In the case of SPOUSES RODOLFO and SYLVIA CABICO vs. UDGE EVELYN L. DIMACULANGAN-QUERIJERO, EN BANC, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1735, April 27, 2007, the Supreme Court found a judge liable for GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW and imposed on her a fine of P21,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.
The Court held that the mere filing of affidavit of desistance or “Salaysay ng Pag-uurong ng Habla” by the aggrieved party herself, does not ipso facto make the criminal case dismissible. In rape case under Article 266-C, the law does not include desistance of the offended party as a ground for extinction of criminal liability whether total or partial.
Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; service of the sentence; amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; absolute pardon; prescription of the crime; prescription of the penalty; the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.
Under Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is extinguished partially by conditional pardon; commutation of the sentence; and for good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.
May I digest the said case below, thus:
X x x.
The complaint presented the issues of manifest partiality of respondent Judge in favor of the accused; discourtesy in insulting complainant in open court; and gross ignorance of the law in dismissing the criminal complaint against one of the accused despite the fact that being at large, the court has not obtained jurisdiction over his person.
x x x [T]he mere filing of affidavit of desistance or “Salaysay ng Pag-uurong ng Habla” by the aggrieved party herself, does not ipso facto make the criminal case dismissible. Article 266-C does not include desistance of the offended party as a ground for extinction of criminal liability whether total or partial.
x x x x
Respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law when she issued the order dated 12 October 2001, dismissing the criminal case with prejudice against both accused after the latter had paid their individual civil liability. x x x
On the issue of respondent’s partiality towards the accused, the same was very much apparent when respondent issued an order on 12 October 2001 dismissing the complaint against all three accused, she stated therein that the civil liability has been paid and that private complainant was no longer interested in the criminal aspect of the case, despite of the fact that on the same date complainant and the victim refused to sign the affidavit of desistance prepared for them. Due to respondent’s haste to dismiss the criminal complaint, she even forgot the fact that the accused therein Rayshawn de la Rosa has not yet been arraigned. It was only on 21 November 2001 that the two accused were arraigned.
X x x.
There is no question that on 12 October 2001, respondent Judge dismissed with prejudice Criminal Case Nos. 10384-AF and 10383-AFagainst Dela Rosa and Azarcon after they had paid their individual civil liability. This is in utter disregard and in gross ignorance of the law, for payment of civil liability does not extinguish criminal liability. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.
On the other hand, Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Partial extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.
The victim’s affidavit of desistance could not have justified the dismissal of the criminal cases. Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the “Anti-Rape Law of 1997,” has reclassified rape as a crime against persons. Hence, any public prosecutor, even without the complaint of the victim or her parents, or guardian, can prosecute the offender.
Even if we consider the victim’s affidavit of desistance, still it would not justify the dismissal. By itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once the action has been instituted in court. Here, the victim made the so-called pardon of the accused after the institution of the action. Hence, the victim had already lost the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed because the case had already reached and must therefore continue to be heard by the trial court.
When a law or a rule is basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply the law. Anything less is gross ignorance of the law. As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, a judge is expected to keep abreast with and be proficient in the interpretation of our laws. A judge should be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with statutes and procedural rules. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, respondent Judge owes the public and the court she sits in proficiency in the law. Respondent Judge failed to live up to these standards.
Respondent Judge has also clearly violated Rule 2.01 of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides:
A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Respondent Judge showed partiality in favor of the accused when she issued her 12 October 2001 order dismissing the subject criminal case. Respondent Judge stated in her order that she dismissed the criminal case because Dela Rosa and Azarcon had already paid their civil liability and “private complainant was no longer interested in the criminal aspect of the case.” However, the record reveals that on the same day that the dismissal order was issued, complainant Sylvia Cabico and the victim had also refused to sign the affidavit of desistance that was prepared for them.
Also, respondent Judge dismissed with prejudice the criminal case against Dela Rosa even when he had not been arraigned. By her own admission, respondent Judge made an “oversight that accused Dela Rosa was already under the jurisdiction of the court.” Thus, in her order of 21 November 2001, respondent Judge ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Dela Rosa.
Respondent Judge’s actuations in the premises only betray her gross ignorance of procedural rules. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired by arrest.
Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, such incompetence erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. Basic rules of procedure must be at the palm of a judge’s hands.
When the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law, or a principle in the discharge of his duties, the judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds or is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority.
We cannot countenance respondent Judge’s discourtesy in insulting Sylvia Cabico during the hearing on 12 October 2001. Respondent Judge’s statement was unbecoming a judge. Her behavior towards Sylvia Cabico betrayed her impatience in the conduct of the hearing.
A display of petulance and impatience in the conduct of a trial is a norm of behavior incompatible with the needful attitude and sobriety of a good judge. Respondent Judge’s actuations violated Rule 3.04 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, thus:
Rule 3.04. -- A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.
Clearly, respondent Judge has failed to observe courtesy and civility to the litigants who appeared before her.
Respondent Judge’s reliance on Section 2(a), Rule 18 of the Rules of Court in disposing of the criminal case is misplaced. While the effort of respondent Judge to hasten the resolution of the cases before her is commendable, that task, however, should not be done in utter disregard of the rudiments of the law and procedure. The duty to dispose of the court business promptly and to decide cases within the reglementary periods should be consistent with a faithful compliance with the prescribed set of procedures. The avowed purpose of acting on cases as early as possible does not justify even the slightest abuse of judicial authority and discretion or excuse due observance of the basic elements of the rule of law.
A judge must render justice without resorting to uncalled for shortcuts. Respondent Judge failed to live up to the standards required of her high position.
Under Rule 140, Section 8(9) of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, gross ignorance of the law or procedure is classified as a serious charge and penalized with dismissal, suspension, or a fine ranging from above P20,000 to P40,000.
Under the circumstances prevailing in the present case, we find that a fine of P21,000 is in order.
X x x.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Arbitrary detention
In the case of JUDGE DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL vs. JUDGE LORINDA B. TOLEDO- MUPAS, En Banc, A.M. No. 03-1462-MTJ, April 19, 2007, the Supreme Court held that when the gross inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law, or a principle in the discharge of his or her duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the exalted position and title he or she holds, or the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority.
In the said case, the respondent judges insisted on issuing orders which she called "Detention Pending Investigation of the Case" which she insisted to be an implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court reminded the Bench that although judges have in their favor the presumption of regularity and good faith in the performance of their official functions, a blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable terms of the law obviates this presumption and renders them susceptible to administrative sanctions. Being among the judicial front-liners who have direct contact with the litigants, a wanton display of utter lack of familiarity with the rules by the judge inevitably erodes the confidence of the public in the competence of our courts to render justice. It subjects the judiciary to embarrassment. Worse, it could raise the specter of corruption.
May I digest the same below, thus:
X x x.
In the same Comment, Judge Español said that Judge Mupas operated the MTC of Dasmariñas, Cavite as a “One-Stop Shop” where criminal suspects apprehended without a warrant are ordered detained in the municipal jail by virtue of an unsigned “Detention Pending Investigation of the Case,” in lieu of a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as prescribed by R.A. No. 7438 and by Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, according to Judge Español, the apprehended persons were detained for a long time until Judge Mupas set the case for preliminary investigation. If the detainee can post bail, Judge Mupas would fix the amount of bail and require that the premium, usually equivalent to 20% or 30% thereof, be paid in cash. If the surety bond was secured outside of the MTC, the bond would be rejected. Hence, the applicants for bail bonds would go to the RTC of Dasmariñas, Cavite to complain and apply for the release of the detention prisoners.
X x x.
Accordingly, Judge Mupas faced the following charges: (1) violation of Rule 112, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, and Republic Act No. 7438; and (2) violation of the rules on preliminary investigation (a) for the delay in the resolution of preliminary investigation cases pending in [Judge Mupas’] court; (b) for failure to perform her ministerial duty of transmitting the records of the case, including the resolution on the preliminary investigation, within 10 days from the issuance of the said resolution to the provincial prosecutor of Cavite; and (c) for conducting preliminary investigation despite the fact that there were many prosecutors in Cavite not indisposed to do the job.
X x x.
In an undated Resolution filed with the OCA on February 9, 2007, Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal found, contrary to Judge Mupas’ claim, that the document entitled "Detention Pending Investigation of Cases" cannot validly be deemed to be an implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Justice Vidal submits the following findings:
“Extant from the records, is Respondent’s admission of her practice in the issuance of the document entitled ‘Detention Pending Investigation of Cases’ claiming, however, that such document served as an implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
“The undersigned disagrees.
“Sec. 2 e) of RA 7438 is in point, thus:
xxx Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect. (Underscoring supplied)
“The afore cited law is clear and simple. Thus, construction is unnecessary. Clearly, what the said provision requires to protect the rights of the accused is a written waiver signed by the accused with the assistance of a counsel. However, the procedure adopted by the Respondent runs counter thereto. She resorted to the issuance of a commitment order dubbed as ‘Detention Pending Investigation of the Case’ to legally prolong the detention of the accused pending the resolution of the preliminary investigation. Obviously, this is not within the contemplation of the law. Thus, the practice is highly erroneous – a blatant manifestation of ignorance in the legal procedure.
“The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (AM No. 03-05-01-SC; June 1, 2004) provides:
Canon 6 – Competence and Diligence
xxx
Sec. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.
xxx
“Otherwise put, Respondent is presumed to know the basic measures to protect the rights of the accused during preliminary investigation. Sadly, Respondent failed in this regard. Instead, she maintained the practice of issuing this highly improper order, i.e., ‘Detention Pending Investigation of the Case’, just to put a semblance of legality in the detention of the accused.”
With respect to the other charges, Justice Vidal found the evidence insufficient to support the accusations that Judge Mupas: (1) detained the accused for a long period of time while the preliminary investigation was pending in her court; (2) failed to transmit to the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite the records of the case within 10 days after preliminary investigation; and (3) acted without authority to conduct preliminary investigation because there were enough prosecutors in Cavite to conduct the same.
Justice Vidal then concludes:
“However, the undersigned finds that Respondent should still be held administratively liable. Respondent’s act of issuing orders dubbed as ‘Detention Pending Investigation of Cases’ instead of requiring the accused to execute a written waiver, with the assistance of counsel, pursuant to Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, fall [sic] short of the measure of responsibility expected from a judge.
“Respondent should be reminded that the actions of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the clerk of lowest rank, should be circumscribed with a high degree of responsibility. The image of a court, as a true temple of justice, is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. Judicial personnel are expected to be living examples of uprightness in the performance of official duties [and] preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community.”
X x x.
There is no gainsaying that Judge Mupas’ practice of issuing "Detention Pending Investigation of the Case" orders in lieu of a written waiver signed by the accused with the assistance of counsel is, in the words of Justice Vidal, "a blatant manifestation of ignorance in the legal procedure." It is gross ignorance of the law, pure and simple.
X x x.
In the present case, while the documents denominated "Detention Pending Investigation of the Case" were issued during the same period of time that the three (3) above-cited cases were decided, it is noteworthy that Judge Mupas continued with the practice even after her attention had been called. Worse, she remained insistent that the document was an implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Judge Mupas must be reminded that although judges have in their favor the presumption of regularity and good faith in the performance of their official functions, a blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable terms of the law obviates this presumption and renders them susceptible to administrative sanctions. Being among the judicial front-liners who have direct contact with the litigants, a wanton display of utter lack of familiarity with the rules by the judge inevitably erodes the confidence of the public in the competence of our courts to render justice. It subjects the judiciary to embarrassment. Worse, it could raise the specter of corruption.
When the gross inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law, or a principle in the discharge of his or her duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the exalted position and title he or she holds, or the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority.
All said, this Court finds the respondent, Judge Lorinda B. Toledo-Mupas, administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. Considering that this is her fourth offense, she deserves to be meted the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service, with all the accessory penalties appurtenant thereto.
X x x.
In the said case, the respondent judges insisted on issuing orders which she called "Detention Pending Investigation of the Case" which she insisted to be an implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court reminded the Bench that although judges have in their favor the presumption of regularity and good faith in the performance of their official functions, a blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable terms of the law obviates this presumption and renders them susceptible to administrative sanctions. Being among the judicial front-liners who have direct contact with the litigants, a wanton display of utter lack of familiarity with the rules by the judge inevitably erodes the confidence of the public in the competence of our courts to render justice. It subjects the judiciary to embarrassment. Worse, it could raise the specter of corruption.
May I digest the same below, thus:
X x x.
In the same Comment, Judge Español said that Judge Mupas operated the MTC of Dasmariñas, Cavite as a “One-Stop Shop” where criminal suspects apprehended without a warrant are ordered detained in the municipal jail by virtue of an unsigned “Detention Pending Investigation of the Case,” in lieu of a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as prescribed by R.A. No. 7438 and by Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, according to Judge Español, the apprehended persons were detained for a long time until Judge Mupas set the case for preliminary investigation. If the detainee can post bail, Judge Mupas would fix the amount of bail and require that the premium, usually equivalent to 20% or 30% thereof, be paid in cash. If the surety bond was secured outside of the MTC, the bond would be rejected. Hence, the applicants for bail bonds would go to the RTC of Dasmariñas, Cavite to complain and apply for the release of the detention prisoners.
X x x.
Accordingly, Judge Mupas faced the following charges: (1) violation of Rule 112, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, and Republic Act No. 7438; and (2) violation of the rules on preliminary investigation (a) for the delay in the resolution of preliminary investigation cases pending in [Judge Mupas’] court; (b) for failure to perform her ministerial duty of transmitting the records of the case, including the resolution on the preliminary investigation, within 10 days from the issuance of the said resolution to the provincial prosecutor of Cavite; and (c) for conducting preliminary investigation despite the fact that there were many prosecutors in Cavite not indisposed to do the job.
X x x.
In an undated Resolution filed with the OCA on February 9, 2007, Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal found, contrary to Judge Mupas’ claim, that the document entitled "Detention Pending Investigation of Cases" cannot validly be deemed to be an implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Justice Vidal submits the following findings:
“Extant from the records, is Respondent’s admission of her practice in the issuance of the document entitled ‘Detention Pending Investigation of Cases’ claiming, however, that such document served as an implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
“The undersigned disagrees.
“Sec. 2 e) of RA 7438 is in point, thus:
xxx Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect. (Underscoring supplied)
“The afore cited law is clear and simple. Thus, construction is unnecessary. Clearly, what the said provision requires to protect the rights of the accused is a written waiver signed by the accused with the assistance of a counsel. However, the procedure adopted by the Respondent runs counter thereto. She resorted to the issuance of a commitment order dubbed as ‘Detention Pending Investigation of the Case’ to legally prolong the detention of the accused pending the resolution of the preliminary investigation. Obviously, this is not within the contemplation of the law. Thus, the practice is highly erroneous – a blatant manifestation of ignorance in the legal procedure.
“The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (AM No. 03-05-01-SC; June 1, 2004) provides:
Canon 6 – Competence and Diligence
xxx
Sec. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.
xxx
“Otherwise put, Respondent is presumed to know the basic measures to protect the rights of the accused during preliminary investigation. Sadly, Respondent failed in this regard. Instead, she maintained the practice of issuing this highly improper order, i.e., ‘Detention Pending Investigation of the Case’, just to put a semblance of legality in the detention of the accused.”
With respect to the other charges, Justice Vidal found the evidence insufficient to support the accusations that Judge Mupas: (1) detained the accused for a long period of time while the preliminary investigation was pending in her court; (2) failed to transmit to the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite the records of the case within 10 days after preliminary investigation; and (3) acted without authority to conduct preliminary investigation because there were enough prosecutors in Cavite to conduct the same.
Justice Vidal then concludes:
“However, the undersigned finds that Respondent should still be held administratively liable. Respondent’s act of issuing orders dubbed as ‘Detention Pending Investigation of Cases’ instead of requiring the accused to execute a written waiver, with the assistance of counsel, pursuant to Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, fall [sic] short of the measure of responsibility expected from a judge.
“Respondent should be reminded that the actions of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the clerk of lowest rank, should be circumscribed with a high degree of responsibility. The image of a court, as a true temple of justice, is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. Judicial personnel are expected to be living examples of uprightness in the performance of official duties [and] preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community.”
X x x.
There is no gainsaying that Judge Mupas’ practice of issuing "Detention Pending Investigation of the Case" orders in lieu of a written waiver signed by the accused with the assistance of counsel is, in the words of Justice Vidal, "a blatant manifestation of ignorance in the legal procedure." It is gross ignorance of the law, pure and simple.
X x x.
In the present case, while the documents denominated "Detention Pending Investigation of the Case" were issued during the same period of time that the three (3) above-cited cases were decided, it is noteworthy that Judge Mupas continued with the practice even after her attention had been called. Worse, she remained insistent that the document was an implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Judge Mupas must be reminded that although judges have in their favor the presumption of regularity and good faith in the performance of their official functions, a blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable terms of the law obviates this presumption and renders them susceptible to administrative sanctions. Being among the judicial front-liners who have direct contact with the litigants, a wanton display of utter lack of familiarity with the rules by the judge inevitably erodes the confidence of the public in the competence of our courts to render justice. It subjects the judiciary to embarrassment. Worse, it could raise the specter of corruption.
When the gross inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law, or a principle in the discharge of his or her duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the exalted position and title he or she holds, or the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority.
All said, this Court finds the respondent, Judge Lorinda B. Toledo-Mupas, administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. Considering that this is her fourth offense, she deserves to be meted the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service, with all the accessory penalties appurtenant thereto.
X x x.
Small claims FAQ
May I quote in full below the official Supreme Court FAQ on the new Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
What is A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the “Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases”?
It is a special rule of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making power under Sec. 5(5) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, to govern small claims cases and is to be piloted in designated first level courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts). This rule allows a plaintiff (the person suing) to sue a defendant (the person being sued) without the need of a lawyer.
This new rule becomes effective on 1 October 2008.
What is the purpose of small claims process?
The purpose of a small claims process is to provide a simpler and a more inexpensive and expeditious means of settling disputes involving purely money claims than the regular civil process.
What are the distinct features of a small claims process?
Inexpensiveness, informality, and simplicity. Every aspect of the process is designed to allow a person to handle his/her own case from start to finish quickly and inexpensively. There are ready-made forms available and strict procedural rules, including the rules of evidence, do not apply. Hence, there is no need for a lawyer.
What are “small claims cases”?
These are civil claims which are exclusively for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money not exceeding P100,000.00.
What are “small claims courts”?
These are first level courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts). They hear and decide small claims cases following this new rule of procedure.
Does the new rule on small claims cases create new courts?
No. The new rule simply provides a procedure for prosecuting, defending, and adjudicating small claims cases, which by law are already within the jurisdiction of first level courts.
To jumpstart the launch of this new rule, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 141-2008 designating 22 first level courts all over the country as pilot courts to hear and decide small claims cases, in accordance with the new rule of procedure for small claims cases.
Thus, upon the effectivity of A.O. No. 141-2008, all small claims cases filed in the station of these pilot courts shall be assigned immediately to the said courts. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Three (3) months after the implementation of this rule, an initial assessment shall be undertaken by the Technical Working Group (TWG) on Small Claims Court Pilot Project. Six (6) months thereafter, a final assessment and project review shall be submitted to recommend the feasibility of applying this rule to all small claims cases in all first level courts.
What is the scope of the rule?
The rule only covers cases in first level courts involving purely money claims where the value of the claim/s does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) and does not include interest and costs. (Sec. 2)
What kinds of claims or demands are covered by this rule?
Typical claims include actual damages caused to vehicles, other personal property, real property or person. Money owed under a contract of lease, contract of loan, contract of services, contract of sale, or contract of mortgage, may also be demanded.
