SC - Annual - 2016-2017 - Narrative Report PDF

_____________
The Judiciary Annual Report

2016-June 2017
_____________
This Judiciary Annual Report has been submitted to the President and Congress
pursuant to Article VIII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution.
MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
(As of December 31, 2016)
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno

Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro
Justice Arturo D. Brion (retired December 29, 2016)
Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin
Justice Mariano C. del Castillo
Justice Jose Portugal Perez (retired December 14, 2016)
Justice Jose Catral Mendoza
Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes
Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
Justice Francis H. Jardeleza
Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

(As of August 22, 2017)
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno

Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro
Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin
Justice Mariano C. del Castillo
Justice Jose Catral Mendoza (retired August 13, 2017)
Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (retired July 6, 2017)
Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen
Justice Francis H. Jardeleza
Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
Justice Samuel R. Martires
Justice Noel G. Tijam
Justice Andres B. Reyes Jr.
Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo
MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
(Seniority lineup of the Justices of the Court of Appeals as of December 1, 2016)
1. Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. 36. Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba

2. Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando 37. Justice Edwin D. Sorongon
3. Justice Rosmari D. Carandang 38. Justice Ramon A. Cruz
4. Justice Noel G. Tijam 39. Justice Socorro B. Inting
5. Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. 40. Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez
6. Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta 41. Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
7. Justice Magdangal M. De Leon 42. Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
8. Justice Japar B. Dimaampao 43. Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela
10. Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo 44. Justiceabriel T. Ingles
11. Justice Sesinando E. Villon 45. Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes
12. Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. 46. Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino
13. Justice Romulo V. Borja 47. Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan
14. Justice Edgardo A. Camello 48. Justice Melchor Quirino C. Sadang
15. Justice Normandie B. Pizarro 49. Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles
16. Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. 50. Justice Pedro B. Corales
17. Justice Ramon R. Garcia 51. Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap
18. Justice Ricardo R. Rosario 52. Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy
19. Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison 53. Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla
20. Justice Romeo F. Barza 54. Justice Renato C. Francisco
21. Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla 55. Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez
22. Justice Mario V. Lopez 56. Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga Jacob
23. Justice Francisco P. Acosta 57. Justice Oscar V. Badelles
24. Justice Stephen C. Cruz 58. Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
25. Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion 59. Justice Edward B. Contreras
26. Justice Elihu A. Ybañez 60. Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh
27. Justice Franchito N. Diamante 61. Justice Pablito A. Perez
28. Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier 62. Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos
29. Justice Florito S. Macalino 63. Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi
30. Justice Edgardo T. Lloren 64. Justice Ronaldo B. Martin
31. Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos 65. Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig
32. Justice Rodil V. Zalameda 66. Justice Gabriel T. RobenioL
33. Justice Manuel M. Barrios 67. Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño
34. Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan 68. Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas
35. Justice Danton Q. Bueser
(Seniority lineup of the Justices of the Court of Appeals as of July 14, 2017)
1. Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando 32. Justice Danton Q. Bueser

2. Justice Rosmari D. Carandang 33. Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba
3. Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. 34. Justice Edwin D. Sorongon
35. Justice Ramon A. Cruz
4. Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta
36. Justice Socorro B. Inting
5. Justice Magdangal M. De Leon 37. Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez
6. Justice Japar B. Dimaampao 38. Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
7. Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo 39. Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
8. Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo 40. Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela
9. Justice Sesinando E. Villon 41. Justice Gabriel T. Ingles
10. Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. 42. Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes
11. Justice Romulo V. Borja 43. Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino
12. Justice Edgardo A. Camello 44. Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan
45. Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles
13. Justice Normandie B. Pizarro
46. Justice Pedro B. Corales
14. Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. 47. Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap
15. Justice Ramon R. Garcia 48. Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy
16. Justice Ricardo R. Rosario 49. Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla
17. Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison 50. Justice Renato C. Francisco
18. Justice Romeo F. Barza 51. Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez
19. Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla 52. Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga Jacob
20. Justice Mario V. Lopez 53. Justice Oscar V. Badelles
21. Justice Stephen C. Cruz 54. Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
55. Justice Edward B. Contreras
22. Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion
56. Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh
23. Justice Elihu A. Ybañez 57. Justice Pablito A. Perez
24. Justice Franchito N. Diamante 58. Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos
25. Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier 59. Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi
26. Justice Florito S. Macalino 60. Justice Ronaldo B. Martin
27. Justice Edgardo T. Lloren 61. Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig
28. Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos 62. Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol
29. Justice Rodil V. Zalameda 63. Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño
30. Justice Manuel M. Barrios 64. Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas
31. Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan 65. Justice Louis P. Acosta

(who retired as of December 31, 2016 and August 22, 2017)
Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio (retired December 1, 2016)

Justice Francisco P. Acosta (retired April 2, 2017)
MEMBERS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN
(As of December 31, 2016)
Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang
Justice Roland B. Jurado
Justice Efren N. De La Cruz
Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada
Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo
Justice Samuel R. Martires
Justice Alex L. Quiroz
Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo
Justice Rafael R. Lagos
Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr.
Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta
Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez
Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi
Justice Reynaldo P. Cruz
Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg
Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega
Justice Karl B. Miranda
Justice Zaldy V. Trespeses
Justice Bernelito R. Fernandez
MEMBERS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

(As of August 22, 2017)
Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang
Justice Efren N. De La Cruz
Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada
Justice Alex L. Quiroz
Justice Rafael R. Lagos
Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr.
Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta
Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez
Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi
Justice Reynaldo P. Cruz
Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg
Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega
Justice Karl B. Miranda
Justice Zaldy V. Trespeses
Justice Bernelito R. Fernandez
Justice Lorifel Lacap Pahimna
Justice Edgardo M. Caldona
Justice Bayani H. Jacinto
MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
(As of 2016)
Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario

Senior Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr.
Justice Lovell R. Bautista
Justice Erlinda Piñera Uy
Justice Caesar A. Casanova
Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino
Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla
Justice Amelia C. Cotangco-Manalastas (retired September 11, 2016)
16)
Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban
MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

(As of 2017)
Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario

Senior Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr.
Justice Lovell R. Bautista
Justice Erlinda Piñera Uy
Justice Caesar A. Casanova
Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino
Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla
Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban
Justice Catherine Triunfante Manahan
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
MESSAGE
T he role and the nature of the courts are

often misunderstood by those who fail
to see the vital role that an independent
and vibrant judiciary plays in a democratic State
adhering to the rule of law. In ensuring that the rule
of law is preserved, protected, and even enhanced,
the courts act out of no compulsion other than
the constitutional command: to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable and to determine
whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government. (Article VIII, Sec. 1)
This duty is by no measure a trivial one. With

it comes the necessary intervention into clashing
claims of entitlement between private parties each
asserting the rightness of their respective claims; so
too, the exercise of power by the government and
the assertion of rights by the governed; on occasion,
the intervention has been sought to straddle the
balance between the exercise of power by the two
other branches of government.
This Annual Report, detailing the

accomplishments of the entire judiciary for the year
2016 up to June of 2017, represents the work of many
women and men whose passion is to do all they can
for their country and their people in their desire to
help in attaining meaningful justice and promote
the rule of law.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice
THE JUDICIARY ANNUAL REPORT
(2016-JUNE 2017)
Table of Contents
Page
The Judiciary ...................................................................................................................... iii
The Chief Justice’s Message ........................................................................................... ix
The Year in Review: 2016-June 2017 Highlights in Summary ................................ 1
Strengthening Adjudication ................................................................................ 2

Streamlining Processes And Facilitating Access To Justice ........................ 2
Institutionalizing Reform .................................................................................... 3
Mainstreaming Modernization And Use Of Technology............................. 7
Ensuring Integrity And Maintaining Discipline ............................................ 8
Sharpening The Saw.............................................................................................. 9
Cross Border Impact ............................................................................................ 10
Transparency And Access To Information ..................................................... 11
The Work Of The Courts In Figures........................................................................... 13

Table 1: Adjudication Figures for All Courts (2016) ..................................... 13
Table 2: Adjudication Figures for All Courts (January to June 2017) ....... 17
Table 3: Administrative Complaints ................................................................. 21
Table 4: Discipline of Lawyers........................................................................... 29
Judicial Reforms Technical Report ............................................................................... 31
Budget Utilization Report ............................................................................................... 61
xi
JUDICIARY ANNUAL REPORT (2016-JUNE 2017)
THE YEAR IN REVIEW: 2016-2017 HIGHLIGHTS IN SUMMARY

A highlight of 2016 was the marked increase in case disposal throughout the
judiciary. Fittingly, the Supreme Court led the charge with an all-time high (since
2010) of 6,247 case disposals. The Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals followed
with case disposals of 13,948 and 440, respectively. The Sandiganbayan likewise surpassed
its average case disposal for the past seven years, with a total of 371 case disposals in
2016.1a
Records show that the annual average case disposal of the SC and the third-level
courts from 2010 to 2016 is as follows:
4,913, for the Supreme Court
12,988, for the Court of Appeals
349, for the Court of Tax Appeals
362, for the Sandiganbayan
The figures for 2016 clearly show disposal rates way above the average over the
past five years for the Supreme Court and the third level courts.
The first and second level trial courts also showed significant improvements in
their case disposal. Despite increased targets, an accomplishment rate of 102% was
achieved by the first level courts and 99% for the second level courts.
First Level Courts

Year Target Disposal Accomplishment
2015 209,905 205,885 98%
2016 211,444 216,475 102%
2017 217,840 79,482 36%
Second Level Courts
Year Target Disposal Accomplishment

2015 170,738 200,090 117%
2016 194,066 192,457 99%
2017 207,850 84,880 41%
1a
For brevity, the following initials shall be used to refer to the various courts: SC, for Supreme Court; CA, for
Court of Appeals; SB, for Sandiganbayan; and CTA, for Court of Tax Appeals. The three tertiary courts, CA,
SB, and CTA, may also be collectively referred to as “Third Level Courts.”
1
The judiciary expects to sustain this upward movement for the rest of 2017.
For the period from January to June 2017 alone, the disposals of the three third
level courts are already more than half of their target case disposals in 2017, to wit:
7,430/14,520 for the CA (51%); 442/418 for the SB (106%); and 239/352 for the CTA
(68%).
For the first six months of 2017, the Supreme Court has disposed of 2,521 cases
out of its target of 5,840 (43%).
The numbers indicate a steady progress towards disposing of more cases in the
courts’ docket before the year ends.
The first level and second level courts are also not far behind as they have already
achieved 36% and 41% of their annual targets for this year based on partial reports
(64% and 77% report submissions, respectively). Their disposals for the first six months
of 2017 are expected to increase as reports are submitted.
STRENGTHENING ADJUDICATION
For 2016, the Supreme Court had a total case disposal of 6,247 out of its total
case load of 14,491. This amounts to an accomplishment rate of 107% with the Court
breaching its target of 5,840 disposed cases. For the first half of 2017, the Supreme
Court has thus far a total case disposal of 2,521 out of its 11,652 total case load as of
June 2017. In a bid to decongest its docket and speed up the resolution of aged cases,
the Supreme Court has also been actively disposing of these cases. In 2016, it brought
down the number of aged cases to 1,930; for the first six months of 2017, the number
is down to 1,802.
In 2016, the CA disposed of 13,948 cases, or 572 cases less than its target of
14,520, for an accomplishment rate of 96%. However, for the first six months of 2017,
its case disposal has already totalled 7,430, or an accomplishment rate of 51% of its
target of 14,520.
The Sandiganbayan in 2016 disposed of a total of 371 cases out of 418 target cases,
representing an 88% accomplishment rate. For January to June 2017, the Sandiganbayan
has already disposed of a total of 442 cases, which are 24 cases more than its target
disposal of 418 cases for the whole year.
In 2016, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) disposed of 404 cases, which is more
than its target of 352 cases, thereby registering an accomplishment rate of 115%.
STREAMLINING PROCESSES AND FACILITATING ACCESS TO

