THE CORONA COURT: A YEAR OF PRESERVING INDEPENDENCE, PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENHANCING REFORMS (17 May 2010

17 May 2011)

The Supreme Court Under the First Year of Leadership of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona

by

JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ

Supreme Court Spokesperson and Court Administrator

INTRODUCTION The assumption of Chief Justice Renato Coronado Corona on 17 May 2010 as the 23rd chief magistrate of the country, while founded on solid constitutional grounds, did not take place under the most auspicious circumstances. The critics of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who was then suffering from a record low net satisfaction rating of -53%,1 petitioned that she should not appoint the successor of outgoing Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. Affirming however that it was her constitutional duty and mandate to appoint the next chief justice, upon receiving the nominees of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), she appointed the most senior JBC nominee then Associate Justice Corona. Chief Justice Corona thus faced the challenge of beginning his watch in the Supreme Court amidst an avalanche of criticisms both on the legality of his appointment and on his capability to epitomize judicial independence, having previously served as Presidential Chief of Staff, Spokesman and later on as Executive Secretary to the former president who eventually appointed him. Evidently, Chief Justice Corona recognized this awesome task immediately upon his appointment, more so in the countrys politics-laden society.2 He thus transformed this challenge as an opportunity to show and prove the Courts judicial independence. In his first public address as chief justice, he immediately assured the people that he entered upon his duties only as a pure and simple response of a citizen to a call of public duty to serve God and country,3 and asked the public to allow him to carry out his duties and responsibilities before passing judgment on the capabilities of the Court

Conducted by the Social Weather Station which categorized the net satisfaction rating as very bad. 2 Leadership, Freedom and Responsibility: Guideposts to a Freer and More Responsible Press, a speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the 2011 Induction of Officers and Trustees of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), Dusit Hotel, Makati City, 16 February 2011. 3 Statement of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Supreme Court of the Philippines, after his oath-taking on 17 May 2010, at sc.judiciary.gov.ph.
1

In the unusual exigencies of present-day circumstances, I am all too keenly aware that so much more than usual is expected of me. I aim to improve the judiciary even further in every aspect possible and strengthen the great institution of the Supreme Court. By and with Gods awesome grace, I shall prove myself worthy of the responsibilities entrusted to me by our people of whatever color, persuasion and nature of belief. Undaunted by man or circumstance, and unswayed by praise or criticism, in me right will find a sanctuary and wrong will find no refuge . . . . . . My heart is in the right place and its loyalty is to the Constitution alone. I stake everything on this unconditional and unequivocal pledge of honor. Only by the standard of this forthright sworn fidelity am I willing to be judged in the times to come.4

PRESERVING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE From the onset, Chief Justice Corona thus already emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening the independence of the judiciary As the dispenser of justice and the harbinger of hope for the common man, the judiciary must be free and independent, must be able to check the excesses of the other branches of government and must ensure the rule of law as it finds expression in the Constitution.5

Ibid. Building A Culture of Judicial Excellence, a speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the 2010 Awarding Ceremonies of the Search for Outstanding Judges and Clerks of Court by the Society for Judicial Excellence, Millenium Salon, Manila Hotel, 17 September 2010.
4 5

For the Chief Justice, the Court should be insulated from external influences of whatever kind and nature, whether brought about by political pressure or public clamour Unlike the two other branches of government, popular opinion does not sway our course of action. We do not have constituencies whose interests we have to protect, nor are we out to further any political agenda or personal causes. We are here for only one purpose and that is to protect the rule of law and the rights of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution.6 Consequently, early on, the landmark decisions handed down by the Corona Court exhibited the independence of the individual justices and the Court as an institution. In Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,7 while the Court, in a vote of 9-6, upheld the presidential prerogative to create a truth comission under Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution, it struck down, in a vote of 10-5, Executive Order No. 1, which created the Philippine Truth Commission, for violating the right to equal protection of the persons who will be investigated by the said Philippine Truth Commission. The Court held that the subject truth commissions mandate to investigate and find out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption only during the previous administration singles out such administration based on an arbitrary classification. In Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice,8 where, in a vote of 9-3, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice was initially restrained from proceeding with the impeachment complaints filed against the Ombudsman, the Court, after a series of deliberations, voting 7-5, eventually upheld the resolutions of the House of Representatives Committee on

6 A Judiciary Worthy of Public Trust, a speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona at the annual convention of the Philippine Judges Association, Avenue Hotel, Naga City, 14 October 2010. 7 G.R. No. 192935, 7 December 2010. 8 G.R. No. 193459, 15 February 2011.

