10th General Assembly
ASEAN Law Association
CURRENT JUDICIAL REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINES –
LESSONS AND EXPERIENCES*
**
RENATO C. CORONA
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
Yet this is the world we have come to live in. To assail the
changes that have unmoored us from the past is futile, and in a
deep sense I think wicked. We need to recognize the change,
and learn what resources we have.
J. Robert Oppenheimer***
INTRODUCTION
LIKE CLAY IN A POTTER’S MOLD, THE PHILIPPINES IS INCESSANTLY BEING SHAPED BY
HISTORY AS WELL AS CONTEMPORARY EVENTS AS IT STRENGTHENS ITS NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
IN THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY, THERE IS A SENSE OF URGENCY FOR BUILDING STRENGTH
THROUGH REFORMS.
THE PAST HAS NOT BEEN KIND TO OUR JUDICIARY. DURING THE TURBULENT YEARS OF
THE MARTIAL LAW ERA FROM 1972-1986, THE JUDICIARY WAS PERCEIVED AS THE MIDWIFE OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL
DICTATORSHIP.
1
IN LANSANG V. GARCIA,2 IT ACCOMMODATED THE
*
Paper delivered on October 17, 2009 at the Tenth General Assembly of the Asean Law
Association held in Hanoi, Vietnam.
**
A.B. (Ateneo de Manila University), LL.B. (Ateneo Law School), LL.M. (Harvard Law School),
D.C.L. Cand. (University of Santo Tomas)
***
Speech delivered in Columbia University in 1954 by J. Robert Oppenheimer (April 22, 1904 –
February 18, 1967), an American theoretical physicist and professor of Physics at the University of
California, Berkeley, best remembered as "The Father of the Atomic Bomb."
1
Fajardo, Reynaldo S., Fernandez, Perfecto V., Guarina, Mario III, Ragodon-Guevarra, Irene and
Nitafan, David G. The History of the Philippine Judiciary, 1998, published by The Philippine Judiciary
Foundation by authority of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
2
42 SCRA 488 (1972).
1
ASEAN Law Association
SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
ACQUIESCED TO THE RATIFICATION OF THE
10th General Assembly
IN JAVELLANA V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,3 IT
1973 CONSTITUTION WHICH ALLOWED THEN
PRESIDENT FERDINAND E. MARCOS TO EXERCISE LEGISLATIVE POWERS. AND IN AQUINO V.
COMELEC,4 IT AFFIRMED THE MONOPOLY OF STATE POWER IN THE HANDS OF PRESIDENT
MARCOS. IN THE AFTERMATH OF THOSE DARK YEARS, THE JUDICIARY SILENTLY STRUGGLED TO
REGAIN ITS INDEPENDENCE AS WELL AS ITS ROLE AS THE LAST BULWARK OF DEMOCRACY.
THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION GAVE THE LAST BASTION OF REDRESS, THE
SUPREME COURT, THE POWER NOT ONLY TO REVIEW AND CORRECT ERRORS OF ALL COURTS IN
THE COUNTRY BUT ALSO TO NULLIFY ANY ACT OF ANY BRANCH OR OFFICIAL OF THE
5
GOVERNMENT WHEN COMMITTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
BEING THE ROAD LESS-TRAVELLED, THE PATH TO CHANGE IS ALWAYS A DIFFICULT ONE.
COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES WERE CONDUCTED6 TO IDENTIFY THE ACUTE ROADBLOCKS FOR
JUDICIAL REFORMS, NAMELY:
(1) CASE CONGESTION AND DELAY; (2) BUDGET LIMITATIONS;
(3) DEFICIENT INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS; (4) DEFICIENT COURT TECHNOLOGIES AND FACILITIES;
(5) AN INADEQUATE HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM; (6) PERCEIVED CORRUPTION
WHICH MAKES THE INTEGRITY AND QUALITY OF DECISIONS QUESTIONABLE AND
(7) PERCEIVED
7
LIMITED ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY THE POOR AND MARGINALIZED SECTORS OF SOCIETY.
IT IS ON
AND AROUND THESE CHALLENGES THAT THE JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRAMS WERE FOCUSED AND
3
50 SCRA 30 (1973).
4
62 SCRA 275 (1975).
5
ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 1 of the 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION provides:
Section 1. x x x
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government.
while ARTICLE VII, SECTION 4 of the 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION provides, among others, that:
xxx
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the “election,
returns and qualifications” and the President and Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for
the purpose.
6
One study entitled “General Report on Management Study of the Judiciary” was released on May
17, 1999 by the Committee on Management Study of the Judiciary with the support of the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP). Another study was the “Philippine Judicial Sector Study” dated May 31,
2000.
7
Paper of former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., Policy Dialogue Series 2004: Academe Meets
the Government on Judicial Reforms, January 20, 2005, C.M. University of the Philippines-Diliman.
2
ASEAN Law Association
10th General Assembly
DESIGNED.
