Beyond Resilience, Toward Collective Responsibility
Prioritizing Women Judges’ Mental Health for a Stronger Judiciary
In 2019, a psychological survey conducted by University of Melbourne[1] participated in by over 150 judges, magistrates, and other judicial officers, found that the judiciary was generally coping well despite facing mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. However, a third of the participants showed “moderate to severe” symptoms of secondary traumatic stress (STS), sometimes described as the “cost of caring”, which occurs in situations when individuals are repeatedly exposed to another person’s distress or trauma.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Global Judicial Integrity Network (UNODC- GJIN), in its 2021 survey[2], explored the issue of judicial well-being through the insights and perspectives of 758 judges across 102 different countries. The study found that 76% of judges have insufficient time for optimal physical and mental wellness. 92% of the participants positively identified that excessive workloads generate constant stress, often leading to burnout that slows case resolutions and contributes to backlogs. Almost all of the judges surveyed opine that judicial well-being should be prioritized because of its impact on judicial integrity and public perception.
In response to these pressing well-being concerns, the Declaration on Judicial Well-Being[3] was adopted on July 25, 2024, during a Regional Judicial Conference jointly organized by the UNODC and the Nauru Judiciary. The Declaration underscores that the overall health and well-being of judges are vital in upholding the principles of independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence enshrined in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.
Mental Health Challenges Distinct to Women Judges
Bakit babae ang nagka-kasal?(Why is the wedding minister a woman?) In the Philippines, people are used to seeing a male priest officiate a wedding, a reflection of a long-standing expectation that only males should occupy positions of authority. Leadership posts have been traditionally bestowed upon males that the presence of women in these roles often sparks curiosity and even doubt. Women judges have the same responsibilities as our male colleagues, but we have a fair share of experiences unique to our gender that adversely affect our mental health.
First and foremost, the biological distinctiveness of women- menstruation, pregnancy, or motherhood- are realities which often go unacknowledged in our workplaces. Sadly, women’s biological functions have been weaponized to exploit gender stereotypes.
She has a period, that’s why she is grumpy and emotional. She is pregnant, she will not be able to handle pressure. She is busy tending to her kids, she could not deliver expected outcomes. These stereotypes, rooted in gender, often lead to the perception that women are less adept than our male counterparts. Women, in general, are perceived to be too soft for competition and too nurturing for leadership. Hence, we feel the need to work twice as much to be seen as competent in our chosen fields.
Women judges are of no exception to these systemic gender biases. That woman judge decided the case in favor of the child because she, herself, is a mother. That woman judge denied my motion. She is irritable during the hearing, she’s probably having her period. That young woman judge, though inexperienced is better than the older woman judge, who is very antiquated in her decorum in court. In more ways than one, women judges’ professional and personal conduct are scrutinized through our presumed biological state or age, rather than on our competence. This dynamic exerts constant pressure to prove our capabilities, which in turn, intensifies stress and anxiety. The perpetual need to demonstrate our worth fosters persistent self-doubt- commonly referred to as imposter syndrome- wherein, despite significant achievements, we feel that our efforts are always an inch short. Consequently, these systemic gender biases that continually question our competence heightens stress and contributes to mental unhealthiness.
Women are more fit to be judges because they are patient and compassionate. This notion that women are more suited to be judges because of our emotional abilities appears as a compliment on the surface. However, such a statement bolsters the reality that judicial spaces are not exempt from gender biases and stereotypes. Rooted in this stereotype, women judges are often expected to be more empathetic in court, which can undermine perceptions of our judicial competence. This expectation imposes an invisible mental and emotional burden which drains energy and adds weight to our already-swamped judicial load.
Lamentably, these gender stereotypes directly shape our professional growth, often confining women judges to specific cases deemed naturally suited for women- such as those involving family, marital issues, domestic violence, child welfare, or sexual abuse- thereby limiting our opportunities for advancement and maintaining an uneven field for promotion to leadership roles. These narrow options often make women judges feel frustrated and anxious, negatively affecting our mental wellness. Needless to state, the expectation to handle gender-sensitive cases also carries a significant emotional burden, as repeated exposure to the traumas of others can lead to secondary traumatic stress.