Justice and proceedings.

allowed

it

to

proceed

with

the

impeachment

In at least seven separate cases9 questioning the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 2 issued by President Benigno Aquino III, which recalled, withdrew, and revoked the supposed midnight appointments of the previous administration, the Court issued a status quo ante order only in Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive Secretary10 it appearing that Dianalan-Lucman presented peculiar circumstances. And, in Central Mindanao University v. The Honorable Executive Secretary,11 the Court declared unconstitutional Presidential Proclamation 310 issued by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appropriating 670 hectares from CMUs registered lands for distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural communities. The Court ruled that the lands, by their character, have become inalienable from the moment President Carlos P. Garcia dedicated them for CMUs use in scientific and technological research in the field of agriculture. They have thus ceased to be alienable public lands. In fine, a unanimous Court in Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the Whole12 asserted its constitutional mandate to determine excesses in any government branch or instrumentality as it brushed aside arguments of separation of powers and reiterated the doctrine that the power of judicial review is not so much power as it is a duty imposed on this Court by the Constitution and that (the Court) would be remiss in the performance of that duty if (it) decline(s) to look behind the barriers set up by the principle of separation of powers.13

9 Tamondong v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 192987; Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 193327; Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 193519; Venturanza v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 193867; Andal v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 194135; Planas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 194398; and Oliva v. Andaya, G.R. No. 195235. 10 G.R. No. 193519, 21 September 2010. 11 G.R. No. 184869, 21 September 2010. 12 G.R. No. 187714, 8 March 2011. 13 Ibid., p. 10, citing Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, 25 August 1994.

The Corona Court likewise manifested the independence of the individual justices and the Court even in cases with the same heightened public interest but with lesser political dimensions. In Lejano v. People,14 the Court, by a vote of 7-4, found manifest inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses and acquitted accused-appellants Hubert Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the crimes they were charged with for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In Liban v. Gordon,15 the Court, voting 8 to 5, partially granted the motion for clarification and/or reconsideration filed by Senator Richard J. Gordon and reversed its earlier ruling declaring as void the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Charter insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation. The Court ruled that the structure of the PNRC is sui generis, being neither strictly private nor public in nature. Thus, R.A. No. 95 or the Charter of the PNRC remains valid and constitutional in its entirety. And, in League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC,16 the Court, by a vote of 7-6, finally upheld the constitutionality of the sixteen Cityhood Laws, maintaining that the said laws do not violate Secs. 6 and 10, Art. X, and the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution. PROTECTING THE CIRCLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS Building on the efforts of the Puno Court in completing the circle of human rights, the Corona Court continued to safeguard the peoples three generation of human rights their civil and political rights, social and economic rights, and right to a healthy environment.

14 15 16

G.R. No. 176389, 14 December 2010. G.R. No. 175352, 15 July 2009. G.R. No. 176951, 15 February 2011.

The Corona Court upheld the basic individual civil and political rights by clarifying its recently-issued remedy of writ of amparo, regardless of the claimants race, creed or color. In Burgos v. Macapagal-Arroyo,17 where the investigations of the Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines on the abduction of Jonas Burgos, a farmer advocate and a member of Kilusang Magbubukid sa Bulacan, were found to be less than complete and leave(s) much to be desired in terms of the extraordinary diligence that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo required as they yielded nothing, the Court did not accept these investigation reports and refered the case to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) as its directly commissioned agency tasked with the continuation of the investigation of the Burgos abduction and gathering of evidence. The CHR, after due investigation, then recommended, among others, the filing of kidnapping, enforced disappearance and/or arbitrary detention cases against a military personnel. Similarly, in Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo,18 the Court appointed the CHR as the lead agency tasked with conducting further investigation on the abduction of an American citizen of Filipino descent who was a member of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America, after it was determined that the extraordinary dilgence, as required by the Amparo Rule, was not fully observed in the conduct of the police and military investigations in this case. The protection of the socio-economic rights of the people likewise became the priority of the Corona Court. In The Province of Negros Occidental v. The Commissioners, Commission on Audit,19 consistent with the state policy of local autonomy as guaranteed by Sec. 25, Art. II and Sec. 2, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution and by the Local Government

17 18 19

G.R. No. 183711, 22 June 2010. G.R. No. 189155, 7 September 2010. G.R. No. 182574, 28 September 2010.

Code of 1991, the Court held that the grant and release of the hospitalization and health care insurance benefits given to the provinces 1,949 officials and employees were validly enacted through an ordinance passed by the provinces Sangguniang Panlalawigan. In Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. De Leon,20 the Court ordered the GSIS to pay a retired chief state prosecutor of the Department of Justice his retirement benefits in accordance with PD 1146 and RA 910. The Court held that retirement laws should be liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve their humanitarian purpose.

In MERALCO v. Spouses Chua,21 the Court held that MERALCO abused its superior and dominant position and the authority granted to it by law as a service provider when it disconnected the consumers electric service without complying with the legal requirements for authority to disconnect electricity as provided in R.A. 7832. Moreover, it found the service provider guilty of inexcusable negligence when it failed to discover the defect in the consumers meter for a considerable length of time. The Court ruled that MERALCO has the imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper inspection of its apparatus and equipment to ensure that they do not malfunction, and the due diligence to discover and repair defects therein.