JUSTICE
The Supreme Court continued to exercise its constitutional rule-making power

under Article VIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution to address the perennial
problems of delays and docket congestion and access to substantial justice.
2
On May 3, 2016, the Court approved the Guidelines on Determining the Reckoning
Point of the Period to Decide or Resolve Judicial Cases of the Supreme Court). The Guidelines
interpreted the period to decide or resolve cases as prescribed in the Constitution.
For the first time, the Court had a basis for determining which of its cases could be
considered “aged” which in turn became the basis for its resolve to more actively
dispose of those cases in its docket.
On April 25, 2017, the Court issued the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases (Continuious Trial Guidelines) to take effect on September 1, 2017, after
a period of training for judges, prosecutors, and parties.
The Revised Guidelines are to apply to all newly filed criminal cases in the first and
second-level courts, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals. The Revised
Guidelines also cover proceedings under special laws and rules, such as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165), Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175),
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (AM No. 09-6-8-SC), Rules of Procedure for
Intellectual Property Cases (AM No. 10-03-10-SC), as well as criminal cases under the
jurisdiction of the Family Courts and Commercial Courts.
The Court also amended the 2009 Rules for Small Claims Cases in December 2015
to take effect in February 2016. This amendment was brought about by a study
conducted in February 2015 by the Court’s development partners on the existing
rules that provided a jurisdictional threshold of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00). The study revealed, among others, that the small claims courts were
able to reduce the age of disposed cases from an average of four to six month (120-
180 days) to a mere two months (75 days). Because of this finding, the study recommended
the “expansion of jurisdiction for small claims procedures based on access to justice
and parties’ ability to represent themselves with equal footing.” As a result, the Court
promulgated the 2016 Revised Rules on Small Claims Cases to “protect and advance the
constitutional rights of persons to a speedy disposition of their cases, provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the disposition of small claims cases, and,
introduce innovations and best practice for the benefit of the underprivileged.”
Among the significant changes brought about by The 2016 Revised Rules on Small
Claims Cases are the following: the increase in the threshold of the amount of claims
from One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000); the requirement of certification against forum shopping, splitting a single
cause of action, and multiplicity of suits; the requirement that all affidavits submitted
must be based on direct personal knowledge or on authentic records (non-submission
of which shall cause the immediate dismissal of the claim or counterclaim); and the
issuance of a Revised Decision Form which includes the fallo or dispositive portion
of the decision, to ensure the speedy execution/enforcement of the judgment.
INSTITUTIONALIZING REFORM
The judiciary’s multi-pronged and strategically phased reform and development

programs continue to contribute to the vision of institutionalizing these reforms
from one-time success stories to mainstream practice. Some of these programs that
3
are to be completed in phases were reported out in previous Annual Reports; for 2016
and the first half of 2017, the following updates are provided.
Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW). Since its launch in July 2008, the Supreme
Court’s EJOW program continues to improve access to justice through its mobile
court hearings, court-annexed mediation, and provision of free legal, medical and
dental aid to inmates and minor offenders nationwide.
The EJOW buses are not only driven to provide mobile courts for hearings in
remote places in the provinces, they are also used to create access to the courts in
areas that have been stricken by natural calamity, like super typhoons, or unforeseen
events, such as fire. EJOW buses served as temporary court rooms in Tacloban when
it was struck by Super Typhoon Yolanda; EJOW buses continue to serve as temporary
court rooms in Cagayan de Oro City, which lost its Hall of Justice to fire.
From 2015 up to the first quarter of 2016, a total of 989 cases have been heard
or tried in the mobile court hearings, 276 of which were decided on the merits; 624
cases were dismissed, and 323 prisoners were released.
In 2016 alone, 1,253 cases were heard or tried in the mobile court hearings wherein
402 cases were decided on the merits; 703 cases were dismissed; and 406 prisoners
released. Halfway through 2017, 355 cases have already been heard with 177 cases
decided on the merits; 139 dismissed; and 101 prisoners released.
Quezon City Practice Guidelines. The Quezon City Practice Guidelines (QCPG), adopted
in 2012, features limitations on the length of pleadings, kind of motions and number
of postponements; strict timeframes; and mandated judicial affidavits in lieu of oral
open court testimony with right of cross-examination. The QCPG also authorizes
the use of private couriers to serve court processes.
The use of the QCPG resulted in the following changes in the periods for disposing
of cases:
Total number of years to dispose of a case

Prior to QCPG With QCPG
RTC 12 years 7 years
MeTC 21 years 7 years
Average number of days to try a case
Prior to QCPG With QCPG
RTC
Civil 524 days 194 days
Criminal 734 days 252 days
Family 863 days 193 days
Drugs 1,596 days 358 days
4
MeTC
Commercial
These favorable results have prompted the Court to consider and assess the
possibility of requiring the use of the QCPG in other court stations and its possible
consolidation with the Continuous Trial Guidelines.
Judicial Affidavit Rule
Rule.. The Judicial Affidavit Rule, an innovation introduced in
2012, has been mainstreamed into practice in applicable cases. Under this rule, an
affidavit is submitted in lieu of direct testimony five days before pre-trial or preliminary
conference or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents. This
innovation has been shown to be effective in reducing the time used for presenting
the testimonies of witnesses by about two-thirds in Quezon City where the program
was piloted.
The success of the Judicial Affidavit Rule in cutting down trial time has resulted
in the Court’s mandating its use in specific cases where time is of the essence and
delay is unconscionable. In the ongoing trial of People v. Ampatuan, et al., the Court
came up with Revised Guidelines to facilitate the trial and included as a mandatory
feature the use of judicial affidavits.
Hustisyeah! Since 2013, the Court has been conducting a one-time case decongestion
program called Hustisyeah! concentrated on 175 heavily congested courts throughout
the country. The program involves an inventory of court dockets, a formulation of
case decongestion plans, and the implementation of these plans. The record reflects
a 30% reduction of caseload for Quezon City, where the program was piloted.
Since its rollout, Hustisyeah has significantly reduced the dockets of the 175 heavily
congested courts participating in that program. Inventory for the 175 courts was
completed in August 2016.
The data from the Office of the Court Administrator shows that, as of February
2016, the number of pending cases in 119 courts decreased by 17.21%, from 95,025 to
78,670. While some court stations (such as Davao) increased their outflow by 108%,
their caseload has increased by 12.86% due to the high inflow of cases.
Enterprise Information Systems Plan (EISP). The EISP is the Judiciary’s five-year
ICT Master Plan, updated in 2014. It identifies over 20 software application systems
to speed up the adjudication of cases, increase personnel productivity, and improve
court and case management. Some key EISP projects include the upgrading of the
judiciary center, cabling and site preparation, and connectivity and network security.
5
The Supreme Court received P890.36 million for the EISP in the 2015 General
Appropriations Act (GAA), representing 60% of its 2015 EISP requirement of P1.49
billion. The Court chose not to request the full amount required from DBM and
Congress as it had yet to spend about P545 million of EISP funds from the 2010-2014
GAAs. The unspent EISP funds from 2010-2014 and the P890.36 million released
under the 2015 GAA total P1.44 billion, which is 97% of the 2015 EISP budget
requirement. The projected three percent (3%) deficiency in 2015 may be covered by
savings from some of the EISP projects (e.g. savings due to lower bids).
As of March 2016, the Court has already awarded five major EISP components
for the (1) rehabilitation of the Supreme Court Main Data Center in Manila; (2)
construction of the Disaster Recover (or Back-up) Data Center in Angeles City; (3)
servers, equipment and monitoring system for the data centers; (4) connectivity for
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and the
trial courts in Regions III, IV-A, VII, the NCJR, and Davao City; and (5) network
security.
These projects are now under implementation, with the two data center projects
nearing completion and the servers and equipment fully delivered and being installed
in the data centers. Internet connections in the target courts have already started
through ePLDT and PLDT. These contracts amount to PhP664.28 million, which is
about 7% below the projected cost. The total contract cost is also 46% of the PhP1.44
billion EISP funds available in 2015.
eCourts. The eCourts system is an automated case management system developed
for the trial courts. It is expected to not only increase efficiency in case processing
and monitoring, but also enhance transparency in court operations and records integrity.
It was piloted in 2014 in Quezon City and has been subsequently rolled out to other
stations.
The system aims to speed up decision-making through automated monitoring of
cases; reduce case backlogs through a dashboard that provides information like the
aging of cases, pending deadlines, and new case incidents that require action; increase
public access to information through computers in public kiosks that are found at the
entrance of the different halls of justices; and (bolster transparency as a result of the
electronic raffling of cases.
As of August 2015, there were already 82 operational eCourts covering all the
courts in Quezon City, Angeles City, Lapu-Lapu City and Tacloban City. In the third
and fourth quarters of 2015, 85 eCourts were added in Tacloban City, Davao City,
Cebu City, and Makati City. In 2016, an additional 120 eCourts were placed in Manila,
Pasig City and Mandaluyong City. By the end of 2016, eCourts were already in place
in 287 trial courts handling about 30% of the total caseload of the Philippine court
system.
Automated Hearing System. An offshoot of the eCourt system is the Automated
Hearing System in which every activity in a court in trial is captured electronically in
real time—including orders issued by the judge, minutes of the hearing conducted,
the judge’s notes on testimonies taken, markings of evidence, issuance of writs and
other court processes—by linking together the computers of the judge, the stenographer
6
and the interpreters, to allow each of them to view and edit in real time the documents
being prepared.
An automated hearing likewise does away with delay in the preparation of open-
court orders and inevitable postponements due to the present reliance on the snail
mail system. Orders and subpoenae are immediately released to the parties present
in court, thereby saving at least one month waiting time in contrast to service by
ordinary mail.
Continuous Trial for Criminal Cases. Continuous trial for criminal cases was envisioned
as way to speed up the resolution of criminal cases. Among the features of this
system are the prohibition of dilatory motions for postponement, the shorter interval
between trial settings, the intransferability of trial settings, and the resolution of the
case within 90 days from submission of the case for decision. The extensive use of
pre-trial and discovery procedures to limit issues and allow more stipulations of facts
are also part of this system.
In August 2015, such a system was piloted in 52 courts of the second level and six
courts of the first level in Manila, Quezon City, and Makati. The favorable results
from the pilot areas prompted the Court to promulgate the Revised Guidelines on
Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases in 2017.
MAINSTREAMING MODERNIZATION AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY
The thrust to modernize court processes continued without letup. Initially, it

