You're currently signed in as:
User

REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN BRANCH 34

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2000-11-29
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[W]hen . . .  private opinions not only form part of their decision but constitutes a decisive factor in arriving at a conclusion and determination of a case or the penalty imposed, resulting in an illegality and reversible error, then we are constrained to state our opinion, not only to correct the error but for the guidance of the courts.  xxx It is a well settled rule that the courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws.  The question falls exclusively within the province of the Legislature which enacts them and the Chief Executive who approves or vetoes them.  The only function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and, if not in disharmony with the Constitution, to apply them.  And for the guidance of the members of the judiciary we feel it incumbent upon us to state that while they as citizens or as judges may regard a certain law as harsh, unwise or morally wrong and may recommend to the authority or department concerned its amendment, modification or repeal, still as long as said law is in force, they must apply it and give it effect as decreed by the law-making body. As has been emphasized in Ruperto v. Banquerigo,[11] "The office of a judge exists for one solemn end " to promote the ends of justice by administering it speedily and impartially.  The judge as the person presiding over that court is the visible representation of the law and justice. These are self-evident dogmas which do not even have to be emphasized, but to which we are wont to advert to when some members of the judiciary commit legal missteps or stray from the axioms of judicial ethics xxx." The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.  Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to speedy disposition of their cases.[12]