In a paper entitled “The Management by Courts of Conflicts Between Business and Public Interests” presented by the former Philippine Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., during the Third Regional Conference on Managing Corporate Governance in Asia held in Bali, Indonesia on 7 April 2005, he noted that “across the globe, courts were taking more active participation in State affairs while keeping themselves within their respective spheres of supremacy”.
There are two interests in conflict in “cases of economic impact”: the interest of business, a profit-driven motive, and the public interest.
The objective of business is to make a reasonable return on investment for their investors. However, it must “integrate corporate citizenship, or corporate social responsibility, into their fundamental philosophies”. This where the conflict begins. “In the quest for investment returns, business often finds itself colliding with the public interest”, Davide stated.
He added that “when the expansion of business interests cannot be contained by the law, the government intervenes to keep such interests in check”. If this collision of interests cannot be settled by the parties, “they must necessarily turn to the courts for a decision”.
Davide shared how Philippine courts managed such conflicts brought before its judiciary.
He admitted that “the perceived adverse repercussions of certain decisions of the Supreme Court on foreign investments set off proposals by the political branches of government to clip the powers of the highest court of the land vis-à-vis cases involving economic issues”.
One proposal was to amend the constitutional provision vesting the courts with the duty “to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government”.
He stated that what the critics failed to realize was that “the Supreme Court of the
He stressed that the Philippine Judiciary was “not one to tinker with economic theories and policies”, citing US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo: “It is not the function of a court to make itself the arbiter between competing economic theories professed by honest men on grounds not wholly frivolous.”
The Philippine Supreme Court does not advocate any particular economic policy or theory over another, save those which the Constitution itself espouses, Davide added. In managing conflicts between business and public interests, Philippine courts “merely apply the law” and that “law is the sole standard of court decisions”. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so it is the Judiciary’s supreme standard, he stated.
When Philippine courts strike down a law for being unconstitutional, “they do not engage in economic policy-making, but merely perform their solemn duty”, he said. Courts simply apply a set of pertinent laws to a given situation and decide whether a party has a particular right under the circumstances and is thus entitled to relief.
“When it is the law itself which is being questioned, courts have only one standard – the Constitution, which is a document known to all; hence, the outcome should be predictable”, Davide stated. “Everything else must be tested against the pertinent laws and, ultimately, the Constitution”.
The courts do not make economic decisions; they only apply and interpret the law, Davide affirmed. Courts only enforce the rule of law. “The rule of law is the only guarantee against arbitrariness and instability, and it is, in the end, the foundation for a level playing field and a competitive economy”, he said.
When, therefore, the commercial interests of business collide with the perceived public interests of the government or the citizens, the Judiciary resolves the conflict by resorting to the laws, and ultimately the Constitution. The end result is the preservation and promotion of the people’s interests as enshrined in the Constitution, Davide stated.
Davide admitted, “Where there is money to be made, there is a temptation for corruption. I mentioned earlier that business interests naturally involve a motivation for profit. Thus, any conflict involving business interests has the tendency to birth corruption. Corruption can be instigated by any party in the case, and even by the courts”.
“I must emphasize that public trust and confidence in the Judiciary is necessary for a strong democracy. As long as the people come to court for the redress of injured rights, instead of taking the law into their own hands, our democracy is preserved and the rule of law is thus enhanced and strengthened, as we rely on the equality before the law instead of the arbitrariness of the powerful. But as I mentioned earlier, if the Judiciary is perceived to be corrupt or not credible its decisions would have no efficacy and people would rather take the law into their own hands to resolve their conflicts”, he added.
In the Judiciary, perceived corruption is as dangerous as actual corruption. The perception of corruption, even if corruption is non-existent, leads people to doubt the sense of justice of courts. This perception weakens the Judiciary’s credibility, which is the primary source of power of court decisions, Davide said.
Referring to the role of the mass media in the justice system, Davide stated: “The mass media must help fight actual and perceived corruption. Publicizing efforts against corruption adds fuel to the battle against corruption. Moreover, the mass media themselves must be educated about the systems and operations of courts. Many misimpressions and misperceptions about the Judiciary are perpetrated by inaccurate reports from the media. These inaccuracies can be prevented by educating the mass media”.
His term was marked by the following principles: (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.
His ACTION PROGRAM FOR JUDICIAL REFORM (APJR) which was approved by the Supreme Court en banc on 8 December 2000 was composed of the following components:
1. The Judicial Systems and Procedures, which seeks to achieve the following:
a. Improvement of court management systems, which includes case and caseload management and monitoring of court and judge performance;
b. Re-assessment of the jurisdictional structure of the courts to achieve, among other things, a balance between caseload distribution and the expertise of judges;
c. Promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms to settle conflicts outside the formal judicial process as a means of de-clogging the courts; and
d. Strengthening of the collaboration with the other pillars of justice.
