Dark Warden

INTRODUCTION


The problem that I wish to tackle with regards to this paper is the judiciary of the Philippines. It would be an inquiry with regards to the vital roles of the Philippine Judiciary in the Philippine state and society and more importantly the problems and issues that the Philippine Judiciary is being confronted with. It would tackle on the possible causes of the problems and the possible solutions to these problems.

There has been degradation with regards to the state of the current politics in the Philippines. Graft and corruption, crimes, scams and many illegal acts are being accused of many different government officials in the different branches of the government. I believe that it is necessary to study that branch of the government which is tasked to uphold the justice and the truth in the country which is the Judiciary. The Philippine Judiciary was designed to uphold fair and impartial justice, effectively and efficiently. This study is significant because if the Judiciary which was believed to be the guardian of justice and truth, is itself corrupted, therefore, justice could not truly be upheld in our country. The Judiciary takes part in ensuring the political stability and thus it should be allowed to function to its optimum to prevent any disruption in its functions and duties.

The delimitation of the paper would be a brief and concise History of the Judiciary from the Pre-Hispanic period to the contemporary period. The paper would concentrate on the main problems and issues concerning the Philippine Judiciary in the Contemporary period and the solutions provided by different agencies, sectors and the author.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

With the problems that I have tackled in this paper, the theoretical framework which I believe would be applicable would be the society-centered approach which focuses on the interest groups and how they influence policy making in the state. In this paper, an example of how interest groups affect the judiciary is during the time of EDSA 2 where, people from different sectors and interest groups joined together to end the reign of Erap. Having a lot of these interest groups for the removal of Erap from office, the judiciary gave in to what the people want and put GMA into office. Another instance by which interest groups affect the functions of the judiciary is with regards to solving the problems of the Judiciary. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines(IBP) which is an interest group conduct surveys and studies in order to come up with projects and suggestions for the improvement and development of the Philippine Judiciary. This sectoral group is one of the many interest groups that influence the policy-making and other functions of the judiciary.

Another approach which could be used in understanding the problems in the judiciary is the system-centered approach which is concerned with how the international community could influence the policy-making in a country. This could be seen in the Abadilla 5 Case wherein a problem of Court delay which lasted for more than a decade and continues to be unresolved is being confronted by the AHRC (Asian Human Rights Commission) which is based in Hong Kong. The AHRC is non-governmental organization which monitors and lobbies human rights in Asia and this is part of the international community which could take part in affecting the way the judiciary works in Asian countries with regards to Human Rights.

BODY

I. Brief History of the Philippine Judiciary

A system of justice is already present in the Philippine even before the pre-Hispanic period. The system of justice was presided by datus and chieftains. They were responsible for hearing criminal cases and civil claims. Arbiters were also chosen from wise old men verse in custom and law to assist in adjudication.

During the Spanish period, the Royal Audiencia together with the Governor General was regarded as the Philippine judicial body. The Audiencia was dubbed to be the predecessor of the present day Supreme Court but far from being an independent judicial body due to several reasons. First of all, the concept of separation of powers was still unknown during the Spanish period. Furthermore, the Audiencia was not supreme in the cases it decided for it was still apeallable to the Consejo de Indias or the Spanish Monarch.

During the Malolos Congress, the constitution called for the establishment of the Supreme Court of Justice. However a system of an independent Philippine Judiciary was not realized because the exigencies of the war between Spain and the American army prevented its practical and realistic implementation.

During the American Period, on June 11, 1901, the Supreme Court of Justice was born due to Act 136 or the Judiciary Act. However, a totally independent judicial body was not totally realized during this period because most of cases were in favor of the Americans.

The Tydings-McDuffie Law paved the way for Philippine Independence by which the Philippines were to establish a commonwealth government for a period of ten years. It was during this period that the 1935 Constitution was drafted. The 1935 Constitution had several provisions for the improvement of the judiciary. These are: fixed security tenure, compensation, and prohibition of transfer of judges from one district to another without their consent. The power to exercise judicial review was an explicit provision in the constitution.