In Solidbank Corporation v. Permanent Homes, Inc.,22 the court gave protection to debtors when it ruled that there is an indispensable requirement for mutual notice and written consent on the imposition of increased interest rates. The debtor should be given the option to prepay the loan if he does not want to pay the higher interest rate being demanded by the lender regardless of any

20 21 22

G.R. No. 186560, 17 November 2010. G.R. No. 160422, 5 July 2010. G.R. No. 171925, 23 July 2010.

contrary provision in the promissory note. Solidbank Corporation is complemented by Pasco v. Heirs of De Guzman,23 where the Court clarified that excessive and exorbitant interest rates should be reduced.

In Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank),24 the Court ordered the government bank to pay the landowner 12% interest per annum on the unpaid balance of the just compensation due it computed from the date the government took its landholdings until the bank paid the balance on the principal amount. It explained that the rationale for imposing the 12% interest is to compensate the landowner for the income it could have made had it been properly compensated for its properties at the time of the taking. The Court found that its primordial and most important duty to render substantial justice and thus compel it to re-examine even a final and executory judgment as a constitutional limitation, guaranteed under no less than the allimportant Bill of Rights is at stake in this case, i.e., the amount of just compensation in an eminent domain case when the payment for the compensation for property already taken has been unreasonably delayed.

The Corona Court however has also been sensitive to the economic situation of the nation and has tempered the protection of the constitutional rights of the marginalized and the oppressed with the economic rights of business, specially when pursuant to executive or legislative policies, or clearly provided for by law.

In Francisco v. Toll Regulatory Board (TRB),25 pending the final resolution on the issue of the legality and constitutionality of the supplemental toll operation agreements (STOAs) covering the North Luzon and the South Luzon Expressways and the South

23 24 25

G.R. No. 165554, 26 July 2010. G.R. No. 164195, 12 October 2010. G.R. No. 166910, 19 October 2010.

Metro Manila Skyway, the Court initially issued a temporary restraining order against the implementation of toll fee rate hikes, giving the commuting public a respite, albeit temporarily, from higher toll rates. And when it subsequently lifted the TRO and upheld the power of the TRB to fix tolls, it also struck down certain provisions of the STOAs which were prejudicial to public interest. And in Espina v. Zamora,26 the Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of R.A. 8762, also known as the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000, which expressly repealed R.A. 1180, thus allowing foreign nationals to engage in the retail trade business in the Philippines subject to certain limitations. It found that the objective of Sec. 19, Art. II, 1987 Constitution, is simply to prohibit foreign powers from maneuvering our economic policies and to ensure that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of development. Thus, while the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, it also recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair.

Acting on the cases filed before it, the Corona Court has made huge headways in upholding the peoples right to a healthy environment. In West Tower Condominium Corporation v. First Philippine Industrial Corporation,27 the Court issued the first ever writ of kalikasan and ordered the pipeline operator to, effective immediately, and until further orders from the Court, cease and desist from operating the pipeline, which in actual fact suspended until further orders the use of the 117-kilometer pipeline where the supply of refined petroleum products to Manila passes through, from Batangas all the way through Laguna and the cities of Muntinlupa, Pasay and Makati, after gasoline seeped into and

26 27

G.R. No. 143855, 21 September 2010. G.R. No. 194239, 29 March 2011.

10

flooded the basement of a condominium building and its vicinity in Makati City. In Hernandez v. Placer Dome Inc.,28 the Court issued the second writ of kalikasan pending the resolution of the petition filed by three Marinduque residents against a mining company, after Marinduque Bay was found to have been contaminated with toxic mine tailings, thereby affecting and endangering the health of the residents in the area. And in Metro Manila Development Auhtority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay,29 the Court continues to monitor the compliance of the various government agancies tasked to clean up the Manila Bay. Quite recently, no less than the Chief Justice himself, together with several justices and officials of the Court, toured and conducted an ocular inspection of the bay. On the administrative front, the Court, has also deepened and concretized its stand towards the vigorous application and determined reinforcement of environmental policy, law and adjudication, as it has resolved to build on the momentum of its reforms concerning environmental cases.30 Thus, a multi-sectoral training for judges, prosecutors and officers of quasi-judicial agencies on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, the first nationwide capacity-building initiative that cuts across not just the pillars of criminal justice but also the various sectors involved in protecting the environment . . . to foster understanding of the new Rules and anticipate problems in its implementation,31 has been successfully pilot-tested in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, and shall be rolled out nationwide soon.