was focused on the first and second level courts with the introduction of eCourt and
automated hearings, but with an eye towards modernizing court processes and using
automation and technology also for the tertiary courts and the Supreme Court.
Complementary to this vision, the Court of Appeals in 2016 implemented various
Information Technology (IT) projects, such as the increase in Internet bandwidth
and the installation of perimeter firewalls in all of its stations for a safer and speedier
access to the Internet and the deployment of the Official Receipt Information System
in its Cash Division, eliminating multiple official receipts for a single transaction and
thus reducing the time for the payment of court fees.
In the early part of 2017, the CA’s Management and Information System Division
(MISD) deployed a centralized repository of Microsoft Windows operating system
updates with the following results:, 1) internet users in the CA now have faster access
as the number of computers getting updates over the Internet has been reduced from
200 to one; 2) the number of computers with non-updated Microsoft Windows operating
system was minimized, as these computers are now getting Microsoft Windows updates
through the Patch Server. The CA MISD likewise instituted standard test parameters
for testing new monochrome laser printers and computer parts and peripherals
replacement.
In terms of application development and maintenance service, the CA MISD is
currently user-testing the Hiring Information System to assist recruitment personnel
7
in quickly responding to queries on vacancies, produce reports faster, and reduce the
amount of paper stored in their office.
The CA’s adoption of its Case Management Information System (CA-CMIS)
resulted in a more efficient and effective system of monitoring cases on the part of
the justices, divisions, and stations.
The CA-CMIS provides case details, information on total pending cases, and a
real-time inventory system on a per-case type/mode of appeal. This has speeded up
the disposition of cases that had resulted in the unclogging of the dockets of the CA.
Its Zero Backlog Project, which was re-launched in 2010, gained much traction with
the application of the CA-CMIS which was able to monitor and identify old cases for
disposition. Aided by this system, the CA also issued several office orders/memoranda
to effect changes in giving initial caseloads in tranches; revising the rounds in the
raffle; increasing the number of cases that could be submitted for mediation; adopting
a formula for ascertaining the initial caseload for those who would transfer from the
stations; securing funding for the hiring of contractual lawyers; and creating items for
Computer Operators 1 and 2 who would help in the CA-CMIS.
Adhering to SC En Banc Resolution in A.M. 09-7-06 in relation to Supreme
Court Administrative Order No. 170-2008, the CA was also able to conduct an inventory
and thereby identify old rollos for disposal. A picture inventory of all the rollos has
likewise been adopted by the Court to complement the CA-CMIS inventory and
ensure that the rollo of a case still exists.
ENSURING INTEGRITY AND MAINTAINING DISCIPLINE
Among the Supreme Court’s most important powers and most necessary duties
is the administrative supervision of the bench and its disciplinary jurisdiction over
the bar. The Court takes this power and duty very seriously as may be shown by the
actions that it has taken against erring judges, court employees, and lawyers.
For 2016 alone, the Court has disciplined 18 of its employees with penalties
ranging from reprimand, warning, fine, suspension, and being dropped from the rolls.
For the first half of 2017, the SC imposed on 309 personnel various penalties ranging
from reprimand, suspension, being dropped from roll, and immediate termination of
casual employment.
From 2012 to June 2017, the Supreme Court has dismissed 20 judges and one
Justice of the Sandiganbayan; suspended 16; fined 139; reprimanded 31; admonished
50; and forfeited the benefits of 4. For lower court employees, during the same
period, the Court has admonished 48; forfeited the benefits of 32; censured 1; dismissed
from service 82; fined 226; reprimanded 281; and suspended 157. Three administrative
investigations were done motu proprio or without a formal complainant.
During the first half of 2017 alone, the Court has decided six cases filed against
collegiate Justices and 121 against lower court judges, resulting in the dismissal of 1
judge; the suspension of another; the imposition of a fine against 10; and a reprimand
on 1. While not a penalty, an admonition has been issued to 8 judges.
8
The Court has likewise not been slack in disciplining members of the bar.
From the records of the Office of the Bar Confidant as of August 22, 2017, in
2016, the Court disbarred 16 lawyers; suspended 76 from the practice of law; suspended
10 from both the practice of law and notarial practice; and suspended 4 from notarial
practice only, 18 were reprimanded; 1 was fined and reprimanded; and 113 were fined;
1 was censured and 5 were ordered arrested or detained. Though not a penalty, adminition
was issued to 7 lawyers.
For the first six months of 2017, the Court has already decided 235 administrative
cases filed against lawyers, of whom 2 have been disbarred; 15 suspended from the
practice of law; 8 suspended from both the practice of law and notarial practice; 4
suspended from notarial practice solely; 3 reprimanded; 16 fined; and 3 ordered arrested/
detained. Though not a penalty, admonition was issued to 5 lawyers.
SHARPENING THE SAW
Doing good work often involves becoming a better worker first. This requires
an investment in training and capacity building. The judiciary recognizes this as an
important component in its vision of creating a world-class judiciary and a gold standard
for public service by engaging for this purpose the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA),
its education and training arm, for initial and continuing judicial education.
The PHILJA has conducted 176 seminars, conventions, mediation and other
training programs, and activities for judges and court personnel. Most of these were
held at the PHILJA Training Center in Tagaytay City.
For 2016, 1,805 participants benefited from the four Gender Sensitivity Training
for the Judiciary held in the cities of Taguig, Mandaluyong, and Manila. For the first
half of 2017, at least 787 participated in the Gender Sensitivity Training for the
Judiciary held separately in Quezon City and Malolos, Bulacan. The participants
include judges, clerks of court, court legal researchers, docket clerks, court sheriffs,
and process servers.
In 2016, the CA sent several of its Justices to different workshops and seminars
abroad. These seminars included the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative
(ABA-ROLI) Study Tour on Court Automation and Case Management held in Washington
D.C., USA; Southeast Asia Judicial Workshop on Cybercrime; Global Antitrust Institute for
Competition; and the 1st United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
SB Officials and employees undertook a number of capacity-building seminars
and workshops in the first semester of Calendar Year 2017 to further develop their
knowledge, understanding, and skills in the performance of their tasks as employees
of the Sandiganbayan and as public servants as well.
The SB Justices, its court attorneys and the members of its Bids and Awards
Committee (BAC) had a two-day training seminar on the Revised Implementing
Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of RA 9184, the Government Procurement Reform
Act, in February 2017, conducted under the auspices of the PHILJA, in cooperation
9
with the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB). This training seminar greatly
helped and informed the officials and employees of the Sandiganbayan in having a
better understanding and appreciation of the nuances of the RIRR of RA 9184.
In May 2017, the SB Gender and Development Focal Point, together with the
Sandiganbayan Justices, trained on “Gender Concepts and the Committee on Decorum and
Investigation.” This enabled the participants to better appreciate the promotion of
gender concerns and, at the same time, enhanced their skills in a more gender-responsive
handling of sexual harassment cases. Likewise, in May 2017, the officials and employees
of the Sandiganbayan had their annual Gender and Development (GAD) Capability Training
Seminar at Thunderbird, Poro Point, La Union. This seminar was followed by a very
successful Gender Sensitivity Training (GST) conducted by PHILJA for all officials and
employees of the Court at Sequoia Hotel, in Quezon City, in July 2017.
CROSS BORDER IMPACT
After a successful hosting in 2015 of the 3rd ASEAN Chief Justices Meeting
(ACJM) in Boracay
Boracay, the Philippine Judiciary, led by the Chief Justice and Associate
Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo de Castro, and Mariano del Castillo,
attended the 4 th ASEAN Chief Justices Meeting in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam in
April 2016.
Taking off from the positive gains achieved during the 3rd ACJM and the consensus
contained in the Boracay Accord, the Philippines actively contributed to the formal
institutionalization of the once ad hoc body by proposing, through the Chief Justice,
the renaming from the ASEAN Chief Justices Meeting to the Council of ASEAN
Chief Justices or CACJ. In February 2016, the Philippine Judiciary hosted the meetings
of the technical working groups on ASEAN Integration, Case Management and Court
Technology, and Education and Training. The outputs of these technical working
groups laid the basis for the CACJ’s institutional structure and direction. During the
Vietnam Meeting in 2016, the Philippine proposal to rename and institutionalize the
ad hoc meeting into a formal structure was seconded by Singapore and adopted
unanimously. The CACJ has since then been recognized by the ASEAN as an official
associated entity.
The Philippine Judiciary has also been active in the strengthening of the Association
of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions (AACCEI), especially
with the establishment of the Permanent Secretariats in 2016. The AACCEI is a
regional forum composed of constitutional courts and equivalent institutions in the
Asian region and is committed to the promotion of human rights, democracy, and the
rule of law through cooperation and the exchange of experiences and information
among its members.
Prior to 2016, the AACCEI was assisted only by an ad hoc secretariat created by
the incumbent president and its secretariat was not even a recognized entity under
the Association’s Statute. Now, apart from the Secretariat created by the President,
the AACCEI has two Permanent Secretariats - the Permanent Secretariat for Planning
and Coordination in Jakarta, Indonesia; and the Permanent Secretariat for Research
10
and Development in Seoul, South Korea. The inputs of the Philippine judiciary were
actively sought in the formulation and creation of these two Permanent Secretariats.
In November of 2016, the Philippine judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, hosted
the Sixth ASEAN Chief Justices Roundtable on the Environment at Puerto Princesa,
Palawan. The three-day meeting was called to strengthen the ties of cooperation and
coordination among the judiciaries of ASEAN member nations with respect to
environment issues.
The Chief Justice presided over the meeting with the active participation of
Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco. Delegates from the ASEAN judiciaries attended
the meeting, with the Chief Justice of Guam, the Honorable Robert Torres, attending
as a special guest.
Also, in November 2016, SB Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and
then Sandiganbayan (now Supreme Court) Associate Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo
took part in the preparatory meeting for the creation of a Global Judicial Integrity
Network (Network) in Bangkok, Thailand. The meeting was conducted by the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The Network connected judges from across the
Pacific, South Asia and Southeast Asia to support one other in upholding judicial
integrity and preventing corruption within the justice system and in thus creating the
first ever global platform dedicated exclusively to this issue.
Presiding Justice Cabotaje-Tang also participated in the convention of the United
Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT), at the Palais Wilson in Geneva, Switzerland
in April 2016 for the CAT’s 57th Session. The convention which examined mechanisms
adopted by various State Parties, including the Philippines, in the punishment and
prevention of acts of torture; and discussed the national efforts to implement the
rights enshrined in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The CTA, as part of ASEAN integration, was invited to share knowledge and
information with the other tax courts in Southeast Asia during the 7th Tax Law Conference
2016 organized by the Central Tax Court of Thailand with the theme: “International
Tax Avoidance and Transfer Pricing: How to Protect ASEAN Revenue.” The Court’s
four delegates to the conference made a presentation on Philippine Transfer Pricing
Rules and Tax Avoidance Measures.
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
The Supreme Court continued to provide greater access to information on the

work of the Court through the regular uploading of its Decisions on the Supreme
Court website as well as the maintenance of a Transparency Page, on which all the
fiscal and financial information of the Supreme Court is regularly uploaded. In order
to provide greater understanding of the issues surrounding important cases that it
hears during oral argument, the Court, through the Public Information Office, has
continued the practice of audio-livestreaming them over the Court’s Youtube channel.
The audio recording of the oral arguments is also made available for downloading
through the SC’s website. A summary of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net
11
Worth (SALN) of the Members of the Court En Banc are uploaded to the Court’s
website regularly starting 2015.
The CA, through its CA-CMIS, has made available to the public relevant and
non-privileged information, such as case status through its web page and the CMIS
kiosks. Queries made through telephone calls, e-mails, and the Civil Service Commission
Contact Center ng Bayan are immediately attended to by the Office of the Clerk of
Court.
In line with the celebration of its 39th anniversary in June 2017, the SB launched
its revitalized and enhanced website. The website provides easy access for all those
who seek to transact business with it, as well as those who seek to view and access
its most recent decisions and resolutions. The result of its weekly raffle of cases and
even the procurement activities it is undertaking are also uploaded to its webpage.
In the CTA, access to information on pending cases are made readily available
to litigants, lawyers and the general public through its enhanced Case Management
Information System. The system features online tracking and monitoring of case
developments.
12
THE WORK OF THE COURTS IN FIGURES
Table 1: Adjudication Figures for All Courts (2016)
13
14
15
16
Table 2: Adjudication Figures for All Courts (January to June 2017)
17
18
19
20
Table 3: Administrative Complaints
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Table 4: Discipline of Lawyers
29
30
JUDICIAL REFORMS TECHNICAL REPORT
TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE JUDICIARY REFORM PROGRAMS

