I wish to summarize below the salient points of an informative report on the judicial reforms initiated by the Philippine Supreme Court as of 2000, for purposes of legal research of the visitors of this blog, especially foreign researchers who wish to familiarize themselves with the general features of our justice system.
Supreme Court Circular No. 13, issued July 1, 1987 prescribed “Guidelines on the Administration of Justice” to avoid delay and to repudiate dilatory, tactics. This was followed by a Comprehensive Administrative Circular to implement section 12 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution. This circular was later amended by Administrative Circular No. 1-A dated July 5, 1988 and Administrative Circular No. 2 to include the semestral inventory of cases and the requirement of strict compliance on the Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of Court before petitions can be entertained by the Supreme Court.
During his tenure, Chief Justice Marcelo B. Feman initiated the following structural reforms:
a. A framework for continuous trial with the setting up of 84 pilot courts preparatory
to a nationwide implementation of the system;
b. Continuing judicial education under Administrative Order No. 6 including the
holding of orientation seminars for new judges and of career enhancement training
programs for incumbent judges;
c. Adequate monitoring and feedback mechanism in judicial performance with the
creation of the judiciary planning and implementation panel;
d. Revitalization of the Institute of Judicial Administration;
e. Ethical norms of the justice system with the drafting of a new Code of Judicial
Conduct;
f. Reforms in court procedure with the amendments of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure, Summary Procedure and Evidence;
g. Upgrading the internal processes of the Supreme Court;
h. A citizenry information campaign with the public pronouncements on the workings
of the justice system and;
The reforms instituted by Chief Justice Narvasa during his tenure were the following:
1. The establishment of the Philippine Judicial Academy (March 12, 1996) which was later created by law, Republic Act No. 8557 on January 28, 1998.
2. The promulgation of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the issuance of special Rules for Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions, as well as the Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases.
3. Designation of special courts for kidnapping, robbery, carnapping, dangerous drugs cases and other heinous crimes, Intellectual Property Rights Violations, as well as on Environmental Law and violations of the Forestry Code cases.
4. The publication of The Court Systems Journal in 1996 and the Handbook on the Court and the Criminal Justice System published in English, Tagalog, Cebuano and Ilongo versions for information dissemination in the administration of justice.
5. The creation of the Judicial Reforms Committee.
6. Creation and operation of the Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan.
7. Institution of the Case Administration System (CAS) in the Supreme Court.
Under the leadership of Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., the Supreme Court has adopted a Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. The Blueprint has primarily focused on four major areas:
(1) actions to ensure the independence, integrity and accountability of the Judiciary; (2) enhancing knowledge-based adjudication of members of the Judiciary; (3) fairness and efficiency of judicial actions; and (4) enhancing the accessibility of the justice system by all sectors.
Judicial reform has three major objectives: an independent judiciary, a moral judiciary and an efficient judiciary. In plain terms, the goal is to establish a judicial system free from political interference, subject only to the rule of law and the ends of justice; manned and served by morally upright judges and lawyers, through an efficient court system.5
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that no law can be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members. The Supreme Court is given administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. The Judiciary now enjoys fiscal autonomy. Judicial power has been defined to include the duty of courts of justice to determine whether or not 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, thereby enlarging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in deciding cases and minimizing the use of political question doctrine in cases brought before the Supreme Court.
To preserve judicial independence, there is a constitutional prohibition against the designation of judges to “any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.” This provision is supplemented by a Supreme Court resolution prohibiting judges from occupying positions in agencies that would make them subordinate to executive or legislative officials, for instance, as a member of a committee performing administrative functions under the supervision of the Secretary of Justice. The Supreme Court has also issued various circulars and pronouncements designed to promote and enhance the independence of trial judges. Thus, Circular No. 6-87 dated April 1987 prohibits judges from accepting positions in any cooperative and Circular No. 43-91 dated November 11. 1991 limits live televisions and radio coverage of court proceedings.
