People's confidence in the Judiciary IMPORTANT in administration of justice

The Supreme Court agrees in the recommendation of the Investigating Justice. The Supreme Court has reviewed the record of this case and are thereby satisfied that the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Justice are in truth adequately supported by the evidence and are in accord with applicable legal principles. The Supreme Court therefore resolves to adopt such findings and recommendations relative to the administrative liability of the respondent judge for grave misconduct and immorality.
The integrity of the Judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice, but also upon the perception and confidence of the community that the people who run the system have administered justice. At times, the strict manner by which we apply the law may, in fact, do justice but may not necessarily create confidence among the people that justice, indeed, has been served. Hence, in order to create such confidence, the people who run the judiciary, particularly judges and justices, must not only be proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their public and in their private lives. Only then can the people be reassured that the wheels of justice in this country run with fairness and equity, thus creating confidence in the judicial system.
With the avowed objective of promoting confidence in the Judiciary, the Code of Judicial Conduct has the following provisions:

Canon I
Rule 1.01:Judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.

Canon II
Rule 2.00: A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

Rule 2.01: judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1982-1983; December 14, 2007)