It also includes purely civil actions for payment of money covered by a bounced or stopped check.
An amicable settlement reached in the barangay or an arbitration award involving a money claim may also be enforced under this rule.
Can separate claims be combined in one case?
Yes. The plaintiff may combine in a single statement of claim, one or more separate small claims against the same defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed P100,000.00. (Sec. 6)
What kinds of actions or claims or demands are excluded under this rule?
Criminal actions are excluded because of certain limitations or mandatory requirements under the 1987 Constitution, particularly Sec. 14(2) of Article III (Bill of Rights), which grants the accused in all criminal prosecutions “the right to be heard by himself and counsel.” Thus, a case for libel or slander cannot be filed in a small claims court. However, the civil aspect of a criminal action which seeks recovery of money as damages may be heard as a small claim if reserved or instituted separately prior to the filing of the criminal case.
There are also some kinds of civil cases that cannot be brought to a small claims court no matter how little the amount is involved. Examples of these are a suit to force a person to fix a damaged good, or a demand for the fulfillment of an obligation which is not purely for money.
How does one start a small claims case?
The plaintiff must first accomplish a verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) and certify the information provided, stating that he/she has not filed any action involving the very same issue in any other court, tribunal or agency through a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping (Form 1-A-SCC).
The Statement of Claim must be accompanied by certified duplicate photocopies of all supporting documents (i.e. contract, promissory note, affidavit/sworn statement of witnesses, pictures, receipts, etc…)
The plaintiff then files the Statement of Claim with its accompanying documents with the small claims court, personally or through mail, and pays the correct docket and filing fees. (Sec. 5)
Are there filing fees to be paid for small claims cases?
Yes, the plaintiff or defendant shall pay the docket and other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court at the time of the filing of the Statement of the Claim with the Office of the Clerk of Court. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
If you do not have money to pay the fees because of your financial status, you may apply to the small claims court to qualify as an indigent, and once you qualify as an indigent you are exempt from payment of such fees. (Sec. 8)
Even if declared as an indigent, is a person still required to pay P1,000.00 for service of summons and processes?
Yes. Even if declared as an indigent, a person is not exempt from payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and processes in civil cases. (Sec. 8)
Once a Statement of Claim is filed in the small claims court, may the court dismiss the case at its own instance?
Yes. The court may dismiss the case outright when any grounds for the dismissal of a civil case is apparent or obvious from the Statement of Claim and supporting documents. (Sec. 9)
What is the duty of the court after a plaintiff files a Statement of Claim and it does not find any ground to dismiss the claim?
The court informs the defendant that a case has been filed against him/her through the issuance of Summons (Form 2-SCC) on the day of the receipt of the Statement of the Claim and accompanying documents. Through the Summons, the court directs the defendant to file his/her verified Response (Form 3-SCC) as well as other supporting documents or evidence, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from its receipt.
The court also serves a Notice of Hearing (Form 4-SCC) to both parties, directing them to appear before it on a specific date and time, with a warning that no unjustified postponement shall be allowed. (Sec. 10)
The Summons and Notice of Hearing must be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim and documents submitted by plaintiff, and a copy of the Response to be accomplished by the defendant. (Sec. 10)
After a defendant has received the summons and notice from the court, what is he/she required to submit?
The defendant shall file with the court a duly-accomplished and verified Response together with proof that he/she has served such Response to plaintiff within the prescribed period.
The Response shall also be accompanied by certified copies of documents and the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support thereof. (Sec. 11)
What is the effect if a defendant fails to file a Response within the prescribed period for filing?
The court decides the case based on the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim and the supporting documents attached to it. (Sec. 12)
Instead of filing a Response, can a defendant file a motion to dismiss the claim?
No. The filing of a motion to dismiss instead of a response is prohibited under the rule, except on ground of lack of jurisdiction. (Sec. 14).
What is a counterclaim?
A counterclaim is a claim which a defendant files against the person who sues him (plaintiff). Similar to a claim, a counterclaim must seek the recovery of money only.
If a defendant believes that he/she is entitled to be paid money by the plaintiff, such defendant must include this counterclaim in his/her Response.
What happens when a defendant fails to include a counterclaim in his/her Response?
If the counterclaim is related to the plaintiff’s claim, or arose out of it (the legal term is “compulsory counterclaim”), it must be raised in the same case. Otherwise, it will be barred.
Apart from a motion to dismiss a claim, are there other pleadings, motions, or petitions that cannot be filed?
Yes. These are the prohibited pleadings in Sec. 14 of this rule.
Who are required to appear at the hearing?
The parties shall appear at the hearing personally or through a representative they may authorize under a Special Power of Attorney (Form 5-SCC) to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits. (Sec. 16)
Are lawyers allowed at the hearing?
No, lawyers are not allowed to appear at the hearing unless they are the plaintiff or the defendant.
Does this mean that lawyers are not allowed throughout the small claims process?
No, lawyers are only not allowed to appear at the hearing of the case. Since the process is still a legal process, the parties and their authorized representatives can still consult with a lawyer to assist them to prepare for the hearing or for other matters outside the hearing. (Sec. 17)
Who is allowed to assist a party who cannot properly present his/her claim or defense?
The court, in its discretion, may allow another individual who is not a lawyer to assist the party. (Sec. 17)
What happens if the parties do not appear at the hearing?
If the plaintiff does not appear, the claim shall be dismissed without prejudice.
If the defendant does not appear, the effect will be the same as failure to file a Response under Sec. 12 of this rule.
If both parties do not appear, the claim and counterclaim shall be dismissed with prejudice. (Sec. 18)
When is postponement of a hearing allowed?
It may be granted only upon proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before the court on the scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only one (1) postponement. (Sec. 19)
What is the role of the judge designated to hear small claims cases? 28.
In small claims cases, the role of the judge is to ascertain the factual matters at issue and to elicit the evidence––all in one hearing, and render a decision thereafter The judge shall encourage the parties to settle by employing the different modes of Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR).
How does the judge employ the modes of JDR?
The judge who employs JDR – as understood within the context of the rule of procedure for small claims cases – should be confined to exerting efforts in helping the parties arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or any other mode of JDR. This means the judge shall use any mode to try and bring about an amicable settlement between the parties. 29.
Any settlement or resolution of the dispute, shall be reduced into writing, signed by the parties, and submitted to the court for approval. (Sec. 21)
What happens when JDR fails?
When JDR fails, the parties may agree in writing that the JDR judge shall hear 30. and decide the case. The JDR judge shall proceed with the hearing in an informal and expeditious manner, which shall be terminated within one (1) day.
However, if the parties do not agree, the JDR judge shall refer the case to the pairing judge for hearing and decision. (Sec. 22)
What is the job of the pairing judge?
The pairing judge shall hear and decide the case within five (5) working days from referral.
Is an appeal of a decision allowed?
No. A decision in small claims cases is final and unappealable. (Sec. 23)
Does this not violate the right to due process?
No. The right of appeal is not a natural right or a part of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and a procedural remedy of statutory origin, which may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing such exercise.
The declaration that the decision is final and unappealable is in line with the nature of small claims which is designed to preclude unnecessary or unmeritorious appeals that result in long drawn litigation for cases of this nature, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate to enact rules of procedure.
Does the law authorize the Supreme Court to dispense with the right to appeal from the first level courts to the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)?
Yes, under Sec. 36 of B.P. 129 as amended, “The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980”, the Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to cases requiring summary disposition in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical rules.
Furthermore, under Sec. 38 of the same law, appeals to RTCs shall be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, and by such rules as the Supreme Court may prescribe.
What then is the remedy of a party when the decision is final and unappealable?
The rule does not preclude a party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in relation to a judgment in a small claims action (such a petition is prohibited with regard to interlocutory orders).
Further, the aggrieved party can also file an action for annulment of judgment when the requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure are complied with.
Will the Rules of Civil Procedure apply?
Yes, the Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to those matters not covered by the new rule, insofar as they are not inconsistent with it. (Sec. 25)
For example, the Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to issues of jurisdiction, venue on personal actions, prescription, parts of a pleading, presence or absence of cause of action, legal standing of parties to file the action, consolidation of actions, adjournments and postponements, grounds for dismissal including the fact that a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with (i.e. prior conciliation before the katarungang pambarangay).
Are not the small claims cases effectively governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, Court-Annexed Media¬tion, and the Pre-Trial Rule?
Yes. The small claims cases, being purely money claims of P100,000.00 or less are covered under the Rule on Summary Procedure. However, with the effectivity of this new rule, the court, in actions filed as small claims cases, shall now apply the more specific procedure under this new rule.
By way of illustration, if a defendant files an answer called a Response to the claim, the court shall schedule only one (1) hearing for the purpose of encouraging the parties to settle without the appearance of lawyers, to hear the statement of the parties under oath, and to consider all documentary evidence of the parties. After such hearing, the court will also issue the decision on the same day.
By providing more immediate and swifter justice, this new rule enhances the effectivity of the Rule on Summary Procedure, Court-Annexed Mediation, and the Pre-Trial Rule, and in effect, increases access to justice for the poor and disadvantaged members of our society.
Small Claims Cases are civil claims which are exclusively for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money not exceeding P100,000.00.
In Small Claims Cases, ordinary litigants can prosecute and defend a small claims action without the participation of lawyers.
22 first level courts all over the country have been designated as small claims courts to jump-start the pilot project.
In Small Claims Cases, judges ascertain the factual matters at issue and elicit the evidence––all in one hearing, and render a decision thereafter.
Judges who employ JDR in Small Claims Cases exert efforts to help the parties arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or any other mode of JDR.
The small claims court pilot project is a program of the Supreme Court in partnership with USAID and ABA-ROLI.
What is A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the “Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases”?
It is a special rule of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making power under Sec. 5(5) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, to govern small claims cases and is to be piloted in designated first level courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts). This rule allows a plaintiff (the person suing) to sue a defendant (the person being sued) without the need of a lawyer.
This new rule becomes effective on 1 October 2008.
What is the purpose of small claims process?
The purpose of a small claims process is to provide a simpler and a more inexpensive and expeditious means of settling disputes involving purely money claims than the regular civil process.
What are the distinct features of a small claims process?
Inexpensiveness, informality, and simplicity. Every aspect of the process is designed to allow a person to handle his/her own case from start to finish quickly and inexpensively. There are ready-made forms available and strict procedural rules, including the rules of evidence, do not apply. Hence, there is no need for a lawyer.
What are “small claims cases”?
These are civil claims which are exclusively for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money not exceeding P100,000.00.
What are “small claims courts”?
These are first level courts (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts). They hear and decide small claims cases following this new rule of procedure.
Does the new rule on small claims cases create new courts?
No. The new rule simply provides a procedure for prosecuting, defending, and adjudicating small claims cases, which by law are already within the jurisdiction of first level courts.
To jumpstart the launch of this new rule, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 141-2008 designating 22 first level courts all over the country as pilot courts to hear and decide small claims cases, in accordance with the new rule of procedure for small claims cases.
Thus, upon the effectivity of A.O. No. 141-2008, all small claims cases filed in the station of these pilot courts shall be assigned immediately to the said courts. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Three (3) months after the implementation of this rule, an initial assessment shall be undertaken by the Technical Working Group (TWG) on Small Claims Court Pilot Project. Six (6) months thereafter, a final assessment and project review shall be submitted to recommend the feasibility of applying this rule to all small claims cases in all first level courts.
What is the scope of the rule?
The rule only covers cases in first level courts involving purely money claims where the value of the claim/s does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) and does not include interest and costs. (Sec. 2)
What kinds of claims or demands are covered by this rule?
Typical claims include actual damages caused to vehicles, other personal property, real property or person. Money owed under a contract of lease, contract of loan, contract of services, contract of sale, or contract of mortgage, may also be demanded.
It also includes purely civil actions for payment of money covered by a bounced or stopped check.
An amicable settlement reached in the barangay or an arbitration award involving a money claim may also be enforced under this rule.
Can separate claims be combined in one case?
Yes. The plaintiff may combine in a single statement of claim, one or more separate small claims against the same defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed P100,000.00. (Sec. 6)
What kinds of actions or claims or demands are excluded under this rule?
Criminal actions are excluded because of certain limitations or mandatory requirements under the 1987 Constitution, particularly Sec. 14(2) of Article III (Bill of Rights), which grants the accused in all criminal prosecutions “the right to be heard by himself and counsel.” Thus, a case for libel or slander cannot be filed in a small claims court. However, the civil aspect of a criminal action which seeks recovery of money as damages may be heard as a small claim if reserved or instituted separately prior to the filing of the criminal case.
There are also some kinds of civil cases that cannot be brought to a small claims court no matter how little the amount is involved. Examples of these are a suit to force a person to fix a damaged good, or a demand for the fulfillment of an obligation which is not purely for money.
How does one start a small claims case?
The plaintiff must first accomplish a verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) and certify the information provided, stating that he/she has not filed any action involving the very same issue in any other court, tribunal or agency through a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping (Form 1-A-SCC).
The Statement of Claim must be accompanied by certified duplicate photocopies of all supporting documents (i.e. contract, promissory note, affidavit/sworn statement of witnesses, pictures, receipts, etc…)
The plaintiff then files the Statement of Claim with its accompanying documents with the small claims court, personally or through mail, and pays the correct docket and filing fees. (Sec. 5)
Are there filing fees to be paid for small claims cases?
Yes, the plaintiff or defendant shall pay the docket and other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court at the time of the filing of the Statement of the Claim with the Office of the Clerk of Court. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
If you do not have money to pay the fees because of your financial status, you may apply to the small claims court to qualify as an indigent, and once you qualify as an indigent you are exempt from payment of such fees. (Sec. 8)
Even if declared as an indigent, is a person still required to pay P1,000.00 for service of summons and processes?
Yes. Even if declared as an indigent, a person is not exempt from payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and processes in civil cases. (Sec. 8)
Once a Statement of Claim is filed in the small claims court, may the court dismiss the case at its own instance?
Yes. The court may dismiss the case outright when any grounds for the dismissal of a civil case is apparent or obvious from the Statement of Claim and supporting documents. (Sec. 9)
What is the duty of the court after a plaintiff files a Statement of Claim and it does not find any ground to dismiss the claim?
The court informs the defendant that a case has been filed against him/her through the issuance of Summons (Form 2-SCC) on the day of the receipt of the Statement of the Claim and accompanying documents. Through the Summons, the court directs the defendant to file his/her verified Response (Form 3-SCC) as well as other supporting documents or evidence, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from its receipt.
The court also serves a Notice of Hearing (Form 4-SCC) to both parties, directing them to appear before it on a specific date and time, with a warning that no unjustified postponement shall be allowed. (Sec. 10)
The Summons and Notice of Hearing must be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim and documents submitted by plaintiff, and a copy of the Response to be accomplished by the defendant. (Sec. 10)
After a defendant has received the summons and notice from the court, what is he/she required to submit?
The defendant shall file with the court a duly-accomplished and verified Response together with proof that he/she has served such Response to plaintiff within the prescribed period.
The Response shall also be accompanied by certified copies of documents and the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support thereof. (Sec. 11)
What is the effect if a defendant fails to file a Response within the prescribed period for filing?
The court decides the case based on the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim and the supporting documents attached to it. (Sec. 12)
Instead of filing a Response, can a defendant file a motion to dismiss the claim?
No. The filing of a motion to dismiss instead of a response is prohibited under the rule, except on ground of lack of jurisdiction. (Sec. 14).
What is a counterclaim?
A counterclaim is a claim which a defendant files against the person who sues him (plaintiff). Similar to a claim, a counterclaim must seek the recovery of money only.
If a defendant believes that he/she is entitled to be paid money by the plaintiff, such defendant must include this counterclaim in his/her Response.
What happens when a defendant fails to include a counterclaim in his/her Response?
If the counterclaim is related to the plaintiff’s claim, or arose out of it (the legal term is “compulsory counterclaim”), it must be raised in the same case. Otherwise, it will be barred.
Apart from a motion to dismiss a claim, are there other pleadings, motions, or petitions that cannot be filed?
Yes. These are the prohibited pleadings in Sec. 14 of this rule.
Who are required to appear at the hearing?
The parties shall appear at the hearing personally or through a representative they may authorize under a Special Power of Attorney (Form 5-SCC) to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits. (Sec. 16)
Are lawyers allowed at the hearing?
No, lawyers are not allowed to appear at the hearing unless they are the plaintiff or the defendant.
Does this mean that lawyers are not allowed throughout the small claims process?
No, lawyers are only not allowed to appear at the hearing of the case. Since the process is still a legal process, the parties and their authorized representatives can still consult with a lawyer to assist them to prepare for the hearing or for other matters outside the hearing. (Sec. 17)
Who is allowed to assist a party who cannot properly present his/her claim or defense?
The court, in its discretion, may allow another individual who is not a lawyer to assist the party. (Sec. 17)
What happens if the parties do not appear at the hearing?
If the plaintiff does not appear, the claim shall be dismissed without prejudice.
If the defendant does not appear, the effect will be the same as failure to file a Response under Sec. 12 of this rule.
If both parties do not appear, the claim and counterclaim shall be dismissed with prejudice. (Sec. 18)
When is postponement of a hearing allowed?
It may be granted only upon proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before the court on the scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only one (1) postponement. (Sec. 19)
What is the role of the judge designated to hear small claims cases? 28.
In small claims cases, the role of the judge is to ascertain the factual matters at issue and to elicit the evidence––all in one hearing, and render a decision thereafter The judge shall encourage the parties to settle by employing the different modes of Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR).
How does the judge employ the modes of JDR?
The judge who employs JDR – as understood within the context of the rule of procedure for small claims cases – should be confined to exerting efforts in helping the parties arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or any other mode of JDR. This means the judge shall use any mode to try and bring about an amicable settlement between the parties. 29.
Any settlement or resolution of the dispute, shall be reduced into writing, signed by the parties, and submitted to the court for approval. (Sec. 21)
What happens when JDR fails?
When JDR fails, the parties may agree in writing that the JDR judge shall hear 30. and decide the case. The JDR judge shall proceed with the hearing in an informal and expeditious manner, which shall be terminated within one (1) day.
However, if the parties do not agree, the JDR judge shall refer the case to the pairing judge for hearing and decision. (Sec. 22)
What is the job of the pairing judge?
The pairing judge shall hear and decide the case within five (5) working days from referral.
Is an appeal of a decision allowed?
No. A decision in small claims cases is final and unappealable. (Sec. 23)
Does this not violate the right to due process?
No. The right of appeal is not a natural right or a part of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and a procedural remedy of statutory origin, which may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law authorizing such exercise.
The declaration that the decision is final and unappealable is in line with the nature of small claims which is designed to preclude unnecessary or unmeritorious appeals that result in long drawn litigation for cases of this nature, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate to enact rules of procedure.
Does the law authorize the Supreme Court to dispense with the right to appeal from the first level courts to the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs)?
Yes, under Sec. 36 of B.P. 129 as amended, “The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980”, the Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to cases requiring summary disposition in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical rules.
Furthermore, under Sec. 38 of the same law, appeals to RTCs shall be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, and by such rules as the Supreme Court may prescribe.
What then is the remedy of a party when the decision is final and unappealable?
The rule does not preclude a party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in relation to a judgment in a small claims action (such a petition is prohibited with regard to interlocutory orders).
Further, the aggrieved party can also file an action for annulment of judgment when the requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure are complied with.
Will the Rules of Civil Procedure apply?
Yes, the Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to those matters not covered by the new rule, insofar as they are not inconsistent with it. (Sec. 25)
For example, the Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to issues of jurisdiction, venue on personal actions, prescription, parts of a pleading, presence or absence of cause of action, legal standing of parties to file the action, consolidation of actions, adjournments and postponements, grounds for dismissal including the fact that a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with (i.e. prior conciliation before the katarungang pambarangay).
