For legal research purposes of the readers, may I share more thoughts from the archives of the Alternative Law Groups Inc. (ALG) on the issue of JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM in the
The Philippine Supreme Court’s “Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001-2006” (APJR) initially had a four-pronged program of reforms on: (1) judicial systems and procedures; (2) institutions development; (3) human resource development; and (4) reform support systems.
Under a supplementary document, the Supreme Court included two important issues: (1) institutional integrity development; and (2) access to justice by the poor.
The Supreme Court (through the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) and the Program Management Office [PMO]) and the Alternative Law Groups, Inc. are the major partners in the Justice Reform Initiatives Support (JURIS) project, a five year project supported by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) through the National Judicial Institute of Canada.
JURIS aims to strengthen the capacity of the Philippine judicial system to provide quality judicial services and access to justice to Filipinos, particularly to the poor and marginalized groups.
The Philippine Supreme Court’s six-year judicial reform program embodied in the document, “Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001-2006” (APJR) has a six pronged program of reforms on: Judicial Systems and Procedures; Institutions Development; Human Resource Development; Reform Support Systems; Institutional Integrity Development; and Access to Justice by the Poor.
The APJR is founded on the vision espoused by Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide for a Judiciary that is “independent, effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence.”
The APJR identified nine (9) critical issues: Case congestion and delay; Budget deficiencies; Politicized system for judicial appointments; Lack of judicial autonomy; Human resource development system; Dysfunctional administrative structure and operating systems accompanied by deficient court technologies and facilities; Insufficient public information and collaboration with civil society; Corruption in the Judiciary; Limited access to justice by the poor.
Under the APJR, the Supreme Court will undertake reform efforts under the following major components:
1. Judicial Systems and Procedures. Reforming the judicial systems and procedures will address the goal of improving the delivery of judicial services and restoring public trust and confidence in the justice system. Specifically, improving judicial systems and procedures will be focused on improving access to the judicial system, upgrading the efficiency of court systems and procedures, enhancing the capacity of the system to monitor and assess its performance on a continuing basis and instituting better mechanisms for transparency, and prevention of graft and corruption.
2. Institutional Development. The reform of the institutional aspects of the judicial system shall be geared toward supporting the goal of providing access to justice, improving the speed of service delivery and ensuring the impartiality of judicial decisions. In particular, the reform efforts shall aim for: the establishment of the Judiciary as a self-governing institution; the generation of needed resources to establish a well-functioning and continually improving judicial organization; and the improvement of the overall efficiency in judicial operations.
3. Human Resources Development. The reform efforts under human resource development is directed at enhancing the quality of judicial education and making it responsive to changing needs on a continuing basis, increasing access to judicial education, and sustaining increased investments in judicial education.
4. Reform Support Systems. The Judiciary’s reform support systems shall pursue the goal of achieving consensus by a majority of stakeholders and reform decision makers, and synchronizing multi-sectoral support into a concerted effort that will propel program implementation and the achievement of its vision.
5. Institutional Integrity Development. The main goal of the institutional integrity development component is the improvement of public trust and confidence in the system of justice and in laying down the institutional integrity foundation upon which efficiency and effectiveness in operations, and impartiality in the judicial processes and decisions, can be achieved and sustained. Specifically, this reform component seeks the following:
a. Establishment of a strong institutional insulation mechanism to protect and preserve the integrity of the judicial system;
b. Strengthening the capacity of civil society as vital partners in detecting, reporting, combating and preventing graft and corruption in the Bench; and
c. Improving existing institutional mechanisms within the Judiciary for the detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of irregular acts and to support the other anti-graft and corruption entities in combating graft and corruption.
6. Access to Justice by the Poor. In implementing the judicial reform program,
the Judiciary shall ensure that its implementation will improve the quality and access to judicial services by the poor. In particular, this component seeks the following:
a. Promotion of physical access to the courts as well as speedy and fair adjudication of cases for all;
b. Protection of the poor from abuses of those who claim to influence judicial decisions, by strengthening the integrity of the judicial system;
and
c. Improving the affordability of judicial services to the poor.
