a single judicial integrity officer appointed by the Court. The officer will serve a four-year term and may be reappointed once. Appointment of a new officer can also occur upon the retirement of the incumbent chief justice, based on the incoming chief justice’s recommendation.
Qualifications and Restrictions for Judicial Integrity Officer
The judicial integrity officer must be at least 45 years old, have at least 15 years of legal practice, and possess relevant experience in investigating and evaluating administrative complaints. Importantly, the officer must not be related within the third degree to any incumbent justice of the tertiary courts, judges of first- and second-level courts, or any judiciary official or employee, officials reported.
Phasing Out of the Corruption and Investigation Office
With the enactment of the Judiciary Marshals Act, the Supreme Court clarified that the Corruption and Investigation Office has become functus officio, as its powers and duties are now vested in the judiciary marshals. This development streamlines investigative functions within the judiciary, sources confirmed.
For more news and updates on judiciary reforms and disciplinary procedures, visit Filipinokami.com.