G.R. No. 195482, 8 March 2011. G.R. No. 171947-48, 18 December 2008. 30 The Supreme Court and Judicial Reform Initiatives in the Philippines, a speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, De La Salle University Lipa Commencement Exercises, De La Salle Lipa Sentrum, 1 April 2011. 31 Ibid.
28 29

11

In fine, the Chief Justice has been steadfast in underscoring the vital role of the judiciary in giving teeth to environmental laws and rules of procedure32 We are in a war to save the environment. But the problems caused by many generations cannot be solved by our generation alone, or even the next . . . As protectors of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has considered environmental protection as a sacred duty, not only because the people have a right to it but more importantly, because future generations deserve it. All told, the Court, under the watch of Chief Justice Corona, embodies a judicial philosophy grounded on his commitment to uphold the Constitution and the law in order that the rights of every For, man, woman and child are protected and enhanced.33 according to him, when the voice of the weak and the oppressed is inaudible and unheeded . . . every effort must be exerted to provide them a forum where they can be heard and their rights recognized.34 ENHANCING REFORMS Aside from settling actual controversies, lodged likewise with the Court is the responsibility to carry out an efficient and effective administration of justice.35 For Chief Justice Corona, included in the equation of an efficient and effective administration of justice is not only the Courts commitment to the rule of law, but also the enhancement of judicial reforms to implement the peoples constitutional right to speedy, inexpensive and effective access to

32 A Green Supreme Court: Delivering Environmental Justice, welcome remarks delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona at the Asian Judges Symposium on Environmental Adjudication, Green Courts and Tribunals and Environmental Justice, Asian Development Bank Headquarters, Mandaluyong City, 28 July 2010. 33 Profile of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona at sc.judiciary.gov.ph. 34 Ibid. 35 See Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.

12

justice.36 Thus, barely a month after being sworn to office, Chief Justice Corona already guaranteed an active and involved judiciary under his watch We shall not have a dormant judiciary in my watch... I shall thus continue the reforms we have begun, aim to improve the judiciary even further in every aspect possible, and strengthen the great institution of the Supreme Court... Mindful of the spectrum of public opinion, as well as the fact that I have more than eight years to serve our people, I say with all humility: let history be the inerrant judge of the Corona Court.37 To institute and implement meaningful and deep-rooted reforms, a transformation of the judicial mindset is necessary. Established attitudes and usual ways of doing things must be overhauled to give way to innovative ideas and concrete plans and strategies to enhance judicial processes and management. As such, Chief Justice Corona significantly departed from time-honored methods and directed the courts to be more inquisitorial, rather than adversarial, to coordinate with the other stakeholders in the justice system, rather than be detached within its own domain, and to decentralize, rather than be self-determining. Docket and Jail Decongestion and Expeditious Resolution of Cases To decongest court dockets and detention facilities and expedite the resolution of cases, Chief Justice Corona has enhanced existing court procedures and instituted new courses of action. Thus, under his watch, the courts are gradually veering away from

36 Court Leadership: Judicial Reform and Improving Judicial Administration, closing remarks delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the Roundtable Discussion on Court Leadership: Judicial Reform and Improving Judicial Administration, Shangri-La Hotel, Makati City, 7 October 2010. 37 Judicial Reform as a Cornerstone of Public Service, a speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) Celebration of Philippine Independence Day, Manila Hotel, 11 June 2010.

13

the age-old adversarial method of our judicial system, a vestige of the American approach which still employs the jury system. Absent a jury, our courts are becoming primarily and necessarily inquisitorial and pro-active, not only in the resolution of cases, but also in expediting their resolution. Restructuring the Enhanced Justice on Wheels Program To expand the coverage and intensify the implementation of the highly successful Enhanced Justice on Wheels Project or EJOW, its management and execution have been distributed to the three deputy court administrators and two assistant court administrators who are assigned their respective judicial regions. Thus, the EJOW can now take place simultaneously in the different regions of the country. To date, the EJOW has released 5,334 inmates, settled 6,880 civil cases through mobile court-annexed mediation, given medical and dental assistance to 10,554 inmates, provided free legal aid to 2,750 of them, facilitated some 45 dialogues between and among the stakeholders in the justice sector, and conducted 39 information dissemination drives which have benefitted some 15,688 barangay officials. These numbers are expected to multiply as the deputy and assistant court administrators conduct their respective EJOW programs. Pilot-testing of Judgment Day Chief Justice Corona led the Las Pias City judges in pilottesting the Judgment Day where criminal and civil cases were simultaneously disposed, medical, dental and legal aid were provided, and a justice sector dialogue was conducted. Described as EJOW without the mobile court bus, the Las Pias City Judgment Day resulted in the provisional release of 5 inmates, acquittal of 46 accused, conviction of 8 others, availment of medical, dental and legal assistance by 70 prisoners, hearing of 31 civil cases, and the conduct of a justice sector dialogue all in half
14