Are not the small claims cases effectively governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, Court-Annexed Media¬tion, and the Pre-Trial Rule?
Yes. The small claims cases, being purely money claims of P100,000.00 or less are covered under the Rule on Summary Procedure. However, with the effectivity of this new rule, the court, in actions filed as small claims cases, shall now apply the more specific procedure under this new rule.
By way of illustration, if a defendant files an answer called a Response to the claim, the court shall schedule only one (1) hearing for the purpose of encouraging the parties to settle without the appearance of lawyers, to hear the statement of the parties under oath, and to consider all documentary evidence of the parties. After such hearing, the court will also issue the decision on the same day.
By providing more immediate and swifter justice, this new rule enhances the effectivity of the Rule on Summary Procedure, Court-Annexed Mediation, and the Pre-Trial Rule, and in effect, increases access to justice for the poor and disadvantaged members of our society.
Small Claims Cases are civil claims which are exclusively for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money not exceeding P100,000.00.
In Small Claims Cases, ordinary litigants can prosecute and defend a small claims action without the participation of lawyers.
22 first level courts all over the country have been designated as small claims courts to jump-start the pilot project.
In Small Claims Cases, judges ascertain the factual matters at issue and elicit the evidence––all in one hearing, and render a decision thereafter.
Judges who employ JDR in Small Claims Cases exert efforts to help the parties arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or any other mode of JDR.
The small claims court pilot project is a program of the Supreme Court in partnership with USAID and ABA-ROLI.
JBC
In his recent column, constitutionalist Fr. J. Bernas opined that Rule 8, Section 2 of the Judicial and Bar Council which provides that “in the selection of nominees to a vacancy in the Supreme Court, the Council must consider his age with a view to discourage appointment of those who would not be able to serve it for a reasonably sufficient time” and that “the Council shall not consider for nomination non-career and career applicants who may no longer be able to serve the court for at least five years or for at least one and one-half years, respectively, before reaching the compulsory age of retirement” is unconstitutional because the constitutional age requirement for Supreme Court justices is that they must not be more than 70 years old and because the JBC and Congress are not allowed to add to the constitutionally enumerated qualifications, and because by enacting a rule which automatically excludes a non-career person who is 65 years old or a career person in the judiciary who is 68 years old, the JBC has effectively amended the Constitution, which it may not do.
In a recent column, retired Supreme Court Justice I. Cruz stated that under Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1) of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council is composed of the chief justice as chairman, the secretary of justice, and a representative of Congress as ex officio members plus four regular members appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. The consent of the secretary of justice is a given because he is a Cabinet member under the president’s control. The representative from Congress is usually from the majority party headed by the president who can also order his concurrence. But there will still be need for the cooperation of at least two of the regular members to make the needed nomination of the chief executive’s chosen one. He added: How does the president get it? Simple. All he has to do is promise the regular members that when their terms end, they will be reappointed. This is not a trivial favor; this means that the reappointed members can, if they comply with his command, continue serving for another four years and enjoying the same benefits as the members of the constitutional commissions.
See their columns below, thus:
Sounding Board
Disqualifications by the JBC
By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:36:00 12/15/2008
Filed Under: Laws, Judiciary (system of justice), Government
IN the past week, the Judicial and Bar Council excluded from consideration three applicants for a seat in the Supreme Court. The excluded applicants were Atty. Adolfo D. Robles, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera and former BIR Commissioner Atty. Jose Buñag.
Attorney Robles was disqualified for the reason that, if appointed, he would serve for less than five years in the Court. Solicitor General Devanadera and Attorney Buñag were disqualified because of pending administrative or criminal charges against them. What are we to make of these disqualifications?
The disqualifications were made on the basis of internal rules of the Judicial and Bar Council. Attorney Robles was disqualified on the basis of the following Rule 8, Section 2 of the JBC:
“Sec. 2. Age of prospective nominee. In the selection of nominees to a vacancy in the Supreme Court, the Council must consider his age with a view to discourage appointment of those who would not be able to serve it for a reasonably sufficient time. The Council shall not consider for nomination non-career and career applicants who may no longer be able to serve the court for at least five years or for at least one and one-half years, respectively, before reaching the compulsory age of retirement.”
Robles was disqualified because he completed 65 years last July 1 and would therefore serve for less than five years before he reaches 70 if appointed to fill the coming January vacancy.
Consider, however, that the constitutional age requirement of Supreme Court justices is that they must not be more than 70 years old. Moreover, unlike in the case of justices and judges of lower courts, not even Congress is allowed to add to the constitutionally enumerated qualifications. It would seem to me that by enacting a rule which automatically excludes a non-career person who is 65 years old or a career person in the judiciary who is 68 years old the JBC has effectively amended the Constitution. We know that the JBC has no authority to do that.
It is true that in addition to the prescribed age, citizenship and technical qualifications the candidate must also, according to the Constitution, possess “proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.” But where does age come under these four categories? What is also anomalous for being discriminatory is that there is an earlier cut-off age for persons who are not in the judiciary. Is there evidence that persons who do not belong to the judiciary age less gracefully than justices and judges? Or is it that those who do not belong to the judiciary are less likely to render effective service in the Supreme Court?
I suggest that by fixing the retirement age of justices at 70 the Constitution has effectively excluded age from consideration by the Judicial and Bar Council. Health, yes; but not age. Health can be subsumed under the required “proven competence.” After all, we assume that being a justice of the Supreme Court is not a walk in the park.
Next, there is Rule 6 whose Section 1 is about physical health and Section 2 is about mental health. “The applicant shall submit to psychological/psychiatric tests to be conducted by the Supreme Court Medical Clinic and/or psychiatrist duly accredited by the Court.” However, there is nothing in the rules which says that failure to submit to these tests would be a ground for disqualification. If there were, it would be another added qualification not allowed by the Constitution. It will be recalled that only last month the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law which required candidates for national office to submit to drug testing. The Court considered this an illegitimate attempt to add qualifications for the office.
At any rate, even without psychiatric tests, members of the JBC should have enough perspicacity to be able, by themselves or through witnesses, to detect if a particular candidate for the Supreme Court manifests signs of imbalance.
Finally, what about the disqualifications based on pending administrative or criminal charges? These come under Rule 4 on “Integrity” which disqualifies those “with pending criminal or regular administrative cases” and judges “facing administrative complaints under informal preliminary investigation by the Office of the Court Administrator.” How do these disqualifications stand when put side by side with the constitutional presumption of innocence?
I can see that judges and justices should be pure as Caesar’s wife, as the saying goes, even if we really don’t know how pure she was. However, accusations are just accusations, and how many of those charged have been cleared after investigation? I suggest therefore that pending charges, whether criminal or administrative, should not automatically be ground for disqualification. Certainly, however, they should be ground for closer scrutiny by the JBC to ascertain if indeed they are indications of lack of the constitutionally desired integrity, probity or independence.
Little by little, through experience and through the watchfulness of the public, the workings of the Judicial and Bar Council are being improved. If this continues and if the JBC members themselves maintain personal integrity, probity and independence, the JBC may yet become the tool for improving the judicial system that former Chief Justice Concepcion hoped it would be.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081215-178011/Disqualifications-by-the-JBC
Separate Opinion
The Judicial and Bar Council
By Isagani A. Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:05:00 12/14/2008
Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice), Laws, Constitution
AN innovation in the 1987 Constitution that has received much praise deserves the opposite. It reveals the naiveté of the hard-nosed politicians in the constitutional commissions who approved it.
Former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion may be forgiven for reportedly proposing it because he belonged to the guileless members of the Supreme Court who, unbelievably, were unaware of the dark influence of the Commission on Appointments on the President’s power of appointment. The kindest you can say about the politician-commissioners who supported the proposal is that they should have known better than to allow presidential abuse of judicial integrity.
It was an indefensible defect of the old system that the president’s appointment of judges was subject to the prior consent of the legislators of the districts to which they were intended to be assigned, and to their formal confirmation later by the Commission on Appointments. This last requirement applied even to justices of the Supreme Court, who had to also court the blessings of Congress like generals and even consuls.
As this practice impaired the independence of the judiciary and made it subservient to the political departments, the constitutional commissions of 1986 decided to correct it. But how? Like a mental retardate grappling with a simple problem, it created the Judicial and Bar Council.
Under the present rule, appointments to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, are no longer subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The president of the Philippines can now appoint a judge, or even a justice, without legislative clearance. The only need now (besides the prescribed constitutional qualifications) is that the appointee must be previously and formally nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council. Any judicial appointment without such nomination is invalid and ineffective.
That is the only check on the president’s power to appoint judges, but is it really a check? I mean, is it really an effective check?
Under Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1) of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council is composed of the chief justice as chairman, the secretary of justice, and a representative of Congress as ex officio members plus four regular members appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
The regular members enjoy the same compensation and privileges as the members of the constitutional commissions except that they may be removed like ordinary public servants and not by impeachment. Another dissimilarity is that after their staggered terms of four years, they may be reappointed in the president’s discretion.
A majority vote is needed for a nomination to be made by the seven members of the JBC. So the president who wants to appoint a particular individual as a judge, or even a justice of the Supreme Court, or even its chief justice, will need such majority for that appointment. The name of that candidate must be included in the list of at least three nominees to be submitted to him by the JBC, without which his preferred choice is not eligible for consideration, let alone appointment.
We presume at the outset that the chief justice will have an open mind on the matter and that, as head not only of the JBC but the Judiciary itself, he will not be subject to the coercive persuasions of the president of the Philippines. But it will be different with the other less objective and more obliging members of the JBC.
The consent of the secretary of justice is a given because he is a Cabinet member under the president’s control. The representative from Congress is usually from the majority party headed by the president who can also order his concurrence. But there will still be need for the cooperation of at least two of the regular members to make the needed nomination of the chief executive’s chosen one.
How does the president get it? Simple. All he has to do is promise the regular members that when their terms end, they will be reappointed. This is not a trivial favor; this means that the reappointed members can, if they comply with his command, continue serving for another four years and enjoying the same benefits as the members of the constitutional commissions. They will continue to receive flatteries and favors from persons seeking to be nominated for judicial appointment or promotion. They will continue to be addressed as “honorable.”
I do not submit that this has been happening in the JBC regarding the several appointments made by President Macapagal-Arroyo to the courts of justice, including the Supreme Court. But I do think that this may happen, and probably has, considering some recent judicial appointments that have raised eyebrows. It is just possible that they were nominated by some of the regular members of the JBC who have been or will be re-appointed with GMA’s gratitude for cooperating with her.
I remember with pride that during my tenure on the Supreme Court, there were at least two times when the appointment of aspirants to the Supreme Court strongly recommended by the president of the Philippines was blocked by the JBC. Even then, the four regular members were not tempted by the hope of their deserved re-appointment if they obeyed Malacañang.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081214-177882/The-Judicial-and-Bar-Council
In a recent column, retired Supreme Court Justice I. Cruz stated that under Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1) of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council is composed of the chief justice as chairman, the secretary of justice, and a representative of Congress as ex officio members plus four regular members appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. The consent of the secretary of justice is a given because he is a Cabinet member under the president’s control. The representative from Congress is usually from the majority party headed by the president who can also order his concurrence. But there will still be need for the cooperation of at least two of the regular members to make the needed nomination of the chief executive’s chosen one. He added: How does the president get it? Simple. All he has to do is promise the regular members that when their terms end, they will be reappointed. This is not a trivial favor; this means that the reappointed members can, if they comply with his command, continue serving for another four years and enjoying the same benefits as the members of the constitutional commissions.
See their columns below, thus:
Sounding Board
Disqualifications by the JBC
By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:36:00 12/15/2008
Filed Under: Laws, Judiciary (system of justice), Government
IN the past week, the Judicial and Bar Council excluded from consideration three applicants for a seat in the Supreme Court. The excluded applicants were Atty. Adolfo D. Robles, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera and former BIR Commissioner Atty. Jose Buñag.
Attorney Robles was disqualified for the reason that, if appointed, he would serve for less than five years in the Court. Solicitor General Devanadera and Attorney Buñag were disqualified because of pending administrative or criminal charges against them. What are we to make of these disqualifications?
The disqualifications were made on the basis of internal rules of the Judicial and Bar Council. Attorney Robles was disqualified on the basis of the following Rule 8, Section 2 of the JBC:
“Sec. 2. Age of prospective nominee. In the selection of nominees to a vacancy in the Supreme Court, the Council must consider his age with a view to discourage appointment of those who would not be able to serve it for a reasonably sufficient time. The Council shall not consider for nomination non-career and career applicants who may no longer be able to serve the court for at least five years or for at least one and one-half years, respectively, before reaching the compulsory age of retirement.”
Robles was disqualified because he completed 65 years last July 1 and would therefore serve for less than five years before he reaches 70 if appointed to fill the coming January vacancy.
Consider, however, that the constitutional age requirement of Supreme Court justices is that they must not be more than 70 years old. Moreover, unlike in the case of justices and judges of lower courts, not even Congress is allowed to add to the constitutionally enumerated qualifications. It would seem to me that by enacting a rule which automatically excludes a non-career person who is 65 years old or a career person in the judiciary who is 68 years old the JBC has effectively amended the Constitution. We know that the JBC has no authority to do that.
It is true that in addition to the prescribed age, citizenship and technical qualifications the candidate must also, according to the Constitution, possess “proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.” But where does age come under these four categories? What is also anomalous for being discriminatory is that there is an earlier cut-off age for persons who are not in the judiciary. Is there evidence that persons who do not belong to the judiciary age less gracefully than justices and judges? Or is it that those who do not belong to the judiciary are less likely to render effective service in the Supreme Court?
I suggest that by fixing the retirement age of justices at 70 the Constitution has effectively excluded age from consideration by the Judicial and Bar Council. Health, yes; but not age. Health can be subsumed under the required “proven competence.” After all, we assume that being a justice of the Supreme Court is not a walk in the park.
Next, there is Rule 6 whose Section 1 is about physical health and Section 2 is about mental health. “The applicant shall submit to psychological/psychiatric tests to be conducted by the Supreme Court Medical Clinic and/or psychiatrist duly accredited by the Court.” However, there is nothing in the rules which says that failure to submit to these tests would be a ground for disqualification. If there were, it would be another added qualification not allowed by the Constitution. It will be recalled that only last month the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law which required candidates for national office to submit to drug testing. The Court considered this an illegitimate attempt to add qualifications for the office.
At any rate, even without psychiatric tests, members of the JBC should have enough perspicacity to be able, by themselves or through witnesses, to detect if a particular candidate for the Supreme Court manifests signs of imbalance.
Finally, what about the disqualifications based on pending administrative or criminal charges? These come under Rule 4 on “Integrity” which disqualifies those “with pending criminal or regular administrative cases” and judges “facing administrative complaints under informal preliminary investigation by the Office of the Court Administrator.” How do these disqualifications stand when put side by side with the constitutional presumption of innocence?
I can see that judges and justices should be pure as Caesar’s wife, as the saying goes, even if we really don’t know how pure she was. However, accusations are just accusations, and how many of those charged have been cleared after investigation? I suggest therefore that pending charges, whether criminal or administrative, should not automatically be ground for disqualification. Certainly, however, they should be ground for closer scrutiny by the JBC to ascertain if indeed they are indications of lack of the constitutionally desired integrity, probity or independence.
Little by little, through experience and through the watchfulness of the public, the workings of the Judicial and Bar Council are being improved. If this continues and if the JBC members themselves maintain personal integrity, probity and independence, the JBC may yet become the tool for improving the judicial system that former Chief Justice Concepcion hoped it would be.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081215-178011/Disqualifications-by-the-JBC
Separate Opinion
The Judicial and Bar Council
By Isagani A. Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:05:00 12/14/2008
Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice), Laws, Constitution
AN innovation in the 1987 Constitution that has received much praise deserves the opposite. It reveals the naiveté of the hard-nosed politicians in the constitutional commissions who approved it.
Former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion may be forgiven for reportedly proposing it because he belonged to the guileless members of the Supreme Court who, unbelievably, were unaware of the dark influence of the Commission on Appointments on the President’s power of appointment. The kindest you can say about the politician-commissioners who supported the proposal is that they should have known better than to allow presidential abuse of judicial integrity.
It was an indefensible defect of the old system that the president’s appointment of judges was subject to the prior consent of the legislators of the districts to which they were intended to be assigned, and to their formal confirmation later by the Commission on Appointments. This last requirement applied even to justices of the Supreme Court, who had to also court the blessings of Congress like generals and even consuls.
As this practice impaired the independence of the judiciary and made it subservient to the political departments, the constitutional commissions of 1986 decided to correct it. But how? Like a mental retardate grappling with a simple problem, it created the Judicial and Bar Council.
Under the present rule, appointments to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, are no longer subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The president of the Philippines can now appoint a judge, or even a justice, without legislative clearance. The only need now (besides the prescribed constitutional qualifications) is that the appointee must be previously and formally nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council. Any judicial appointment without such nomination is invalid and ineffective.
That is the only check on the president’s power to appoint judges, but is it really a check? I mean, is it really an effective check?
Under Art. VIII, Sec. 8(1) of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council is composed of the chief justice as chairman, the secretary of justice, and a representative of Congress as ex officio members plus four regular members appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
The regular members enjoy the same compensation and privileges as the members of the constitutional commissions except that they may be removed like ordinary public servants and not by impeachment. Another dissimilarity is that after their staggered terms of four years, they may be reappointed in the president’s discretion.
A majority vote is needed for a nomination to be made by the seven members of the JBC. So the president who wants to appoint a particular individual as a judge, or even a justice of the Supreme Court, or even its chief justice, will need such majority for that appointment. The name of that candidate must be included in the list of at least three nominees to be submitted to him by the JBC, without which his preferred choice is not eligible for consideration, let alone appointment.
We presume at the outset that the chief justice will have an open mind on the matter and that, as head not only of the JBC but the Judiciary itself, he will not be subject to the coercive persuasions of the president of the Philippines. But it will be different with the other less objective and more obliging members of the JBC.
The consent of the secretary of justice is a given because he is a Cabinet member under the president’s control. The representative from Congress is usually from the majority party headed by the president who can also order his concurrence. But there will still be need for the cooperation of at least two of the regular members to make the needed nomination of the chief executive’s chosen one.
How does the president get it? Simple. All he has to do is promise the regular members that when their terms end, they will be reappointed. This is not a trivial favor; this means that the reappointed members can, if they comply with his command, continue serving for another four years and enjoying the same benefits as the members of the constitutional commissions. They will continue to receive flatteries and favors from persons seeking to be nominated for judicial appointment or promotion. They will continue to be addressed as “honorable.”
I do not submit that this has been happening in the JBC regarding the several appointments made by President Macapagal-Arroyo to the courts of justice, including the Supreme Court. But I do think that this may happen, and probably has, considering some recent judicial appointments that have raised eyebrows. It is just possible that they were nominated by some of the regular members of the JBC who have been or will be re-appointed with GMA’s gratitude for cooperating with her.
I remember with pride that during my tenure on the Supreme Court, there were at least two times when the appointment of aspirants to the Supreme Court strongly recommended by the president of the Philippines was blocked by the JBC. Even then, the four regular members were not tempted by the hope of their deserved re-appointment if they obeyed Malacañang.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081214-177882/The-Judicial-and-Bar-Council
Puno Court 2007
I wish to summarize the salient parts of the 2007 annual report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog.
The Supreme Court performs four traditional roles in our system of constitutional government.
First, and most important, it decides actual cases and controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. In so doing, the Court upholds the rule of law, where disputes are settled according to rights and rule and not power and influence.