SINCE JUDICIAL REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINES COVER A VERY WIDE SPECTRUM, THIS
PAPER WILL HIGHLIGHT ONLY CERTAIN SPECIFIC REFORM PROJECTS WHICH HAVE THE
GREATEST IMPACT ON THE STAKEHOLDERS.
JUDICIAL REFORMS
THE JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRAM IN THE PHILIPPINES WAS NOT FASHIONED OVERNIGHT.
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PREVIOUS REFORM EFFORTS8 BUT IT WAS THE ACTION PROGRAM
FOR
JUDICIAL REFORM (APJR) THAT FIRST FACED HEAD-ON THE CHALLENGES CONFRONTING
THE JUDICIARY.
ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON DECEMBER 5, 2000, THE APJR WAS
FOUNDED ON THE ADVOCACY OF THEN CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO
G. DAVIDE, JR., TO CREATE
(a) judiciary that is independent, effective, efficient, and worthy
of public trust and confidence, and a legal profession that provides
quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal service to our
people and is willing and able to answer the call to public service.9
THE JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRAM HAS SIX KEY COMPONENTS:
1.
JUDICIAL SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES to strengthen the
capabilities of courts for better efficiency, flexibility and
effectiveness.
2.
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT REFORMS to provide access
to justice, improve the speed of service delivery, and ensure
the impartiality of judicial decisions.
3.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT to enhance the quality of
continuing education for judges and court personnel and make
it continuously responsive to changing needs; increase access
to such educations; and sustain investments in the same.
4.
REFORM SUPPORT SYSTEMS to build consensus among a
stakeholder and reform decision-makers, both internal and
8
Upscaling Performance for Judicial Reforms: The 2006 Annual Report (Program Management
Office, Supreme Court).
9
Davide Watch.
3
10th General Assembly
ASEAN Law Association
external, and harmonize multi-sectoral support that will propel
program implementation and the achievement of its vision.
5.
INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY DEVELOPMENT to improve public
trust and confidence in the justice system and to lay down the
institutional integrity foundation to reduce or eliminate graft
and corruption in the Judiciary and achieve and sustain
efficiency and effectiveness in operations and impartiality in
judicial processes.
6.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY THE POOR to promote
physical
access to the courts as well as speedy and fair adjudication of
cases for all; protection of the poor from abuse by those who
claim to influence judicial decisions; and improvement of the
affordability of judicial services to the poor.
THESE COMPONENTS WERE CRAFTED MAINLY TO ATTAIN THE FOLLOWING GOALS:
1.
the delivery of speedy and fair dispensation of justice to all;
2.
judicial
autonomy
and
independence
from
political
interference;
3.
improved access to judicial and legal services;
4.
improved quality of external inputs to the judicial process;
5.
efficient,
effective
and
continuously
improving
judicial
institutions, and
6.
a judiciary that conducts its business with dignity, integrity,
accountability and transparency.
REFORM INITIATIVES
ACCORDING TO ROBERT OPPENHEIMER, “[W]E NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE CHANGE AND
LEARN WHAT RESOURCES WE HAVE.”
NO LESS HOLDS TRUE FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY.
A PRIMARY AREA CRYING FOR REFORMS IS JUDICIAL SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES. TO
MAKE THE COURTS MORE EFFICIENT AND TO ENHANCE THEIR FAIRNESS AND ACCESSIBILITY,
COURT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, RULES OF PROCEDURE, JURISDICTIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE
COURTS AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS NEED MUCH OVERHAULING.
EFFICIENT COURT MANAGEMENT PLAYS A PIVOTAL ROLE IN THE EFFECTIVE
4
ASEAN Law Association
DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE.
10th General Assembly
FOR THIS REASON, WE HAVE PRIORITIZED THE UPDATING OF CASE
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES AND TECHNOLOGY, THE IMPROVEMENT OF STAFFING PATTERNS
AND PERSONNEL CAPACITIES, THE ENHANCEMENT OF OPERATING BUDGETS AND THE
INSTALLATION OF A MORE RESPONSIVE JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
TO EASE THE PROBLEM OF CASE CONGESTION AND DELAY, WE ADOPTED AND PILOTTESTED SEVERAL CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS WITH THE FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL
10
SUPPORT OF OUR REFORM PARTNERS.
ONE IS THE ENHANCED CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR ECFM. INITIALLY
IMPLEMENTED IN
2002, THE ECFM ENABLES FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURT JUDGES TO
SUPERVISE CASE EVENTS WITH THE AID OF A COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM AND TO SHORTEN THE
TIME FROM FILING TO DISPOSITION.
THE ECFM IS COMPOSED OF SEVERAL PARTS SUCH AS THE
ELECTRONIC ASSESSMENT AND RECORDING OF FILING FEES, AUTOMATIC NUMBERING AND
RAFFLING OF CASES, ASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO DIFFERENTIATED TRACKS ACCORDING TO THEIR
NATURE AND COMPLEXITY AND THE MONITORING OF CASE STATUS.