Reform in the judiciary provides continuity and builds on the work done under the leadership
of previous and current Chief Justices, as well as by previous and current Associate Justices. It
identifies major programs, projects and activities that the Judiciary is currently undertaking or
may do so in the future, subject to appropriate approvals. As a consolidation of all reform
initiatives of the Court, it is evolving, taking cue from changes in the environment, culture, and
learning from ongoing initiatives. These initiatives may be classified under four pillars:
Pillar 1: Institutionalized Integrity and Increased Credibility

Pillar 2: Rational, Predictable, Speedy and Appropriate Judicial Actions
Pillar 3: Improved Infrastructure, Systems and Processes
Pillar 4: Effective and Efficient Human Resources
PILLAR 1: INSTITUTIONALIZED INTEGRITY AND I NCREASED C REDIBILITY
There was a time in our history when the juez de paz was looked up to by the community
as the paragon of intelligence and integrity. It is necessary therefore that public belief in the
Filipino judge must be restored by institutionalizing transparency and integrity measures. The
first pillar focuses on values formation activities required to reinforce the standard of the Good
Judge.
1. Transparency, and Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) Initiatives

a. Transparency
As one of the gateways to reaching out to the general public, the Supreme Court
website is compliant with the requirements of the Transparency Seal. Aside from
basic information about the Court, and copies of newly decided cases and rules of
procedure, the website also contains financial documents and procurement contracts
which are readily available for viewing by the general public, as well as links to
podcasts and live streaming during the Court’s oral arguments.
b. Judicial Reform Information, Education, and Communication Initiatives

Information dissemination on key judicial reform initiatives across multi-media
platforms were also initiated, such as the small claims information campaign kick-off
in June 2017, to communicate in simple terms existing judicial reform initiatives to
the general public, encourage stakeholder participation, and foster partnerships among
relevant groups.
The Chief Justice’s annual Ulat ng Hudikatura (Report of the Judiciary) in
which developments in the judiciary’s reform agenda are outlined; the conduct of
regular press briefings by the Chief Public Information Officer on recent actions or
decisions by the Court; and distribution of briefers, answers to frequently asked
questions, and brochures translated to English and Filipino, all contribute to the
effective communication of judicial reform initiatives of the Court.
At the same time, consultation sessions are regularly conducted among justice
sector stakeholders, including judges, court personnel, prosecutors and public attorneys,
31
and members of the bar, on key judicial reform initiatives, such as the ongoing focus
group discussions with the Quezon City stakeholders. Dialogues with different sectors
were also conducted on topics such as the continuous trial guidelines, the rules on
procedure on the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act cases, automation and
eCourts, and justice sector movements.
2. Consistent Professional Discipline of Bench, Bar and Judicial Employees
2012 - 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS

JUSTICES of Collegiate Courts
(Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeal)
Court of Sandiganbayan Court of Tax TOTAL

Appeals Appeal
CASES FILED 55 5 1 61
CASES DECIDED 53 6 1 60
COMPLAINT DISMISSED 53 5 1 59
ADMONISHED 0 3 0 3
BENEFITS FORFEITED 0 2 0 2
DISMISSED FROM SERVICE 0 1 0 1
FINED 0 0 0 0
REPRIMANDED 0 0 0 0
SUSPENDED 0 0 0 0
2012 to 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS

PERSONNEL of Collegiate Courts
(Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals)
Court of Sandiganbayan Court of Tax TOTAL

Appeals Appeal
CASES FILED 11 5 1 16
CASES DECIDED 11 5 0 15
COMPLAINT DISMISSED 4 0 0 4
ADMONISHED 0 0 0 0
BENEFITS FORFEITED 0 0 0 0
DISMISSED FROM SERVICE 3 1 0 4
FINED 1 0 0 1
REPRIMANDED 1 1 0 2
SUSPENDED 5 3 1 9
32

JUDGES of Lower Courts (Regional Trial Court, MTC, MeTC, MCTC, MTCC)
Regional Trial Court METC, MTCC, MTC, Total

MCTC
CASES FILED 947 488 1,435
COMPLAINT DISMISSED 821 422 1,243
ADMONISHED 31 16 47
BENEFITS FORFEITED 3 1 4
CENSURED 0 0 0
DISMISSED FROM SERVICE 13 7 20
FINED 79 60 139
REPRIMANDED 18 13 31
SUSPENDED 10 6 16

PERSONNEL of Lower Courts
(Regional Trial Court, MTC, MeTC, MCTC, MTCC)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL
CASES FILED 255 224 190 202 263 110 1244

COMPLAINT DISMISSED 93 110 130 100 143 45 621
ADMONISHED 12 8 7 6 4 11 48
BENEFITS FORFEITED 7 4 6 4 7 4 32
CENSURED 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
DISMISSED FROM SERVICE 10 17 15 19 14 7 82
FINED 39 22 31 40 48 46 226
REPRIMANDED 18 18 31 30 116 68 281
SUSPENDED 33 32 36 24 15 17 157
TOTAL 119 102 126 123 204 153 827
3. Addressing Impunity: Criminal Impunity and Redress for Mass Civil Injuries
A Technical Working Group on Human Rights was established to evaluate all concerns and
recommendations to the Judiciary relative to the safeguarding of constitutional rights, including
assessment of the efficacy of certain writs (e.g. writs of amparo and habeas data). Recently, the
TWG, in coordination with the Philippine Judicial Academy, successfully held a validation workshop
on the implementation of the rules on the Writs of Habeas Corpus, Amparo, and Habeas Data,
participated in by various stakeholders, such as the Philippine National Police (PNP), Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), and members of civil society organizations.
33
As a priority area in the Justice Sector Coordinating Council (JSCC), a technical working
group under the Council is also being formed to study the challenges of trying a multi-victim,
multi-accused and multi-counsel criminal case.
PILLAR 2: R ATIONAL , PREDICTABLE, S PEEDY AND APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL ACTIONS
Credibility must be demonstrated not only in the character of the Good Judge, but must also
be restored in terms of judicial actions, which include decisions and orders that are predictable,
rational, speedy, and responsive to the situation at hand. These judicial actions must be taken in
the context of the entire justice sector. For the criminal justice system to work, all justice sector
actors (e.g. prosecutors, public attorneys, police) must work hand-in-hand to avoid delays and
docket congestion.
4. Increasing “Access to Justice”
a. Special Courts (e.g. Family Courts, Drugs Courts)
For the first time in the Judiciary’s history, the Court in 2016 was granted
budget for the first phase of the implementation of R.A. No. 8369 (Family Courts Act
of 8369, circa 1997), which includes organization of 48 Family Courts in the NCR,
and Regions 3 and 4. These 3 regions account for 52.46% of total child and family
cases in the country. The Court is in the process of opening the courts and filling up
these positions.
Last August 2016, the Court approved the additional creation of fifty (50) Family
Courts under the 2 nd Tranche in Regions 1, 5, and 7. The congress has approved the
inclusion in the Court’s 2018 budget the amount for the personnel of the 50 Family
Courts. The Court is now in the process of organizing these new courts and soon, the
Judicial and Bar Council will commence with the filling up of the positions newly
created under these courts.
Furthermore, just last March and April of this year, the Court has already approved
the creation of 39 Family Courts in Regions 6, 9, and 11 under the 3rd tranche; and
46 Family Courts in Regions 2, 8, 10, and 12 under the 4th tranche. Not long, after
grant of budget by Congress, these Family Courts will soon operationalize.
Correlatively, last August 2017, the Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile
Concerns conducted the 3rd National Family Courts Summit to probe the essence and
impact of diversion on children in conflict with the law and to address other issues
in the operations of the family courts.
To also address the increasing case inflow of drugs cases nationwide (as of 31
December 2016, 128,368 drugs cases or 23% of the total cases in all trial courts
nationwide are pending), the Supreme Court added 240 more courts to the current
corps of drugs courts, basically designating all 955 Regional Trial Courts nationwide
as drugs courts.
b. Revised Rules on Small Claims Cases
In February 2015, a study conducted by the Court’s development partners on the
2009 Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (with a threshold of P100,000)
revealed that at in terms of efficiency, the small claims guidelines was able to reduce
the age of disposed cases from an average of four to six month (120-180 days) to a
mere two months (75 days).
Because of these findings, the study recommended the “possible expansion of
jurisdiction for small claims procedures based on access to justice and parties’ ability
to represent themselves with equal footing.” A result of this clamor is the promulgation
of the 2016 Revised Rules to “protect and advance the constitutional rights of persons
34
to a speedy disposition of their cases, provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure

for the disposition of small claims cases, and, introduce innovation and best practices
for the benefit of the underprivileged.” Some of the modifications in the 2016 Revised
Rules are highlighted here:
2008 Rules 2016 Revised Rules
Covers claims not exceeding Covers claims not exceeding P200,000

P100,000
Covers civil aspect of Deleted; Revised Rules specifically concentrates on contracts,
criminal actions including liquidated damages arising from a violation of a contract
Requires Certification of Requires Certification Against Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single
Non-Forum Shopping Cause of Action, and Multiplicity of Suits
For lending, banking and other financial institutions, Revised
Rules allows filing of the case in the branch where the financial
transaction took place (e.g. provincial branches)
Requires submission of Requires all affidavits submitted must be based on direct personal
affidavit based on direct knowledge or on authentic records; non-submission of the
personal knowledge affidavits will cause the immediate dismissal of the claim or
counterclaim
Explicit requirement to expedite hearing - If efforts at settlement
fail, the hearing shall immediately proceed in an informal and
expeditious manner and be terminated within the same day
If case does not fall under the Small Claims Rule (wrong filing),
the case shall not be dismissed but re-docketed to the appropriate
court
The decision shall be final Clearly outlines that all decision shall be final, executory and
and unappealable unappealable
Suggested Form has no fallo/ Revised Decision Form – included the fallo/dispositive to ensure
dispositive portion speedy execution/enforcement of the judgment
As of July 2017, a total of 29,940 small claims cases were filed nationwide and 29,931 were
disposed.
Last June 2017, an information campaign was launched on the Revised Rules of Procedure
on Small Claims Cases. The campaign included advertisements on print, television, and other
forms of media, including social media platforms, as well as reaching out to Overseas Filipino
Workers abroad through the Department of Foreign Affairs - Office of Public Diplomacy. With
the campaign, it is hoped that the general public will be informed of an easier and more accessible
way to go to court and seek recompense for their money claims.
c. Court-Annexed Mediation
To promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to ease court dockets and
increase access to justice, the Court initiated its court-annexed mediation (CAM)
program, a voluntary process conducted under the auspices of the court by referring
the parties to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) Unit for the settlement of their
dispute through the assistance of an accredited mediator.
35
CAM is applicable to all civil cases, and under the Revised Guidelines for
Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, shall be applicable in the following cases: (1)
crimes where payment may prevent criminal prosecution or may extinguish criminal
liability (such as B.P. Blg. 22, SSS Law); (2) crimes against property under Title 10
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) where the obligation may be civil in nature (such
as theft, malicious mischief); (3) crimes against honor under Title 13, RPC, where the
liability may be civil in nature (such as libel, slander); (4) libel under R.A. 10175 or
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, where the liability may be civil in nature; (5)
criminal negligence under Title 14, RPC, where the liability may be civil in nature;
and (6) intellectual property rights cases where the liability may be civil in nature.
Philippine Judicial Academy