The budget of the judiciary leaves much to be desired. The appropriation for the judiciary in the year 2000 constituted only 1.07 percent of the total appropriation act.
By means of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the Judiciary now has a stronger voice in judicial appointments. Political patronage has been considerably diminished in the process of identifying and screening prospective nominees for judicial office. The JBC was duly constituted in December 10, 1987 by Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee. The JBC maintains a master list of applicants and recommendees to judicial positions. The list is updated regularly and stored in a database for easy access by the Council Members. The evaluation of each applicant is based on the information provided by the applicant himself and from investigations conducted by the investigation division of the JBC Secretariat. Likewise, there is a separate computerized updated list of all vacancies in the regions, provinces or municipalities. For purposes of transparency, the list of applicants for certain posts are published in the newspapers.
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8557 (1998), creating the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) ‘now requires that ‘as soon as PHILJA has been fully organized with the composition of its Corps of Professorial Lecturers and other personnel, only participants who have completed the programs prescribed by the Academy and have satisfactorily complied with all the requirements incident thereto may be appointed or promoted to any position or vacancy in the Judiciary.” The PHILJA regularly offers Pre-Judicature courses which started in 2000.
The JBC submits at least three (3) nominees to the President for every vacancy. For lower courts, the Constitution requires the President to issue the appointment within ninety (90) days from the submission of the list and to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court within ninety (90) days from its occurrence. All appointments to the judiciary do not need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. IN 2000, there were 2,221 authorized judicial positions, thus: Supreme Court, 15; Court of Appeals, 51; Sandiganbayan, 15; Court of Tax Appeals, 3; Regional Trial Courts, 950; Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), 82 Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), 126, Municipal Trial Courts, 436, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC), 480; Shari’a District Court, 5; Shari'a Circuit Court, 5 1.
In 2000 there are 699 vacancies in the different courts. One of the problems of the JBC was the lack of applicants to judicial positions particularly in the municipal level. This was the case especially if the vacancy to the judicial post was in an outlying or distant municipality or in an area where the peace and order was unstable or unsatisfactory. According to the Constitution, the members of the judiciary are appointed from a list of three nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy. The list obviously cannot be made if there are not enough qualified applicants to the position. Where the number of recommendees or applicants for a vacancy are less than three or where there is no applicant at all, the JBC is constrained to defer further consideration of the particular vacancy until it is able to obtain the requisite number of at least three applicants for screening and nomination.
The low level of compensation for judicial positions also accounts for the lack of applicants. Even in progressive provinces like Cebu, where there are a number of active practitioners, the problem of filling up vacancies persists because the compensation provided for these positions are not substantial enough to be attractive.
In 1975, Presidential Decree No. 842 created the Office of the Court Administrator which became the instrumentality through which the Supreme Court performed its supervisory functions over the courts. Under the Decree, the Court Administrator, has the rank, salary and privileges of the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals and he is assisted by the three Deputy Court Administrators (DCAs) who are assigned to administer certain judicial regions of the Philippines. The DCAs have the salary, rank and privileges of an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. The OCA has four priorities:
a. The promotion of procedural and administrative improvements of the courts;
b. Undertaking a continuous and systematic study of the structure, operations and manpower requirements of the courts with the end in view of identifying, in particular, the factors which cause docket congestion and case disposition delay and addressing such problems:
c. Legal education and court management programs for trial judges and court personnel: and
d. Function as a national clearing house with respect to reforms and innovations in judicial administration.
In 1988, the Court created a committee headed by Justice Irene R. Cortes, former Dean of the U.P. College of Law, to formulate a new Code of Judicial Conduct. The Committee submitted a proposed Code which incorporates measures to guarantee judicial discipline to maintain judicial integrity. The Supreme Court promulgated the Code of Judiciary Conduct on 5 September 1989 which took effect on 20 October 1989.
Prior to 1975 the training of judges in the Philippines was conducted on an ad hoc basis, by existing judges’ organizations. Aside from seminars conducted during conferences of judges, the trial judges participated in continuing legal education programs of the U.P. Law Center. In 1975, during the tenure of Chief Justice Querube Makalintal, the Supreme Court formally organized seminars for executive trial judges in four classes conductcd by the Development Academy of the Philippines. The provision of judicial training to judges in the University of the Philippines Law Center ended when the Supreme Court established a formal structure in the training of judges with the organization of the Institute of Judicial Administration (IJA) on 1 September 1983.
The orientation program for a newly appointed judge essentially consists of familiarizing the judge with all Supreme Court administrative circulars, principles of judicial ethics, including court rules and decisions, the judges’ relationship with the Bar, work attitudes and work ethics, courtroom semantics, communication techniques and decision writing. After the orientation course and before the judge begins to hear cases, he goes through an immersion program at his station. During his immersion the neophyte judge (1) observes court trials by sitting with a senior judge in the conduct of judicial proceedings; (2) observes the activities in the Office of the Clerk of Court, meets the court personnel, and studies their functions and duties: (3) inventories all pending cases in the branch to which he is assigned: (4) tours the territory within the jurisdiction of his court; and (5) familiarizes himself with the various local governments and government agencies operating within the territorial jurisdiction of his court.
The immersion program is supervised by the executive judge of the station, who submits to the Supreme Court a certification of completion of the immersion program. Only after completing the immersion program will the judge formally assume his judicial office.
The judicial career enrichment and judicial executive program is held once a year. It has the following salient features: (a) review of recent Supreme Court decisions and legislation; (b) monitoring and assessment of the performance of participating judges’ (c) judicial clinic to discuss court problems: and other relevant aspects of judicial training as may be prescribed by the Chief Justice.
The thrust of the judicial career development program for trial judges is to train them both as adjudicators and court managers. Today’s judges bear the highly complex responsibility not only of preparing just decisions, but also of managing effectively the human and physical resources of his court to ensure efficient and speedy delivery of justice services. Many judges see themselves only as judges and not as managers of a system of administering a justice system, but the reality is that the judge plays the dual role of both judge and manager. Hence, there is need for training them in the principles of effective court management, which would integrate their roles as adjudicators and managers in the administration of justice.
Under the chairmanship of Justice Ameurfina A. Herrera, a Committee of the Court submitted a draft of an Administrative Order creating the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA). Among the salient features are:
a. The Academy shall be a unit with the same organizational status as the Judiciary Development Planning and Implementation Office;
b. It shall he supervised by a Governing Board with the Chief Justice as Chairman;
c. The executive officials shall be headed by a Chancellor; and
d. Its teaching force shall be composed of an appointive corps of professors.
Since the Academy was envisioned as an institutionalization and refinement of the current programs for orientation and career development of judges, the Committee recommended that the programs being undertaken through the Office of the Court Administrator be assigned to the PHILJA. Coordination with the Institute of Judicial Administration of the University of the Philippines would still continue in appropriate areas of common concern under existing agreements whenever necessary.
In 1995, President Fidel V. Ramos authorized the transfer of the majority shareholdings of the Government in the Ridge Resort and Convention (RRCC) at Tagaytay City to the Supreme Court. On August 29, 1995, the Supreme Court in an en banc Resolution, authorized the Chief Justice to appoint interim directors and officers to run and manage the RRCC preparatory to the full operation of the Academy.
The Supreme Court formally established the Philippine Judicial Academy under Administrative Order 35-96, dated March 12, 1996. The appointments of retired Justices Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera and Irene Cortes as Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor, respectively, followed.
.
In coordination with the U.P. Institute of Judicial Administration (IJA), PHILJA had conducted various Seminars/Workshops and Conventions-Seminars. In 1996, it made certain innovations in its previous programs, to wit:
1. Total Quality Management (TQM) for courts. This is a new management strategy which stresses the responsibility of the Judge, as head, and all Court personnel working as a team, to ensure the effective administration and management of the court. PHILJA introduced this strategy for the first time in a Seminar-Workshop for Executive Judges of the MeTCs and MTCCs on October 23. 1996. This new concept emphasizes that Judges alone do not make the courts. After the Seminar, participants were enjoined to apply the concepts they had learned and to report to PHILJA every quarter during the ensuing year.