THE CASE-TRACKING
SYSTEM OF THE ECFM HAS BEEN TRIED IN THE TRIAL COURTS IN THE KEY
CITIES OF PASAY IN
METRO MANILA AND LAPU-LAPU IN THE PROVINCE OF CEBU AND WILL BE ROLLED OUT TO
OTHER TRIAL COURTS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT BREAKTHROUGH IS THE COURT ADMINISTRATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM OR THE CAMIS PROJECT, WHICH WAS LAUNCHED ON AUGUST 8, 2004.
IT IS ALREADY BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA),11
AN ADJUNCT OFFICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT. AN INVALUABLE TOOL FOR PERSONNEL AND
PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETING, AND PROCUREMENT AND
10
Judicial reform programs in the Philippines will not be possible without the following reform
partners – American Bar Association - Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-RLI), Asian Development Bank (ADB),
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), British Council, Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), Electronic Governance for Efficiency and Effectiveness (E3), European
Commission (EC), Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES), International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES),
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Justice Reform Initiative Support (JURIS), Konrad Adeneur
Stiftung, Millenium Challenge Account - Philippines Threshold Plan (MCA-PTP), Philippines - Australia
Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF), Rule of Law Effectiveness (ROLE), The Asia
Foundation (TAF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), The World Bank, The Embassy of Australia, The Embassy of Egypt, The Embassy of
Japan, The Embassy of Korea, The Embassy of Netherlands, The Embassy of Pakistan, The Embassy of
Singapore and The Embassy of Spain.
11
The Office of the Court Administrator was created in November 1975 by virtue of Presidential
Decree No. 828. Its supervisory and oversight functions include revenue generation, performance assessment
of judges, monitoring of case statistics, and preliminary processing of administrative cases over judges.
5
10th General Assembly
ASEAN Law Association
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN ALL OF THE LOWER COURTS, THE
CAMIS SYSTEM IS A COMPUTER
SOFTWARE DESIGNED TO SPEED UP AND INTEGRATE INTO A UNIFIED DATABASE THE STATISTICAL
DATA AND REPORTS GATHERED, COLLECTED, LOGGED AND PROCESSED. IT KEEPS EFFICIENT
TRACK OF CASELOAD AND CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT.
THE TRIAL COURTS IN THE CITY OF
MANILA ARE NOW PILOT-TESTING THE CENTRALIZED MODEL OF THE CAMIS WHILE TRIAL
COURTS IN THE
CITIES OF MAKATI AND CALAMBA ARE BEING PILOT-TESTED WITH THE
DISTRIBUTED MODEL.
PERHAPS ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL REFORMS12 WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN IS IN THE
13
SPHERE OF MEDIATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR).
THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION DIRECTS THE SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE
RULES PROVIDING FOR A SIMPLIFIED AND INEXPENSIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE SPEEDY
DISPOSITION OF CASES AND DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE.
14
IN 2001, THE SUPREME COURT APPROVED THE CREATION OF THE PHILIPPINE
MEDIATION CENTER (PMC) UNDER THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (PHILJA) AND
INSTITUTIONALIZED
THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE
COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION (CAM). 2002 WITNESSED THE
APPELLATE COURT MEDIATION (ACM) TO PROVIDE AN OPTION TO END
COSTLY AND LONG-DRAWN LITIGATIONS IN THE APPELLATE COURTS.
AS
OTHER INNOVATIONS SUCH
FAMILY COURT MEDIATION, MOBILE COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION OR JUSTICE ON WHEELS
(JOW) AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JDR) WERE ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY ESTABLISHED
AND, FROM
2001 TO 2008, PMC UNITS WERE CREATED IN THE DIFFERENT CITIES AND
PROVINCES IN THE PHILIPPINES.
15
12
Other reforms in the APJR pertain to the assessment, amendment and streamlining of the Rules
of Court particularly with regard to the rule-making power of the Supreme Court, criminal and civil
procedures, the Speedy Trial Act, corruption and abuse of the present Rules of Court and the assessment and
re-engineering of the current jurisdictional structure of the courts. Reform targets also include the Other
Pillars of Justice (Law Enforcement, Prosecution, Court Process, Correction and Rehabilitation and The
Community).
13
Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms refer to formal or informal processes for settlement
of conflicts outside of or in the periphery of institutional judicial process and considered as an alternative to
the structured adversarial approach of court litigation.
14
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, ART. VIII, SEC. 5 (5).
RULE 18, SEC. 2 (A) of the RULES OF COURT, AS AMENDED, meanwhile urges judges and parties to
explore the possibility of amicable settlement or submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution.