Philippine Mediation Center Office
CAM Statistical Report as of JUNE 2017
Year No. of No. of No. of Total No. Total No. Total No. Total No. Total No. of Success
Pmc Courts Accredited of Cases of Back of Cases of Successful Unsuccessful Rate
Units* Covered Mediators Referred To Court Mediated Mediation Mediation
Cases**
2002 26 442 360 4118 559 3559 3000 559 84%
2003 26 442 360 4246 1149 3097 2410 687 78%
2004 30 601 309 20,277 12,787 7490 5899 1591 79%
2005 37 675 483 25,745 14,028 11,717 7626 4091 65%
2006 40 730 524 21,211 8161 13,050 8159 4891 63%
2007 53 931 628 38,816 18,671 20,145 13,633 6512 68%
2008 70 1105 717 62,678 16,994 45,684 29,148 16,536 64%
2009 97 1380 571 49,702 18,477 31,225 19,406 11,819 62%
2010 97 1380 571 50,558 16,748 33,810 20,304 13,506 60%
2011 107 1496 706 49,497 19,777 29,720 18,029 11,691 61%
2012 107 1540 680 56,498 24,218 32,280 19,266 13,014 60%
2013 115 1623 704 58,786 18,638 33,556 20,525 13,031 61%
2014 119 1641 657 64,356 15,082 37,843 23,236 14,607 61%
2015 126 1685 650 53,839 9,479 28,297 16,505 11,792 58%
2016 136 1840 718 64,253 9,215 32,108 19,222 12,886 60%
2017 136 1840 756 23,854 3,294 13,163 7,809 5,430 59%
(June)
TOTAL 136 1840 756 648,434 207,277 376,744 232,177 123,999 62%
* THE FOLLOWING AREAS HAVE TWO (2) PMC UNITS EACH, NAMELY MANILA, TUGUEGARAO
CITY, MALOLOS CITY AND CALOOCAN CITY.
** BACK TO COURT CASES - NO MEDIATION TRANSPIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTY/PARTIES; REFUSAL OF PARTY/PARTIES; LACK OF AUTHORITY OF
PARTIES’ REPRESENTATIVES TO ENTER INTO COMPROMISE AGREEMENT; REFERRED CASE NOT
MEDIATABLE; AND, NON-PAYMENT OF MEDIATION FEE.
36
d. Jail Decongestion or A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC (Guidelines on Jail Decongestion)

The Guidelines on Jail Decongestion was established on 18 March 2014 under
A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC. It mandated the establishment of a local Task Force Katarungan
and Kalayaan, comprised of justice sector actors, who shall keep track of the progress
of criminal cases of detained persons, and ensure that they are afforded all their
rights. It also mandated the development of a detainee’s notebook, where the detained
has an actual record of his appearances in court and progress of his case (i.e. the
notebook also acts as a monitoring mechanism for the inmate to track progress of his
trial); and authorizes service of subpoena and notices through electronic mail, mobile
phones, or the eSubpoena platform of the PNP.
In Manila City where the Task Force Katarungan at Kalayaan was piloted in
2011, 490 out of the 550 identified qualified detainees in January 2014, and 456 of
the 486 identified qualified detainees in January 2015, have already been released,
contributing to the reduction of inmate population in the Manila City Jail. Detainees
qualified for review include those who have been in jail for more than 6 months for
cases pending in the first level courts and 3 years for those pending in the Regional
Trial Courts.
With the success in the first pilot, additional sites for Task Force Katarungan at
Kalayaan were established in Makati City, Muntinlupa City, Pasay City, and Quezon
City. These sites will conduct focused discussions on strengthening workflow process
and fast-tracking trial time. Training and orientation in preparation for implementation
in the rest of the National Capital Region are scheduled in the last quarter of 2017.
e. Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW)
Since its launch in July 2008, the Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) Program
have successfully improved access to justice through its mobile court hearings, court-
annexed mediation, and provision of free legal, medical and dental aid to inmates and
minor offenders nationwide. As of August 2017, EJOW has successfully heard and
tried 8,141 cases, in which 5,365 cases resulted to dismissal and 2,138 decisions were
promulgated. Around 9,057 prisoners were released, and 7,480 individuals received
legal aid services.
f. Judgment Day
On 16 November 2015, first and second level courts nationwide conducted a
National Judgment Day wherein cases of detention prisoners eligible for release
under existing laws and rules were heard. Of the 8,684 criminal cases heard on the
said date, 4,286 prisoners were released either on bail or recognizance (2,224), or
whose cases were dismissed (2,062). In addition to this, 278 prisoners were released
on different Judgment Days scheduled in Pasig City, Makati City, Muntinlupa City
and Las Pinas City from May to August 2015.
g. Legal Aid
In line with the primary objective of strengthening the availability of legal aid
services, especially to the poor and underprivileged, the Supreme Court Committee
on Continuing Legal Education and Bar Matters (SC-CLEBM) received a proposal
from the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS) to streamline the accreditation
process of clinical legal aid programs in law schools nationwide.
Consequently, a Technical Working Group (TWG) under the SC-CLEBM and
PALS was created and tasked to facilitate the conduct of the Summit and prepare
draft guidelines for the establishment and operation of legal aid clinics, with specific
focus on accreditation, organization, curriculum, networking, and monitoring and
37
evaluation. Thus, in May 2017, the first National Summit for Legal Aid in Law
Schools was conducted, and attended by law school deans, law students, the Legal
Education Board, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and other key stakeholders,
to thresh out the issues related to the establishment and operation of legal aid clinics
in law schools. The TWG is in the process of developing a Proposed Guidelines for
the Establishment and Operation of Legal Aid Clinics in Law Schools, which reflects
the inputs, recommendations, and best practices discussed during the Summit, to be
submitted for the Court’s consideration.
h. Legal Fees
To ensure that the Court remains steadfast in increasing access to justice to all
litigants, the Court created a Judiciary-Wide Committee on Legal Fees to review all
existing rules and guidelines in the payment of legal fees, including addressing access
to justice issues and alignment in the judiciary’s automated case management systems
that will help the lower courts in accurately and efficiently assess legal fees.
5. Decongested Dockets and Speedy Trial

The Judiciary has come to the conclusion that unless our docket is cleared of existing
backlogs, we will not be able to meet our ideal case processing time. Reducing our case backlog
however requires a menu of initiatives. There is in fact no one single solution to address this
issue, considering that all our courts nationwide have experienced a surge of new case filings
recently.
a. Decongesting Dockets
i. Hustisyeah! – The Court has been conducting a one-time case decongestion
program called Hustisyeah, concentrated on 175 heavily congested courts throughout
the country. It involves an inventory of court dockets, formulation of case
decongestion plans and implementation of these plans. The record reflects a 30%
reduction of targeted caseload for Quezon City, where the program was piloted.
Since its inception in 2013, Hustisyeah! has significantly reduced the dockets
of the 175 heavily congested courts participating in the said program. As of
August 2017, of the 51,825 priority cases targeted for disposition and action,
61.86% or 32,060 cases were actually disposed.
38
Station NUMBER of
Hustisyeah Target Priority Cases
Hustisyeah
Courts Number of % cases
Number of priority cases actually
identified actually disposed
priority cases disposed as of from
targeted for latest semestral identified
disposition and docket target
action inventory priority cases
(January 2017) (H/G)
QC 33 9,515 9,515 100%

MAKATI 37 5,733 3,500 61.05%
ANGELES 10 1,343 1,080 80.42%
DAVAO 18 5,658 3,028 53.52%
MANILA 8 1,857 888 47.82%
PASIG (including
SAN JUAN &
TAGUIG) 13 4,754 2,832 59.57%
CEBU 29 11,716 5,767 49.22%
PASAY 5 1,514 995 65.72%
VALENZUELA 3 5,459 3,115 57.06%
MALABON 6 1,086 391 36.00%
LAS PIÑAS 2 674 313 46.44%
PARAÑAQUE 3 456 242 53.07%
CALOOCAN 1 207 80 38.65%
MUNTINLUPA 4 1,759 270 15.35%
MANDALUYONG 3 94 44 46.81%
TOTAL 175 51,825 32,060 61.86%
Data in 3 (out of 4) courts with available data
Data in 1 (out of 3) courts with available data
Taking off from the successful implementation of the first phase of the Hustisyeah!,
the Supreme Court rolled out Phase 2 of the initiative to additional 160 courts nationwide
in October 2016, in particular to Region 4A - one of the most congested courts in the
country, representing 13.8% of the total pending cases nationwide.
As of August 2017, 64 courts have been targeted for inventory in Region 4A; 25
of which have completed their physical inventory. Out of the 25, 12 courts have
already submitted and are implementing their case decongestion plans, resulting in
a 9.3% reduction from the total number of cases inventoried.
ii. Case Decongestion Officers – Grounded on the successes of Hustisyeah!, the
Judiciary was granted budget for the hiring of 635 contractual specially-trained
39
court decongestion officers (who are, at the minimum, law graduates) to trial
court branches and stations across the country with caseloads (or average caseloads,
in the case of court stations) of 500 or more. These decongestion officers are
deployed to the most burdened courts, which courts carry 54% of the total
caseload in the trial courts nationwide. The deployment aims to reduce by a
minimum of 5% the caseload of the target courts within 12 months from start of
deployment.
As August 2017, the Court has already trained and deployed all of the 635
case decongestion officers, as follows:
NCJR 141
Region 1 34
Region 2 13
Region 3 82
Region 4-A 122
Region 4-B 11
Region 5 6
Region 6 32
Region 7 81
Region 8 11
Region 9 16
Region 10 24
Region 11 51
Region 12 11
Total 635
iii. Assisting Courts - To address the disproportionate allocation of courts in various
parts of the country, assisting courts were formed, in which these less congested
courts from nearby jurisdictions are tasked to help overburdened courts deal
with the latter’s heavier caseloads. The assisting courts program is currently
being implemented in the following areas:
· 20 Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) in Manila to assist 7 MeTCs in
Makati and 20 MeTCs in Quezon City;
· 12 Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in Cebu City to assist 3 RTCs in Mandaue
City and 3 RTCs in Lapu-Lapu City; and
· 1 Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Compostela-Cordova to assist
1 Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Lapu-Lapu City.
As of June 2017, a total of 11,488 cases from Quezon City and 5,336 cases
from Makati City have been transmitted to Manila assisting courts. Of these,
9,038 in Quezon City and 4,115 in Makati City have been disposed.
40
Number of Disposed Cases of Manila City Assisting Trial Courts

Station 2015 2016 2017 Total
Makati City 1,176 2,062 877 4,115
Quezon City 2,217 4,670 2,151 9,038
Number of Transmitted Cases of Makati City and Quezon City to

Manila City Assisting Trial Courts
Station 2015 2016 2017 Total
Makati City 2,693 1,564 1,079 5,336
Quezon City 3,865 5,103 2,520 11,488
iv. Supreme Court Decongestion – The Supreme Court has undertaken its own
adjudicative reforms, such as the physical inventory and barcoding of its rollos;
a joint Supreme Court-Integrated Bar of the Philippines inventory and case
disposition program for complaints against members of the bar; and for the first
time, the disposition of more than 5,000 cases, when it disposed 5,173 cases in
2015, and 6,247 cases in 2016.
Pending Case Inflow Total Case Case Pending 2016

cases as of Input Outflow Cases as of Target
December New Reinstated/ December Case
31, 2015 Cases Received/ 31, 2016 Disposal
Reopened
Cases
7,932 6,526 33 14,491 6,247 8,244 5,840
b. Speedy Trial
i. Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) – The JAR is submitted in lieu of direct testimonies
five days before pre-trial or preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing
with respect to motions and incidents. It is effective in reducing the time used
for presenting the testimonies of witnesses by about two-thirds in Quezon City
where the program was piloted.
ii. Pilot of Rules 22 and 24 in the Rules on Civil Procedure – Currently rolled
out in 54 pilot courts starting 17 August 2015. Since the start of the pilot in the
third quarter of 2015, a total of 140 cases were tried under Rules 22 and 24 of
the Draft Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Of these, 19 have been set for case
management conference and four have been set for trial. In Iloilo, two cases
have been dismissed and one case has been archived. None of the cases has yet
been decided based on the merits. However, in Iloilo, a case is nearing a decision
following the conclusion of the parties’ presentation of evidence and the setting
of a date for oral arguments.
41
Status of Cases Covered by the Pilot Implementation of Rule 22 & 24 of the