a day. The roll-out of a nationwide judgment day is now being finalized. Full implementation of Small Claims Procedure The full implementation of the Small Claims Procedure where the judge deviates from his traditional role of a neutral umpire and becomes a pro-active mediator between contending litigants is a clear illustration of a transformation in judicial mindset. The amendment of the original rule which now authorizes the judge to decide the case after he fails to mediate is a recognition of the need for judges to shed their detached image. Nevertheless, the judges, whether through mediation or the usual resolution of a case, are still compelled to decide small claims cases within a hearing or two, and no lawyers are allowed in any stage of the proceeding. To date, the small claims procedure is practiced in all first level courts. As of February 2011, 691 out of 2,107 small claims cases filed have been successfully disposed, resulting in a disposition rate of 33%.38 In line with this, 18 seminar-workshops on small claims cases and 9 information dissemination drives for barangay officials have been organized and conducted by the Philippine Judicial Academy.39 Optimizing Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediation and other methods of dispute resolution have not been confined to small claims cases resolved by first level courts. The regional trial courts and the Court of Appeals have also resorted to alternative dispute resolution in resolving their cases. As of April 2011, during the first year of Chief Justice Corona, a total of 24,426 out of 39,691 cases have been successfully subjected to court-annexed mediation, the first stage of court diversion, showing a high success rate of 61.54%.40 A total of 2,069

38 39 40

Report on Small Claims, Court Management Office (CMO), 11 February 2011. PHILJA List of Seminars, May 2010- 15 April 2011. CAM Statistical Report Summary, May 2010- 27 April 2011.

15

out of 5,525 cases have then been successfully subjected to judicial dispute resolution, the second stage of court diversion, showing a success rate of 37.45%,41 while 149 out of 410 cases have been successfully subjected to appeals court mediation, the last stage of court diversion, with a consequent success rate of 36%.42 Correspondingly, the Philippine Judicial Academy has trained more than 2,000 judges and court personnel, and 600 mediators across the country. Overall, the success rate of mediation is presently pegged at approximately 70-80%.43 These figures simply show the judiciousness in submitting cases to other forms of dispute resolution before subjecting them to traditional adjudicative processes, which inevitably saves time, resources and efforts, for both the courts and the litigants. Issuance of Court Circulars Upon the instruction of Chief Justice Corona, the Office of the Court Administrator has issued circulars to trial judges for the speedy disposition of cases in certain instances. On 26 October 2010, OCA Circular No. 151-2010 was issued ordering all trial courts to expedite the disposition of cases involving violations of R.A. 9208, otherwise known as The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. Human trafficking cases cases are now mandated to be heard continuously with hearing dates being spaced not more than two weeks apart. These cases should be given priority and decided with dispatch, while newly-raffled ones should be heard and decided within 180 days from arraignment of the accused.44 Accordingly, the Philippine Judicial Academy has conducted a series of roundtable discussions, seminar-workshops, competency enhancement trainings for judges and court personnel and ASEAN

JDR Statistical Report Summary, May 2010- 27 April 2011. ACM Statistical Report Summary May 2010- 27 April 2011. 43 Court Leadership: Judicial Reform and Improving Judicial Administration, closing remarks delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the Roundtable Discussion on Court Leadership: Judicial Reform and Improving Judicial Administration, Shangri-La Hotel, Makati City, 7 October 2010. 44 OCA Circular No. 151-2010 issued on 26 October 2010.
41 42

16

awareness programs on handling child abuse and trafficking in persons cases. On 27 January 2011, Administrative issued directing the establishment of Metropolitan Trial Courts of Pasay City operating hours from 4:30 p.m. until 11:00 Order No. 19-2011 was night courts in the and Makati City, with p.m.45

Case Decongestion and Case Delay Reduction Project A program which confronts head on docket and jail congestion and delay in the resolution of cases is the Case Decongestion and Case Delay Reduction Project (CDCDRP) which entails identification of problems contributing to the inefficiency of a particular court and the development of a case management plan to help directly address this concern.46 From June to August 2010, the Court pilot tested the CDCDRP in the Lapu-Lapu City courts which are situated in a pilot model courthouse. The CDCDRP preliminary results showed an increased disposition rate of 5.51% after audit.47 Following the approval of the Chief Justice, identified congested Manila courts with highest backlogs are presently undergoing case decongestion and case delay reduction efforts. Creation of the Chief Justice Committee to Address Case Congestions and Delays in the Lower Courts To provide rationale and policy guidance to all these docket decongestion and delay reduction efforts, the Chief Justice Committee to Address Case Congestions and Delays in the Lower Courts was created.48 It is a high-level Committee composed of

45 Section 15, A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties), 27 January 2004. 46 The Supreme Court and Judicial Reform Initiatives in the Philippines, a speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, De La Salle University Lipa Commencement Exercises, De La Salle Lipa Sentrum, 1 April 2011. 47 Report on the Preliminary Results of the CDDRP prepared by the Program Management Office (PMO). 48 Memorandum Order No. 50-2010 signed by Chief Justice Renato Corona on 26 October 2010.

