Neil Cruz, one of the most senior columnists in the Philippines in age and experience, has written an item in his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer strongly but professionally criticizing the very slow movement of a controversial criminal case now pending on appeal before the Court of Appeals which has been languishing there for more than 14 years now and which involves a local politician in the northern province of Cagayan (the territory of Senate President, Juan Ponce Enrile).
He slams Chief Justice Reynato Puno (and his moral renewal movement) and the past and present presiding justices of the Court of Appeals for such undue delay and unexplained inaction, despite the many and repeated communications from the families of the victims addressed to the Chief Justice and the past presiding justices of the Court of Appeals to expedite the final resolution of the appealed case, all of which were perfunctorily answered by said addresses but in the end were not concretely acted upon by them with dispatch and finality on its merits or demerits.
This matter is only one of the many cases of injurious judicial delays, especially in the two highest courts of the land, that I often hear about from many Filipino trial lawyers which truly demoralizes and irritates the Filipinos in relation to their perceptions affecting the substantive operation of the justice system of the Philippines.
The Constitution sets limits for the lower courts, the Court of Appeals and similar collegiate appellate courts (e.g., Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals), and the Supreme Court to adjudicate and resolve pending cases before them with finality – 90 days for trial courts; 1.5 years for the Court of Appeals and other appellate courts; and 2 years for the Supreme Court. The way the constitutional provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its many past decisions however seems funny and strange to many ordinary Filipinos in that for trial courts and the Court of Appeals and other appellate courts their 90-day period and 1.5-year period, respectively, to adjudicate pending cases are “mandatory” and are in fact subject to various kinds of administrative sanctions by the Supreme Court if and when violated, as indeed many judges have been so punished by the Supreme Court, while for the Supreme Court, its mandated 2-year period is simply “directory” in nature and not mandatory. You may describe this discrepancy as some form of unexplained “judicial discrimination” in Philippine jurisprudence.
The experience of many lawyers in the Philippines is that at the trial court level the movement of a case can last form 1.5 years to 3 years (as revealed by past law surveys since the 1980s by law groups and law schools, notwithstanding all the beautifully and strongly worded Supreme Court circulars on the constitutional principle of speedy justice); at the Court of Appeals level, cases can last from 3 to 5 years; and at the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort, cases can last for another set of 3 to 5 years.
In many cases, the aging period of court cases, especially those which do not involve nationally controversial cases of celebrities, politicians and known public figures and which are not prominently covered by the national mass media establishments, from the trial court level to the Supreme Court level can last up to 10 to 15 years all in all.
Ask any trial lawyer in the country and you will know what I mean.
I know for a fact that the Chief Justice is doing his very best to remedy the situation as shown by the various judicial reform projects he and his predecessors, like Fernan, Davide and Panganiban, have initiated since the late 1980s, aided by foreign grants and loans by USAID, Canada, Japan, Australia, and Germany.
But more needs to be done, especially on the serious matters of judicial delay and judicial corruption, as many lawyers and law students would confirm.
As I See It
Very slow wheels of justice in appellate courts
By Neal Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:59:00 11/05/2009
THIS ONE IS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO Puno of the Supreme Court and Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez Jr. of the Court of Appeals. It is about the very slow wheels of justice in the appellate courts which is tantamount to a denial of justice. It is about triple murder and frustrated murder charges against Licerio Antiporda III, now the acting Mayor of Buguey, Cagayan.
On election night of May 8, 1995, in front of a precinct in a schoolhouse in Barangay San Isidro, Buguey, Antiporda III gunned down and killed Edwin Cusit, Johnny Alonzo and Ben Maggudayao. Another victim, Jimmy de Guzman, survived.
Six years later, on May 4, 1995, Judge Teresa Soriaso of the Manila Regional Trial Court convicted Antiporda III on three counts of homicide and one count of frustrated murder. He appealed the decision.