2. The Institutions Development, which is geared towards the
a. Attainment of full judicial autonomy;
b. Improvement of financial and administrative systems;
c. Installation of appropriate ICT systems; and
d. Upgrading of infrastructure and support facilities.
3. The Human Resource Development, which covers reform activities aimed at the
a. Enhancement of judicial and legal education, to include improvements in the curriculum of the education arm of the Court, the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), the development of distance education modules, provision of a well-equipped training facility, and the development of more innovative judicial education tools;
b. Development and implementation of a comprehensive Human Resource Development Program, particularly for the non-judicial personnel;
c. Strengthening of the Judicial Career Development Program; and
d. Improvement of the remuneration systems in the Judiciary.
4. The Integrity Infrastructure Development, which includes these activities:
a. Establishment of a unified and comprehensive Code of Ethics for justices, judges, lawyers, and court personnel;
b. Improvement of the Judicial Appointment System;
c. Strengthening of the Judicial Disciplinary System;
d. Adoption of an appropriate Disclosure Policy; and
e. Expansion of civil society participation in combating graft and corruption.
5. The Access to Justice by the Poor, which aims to empower the poor and other disadvantaged sectors of society to have equal access to justice, and equal treatment under the law, by
a. Improving information for and education of the poor and other disadvantaged sectors on the justice system and its services;
b. Improving the capacity of judges and law practitioners in handling cases involving the poor; and
c. Improving the physical access and affordability of judicial services by the poor and other marginalized sectors of society.
6. The Reform Support Systems, which is geared towards
a. Building support and ownership of the reform program within and outside of the Judiciary;
b. Improving information, education and communication systems and activities; and
c. Strengthening collaboration between the Judiciary and civil society.
The judicial reform program enjoyed financial and other forms of assistance from international organizations, such as the United Nations through the UNDP; the World Bank; the Asian Development Bank; and development assistance agencies of the Governments of Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States. Recently, the European Union has granted us a grant for the component on Access to Justice by the Poor. The World Bank has also approved a loan to the Philippine government for the construction of model courts in Luzon, Visayas, and
Davide was particularly proud of the Philippine Judicial Academy. He stated, “The PHILJA undertakes regular nationwide training of justices, judges, and court personnel not only for career enhancement but also for capacity-building in special areas of concern such as human rights, economic, social and cultural rights, environmental law, bio-sciences and life technologies, intellectual property, and anti-money laundering. It has undertaken landmark judicial reforms such as the court-annexed mediation in both the Court of Appeals and trial courts with Philippine Mediation Center Units operating in Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, and Metro Davao and tele-video conferencing as a mode of distance education delivery. In coordination with the PMO, it is actively involved in the Justice Reform Initiatives Support Project (JURIS), a five-year bilateral project supported by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) with the National Judicial Institute of Canada as its Canadian Executing Agency. The JURIS Project seeks to strengthen and promote the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as court-annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution (JDR). In JDR, the pre-trial judges themselves act as conciliator, early neutral evaluator, and mediator in the hope of helping the parties arrive at a settlement before the trial stage. Two of the fourteen ADR court sites have been inaugurated this year in
Davide reported that “within the last five years the Supreme Court has imposed on 632 Justice and judges, after appropriate proceedings, administrative sanctions consisting of either dismissal from the service, suspension from office, fine, reprimand, censure, or admonition”. Of those dismissed from the service, one was a Justice of the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the cases the salaries and other benefits of the respondents were withheld. During the same period, nearly 800 personnel were meted the same administrative penalties.
As to misfits in the Bar, he added that “we have been very strict in the enforcement of our rules relative to discipline of lawyers”. In the past five years “we have imposed disciplinary sanctions consisting of either disbarment, suspension from the practice of law for a specific or indefinite period of time, fine, reprimand, censure or admonition on 119 lawyers for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath or the Code of Professional Responsibility or for contempt of court”, he added.
One thing Davide was proud of was the “Justice on Wheels Project” which was intended “to increase accessibility to justice”. He stated: “We launched last 20 December 2004, our first mobile court, which is in the form of a large air-conditioned bus consisting of a small courtroom; offices of the judge, personnel, and mediator; and other amenities. This project is funded from the loan we obtained from the World Bank and is akin to the Mobile Court Project in
In concluding, Davide stated: “It is extremely difficult, even impossible, to conceptualize a democratic country in economic prosperity without an efficient mechanism for the administration of justice. If we look closely enough, the Judiciary, business concerns, and the general public have many values in common, not the least of which is the rule of law. The rule of law brings predictability, which businessmen look for in any jurisdiction. The rule of law ensures against government arbitrariness on the one hand, and the protection of the people’s interests on the other hand. The courts seek to apply the rule of law”.
See: http://www.apjr-sc-phil.org/article/articleprint/149/-1/30/
Digested by:
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