17

associate justices and other officials of the Supreme Court and agencies in the justice sector to oversee our case decongestion efforts that will significantly cut down the number of pending cases clogging our system.49 Among the duties and objectives of the Committee are: to conduct an inventory and profile of case congestions and delays in the lower courts and investigate the causes thereof; to establish a system for quick detection of case congestion and delay build-ups and a system for prompt response to such cases; to direct and oversee the optimum use of available human and material resources to solve case congestion and delay; and to re-examine existing judicial and administrative strategies, systems, procedures and develop new ones designed to address this problem.50 The committee has been convening regularly since its creation in order to find more concrete ways to resolve the problem of high case congestion. Relaunching the Justice Sector Coordinating Council Chief Justice Corona has also solicited the assistance of the other stakeholders in the justice sector for a more comprehensive response to the challenges confronting the legal system. While in the past, the judiciary has maintained an attitude of independence and functional delineation in light of the dangers of possible undue influence that may be exerted by one or some of the agencies of the other branches of government on the others, this has significantly changed at the start of this year with the relaunching of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council (JSCC), which had its first meeting in February 2011. The Councils formation and functions are based on the Joint Declaration of the Justice Sector Agencies in Support of the Effective and Efficient Administration of Justice, and serves as one of the mechanisms for the justice sector to collectively plan and strategize on how to effectively and efficiently address each component institutions problems.51 The convening of this Council

49 The Supreme Court and Judicial Reform Initiatives in the Philippines, a speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, De La Salle University Lipa Commencement Exercises, De La Salle Lipa Sentrum, 1 April 2011. 50 Memorandum Order No. 50-2010. 51 The Corona Court in Its First Year: State of the Judiciary Report prepared by the Program Management Office (PMO), draft of 20 April 2011.

18

highlights the need for all major players in the justice sector to come together, plan and strategize on how to efficiently and effectively address criminality in the country,52 and manifests the changing mindsets of the stakeholders in the justice system towards interdependence, closer collaboration and coordination between and among the different agencies. The justice system has been identified as the public institution one most in need of coordination and cohesion among its member agencies.53 Decentralizing the Office of the Court Administrator While administrative power has been concentrated in the top levels of the judiciary in the past, the current trend of the Courts reform initiatives now is decentralization. Thus, as part of the decentralization program of the judiciary, the Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) for Region VII was pilot-tested to address needs of the lower courts in Region VII in, among others, procurement, personnel and human-resource, equipment and facilities management and the maintenance of the Halls of Justice. Learning from this administrative innovation, procurement planning and actual procurement have been devolved to the lower court officials in Regions III and XI. Thereafter, human resource services and financial management will follow, and their replication to the other regions will be rolled out. Improvement and Modernization of Courtrooms and Physical Facilities Improvement of the countrys halls of justice and court facilities has likewise been a primary agenda of the Court in order

52 Notes on the First Meeting of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council for 2011, 22 February 2011. 53 Joining Hands for a Better Administration of Justice, an address delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the 1st Meeting for 2011 of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council, Supreme Court Session Hall, 22 February 2011.

19

to give our courts a sense of dignity and respect.54 In the words of the Chief Justice himself It is part of the Supreme Courts judicial reform program to extend any and all forms of support to the lower courts, especially those that pertain to the most basic needs necessary to enable judges and court personnel to perform their functions efficiently and effectively... The lack or inadequacy of furniture and equipments affects not just the courts performance of their judicial functions but also the publics perception of the courts ability to provide satisfactory judicial services. Both the government and the people find themselves at the losing end when magistrates and personnel, especially of the lower courts, operate under dismal conditions. This kind of working environment seriously impedes prompt and efficient case disposition. It also deters the people from trusting that the courts can satisfactorily determine their rights and settle their disputes. Properly and sufficiently equipping the courts thus serves a laudable two-fold purpose: it enhances judicial performance and improves public trust in the court system.55 Thus, the Court has undertaken various initiatives during the first year of Chief Justice Coronas leadership. The final completion of two out of the three model courthouses conceptualized years ago in Lapu-Lapu City and Angeles City are expected to be done within the year. These courthouses will serve as the standard for the construction of all future halls of justice in the country. The Court is also finalizing within the year the construction of the Philippine Judicial Academy Training Facilities in Tagaytay City. This will

54 The Role of the Press in Advancing Judicial Reform, a speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona at the MOPC Judiciary Night, Intercontinental Hotel, Makati City, 24 June 2010. 55 Enhancing Court Infrastructure: Improving Judicial Performance and Encouraging Resort to the Courts, short remarks delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the ARMM Validation Workshop on Enhancing Court Infrastructure, Kasfala Hall, Alabel, Sarangani Province, 2 March 2011.