As to the cost of the Judicial Reform Program, the Supreme Court estimates that the reform package will require PhP 4.3 billion in investments over six years. Funding is expected to come from both domestic and external sources. Of the total financial requirements, PhP 2.3 billion or 53.45% is expected to be financed from domestic funds, while the remaining PhP 2 billion is targeted for foreign funding, particularly from official development assistance.
In implementing the judicial reform program, the Judiciary faces enormous challenges, considering the current state of the Judiciary and the country in general.
In the APJR, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that bold steps must be taken to address the following major challenges:
1. THE REFORMS MUST RESTORE PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE COUNTRY’S JUSTICE SYSTEM. Trust and confidence in the justice system has been eroded due to delays in the resolution of cases, perception of graft and corruption in the courts, politicization of the judicial appointment process, and limited access to judicial services particularly by the poor. The effective solution of these issues will be the foundation upon which public trust and confidence in the country’s system of justice will be regained.
2. THE REFORMS WILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES YET WILL BE
IMPLEMENTED AND PURSUED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SEVERE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS. Judicial reform, including the strengthening of the Judiciary’s autonomy from the other branches of government, and its independence from local governments, will require infusion of tremendous resources over a specified period of time. Judicial reform goals and targets will be pursued within severe national budget constraints.
3. JUDICIAL
4. THE JUDICIARY MUST TAKE THE LEAD IN PURSUING, SYNCHRONIZING AND SUSTAINING THE VARIOUS REFORMS, SEVERAL OF WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN ITS FULL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY. Several reform areas of significant impact on the functioning of the judicial system are within the operations of departments and agencies outside the Judiciary. These include the Barangay Justice System administered by the Barangays and monitored by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), the twenty-three (23) quasi-judicial bodies attached to executive departments, the investigative, witness protection, apprehension, prosecutorial and correctional components of the criminal justice system now under the Department of Justice and the Philippine National Police, as well as local government units with respect to provincial prisons, the various academic and continuing learning institutions on legal education, private institutions and civil society in general.
5. THE REFORMS WILL REQUIRE SUSTAINED TOP-LEVEL SUPPORT AND COMMITMENT WITHIN A POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT WHERE ACHIEVING BROAD AND CONTINUING CONSENSUS REQUIRES MORE, PERSISTENT AND CONSCIENTIOUS EFFORTS AND WHERE THERE IS INADEQUATE APPRECIATION OF THE ROLE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS. Several aspects of the judicial reform require direct support and action from various players. For example, judicial autonomy will require consensus among Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judiciary. Infusion of adequate resources for the Judiciary will require a reprioritization of national government programs and projects.
7. REFORM IMPLEMENTATION MUST BE PROGRAMMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY FOR CHANGE OF THE JUDICIARY AND ITS STAKEHOLDERS, AND SYNCHRONIZED WITH OVERSIGHT ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS WHICH IMPINGE UPON JUDICIAL REFORMS. In order to avoid waste, duplication and backtracking of reform activities, and to generate better resource efficiencies and ensure success, reforms must be sequenced and paced considering their inter-relationships.
8. THE JUDICIARY MUST ENSURE THE CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT AND THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF CAPACITIES FOR SUSTAINING THE REFORM GAINS. The gains of the Judicial Reform Program in terms of improved case management, more efficient court operations, improved judicial training and legal education institutions, better court physical and technological processes, better quality of court decisions, and the consequent restoration of public trust and confidence must be sustained in systems integrated into judicial organizations.
The Supreme Court recognizes that it is only a part of the Philippine justice system. The courts are not the only institutions that are involved in the adjudication of cases. There are numerous quasi-judicial bodies that render decisions in many cases that are not within the primary jurisdiction of the courts. Labor tribunals and agrarian adjudication boards are examples of these quasi-judicial bodies.