15
Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, Metro Davao, the cities of Angeles, Baguio, Bacolod, Cagayan de
Oro, Digos, Sarangani, General Santos, and the provinces of Negros Occidental, Pampanga, Misamis
6
10th General Assembly
ASEAN Law Association
THE SUCCESS RATE OF THE ADR CAN BEST BE GAUGED FROM THE FACT THAT THE
NUMBER OF MEDIATED CASES DRAMATICALLY INCREASED FROM
3,559 IN 2002 TO 19,825 IN
2007, WITH A VERY HIGH AVERAGE SUCCESS RATE OF 73%. AND TODAY, THERE ARE 60 PMC
UNITS IN THE
13 JUDICIAL REGIONS, COVERING 830 BRANCHES OF FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL
COURTS, INCLUDING
8 UNITS THAT HANDLE JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND 1 UNIT FOR
APPELLATE COURT MEDIATION.
UNDER THE INSTITUTIONS DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT, REFORMS ARE GEARED
TOWARDS FULL JUDICIAL AUTONOMY, IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE,
STAFFING AND OPERATING SYSTEMS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFORMATION SYSTEMS
CAPACITY AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT FACILITIES.
IN THE PHILIPPINES, THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS PRIMARILY
VESTED IN THE COURTS AND JUDICIAL POWER IS VESTED IN “ONE SUPREME COURT AND IN SUCH
16
LOWER COURTS AS MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW .”
IT IS THE SUPREME COURT THAT HAS
“ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER ALL COURTS AND THE PERSONNEL THEREOF.”17 THUS,
ONE OF THE KEY ASPECTS OF REFORM INITIATIVES UNDER THIS COMPONENT IS THE
DECENTRALIZATION OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE
LOWER COURTS TO ENABLE THE JUDICIARY TO SYNCHRONIZE OPERATIONS AND FUNCTIONS
WITH IMPROVED SPEED AND EFFICIENCY, PROPERLY MONITOR AND ASSESS PERFORMANCE AND
IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
FIRST ORGANIZED IN THE 7TH JUDICIAL REGION,18 THE REGIONAL COURT
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE (RCAO), BASED IN THE LAPU-LAPU CITY HALL OF JUSTICE IN THE
PROVINCE OF CEBU, COMMENCED OPERATIONS ON JULY 1, 2008.
THE FINANCIAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS, WHICH INCLUDE BUDGET PREPARATION AND MANAGEMENT,
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL SERVICES AND REVENUE MANAGEMENT, ARE NOW
ASSUMED BY THE
RCAO UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR.
Oriental, Leyte, South Cotabato, La Union, Benguet, Batangas, Bulacan, Zamboanga, Cagayan, Camarines
Sur, Lanao del Sur and Lanao del Norte.
16
17
18
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, ART. VIII, SEC. 1.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, ART. VIII, SEC. 6.
The 7th Judicial Region covers the Provinces of Cebu, Bohol, Negros Oriental, and Siquijor.
7
10th General Assembly
ASEAN Law Association
ANOTHER INNOVATION UNDER THE INSTITUTIONS DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT IS THE
INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF PILOT MODEL COURTS.
THIS ADDRESSES THE PRESENT
LESS-THAN-IDEAL STATE OF COURT INFRASTRUCTURE AND SYSTEMS.
THE LAPU-LAPU CITY
MODEL HALL OF JUSTICE (HOJ) IS THE FIRST PILOT MODEL COURT TO BE FULLY CONSTRUCTED.
COSTING P100.7 MILLION, IT IS A TWO-BUILDING COMPLEX WHICH FEATURES MODERN
FACILITIES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT AND SERVES AS THE MODEL OF THE
JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRAM IN THE VISAYAS REGION.
UNDERWAY IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANGELES CITY HOJ. THE PLANS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CITY OF MANILA HOJ ARE ALREADY BEING FINALIZED. THE CITY OF
MANILA HOJ IS AN AMBITIOUS PROJECT BECAUSE IT WILL CONSOLIDATE ALL 104 TRIAL COURTS,
SCATTERED IN THREE SEPARATE AND INADEQUATE FACILITIES IN THE
MODERN AND EASILY ACCESSIBLE FACILITY.
CITY OF MANILA INTO ONE
THE CITY OF MANILA CARRIES THE HEAVIEST
CASELOAD IN THE ENTIRE JUDICIARY IN THE PHILIPPINES.
NOT TO BE GLOSSED OVER IS HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AS IT IS BOTH A MEANS
AND AN END IN ATTAINING THE DESIRED REFORM OBJECTIVES.
EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON
JUDICIAL EDUCATION, CAPACITY-BUILDING AND TRAINING FOR NON-JUDICIAL PERSONNEL,
JUDICIAL CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND JUDICIAL REMUNERATION.
INITIATIVE, SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE
(PHILJA).
PLAYING A LEAD ROLE IN THIS
SUPREME COURT, IS THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY
19
THE PHILJA RUNS SEVERAL PROGRAMS IN THIS AREA.