2. Dynamics of Leadership and Management Strategies. The Seminar-Workshop for Executive Judges of the RTCs held on September 24-27, 1996, focused on “Building a Judicial Management Team: Team Management.” The inputs provided by a faculty member of the Asian Institute of Management were intended to assist Executive Judges, and through them the Judges in their respective stations, in their leadership and management responsibilities.
3. Immersion Program for New Judges. PHILJA also revived the Immersion Program for new Judges under the supervision of Executive Judges in their respective stations. New judges undergo this Program before they assume their judicial duties. The activities include, among others, actual observation of court trials by sitting in with an experienced Judge in the conduct of proceedings: the observation of the activities in the Office of the Clerk of Court: and an inventory of all pending cases. The Executive Judge submits to the Supreme Court a Certificate of Completion of the Immersion Program. The Former program previously prescribed one (1) week for this subject. The increase in the prescribed period was necessitated by the growing complexities in the administration and delivery of justice.
4. English Grammar for Judges. This was introduced during the second Orientation Seminar for newly appointed Judges on November 11-15, 1996. Coincidentally, the “Observations on the Press” by the Philippine Judges Association and RTC Judges Association, Q.C. published on October 13, 1996 in the Manila Bulletin, was criticized by the Philippine Daily Inquirer in its issue of November 1, 1996 for "grammar and tormented English."
5. 5. Public Perceptions on Judges . A survey of the public perception on Judges was presented by the Social Weather Stations, Inc. in two seminars. Reactors from the Bench, the Bar, and mass media were invited to give comments. Judges’ reactions to the negative public perceptions ranged from incredulity to displeasure. They even challenged the methodology used in the survey. It was noted, however, that some surveys included Judges themselves as respondents.
6. Courts and Child Abuse. With the enactment of Republic Act No. 7691, topics on “Domestic Violence and Child Abuse” and “The Courts and Child Abuse” were included in two Seminars not only for informative purposes but also to make Courts more child-friendly and more effective in coping with the peculiar nature of those cases, which are proliferating worldwide.
7. Judicial Ethics and Discipline: Pitfalls in the Exercise of Judicial Power. This is to emphasize that judges must conform to the Code of Judicial Conduct and to understand the responsibility of a judge in the exercise of judicial power.
8. Values Formation. Adhering to the moral standards of old apparently has been forgotten. People have become desensitized to so much of corruption and degeneracy of those who hold the public trust. This course injects standards and values leading to a moral rebirth.
9. Computerization program A hands-on computer training program has been started for use in courtroom activities.28
On February 26. 1998, President Ramos signed into law, Republic Act No. 8557 otherwise known as the PHILJA Charter. The Charter makes the Academy a unit of the Supreme Court, governed by a Board of Trustees with a Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman, and administered by Executive Officials headed by the Chancellor.