There was little exercise of the power of judicial review from the period of 1946-1972. However, the judiciary still exercised it power when they deemed it necessary. This period is therefore marked the start of the improvement of the status of the judiciary.

However, the little independence that the Judiciary gained was lost during the Marcos regime. Supreme power was given to Marcos. He was the sole appointing authority with the power to remove justice officials whenever he wanted to. Thus the judiciary could not go against him because of the danger it might do if they did.

However, after the martial law, the period of the 1986 Constitution, innovations were provided to the Judiciary department and thus judicial independence was achieved to some extent. Some of these provisions are: security of tenure, fiscal autonomy, creation of the Judicial and Bar Council, expanded power of judicial review, and power to review the proclamation of Martial Law and suspension of the Writ of habeas corpus.

II. The Problems and Issues Confronting the Philippine Judiciary

and Proposed Solutions to these Problems

It is necessary to tackle the problems that the Judiciary faces considering that it is one of the cornerstones of the Philippine politics and government. According to the survey mentioned in the International Herald Tribune, with regards to the effectiveness of the judiciary for prosecuting and punishing individuals for corruption when abuses are uncovered, the judiciary scored 9.06, with 10 being the most ineffective . Considering this data, we would be able to see that there exists a problem with regarding the judiciary which needs to be given attention.

The Judicial Reform Support Project states the different problems which they believe are being faced by the Philippine Judiciary. Among the main problems are: a.) Delays in the delivery of justice and associated limitations on access, and b) Widespread perceptions of corruption in the judiciary. Other perceived problems are: a.) Ineffective administrative structures and operating systems. b.) Deficient court technologies and facilities, c) need for human resource development, and d.) need to improve public information and collaboration with civil society. The Study of the TA 3693-PHI in 2003 may provide the reason for the perceived minor problems in the Judiciary mentioned above. The problem perceived is the lack of budget which should have been secured through the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy.

A.) Court Delays

As, the saying goes, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Court delay is one of the most prevalent issues that confront the Judiciary. Cases filed may take years and might even reach decades before they are decided. Article III Section 16 states that, all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases with regards to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies. In Article VIII Section 15 of the Philippine Constitution, it is stated that all cases must be decided within 24 months from the date of submission to the Supreme Court. However, despite these provisions, court delay is still an eminent problem confronting the Judiciary. An example of a case that experience delay is the Abadilla-5 Case which lasted for almost a decade without proper decision. Both the Supreme Court and afterwards the Court of Appeals had failed to comply with the provision in the Constitution which requires them to give a speedy disposition and decision about the case. This delay even led to the Asian Human Rights Committee, an international organization, getting involved in the issue. . Such delays should not be allowed. To accept court delays as a norm would have an enormous consequence on the very fabric of the justice system. Delays would be doing injustice to those people whose guilt has not been proven to suffer in prison without any sufficient reason. Another example of court delay is that of the long term-trial of former president Joseph Estrada. The case against Estrada on the basis of plunder and perjury was filed April 4, 2001 . The decision was only made more than 6 years after which is in September 2007. During the period of 6 years, Erap was only placed in house arrest in his resthouse in Tanay, which I find to be unjust considering that other people in the same position as Erap are locked in prison cells and not given special attention. Court delay hinders serving of justice and at the same time extends the injustice given to the innocent whose trials have not been decided. The cases above are only two of those thousands of cases which would reveal the problem of Court delay. Granting justice is one of the basic objectives of the Judiciary. The cases reveal that there exists a problem of Court delay.