THE REGULAR PROGRAM INCLUDES THE PRE-JUDICATURE PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES
INITIAL TRAINING FOR ASPIRANTS FOR JUDICIAL POSITIONS WHO ARE UPDATED ON LAWS,
JURISPRUDENCE AND COURT TECHNOLOGY AND ARE ORIENTED TO THE SKILLS, STANDARDS OF
CONDUCT, NORMS OF BEHAVIOR AND VALUE SYSTEMS OF JUDGESHIP.
CONDUCTS THE
THE PHILJA ALSO
ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP FOR NEWLY APPOINTED JUDGES,
ORIENTATION SEMINAR-WORKSHOP FOR NEWLY APPOINTED CLERKS OF COURT, THE
REGIONAL JUDICIAL CAREER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM WHERE JUDGES AND JUDICIAL
PERSONNEL ARE KEPT ABREAST OF IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS IN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE,
AND THE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR LAWYERS.
19
The Philippine Judicial Academy was initially created by Supreme Court Administrative Order
No. 35-96 dated March 12, 1996, as its unit “charged with the formulation and implementation of a
continuing program of judicial education for justices, judges, court personnel and lawyers.” Republic Act No.
8557 (February 26, 1998) subsequently institutionalized Philja as a separate component unit of the Supreme
Court and functions as a training school for justices, judges, court personnel, lawyers and aspirants to judicial
posts.
8
ASEAN Law Association
10th General Assembly
PHILJA ALSO HAS THE SPECIAL FOCUS PROGRAM WHICH CATERS TO JUDGES
DESIGNATED TO HANDLE SPECIALIZED CASES. IT IS THEMATIC IN NATURE, FOCUSING ON NEW
RULES, DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL AS EMERGING ISSUES IN THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF LAW.
PHILJA ALSO HOLDS VARIOUS CONVENTIONS AND SEMINARS ON A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES TO
ENHANCE AND UPDATE THE COMPETENCIES AND KNOWLEDGE OF JUDGES AND JUDICIAL
PERSONNEL TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL SERVICE.
THE REFORM SUPPORT SYSTEMS COMPONENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, INCLUDES THE
BUILDING OF SUPPORT FOR AND OWNERSHIP OF THE REFORM PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT OF
INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND THE STRENGTHENING OF
COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE JUDICIARY AND CIVIL SOCIETY.
UNDER THE INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY DEVELOPMENT20 COMPONENT FALLS THE
REFORM AGENDA FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A UNIFIED AND COMPREHENSIVE CODE OF
ETHICS FOR JUSTICES, JUDGES, LAWYERS AND COURT PERSONNEL, THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT SYSTEM, THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, THE STREAMLINING OF
JUDICIAL SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES AND THE EXPANSION OF CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN
COMBATING GRAFT AND CORRUPTION.
RUNNING PARALLEL TO THIS COMPONENT IS THE SUPREME COURT’S UNWAVERING
RESOLVE TO PURGE THE JUDICIARY’S RANKS OF UNDESIRABLE JUDICIAL OFFICIALS AND
PERSONNEL.
THE SUPREME COURT IS VESTED WITH THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE JUDGES OF LOWER
21
COURTS, OR ORDER THEIR DISMISSAL.
THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION STATES THE
PRINCIPLE THAT PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST AND PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
MUST, AT ALL TIMES, BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE, SERVE THEM WITH UTMOST
RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY, LOYALTY AND EFFICIENCY, ACT WITH PATRIOTISM AND JUSTICE,
22
AND LEAD MODEST LIVES.
THE FERVENT COMMITMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT TO UPHOLD THIS PRINCIPLE OF
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY FORSAKES SYMPATHY.
FOR THE MONTHS OF JUNE AND JULY 2009
ALONE, SEVEN TRIAL COURT JUDGES WERE PENALIZED, THREE OF THEM DISMISSED AND FOUR
METED OUT FINES.
20
21
22
THE THREE DISMISSED JUDGES WERE FOUND TO BE UNDESERVING OF THEIR
Also termed Integrity Infrastructure Development.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, ART. VIII, SEC. 11.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, ART. XI, SEC. 1.
9
10th General Assembly
ASEAN Law Association
POSITIONS AS THEY WERE INDIVIDUALLY FOUND LIABLE FOR GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
23
AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE,
FOR VIOLATION OF THE
24
RENDERING DECISIONS,
GROSS MISCONDUCT
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, AGGRAVATED BY UNDUE DELAY IN
GROSS NEGLECT OF JUDICIAL DUTY AND GROSS INEFFICIENCY.
25
SUCH EXERCISE IN SELF-CLEANSING DID NOT SPARE A FORMER JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT ITSELF WHO WAS INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED BY HIS OWN PEERS FROM THE
PRACTICE OF LAW AFTER AN INVESTIGATION FOUND HIM LIABLE FOR GROSS MISCONDUCT.