20

complete the housing facilities for judges undergoing training and the Global Distance Learning Facility. Memoranda of agreement have also been forged between the local governments of Alabel, Sarangani, Lapu-Lapu City and Socorro, Oriental Mindoro, for the donation and grant of usufructuary rights to the Court for the future construction of halls of justice in the said areas. These partnerships forged during the term of Chief Justice Corona symbolize the support to and confidence in the Court by the different local governments. Other offers of donation and grant of usufructuary rights presented by other local government units are pending and being studied by the Office of Halls of Justice. General repairs and rehabilitations also continue to be undertaken in, among others, the Halls of Justice of Dagupan, Batangas, Catarman, Bacolod, Ormoc, San Mateo and Quezon City, including electrical upgrades in the Halls of Justice of Maasin, Palayan, Nasugbu, Las Pias, and Ormoc.56 Court furniture and equipment such as filing cabinets for data and evidence-storage, desks, chairs, tables and benches have also been procured for the first-level courts of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with assistance from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Office of the Court Administrator.57 Also, fire extinguishers have been supplied and refilled, elevators have been provided and maintenance materials have been furnished to select Halls of Justice all across the country.58 Modernization and the extensive use of information technology have also pervaded the initial year of Chief Justice Corona. Modernization of court processes and services through computerization has greatly contributed to transparency and

56 Empirical Data on Improvement of Halls of Justice for the period of May 2010 to April 2011 prepared by the Office on Halls of Justice (HOJ), 27 April 2011. 57 Enhancing Court Infrastructure: Improving Judicial Performance and Encouraging Resort to the Courts, short remarks delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the ARMM Validation Workshop on Enhancing Court Infrastructure, Kasfala Hall, Alabel, Sarangani Province, 2 March 2011. 58 Ibid.

21

improved public perception of the judicial system by eliminating opportunities for human intervention in several phases of processing and service delivery, thereby minimizing, if not totally eradicating, corruption. A thorough assessment of the Judiciary Case Management System (JCMS) pilot tests in Lapu-Lapu City and Pasay City has been undertaken. Through the JCMS, the courts can properly monitor and timely resolve pending cases, thereby reducing court dockets and minimizing unnecessary delays in case dispositions. Electronic payment of filing fees has also been implemented in all the courts in Metro Manila, and is now being rolled out to the key cities in the country.59 Prior to the implementation of epayment, a litigant paid for seven different receipts when filing a case. With the e-payment, only one receipt is printed out and given, and the payment for the seven different fees automatically distributed and registered to the different funds, practically eliminating opportunities for malversation of public funds. More than 800 computers with built-in software, designed to monitor the inflow and outflow of small claims cases and aid the judges in submitting their monthly reports, have been procured with the assistance of USAID, and are scheduled for distribution by June 2011 to all the first-level courts.60 The Supreme Court electronic library, which contains the Courts decisions and resolutions and serves as the database of all Court rules, circulars and administrative issuances, has also been revived and updated. The SC e-library has been considered as a good research tool and search engine, providing justices, judges and law clerks on-line data to aid them in their research and adjudicative functions. The computerization of all the third level courts has also been successfully completed in the last year.

59

Supreme Court Management Information Systems Office (MISO) Annual Report

for 2010. The Corona Court in Its First Year: State of the Judiciary Report prepared by the Program Management Office (PMO), draft of 20 April 2011.
60

22

Institution of Integrity Reforms Measures The maintenance of high standards of professionalism and integrity in public service is essential in strengthening the judiciary as an institution, for allegations of corruption and unjust or illegal practices within its ranks not just taint public perception of the courts, but also diminish public trust in the government as a whole. The Court thus continues to instill integrity measures within its ranks in order to maintain public trust in the judicial system. To begin with, the Court has been unrelenting in the imposition of sanctions against erring members of the bar and bench. During the last year, 5 lawyers have been disbarred, 8 suspended, 6 admonished, 2 warned, 60 imposed various fines, 9 ordered arrested or detained, and 1 reprimanded,61 while 35 justices and judges and court personnel have been dropped from the service and stricken from the rolls, 11 admonished, 38 reprimanded, 5 had benefits forfeited, 1 censured, 101 imposed various fines, and 42 suspended.62 The Court has also recently issued Memorandum Order No. 04-2011 providing guidelines on the gathering of statistical data on anti-corruption cases filed and disposed in all courts concerning justices, judges, court officials and personnel. This Order aims to enhance institutional integrity in the judiciary and to address the issue of corruption within the ranks of the bench. An Integrity Development and Review Committee, whose main task is to identify and eliminate administrative and financial opportunities for graft and corruption within the judiciary, has also been created. The Committee continues to meet regularly and has submitted various recommendations which are pending before the Court en banc.