A solution used by the government in the past was the continuous trial system. In this system, 90 days are allotted as trial period and trials must be held on times and date agreed upon. During the test pilot of the continuous trial system, the judges observed that, 1.) trial delays were brought down the: minimum, 2.) number of postponements were decreased, 3.) undesirable system of resettings was stopped and 4.) settlements by compromise in civil cases and plea bargaining in criminal cases increased. However, it was criticized stating that: 1.) it was to the disadvantage of poor litigants who couldn’t afford of seasoned lawyers and 2.) It was also to the disadvantage of lawyers which are only allowed one appearance per day in courts which diminished their levels of income. However, I believe that the income of the lawyers is not of a great issue with regards to the Judiciary. The effective implementations and service of justice is the main concern of the judicial system and not the income of lawyers. Even if, the income of lawyers would decrease due to the continuous trial system, I still believe that the income they get is still more than sufficient for them to live in a comfortable manner. Moreover, serving justice for the poor litigants in the shortest period of time is far more important with regards to this issue. After all, granting justice and truth is the one of the primary functions of the Judiciary.

Despite the criticisms, the continuous trial system gradually solves the problem regarding Court delays. The approval ratings for continuous trial system has increased from the year 1995-2006 and thus give evidence to the acceptance and satisfaction of the people and lawyers in the system (See Table 1)..

Another solution to the problem of delays is the creation of Barangay Justice Systems. Through the Katarungang Pambarangay, small cases in communities could be decided by Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo, and it is only after 15 days since it convenes that the trial is moved to the courts. The Katarungang Pambarangay was also an effective measure to decongest court dockets and minimize delay in case disposition. We could also see that according to the survey, the satisfaction the Barangay Justice System has increased from 1996-2006(See Table 2). It means that even if it is only in a gradual state, the effectiveness of the Barangay Justice system and its effective implementations is being realized.

We could see that both the continuous trial system and the Barangay Justice System provide a long-term solution with the problem of court delays. Immediate solutions may not be realizable at the moment with regards to the problem, but long-term solutions like the continuous trial system and Katarungang Pambarangay would in time, serve its purpose and solve the problem of Court delay.

B.) Perceptions and Existence of Wide Spread Corruptions in the Judiciary

A survey in the year 2000 reveals that 62% of respondents believed that there were significant levels of corruption within the judiciary. 65% of respondents believed that “many” or “most” lawyers could be bribed and 57% thought the same about judges. Considering this data, the Judiciary seems to have a very negative impression with regarding its performance. Some of the problems seen with regards to corruption are partiality, bias of judges and bribery. An example of this is the case CARMEN P. EDAÑO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, wherein the complainant charges the judge for grave abuse of discretion and authority, and conduct unbecoming of a judge regarding civil case no Q-97-30576 about the respondent Butler accepting paternity of Edaño’s children. The judge’s decisions were all in favor of the respondent and there was even evidence of Butler coming to the judges chambers. Respondent judge was found GUILTY of gross insubordination and misconduct unbefitting of a member of the judiciary and was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which she may be entitled.

There are several measures being pushed through by different sectors and institutions for the solutions of this problem. For the IBP, one of the most effective ways of preventing the corruption in the judiciary is through thorough judicial education . Other solutions suggested to the problem is evaluation of the existing ethics code applicable to judges and court staff and revising it as needed. I believe that judicial education is a must in solving the problem of corruption in the judiciary. We must also have an awareness of this corruption. We must follow the example of Carmen Edaño who stood against the corruption of the judges that she has experienced. It is by showing these lawyers and judges that there wrongdoings don’t go unpunished that they would stop doing such acts.

