A few years ago, the Philippine Supreme Court created a team to study the issue of judicial delay. I wish to summarize the salient parts of its report, for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog, who might be interested to know the Philippine justice system better.
The team classified the causes of delay as follows:
(a) court system delay, which is the court’s failure to act promptly and adequately without any fault on the part of the litigants or their counsel, on matters concerning the processing of actions filed in court until the same are finally resolved. These may be attributed both to the judge as well as to the court personnel;
(b) lawyer caused delay, since, as counsel for litigants who participate directly in the judicial process, lawyers substantially and unavoidably influence the conduct of court proceedings, and thus constitute a “rich” source of delay;
(c) delay caused by court-related agencies, such as poor coordination between the courts and the law enforcement agencies;
(d) the complexity of the legal system, which refers to the convoluted and redundant rules; and
(e) structural problems inherent in the judicial system, such as budgetary constraints.
Much of the delay may also be attributed to an attitudinal problem. The litigious nature of Filipinos, the tendency to appeal the most trifle cases all the way to the Supreme Court, and the adamant refusal to explore alternative forms of dispute resolution, are among the more common manifestations.
As to the role of the police agencies in the problem of delay, there are certain inherent problems within the police system which are inescapably intertwined with the administration of justice, some of which are the following:
a. Delay in the transmittal of cases from police to the prosecutor;
b. Inadequacy of training investigation and in the handling of evidence;
c. Non-appearance of police officers during trial due to conflicting schedules;
d. Lack of coordination among the police officers; and
e. Failure of police officers to effect arrest.
The prosecution system has its own share of flaws and problems. Former Justice Secretary, now Senator, Franklin M. Drilon points out a few of such predicaments, to wit: absence of prescribed guidelines and sufficient information on the organization, functions, systems and procedures of the National Prosecution Service; incompetence of prosecutors due to lack of continuing legal education; and undue delay due to certain procedural la
The Supreme Court team’s recommendations with direct budgetary implications were:
1 the filling up of vacant judicial posts and the increase in the salary of judges;
2 the appointment of more prosecutors and the increase of their salaries;
3 the appointment of more public attorneys and the increase of their salaries;
4 the creation of regular posts for court personnel and a stop to the practice of hiring “casuals”;
5 the giving of incentives to those who are deserving;
6 the improvement of court facilities and the procurement of modern equipment;
7 the training of judges, court personnel, prosecutors, public attorneys and lawyers; and,
8 the setting up of law libraries in the Halls of Justice.
Recommendations that required legislation or the promulgation of rules of procedure were:
1 the reapportionment of court branches to achieve a more proportionate distribution of caseloads;
2 the decriminalization of status offenses, such as vagrancy, and the amendment of the Bouncing Cheeks Law;
3 the increase in the threshold amounts in crimes against property under the Revised Penal Code;
4 the creation of Small Claims Courts, the expansion of the coverage of the Arbitration Law, and the mandatory resort to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms;
5 the imposition of penalties on police officers who fail to appear in court;
6 the simplified service of summons through the Philippine Postal Corporation or a private entity and the service of pleadings though fax machines and electronic mail;
7 the creation of the Marshals Office to serve warrants of arrest; and
8 allowing paralegals and underbars to appear before municipal courts.
The team also made the following recommendations relating to the management, of courts and administrative matters:
1 intensified monitoring of caseloads and case disposition;
2 avoidance of accumulation of cases by appointing assisting judges, by deloading over-burdened salas, and by requiring disposition of all cases as a condition for promotion or optional retirement;
3 the issuance of a memorandum circular emphasizing a judge’s responsibility for what happens in his courtroom
4 the formulation of an evaluation system for court personnel;
5 the strict enforcement of the Speedy Trial Act and the effective utilization of pre- trial:
6 the institutionalization of the practice of requiring submission of draft resolutions, orders and decisions:
7 the publication of a handbooks of pleadings for prosecutors. public attorneys and lawyers, and of resolutions, orders and decisions for judges, and a manual of procedures in the Department of Justice.
Other recommendations of the team included:
1 giving the Integrated Bar of the Philippines more powers to discipIine its members;
2 strengthening the system of legal education;
3 implementing a continuing legal education program;
4 disseminating legal information and materials to lawyers;
5 production of more legal reference materials; and
6 devising an effective system of appointing counsels de oficio.