HE
LEAKED AN OTHERWISE CONFIDENTIAL UNPROMULGATED DECISION TO A PARTY OUTSIDE THE
COURT.26 THE FORMER JUSTICE WAS ALSO DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING ANY OFFICE OR
EMPLOYMENT IN ANY BRANCH OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT INCLUDING
GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND -CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND WAS FINED HALF A MILLION
PESOS, TO BE CHARGED AGAINST HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
27
FINALLY, THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY THE POOR COMPONENT AIMS TO IMPROVE
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION OF THE POOR AND OTHER DISADVANTAGED SECTORS ON THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM AND ITS SERVICES, IMPROVE THE CAPACITY OF JUDGES AND LAW
PRACTITIONERS IN HANDLING CASES INVOLVING THE POOR AND PROVIDE SPECIFIC SERVICES TO
IMPROVE THE PHYSICAL ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY OF JUDICIAL SERVICES BY THE POOR AND
OTHER MARGINALIZED SECTORS OF SOCIETY.
ONE TANGIBLE PART OF THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY THE POOR PROGRAM IS THE
JUSTICE ON WHEELS (JOW) PROJECT.
PATTERNED AFTER A SIMILAR WORLD BANK-
SPONSORED PROJECT IN GUATEMALA, THE JOW
PROJECT AIMS TO IMPROVE PHYSICAL ACCESS
OF THE POOR TO COURT SERVICES. IT GREATLY COMPLEMENTS THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION MECHANISM OF THE REFORM PROGRAM.
23
Republic of the Philippine v. Judge Ramon S. Caguioa, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial,
Court of Olongapo City, Branch 74, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063, 26 June 2009.
24
Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Presiding Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos, RTC, Branch 10,
Malolos City, Bulacan, A.M. RTJ-09-2183, 7 July 2009.
25
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, JimenezSinacaban, Misamis Occidental/Judge Priscilla Hernandez, A.M. No. 03-7-170-MCTC, 14 July 2009.
26
In Re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis C. Biraogo, Petitioner in Biraogo v. Nograles and
Limkaichong, G.R. No. 179120, A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC, 11 August 2009.
27
In Re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis C. Biraogo, Petitioner in Biraogo v. Nograles and
Limkaichong, G.R. No. 179120, A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC, 24 February 2009.
10
10th General Assembly
ASEAN Law Association
WE NOW HAVE THREE MOBILE COURTS OPERATING IN AREAS WITHOUT REGULAR COURT
STATIONS.
USED ALSO FOR COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION, IT HOUSES TWO COURTROOMS AND IS
EQUIPPED WITH JUDGES’ AND LAWYERS’ TABLES AND BENCHES.
BECAME OPERATIONAL ON
THE FIRST MOBILE COURT
DECEMBER 20, 2004 WHILE THE SECOND WAS DEPLOYED TO
TAGBILARAN CITY IN THE PROVINCE OF BOHOL ON OCTOBER 13, 2006. THE THIRD MOBILE
COURT, ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR
MINDANAO, HAS BEEN MOMENTARILY DEPLOYED TO THE
PROVINCES OF BULACAN AND RIZAL WHERE THERE ARE AT PRESENT NO OPERATIONAL PMC
28
UNITS AND WHERE THEY WILL HELP UNCLOG COURT DOCKETS.
NOW CALLED THE EJOW OR ENHANCED JUSTICE ON WHEELS,29 THE MOBILE COURTS
HAVE NOT ONLY RELEASED
2,087 JAIL INMATES FROM ITS RE-LAUNCHING ON JULY 2008 BUT
HAVE ALSO DELIVERED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SERVICES TO
6,492 INMATES IN VARIOUS
JAILHOUSES, AND ASSISTED IN THE SUCCESSFUL MEDIATION OF
4,718 CASES, 797 LEGAL AID
CASES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP)30 AND 9,100 INSTANCES OF
31
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION TO BARANGAY
OFFICIALS.
THE EJOW BUSES HAVE ALSO BEEN
USED OCCASIONALLY AS VENUES FOR CIVIL WEDDINGS.
THE JUDICIARY’S ENTHUSIASM TO DECONGEST JAILS AND DOCKETS HAS IN FACT
RUBBED OFF ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
THE PROVINCE OF SARANGANI32 RECENTLY
DONATED A MOBILE COURT TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF COURTROOMS IN SARANGANI.
OTHER REFORMS INVOLVE INTER-AGENCY PROJECTS TO PROMOTE ACCESS TO JUSTICE
OF POOR AND VULNERABLE GROUPS, ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THROUGH
INFORMATION, CHAMBER TO CHAMBER DIALOGUES TO FOSTER BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN
THE JUDICIARY AND THE BUSINESS SECTOR AND THE
ASIA PACIFIC JUDICIAL REFORM FORUM
(APJRF), WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED TO “PROMOTE THE SHARING OF HIGH PRIORITY, QUALITY
28
Memorandum dated August 10, 2007 for Chief Justice Hon. Reynato S. Puno issued by the Ad
Hoc Committee on Justice on Wheels Project.