Second, it checks abuses of discretion of the other great departments of government. This is the power of judicial review, which is the duty of the courts to strike down on constitutional grounds both legislation and executive action. Also, in reviewing actions of the legislative and the executive, the Supreme Court performs not only a checking function but also a legitimating one.
Lastly, the Supreme Court is also a great and highly effective educational institution. Justices, to borrow Dean Rostrow’s phrase, “are inevitable teachers in a vital national seminar.” In explaining the bases in law and in fact of its decisions, the Court points out the principles on which our government stand and the means by which they are given life in our legal system.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution has enlarged the role of the Supreme Court as protector and enforcer of human rights. This enlarged role finds expression in the Court’s expanded rulemaking power.
The most notable accomplishment of the Philippine Supreme Court for the year 2007 was the issuance of the rule on the writ of amparo and the rule on the writ of habeas data. The writ of amparo complements the writ of habeas data in the protection and enforcement of the rights to life, liberty, security, and privacy.
The current Puno Court is composed of Chief Justice Puno, Senior Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (retired on February 28, 2008), Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Ma. Alicia Austria- Martinez, Justice Renato C. Corona, Justice Conchita Carpio-Martinez, Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.( retired on April 28,2007), Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Justice Dante O. Tinga, Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Justice Cancio C. Garcia (retired on October20,2007), Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (appointed on January 31,2007), Justice Ruben T. Reyes (appointed on August 2,2007), and Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (appointed on December 3,2007).
From the beginning, Chief Justice Puno moved with what The Washington Post (October1,2007, A16) described as “lightning speed to set up a more independent Judiciary charged with enforcing a new code of legal responsibility.”
With the support of his fellow Justices in the Supreme Court, no less than a Justice of the second-highest court of the land, the Court of Appeals, was dismissed for gross ignorance of the law, the Court’s own security chief suspended for simple neglect of duty, while widespread reports of judicial scams such as the selling of temporary and permanent protection orders and the irregular solemnization and dissolution of marriages caused the preventive suspension of the judges concerned pending investigation.
All in all for 2007, a total of 80 trial court judges, 148 lower court personnel, and 21 Supreme Court personnel have been subjected to disciplinary action.
The Court also banned starting April 1 the spouses of incumbent Justices from working as coterminous employees in the Judiciary “to enforce the letter and the spirit of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary calling for an ethical judiciary that is above suspension…” (AM No.07-3-02-CA, In re: Rule Banning the employment of Spouses of Justices in the SC, CA, Sandiganbayan, and CTA AS Coterminous employees, March 6, 2007)
With regard to erring lawyers, the Court has also approved the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
A total of 131 lawyers were administratively penalized last year.
In 2007 the Supreme Court held a national summit on extrajudicial killings and en force disappearances. One fruit of the summit was the passage of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the most powerful weapon yet in the judicial arsenal to protect the constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security of our people.(AM No.7-9-12-SC).
Chief Justice Reynato Puno is the 22nd Chief Justice of the Philippines. He is also the concurrent chair of the SC First Division and ex officio chair of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). His appointment as chief magistrate by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on December 7, 2006 was a moment that many had anticipated from the time he was sworn in as then the youngest SC Justice at 53 on June 28,1993
Prior to his appointment to the High Court, he served, among others, as Associate Justice of the Intermediate Appellate Court and the Court of Appeals (CA), Deputy Minister of Justice, Assistant Solicitor General, and City Judge of Quezon City. He holds the distinction of being the youngest appointee to the CA at the age of 40.
Chief justice Puno obtained his Bachelor of Science in Jurisprudence and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1962. He served as editor-in-chief of The Philippine Collegian. He pursued his post-graduate studies in the United States on full scholarship. He obtained his Master Comparative Laws at the Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, with high distinction and as valedictorian of his class, his Master of Laws at eh University of California, Berkley, California and finished all the academic requirements of the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science at the University of Illinois, Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. In 2005, he became the First Filipino recipient of the Distinguished Global alumnus Award given by the Dedman School of Law, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. He has been conferred honorary doctorate degrees by eight of our universities and the Hannam University, South Korea.
Among other honors, he was chosen as one of the Ten Outstanding Young Men in the Philippines in 1977, Araw ng Maynila Awardee as Outstanding Jurist in 1987, and Outstanding Alumnus, UP College of Law in 1997, and Ulirang Ama Awardee in 2005. This 2008, in UP’s centennial year, he bested other distinguished alumni of the state University when he was conferred the University of the Philippines Alumni Association (UPAA) Most Distinguished Alumnus. He was recognized for his achievements in the field of law and for his leadership in projects “which contribute to the welfare of Filipinos and to the larger society.”
Barring partisan politicking at the Office of the President, I anticipate that the next Chief Justice in 2010 will be Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, considering that many of his seniors in the Court will retire next year (2009) and he is only 58 years old now. (When I was a college councilor of UP Manila in 1971-73, he was the president of the UP Student Council. When I was a section editor of the UP Philippine Collegian in 1974-35, he was the managing editor thereof).
Born in Davao City, Philippines, Justice Carpio was sworn in as member of the Supreme Court on October 26, 2001. Justice Carpio obtained his law degree from the College of Law of the University of the Philippines (UP) where he graduated valedictorian and cum laude in 1975. He placed sixth in the 1975 Bar Examinations. He earned his undergraduate degree in Economics from Ateneo de Manila University in 1970.
In his student days, Justice Carpio was chairman of the Editorial Board of the Philippine Law Journal of the UP College of Law. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Guidon, the school paper of Ateneo de Manila University. He also served as Managing Editor of the Philippine Collegian, the school paper of the University of the Philippines. Fresh out of law school, Justice Carpio went into private practice until 1992. He was a Professorial Lecturer of the UP College of Law from 1983 until 1992 when he was appointed Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, Office of the President of the Philippines. In 1997, he was Executive Director of the ASEAN Business Law program of the UP College of Law.
In 2007 the budges of the Court was 9, 119, 375 Billion Pesos. In 2008, it was 9, 9996, 109 Billion Pesos. For 2009, its proposed budges is 17, 732, 209 Billion Pesos. It amounts to one percent (1%) of the budget of the national government of the Republic of the Philippines.
In 2007, the first one trillion-plus peso budget in the history of the Philippine government was passed. Php1.126 trillion was allocated for government spending for the year 2007, of which Php 9.355 billion was allotted to the Philippine Judiciary. This amount is 0.83% of the total national budget. While the figure represents a Php 1.83 billion increase over the Judiciary’s 2006 budget, its percentage of the national budget has essentially remained constant since 2005.
A total of 29,637 people, including judges and non-judicial staff, are employed by the Supreme Court and the lower courts compromising of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC), Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), and Shari’a District Courts (SDCs).
Personal Services accounted for 79.6% of the SC budget, with a total allotment of Php7.45 billion; Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses, Php 1.37 billion; Capital Outlay, Php 534.4 million
At the of 2006, the vacancy rate of the positions for judges and justices was at 25.2%, with 569 vacancies among the 2,258 positions available. In 2007, the JBC focused on programs to reduce not only the vacancy rate, but improve the quality of the nominations.
At the end of 2006, our lower courts had a total of 714,782 pending cases. By December 31,2007, that number stood at 675,368, a decrease of 39,414 pending cases. The decrease is significant considering that 324,521 new cases were filed in 2007.
Despite the limitations brought about by the Judiciary’s limited physical, financial, and human resources, in 2007 it disposed of 416,979 cases as follows: 273,299 cases were decided or resolved; 119,790 were archived; and 23,890 were transferred to other courts.
In 2007, the High Tribunal disposed of more than half of its cases ----8,303 cases, a case disposal rate of 51.2%.
The judicial reform partners (funders) of the Supreme Court in 2007 were the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australian Agency for International Development (Aus AID), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), European Commission (EC), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Asia Foundation (TAF), American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative (ABA- ROLI), and the Rule of law Initiative and Effectiveness (ROLE), and the World Bank (WB).
New partnerships were likewise established with the Belgian Development Cooperation (BDC), Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Hanna Seidel Foundation (HSF), Korea International Cooperation (SDC), and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA).
The first mobile court (“Justice on Wheels”) has been operational since December 20, 2004. The second mobile court was deployed to Tagbilaran City, Bohol in a turnover ceremony on October 13,2006. The third mobile court was deployed in the province of Rizal and Bulacan for court – annexed mediation in September and December 2007, the mobile courts posted an average mediation success rate of 97%.
The year 2007 posted many gains for the Committee on Justice on Wheels (JOW Committee). From January to June, the mobile courts hears 83 cases in the Regional Trial Courts of Valenzuela, Pasig, and Muntinlupa and 26 cases in the Bohol Trial Courts.
In August 2007, the Chief Justice approved the Mobile Court – Annexed Mediation (MCAM) program which the JOW Committee implemented together with the Philippine Judicial Academy. Under MCAM, mobile court buses were stationed at Bulacan and Rizal to undertake court – annexed mediation as these provinces lack Philippine Mediation Centers.
By the end of 2007, the mobile courts posted an average mediation success rate of 97%, with 199 out of 201 cases for mediation successfully mediated in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, while 258 out of 280 mediated cases met similar success in Taytay and Antipolo, Rizal.
In 2007, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) conducted public interviews at the Supreme Court for 14 applicants to the Supreme Court, 79 applicants to the Court of Appeals, and eight applicants to the Ombudsman. Likewise, it held panel interviews of 72 applicants to the lower courts. While interviews are generally conducted in Manila, some interviews and psychiatric evaluations of applicants were also held in the provinces, particularly in Cebu City and Davao City. All in all, the JBC has processed a total of 2,225 applications, which do not include applications turned down during first preliminary evaluations.
As of December 31,2007, the JBC has succeeded in bringing down to 452 the total number of vacancies or 19.76 percent of the 2,287 total number of judicial positions.
The creation of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which is under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court, was an innovation in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Its principal mandate is to recommend to the President at least three nominees for every vacant judicial position as well as vacant positions of Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman.
Under the leadership of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court drafted the following Rules which were subsequently approved by the Supreme Court En Banc:
1. Re: Revised Upgrading Schedule of the Legal Fees in the Supreme Court and the Lower Courts under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which was formulated by the Ad Hoc Committee on Legal Fees and upon SC approval was pilot test in the National Capital Region and in the cities of Cebu, Mandaue, and Lapu-Lapu;
2. Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials;
3. Prescribing Guidelines on the Conduct of Election of Judges’ Associations;
4. Resolution Adopting the Guidelines in the Implementation of Section 1, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended;
5. Rule on Children Charged under Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
6. Rule on the Writ of Amparo as amended; 7. Rule on DNA Evidence; and
8. Amendments to Rules 41,45,58, and 65 of the Rules of Court.
To address threats to the security of justices and judges, the Committee on Security drafted the following memorandum orders and circulars subsequently approved for implementation by the Chief Justice:
1. Administrative Circular No.29-2007, the Creation of Provincial Committees on Security and Providing for the Composition Thereof, establishing Committees of Security in each of the judicial regions nationwide;
2. Memorandum Circular No. 10-2007, providing An Interim Security Procedure to Improve the Security for Justices and Judges, directing justices and judges to contact the Task Force Judiciary Protection under Deputy Court Administrator Reuben P. Dela Cruz upon receipt of threats to their security; and Memorandum Order No. 42-2007, Providing An Interim Security Protocol for the First-and Second- Level Courts, crafting a list of security measures designed to prevent and/or minimize the threat of attack against judges and employees of the lower courts.
By the end of 2007, the Committee on Security has neared the completion of a security Manual for the Judiciary with the help of the National Bureau of Investigation and the Rule of Law Effectiveness Project of the United States Agency for International Development.
The Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) is a special allowance equivalent to the 100 percent individual basic monthly salaries under the Salary Standardization Law, granted to justices, judges and other Judiciary officials holding similar rank. Created in 2003 by RA 9227, An Act Granting a Special Allowance for Justices, Judges, and those Holding Ranks Equivalent to Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court, the SAJ was implemented over the span of four years, spreading uniformly the special allowance in amounts equivalent to 25 percent of the basic salaries covered for each installment.
As provided by RA 9227, the surplus from the collections in excess of the amount needed to fund the special allowances granted to justices, judges, and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals and judges of the Regional Trial Court may be used by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to grant additional allowances exclusively to other court personnel not covered by the benefits granted under the said law.
Funding for the SAJ is derived from the legal fees originally prescribed, imposed, and collected under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court prior to the promulgation of the amendments under PD 1949, Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) Decree, and increase in 1989 current fees and new fees which may be imposed by the Supreme Court after effectivity of RA 9227 on November 11,2003.
The JDF was established in 1984 by PD 1949 for the benefit of the members and personnel of the Judiciary, to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy and required by the impartial administration of justice. Derived from the increase in legal fees, and from other sources, such as Bar examinations fees, interest on deposit of its income, confiscated bail bonds, income from publications of the Supreme Court Printing Press, and rentals of facilities in the Hall of Justice, the JDF is used to augment the allowances of members and personnel of the Judiciary and to finance the acquisition, maintenance, and repair of office equipment and facilities. PD 1949 provides that at least 80 percent of the JDF shall be used for office equipment and facilities.
The 80 percent of the JDF is given monthly to all qualified employees in proportion to their basic monthly salaries. Employees with a basic monthly salary of less than Php 7,000 are given the biggest share. The JDF allocated for employees of the same salary grade is the same across all courts. Court employees who have rendered at least six months of service in the Judiciary are entitled to the full amount of the allowance, while court personnel who have rendered less than six months of service as of the cut-off date are entitled to the pro-rated amounts of the JDF.
Personal Economic Relief Assistance (PERA) and Additional Compensation Upon assumption of duty, each employee receives these amounts at Php 500 each, or a total of Php 1,000 per month.
The Philippine Judicial System:
Occupying the first level of the hierarchy are the first-level courts comprised of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), which are created established in Metropolitan Manila; the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCCs), in every city which does not form part of Metropolitan Manila; the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) established in each of the other cities or municipalities; and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), created in each circuit comprising such cities and/ or municipalities as grouped by law.
At the same level are the Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC). Shari’a Courts have been established in Islamic regions and provinces to interpret and apply the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (PD1083). Their decisions are appealable to the Shari’a Appellate Court, which, however, is yet to be organized.
The second tier consist of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) established in each of the 13 regions in the Philippines. Each RTC may be single-sala or composed of several branches. RTCs act as trial courts and may receive evidence from the parties of the case. They also exercise appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the MeTCs, MTCCs in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Also at the same level are the Shari’a District Courts (SDC). Their decisions are appealable to the Shari’a Appellate Court.
Since the Shari’a Appellate Court has not yet been organized, decisions of SDCs may be brought to the Supreme Court through a special civil action of certiorari if the issue is one jurisdiction or through petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45. (GR No.159210, Macaraig v. Balindog, September 20,2006)
At the third level is the Court of Appeals (CA), which exercise its powers, functions, and duties through 23 Divisions of three members each. The CA's 18th, 19th, and 20th Divisions comprise the CA Visayas, located in Cebu City; while the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd Divisions make up CA Mindanao, situated in Cagayan de Oro City. The CA is assigned to review cases elevated to it from the RTCs as well as quasi-judicial agencies such as the Civil Service Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations Commission, and the Land Registration Authority.
The CA also reviews cases where sentence is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as well as decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. The CA is a collegiate court and may sit en banc only for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions. Being essentially an appellate court, it generally resolves cases only on the basis of records, but in certain instances, it may also try cases, conduct hearings, and receive evidence.
The Philippine Judicial System also includes two special courts: the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals.
The Sandiganbayan is anti-graft court that tries public officers with a salary grade of 27 and above including their co-accused private persons –charged with criminal cases involving graft and corrupt practices as well corresponding civil cases for the recovery of civil liability. The Sandiganbayan is composed of a Presiding Justice and 14 Associate Justices who sit in five divisions of three Justices each. Like CA, its decisions are directly appealable to the Supreme Court.
Under RA 9503, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is composed of a presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices, and may sit en banc or in three divisions of three justices each. Republic Act 9282, which took effect on March 30, 2004, has elevated the status of the CTA to that of the CA. It has exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees, or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code, It also exercises original jurisdictions over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the Tax or Tariff Codes and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs.
At the apex of the judicial hierarchy is the Supreme Court. It is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices who sit En Banc or in three divisions of five members each. It has the power to settle actual controversies involving rights are legally demandable and enforceable, and 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 instrumentally of the government.
The Supreme Court is considered “the court of last resort” since no more appeals can be made from a judgment or decisions on the merits rendered by this court. A decision of a Supreme Court division is considered a decision of the entire Court. Decisions of the Supreme Court are considered as part of the law of the land.
By:
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
lcmlaw@gmail.com
The Supreme Court performs four traditional roles in our system of constitutional government.
First, and most important, it decides actual cases and controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. In so doing, the Court upholds the rule of law, where disputes are settled according to rights and rule and not power and influence.
Second, it checks abuses of discretion of the other great departments of government. This is the power of judicial review, which is the duty of the courts to strike down on constitutional grounds both legislation and executive action. Also, in reviewing actions of the legislative and the executive, the Supreme Court performs not only a checking function but also a legitimating one.
Lastly, the Supreme Court is also a great and highly effective educational institution. Justices, to borrow Dean Rostrow’s phrase, “are inevitable teachers in a vital national seminar.” In explaining the bases in law and in fact of its decisions, the Court points out the principles on which our government stand and the means by which they are given life in our legal system.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution has enlarged the role of the Supreme Court as protector and enforcer of human rights. This enlarged role finds expression in the Court’s expanded rulemaking power.
The most notable accomplishment of the Philippine Supreme Court for the year 2007 was the issuance of the rule on the writ of amparo and the rule on the writ of habeas data. The writ of amparo complements the writ of habeas data in the protection and enforcement of the rights to life, liberty, security, and privacy.
The current Puno Court is composed of Chief Justice Puno, Senior Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (retired on February 28, 2008), Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Justice Ma. Alicia Austria- Martinez, Justice Renato C. Corona, Justice Conchita Carpio-Martinez, Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.( retired on April 28,2007), Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Justice Dante O. Tinga, Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Justice Cancio C. Garcia (retired on October20,2007), Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (appointed on January 31,2007), Justice Ruben T. Reyes (appointed on August 2,2007), and Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (appointed on December 3,2007).
From the beginning, Chief Justice Puno moved with what The Washington Post (October1,2007, A16) described as “lightning speed to set up a more independent Judiciary charged with enforcing a new code of legal responsibility.”
With the support of his fellow Justices in the Supreme Court, no less than a Justice of the second-highest court of the land, the Court of Appeals, was dismissed for gross ignorance of the law, the Court’s own security chief suspended for simple neglect of duty, while widespread reports of judicial scams such as the selling of temporary and permanent protection orders and the irregular solemnization and dissolution of marriages caused the preventive suspension of the judges concerned pending investigation.
All in all for 2007, a total of 80 trial court judges, 148 lower court personnel, and 21 Supreme Court personnel have been subjected to disciplinary action.
The Court also banned starting April 1 the spouses of incumbent Justices from working as coterminous employees in the Judiciary “to enforce the letter and the spirit of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary calling for an ethical judiciary that is above suspension…” (AM No.07-3-02-CA, In re: Rule Banning the employment of Spouses of Justices in the SC, CA, Sandiganbayan, and CTA AS Coterminous employees, March 6, 2007)
With regard to erring lawyers, the Court has also approved the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
A total of 131 lawyers were administratively penalized last year.
In 2007 the Supreme Court held a national summit on extrajudicial killings and en force disappearances. One fruit of the summit was the passage of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the most powerful weapon yet in the judicial arsenal to protect the constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security of our people.(AM No.7-9-12-SC).
Chief Justice Reynato Puno is the 22nd Chief Justice of the Philippines. He is also the concurrent chair of the SC First Division and ex officio chair of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). His appointment as chief magistrate by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on December 7, 2006 was a moment that many had anticipated from the time he was sworn in as then the youngest SC Justice at 53 on June 28,1993
Prior to his appointment to the High Court, he served, among others, as Associate Justice of the Intermediate Appellate Court and the Court of Appeals (CA), Deputy Minister of Justice, Assistant Solicitor General, and City Judge of Quezon City. He holds the distinction of being the youngest appointee to the CA at the age of 40.
Chief justice Puno obtained his Bachelor of Science in Jurisprudence and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1962. He served as editor-in-chief of The Philippine Collegian. He pursued his post-graduate studies in the United States on full scholarship. He obtained his Master Comparative Laws at the Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, with high distinction and as valedictorian of his class, his Master of Laws at eh University of California, Berkley, California and finished all the academic requirements of the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science at the University of Illinois, Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. In 2005, he became the First Filipino recipient of the Distinguished Global alumnus Award given by the Dedman School of Law, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. He has been conferred honorary doctorate degrees by eight of our universities and the Hannam University, South Korea.
Among other honors, he was chosen as one of the Ten Outstanding Young Men in the Philippines in 1977, Araw ng Maynila Awardee as Outstanding Jurist in 1987, and Outstanding Alumnus, UP College of Law in 1997, and Ulirang Ama Awardee in 2005. This 2008, in UP’s centennial year, he bested other distinguished alumni of the state University when he was conferred the University of the Philippines Alumni Association (UPAA) Most Distinguished Alumnus. He was recognized for his achievements in the field of law and for his leadership in projects “which contribute to the welfare of Filipinos and to the larger society.”
Barring partisan politicking at the Office of the President, I anticipate that the next Chief Justice in 2010 will be Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, considering that many of his seniors in the Court will retire next year (2009) and he is only 58 years old now. (When I was a college councilor of UP Manila in 1971-73, he was the president of the UP Student Council. When I was a section editor of the UP Philippine Collegian in 1974-35, he was the managing editor thereof).
Born in Davao City, Philippines, Justice Carpio was sworn in as member of the Supreme Court on October 26, 2001. Justice Carpio obtained his law degree from the College of Law of the University of the Philippines (UP) where he graduated valedictorian and cum laude in 1975. He placed sixth in the 1975 Bar Examinations. He earned his undergraduate degree in Economics from Ateneo de Manila University in 1970.
In his student days, Justice Carpio was chairman of the Editorial Board of the Philippine Law Journal of the UP College of Law. He was Editor-in-Chief of the Guidon, the school paper of Ateneo de Manila University. He also served as Managing Editor of the Philippine Collegian, the school paper of the University of the Philippines. Fresh out of law school, Justice Carpio went into private practice until 1992. He was a Professorial Lecturer of the UP College of Law from 1983 until 1992 when he was appointed Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, Office of the President of the Philippines. In 1997, he was Executive Director of the ASEAN Business Law program of the UP College of Law.
In 2007 the budges of the Court was 9, 119, 375 Billion Pesos. In 2008, it was 9, 9996, 109 Billion Pesos. For 2009, its proposed budges is 17, 732, 209 Billion Pesos. It amounts to one percent (1%) of the budget of the national government of the Republic of the Philippines.
In 2007, the first one trillion-plus peso budget in the history of the Philippine government was passed. Php1.126 trillion was allocated for government spending for the year 2007, of which Php 9.355 billion was allotted to the Philippine Judiciary. This amount is 0.83% of the total national budget. While the figure represents a Php 1.83 billion increase over the Judiciary’s 2006 budget, its percentage of the national budget has essentially remained constant since 2005.
A total of 29,637 people, including judges and non-judicial staff, are employed by the Supreme Court and the lower courts compromising of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC), Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), and Shari’a District Courts (SDCs).
Personal Services accounted for 79.6% of the SC budget, with a total allotment of Php7.45 billion; Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses, Php 1.37 billion; Capital Outlay, Php 534.4 million
At the of 2006, the vacancy rate of the positions for judges and justices was at 25.2%, with 569 vacancies among the 2,258 positions available. In 2007, the JBC focused on programs to reduce not only the vacancy rate, but improve the quality of the nominations.
At the end of 2006, our lower courts had a total of 714,782 pending cases. By December 31,2007, that number stood at 675,368, a decrease of 39,414 pending cases. The decrease is significant considering that 324,521 new cases were filed in 2007.
Despite the limitations brought about by the Judiciary’s limited physical, financial, and human resources, in 2007 it disposed of 416,979 cases as follows: 273,299 cases were decided or resolved; 119,790 were archived; and 23,890 were transferred to other courts.
In 2007, the High Tribunal disposed of more than half of its cases ----8,303 cases, a case disposal rate of 51.2%.
The judicial reform partners (funders) of the Supreme Court in 2007 were the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australian Agency for International Development (Aus AID), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), European Commission (EC), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Asia Foundation (TAF), American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative (ABA- ROLI), and the Rule of law Initiative and Effectiveness (ROLE), and the World Bank (WB).
New partnerships were likewise established with the Belgian Development Cooperation (BDC), Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Hanna Seidel Foundation (HSF), Korea International Cooperation (SDC), and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA).
The first mobile court (“Justice on Wheels”) has been operational since December 20, 2004. The second mobile court was deployed to Tagbilaran City, Bohol in a turnover ceremony on October 13,2006. The third mobile court was deployed in the province of Rizal and Bulacan for court – annexed mediation in September and December 2007, the mobile courts posted an average mediation success rate of 97%.
The year 2007 posted many gains for the Committee on Justice on Wheels (JOW Committee). From January to June, the mobile courts hears 83 cases in the Regional Trial Courts of Valenzuela, Pasig, and Muntinlupa and 26 cases in the Bohol Trial Courts.
In August 2007, the Chief Justice approved the Mobile Court – Annexed Mediation (MCAM) program which the JOW Committee implemented together with the Philippine Judicial Academy. Under MCAM, mobile court buses were stationed at Bulacan and Rizal to undertake court – annexed mediation as these provinces lack Philippine Mediation Centers.
By the end of 2007, the mobile courts posted an average mediation success rate of 97%, with 199 out of 201 cases for mediation successfully mediated in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, while 258 out of 280 mediated cases met similar success in Taytay and Antipolo, Rizal.
In 2007, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) conducted public interviews at the Supreme Court for 14 applicants to the Supreme Court, 79 applicants to the Court of Appeals, and eight applicants to the Ombudsman. Likewise, it held panel interviews of 72 applicants to the lower courts. While interviews are generally conducted in Manila, some interviews and psychiatric evaluations of applicants were also held in the provinces, particularly in Cebu City and Davao City. All in all, the JBC has processed a total of 2,225 applications, which do not include applications turned down during first preliminary evaluations.
As of December 31,2007, the JBC has succeeded in bringing down to 452 the total number of vacancies or 19.76 percent of the 2,287 total number of judicial positions.
The creation of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which is under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court, was an innovation in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Its principal mandate is to recommend to the President at least three nominees for every vacant judicial position as well as vacant positions of Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman.
Under the leadership of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court drafted the following Rules which were subsequently approved by the Supreme Court En Banc:
1. Re: Revised Upgrading Schedule of the Legal Fees in the Supreme Court and the Lower Courts under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which was formulated by the Ad Hoc Committee on Legal Fees and upon SC approval was pilot test in the National Capital Region and in the cities of Cebu, Mandaue, and Lapu-Lapu;
2. Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials;
3. Prescribing Guidelines on the Conduct of Election of Judges’ Associations;
4. Resolution Adopting the Guidelines in the Implementation of Section 1, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended;
5. Rule on Children Charged under Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
6. Rule on the Writ of Amparo as amended; 7. Rule on DNA Evidence; and
8. Amendments to Rules 41,45,58, and 65 of the Rules of Court.
To address threats to the security of justices and judges, the Committee on Security drafted the following memorandum orders and circulars subsequently approved for implementation by the Chief Justice:
1. Administrative Circular No.29-2007, the Creation of Provincial Committees on Security and Providing for the Composition Thereof, establishing Committees of Security in each of the judicial regions nationwide;
2. Memorandum Circular No. 10-2007, providing An Interim Security Procedure to Improve the Security for Justices and Judges, directing justices and judges to contact the Task Force Judiciary Protection under Deputy Court Administrator Reuben P. Dela Cruz upon receipt of threats to their security; and Memorandum Order No. 42-2007, Providing An Interim Security Protocol for the First-and Second- Level Courts, crafting a list of security measures designed to prevent and/or minimize the threat of attack against judges and employees of the lower courts.
By the end of 2007, the Committee on Security has neared the completion of a security Manual for the Judiciary with the help of the National Bureau of Investigation and the Rule of Law Effectiveness Project of the United States Agency for International Development.
The Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) is a special allowance equivalent to the 100 percent individual basic monthly salaries under the Salary Standardization Law, granted to justices, judges and other Judiciary officials holding similar rank. Created in 2003 by RA 9227, An Act Granting a Special Allowance for Justices, Judges, and those Holding Ranks Equivalent to Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court, the SAJ was implemented over the span of four years, spreading uniformly the special allowance in amounts equivalent to 25 percent of the basic salaries covered for each installment.
As provided by RA 9227, the surplus from the collections in excess of the amount needed to fund the special allowances granted to justices, judges, and all other positions in the Judiciary with the equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals and judges of the Regional Trial Court may be used by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to grant additional allowances exclusively to other court personnel not covered by the benefits granted under the said law.
Funding for the SAJ is derived from the legal fees originally prescribed, imposed, and collected under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court prior to the promulgation of the amendments under PD 1949, Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) Decree, and increase in 1989 current fees and new fees which may be imposed by the Supreme Court after effectivity of RA 9227 on November 11,2003.
The JDF was established in 1984 by PD 1949 for the benefit of the members and personnel of the Judiciary, to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy and required by the impartial administration of justice. Derived from the increase in legal fees, and from other sources, such as Bar examinations fees, interest on deposit of its income, confiscated bail bonds, income from publications of the Supreme Court Printing Press, and rentals of facilities in the Hall of Justice, the JDF is used to augment the allowances of members and personnel of the Judiciary and to finance the acquisition, maintenance, and repair of office equipment and facilities. PD 1949 provides that at least 80 percent of the JDF shall be used for office equipment and facilities.
The 80 percent of the JDF is given monthly to all qualified employees in proportion to their basic monthly salaries. Employees with a basic monthly salary of less than Php 7,000 are given the biggest share. The JDF allocated for employees of the same salary grade is the same across all courts. Court employees who have rendered at least six months of service in the Judiciary are entitled to the full amount of the allowance, while court personnel who have rendered less than six months of service as of the cut-off date are entitled to the pro-rated amounts of the JDF.
Personal Economic Relief Assistance (PERA) and Additional Compensation Upon assumption of duty, each employee receives these amounts at Php 500 each, or a total of Php 1,000 per month.
The Philippine Judicial System:
Occupying the first level of the hierarchy are the first-level courts comprised of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), which are created established in Metropolitan Manila; the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCCs), in every city which does not form part of Metropolitan Manila; the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) established in each of the other cities or municipalities; and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), created in each circuit comprising such cities and/ or municipalities as grouped by law.
At the same level are the Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC). Shari’a Courts have been established in Islamic regions and provinces to interpret and apply the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (PD1083). Their decisions are appealable to the Shari’a Appellate Court, which, however, is yet to be organized.
The second tier consist of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) established in each of the 13 regions in the Philippines. Each RTC may be single-sala or composed of several branches. RTCs act as trial courts and may receive evidence from the parties of the case. They also exercise appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the MeTCs, MTCCs in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Also at the same level are the Shari’a District Courts (SDC). Their decisions are appealable to the Shari’a Appellate Court.
Since the Shari’a Appellate Court has not yet been organized, decisions of SDCs may be brought to the Supreme Court through a special civil action of certiorari if the issue is one jurisdiction or through petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45. (GR No.159210, Macaraig v. Balindog, September 20,2006)
At the third level is the Court of Appeals (CA), which exercise its powers, functions, and duties through 23 Divisions of three members each. The CA's 18th, 19th, and 20th Divisions comprise the CA Visayas, located in Cebu City; while the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd Divisions make up CA Mindanao, situated in Cagayan de Oro City. The CA is assigned to review cases elevated to it from the RTCs as well as quasi-judicial agencies such as the Civil Service Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, National Labor Relations Commission, and the Land Registration Authority.
The CA also reviews cases where sentence is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as well as decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. The CA is a collegiate court and may sit en banc only for the purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial, or other non-adjudicatory functions. Being essentially an appellate court, it generally resolves cases only on the basis of records, but in certain instances, it may also try cases, conduct hearings, and receive evidence.
The Philippine Judicial System also includes two special courts: the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals.
The Sandiganbayan is anti-graft court that tries public officers with a salary grade of 27 and above including their co-accused private persons –charged with criminal cases involving graft and corrupt practices as well corresponding civil cases for the recovery of civil liability. The Sandiganbayan is composed of a Presiding Justice and 14 Associate Justices who sit in five divisions of three Justices each. Like CA, its decisions are directly appealable to the Supreme Court.
Under RA 9503, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is composed of a presiding Justice and eight Associate Justices, and may sit en banc or in three divisions of three justices each. Republic Act 9282, which took effect on March 30, 2004, has elevated the status of the CTA to that of the CA. It has exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees, or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code, It also exercises original jurisdictions over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the Tax or Tariff Codes and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs.
At the apex of the judicial hierarchy is the Supreme Court. It is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices who sit En Banc or in three divisions of five members each. It has the power to settle actual controversies involving rights are legally demandable and enforceable, and 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 instrumentally of the government.
The Supreme Court is considered “the court of last resort” since no more appeals can be made from a judgment or decisions on the merits rendered by this court. A decision of a Supreme Court division is considered a decision of the entire Court. Decisions of the Supreme Court are considered as part of the law of the land.
By:
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
lcmlaw@gmail.com
Friday, December 12, 2008
Broken
Again, hopelessness in the justice institutions of the Philippines. Such a feeling is repeatedly manifested by the Filipinos in the Philippine Media.
In a recent letter to the editors of the Philippine Daily Inquirer written by Mr. Jose Osias, he stated what many Filipinos feel:
“Unless someone can show us proof that the system and its keepers are still “savable,” it seems pretty clear that system is broken and must be fixed. And it looks like extralegal means are all that are left as options. A military withdrawal of support for Ms Arroyo could be one. Another would be a citizen’s arrest of Ms Arroyo and members of her criminal syndicate. Two options among many.”
No more legal means?
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:46:00 12/11/2008
It may be a time for prayer, as Rev. James B. Reuter, S.J. has counseled some months back, but we should also keep in mind that God helps those who help themselves.
On the eve of Joc-joc Bolante’s return to the Philippines, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo and four other bishops said that now is the time to change the government.
Subsequently, Archbishops Antonio Tobias and Deogracias Yniguez stated that when legal means to do this have been closed, then there is no other option but the extralegal.
There’s no longer a legal way to battle corruption and criminal cover-ups under the present administration. The callous Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives, “perplexed” over why and how the case was filed, junked the fourth impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo despite the documentary and testimonial evidence presented during the recital of facts. In another hearing, Bolante mocked the Senate “blue ribbon” Committee on Accountability of Public Officials and Investigation by stonewalling and lying in the investigation of the fertilizer fund scam to protect, if not absolve, his masters.
Insensitive and arrogant, the crooks and cronies of the Arroyo administration then celebrated, with a boodle fight in the Palace, these perversions of legal and constitutional processes. Unless the Filipino rises up, it will surely be more of the same until 2010—and beyond. Then many more patient, forgiving and suffering Filipinos may well die of hunger even before 2010.
Those who still harbor illusions that there is hope in Ms Arroyo must look more closely at the “silencing” and “salvaging” cases cited in the impeachment complaint that was killed by the votes of corrupt congressmen. There is no way to prevent more extrajudicial killings except through the conviction of the perpetrators, who will of course block any legal and peaceful way to obtain justice with even more criminal actions, and then dare anyone to file cases in court even as they will admonish everyone to observe the legal processes.
Is there anyone to turn to for help? At least 90-95 percent of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary have all been co-opted. The media may be less corrupted (70-75 percent). Even if we generously grant that the military, the bishops and businessmen are split 50-50, we can’t be certain who among them (save for a very small few who are really outspoken and probably foolhardy) sympathize with the Filipino masses in their present plight.
Unless someone can show us proof that the system and its keepers are still “savable,” it seems pretty clear that system is broken and must be fixed. And it looks like extralegal means are all that are left as options. A military withdrawal of support for Ms Arroyo could be one. Another would be a citizen’s arrest of Ms Arroyo and members of her criminal syndicate. Two options among many.
JOSE OSIAS
see:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20081211-177291/No-more-legal-means
In a recent letter to the editors of the Philippine Daily Inquirer written by Mr. Jose Osias, he stated what many Filipinos feel:
“Unless someone can show us proof that the system and its keepers are still “savable,” it seems pretty clear that system is broken and must be fixed. And it looks like extralegal means are all that are left as options. A military withdrawal of support for Ms Arroyo could be one. Another would be a citizen’s arrest of Ms Arroyo and members of her criminal syndicate. Two options among many.”
No more legal means?
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:46:00 12/11/2008
It may be a time for prayer, as Rev. James B. Reuter, S.J. has counseled some months back, but we should also keep in mind that God helps those who help themselves.
On the eve of Joc-joc Bolante’s return to the Philippines, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo and four other bishops said that now is the time to change the government.
Subsequently, Archbishops Antonio Tobias and Deogracias Yniguez stated that when legal means to do this have been closed, then there is no other option but the extralegal.
There’s no longer a legal way to battle corruption and criminal cover-ups under the present administration. The callous Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives, “perplexed” over why and how the case was filed, junked the fourth impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo despite the documentary and testimonial evidence presented during the recital of facts. In another hearing, Bolante mocked the Senate “blue ribbon” Committee on Accountability of Public Officials and Investigation by stonewalling and lying in the investigation of the fertilizer fund scam to protect, if not absolve, his masters.
Insensitive and arrogant, the crooks and cronies of the Arroyo administration then celebrated, with a boodle fight in the Palace, these perversions of legal and constitutional processes. Unless the Filipino rises up, it will surely be more of the same until 2010—and beyond. Then many more patient, forgiving and suffering Filipinos may well die of hunger even before 2010.
Those who still harbor illusions that there is hope in Ms Arroyo must look more closely at the “silencing” and “salvaging” cases cited in the impeachment complaint that was killed by the votes of corrupt congressmen. There is no way to prevent more extrajudicial killings except through the conviction of the perpetrators, who will of course block any legal and peaceful way to obtain justice with even more criminal actions, and then dare anyone to file cases in court even as they will admonish everyone to observe the legal processes.
Is there anyone to turn to for help? At least 90-95 percent of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary have all been co-opted. The media may be less corrupted (70-75 percent). Even if we generously grant that the military, the bishops and businessmen are split 50-50, we can’t be certain who among them (save for a very small few who are really outspoken and probably foolhardy) sympathize with the Filipino masses in their present plight.
Unless someone can show us proof that the system and its keepers are still “savable,” it seems pretty clear that system is broken and must be fixed. And it looks like extralegal means are all that are left as options. A military withdrawal of support for Ms Arroyo could be one. Another would be a citizen’s arrest of Ms Arroyo and members of her criminal syndicate. Two options among many.
