LUNACY on the Bench is not as common as prime ministers and home secretaries stung by judgments critical of their policies like to suggest. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines to dismiss Judge Florentino V. Floro Jr as a judge of the Regional Trial Court in Malabon City because of a “medically disabling condition of the mind” that rendered him “unfit to discharge the functions of his office” repays careful consideration by any student of the judiciary.

Judge Floro first applied for appointment to the Bench in 1995. The mandatory psychological evaluation by the Supreme Court Clinic Services (memo to the Lord Chancellor: do not even consider this) revealed “evidence of ego disintegration”. Judge Floro voluntarily withdrew his application. He reapplied in 1998, but the evaluation was again negative, identifying problems with self-esteem and mood swings. But Judge Floro was allowed to rely on a more favourable assessment from private practitioners. He began work as a judge in November 1998.

The appointment was not a great success. Less than eight months later, the Supreme Court suspended Judge Floro while complaints against him were investigated. It took nearly seven years to complete the inquiries, partly because of the delaying tactics by the judge. In March Justice Chico-Nazario, for a unanimous 14-strong Supreme Court, decided that Judge Floro should be dismissed from the Bench.

In 1890 Mr Justice Stephen became incapable of acting in a judicious manner by reason of mental illness. And in the 1950s, a High Court judge who lost his faculties was persuaded to resign only when no work was assigned to him. But there is, I think, no precedent for Judge Floro’s unusual manner of opening proceedings in his courtroom. A formal, “All rise”, or even a jocular, “Here comes the judge”, might be acceptable. But not the introductory statement to all those present in court that Judge Floro was “a Bar topnotcher” who passed the 1983 Bar Examinations “with an average score of 87.55 per cent”. There would follow a reading from the Bible, after which Judge Floro would answer questions on the scriptural text of the day. The judge’s visiting card also stated that he was a “Bar exams topnotcher (87.55 per cent)” with “full second honours”. As the Supreme Court concluded, litigants might well interpret all this “as a sign of insecurity”.

What caused the Supreme Court most concern, and who can blame them, was Judge Floro’s belief that he enjoyed qualities lacked by other members of the judiciary. Judge Floro is not the first judge to have an inflated opinion of his own abilities, but there are not many who have claimed special powers as “the No 5 psychic in the country”. (The Supreme Court judgment unfortunately provides no information on whether the top four also have legal qualifications and, if so, what marks they obtained in the Bar exams.) In a variation of dress-down Fridays, Judge Floro changed from blue court robes to black each Friday “to recharge his psychic powers”. He was, he suggested, the angel of death and able to inflict pain and sickness on people appearing in his court (a valuable but perhaps disproportionate sanction in dealing with vexatious litigants).

The judge believed that he could write while in a trance, and he had, he insisted, “been seen by several people to have been in two places at the same time”, a very useful attribute in reducing the waiting lists for pending cases. Most impressive of all, Judge Floro had made a covenant with “three dwarf friends named Luis, Armand and Angel”, who would, unseen by others, provide him with assistance in court (presumably when counsel were unable to provide a page reference in the bundles of evidence).

Very generously in the circumstances, the Supreme Court emphasised that it was not ruling that Judge Floro was insane. He was merely suffering from a psychosis that appeared to “cloud his judgment” and so undermined his competence and objectivity. Justice Chico-Nazario concluded that psychic phenomena, “even assuming such exist” (a wise judge never decides more than is necessary to dispose of the case), have no place in jurisprudence. Though it would, I suppose, be helpful to be able accurately to predict how the Supreme Court would deal with a case, and so avoid the expense and delay of waiting for their decisions.

The Supreme Court let Judge Floro down from the Bench as lightly as possible. No one is to blame as “we cannot condemn people for their faulty genes and/or adverse environment — factors they have no control over”. Judge Floro “may be dysfunctional as a judge” but “may still be successful in other areas of endeavour”. Especially, of course, as he can rely on the help of those three dwarf friends.

The author is a practising barrister at Blackstone Chambers and a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones