Justice Artemio Panganiban’s Formal Judicial Philosophy

The Justices of the Supreme Court have asked the JBC to forgo a public interview of their colleagues vying for the post of Chief Justice.  Instead, they have directed the JBC to investigate their brethren’s “judicial philosophy.”

As I said before, I have never heard a Constitutional law expert or professor even hint about a Filipino justice’s “judicial philosophy.”  Must be vaporware.

However, for the record, I would like the JBC to take a look at Justice Artemio Panganiban’s formal judicial philosophy, which is as follows:

Introduction:
Recite the legal issues (sometimes in question form) as a peek into what’s coming later. Keep it short.

The Facts:
Recite the Facts.

The Case:
Recite the procedural background.  Sometimes, have a separate section for the “Ruling of the Court of Appeals”

The Issues:
List the issues. A rehash of the questions asked in the Introduction.  Sometimes, just quote the “assignment of errors” provided in the pleadings submitted to the Court.  Be sure to enumerate if the issues are more than one.

The Court’s Ruling:
Resolve the issues in the order listed. Just to make sure the readers don’t get lost, provide helpful sub-titles (i.e., First Issue, Second Issue, Third Issue, etc.). 

This is as close as I can divine Justice Panganiban’s judicial philosophy.  It seems to be: “Let’s make it easier for law students to read (and digest) Supreme Court decisions.”  His devotion to this philosophy seems to reach back to his earliest decisions. 

Don’t believe me? Look at this Google search I put together.  (Or just enter this into Google: “panganiban, j. site:supremecourt.gov.ph”).

If you can find a full decision he penned that doesn’t follow the form, please email me.  After all, inconsistencies in adhering to a judicial philosophy should be pointed out to the JBC.