JOSE OSIAS
see:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20081211-177291/No-more-legal-means
Peer review
The keen interest of the Filipino public to insure that truly qualified, reputable and independent-minded lawyers and jurists are appointed to the Philippine Supreme Court in 2009 by the much-distrusted and traditional-politician Philippine President Gloria Arroyo is shown by a recent editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, dated December 11, 2008, urging the Philippine Bar to be very vigilant and assertive in the matter. I agree with the said editorial. May I reproduce the same in full below:
Editorial
Lawyers versus judges
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:01:00 12/11/2008
It is incumbent on the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to recommend the best possible nominees for Supreme Court justice—even if the appointing president were not confronting a legitimacy crisis, and even if seven justices were not retiring from the Court in a single year.
But, to use a common phrase with legal roots, nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging. The prospect of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointing seven more justices before the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy for the presidency in December 2009 has galvanized both members of the legal profession and leaders of civil society.
NGOs have started a close watch on Supreme Court appointments and the public spotlight has been thrown on likely nominees. Even the chair of the JBC, Chief Justice Reynato Puno, had to issue a strategic disclaimer, through his spokesman, that ultimately sought to reassure the public about the nature of the relationship between the JBC as recommending body and the President as appointing power.
On Monday came the clearest sign of strong resolve. The JBC disqualified three candidates for consideration in the search for a replacement for Justice Ruben Reyes, who will retire in January. It was of no small moment that the highest-profile candidate taken out of the running was Solicitor-General Agnes Devanadera, a legal tactician and former politician closely identified with President Arroyo. (Another candidate with strong backing who was also disqualified, also because of pending lawsuits, was former internal revenue commissioner Jose Mario Buñag. The third candidate disqualified was lawyer Rodolfo Robles; he was on the wrong side of the age requirement.)
The well-publicized disqualification must have piqued Malacañang’s curiosity; in its short history, the JBC has not exactly been known for disqualifying prospective nominees even before a vacancy occurs.
We trust that Malacañang accepts the JBC’s decision to remove the three lawyers from consideration with grace and in good faith. Even the JBC’s decision (by a vote of 6 to 2) to opt for open voting, should not be received in the presidential palace as an affront to the Executive or even a provocation. If the eight members of the JBC have nothing to hide, why should Malacañang feel offended?
(The truth, of course, is that in the public eye, the Arroyo administration has come to be associated with hidden or dark-of-night maneuvers: the proclamation of a president, the dismissal of an impeachment complaint, the vote to convene Congress as a constituent assembly without the participation of the Senate. It is in this context that the JBC’s previous lack of transparency in voting was perceived to be playing to the administration’s advantage.)
But it is not enough for the JBC to take the greatest care in choosing its recommendations for Supreme Court justice, or for civil society groups and media organizations to closely monitor the nomination, recommendation and appointment process. The entire profession of lawyers—like journalists, their lowly cousins, a class of professionals expressly privileged in the Constitution—must take part in the selection process, too.
We define the formula for their participation in rather raw terms: lawyers versus judges. But by that we only mean that the best sources of information about prospective justices are their fellow lawyers. It is, after all, professional reputation that answers the most stringent criteria of integrity of character, probity of mind and independence of spirit. We propose, therefore, that it become a duty on the part of a nominee’s peers to advise the JBC of any disqualifying information they may have about the nominee.
Will this open the floodgates to high and low intrigue, to back-stabbing disguised as necessary sacrifices on the altar of the public interest, to professional rivalries run wild? No, because even if the disqualifying information is brought before the JBC in a confidential manner, we would still expect the JBC to distinguish accusation from fact, to determine the trivial from the significant—to make a judgment, in other words.
Lawyers have as great a stake, perhaps even greater than most, in the composition of the Supreme Court.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20081211-177275/Lawyers-versus-judges
Editorial
Lawyers versus judges
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:01:00 12/11/2008
It is incumbent on the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to recommend the best possible nominees for Supreme Court justice—even if the appointing president were not confronting a legitimacy crisis, and even if seven justices were not retiring from the Court in a single year.
But, to use a common phrase with legal roots, nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging. The prospect of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointing seven more justices before the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy for the presidency in December 2009 has galvanized both members of the legal profession and leaders of civil society.
NGOs have started a close watch on Supreme Court appointments and the public spotlight has been thrown on likely nominees. Even the chair of the JBC, Chief Justice Reynato Puno, had to issue a strategic disclaimer, through his spokesman, that ultimately sought to reassure the public about the nature of the relationship between the JBC as recommending body and the President as appointing power.
On Monday came the clearest sign of strong resolve. The JBC disqualified three candidates for consideration in the search for a replacement for Justice Ruben Reyes, who will retire in January. It was of no small moment that the highest-profile candidate taken out of the running was Solicitor-General Agnes Devanadera, a legal tactician and former politician closely identified with President Arroyo. (Another candidate with strong backing who was also disqualified, also because of pending lawsuits, was former internal revenue commissioner Jose Mario Buñag. The third candidate disqualified was lawyer Rodolfo Robles; he was on the wrong side of the age requirement.)
The well-publicized disqualification must have piqued Malacañang’s curiosity; in its short history, the JBC has not exactly been known for disqualifying prospective nominees even before a vacancy occurs.
We trust that Malacañang accepts the JBC’s decision to remove the three lawyers from consideration with grace and in good faith. Even the JBC’s decision (by a vote of 6 to 2) to opt for open voting, should not be received in the presidential palace as an affront to the Executive or even a provocation. If the eight members of the JBC have nothing to hide, why should Malacañang feel offended?
(The truth, of course, is that in the public eye, the Arroyo administration has come to be associated with hidden or dark-of-night maneuvers: the proclamation of a president, the dismissal of an impeachment complaint, the vote to convene Congress as a constituent assembly without the participation of the Senate. It is in this context that the JBC’s previous lack of transparency in voting was perceived to be playing to the administration’s advantage.)
But it is not enough for the JBC to take the greatest care in choosing its recommendations for Supreme Court justice, or for civil society groups and media organizations to closely monitor the nomination, recommendation and appointment process. The entire profession of lawyers—like journalists, their lowly cousins, a class of professionals expressly privileged in the Constitution—must take part in the selection process, too.
We define the formula for their participation in rather raw terms: lawyers versus judges. But by that we only mean that the best sources of information about prospective justices are their fellow lawyers. It is, after all, professional reputation that answers the most stringent criteria of integrity of character, probity of mind and independence of spirit. We propose, therefore, that it become a duty on the part of a nominee’s peers to advise the JBC of any disqualifying information they may have about the nominee.
Will this open the floodgates to high and low intrigue, to back-stabbing disguised as necessary sacrifices on the altar of the public interest, to professional rivalries run wild? No, because even if the disqualifying information is brought before the JBC in a confidential manner, we would still expect the JBC to distinguish accusation from fact, to determine the trivial from the significant—to make a judgment, in other words.
Lawyers have as great a stake, perhaps even greater than most, in the composition of the Supreme Court.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20081211-177275/Lawyers-versus-judges
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Guests
Below was my introduction of the guests and participants in re: the Justice on Wheel ceremonial program launched by the Supreme Court at the Las Pinas City Hall on December 5, 2008 from 8:30 AM to 2:00 PM, and which was attended, among others, by the Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Justice Consuelo Y. Santiago.
JUSTICE ON WHEELS, DEC. 5, 2008, Las Pinas City Hall
INTROUDCTION OF GUESTS BY ATTY. MANUEL LASERNA JR.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
BEFORE I INTRODUCE OUR DISTINGUISHED MAIN GUESTS FOR TODAY, MAY I INFORM THE ASSEMBLY THAT PRESENT IN OUR MIDST TODAY ARE THE LEADERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VARIOUS PILLARS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF LAS PINAS CITY, NAMELY:
1. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PILLAR, HEADED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE OF LAS PINAS CITY, COL. AMANDO CLIFTON EMPIZO;
2. THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE PILLAR, COMPOSED OF:
2.1. THE CHIEF CITY PROSECUTOR OF LAS PINAS CITY, HON. CYNTHIA MADAMBA LUANG;
2.2. THE HEAD OF THE PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE OF OUR CITY, ATTY. ROGEL JIMENEZ;
2.3. THE PRESIDENT OF THE PASAY PARANAQUE LAS PINAS MUNTINLUPAS CHAPTER OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, ATTY. APOLLO SANGALANG;
2.4. THE CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION, NAMELY, ATTY. ANTONIO MANZANO AND ATTY. PURITA FAJILAN, WHO ARE ALSO JOINED TODAY BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MANAGEMENT STAFF, AND MEMBERS OF THE SAID ASSOCIATION AND WHO WILL CONDUCT TODAY A FREE LEGAL AID CLINIC FOR THE PRISONERS AND OTHER INDIGENTS OF OUR CITY.
3. THE JUDICIARY OF LAS PINAS CITY, COMPOSED OF THE HARDWORKING, COMPETENT, INDEPENDENT-MINDED, AND HONEST JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS AND THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF LAS PINAS CITY, HEADED BY:
3.1. THE INCUMBENT EXECUTIVE JUDGE, HON. LEOPOLDO BARAQUIA;
3.2. PAST EXECUTIVE JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA;
3.3. PAST EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOSELITO DJ VIBANDOR, WHO, BY THE WAY, WAS RECENTLY AWARDED BY THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION AS ONE OF THE “MOST OUTSTANDING TRIAL JUDGES” OF THE PHILIPPINES;
3.4. THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT OF THE LAS PINAS CITY JUDGES ASSOCIATION, HON. RAUL VILLANUEVA;
3.5. A 2008 JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE AWARDEE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, WHO HAILS FROM LAS PINAS CITY, HON. ERLINDA ALVARO;
3.6. THE YOUNG AND ENERGETIC PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF LAS PINAS CITY, HON. MARJORIE NOLASCO.
3.7. HON. JUDGE ELIZABETH GURAY;
3.8. HON. JUDGE LORNA DOMINGO;
3.9. HON. JUDGE GLORIA AGLUGUB;
3.10. HON. JUDGE SALVADOR TIMBANG;
3.11. HON. JUDGE PIO PASIA; AND
3.12. HON. JUDGE ARTHUR FAMINI.
3.13. THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS OF THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY ARE WITH US TODAY, LED BY: THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, HON JOSE PEREZ; WITH HIS DEPUTIES, HON. NIMFA VILCHES AND HON. BERNARDO PONFERRADA; AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONCERNED OFFICES AND UNITS IN THE SUPREME COURT WHOSE MAIN DUTY IS TO REACH OUT TO THE PEOPLE AND TO MAKE JUSTICE TRULY ACCESIBLE TO THE PEOPLE.
4. THE PENOLOGY AND REHABILITATION PILLAR, COMPOSED OF:
4.1. BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY, HEADED BY SUPT. ARNOLD BUENACOSA;
4.2. PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICE, HEADED BY MR. FRANKLIN CATABIAN;
4.3. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAS PINAS CITY, HEADED BY MRS. JANETTE ABERILLA;
4.4. THE DOCTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF LAS PINAS CITY, WHO WILL CONDUCT TODAY A FREE MEDICAL CLINIC TODAY FOR THE PRISONERS AND OTHER INDIGENTS OF OUR CITY.
5. THE COMMUNITY PILLAR, COMPOSED OF:
5.1. THE LOCAL LEGISLATURE OF LAS PINAS CITY, LED BY ITS INDUSTRIOUS PRESIDING OFFICER, THE HON. VICE MAYOR HENRY MEDINA, WITH HIS COUNCILORS;
5.2. THE PHILIPPINE MEDIATION CENTER OF LAS PINAS CITY, HEADED BY MR. RUBEN SY;
5.3. THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF BARANGAY CHAIRMEN OF LAS PINAS CITY, HON. SONNY AGUILAR. FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE ASSEMBLY, THE DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATORS OF THE SUPREME COURT WILL CONDUCT TODAY A SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR ALL BARANGAY CHAIRMEN OF LAS PINAS CITY;
5.4. OBSERVERS FROM THE VARIOUS CIVIC, RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL, CHARITABLE AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS IN LAS PINAS CITY;
5.5. OBSERVERS FROM THE LOCAL MASS MEDIA; AND
5.6. LAW STUDENTS FROM THE COLLEGE OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP RIZAL, LOCATED IN LAS PINAS CITY, WHOSE DEAN IS RETIRED SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ISAGANI CRUZ.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THE COMPOSITION OF THIS ASSEMBLY TODAY, MAY I NOW INTRODUCE TO YOU OUR DISTINGSUIHED AND ESTEEMED GUESTS FOR TODAY, WHOSE PRESENCE INSPIRE THE PEOPLE OF LAS PINAS CITY IN THE THEIR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW AND TO ATTAIN SOCIAL JUSTICE IN OUR GREAT CITY.
WITHOUT MUCH ADO, LADIES AND GENTLEMENT, PLEASE WELCOME:
1. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. REYNATO PUNO;
2. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CONSUELO YNARES SANTIAGO.
3. THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. MANUEL VILLAR;
4. THE INSPIRATION BEHIND THE HON. MANUEL VILLAR, HIS BELOVED WIFE, THE SOLE REPRESENTATIVE OF LAS PINAS CITY TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HON. CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR;
5. THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND THE CENTER OF UNITY OF LAS PINAS CITY, HON. VERGEL NENE AGUILAR.
THANK YOU.
ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
JUSTICE ON WHEELS, DEC. 5, 2008, Las Pinas City Hall
INTROUDCTION OF GUESTS BY ATTY. MANUEL LASERNA JR.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
BEFORE I INTRODUCE OUR DISTINGUISHED MAIN GUESTS FOR TODAY, MAY I INFORM THE ASSEMBLY THAT PRESENT IN OUR MIDST TODAY ARE THE LEADERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VARIOUS PILLARS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF LAS PINAS CITY, NAMELY:
1. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PILLAR, HEADED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE OF LAS PINAS CITY, COL. AMANDO CLIFTON EMPIZO;
2. THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE PILLAR, COMPOSED OF:
2.1. THE CHIEF CITY PROSECUTOR OF LAS PINAS CITY, HON. CYNTHIA MADAMBA LUANG;
2.2. THE HEAD OF THE PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE OF OUR CITY, ATTY. ROGEL JIMENEZ;
2.3. THE PRESIDENT OF THE PASAY PARANAQUE LAS PINAS MUNTINLUPAS CHAPTER OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, ATTY. APOLLO SANGALANG;
2.4. THE CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION, NAMELY, ATTY. ANTONIO MANZANO AND ATTY. PURITA FAJILAN, WHO ARE ALSO JOINED TODAY BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MANAGEMENT STAFF, AND MEMBERS OF THE SAID ASSOCIATION AND WHO WILL CONDUCT TODAY A FREE LEGAL AID CLINIC FOR THE PRISONERS AND OTHER INDIGENTS OF OUR CITY.
3. THE JUDICIARY OF LAS PINAS CITY, COMPOSED OF THE HARDWORKING, COMPETENT, INDEPENDENT-MINDED, AND HONEST JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS AND THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF LAS PINAS CITY, HEADED BY:
3.1. THE INCUMBENT EXECUTIVE JUDGE, HON. LEOPOLDO BARAQUIA;
3.2. PAST EXECUTIVE JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA;
3.3. PAST EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOSELITO DJ VIBANDOR, WHO, BY THE WAY, WAS RECENTLY AWARDED BY THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION AS ONE OF THE “MOST OUTSTANDING TRIAL JUDGES” OF THE PHILIPPINES;
3.4. THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT OF THE LAS PINAS CITY JUDGES ASSOCIATION, HON. RAUL VILLANUEVA;
3.5. A 2008 JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE AWARDEE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, WHO HAILS FROM LAS PINAS CITY, HON. ERLINDA ALVARO;
3.6. THE YOUNG AND ENERGETIC PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF LAS PINAS CITY, HON. MARJORIE NOLASCO.
3.7. HON. JUDGE ELIZABETH GURAY;
3.8. HON. JUDGE LORNA DOMINGO;
3.9. HON. JUDGE GLORIA AGLUGUB;
3.10. HON. JUDGE SALVADOR TIMBANG;
3.11. HON. JUDGE PIO PASIA; AND
3.12. HON. JUDGE ARTHUR FAMINI.
3.13. THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS OF THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY ARE WITH US TODAY, LED BY: THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, HON JOSE PEREZ; WITH HIS DEPUTIES, HON. NIMFA VILCHES AND HON. BERNARDO PONFERRADA; AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONCERNED OFFICES AND UNITS IN THE SUPREME COURT WHOSE MAIN DUTY IS TO REACH OUT TO THE PEOPLE AND TO MAKE JUSTICE TRULY ACCESIBLE TO THE PEOPLE.
4. THE PENOLOGY AND REHABILITATION PILLAR, COMPOSED OF:
4.1. BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY, HEADED BY SUPT. ARNOLD BUENACOSA;
4.2. PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICE, HEADED BY MR. FRANKLIN CATABIAN;
4.3. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAS PINAS CITY, HEADED BY MRS. JANETTE ABERILLA;
4.4. THE DOCTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF LAS PINAS CITY, WHO WILL CONDUCT TODAY A FREE MEDICAL CLINIC TODAY FOR THE PRISONERS AND OTHER INDIGENTS OF OUR CITY.
5. THE COMMUNITY PILLAR, COMPOSED OF:
5.1. THE LOCAL LEGISLATURE OF LAS PINAS CITY, LED BY ITS INDUSTRIOUS PRESIDING OFFICER, THE HON. VICE MAYOR HENRY MEDINA, WITH HIS COUNCILORS;
5.2. THE PHILIPPINE MEDIATION CENTER OF LAS PINAS CITY, HEADED BY MR. RUBEN SY;
5.3. THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF BARANGAY CHAIRMEN OF LAS PINAS CITY, HON. SONNY AGUILAR. FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE ASSEMBLY, THE DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATORS OF THE SUPREME COURT WILL CONDUCT TODAY A SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR ALL BARANGAY CHAIRMEN OF LAS PINAS CITY;
5.4. OBSERVERS FROM THE VARIOUS CIVIC, RELIGIOUS, EDUCATIONAL, CHARITABLE AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS IN LAS PINAS CITY;
5.5. OBSERVERS FROM THE LOCAL MASS MEDIA; AND
5.6. LAW STUDENTS FROM THE COLLEGE OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP RIZAL, LOCATED IN LAS PINAS CITY, WHOSE DEAN IS RETIRED SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ISAGANI CRUZ.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THE COMPOSITION OF THIS ASSEMBLY TODAY, MAY I NOW INTRODUCE TO YOU OUR DISTINGSUIHED AND ESTEEMED GUESTS FOR TODAY, WHOSE PRESENCE INSPIRE THE PEOPLE OF LAS PINAS CITY IN THE THEIR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW AND TO ATTAIN SOCIAL JUSTICE IN OUR GREAT CITY.
WITHOUT MUCH ADO, LADIES AND GENTLEMENT, PLEASE WELCOME:
1. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. REYNATO PUNO;
2. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CONSUELO YNARES SANTIAGO.
3. THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. MANUEL VILLAR;
4. THE INSPIRATION BEHIND THE HON. MANUEL VILLAR, HIS BELOVED WIFE, THE SOLE REPRESENTATIVE OF LAS PINAS CITY TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HON. CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR;
5. THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND THE CENTER OF UNITY OF LAS PINAS CITY, HON. VERGEL NENE AGUILAR.
THANK YOU.
ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Distrust
The hopelessness and distrust of the Filipinos in the partisanship of the Department of Justice and the Ombudsman , who are known as avid Malacanang loyalists and protectors, are shown in a recent letter to the editors of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, dated December 9, 2008, from a Fil-Am lawyer, Steve Vespera, Esq. It is quoted in full below.