Draft Revised Rules on Civil Procedure
Number of Case Management Conference Trial Decision
Cases
Quezon City 14 7 2 -
Makati City 50 7 - -
Angeles 0 - - -
Cebu 28 - - -
Iloilo 26 - 1 -
Davao 22 5 1 3
TOTAL 140 19 4 3
iii. Continuous Trial for Criminal Cases - The continuous trial project is a system
in which courts will conduct continuous trial in criminal cases (e.g. bouncing
checks, cases involving minors, drugs, estafa, illegal recruitment, and select
commercial cases) for its speedy resolution.
Under this system, motions for postponement filed by the prosecution and
the defense are prohibited. Only when it is based on exceptional grounds can the
court grant such a motion; and such party is warned that presentation of its
evidence must still be finished on the dates previously agreed upon and allotted
to it.
Also in this system, trial dates should be set one (1) day apart. The pre-
trials and trial dates, once set, are final and intransferrable. Trial dates will
depend on the number of witnesses listed in the information. Likewise, the
parties, their counsels, and the witnesses are notified in open court of the next
hearing date, making notice to them instantaneous and immediately binding.
After the case has been submitted for decision, the submission of memorandum
is discretionary upon the court. The promulgation date shall be set not more than
ninety (90) days from the submission of the case for decision.
On August 2015, the pilot run of the Continuous Trial System began in the
52 pilot RTCs and 6 pilot MeTCs in Manila, Quezon City and Makati. Based on
the assessment of the guidelines completed in March 2017 measuring pilot
court’s compliance rates with the periods, the following improvements were
demonstrated:
42
STAGES COMPLIANCE RATES (%)

Sample cases before Cases under the pilot
implementation of CT implementation of CT
Guidelines (Baseline) Guidelines
Arraignment
Accused is detained 13.92% 35.53%
Accused is not detained 19.91 44.73
Pre-trial
Accused is detained 22.08 72.98
Accused is not detained 12.86 63.5
Trial 14.63 67.1
Promulgation 56.37 91.67
Because of the positive results of the pilot implementation, the Supreme

Court En Banc promulgated the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of
Criminal Cases, to take effect nationwide on 1 September 2017. Nationwide
trainings for judges, clerks of court, mediators, public attorneys, and prosecutors,
including those from the Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Ombudsman, have
already commenced since May 2017, and will end in February 2018.
PILLAR 3: IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE, SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES
A judge can only be effective if the systems, processes, and infrastructure that make up the
work environment of both the judge and of the staff enable them to perform their duties well.
6. Enterprise Information Systems Plan (EISP) and eCourts Established
a. EISP
The Enterprise Information Systems Plan or EISP is the Judiciary’s IT Master
Plan, which was approved by the Supreme Court in 2009 and updated in 2014. It
identifies around 12 application systems (apps) to automate the raffling, processing,
and management of cases, increase personnel productivity, and automate back-end or
administrative processes such as financial, human and material resource management.
The EISP puts the Judiciary on a path to a modern, efficient and transparent
Judiciary. It is a path to a future when lawyers can file pleadings by uploading them
online while in their offices; when litigants can check the status of their cases and
view their online case records through their computers or smartphones; when notices
to parties are automatically sent via email or SMS. It is a future when halls of justice
are not littered with piles of papers as all court documents are digitized; when judges
automatically issue almost all court orders immediately after hearings; when judges
access all their records and manage their court dockets with the click of a mouse.
The Judiciary, and indeed, the entire bureaucracy, have to move toward automated
and online processes. As more and more Filipinos transact using online platforms and
automated processes (e.g. mobile apps in banking, online shopping), the standard by
which our people will measure public service will also change. They will demand that
43
their government be accessible through the web, that government processes be simple,
can be accomplished without hassle, and that information be readily available. Technology
creates a new culture, and the courts and other government institutions must measure
up to the people’s evolved standards created by the new technologies that pervade
their lives.
b. eCourts
A key component of the EISP is the court automation program, the deployment
of an electronic case management system called eCourts, part of the Supreme Court’s
initiative to increase court efficiency by providing a modern tool primarily for judges
and court personnel to monitor, manage and process cases and for court officials to
monitor performance. It transforms the way the courts do their tasks by facilitating
better workflows. It also impacts how the public interacts with the court system by
increasing transparency and access to information through public kiosks.
The eCourts began deployment in 2012 through a project implemented in partnership
with USAID and the American Bar Association-Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI).
The project, which ends in 2017, covers the deployment of eCourts in 10 cities with
some of the biggest caseloads in the country. Initially, the aim was to deploy eCourts
in a total of 295 courts by 2017, however, due to the creation of new courts, the target
has gone up by 3 to 298 courts. As of August 2017, eCourts has been deployed to 274
(91.95%) courts while the remaining 24 (8.05%) courts are undergoing training ahead
of deployment. Out of the 274 courts where the eCourts has been deployed, 159
(53.36%) are conducting automated hearings, where the courts immediately issue
their orders after the hearing, by at least a month because the orders need not go
through the postal system to reach the litigants.
Deployment of eCourts
Station First-Level Second -Level Total Number of Courts
Quezon City 13 48 61
Angeles City 4 7 11
Lapu-Lapu City 3 3 6
Tacloban City 0 7 7
Davao City 7 14 21
Cebu City 8 22 30
Makati City 7 30 37
Pasig City 5 16 21
City of Manila 30 56 86
Mandaluyong City 6 12 18
Total 83 215 298
44
Impact of eCourts:
1. Speeds up decision-making through automated monitoring of cases. Every hearing,
a judge and her staff need to know the incidents that have transpired in the cases
that are on the court calendar. Going through the pages of case files to find out
what has happened to a case eats up hours, if not days, which could have been
utilized for research and decision-writing. By freeing more time for research and
decision writing, the eCourts is expected to drive-up productivity and case disposition.
2. Cuts case backlogs. The eCourts provides judges with a dashboard that tracks
the status of a case on the judge’s docket and provides information like the aging
of cases, deadlines, and case incidents that require court action. The information
gives the judges a more precise picture of the status of their dockets – they can
prioritize cases that have been delayed and issue needed orders/action on or
before deadlines.
3. Increases public access to information. The public can find out the status of cases
through computers in public kiosks that are found at the entrance lobby of court
houses. Litigants, who are not IT literate, can go to the Office of the Clerk of
Court and get assistance to access the information on the status of their cases
within a few minutes.
4. Bolsters transparency and serves as anti-corruption tool. The raffling of cases
is now done electronically. The electronic raffle is done immediately upon filing,
which the litigants and lawyers can observe from computer monitors at the Office
of the Clerk of Court. Removing human intervention in the raffle of cases removes
the possibility of underhanded schemes, which compromise the raffle.
5. Saves more time for making decisions. Every semester, courts conduct a two-week
manual inventory of cases in order to generate reports on caseloads. Hearings are
suspended during these inventory periods. As soon as all case information is
encoded in the eCourts system, courts will do away with such manual inventories
as reports can be automatically generated and electronically submitted. That means
an additional one month every year for decision-making.
6. Adopts templates and forms for greater access and efficiency. Following the
innovation of the Small Claims Courts Project, eCourts will use templates of
court-issued forms. These templates can be downloaded from the eCourts system
and use by the judges and court personnel. The use of templates and ready forms
will drastically reduce the time consumed by the courts to act on interlocutory
and final case incidents.
7. Adopts the Automated Hearing System. The Automated Hearing System transforms
the entire courtroom into an automated trial forum. This means that during trial,
every activity is captured electronically, right there and then, including orders
issued by the judge, minutes of the hearing conducted, judges’ notes on testimony
taken, markings of evidence, issuance of writs and other court processes. The
system does away with the delay in the preparation of open court orders, which
the parties now will be able to get prior to leaving the courtroom, the inevitable
postponements due to our present reliance on the snail mail system, and most
importantly, it frees up valuable time on the part of the judge and the court staff
as they now no longer have to do these court orders after the hearing and can
already devote themselves to the more important task of adjudication.
45
Future Plans for eCourts:

The Judiciary will upgrade the software to be turned over by USAID and
ABA-ROLI in 2017. This version 3.0 of eCourts will have eFiling, eNotification,
and ePayment features. eCourts 3.0 will have an integrated document management
system called Document, Records and Archive Management System or DREAMS,
which will pave the way for eFiling and the electronic storage and access of court
documents. This will not only speed up court processes by allowing quick access
to specific pleadings and documentary evidence, but also secure court records
against disasters like Hainan, which destroyed almost all the court records in
Tacloban City. It will also benefit litigants and their lawyers, who can access their
records online and possibly result in the reduction of litigation costs due to less
transportation cost or lawyers’ fees. (The procurement of eCourts 3.0 will begin
in late 2017 or 2018.)
In relation, there is a 2017 project to convert court records into digital
formats. The Digitization of Court Records (DCR) – Phase 1 targets the scanning
and indexing of 150 million pages of records in the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, the trial courts NCJR and Regions
IV-A, and the 10 cities covered by the eCourts project. Phases 2 to 4 of the DCR
will cover 235 million pages of court records.
The encoded case information (indexation) and digitized documents will be
migrated to the eCourts 3.0 + DREAMS. Thus, together, the digitization projects
and eCourts 3.0 + DREAMS paves the way for a future paperless court system.
Status of eCourts 3.0 +DREAMS and Complementary Projects

Project Project Description Status Specific Status
As of August
2017
eCourts Version This will be an upgrade of Terms of Further consul-
3.0 + Documents, the current eCourt system, Reference tations with stake-
Records & which will incorporate Development holders are planned
Archiving additional features, inclu- before finalization
Management ding online notification to of TOR
System parties, online filing of
pleadings, online case status
monitoring, online access to
case information, digitized
documents, orders and
judgments.
Digitization of The project involves the Procurement Bidding documents

Court Records scanning and indexing of Stage are being finalized
150 million of case records
in Supreme Court, Third-
Level Courts, eCourts, and
trial courts in NCR and IV-
A. In so doing, the digital
imaging of these case
46
records is envisioned to deal

with issues and challenges
with regard to storage space,
security, and all other
matters resulting from the
manual, paper-based
recordkeeping system. The
project also involves the
establishment and install-
ation of appropriate hard-
ware and software solution/
s that are intended to sustain
the digitization project
beyond the contract term.
Hearing The HMS is a voice-to-text Under Delay in project

Management transcription system that Implementation implementation by
System aims to speed up court winning contractor
proceedings by providing a has resulted in
faster means of transcribing reevaluation of
the records of court planned project
hearings. This is only a pilot implementation
project to be implemented
in Sandiganbayan. If pilot
is successful, we will roll-
out the technology to
targeted congested courts in
the first phase, and
eventually to other courts
in the succeeding phases.
Other Apps for a 21st Century Judiciary

