Propriety and social networks
Almost two months ago, I came across a news article involving an issue pertaining to a female judge in Batangas City being embroiled in controversy due to her Friendster account. The basic argument then was that the Friendster status “Interested in Friends” appeared as a social solicitation which may allegedly run contrary to the requirements of Judicial Ethics. Subsequently, the argument has shifted towards her having pictures in which she wore an off-shoulder gown, which a congressman found inappropriate. These arguments appeared in the press after the said judge ruled for the rehabilitation of a steel company, contrary to the interest of her critic(s).
Friendster, as a social network, is popular in Southeast Asia, particularly in the Philippines. Some may use it to acquire new friends, and still there could be a distinction as to those actively seeking “new friends” or merely passively accepting “new friends” requesting connection; if that would in any way relevant to the arguments being made. By and large, however, most would use it to connect to acquaintances, friends, and family — either from way back or just recently. It is similarly convenient to use the communication facilities (messaging) of the social networking site to contact another, especially if one does not remember the other person’s email address. Although Friendster is argued to be more of a jologs network, some individuals (who would have such reservation) would maintain accounts therein, considering the possibility that previous acquaintances and friends — who are just getting aboard the jologs bandwagon — might find them there after decades of separation, and hence not allow themselves to miss out.
I would not try to second guess the intent of the female judge in setting up the account; but on the other hand, I am unsure whether the intent of legal and judicial ethics was to reduce officers of the court as hermits in both real and virtual life, so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety, by the way the initial argument was presented. If the argument is allowed to further degenerate, the living space between any judge’s home and court room would be quite perilous. Any magistrate’s contact with any other living individual — even an innocent smile — could be taken as suspect.
Further, I am unsure whether an off-shoulder gown can be taken as inappropriate. The congressman could have been stuck to the time when the Imeldific baro’t saya was still in vogue. Nevertheless, if such argument should be taken seriously, it could be suggested that Philippine female magistrates wear burqas, to protect themselves from such malicious appreciation by any party of contrary interest. Puritanical conservatism, could it be?
It remains still with the appreciation of those who are investigating the matter and the Court itself whether having a social network account would by itself indeed violate Sections 1 and 2, Canon 4, of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC), among others.
By itself, however, reading the motivations behind the collateral attack, it could be one of the trivial arguments necessary to propel interest in an erstwhile non-sensational but related case.