The challenges that affect our mental health go beyond the court room and often extend to our personal lives. As society continues to place family, caregiving, and household responsibilities on women, we are unrealistically expected to juggle multiple domestic roles with demanding judicial workload. These unfair societal dynamics disproportionately impose upon us an expectation to do everything for everyone effortlessly, often leading to severe burnout. Worse, we are also expected to endure challenges in silence, making internalized pressure even heavier to carry.
In the 2021 UNODC- GJIN survey, an overwhelming number of judges acknowledged that judicial institutions fail to provide adequate support. The absence of support mechanisms such as gender-sensitive policies and institutionalized mental health programs leaves women judges feeling neglected and undervalued. Collectively, these realities reveal that the mental health challenges faced by women judges are deeply rooted in systemic gender dynamics, institutional deficiencies, and societal expectations.
The Role of Peer Networks, Institutional Support, and the Philippine Supreme Court’s Initiative on Judicial Well-Being
From the preceding section, it is evident that judicial well-being should not rest solely on personal responsibility. Peer networks and institutional support play vital roles in addressing these challenges by creating safe spaces, fostering solidarity, and offering practical tools to help women judges cope up with the unique pressures we face.
Peer networks are safe spaces where women judges can share experiences, validate struggles, access meaningful support, and seek guidance without judgment. Institutional support through intervention programs, resilience training, confidential counseling is equally essential to promote overall well-being. Most importantly, these efforts must be accompanied by systemic reforms, such as gender-sensitive policies, to effectively break stereotypes and to promote a culture of genuine inclusivity where women judges can thrive.
In the Philippines, the Supreme Court has undertaken several initiatives promoting gender- sensitive policies and judicial mental health, recognizing that systemic issues exist, including gender biases, that contribute to mental health challenges of women judges.
One of the pioneering efforts of the Supreme Court is the issuance of Administrative Circular No. 82-2006 in 2006 (reiterated through Memorandum Circular No. 90-2021) on the use of Gender-Fair Language in the Judiciary mandating the use of non-sexist and gender-fair language in all official documents and communications within the Philippine Judiciary. Drawing from a memorandum of the Philippine Civil Service Commission, the circular advances gender-sensitivity by discouraging gender-exclusive terms and discriminatory remarks, recommending gender-neutral alternatives, and advocating non-stereotypical treatment of men and women to raise awareness in the government. Similarly, Administrative Memorandum No. 21-11-25-SC was issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 providing guidelines on the use of gender-fair language in the Judiciary and gender-fair courtroom etiquette.
During a convention organized by and for Philippine women judges in 2023, Supreme Court Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo announced several efforts such as the approval on the Study on Feminism in Philippine Jurisprudence which aims to qualitatively evaluate gender themes in local precedents. The study also seeks to identify gaps and inconsistencies in Philippine jurisprudence to pave the way forward on gender-related issues. Additionally, the Committee on Decorum and Investigation of Sexual Harassment Cases has been strengthened to address issues in the judiciary.
Moreover, the first judiciary-wide mental health summit was conducted on October 26, 2023, to promote better mental well-being for the officers, members, and personnel of the Philippine judiciary, aligned with its flagship program Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations (SPJI) 2022-2027. Numerous structured mechanisms have been implemented such as the SC C.A.R.E.S Program which raises consciousness on the importance of mental health and well-being through education, guidance, intervention, and rehabilitation. Mental Health Units with Mental Health Helplines have also been institutionalized in different courts around the country, making immediate access to professional support more accessible. Taking advantage of technological innovations, the Supreme Court also launched a Judicial Burnout Assessment App for judges- a confidential self-assessment tool- for us to recognize early signs of stress with the objective of promoting awareness, encourage timely intervention, and support overall judicial well-being.