Strange things began to happen in the Court of Appeals. On Jan. 23, 2002, Justice Bienvenido Reyes affirmed the lower court’s decision. But five days later, Reyes recalled his decision, claiming that he was not supposed to pen the decision because his job was only to complete the records and endorse the case to the ponente.
The ponente was Justice Edgardo Sundian. For years, the case languished in the sala of Sundian who, eventually, inhibited himself from the case when the prosecution lawyers sought his inhibition.
When the case was re-raffled, all the justices to whom the case was referred inhibited themselves one after another. Justices Jampar Dimaampao, Martin S. Villarama, Teresita D. Flores, Jose Mendoza, Tampio Abarrientos, Celia Leagogo, Mario Guarina III, and Jane Aurora Lation refused to handle the case. It is now with Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr.
Why is this case too hot to handle? Who is the accused?
Licerio Antiporda III is the son of former Mayor Licerio Antiporda Jr. and grandson of Licerio Antiporda Sr. who also served as mayor of Buguey. For almost 50 years, the Antipordas ruled this town. It was only in the elections of 2007, when the Antipordas, father and son, ran for mayor and vice mayor, respectively, that Ignacio Taruc defeated Antiporda Jr. for mayor, but the vice mayoralty was won by Antiporda III, the accused in this case.
Taruc was suspended by the provincial Sangguniang Bayan so Antiporda III became acting mayor. Malacañang lifted the suspension order, but Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno has not implemented the Malacañang order until now.
Antiporda Jr. is in jail, charged for the killing of lawyer Franklin Tamargo and her daughter who were gunned down at the Escolta in Manila in August 2003. Tamargo, once an opponent of Antiporda Jr., was the prosecution lawyer in the cases against Antiporda III.
It is interesting to note that the promulgation of the sentence by Soriaso set for 10 a.m. of May 4, 2001 was unexpectedly postponed although she was at her sala at that time. When the decision was handed down four hours later, Antiporda III was convicted of homicide on three counts and, strangely, of frustrated murder on one count.
Fourteen years after the crime was committed, the accused is still free and is now running the municipal government of Buguey while the mayor, Taruc, remains suspended.
On Oct. 15, 2003, Manuel T. Molina, lawyer of the victims, wrote to then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. deploring the slow resolution of the case in the Court of Appeals. Davide endorsed the letter to then Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia.
Molina again wrote to Chief Justice Reynato Puno on Jan. 5, 2007 concerning the same case. Puno endorsed the letter to then CA Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes. On Jan. 18, 2007, Reyes referred the Chief Justice’s letter to Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam. It was in Sundiam’s sala that the case languished for years before he finally inhibited himself from the case.
There was probably extreme pressure or blandishments on the nine justices of the appellate court because all of them inhibited themselves from the case, one after another, when it was assigned to them.
Last Sept. 23, Alfredo Cusit Jr., brother of Edwin Cusit, one of the victims, wrote to Chief Justice Puno appealing, again, for a decision on the case. “Please call upon the Court of Appeals to expedite the resolution of this case in the interest of justice and for the peace of our family and the families of the other victims,” Cusit asked the Chief Justice.
Puno merely endorsed the letter to Presiding Justice Vasquez who, in turn, wrote to Cusit Jr. to tell him that the case was being referred to still another ponente.
How can Puno lead a credible moral rearmament movement in the Philippines when he can’t even make the wheels of justice move faster in his own turf? There is no investigation, no questions asked on these very strange things happenings in the CA, no attempt to prod the justices to move faster.
For this is a case of justice not only being denied but of justice being withheld because the conviction has been affirmed and is merely to be promulgated. How can the people have faith in our justice system when they see this blatant denial of justice? How many more cases are languishing in our courts like this one?
There are deadlines, imposed by the Supreme Court, on lower courts to resolve cases in their salas, but none for itself and the CA. The longest delayed cases are in the two highest courts of the land. The case against Antiporda III is only one of them.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20091105-234484/Very-slow-wheels-of-justice-in-appellate-courts