Bastardized ‘proper forum’
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:57:00 12/09/2008
Whenever anomalies and scams are uncovered under the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration, the constant mantra heard from its hatchet men is: Present proof at the “proper forum”! And by that they invariably mean the Department of Justice under Secretary Raul Gonzalez whose loyalty to the Arroyo administration would put any bootlicker to shame; the Office of the Ombudsman under Merceditas Gutierrez whose obsequiousness to the Arroyo family defies the law and the rationale that brought that office into existence; the impeachment tribunal (Congress), the House of Representatives in particular, whose servility to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has been demonstrated time and again to be beyond any shadow of a doubt; or the courts where cases can conveniently be consigned to oblivion.
And the irony of it all is: People who brave the odds to expose government anomalies are the ones who end up being charged with all sorts of criminal offenses—real or imagined. Trust Gonzalez or Gutierrez to come up with the looniest ratiocination to exonerate the errand boys of the Arroyo administration and turn the tables on the accusers.
With the bastardization of practically all institutions of justice and punishment, why are the people, who are robbed blind and bled to death by this administration, so indifferent? It’s the same old joke during the Ferdinand Marcos regime: Are we a country of 90 million cowards dominated and intimidated by—in the words of Gov. Joey Salceda—one “lucky bitch”?
STEVE Y. VESPERA, Esq.
Bastardized ‘proper forum’
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:57:00 12/09/2008
Whenever anomalies and scams are uncovered under the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration, the constant mantra heard from its hatchet men is: Present proof at the “proper forum”! And by that they invariably mean the Department of Justice under Secretary Raul Gonzalez whose loyalty to the Arroyo administration would put any bootlicker to shame; the Office of the Ombudsman under Merceditas Gutierrez whose obsequiousness to the Arroyo family defies the law and the rationale that brought that office into existence; the impeachment tribunal (Congress), the House of Representatives in particular, whose servility to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has been demonstrated time and again to be beyond any shadow of a doubt; or the courts where cases can conveniently be consigned to oblivion.
And the irony of it all is: People who brave the odds to expose government anomalies are the ones who end up being charged with all sorts of criminal offenses—real or imagined. Trust Gonzalez or Gutierrez to come up with the looniest ratiocination to exonerate the errand boys of the Arroyo administration and turn the tables on the accusers.
With the bastardization of practically all institutions of justice and punishment, why are the people, who are robbed blind and bled to death by this administration, so indifferent? It’s the same old joke during the Ferdinand Marcos regime: Are we a country of 90 million cowards dominated and intimidated by—in the words of Gov. Joey Salceda—one “lucky bitch”?
STEVE Y. VESPERA, Esq.
Justice on wheels
LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION .
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743, Philippines
Tel/Fax: 8725443, 8742539
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com,
Website: http://laspinasbar.multiply.com
December 5, 2008
Fax
Hon. Reynato PUNO
Chief Justice
Supreme Court
Manila
Mabuhay:
THANK YOU once again for your very strong moral and material support to the Justice System and the Rule of Law in Las Pinas City as shown today by the successful launching in Las Pinas City of the “Justice on Wheels” Program of the Supreme Court, which was coupled with special events involving the Prisoners, Free Legal Aid, Free Medical and Dental Aid, Seminar for Barangay Chairmen, Dialogue of the Court Personnel, et. al. with the Chief Justice, visit to the Jail, the Social Services Center, and the expanded Hall of Justice, and sumptuous Lunch at the Office of the Mayor.
You and your good colleague, Hon. Consuelo Y. Santiago and your officers and staff in the Office of the Court Administrator and in the various units of the Supreme Court are great and dedicated servant-leaders of our great nation.
Please continue supporting the local Justice System of Las Pinas City for the good of our beloved City.
Rest assured, the Las Pinas City Bar Association, in cooperation with your good Office, the Las Pinas City Judges Association, et. al., will continue to serve our City with dedication, industry and selflessness, with your kind support and moral inspiration.
Have a blessed and liberated day. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
Founder and Board Consultant
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743, Philippines
Tel/Fax: 8725443, 8742539
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com,
Website: http://laspinasbar.multiply.com
December 5, 2008
Fax
Hon. Reynato PUNO
Chief Justice
Supreme Court
Manila
Mabuhay:
THANK YOU once again for your very strong moral and material support to the Justice System and the Rule of Law in Las Pinas City as shown today by the successful launching in Las Pinas City of the “Justice on Wheels” Program of the Supreme Court, which was coupled with special events involving the Prisoners, Free Legal Aid, Free Medical and Dental Aid, Seminar for Barangay Chairmen, Dialogue of the Court Personnel, et. al. with the Chief Justice, visit to the Jail, the Social Services Center, and the expanded Hall of Justice, and sumptuous Lunch at the Office of the Mayor.
You and your good colleague, Hon. Consuelo Y. Santiago and your officers and staff in the Office of the Court Administrator and in the various units of the Supreme Court are great and dedicated servant-leaders of our great nation.
Please continue supporting the local Justice System of Las Pinas City for the good of our beloved City.
Rest assured, the Las Pinas City Bar Association, in cooperation with your good Office, the Las Pinas City Judges Association, et. al., will continue to serve our City with dedication, industry and selflessness, with your kind support and moral inspiration.
Have a blessed and liberated day. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
Founder and Board Consultant
Bar reforms
LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION .
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743, Philippines
Tel/Fax: 8725443, 8742539
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com,
Website: http://laspinasbar.multiply.com
December 7, 2008
Personal Delivery
Hon. REYNATO PUNO
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the
Philippines
Manila
Re: Bar Matter No. 1696;
Re: Amendments To Rule 139-A
and the IBP Charter and By-Laws.
Dear Your Honor:
First of all, in my capacity as the incumbent chairman of the Las Pinas City Bar Association, may I respectfully express my sincerest gratitude to you and to the officials and staff of the Supreme Court who brought the Justice on Wheels Program to our city on December 5, 2008.
The whole-day affair -- which consisted of fast-track hearings and mediations, barangay seminar, visit to the city jail, dialogue with the judges and court personnel, visit to the youth center, visit to the expanded hall of justice, and lunch with the representatives of the pillars of the justice system of the city – showed your concern and dedication as the national leader of the Judiciary in promoting the rule of law and access to justice by the poor.
Finally, in behalf of the board of directors and the general membership of the Las Pinas City Bar Association (LPBA), Inc., may I respectfully request your good self to help facilitate the actions of the concerned Supreme Court committee and by the Supreme Court En Banc on the above-captioned “Bar Matter No. 1696, Re: Amendments To Rule 139-A and the IBP Charter and By-Laws”, in the interest of the Bar.
Among other things, our local voluntary bar association wishes to be formally constituted as a separate city chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). We have proposed in the aforementioned Bar Matter to reorganize the structure of the IBP, especially in Southern Luzon Region, and to automatically deem as separate chapters all cities in the Philippines, such as Las Pinas City. The Bar will be more effective as an institution if the amendments that we have proposed in the above-captioned Bar Matter would be favorably considered by the Supreme Court.
May you continue to work for justice and freedom in the country. We always pray for your successful leadership. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Atty. ANTONIO MANZANO
Chairman, LPBA, 2008-2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 28, 2007
The Hon. Chief Justice
Supreme Court
Manila
The National President
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
IBP Building, Dona Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
RE: PETITION TO AMEND RULE 139-A OF THE RULES OF COURT
“INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES”) AND THE BY-
LAWS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP)
IN RE: THE PROPER RESTRUCTURING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL
IBP CHAPTERS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR) AND OTHER
PARTS OF THE COUNTRY SIMILARLY SITUATED.
Dear SIRS :
Mabuhay!
The undersigned members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) respectfully petition your good offices to effect certain proposed amendments to the Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court (“Integrated Bar of the Philippines”) and the By-Laws of the IBP as enumerated hereinbelow and to create the appropriate working Committee on Amendments of Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws to study the amendments proposed hereinbelow and such other additional amendments that the said Committee may deem proper and necessary to recommend to your good offices, for the good of the Philippine legal profession, to wit:
1. To constitute all cities within the National Capital Region (NCR) as separate local IBP chapters, regardless of the number of lawyers residing and/or working therein.
2. For cities with huge lawyer population (such as Quezon City, with a membership of approximately 20,000 lawyers), to constitute each congressional district in such cities as separate local IBP chapters, regardless of the number of lawyers residing and/or working therein.
3. To transfer the following local IBP Chapters from Southern
Luzon to the NCR:
a. IBP-Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter;
b. IBP Makati Chapter;
c. IBP – Caloocan Malabon Navotas (CALMANA) Chapter;
d. IBP Pasig City Chapter;
e. Such other local chapters located in the NCR but included in the Southern Luzon Region; and
f. Such other local chapters (component cities and/or highly urbanized cities) located in other provinces/regions similarly situated above, e.g. Valenzuela City (a component city of the NCR but presently categorized under IBP Central Luzon Region).
4. To institutionalize at the local chapter level the “automatic assumption rule” provided in the existing IBP By-Laws at the national level, whereby the National IBP Executive Vice-President assumes the National IBP Presidency in the next term.
5. To adopt the amendments to Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws proposed by Supreme Court Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco in his Keynote Speech delivered before the 17th House of Delegates of the IBP on November 30, 2006, a copy of which is already on record at the IBP National Office and the Supreme Court.
It is respectfully suggested that chapter representatives from
the different IBP Regions and external consultants from active law NGO’s and prominent law schools in the country be invited to participate in the deliberations of the proposed Committee on Amendments of Rule 139-A and IBP By-Laws.
We respectfully request a feedback from your good offices
within a reasonable time from date of receipt hereof for our information and follow-up action.
(signed by Las Pinas City lawyers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION (LPBA), INC .
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743, Philippines
Tel/Fax: (632) 8725443 & 8742539; Mobile: (0 63 920) 326 8824
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com,
Website: http://groups.msn.com/laspinascitybarassociation
March 14, 2007
Personal Delivery
Hon. REYNATO PUNO
Chief Justice
Supreme Court
Manila
Subject : SOME PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE IBP
(National and Local Levels)
M a b u h a y :
Peace!
As part of your efforts to reform the Bar, may I humbly submit some suggestions based on my past 12-year pro bono service and experience as a director and officer of the IBP PPLM Chapter from 1995 to 2007 and as the Founder in 2001 of the Las Pinas City Bar Association (LPBA), Inc.:
1. Sec. 5, Art. I (pro bono/honorary service) of the IBP By-Laws should be religiously observed by all IBP chapter officers and directors and by the IBP national-level officers and governors.
Some local chapters were reportedly using a part of their local chapter funds to finance the IBP-related traveling, hotel, meals and representation expenses of their officers and directors, e.g. national conventions, regional conventions, and the like.
The above issue is worth serious study and research by your planning staff and/or by the proper working committee/s of the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over Bar to preserve the letter and spirit of the IBP By-Laws on the matter and to avoid the unnecessary dissipation of IBP national and chapter funds, which funds should be judiciously used to implement truly meaningful IBP national and local programs and projects for the good of the Filipino lawyers and the Philippine Justice System.
2. The Commission on Audit (COA) should annually audit not only the IBP national office but also all the local IBP chapters nationwide.
If I am not mistaken, at present, the audit focus of COA seems to be limited to the national legal aid fund remittances of the Supreme Court to the IBP national office.
If to audit the local chapters would be an impossible task due to the lack of COA field auditors, it may conduct selective sample audits of local chapters, per province and region, whose assets amount to at least P100,000.00.
(Note: The COA should examine the unliquidated cash advances at the IBP national and local levels).
The local chapter treasurers and auditors should submit to the local chapter boards, the IBP national board, the Office of the Chief Justice, and the COA regional offices copies of their internally audited annual financial statements to insure the judicious utilization of chapter assets and to detect early signs of financial abuse, anomalies, and corruption.
The audited annual financial statements of the IBP national board should be published not only in the IBP Newsletter, whose internal circulation is very limited, but also in at least two (2) national newspapers.
In my 12-year pro bono service in the IBP, I recall that the IBP audited annual financial statements were published in the IBP Newsletter only twice, and that was many years ago yet.
The Supreme Court should create a special and permanent office within its structure to supervise, monitor and guide the operations, funds, reports, activities, and plans of the IBP national board and the IBP local chapters, pursuant to the express constitutional duty of the Supreme Court to control, supervise, regulate, and discipline the Philippine Bar.
Further, the audited annual financial statements of the IBP national board and the IBP local chapters should be posted on the IBP website (www.ibp.org.ph).
The Supreme Court website should contain a link to the IBP website for the said purpose and in relation to other Bar-related matters.
3. The powers, capacities, and significance of the IBP House of Delegates should be developed, strengthened, and respected by the IBP national board.
I reiterate my past letter, dated December 4, 2006, to the IBP national president, Atty. Jose Victor Salazar, on the above topic, a copy of which I had previously furnished your good office. Nonetheless, I quote the same extensively hereinbelow, for reference:
X x x.
May I suggest the following in re: the holding and management of future annual sessions of the august IBP House of Delegates:
1. After the evening opening ceremonies on the 1st day, the entirety of the next day (2nd day) and of the 3rd day of the House of Delegates should be focused on pure DELIBERATIONS, not lectures and speeches.
The 17th House spent only 2 hours on deliberations (10 AM to 12 PM on the 3rd day). By then, many had gone home early to their respective chapters, trying to beat their plane schedules in Manila.
Only one keynote speech should be allowed during the opening ceremonies.
The entire event should be devoted to pure and focused deliberations of the resolutions, motions and ideas of the delegates from the chapters throughout the country.
The House is not an MCLE venue or a class seminar but a full-blown DELIBERATIVE BODY of the IBP as enunciated in its By-Laws.
We should grasp the rare opportunity of full and open deliberations by the House of all issues raised by the delegates that affect the IBP, the legal profession, the rule of law, the justice system, the legal education, and the state of the nation and of the world.
The House is the Congress of the 40,000-strong IBP lawyer population.
Let its DELIBERATIVE NATURE be optimized to the fullest for the good of the IBP and the legal profession.
2. It is best to conduct a professional pre-House SURVEY among the chapters and regions to identify the vital issues the chapters might wish to raise in the next House and to measure the degree of their knowledge and attitudes towards such vital issues.
From among the many vital issues, the Board should focus on the top five (5) vital issues for plenary workshop and deliberation purposes.
Let us professionalize the preparation, planning and management of the House, especially in re: its substantive, qualitative and deliberative content.
3. The report of the House should be published in two (2) national dailies and circulated among the mass media nationwide.
The Board should budget funds for the purpose.
Let the general public know our vital resolutions and ideas.
It is not enough to publish the abstract of the House in the IBP Newsletter, whose internal circulation is very limited.
The IBP should sponsor the law deans in the country, the presidents of the law student councils in the country, the heads of selected top law NGOs in the country, and the presidents of the judges associations, court personnel associations, a representative each from the National Press Club, the JUCRA and the JUROR (judicial mass media), a JBC representative, a CA and a SC representative, a representative from the law and justice committees of both houses of Congress, a representative from the DOJ, a representative from the Ombudsman, and a representative from Malacanang Palace to attend the House as non-delegates and observers, free of charge, with the power to participate in the deliberations but without the power to vote.
We need their academic and objective feedback and ideas to protect the House from the genetic danger of intellectual inbreeding, so to speak.
4. The delegates should be asked to evaluate (using a professionally prepared form) the House proceedings before each adjournment.
The goal is to improve future House sessions.
5. Let us avoid unwholesome official nocturnal activities, which border on sexual misconduct and alcoholism, just as what had happened on the 2nd night of the 17th House, as reported to me by some delegates who were present during the Viewsite nocturnal activities on the 2nd night. (I left after dinner to rest early and avoid such things).
Let us behave, as members of the noblest profession, with dignity, maturity, seriousness, deep and analytical thoughts, and wisdom.
The aforementioned actions of the delegates of the 17th House in the said restaurant in Tagaytay City I am sure have and would spread among the people of Cavite, thru the waiters and personnel of the restaurant and other non-IBP guests then present at the site who had observed the behavior and sex and booze-oriented nocturnal activities the 17th House during the 2nd night thereof.
I suggest you refer this letter to the IBP Board and national secretariat officers for their consideration.
I hope you and the IBP Board will not mind if I fax a copy hereof to the SC Chief Justice, for his information.
All of the foregoing suggestions are being made in good faith for the good of the IBP and all its chapters nationwide, as well to truly serve the general good of the legal profession and of the justice system in the country. I have no intention of offending the feelings and dignity of the IBP Board and Secretariat.
May your day be blessed, enlightened and liberated. Thank you.
X x x.
4. The Supreme Court should task its existing working committee with jurisdiction over Bar matters or create an ad hoc committee to study and propose amendments and revisions to the current circa-1970s IBP By-Laws and to Rule 139-A (IBP).
The local chapters, interested law NGOs and prominent law schools nationwide should be consulted thereon.
You will recall that in a letter, dated February 28, 2007, I informed you that my office was initiating a mass petition (signature campaign) to amend the IBP By-Laws and Rule 139. May I quote my said letter to you in full:
X x x.
RE: PETITION TO AMEND RULE 139-A OF THE RULES OF COURT
(“INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES”) AND THE BY-
LAWS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP)
IN RE: THE PROPER RESTRUCTURING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL IBP CHAPTERS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR) AND OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY SIMILARLY SITUATED.
X x x.
The undersigned members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) respectfully petition your good offices to effect certain proposed amendments to the Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court (“Integrated Bar of the Philippines”) and the By-Laws of the IBP as enumerated hereinbelow and to create the appropriate working Committee on Amendments of Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws to study the amendments proposed hereinbelow and such other additional amendments that the said Committee may deem proper and necessary to recommend to your good offices, for the good of the Philippine legal profession, to wit:
6. To constitute all cities within the National Capital Region (NCR) as separate local IBP chapters, regardless of the number of lawyers residing and/or working therein.
7. For cities with huge lawyer population (such as Quezon City, with a membership of approximately 20,000 lawyers), to constitute each congressional district in such cities as separate local IBP chapters, regardless of the number of lawyers residing and/or working therein.
8. To transfer the following local IBP Chapters from Southern
Luzon to the NCR:
a. IBP-Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter;
b. IBP Makati Chapter;
c. IBP – Caloocan Malabon Navotas (CALMANA) Chapter;
d. IBP Pasig City Chapter;
e. Such other local chapters located in the NCR but included in the Southern Luzon Region; and
f. Such other local chapters (component cities and/or highly urbanized cities) located in other provinces/regions similarly situated above, e.g. Valenzuela City (a component city of the NCR but presently categorized under IBP Central Luzon Region).
9. To institutionalize at the local chapter level the “automatic assumption rule” provided in the existing IBP By-Laws at the national level, whereby the National IBP Executive Vice-President assumes the National IBP Presidency in the next term.
10. To adopt the amendments to Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws proposed by Supreme Court Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco in his Keynote Speech delivered before the 17th House of Delegates of the IBP on November 30, 2006, a copy of which is already on record at the IBP National Office and the Supreme Court.
It is respectfully suggested that chapter representatives from
the different IBP Regions and external consultants from active law NGO’s and prominent law schools in the country be invited to participate in the deliberations of the proposed Committee on Amendments of Rule 139-A and IBP By-Laws.
We respectfully request a feedback from your good offices
within a reasonable time from date of receipt hereof for our information and follow-up action.
X x x.
Knowing your open mind and sincere heart, In the future, I shall regularly communicate with your office to submit further proposals for the good of the Bar and the Justice System, for your study and/or referral to the proper SC working committee/s and the concerned SC research and planning staff.
I shall appreciate it if your good office would refer this letter to the Supreme Court En Banc, for its study and appropriate collegial action.
In closing, if we do not continuously reform and improve the IBP, which is a pillar in the national justice system, the quality and professionalism of the administration of justice in the country would ultimately suffer.
May your day be blessed, happy, and liberated. Thank you.
Sincerely.