Furthermore, the justice system is not just adjudication. Law enforcement, prosecution and public defense are also critical areas in the justice system. If the courts enjoy a low level of public trust and confidence, these other areas can be said to enjoy a comparatively lower confidence level.
Assuming that, with the APJR, the Judiciary will be independent, effective and Understandably, the APJR and the Judiciary are not in the position to address these concerns. These are for the political officials to decide. This reality, however, imposes a severe restriction on the effectiveness of the reform efforts. Taking these limitations together only leads to the conclusion that a reformed Judiciary may just find itself working under a generally corrupt and inefficient system of administration of justice, under a regime of unjust laws and policies. Reforming the Judiciary, in itself, and unless complemented by reforms outside the Judiciary, will not necessarily reform the system of administering justice, especially to the poor and marginalized groups.
The problems plaguing the Judiciary are mere symptoms of a deeply rooted problem of social justice. In a country like the
The Judiciary’s problems are not really its own. Putting it in another way, the problem is not the Judiciary, but the society that breeds such system.
The society’s situation affects any judicial reform program. If the powerful sectors of society can work their way through the intricacies of the judicial system and can use it for their advantage, then there may not be a felt need to reform the system. In fact, the objective may be to keep the system the way it is since it is perfectly working for them. This will mean either lack of interest in reforming the Judiciary, or, outright opposition to reform efforts. Since these powerful sectors control, not only the Judiciary, but also the Executive and the Legislature, and other private sector groups that may influence policies, then, the judicial reform program can certainly be derailed, if not shelved.
For a judicial reform program like the APJR to have a meaningful impact in effecting the needed reforms of the justice system, it must be based on a larger effort to address the bigger and fundamental justice issues in society.
Judicial reform must follow, and must be subsumed under a comprehensive social reform program that will ensure the elimination of unjust laws, policies, systems, and structures in Philippine society. The problem is a lot more complicated than simply corruption and inefficiency in the courts.
The active participation of the people, especially the poor and marginalized groups, in the ongoing and future reform efforts is indispensable in ensuring that the reform efforts will result in meaningful gains towards effectively addressing the justice issues of the vulnerable groups.
In support of the APJR, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has approved a five-year “Justice Reform Initiatives Support Project in the
JURIS aims to address those aspects of the APJR that focuses on strengthening the capacity of the Philippine judicial system to provide quality judicial services and access to justice to Filipinos, particularly to the poor and marginalized groups. CIDA has contracted the National Judicial Institute (NJI), a Canadian non-profit organization engaged in judicial education, to be the Canadian Executing Agency (CEA) that will be in charge of overseeing the implementation of JURIS. For the direct implementation of the project, CIDA and NJI have identified two major project partners: (1) the Philippine
To goal of the JURIS project is to contribute to Philippine efforts to improve the quality of judicial services and access to justice, particularly by poor and marginalized groups and identities. In addressing this project goal, JURIS has three project purposes: Judicial Education, Mediation/ADR Strengthening, and Reform Advocacy.
The Judicial Education component seeks to strengthen the capacity of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) to plan, design and deliver educational programs for judges and court personnel relating primarily to court-based and court-annexed mediation and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
The Reform Advocacy component seeks to strengthen the capacity of the Alternative Law Groups to engage government and other institutions in cooperative advocacy efforts to improve the quality of judicial services and access to justice, and to empower poor and marginalized groups to make use of judicial and quasi-judicial services and other advocacy venues.
It is hoped that people’s organizations, non-governmental organizations, local communities, members of the judiciary, other government officials, lawyers, law schools, law students, and other stakeholders, especially, the poor and marginalized groups who are most vulnerable to the injustices caused by, or through, the present justice system, will develop keen interest in the judicial and justice reform efforts. It is hoped, further, that this interest will translate into action and involvement in the reform efforts.
The ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC. address is at:
Room 215,
Ateneo de Manila University
Tel. No.: 4268569 (direct line and fax); and 4266001 local 4865
Email: algjuris@saligan.org
X x x.
By:
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