29
Benchmark, the Official Monthly Publication of the Supreme Court Public Information Office,
Volume X, Number 07, July 2009.
30
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is the official national organization of lawyers in the
Philippines.
31
32
The barangay is the smallest unit of local government in the Philippines.
Also spelled as Saranggani.
11
10th General Assembly
ASEAN Law Association
JUDICIAL REFORM POLICY AND PROGRAMMING INFORMATION, AS WELL AS TO PROMOTE
DIALOGUE WITH OTHER FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS IN A CONCERTED, MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE
EFFORT TO PROMOTE JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND THE RULE OF LAW.”
LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE PUBLIC EDUCATION ON THE RULE OF LAW ADVANCEMENT
AND
SUPPORT (PERLAS) PROJECT AIMS TO EDUCATE AND INFORM THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY
STUDENTS IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS, ABOUT THE JUDICIARY AND THE RULE
OF LAW . IT USES TEACHING AND LEARNING METHODS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE AND RELEVANT
TO THEIR RESPECTIVE LEARNING COMPETENCIES.
LESSONS AND EXPERIENCES
JUDICIAL REFORM IS NOT AN EASY TASK. BEING CREATURES OF HABIT, PEOPLE DO NOT
EASILY WELCOME CHANGE.
IT TAKES THEM OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONES AND DEVELOPS IN
THEM, AT LEAST INITIALLY, A RESISTANCE TO IT.
THE STORY OF JUDICIAL REFORM IN THE PHILIPPINES WILL NOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT
DESCRIBING THE RESISTANCE TO THE CHANGES WE WANTED TO IMPLEMENT.
PROGRAM
STAKEHOLDERS WERE LARGELY RELUCTANT, EVEN AVERSE, TO THE THOUGHT OF REFORM.
“FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN” WAS COMMON. FOR INSTANCE, DURING THE INITIAL STAGES OF THE
MEDIATION PROGRAM, THERE WAS A LOW REFERRAL RATE, REVEALING A LACK OF INTEREST IN
IT ON THE PART OF JUDGES, LAWYERS AND PARTIES.
REFERRALS INCREASED ONLY AFTER A
SERIES OF COURT ISSUANCES URGING JUDGES AND THE PUBLIC TO AVAIL OF MEDIATION AS A
PRIORITY MODE OF CASE SETTLEMENT.
THIS CAN ONLY UNDERSCORE THE FACT THAT JUDICIAL
REFORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY ATTITUDINAL REFORM, WHICH IN TURN REQUIRES
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION ON THE NEED FOR CHANGE PLUS POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT AND
SUPPORT.
A REFORM PROGRAM TO BE EFFECTIVE NEEDS STRONG JUDICIAL LEADERSHIP. NO
MATTER HOW UTOPIAN THE MODEL FOR REFORMS IS, NOTHING POSITIVE WILL COME ABOUT
WITHOUT A COMMITTED STEWARD.
THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRAM STARTED DURING THE INCUMBENCY OF
CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE.33 HIS SUCCESSOR, CHIEF JUSTICE ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN,34 CONTINUED WHAT CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE BEGAN AND STEERED THE JUDICIARY
33
34
Served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from November 30, 1998 to December 20, 2005.
Served from December 20, 2005 to December 7, 2006.
12
10th General Assembly
ASEAN Law Association
TODAY, CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO35 IS GUIDING IT TOWARDS
THROUGH ITS TRACK.
FULL IMPLEMENTATION.
HAND IN HAND WITH STRONG AND ACCOUNTABLE LEADERSHIP IS THE FRAMING OF
WORKABLE REFORM SCHEMES.
IT WOULD BE AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY TO HAVE A STRONG
LEADER WITHOUT, HOWEVER, REFORM PROGRAMS THAT ARE TRULY VIABLE AND RESPONSIVE
TO THE CHALLENGES BEING FACED.
BEFORE WE EMBARKED ON OUR JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRAM, A COMPREHENSIVE
REVIEW AND A SERIES OF DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE TO IDENTIFY THE FOCAL
POINTS OF REFORM GOALS AND PLANS.
CONSULTATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS — JUDGES,
COURT PERSONNEL, LAWYERS, AMONG OTHERS
— WERE ALSO HELD TO IDENTIFY THE CRITICAL
AREAS TO BE MANAGED. IT WAS WITH ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND THAT THE WORKING
FRAMEWORK FOR JUDICIAL REFORMS WAS DESIGNED.
MOREOVER, WE WERE WELL AWARE THAT WE COULD NOT ACHIEVE THE DESIRED
REFORMS ON OUR OWN.
ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS AT THE INCEPTION OF THE REFORM
PROGRAM WAS FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL SOURCING.