C.) Fiscal Autonomy leading to other problems

Fiscal autonomy is a privilege granted to the judiciary by the Constitution as part of ensuring its independence. However, according to the study conducted by Araneta, in practice, the judiciary’s budget and cash releases are subject to the same terms and conditions applied to agencies without fiscal autonomy. This then may be seen as the cause of the other problems arising in the judiciary like lack of supplies, deficient court technologies and facilities and many others. This problem may be a cause of Court delays, considering the fact that there are not enough trial courts available to accommodate all the cases being filed. For the proposed budget of 2007, the judiciary was given a budget of P9.6 billion which is a mere 1% of the entire budget while on the other hand the executive branch receives around 570 billion, around more than half of the entire budget . I agree with Senator Aquilino Pimental, “…we should not allow a situation where the judiciary, as the last recourse of victims of injustice, will be crippled in discharging its functions due to insufficient funds. That will only aggravate the country’s troubles... ” Indeed, the judiciary must be given sufficient funds for it to work effectively. Considering all the poor infrastructures, and facilities of the judiciary, a call for a larger budget is needed to solve the problems of the judiciary. I believe that the most effective solution to the problem is to allot a greater budget for the judicial department. The judiciary must be given sufficient budget which would allow it to perform its function well. If the Judiciary is crippled by the problems it faces due to lack of budget, then the whole country would suffer the consequences of its poor performance.

CONCLUSIONS

With regards to the data provided above, I have come up with several conclusions. First of all, the judiciary itself is aware of the problems that confront it. There are even studies with regards on how to solve the problems of the judiciary. Solutions have also been proposed by different organizations and sectors regarding the issues of the judiciary.

However, in my opinion, the solutions are only gradually having an effect for the improvement of the judiciary. I further believe that it is through the proper and effective implementation of these solutions that the judiciary would be able to eradicate the problems that it faces. With regards to the corruption in the judiciary, I would like to quote from the article of the IBP which states, “Deprive a man a corruptible lawyer, he cannot corrupt a judge.” A bribe needs a lawyer to perpetrate the corruptive act. As long as lawyers uphold their sense of justice, I believe that the level of corruption and bribery in the Judiciary would be minimized. Another suggestion for the Judiciary to be efficient and effective is through continuous education with regards to the law and the ethics of Law. However, for these suggestions to be realized, the solution would again be a larger budget allotment to the judicial department for the implementation of its projects and cases. Without a budget to start with, any attempts to solve the problem of the judiciary would not be possible. The Judiciary is the one responsible for upholding the justice and truth in the country. No matter how competitive the members and employees of the judiciary are, without sufficient budget to help them function in their optimum performance, the judicial problems would remain and may even get worse.

BIBLIOGRAPHY



Conde. Carlos H. “Philippines most corrupt, survey says”. International Herald Tribune.

March 13, 2007. International Herald Tribune. February 23, 2008. .



Article III Section 16, The Philippine 1987 Constitution.



Asian Human Rights Commission. “PHILIPPINES: Excessive court delay is not an

acceptable judicial practice”. Asian Human Rights Commission-Statement. January 29, 2008. Asian Human Rights Commission. February. 23, 2008.



“Criminal Case No. 26558”.



Atienza, Ma. Ela L. and Baylon, Ferdinand. “The Judiciary.” Philippine Politics and

Governance: An Introduction. Morada, Noel M. and Tadem, Teresa, eds. (Quezon City: Department of Political Science, University of The Philippines, Diliman, 2006), Chapter 14.



Aquino, Belinda A. (ed.) Administration of Justice in the Philippines (Quezon City: UP

Center for Integrative and Development Studies and UP Press, 1994), pp.52-55



Combating Corruption in the Philippines. May 3, 2000. February 23, 2008.





A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974. Supreme Court E-Library. July 26, 2007. February 23, 2008.





Judges: Grave Abuse of discretion and Authority, and of conduct unbecoming of a Judge.

Philippine Judicial Academy. August 2007. February 23, 2008.



“Forum sponsored by the American Bar Association.” Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Feb. 19-20, 2007. February 23, 2008.



“Initial Public Information Document (PID): Judicial Reform Support Project”





Elsie Louise P. Araneta. TA 3693-PHI: “Strengthen the Independence of the Judiciary”.

Technical Assistance Completion Report. May 31, 2003. February 23, 2008.