The Judiciary will also automate its financial, human resource, procurement
and other administrative processes (Enterprise Resource Planning System),
modernize its communication system (Judiciary Email) and put legal materials
and research tools online for the use of court judges and personnel (Legal Resource
Management System) and implement distance education or eLearning (ePHILJA).
The Lawyer Information System will facilitate online filing of bar examination
applications and online filing of bar exam fees. It will also integrate the data of
the Office of the Bar Confidant, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education Office, which will allow the public to verify if a
lawyer is in good standing and to identify bogus lawyers the victimize many
litigants. All these apps, including eCourts, will be accessible via a soon-to-be
developed Judiciary Portal.
47
Project Description Status Specific Status

Enterprise This project intends to provide TOR Finalization of
Resource the Supreme Court with software Development Technical Require-
Planning System packages and licenses, biometric ments and Imple-
hardware, and services necessary mentation Require-
for an integrated system in the ments
Judiciary covering human
resource management, financial
management, payroll manage-
ment, logistics management,
attendance and leave manage-
ment, and biometric timekeeping.
Judiciary Email This aims to provide the Judiciary For Project For contract signing
System with a fast, secure, and reliable Kick-off (currently being
platform for communication, circulated)
bundled with collaboration tools
to facilitate coordination and
information-sharing among inter-
nal users and external partners.
Legal Resource LRMS is an application system Under

Management that will upgrade the existing Procurement
System eLibrary. The system aims to
provide a searchable repository
of Court decisions, resolutions,
and other issuances and multi-
media resource materials; an
eCatalogue for books and
collections of the Judiciary
libraries; and a Library
Management System supported
with RFID technology to
automate library operations and
inventory.
ePHILJA System ePHILJA is an application system Under

that is meant to be the eLearning Procurement
environment of Philippine
Judicial Academy (PHILJA)
courses. It will also automate the
administrative processes of
PHILJA.
48
Lawyer LIS is an application system that Under

Information will serve as the central repository Procurement
System of all lawyer information, and
facilitate the conduct of the Bar
Examinations and the
implementation of the Mandatory
Legal Education Program
(MCLE) program. The system
aims to upgrade and integrate the
Bar Examinations Management
System (BEMS), Roll of
Attorneys Information System,
and MCLE Information System.
Judiciary Portal The JPS will enhance and Under

System integrate all the websites of the Procurement
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,
Court of Tax Appeals,
Sandiganbayan, and other judicial
units. This portal is envisioned
to be the main channel for
publishing information, sharing
content, engaging stakeholders,
and delivery of online services
to internal users and external
partners and audiences of the
Judiciary. Many of the Court’s
future IT applications from case
and document management to
legal resource management, will
be accessed through the public
portal.
Judiciary IT Infrastructure
Apps like eCourts, DREAMS, ERP System, etc. require an enterprise-level
IT infrastructure for their deployment and to allow access by court personnel and
the public across the country.
The EISP includes various projects that will lead to a Virtual Integrated
Systems Infrastructure (see figure below). The VISI calls for the construction
of 1 main data center, 1 disaster recovery (back-up) data center and a network
of 12 regional data centers; the provision of connectivity to all courts (since the
Judiciary apps will be web-based); and the deployment of modern security systems
to protect the Judiciary network and databases from hacking, malware and other
risks.
49
The main data center in Manila and disaster recovery data center in Angeles City are already
operational. The construction of 3 regional data centers is under procurement. Network security
systems and equipment have been installed, while phase 1 of the Judiciary Connectivity Project
is under implementation. Phase 1 covers all the courts in the National Capital Region, Regions
III, IV-A and VII. As of August 2017, 278 court branches and offices of the clerk of court (OCCs)
have been connected to the internet via Internet Protocol Virtual Private Networks (IP VPN), and
570 court branches and OCCs have been connected to the internet via DSL. There are still 206
court branches and OCCs that are yet to be connected mostly due to lack of network infrastructure.
However, the service providers will install a technological solution to provide last mile connectivity
to these courts and OCCs, which they aim to complete by October 2017.
Project Description Status Specific Status

Judiciary Data Located in the Supreme Court Operational Undergoing Tier 1
CenterSupreme Manila Office, the Judiciary Data data center certi-
Court(JDC) Center will house all the fication assessment
Enterprise Information Systems to ensure com-
Plan (EISP) applications systems pliance with inter-
and central node for national standards.
telecommunication and storage
systems. The project includes the
provision of backup power
supplies, data communications
connections, environmental
controls (e.g., air conditioning,
fire suppression) and various
security equipment.
Disaster This project aims to provide a Operational Undergoing Tier 2

Recovery back-up site for the Judiciary Data data center cert-
SiteAngeles Center to ensure non-stop ification assessment
City(DR Site) operation in times of emergency. to ensure compli-
The facility allows redundancy
50
of Supreme Court applications ance with interna-

and data to ensure zero loss of tional standards.
information.
Judiciary IT This provides servers and storage Installed Project Completed

Infrastructure - equipment to create the
Phase 1 environment for the processing
of the application systems in the
data centers.
Systems Provision of internet connectivity Under Installation of

Integration to lower courts in Regions III, Implementation S e c u r i t y
Services - Lot 1 IV-A, and NCR. This project also Equipment and
includes delivery of security Systems100%
solutions for the network and data CompletedIGATE/
centers. IPVPN16/19 IP-
VPN links installed
or84% completion
rate.With these IP-
VPN links, 207/266
courts and OCCs
have been
connected or 78%
completion rate.
DSL495/591 courts
and OCCs
connected.84%
completion rate.IP
VSAT / LTE
equipment will be
delivered in
September to
provide last mile
connectivity to the
remaining courts.
Target completion
date is 31 October
2017.
Systems Provision of internet connectivity Under IGATE/IPVPN10/

Integration (Lower Courts in Region VII), Implementation 11 IP-VPN links
Services - Lot 2 Backhaul Connectivity (Supreme installed or91%
Court), and Direct Internet Links completion rate.
(Court of Appeals-Cebu, Court (Note: Remaining
of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro). uninstalled link is
just for redun-
dancy.) With these
51
IP-VPN links, 71/

71 courts and OCCs
have been
connected or 100%
completion
rate.DSL75/126
courts connected
or60% completion
rate.IP VSAT / LTE
equipment will be
delivered in
September to
provide last mile
connectivity to the
remaining courts.
Target completion
date is 31 October
2017.
Judiciary IT This provides additional servers Under

Infrastructure - and storage equipment to create Procurement
Phase 2 the environment for the
processing of the application
systems in the data centers.
Regional Data Located in Tagaytay City, Lapu- Under Post Qualification

Centers Lapu City and Davao City, these Procurement Evaluation Stage
Tagaytay City, Regional Data Centers will
Lapu-Lapu City complement the Judiciary Data
& Davao City Center (JDC) located in the
Supreme Court Compound and
the Disaster Recovery Site (DRS)
in the Angeles City Hall of Justice
by expanding the productivity of
the information systems installed/
to be installed and enabling secure
internet connection and access to
the I.T. applications by the courts
in Regions IV-A, VII, and XI.
52
7. Modern, Technology-Enabled and Disaster-Resilient Court Facilities Established
a. Infrastructure Master Plan (including facility standards)

The Master Plan was developed in 2004 and is intended to be updated by the
Judiciary. At this time, the 2004 Plan is still being used by the Office on the Halls
of Justice as a basis for the design and space planning of courts that are covered by
the infrastructure rehabilitation program that started in 2013. The Judiciary will
conduct a baseline study in 2018-2019 to assess the current state of court infrastructure,
likely with the assistance of the United Architects of the Philippines. The baseline
study will be preliminary to the updating of the Master Plan in 2019 or 2020.
b. Court warehousing
The Supreme Court has awarded a contract for document storage and warehousing
services last July 20, 2017. The service provider will barcode documents to ensure
that all are accounted for, ensure on-time delivery of documents when they are needed
to be taken out of storage, and provide an appropriate storage environment to ensure
integrity of the case documents.
c. Judiciary Infrastructure Program for the Lower Courts
From 2012-2017, the Supreme Court has completed the following infrastructure
projects: (a) rehabilitation of 56 HOJs; and (b) construction of 2 HOJs in coordination
with LGUs.
As of August 2017, there are 10 projects under implementation:
1. 2 HOJs are under construction;
2. 5 HOJs are under repair and rehabilitation;
3. Manila Hall of Justice: the detailed architectural and engineering design
(DAED) for the new HOJ is under development and a project management
consultancy contract has been awarded for this project;
4. Vigan City Hall of Justice: the DAED for the new HOJ is under
development; and
5. Malabon Hall of Justice: the DAED for the new HOJ is under development.
The Supreme Court targets to complete the procurement of 55 other HOJ projects
in 2017. Desirous of faster implementation of our court-building program, the Court
has appointed the Philippine International Trading Center (PITC) to handle the
procurement of 24 out of the 53 HOJ projects, which PITC aims to complete in
November 2017. This will coincide with the procurement of remaining 29 projects by
the Supreme Court’s own bids and awards committee.
d. Supreme Court infrastructure development (Judiciary District in Fort Bonifacio)
The Supreme Court Complex is presently occupying a lot that is owned by the
University of the Philippines, and the office spaces are not ideal for a productive
working environment.
On October 2, 2015, the Supreme Court and the Bases Conversion Development
Authority executed the Contract for the acquisition of a 2.1-hectare land in Fort
Bonifacio, Global City which will serve as the site of the New Supreme Court Complex,
and the ceremonial groundbreaking was held.
The Department of Budget and Management has issued a multi-year obligational
authority in the amount of P3.28 billion to fund the design and construction of the
New Supreme Court Complex.
53
Benefits of a New SC Complex:

1. It will address the congestion in many of the offices of the Supreme Court and
the Office of the Court Administrator. There are about 2800 employees in the
Supreme Court and Office of the Court Administrator and many are working in
cramp spaces that do not meet the standard space of 10 square meters per person.
2. It will also address the inefficiencies that results from the present set-up in Padre
Faura. For example due to space constraints, the docketing office (where litigants
file cases) and the cashier (where the litigants pay the fees) are located in two
separate compounds. It should also be noted that the main building in Padre Faura
was acquired from the foreign affairs department and was not designed based on
the Court’s requirements and workflows.
3. The New Supreme Complex has space provisions for a training center and a
convention hall, which will bolster its capacity-building programs and allow the
Supreme Court to host local and internal conventions of judges and legal experts.
The Supreme Court will save on the cost of hosting said events in hotels and other
privately-owned facilities.
4. Since green building principles will be adopted in the design of the New Supreme
Court building, the SC will realized savings in terms of maintenance and utility
expenses.
Conceptual Design:
In 2016, the Supreme Court launched an international design competition. The
winning design by one of the Philippines’s top architectural firms, Mañosa and Co.,
was selected by the justices of the Supreme Court among 68 local and international
design teams.
Inspired by the Philippine flag, the design shows the main building like the sun
radiating from the center of a triangular field. According to the Mañosa team, “while
the design veers away from classicism, it is not a complete departure from the grand
tradition expressed by the order of symmetry and axial planning. Essential elements
of classical settings were retained as inspiration for the timeless design – which is
based on our own social dynamics rooted in our own cultural sphere. This brings us
to a design response that is based on the native’s vantage point responding as someone
thoroughly experienced his homeland. The New Supreme Court is a homage to the
Philippines’ past, [a]n acknowledgment of its present achievements, [and a] legacy
for generations to come.”
e. Proposed Building and Maintenance of Halls of Justice through the
Private Public Partnerships (PPP) Center - Planning for a potential tie up with the
Private Public Partnerships (PPP) Center to determine the feasibility of implementing
building and maintenance of halls of justice nationwide through PPP is being undertaken.
The Philippines PPP Center, which is the lead agency in charge of the country’s PPP
program, notes that “PPP is geared for both [public and private] sectors to gain
improved efficiency and project implementation processes in delivering services to
the public. Most importantly, PPP emphasizes Value for Money – focusing on reduced
costs, better risk allocation, faster implementation, improved services and possible
generation of additional revenue.” 1 A study on how the PPP can fast track court
infrastructure development and professionalize building maintenance through a build-
1
PPP Center. “What Is PPP.” Public-Private Partnership Center . N.p., n.d. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2016 https://
ppp.gov.ph/?page_id=27574.
54
transfer-maintain arrangement is ongoing. Several coordination meetings with PPP