Report Submitted by the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), 2 May 2011. Data on Administrative Complaints, Office of the Court Administrator Legal Office, Docket and Clearance Division.
61 62

23

And, while the Court realizes the importance of disciplinary measures taken against erring judges, court personnel and lawyers, it also recognizes the need to give merit and credit whenever these are due. Thus, Chief Justice Corona has also taken an active part in recognizing the awardees of the Search for Outstanding Judges and Clerks of Court by the Society for Judicial Excellence held in September of 2010. Strengthening the Competencies of Courts, Judges and Court Employees Competence and excellence in the judiciary has been a mark of a truly strong, effective and efficient judicial institution. Thus, the Court, through the Philippine Judicial Academy has provided continuing legal and judicial education and organized various fora for exchanges of knowledge and experiences for judges and court workers across the country. Over the past year, the PHILJA has organized and conducted some 35 convention-seminars, orientation-workshops, writeshops, trainings, competency enhancement training programs, roundtable and focused group discussions, knowledge-sharings on, among others, the Dangerous Drugs Law, environmental laws, election laws, the comparative analysis between the Family Code and the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, agrarian justice, peace agreements, court leadership, deposit insurance, banking practices, land valuation, just compensation, gender sensitivity, human rights, the Human Security Act in relation to extrajudicial killings, personal and courtroom security trainings, the medium-term development plan for the criminal justice system, both for newly-appointed and incumbent judges and court personnel. Some 25 mediation seminars and 3 pre-judicature seminars were also conducted, while final validations and reviews of programs, lectures and launchings of publications were likewise organized.63 The PHILJA also organized the Chief Justice Renato C. Corona First Distinguished Lecture entitled Media and the Courts last 13 January 2011 with Guam Chief Justice Emeritus Robert J. Torres

63

PHILJA List of Seminars, May 2010- 15 April 2011.

24

as Keynote Lecturer and Guest of Honor. Court Administrator and Chief of the Courts Public Information Office Jose Midas P. Marquez and Philippine Star Vice President and columnist Jose Manuel Romualdez thereafter gave their separate reactions. Chief Justice Corona then closed the lecture by encouraging the mobilization of media support for our courts.64 In accordance with the objective of continuous enhancement of the best legal and judicial practices and strengthening professional ties between and among the judiciaries of different countries, Chief Justice Corona has, in the spirit of judicial cooperation and knowledge-sharing, personally met with the Chief Justices of the Peoples Republic of China and of Guam. He also attended the 4th Meeting of the Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum (APJRF) in Beijing last 25-28 October 2010, and co-hosted with the Asian Development Bank the ASEAN Chief Justices Meeting in the Philippines. And to complete the personal and character development of all court workers, the Chief Justice, who has time and again professed an adherence to the core values of inner goodness, excellence and genuine concern for others,65 has led and encouraged everyone to undertake their respective outreach activities. Thus, in line with its "Adopt-a-School" Program, the Court has donated 120 monobloc chairs with writing tablets to the Ma. Paz Elementary School in Barangay Ma. Paz, Tanauan City, Batangas on 24 June 2010; 12 units of Asahi 18-inch wall fans, 1 desk top computer and 1 printer to the A. Mabini Elementary School in Quiapo, Manila on 2 December 2010; and 2 units of Personal Computers and 1 viewsonic PJD 5122 DLP Projector to the Bernardo Lirio Memorial School in Barangay Darasa, Tanauan City, Batangas on 16 December 2010.

64 Report on the Chief Justice Renato C. Corona First Distinguished Lecture: Media and the Courts prepared by the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), 25 January 2011. 65 Angeles University Law School: Committing itself to the Total Development of Man for God and Humanity, a speech delivered by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona during the commencement exercises of the Angeles University Foundation School of Law and the conferment on him of the degree of Doctor of Laws (honoris causa), St. Cecilias Auditorium, Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City, Pampanga, 9 April 2011.

25

The various offices of the Court also went on several Adopt-ASchool Outreach Programs as part of the Courts 2010 Christmas Celebration Outreach Activities. Beneficiary-schools, aside from those above-mentioned, were the Pasay School for the Blind, the Quiapo Mabini Elementary School, the Laguna L.W. De Vela Elementary School, the Guadalupe Stepping Stone Learning Resource and Therapy Center, the Quezon City Early Childhood Care Center, the Pampanga Sto. Domingo Elementary School and the Pinget Elementary School. All told, the first year of Chief Justice Corona, while full of challenges, was quite productive and beneficial. Judicial independence was preserved despite what seemed to be unceasing attacks from various sectors. Reforms which proved to be valuable were sustained, if not enhanced. New processes were introduced to strengthen the rule of law and make the administration of justice more effective and efficient. While more challenges may be anticipated, Chief Justice Corona is expected to weather these without difficulty as he settles in his role as chief magistrate and as the reforms he sustained and initiated come to fruition.

26