Atty. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR., AB, LLB, LLM.
Founder, Las Pinas City Bar Association, 2001
Director, Las Pinas City Bar Association, 2001-07
Vice Pres., IBP PPLM Chapter, 2005-07
Member, Board of Directors, IBP PPLM Chapter,
1995-2007
Professor of Law, FEU, 1985-2006 (ret.)
3rd Place, 1984 Bar Exams, 90.95%
Meralco Scholar, AB Journalism, UP Diliman, 1979
Cocofed Law Scholar, LLB, FEU, cum laude, 1980-84
FEU Law Scholar, LLM, UST GS, 1998-2000
Cc:
LPBA Board and Members
LPBA Advisers and Consultants
Others
File
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER
& Associates Law Offices
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue, Philamlife Village
Las Pinas City 1743 Philippines
Tel/Fax: (0 63 2) 8742539 & 8725443; Mobile : (0 63 920) 326 8824
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com
Website: http://groups.msn.com/lasernacuevamercader
February 27, 2007
STATEMENT OF ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR. IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP) – PASAY PARANAQUE LAS PINAS MUNTINLUPA (PPLM) CHAPTER HELD ON FEBRUARY 2, 2007.
MABUHAY:
The IBP national officers and the UP Sigma Rho Fraternity, which has been controlling the IBP National Board since the 1970s, had planned my defeat during the election of the 2007-09 officers of the IBP Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPM) Chapter, of which I was the 2005-07 chapter vice president.
The reason was my independent stand and past critiques of past IBP policies, which I felt, were not in accord with the aims and goals of a good Bar association.
My opponents wanted to silence dissent and criticism within the IBP. The elected chapter president was a young UP Sigma Rhoan who has no IBP and local Bar leadership experience and no track record of services to the Bar and the Law Academe. He won by a slim margin of 14 votes only.
Nonetheless, I will continue my campaign for the reform of the IBP, the legal profession, and the Justice system, as a private lawyer. I will remain to serve the Las Pinas City Bar Association, which I founded in 2001, and the Justice System of Las Pinas City (and other parts of country, where invited).
Thank you for your kind and invaluable support and assistance to me last election.
May your day be blessed, happy and liberated.
Atty. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Managing Partner – LCM Law
Founder, Las Pinas City Bar Assn, 2001
Director, Las Pinas City Bar Assn, 2001-2007
Vice Pres., IBP Pasay Paranaque
Las Pinas Muntinlupa Chapter, 2005-07
Former Professor of Law, FEU, 1985-2007
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743, Philippines
Tel/Fax: 8725443, 8742539
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com,
Website: http://laspinasbar.multiply.com
December 7, 2008
Personal Delivery
Hon. REYNATO PUNO
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the
Philippines
Manila
Re: Bar Matter No. 1696;
Re: Amendments To Rule 139-A
and the IBP Charter and By-Laws.
Dear Your Honor:
First of all, in my capacity as the incumbent chairman of the Las Pinas City Bar Association, may I respectfully express my sincerest gratitude to you and to the officials and staff of the Supreme Court who brought the Justice on Wheels Program to our city on December 5, 2008.
The whole-day affair -- which consisted of fast-track hearings and mediations, barangay seminar, visit to the city jail, dialogue with the judges and court personnel, visit to the youth center, visit to the expanded hall of justice, and lunch with the representatives of the pillars of the justice system of the city – showed your concern and dedication as the national leader of the Judiciary in promoting the rule of law and access to justice by the poor.
Finally, in behalf of the board of directors and the general membership of the Las Pinas City Bar Association (LPBA), Inc., may I respectfully request your good self to help facilitate the actions of the concerned Supreme Court committee and by the Supreme Court En Banc on the above-captioned “Bar Matter No. 1696, Re: Amendments To Rule 139-A and the IBP Charter and By-Laws”, in the interest of the Bar.
Among other things, our local voluntary bar association wishes to be formally constituted as a separate city chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). We have proposed in the aforementioned Bar Matter to reorganize the structure of the IBP, especially in Southern Luzon Region, and to automatically deem as separate chapters all cities in the Philippines, such as Las Pinas City. The Bar will be more effective as an institution if the amendments that we have proposed in the above-captioned Bar Matter would be favorably considered by the Supreme Court.
May you continue to work for justice and freedom in the country. We always pray for your successful leadership. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Atty. ANTONIO MANZANO
Chairman, LPBA, 2008-2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 28, 2007
The Hon. Chief Justice
Supreme Court
Manila
The National President
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
IBP Building, Dona Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
RE: PETITION TO AMEND RULE 139-A OF THE RULES OF COURT
“INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES”) AND THE BY-
LAWS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP)
IN RE: THE PROPER RESTRUCTURING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL
IBP CHAPTERS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR) AND OTHER
PARTS OF THE COUNTRY SIMILARLY SITUATED.
Dear SIRS :
Mabuhay!
The undersigned members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) respectfully petition your good offices to effect certain proposed amendments to the Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court (“Integrated Bar of the Philippines”) and the By-Laws of the IBP as enumerated hereinbelow and to create the appropriate working Committee on Amendments of Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws to study the amendments proposed hereinbelow and such other additional amendments that the said Committee may deem proper and necessary to recommend to your good offices, for the good of the Philippine legal profession, to wit:
1. To constitute all cities within the National Capital Region (NCR) as separate local IBP chapters, regardless of the number of lawyers residing and/or working therein.
2. For cities with huge lawyer population (such as Quezon City, with a membership of approximately 20,000 lawyers), to constitute each congressional district in such cities as separate local IBP chapters, regardless of the number of lawyers residing and/or working therein.
3. To transfer the following local IBP Chapters from Southern
Luzon to the NCR:
a. IBP-Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter;
b. IBP Makati Chapter;
c. IBP – Caloocan Malabon Navotas (CALMANA) Chapter;
d. IBP Pasig City Chapter;
e. Such other local chapters located in the NCR but included in the Southern Luzon Region; and
f. Such other local chapters (component cities and/or highly urbanized cities) located in other provinces/regions similarly situated above, e.g. Valenzuela City (a component city of the NCR but presently categorized under IBP Central Luzon Region).
4. To institutionalize at the local chapter level the “automatic assumption rule” provided in the existing IBP By-Laws at the national level, whereby the National IBP Executive Vice-President assumes the National IBP Presidency in the next term.
5. To adopt the amendments to Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws proposed by Supreme Court Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco in his Keynote Speech delivered before the 17th House of Delegates of the IBP on November 30, 2006, a copy of which is already on record at the IBP National Office and the Supreme Court.
It is respectfully suggested that chapter representatives from
the different IBP Regions and external consultants from active law NGO’s and prominent law schools in the country be invited to participate in the deliberations of the proposed Committee on Amendments of Rule 139-A and IBP By-Laws.
We respectfully request a feedback from your good offices
within a reasonable time from date of receipt hereof for our information and follow-up action.
(signed by Las Pinas City lawyers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAS PINAS CITY BAR ASSOCIATION (LPBA), INC .
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1743, Philippines
Tel/Fax: (632) 8725443 & 8742539; Mobile: (0 63 920) 326 8824
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com,
Website: http://groups.msn.com/laspinascitybarassociation
March 14, 2007
Personal Delivery
Hon. REYNATO PUNO
Chief Justice
Supreme Court
Manila
Subject : SOME PROPOSED REFORMS IN THE IBP
(National and Local Levels)
M a b u h a y :
Peace!
As part of your efforts to reform the Bar, may I humbly submit some suggestions based on my past 12-year pro bono service and experience as a director and officer of the IBP PPLM Chapter from 1995 to 2007 and as the Founder in 2001 of the Las Pinas City Bar Association (LPBA), Inc.:
1. Sec. 5, Art. I (pro bono/honorary service) of the IBP By-Laws should be religiously observed by all IBP chapter officers and directors and by the IBP national-level officers and governors.
Some local chapters were reportedly using a part of their local chapter funds to finance the IBP-related traveling, hotel, meals and representation expenses of their officers and directors, e.g. national conventions, regional conventions, and the like.
The above issue is worth serious study and research by your planning staff and/or by the proper working committee/s of the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over Bar to preserve the letter and spirit of the IBP By-Laws on the matter and to avoid the unnecessary dissipation of IBP national and chapter funds, which funds should be judiciously used to implement truly meaningful IBP national and local programs and projects for the good of the Filipino lawyers and the Philippine Justice System.
2. The Commission on Audit (COA) should annually audit not only the IBP national office but also all the local IBP chapters nationwide.
If I am not mistaken, at present, the audit focus of COA seems to be limited to the national legal aid fund remittances of the Supreme Court to the IBP national office.
If to audit the local chapters would be an impossible task due to the lack of COA field auditors, it may conduct selective sample audits of local chapters, per province and region, whose assets amount to at least P100,000.00.
(Note: The COA should examine the unliquidated cash advances at the IBP national and local levels).
The local chapter treasurers and auditors should submit to the local chapter boards, the IBP national board, the Office of the Chief Justice, and the COA regional offices copies of their internally audited annual financial statements to insure the judicious utilization of chapter assets and to detect early signs of financial abuse, anomalies, and corruption.
The audited annual financial statements of the IBP national board should be published not only in the IBP Newsletter, whose internal circulation is very limited, but also in at least two (2) national newspapers.
In my 12-year pro bono service in the IBP, I recall that the IBP audited annual financial statements were published in the IBP Newsletter only twice, and that was many years ago yet.
The Supreme Court should create a special and permanent office within its structure to supervise, monitor and guide the operations, funds, reports, activities, and plans of the IBP national board and the IBP local chapters, pursuant to the express constitutional duty of the Supreme Court to control, supervise, regulate, and discipline the Philippine Bar.
Further, the audited annual financial statements of the IBP national board and the IBP local chapters should be posted on the IBP website (www.ibp.org.ph).
The Supreme Court website should contain a link to the IBP website for the said purpose and in relation to other Bar-related matters.
3. The powers, capacities, and significance of the IBP House of Delegates should be developed, strengthened, and respected by the IBP national board.
I reiterate my past letter, dated December 4, 2006, to the IBP national president, Atty. Jose Victor Salazar, on the above topic, a copy of which I had previously furnished your good office. Nonetheless, I quote the same extensively hereinbelow, for reference:
X x x.
May I suggest the following in re: the holding and management of future annual sessions of the august IBP House of Delegates:
1. After the evening opening ceremonies on the 1st day, the entirety of the next day (2nd day) and of the 3rd day of the House of Delegates should be focused on pure DELIBERATIONS, not lectures and speeches.
The 17th House spent only 2 hours on deliberations (10 AM to 12 PM on the 3rd day). By then, many had gone home early to their respective chapters, trying to beat their plane schedules in Manila.
Only one keynote speech should be allowed during the opening ceremonies.
The entire event should be devoted to pure and focused deliberations of the resolutions, motions and ideas of the delegates from the chapters throughout the country.
The House is not an MCLE venue or a class seminar but a full-blown DELIBERATIVE BODY of the IBP as enunciated in its By-Laws.
We should grasp the rare opportunity of full and open deliberations by the House of all issues raised by the delegates that affect the IBP, the legal profession, the rule of law, the justice system, the legal education, and the state of the nation and of the world.
The House is the Congress of the 40,000-strong IBP lawyer population.
Let its DELIBERATIVE NATURE be optimized to the fullest for the good of the IBP and the legal profession.
2. It is best to conduct a professional pre-House SURVEY among the chapters and regions to identify the vital issues the chapters might wish to raise in the next House and to measure the degree of their knowledge and attitudes towards such vital issues.
From among the many vital issues, the Board should focus on the top five (5) vital issues for plenary workshop and deliberation purposes.
Let us professionalize the preparation, planning and management of the House, especially in re: its substantive, qualitative and deliberative content.
3. The report of the House should be published in two (2) national dailies and circulated among the mass media nationwide.
The Board should budget funds for the purpose.
Let the general public know our vital resolutions and ideas.
It is not enough to publish the abstract of the House in the IBP Newsletter, whose internal circulation is very limited.
The IBP should sponsor the law deans in the country, the presidents of the law student councils in the country, the heads of selected top law NGOs in the country, and the presidents of the judges associations, court personnel associations, a representative each from the National Press Club, the JUCRA and the JUROR (judicial mass media), a JBC representative, a CA and a SC representative, a representative from the law and justice committees of both houses of Congress, a representative from the DOJ, a representative from the Ombudsman, and a representative from Malacanang Palace to attend the House as non-delegates and observers, free of charge, with the power to participate in the deliberations but without the power to vote.
We need their academic and objective feedback and ideas to protect the House from the genetic danger of intellectual inbreeding, so to speak.
4. The delegates should be asked to evaluate (using a professionally prepared form) the House proceedings before each adjournment.
The goal is to improve future House sessions.
5. Let us avoid unwholesome official nocturnal activities, which border on sexual misconduct and alcoholism, just as what had happened on the 2nd night of the 17th House, as reported to me by some delegates who were present during the Viewsite nocturnal activities on the 2nd night. (I left after dinner to rest early and avoid such things).
Let us behave, as members of the noblest profession, with dignity, maturity, seriousness, deep and analytical thoughts, and wisdom.
The aforementioned actions of the delegates of the 17th House in the said restaurant in Tagaytay City I am sure have and would spread among the people of Cavite, thru the waiters and personnel of the restaurant and other non-IBP guests then present at the site who had observed the behavior and sex and booze-oriented nocturnal activities the 17th House during the 2nd night thereof.
I suggest you refer this letter to the IBP Board and national secretariat officers for their consideration.
I hope you and the IBP Board will not mind if I fax a copy hereof to the SC Chief Justice, for his information.
All of the foregoing suggestions are being made in good faith for the good of the IBP and all its chapters nationwide, as well to truly serve the general good of the legal profession and of the justice system in the country. I have no intention of offending the feelings and dignity of the IBP Board and Secretariat.
May your day be blessed, enlightened and liberated. Thank you.
X x x.
4. The Supreme Court should task its existing working committee with jurisdiction over Bar matters or create an ad hoc committee to study and propose amendments and revisions to the current circa-1970s IBP By-Laws and to Rule 139-A (IBP).
The local chapters, interested law NGOs and prominent law schools nationwide should be consulted thereon.
You will recall that in a letter, dated February 28, 2007, I informed you that my office was initiating a mass petition (signature campaign) to amend the IBP By-Laws and Rule 139. May I quote my said letter to you in full:
X x x.
RE: PETITION TO AMEND RULE 139-A OF THE RULES OF COURT
(“INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES”) AND THE BY-
LAWS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP)
IN RE: THE PROPER RESTRUCTURING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL IBP CHAPTERS IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (NCR) AND OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY SIMILARLY SITUATED.
X x x.
The undersigned members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) respectfully petition your good offices to effect certain proposed amendments to the Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court (“Integrated Bar of the Philippines”) and the By-Laws of the IBP as enumerated hereinbelow and to create the appropriate working Committee on Amendments of Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws to study the amendments proposed hereinbelow and such other additional amendments that the said Committee may deem proper and necessary to recommend to your good offices, for the good of the Philippine legal profession, to wit:
6. To constitute all cities within the National Capital Region (NCR) as separate local IBP chapters, regardless of the number of lawyers residing and/or working therein.
7. For cities with huge lawyer population (such as Quezon City, with a membership of approximately 20,000 lawyers), to constitute each congressional district in such cities as separate local IBP chapters, regardless of the number of lawyers residing and/or working therein.
8. To transfer the following local IBP Chapters from Southern
Luzon to the NCR:
a. IBP-Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPLM) Chapter;
b. IBP Makati Chapter;
c. IBP – Caloocan Malabon Navotas (CALMANA) Chapter;
d. IBP Pasig City Chapter;
e. Such other local chapters located in the NCR but included in the Southern Luzon Region; and
f. Such other local chapters (component cities and/or highly urbanized cities) located in other provinces/regions similarly situated above, e.g. Valenzuela City (a component city of the NCR but presently categorized under IBP Central Luzon Region).
9. To institutionalize at the local chapter level the “automatic assumption rule” provided in the existing IBP By-Laws at the national level, whereby the National IBP Executive Vice-President assumes the National IBP Presidency in the next term.
10. To adopt the amendments to Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws proposed by Supreme Court Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco in his Keynote Speech delivered before the 17th House of Delegates of the IBP on November 30, 2006, a copy of which is already on record at the IBP National Office and the Supreme Court.
It is respectfully suggested that chapter representatives from
the different IBP Regions and external consultants from active law NGO’s and prominent law schools in the country be invited to participate in the deliberations of the proposed Committee on Amendments of Rule 139-A and IBP By-Laws.
We respectfully request a feedback from your good offices
within a reasonable time from date of receipt hereof for our information and follow-up action.
X x x.
Knowing your open mind and sincere heart, In the future, I shall regularly communicate with your office to submit further proposals for the good of the Bar and the Justice System, for your study and/or referral to the proper SC working committee/s and the concerned SC research and planning staff.
I shall appreciate it if your good office would refer this letter to the Supreme Court En Banc, for its study and appropriate collegial action.
In closing, if we do not continuously reform and improve the IBP, which is a pillar in the national justice system, the quality and professionalism of the administration of justice in the country would ultimately suffer.
May your day be blessed, happy, and liberated. Thank you.
Sincerely.
Atty. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR., AB, LLB, LLM.
Founder, Las Pinas City Bar Association, 2001
Director, Las Pinas City Bar Association, 2001-07
Vice Pres., IBP PPLM Chapter, 2005-07
Member, Board of Directors, IBP PPLM Chapter,
1995-2007
Professor of Law, FEU, 1985-2006 (ret.)
3rd Place, 1984 Bar Exams, 90.95%
Meralco Scholar, AB Journalism, UP Diliman, 1979
Cocofed Law Scholar, LLB, FEU, cum laude, 1980-84
FEU Law Scholar, LLM, UST GS, 1998-2000
Cc:
LPBA Board and Members
LPBA Advisers and Consultants
Others
File
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER
& Associates Law Offices
Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr Avenue, Philamlife Village
Las Pinas City 1743 Philippines
Tel/Fax: (0 63 2) 8742539 & 8725443; Mobile : (0 63 920) 326 8824
Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com
Website: http://groups.msn.com/lasernacuevamercader
February 27, 2007
STATEMENT OF ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR. IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP) – PASAY PARANAQUE LAS PINAS MUNTINLUPA (PPLM) CHAPTER HELD ON FEBRUARY 2, 2007.
MABUHAY:
The IBP national officers and the UP Sigma Rho Fraternity, which has been controlling the IBP National Board since the 1970s, had planned my defeat during the election of the 2007-09 officers of the IBP Pasay Paranaque Las Pinas Muntinlupa (PPM) Chapter, of which I was the 2005-07 chapter vice president.
The reason was my independent stand and past critiques of past IBP policies, which I felt, were not in accord with the aims and goals of a good Bar association.
My opponents wanted to silence dissent and criticism within the IBP. The elected chapter president was a young UP Sigma Rhoan who has no IBP and local Bar leadership experience and no track record of services to the Bar and the Law Academe. He won by a slim margin of 14 votes only.
Nonetheless, I will continue my campaign for the reform of the IBP, the legal profession, and the Justice system, as a private lawyer. I will remain to serve the Las Pinas City Bar Association, which I founded in 2001, and the Justice System of Las Pinas City (and other parts of country, where invited).
Thank you for your kind and invaluable support and assistance to me last election.
May your day be blessed, happy and liberated.
Atty. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Managing Partner – LCM Law
Founder, Las Pinas City Bar Assn, 2001
Director, Las Pinas City Bar Assn, 2001-2007
Vice Pres., IBP Pasay Paranaque
Las Pinas Muntinlupa Chapter, 2005-07
Former Professor of Law, FEU, 1985-2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)