On July 14, 1997, the Supreme Court directcd PHILJA to undertake an in-depth examination of the present legal and judicial system for the purpose of “upgrading, improving and reforming it to meet the changes and challenges of a new millenium upon the suggestion of Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban. This directive led to the creation of a Judicial Reforms Committee in the latter part of 1997. Among the recommendations of the Committee to the Supreme Court were:
1. Elimination of the review of labor cases from the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court;
2. Reforms for Case Flow Management in the Supreme Court;
3. Constitutional reforms in the composition of the Senate and House of Representatives Electoral Tribunals;
4. Reforms in Philippine Juvenile Justice System;
5. Provision of “PHILJA Updates” in electronic format:
6. Amendments to some constitutional provisions on the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC);
7. Placing under the Office of the Chief Justice, the Publication and Information Office created in the Office of the Court Administrator;
8. Amendments to Certain Sections of Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure Prescribing a Period for Service of Summons,
9. Expansion of the Coverage and Increase of the Penalty for Violation of Article 243 of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended;
10. Adoption of Uniform and Simplified Orders for Trial Courts:
11. Briefing on Orientation Session for Newly Appointed Justices of the Court of Appeals with Suggestions to the Court of Appeals on (a) their Internal Rules, and (b) Decongesting its Docket and Improving Case Flow:
12. Amendment of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure by Prescribing a Period for the Resolution of Motions (No. R-5, Feb. 10, 1999);
13. Proposal to Clarify the Applicability of Administrative Order No. 3, dated October 19, 1984 to Notarial Foreclosures of Mortgage;
14. Proposal to Amend Administrative Order No. 3, dated 19 October 1984, so as to Establish a Uniform Procedure for all kinds of Extra-Judicial Foreclosures of Real Estate Mortgage.
Article Ill, section 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides that: “all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.” However. the bane of the judicial system is court congestion and delay. Congestion of court dockets continues to be one of the most serious problems of the Philippine judicial system. Cases pending in all levels of the judicial system keep piling up at an alarming rate. The general average of judicial disposal of cases annually is only at 85.83%.
Congestion in court dockets has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Because of congestion, it literally takes a generation before some cases are resolved and the remedies prayed for are no longer efficacious because of the passage of time and of changed circumstances. Another consequence of cases pending for an extended period is that court files can disappear and witnesses are likely to lose interest or withdraw their cooperation. In these situations courts would be unable to resolve the dispute according to the true circumstances of the case. Court delays also encourage and facilitate unethical tactics: lawyers and clients are provided greater opportunity to intimidate witnesses, dispose of vital evidence, employ strategies for bribery and influence-peddling, or even win cases as the result of sheer exhaustion on the part of judges or opponents. Court docket congestion likewise deprives judges the time to study thoroughly and reflect on pending cases thus adversely affecting the quality of justice. Judges may succumb to the temptation of uncritically accepting any argument of a party that sounds convincing at face value.
Several causes have been identified for backlog and case delay. Former Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa gives five of them:
a. the increase in number of cases filed over the years due to the heightened awareness of the people of their rights and privileges, the enactment of new laws and rules, as well as increased government actions affecting private individuals:
b. the lack of courts, and the slowness or difficulty in filling up vacancies;
c. the small budget allocated to the judiciary;
d. the complexity of the rules of procedures;
e. the inadequacy or failure of cooperation of court-related agencies and officers.50
Other authors attribute the causes of delay to:
a. The resistance of lawyers to reforms for efficiency in the court processes because this would mean a loss of their multiple appearance fees;
b. The lack of court control of the docket and poor court management skills on the part of the judge;
c. The use of the courts as a collection agency for B.P. 22 cases where criminal actions arc filed against makers of post-dated checks even when no fraud is involved; and
d. The lack of lawyers in far-flung areas.
An important problem confronting trial courts especially in Metro Manila is the big number of "inherited" cases. These are cases left undecided by judges who had either died, retired, resigned or had been dismissed. A great number of these cases had accumulated over the years and cannot be decided immediately by judges appointed to replace their predecessors.
The Judiciary Planning Development and Implementation Office (JPDIO) was established in June 15, 1989, to address this concern. It had the function of formulating plans, projects and programs to improve the administration of justice. For this purpose. it was tasked with monitoring the programs and performance of judges and the courts. It had coordinated not only with the Office of the Court Administrator but also with other related agencies such as the Department of Justice. To assist RTCs (mainly in the NCJR) in deciding or resolving "inherited cases” the JPDIO had assigned these cases to assisting judges who held office at the JPDIO office in the Supreme Court, for disposition. The Judicial Planning Development and implementation Office also established a monitoring system, initially regionalized, to provide the Supreme Court with solid information on the performance of individual judges and their courts.