To further strengthen support, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has institutionalized a comprehensive health insurance system for its officials and employees, recognizing that mental health is inextricably linked to physical health. These benefits include mental health programs as well as free or subsidized annual physical and mental health examinations.
In line with the SPJI and our Supreme Court’s mental health efforts, we have taken personal initiatives and practical strategies within our court that have proven to be effective tools in maintaining physical and mental wellness. These range from improving workspaces, formalizing workflow charts, and developing communication tools and digital platforms for litigants, to conducting informal peer circles, mindfulness sessions, wellness meditations, competence workshops, health tracking, and community-based activities. These initiatives, although modest, have shown that they can make voluminous judicial work manageable, thereby reducing stress and mitigating burnout.
A weary judiciary cannot administer justice effectively. Borrowing the words of Tatiana Veress, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer at UNODC: “Judicial well-being and integrity are closely connected. When judicial environment upholds integrity and the highest ethical standards, it fosters judges’ well-being. In turn, supported and thriving judges are able to deliver high-quality justice and enhance public confidence in the judiciary.”
Thus, advancing the mental well-being of women judges cannot be reduced to a private act of resilience alone, rather it is a matter of shared responsibility and moral obligation. When our institutions nurture a culture of collective solidarity and inclusivity, women judges excel. And when judges prosper, justice thrives- strengthening the judiciary’s independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence. As women judges are empowered to rise in an inclusive judiciary, justice itself stands stronger.
REFERENCES:
Edwards, C. P., Reichert, J., Bornstein, B. H., & Miller, M. K. (2018). Judges and stress: An examination of outcomes predicted by the model of judicial stress. Judicature, 102(3). https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/an-examination-of-outcomes-predicted-by-the-model-of-judicial-stress/
Stanton, K. (2019, May 6). Wellbeing survey of Australia’s judiciary reveals risk of distress and burnout. University of Melbourne. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/wellbeing-survey-of-australia-s-judiciary-reveals-risk-of-distress-and-burnout
The National Judicial College. (2024, June 27). Over half of judges report threats, environment affecting mental health. https://www.judges.org/news-and-info/over-half-of-judges-report-threats-environment-affecting-mental-health/
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2024, July 26). Mental health in the judiciary: New well-being declaration launched in Nauru.https://www.unodc.org/roseap/pacific/2024/07/mental-health-judiciary-nauru/story.html
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2022, March). Exploring linkages between judicial well-being and judicial integrity: Report on the global survey conducted by the Global Judicial Integrity Network.
https://www.unodc.org/res/ji/resdb/data/2022/exploring_linkages_between_judicial_well-being_and_judicial_integrity_html/Global_Report_Judicial_Well-being.pdf
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2023, October 26). SC holds 1st judiciary-wide mental health summit. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-holds-1st-judiciary-wide-mental-health-summit/
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2023, March 23). Supreme Court shows support for mental well-being of women judges. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/supreme-court-shows-support-for-mental-well-being-of-women-judges/
[1] Stanton, K. (2019, May 6). Wellbeing survey of Australia’s judiciary reveals risk of distress and burnout. University of Melbourne. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/wellbeing-survey-of-australia-s-judiciary-reveals-risk-of-distress-and-burnout
[2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2022, March). Exploring Linkages Between Judicial Well-Being and Judicial Integrity: Report on the Global Survey Conducted by the Global Judicial Integrity Network. https://www.unodc.org/res/ji/resdb/data/2022/exploring_linkages_between_judicial_well-being_and_judicial_integrity_html/Global_Report_Judicial_Well-being.pdf
[3] The seven principles of Judicial Well-being are:
1. Judicial Well-being is essential and must be recognised and supported.
2. Judicial stress is not a weakness and must not be stigmatised.
3. Judicial well-being is a responsibility of individual judges and judicial institutions.
4. Judicial well-being is supported by an ethical and inclusive judicial culture.
5. Promoting judicial well-being requires a combination of awareness-raising, prevention, and management activities.
6. Judicial well-being initiatives must suit the unique circumstances and requirements of national jurisdictions.
7. Judicial well-being is enhanced by human rights.