In 2006 I was asked by RTC JUdge B. S. Maceda, Las Pinas City, to comment on the Case Flow Management Program of the Supreme Court, which was being piloted at that time. He was a consultant in the program, being the sponsor of the Las Pinas City Express Court System. This comment was addressed to him. Readers will find the discussions useful.
RE : REACTIONS TO THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON THE PILOT PROJECT STAGE OF THE CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT (CFM) PROGRAM OF THE SUPREME COURT SUBMITTED BY THE CFM ASSESSMENT TEAM
MABUHAY:
Thank you for giving me a copy of the report of the Case Flow Management (CFM) assessment team. Today, I finished reading the 31-page report.
Per your request, I am submitting hereinbelow my brief and general reactions to the various issues and concerns reviewed and assessed in the said report:
- THE REAL BACKBONE OF THE CFM PROGRAM. - The real backbone of the CFM program is its software because it is the brain, the central nervous system, and the management data processor of the whole CFM program itself. From the IT and MIS points of view, the software is the soul, the life force, and the consciousness of the entire CFM program itself.
The few instances of mechanical and technical malfunctioning of some of the hardware units assigned to the participating branches do not seriously bother me, although they are valid administrative, logistical and technical challenges that the CFM program managers and donors must comprehensively look into and resolve.
What deeply worry me are the following crucial findings stated in the assessment report:
- No “backup solution (was) incorporated in the CFM software” (p. 10).
- Replication of the encoded data in the branches was done “manually … at no fixed interval”. The replicated data were recorded/saved in the central LAN servers of the RTC OCC and MTC OCC only. No backup record/data were done, saved and retained at the branches themselves (pp. 10-11).
Moreover, the replication process was “only for the sole purpose of ‘tracking’”. The CFM software did not have the capability to generate data from either the original source data encoded at the working stations of the branches or from the secondary replicated data saved in the central LAN servers of the RTC OCC and MTC OCC to aid the CFM program managers and assessors in accessing and forming a truly comprehensive management perspective of the whole CFM program from time to time and in accurately conducting a holistic performance evaluation thereof regularly based on reliable consolidated program management data. (Id.)
Neither did the CFM program allow for MIS “bar coding” of the individual case records in the branches, the CFM procedural and administrative forms (e.g., CIS), the court orders (e.g., the order of tracking assignment under the DCM principle) and other court processes and issuances, the pleadings and documentary exhibits of the parties, and all other documents required to be included and preserved as part of the documentation process of the entire lifespan of a particular case. Bar coding, either via LAN, WAN and/or Internet Protocol, is a modern, speedy or accurate technical tool for purposes of fast and inexpensive program management data consolidation, transfer and exchange among the program managers, assessors, donors and partners. (“Stickers” were required to be posted on the case folders under the CFM Manual, per Page 20 of the assessment report. It is not clear to me, however, if they refer to “bar codes”).
In fine, it was unfortunate that the CFM software had no provisions for connectivity, interlink or interface with the CAMIS of the Supreme Court OCA (p.. 25). The CFM program had a basic “flat file system” which rendered it incapable of generating data. The CAMIS had a more advanced “structured database”. (Id.). Had technical provisions been originally made and integrated in the maiden CFM software to allow for data generation and connectivity capabilities prior to the pilot launching of the CFM program in 2003, the submission of the monthly statistical and performance reports to the OCA could have been easily and inexpensively facilitated, thus, providing the OCA, as the national manager of all court management development and enhancement programs, with on-the-spot, online and remote access to crucial management data that it needs from time to time to insure the effectiveness of its management work and the accomplishment of its institutional mission.
- The “MISO candidly admitted that it ha(d) limited technical knowledge on how to maintain the CFM software”. (p. 23). Its personnel admitted that “the MISO (found) the CFM software difficult to maintain” (p. 25). The MISO personnel had “limited technical knowledge on how to maintain the CFM software” (Id.). This unfortunate challenges were perhaps caused by the failure of the CFM implementing rules and regulations to expressly define the duty of the contracted external private software developers (IBSI) not only to provide the MISO personnel assigned to the CFM program with proper original and continuing software orientation, training, and 24-hour technical support but, more importantly, to involve and engage the MISO personnel from the very start of the CFM software conceptualization and planning until its final development and release. Recommendation No. 4.3 on Pages 30 to 31 of the assessment report is valid, which, inter alia, provides that “the software developer must include MISO in all phases of the (software) development project”, that “the CFM software must be able to connect to CAMIS”, and that “the MISO personnel and the technical support staff/group should be adequately trained on the software”.
- THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE CFM PROGRAM ACTUALLY WORKED. – The good news is that, based on the statistics gathered by the assessment team as appearing on Pages 4 to 20 of its report, is that the CFM program actually worked and was effective in de-clogging the court dockets and in avoiding case delay, despite the technical, logistical, and HRD challenges stated therein and although there is some vagueness as to the effectiveness of the CFM program insofar as the Pasay City MetTCs were concerned (see p. 19).
I humbly disagree with the conclusion of the assessment team as appearing on Page 19 of its report which stated that “the CFM process did not create a remarkable impact in docket decongestion in the pilot-tested courts”. Well, maybe it is correct if it anchors its conclusion on the strict adjective “remarkable”. But it will be noted that vis-a-vis the RTC statistical performance the same was described on Page 16 of the report, thus: “the disposal of cases … has sharply increased”.
At any rate, “remarkable performance” is not what a pilot project aims to achieve. The main goal of a pilot phase is simply to test the waters, test the attitudes, test the systems and procedures, test the machines and the brains (software), test the unity of the human resource, test the logistical extrapolations, and test the political will of the lead program agency and its managers, donors and partners. We must not look for the “remarkable performance” of a program which is being tested only on a mere pilot stage level. Let us be happy that we have at least started with a first humble step in our long and arduous trek of a thousand miles, as advised by our Asian ancestors.
- MODERNIZING THE SKILLS AND SHAPING THE ATTITUDES OF THE JUDICIAL HUMAN RESOURCE. – The assessment report is replete with instances of attitudinal problems, human laziness and negligence to obey the CFM rules and procedures, socio-psychological resistance to change, lack of technical training, lack of confidence in handling IT and its tools, fast turn-over of judges and staff, and the like.
These issues are normal in the process of the introduction of major and crucial institutional reforms. Change is fearsome to a human being. The only antidotes thereto are knowledge, skills, wisdom and peer moral support. Plus the political will of the national-level CFM program leaders.
The assessment report of the pilot stage of the CFM program, which followed the KAP model of analysis (knowledge, attitude, and practice), showed the need for political will of the national leadership of the Judiciary to elevate the degree of knowledge, attitudes and skills/practice of the judges and personnel to forge ahead with the CFM program as one of institutional reforms of the Supreme Court to declog the dockets of the trial courts and to minimize case delay. It showed the need to educate, enlighten and purify the minds of the human resource of the Judiciary to insure the success of its institutional reforms. For, in the final analysis, it is people (not hardware and software) who plan, dream, conceptualize, and implement the reforms with mindfulness, awareness, concentration, wisdom and insight.
I do not find the HRD-related problems stated in the assessment report to be serious. In fact, what I gather therefrom are the sincerity and the selflessness of the judicial personnel and the judges to contribute their humble individual shares to insure the ultimate success of the CFM program once the same is implemented on a nationwide scale, despite all the logistical and other constraints that they face.
- QUO VADIS? – Where do we go from here? Quo vadis? We go forward. National scale? No. My recommendation is that we plan and implement an “expanded pilot phase” of the CFM program among all the RTC and MetTC courts of Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, and Metro Davao. Let us localize the proposed expanded pilot phase of the CFM program and inculturate it with the regional wisdom and pragmatism of Metro Cebu and Metro Davao. This time, however, the MISO must be involved in the development of the revised/improved CFM software. The recommendations of the assessment team must be considered by the CFM program managers and donors in the implementation of the expanded pilot phase. The program donors and development partners (AGILE, DBP, WB, IMF, USAID, Asian Foundation, et. al.) must be consulted on the increased level of logistical and financial requirements for the purpose.