The maximum use of pre-trial processes in the settlement of disputes outside the arena of in-court litigation is now mandatory under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Alternative dispute resolution systems such as arbitration, mediation and conciliation are also being institutionalized to become part of the court system. The creation of small claims court, or specialized courts of specific classes of offenses or claims which can speedily settle localized controversies is seriously being considered. Pre-trial serves to narrow the issues and to provide the court with information to aid the court. It has been demonstrated that a well-conducted pre-trial results in a more orderly presentation of evidence at the trial. To the extent that pre-trial reduces trial time because of admissions or stipulations which dispenses with formal proof of such matters at trial, also solves congestion and delay in the disposition of cases.
A unique feature in the justice system in the Philippines is the settlement of disputes at the barangay or village level. The Katarungang Pambarangay, is a mediation and conciliation system designed to speed up the settlement of minor civil and criminal cases and to minimize the referral of such disputes to the court. In these cases, courts will not entertain complaints unless there is a certification from the Lupon that the dispute could not be settled by the parties. With this innovation, minor cases are resolved at the village level without the need of court action.
In its first two years of operation, the Lupon’s conciliatory panels settled 156,527 or 87.2% of the 179,358 disputes submittcd to them for conciliation. The settlements resulted in an estimated savings of P155,900,000 worth of judicial man-hours. Republic Act No. 7160 (1992), otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provided for a Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law and introduced substantial changes not only in the authority granted to the Lupon Tagapamayapa but also in the procedure to be observed in the settlement of disputes within the authority of the Lupon. To prevent the conciliation process from being undermined by indiscriminate, improper or premature issuances of certificates to file actions in court by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretaries, the Supreme Court had issued guidelines to trial court judges in cases brought before them from the Barangays.
Under the sponsorship of Senator (former Chief Justice) Marcelo B. Fernan, Republic Act No. 8493, otherwise known as the Speedy Trial Act, was passed on February 12, 1998. It imposed mandatory pre-trial in all criminal cases cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court. Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court and the Sandiganbayan to consider plea bargaining, stipulation of facts, marking for identification of evfdence of parties, waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence, and such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial. The following are the time limits imposed by the Act:
Sanctions are also imposed on the counsel for the accused, the public prosecutor or public attorney for 1) knowingly allowing the case to be set for trial without disclosing the fact that a necessary witness would be unavailable for trial; 2) filing a motion solely for the purpose of delay which is totally frivolous and without merit; 3) making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a continuance; or 4) otherwise willfully failing to proceed to trial without prejudice to any appropriate criminal and/ or administrative charges to be instituted by the proper party, the court may impose a fine not exceeding fifty percent of the compensation to which the private counsel is entitled in connection with the defense of the accused or a fine not exceeding ten thousand pesos on any appointed counsel de officio, or public prosecutor and by denying the defense counsel and prosecution the right to practice for a period not exceeding thirty days.
To implement the provisions of the Act, the Supreme Court issued Circular No. 38-96. dated August 11, 1998. It required that the court, after consultation with the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, should set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time to ensure speedy trial but in no case should the entire trial period exceed 180 days. It also provided that no provision of Republic Act No. 8493 shall be interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial of speedy trial as provided for in the Constitution.
Supreme Court Circular No. 13 dated July 1, 1987 contained the “Guidelines on the Administration of Justice.” The Circular points out that “delay is a recurring complaint of every litigant. The main objective of every judge particularly of trial judges should be to avoid delay or if it cannot be totally avoided, to hold them to the minimum and to repudiate manifestly dilatory tactics enforced by the Supreme Court to prevent or minimize delay in the administration of Justice.
a. punctuality and strict observance of office hours;
b. maximize use of pre-trial and discovery procedures;
c. active management of trials, minimum postponements;
d. annual conferences on pending cases;
e. inventory of cases every month;
f. preparation of concise and brief decisions;
g. visits by the Supreme Court personnel to make audits of case dispositions.76
Visit, for more materials: www.supremecourt.gov.ph
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
lcmlaw@gmail.com
