The recent column of Solita Monsod (“Get Real”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 20, 2008) contains 2007 statistics on the backlogs of the Philippine Justice System, which I am digesting below, for purposes of legal research of the visitors of this blog, to wit:
• Contributing factors to judicial corruption: political interference; low budget and salaries (although in fairness, judges and justices’ salaries were substantially increased in 2007); reform dependent on donors’ budgetary support; inconsistent application of procedural rules; lack of monitoring framework; lack of emphasis on moral values in the educational system (that’s about as big a blanket as one can find); and the backlog and delays in resolving cases.
• The Mass Media is mentioned in connection with the problem of inconsistent application of procedural rules: “Distorted trial reporting by media for ulterior motives, including bribery.”
• On the average, it takes six years to resolve an ordinary case in a trial court; and if the case goes on appeal, it will take another six years. With respect to case backlogs, the latest data from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) show that, in 2007, the total in all courts (excluding the Supreme Court, whose backlog data have not been available since 2004) was 695,286.
• In 2007, the average backlog for the whole system (excluding the Supreme Court) was about 387 cases per judge. But that average hides a tremendous disparity between the types of court—from nine cases per judge of the Sharia circuit courts to 1,716 per judge of the metropolitan trial courts. In the regional trial courts (RTCs), the average backlog per judge was 450, while in the Court of Appeals it was 260. With no recent data from the Supreme Court, we use the 2004 data: 458 cases per justice.
• The judges of Sharia circuit courts, with a backlog of nine cases each, aren’t necessarily more efficient than the rest, since their total caseload for 2007 was 602 divided among 33 judges. In contrast, the metropolitan trial courts, whose 66 judges are less than 10 percent of the 799 RTC judges, have to handle a caseload that is close to 40 percent of the caseload of their RTC counterparts.
• An Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) for 2001-2006 was undertaken in 2001. The program included the introduction of electronic systems for payment of fees and for case-administration information (including a computer literacy course for all 28,000 judges and employees across the country), with an e-library to boot. Unfortunately, there has been no assessment so far as to the success or failure of that program.
• Data provided by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which is headed by lawyer Jose Perez, for the three and a half-year period Jan. 1, 2005 to June 30, 2008 show that one Court of Appeals justice, nine RTC judges, and seven metropolitan and municipal trial court judges were dismissed on various charges. This implies a dismissal rate, for that whole period, of 1.5 percent for the Court of Appeals, 1.2 percent for the RTCs, and 0.8 percent for the metropolitan and municipal courts.
• Actually, in that period, many cases were filed, but most of them were dismissed. Relative to the RTCs, for example, 82 percent of the 813 cases filed were dismissed. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that of the 34 charges that were the bases for the firing of a total of 17 justices and judges, only one was for direct bribery, only one was for “undue delay in rendering decisions,” and only one for “undue delay in rendering orders.”
Get Real
Is the judiciary soft on itself?
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:34:00 09/20/2008
MANILA, Philippines—In which branch of government would corruption have the most harmful effects on the country: the executive, the legislative, or the judiciary?
The answer of most would be the judiciary. With good reason: a corrupt judiciary would necessarily mean that the legal and institutional mechanism designed to curb corruption in other branches had been seriously compromised. It follows that the judiciary should come under even more intense scrutiny than the other two branches.
The 2007 Global Corruption Report of Transparency International (TI) focuses on judicial corruption, and the Philippines is included in the 32 country case studies—countries where, according to the report, the problem is “systemic.” Alas, we have made no formal study of judicial corruption in this country, so it is time that one was undertaken—following the saying that being able to identify the problem is already half the solution.
But the Philippine case study, written by Judge Dolores Español of TI Philippines, nevertheless lists contributing factors to judicial corruption. These are: political interference; low budget and salaries (although in fairness, judges and justices’ salaries were substantially increased in 2007); reform dependent on donors’ budgetary support; inconsistent application of procedural rules; lack of monitoring framework; lack of emphasis on moral values in the educational system (that’s about as big a blanket as one can find); and the backlog and delays in resolving cases. Interestingly, the media are mentioned in connection with the problem of inconsistent application of procedural rules: “Distorted trial reporting by media for ulterior motives, including bribery.”
How large is the backlog, how long are the delays (which presumably is grist for the corruption mill, because bribes are offered, or extracted, to either delay or expedite decisions, depending on the wishes of an interested party)? With respect to delays, Español asserts that on the average, it takes six years to resolve an ordinary case in a trial court; and if the case goes on appeal, it will take another six years. With respect to case backlogs, the latest data from the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) show that, in 2007, the total in all courts (excluding the Supreme Court, whose backlog data have not been available since 2004) was 695,286.
Which courts have the largest backlog per capita (per judge)? In 2007, the average backlog for the whole system (excluding the Supreme Court) was about 387 cases per judge. But that average, as usual, hides a tremendous disparity between the types of court—from nine cases per judge of the Sharia circuit courts to 1,716 per judge of the metropolitan trial courts. In the regional trial courts (RTCs), the average backlog per judge was 450, while in the Court of Appeals it was 260. With no recent data from the Supreme Court, we use the 2004 data: 458 cases per justice.
One cannot come to any conclusion about the relative efficiency of the different types of courts using solely the backlogs. One has to take into account the caseloads too. The judges of Sharia circuit courts, with a backlog of nine cases each, aren’t necessarily more efficient than the rest, since their total caseload for 2007 was 602 divided among 33 judges. In contrast, the metropolitan trial courts, whose 66 judges are less than 10 percent of the 799 RTC judges, have to handle a caseload that is close to 40 percent of the caseload of their RTC counterparts.
But a vital question remains unanswered. How is judicial corruption being handled? What is being done to curb it?
Well, the Español case study makes the point that an Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) for 2001-2006 was undertaken in 2001. The program included the introduction of electronic systems for payment of fees and for case-administration information (including a computer literacy course for all 28,000 judges and employees across the country), with an e-library to boot. Unfortunately, there has been no assessment so far as to the success or failure of that program.
But we can get some indication of how seriously the fight against judicial corruption is going at the ground level, by looking at how the complaints against judges at all levels have been resolved. Data provided by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which is headed by lawyer Jose Perez, for the three and a half-year period Jan. 1, 2005 to June 30, 2008 show that one Court of Appeals justice, nine RTC judges, and seven metropolitan and municipal trial court judges were dismissed on various charges. This implies a dismissal rate, for that whole period, of 1.5 percent for the Court of Appeals, 1.2 percent for the RTCs, and 0.8 percent for the metropolitan and municipal courts.
Actually, in that period, many cases were filed, but most of them were dismissed. Relative to the RTCs, for example, 82 percent of the 813 cases filed were dismissed. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that of the 34 charges that were the bases for the firing of a total of 17 justices and judges, only one was for direct bribery, only one was for “undue delay in rendering decisions,” and only one for “undue delay in rendering orders.”
Are the decisions in the above cases consistent with a picture of “systemic” judicial corruption in the Philippines painted by the 2007 Global Corruption Report? Are they consistent with the perception of widespread judicial corruption in the Philippines? Or, since these cases are resolved by fellow judges, is this a case of the judiciary being soft on itself?
