Short answer. The judge must personally and directly prepare the judgment. Rule 120, Section 1 requires it be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge, and signed by him, containing clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and law it is based on — not just delegated drafting.
What the law says
It must be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based.
Rule 120, Section 1 — Judgment; definition and form. Read the full provision →
What a judgment legally is
Section 1 defines judgment as the court's adjudication of guilt or innocence, together with the imposition of the proper penalty and civil liability if any. That definition already signals the weight the rule places on the document — it is the formal act that resolves the criminal accusation, not a mere procedural order. That combination — adjudication of guilt, penalty, and civil liability all in one document — is what distinguishes a judgment from other rulings the court may issue along the way. This definition also confirms what a judgment does not cover; interlocutory orders resolving procedural matters along the way, such as rulings on evidence or bail, are not judgments in this sense and do not need to satisfy the same personal-preparation and facts-and-law requirements Section 1 imposes.
Personal and direct preparation
The rule's form requirements go beyond language and signature. The judgment must be personally and directly prepared by the judge — language that ties the reasoning in the document to the judge who actually decided the case, rather than allowing the substantive analysis to be outsourced to staff and simply adopted by signature. This requirement exists to ensure the reasoning reflects the judge's own independent evaluation of the evidence and the law, not a summary assembled by someone else. A judgment that turns out to have been ghostwritten by court staff and merely signed by the judge does not satisfy this requirement even if the judge agreed with every word of it, since the rule demands the judge's own direct authorship, not just after-the-fact approval of someone else's draft.
Why the facts-and-law statement matters
Beyond who writes it, the judgment must clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law it rests on. This lets the accused, the prosecution, and any reviewing court trace exactly why the judge reached the verdict and penalty imposed, rather than leaving the reasoning to be inferred or guessed at. A judgment that skips this explanation would leave the parties unable to meaningfully assess whether the verdict and penalty were properly grounded in the evidence presented. This binds every judgment regardless of the verdict reached; an acquittal is held to the same clarity requirement as a conviction, since the accused, the prosecution, and any reviewing court are equally entitled to understand the basis for either outcome, not just a finding of guilt.