OF
THE JUDICIARY HAS A MEASLY AVERAGE
.84% SHARE IN THE NATIONAL BUDGET. AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED, “[T]HE CAPACITY OF THE
JUDICIARY TO DELIVER JUSTICE IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE RESOURCES IT HAS AND
SPENDS ON MAINTENANCE, OPERATING EXPENSES AND CAPITAL OUTLAY.
THE JUDICIARY’S
SHARE IN THE TOTAL NATIONAL BUDGET AND THE ITEMS FOR WHICH IT IS EXPENDED, REVEAL
36
THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT OF GOVERNMENTS TO JUSTICE IN THEIR COUNTRY.”
THE COST OF ANY AMBITIOUS JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRAM EATS INTO THE
EXHAUSTIVELY-SPENT PIE AND LEAVES THE JUDICIARY WITHOUT EXPENSES TO COVER ITS OWN
OPERATIONS.
THIS IS WHERE THE COMMITMENT OF PROGRAM DONORS AND PARTNERS PLAYS
THE BIGGEST ROLE.
THE PHILIPPINES IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED GENEROUS
ASSISTANCE FROM INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS.
THIS
ASSISTANCE PLAYS A KEY ROLE IN OUR EFFORTS TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVES OF REFORM.
THUS, WE NEED TO STRESS THAT A SENSE OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AND INVOLVEMENT ON
THE
PART
35
OF REFORM
STAKEHOLDERS,
PARTNERS,
DONORS,
OTHER
BRANCHES OF
Appointed as Chief Justice on December 8, 2006.
36
“Good Governance and The Judiciary.” Remarks delivered by Haruhiko Kuroda, President, Asian
Development Bank at the International Conference & Showcase on Judicial Reforms: Strengthening the
Judiciaries of the 21st Century held on November 29, 2005, at the Makati Shangri-la Hotel, Manila,
Philippines.
13
ASEAN Law Association
10th General Assembly
GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY IS AN INDISPENSABLE INGREDIENT FOR SUCCESS.
THIS
COMMITMENT, IN TURN, ASSURES TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE PART OF THE
JUDICIARY AS IT MEASURES AND QUANTIFIES THE PROGRESS OF REFORMS.
THERE MUST ALSO BE A WILLINGNESS TO ADAPT TO THE VARYING NEEDS OF SOCIETY.
FOR THIS REASON, REFORMS MUST HAVE AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE, A STRATEGIC
AGENDA AND A PERMANENT IMPLEMENTING STRUCTURE. A PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE
IS NECESSARY. IN THE PHILIPPINES, JUDICIAL REFORMS ARE BEING MANAGED BY THE PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO)37 OF THE SUPREME COURT, AN AGENCY MANNED BY EXPERT
FINANCE, MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL ADVISERS.
THE TASK OF THE PMO IS TO COORDINATE
AND FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REFORM PROGRAM AND ATTEND TO THE
CONSTANTS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE OVERLOOKED BY THOSE WHO LACK THE NECESSARY
PROFICIENCY IN THE STRUCTURING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORMS.
ON THIS POINT, BOTH THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY AND THE PMO HAVE UNITS
THAT OPERATE PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER.
A CORPORATE PLANNING OFFICE.
AT FIRST GLANCE, THE FUNCTIONS OF THESE OFFICES
APPEAR TO BE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF
DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED WHILE
PHILJA HAS A JUDICIAL REFORM OFFICE AS WELL AS
PMO. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT REALLY SO. PMO IS
PHILJA IS ACADEMICS-ORIENTED. THE INTERACTION BETWEEN
THESE TWO OFFICES HAS BEEN VERY BENEFICIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF JUDICIAL REFORM IN THE
PHILIPPINES.
FINALLY, A DASH OF IDEALISM AND OPTIMISM INFUSED INTO THE WHOLE JUDICIAL
REFORM FRAMEWORK DEFINITELY WILL NOT HURT AS THESE PROVIDE THE SPARK AND THE SPUR
SO ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAINING MOMENTUM TOWARDS OUR OBJECTIVE.
CONCLUSION
THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE BEFORE WE ATTAIN THE TARGETS WE HAVE
SET FOR OURSELVES. THE PERMANENCE OF CHANGE MAKES IT A WORK IN PROGRESS THAT HAS
TO BE CONSTANTLY EVALUATED TO ENSURE A CONTINUING SOLID RESPONSE TO THE SHIFTING
NEEDS OF ITS CITIZENRY.
WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT THE LESSONS LEARNED AND EXPERIENCES
ACQUIRED ALONG THE WAY ARE GUIDING US TOWARDS THE REALIZATION OF A TRANSFORMED
JUDICIARY.
37
Established under Supreme Court En Banc Resolution No. 01-7-09-SC, “Resolution Establishing
the Program Management Office (PMO) for the Judicial Reform Program,” promulgated on July 17, 2001.
14