Center and NEDA-ICC PPP Secretariat were undertaken in 2015 and 2016. The Court
is studying whether to conduct a feasibility study in 2017-2018 to determine the
viability of a PPP arrangement.
8. Professionalized Court Administration (Supreme Court En Banc Clerk of Court, Office
of the Court Administrator, Presiding Justices and Clerks of Court of tertiary courts,
Executive Judges and Clerks of Court)
a. Management Reforms
In the area of management and administration, at the core is the conduct of
various management committee meetings of the Chief Justice with all key officers of
the Supreme Court; the Office of the Court Administrator; the three Presiding Justices
of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals; the Judicial
and Bar Council; the Philippine Judicial Academy; the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education Office; the IBP; and the PALS.
b. Process Reengineering and plantilla rationalization
Before automation can take place, a thorough study of key judicial processes is
being undertaken to ensure that only streamlined processes are automated. For this
purpose, most offices in the Supreme Court, tertiary level courts, and select family
courts, have conducted process reengineering, a critical business management tool
that aims to map out or document all processes in the judiciary; identify areas for
improvement; streamline processes as necessary; create key performance indicators;
and review human resource requirements (plantilla rationalization) based on these
improved processes. Each warm body in the Supreme Court, appellate courts and
select lower courts painstakingly participated in these reengineering workshops to
ensure that even informal processes are mapped out and fully documented.
c. Data Reconciliation
To anticipate the Judiciary’s participation in the constitutionally mandated exercise
of a national planning process that will create a Philippine Development Plan (PDP)
(i.e. Ambisyon Nation 2040), which includes the process of establishing indicators
and setting of annual targets based upon accurate and standardized data sets used by
the entire justice sector, the Court created the Judiciary-Wide Committee on Data
Reconciliation, tasked with the following responsibilities, among others: (1) collation
of all relevant data sets available in the Judiciary; and (2) study of all existing laws,
rules, regulations, and other relevant issuances pertaining to the gathering, utilizing
and updating of data sets, and appropriate terminologies and metrics, by the Judiciary,
to ensure data timeliness and accuracy. The Committee has so far provided back-
support to the Judiciary Budget Committee and the national planning exercises (i.e.
Chapter 6: Swift and Fair Administration of Justice of the PDP), including the ongoing
drafting of the Philippine Statistical Development Plan by the National Economic
Development Authority and Philippine Statistics Authority.
9. Professionalized Budget, Finance and Assets Management
a. Asset Management
To ensure the efficient operations of the Court, an asset management plan outlining
the process of selection, documentation, up to disposal of the physical asset must be
set in place, including accurately reflecting its value in the financial books of account.
Thus, in April 2017, the Judiciary-wide Committee on Asset Inventory was
created to study the development of a uniform asset inventory system for the entire
55
Judiciary in sync with applicable statutory and administrative regulations, and coordinate
with the Committee on Accounts Reconciliation in addressing financial issues in
relation to asset management. Consequently, the Court has also approved in A.M. No
07-03-09-SC a simplified guidelines for disposing of records of long-decided cases
and unneeded documents and papers to address lack of space in the hall of justice,
and risk of fire, among others.
b. Budget Management
With the creation of the 2018 Judiciary-Wide Budget Committee, which facilitates,
among others, the conduct of an Annual Planning, Programming and Budgeting Workshop
and Annual Internal Budget Conference, the Court aims to ensure that the 2018
budget continues to reflect the medium-term expenditure plan of the judiciary, includes
the full-term and annualized budgetary requirements of major investment programs
and operational requirements of the judiciary, and reflects alignment with the annual
procurement plan of the Court.
Moreover, a special provision in the Judiciary’s budget found in the 2015-2017
General Appropriation Acts requires the direct and equitable allocation of the trial
court’s MOOE budget “based on the standards prescribed for the Lower Courts by the
Supreme Court.” Thus, the Court formed a technical working group headed by to
draft the guidelines for the direct release of MOOE.
The primary goal of the direct release of MOOE is to provide trial courts the
ability to procure most of their basic office requirements and to address day-to-day
maintenance issues on their own. The shift will address long-standing logistical and
maintenance issues encountered by the trial courts. By devolving the procurement of
basic requirements to the trial courts, it is hoped that trial courts will be able to obtain
supplies and equipment when they are needed, in line with proper specifications, and
possibly at a lower cost, since there will be no freight cost for delivering the materials
from Manila to the various halls of justice nationwide.
c. Financial Management
To ensure strong financial accountability and audit, the Judiciary-Wide Committee
on Accounts Reconciliation aims to holistically address matters pertaining to the
financial books of accounts, financial processes and policies in the Judiciary, and
Commission on Audit (COA) observations, if any; conduct the timely and regular
reconciliation of the books of accounts and other required records; and ensure uniform
financial processes and accounting procedures for the entire Judiciary, which are
compliant with the latest statutory and administrative regulations on budget and
financial management, while observing the independence and fiscal autonomy of the
Judiciary.
Corollary, on 16 December 2015, the Court in A.M. No. 15-11-12-SC promulgated
the Revised Implementing Guidelines for the Administration and Allocation of the
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). It mandated, among others, that: (1) the utilization
of the 80% of the JDF (re: for cost of living allowances of the members and personnel
of the Judiciary) shall not be reduced by reason of its use for office equipment or
facilities, and shall continue to periodically released; and (2) the proposal for the
utilization of the 20% of the JDF (re: for the acquisition, maintenance and repair of
office equipment and facilities) shall be submitted to the Court’s Procurement Planning
Committee, which shall determine the total amount of the proposed requirements per
court or judicial region as against a certified estimated available balance of the
allocation for the said court or judicial region.
56
PILLAR 4: EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT HUMAN R ESOURCES
Any institution must have a holistic approach in addressing any organizational development
issues. Included in this analysis are the determination of the number and qualification of personnel
in the judiciary; development of an effective performance-based incentive system; and training
and capacity-building opportunities.
10. Holistic and responsive approach in addressing issues on entry and standing in the
bar
With the aim of conducting a holistic and responsive assessment of entry, and standing to
the bench and bar, the Supreme Court reorganized the Committee on Continuing Legal Education
and Bar Matters, with the following general objectives: (a) requirements for admission to the
Philippine Bar; (b) regulation of the practice of law in the Philippines; (c) requirements to
maintain good standing in the Philippine Bar; and (f) discipline over members of the Philippine
Bar, among others.
The Committee is divided into three Sub-Committees, with the following specific terms of
reference:
a. Sub-Committee on Admission to the Bar
1. Conduct review, research and other relevant study on the following matters, and
develop such guidelines, if warranted: (a) requirements for admission to the
Philippine Bar; (b) policies for the stable administration of bar examination; and
(c) procedure for smooth migration of data and process of conducting bar examination
to the electronic system; and
2. Streamline the process of application for the bar examination, in coordination
with the Committee on Computerization and Library;
This year, the Sub-Committee aims to commence discussions on the standardization
of the conduct of the bar examination.
b. Sub-Committee on Maintenance of Membership in the Philippine Bar
1. Conduct review, research and other relevant study on the following matters, and
develop such guidelines, if warranted:
a. Coverage of the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to regulate
practice of law in the Philippines;
b. Requirements to maintain good standing in the Philippine Bar;
c. Proposal for specialized practice in a field of law;
d. Disciplinary actions over members of the Philippine Bar; and
e. Rights and responsibilities of the members of the Philippine Bar, including
those involved in the public sector; and
2. Streamline the process of determining good standing in the bar, in coordination
with the Committee on Computerization and Library.
The Sub-Committee has begun threshing out the issues on the above topics,
including discussing the effects of the ASEAN Integration in the legal profession (i.e.
proposal to accept limited foreign legal practice in the Philippines), specialized legal
practice, and licensing of paralegals.
57
c. Sub-Committee on IBP Oversight

1. Conduct review, research and other relevant study, and develop such guidelines,
if warranted, on the following matters:
a. Rights and responsibilities of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines under the
Constitution and other relevant laws;
b. Pending issues in relation to A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC (In Re: Brewing Controversies
in the Election in the IBP)
c. Conduct of legal aid;
d. Accreditation and standing as notaries public;
e. All financial issues of the IBP, including the subsidy it receives from the
Judiciary and its membership fees;
f. Accurate financial reporting that is also compliant to government auditing
regulations;
2. Conduct data reconciliation mechanisms to address varying data levels;
3. Streamline the process of data gathering and recommend to the Committee measures
to migrate and preserve the integrity of such data, in coordination with the Committee
on Computerization and Library; and
4. Ensure the coordination of IBP programs and projects, including cascading of
information on bar matters released, with the Supreme Court and other related
offices;
Apart from the National Clinical Legal Aid Summit conducted by the PALS, the
Subcommittee is reviewing a proposal to standardize administrative penalties meted
out against erring members of the bar.
11. Professionalized Selection, Promotion and Evaluation of Judiciary Employees
a. Plantilla Rationalization (incorporated in Process Reengineering)
b. Improvements in the Selection and Promotions Board of the Supreme Court and
the Lower Courts, such as required interviews and examinations for all applicants,
certified reports of which are submitted to the Board.
c. Performance-Based Evaluation, Rewards, Discipline and Promotions System
Pursuant to the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 6 (s. 2012),
the Court approved in 2016 the Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of a
Strategic Performance Management System in the Judiciary, with the premise that an
employee’s performance is directly linked with the agency’s vision, mission and
strategic goals. The approved system ensures organizational effectiveness and
improvement of individual employee efficiency by cascading organizational
accountabilities to the various levels of the organization, anchored on the establishment
of rational and factual basis for performance targets and measures.
At the same time, a Judiciary-Wide Committee on Performance-Based Bonus
was also created to ensure compliance with the mandated eligibility requirements of
Memorandum Circular No. 2017-01 (Re: Guidelines on the Grant of the Performance-
Based Bonus [PBB] for Fiscal Year 2017 under Executive Order No. 80 s. 2012 and
Executive Order No. 201 s. 2016), issued by the Inter-Agency Task Force on the
Harmonization of National Government Performance Monitoring, Information and
Reporting Systems, including conditions on good governance and performance targets,
as conditions for the grant of the PBB.
58
12. Enhanced Employee Welfare, Security and Wellness

a. Employee Welfare Program – The program aims to conduct studies on intramural
and extramural facilities, and other benefits, as benchmarked with other government
agencies; and develop a holistic health and wellness plan necessary for the members
of the judiciary, including a study on the appropriateness of acquiring a health maintenance
acquisition plan.
b. Security System Management – Through the Committee on Security, the development
of a security master plan, including the conduct of security training programs, will
be prioritized to ensure the safety and security of members of the judiciary.
THE J USTICE SECTOR C OORDINATING COUNCIL (JSCC)
The JSCC was organized to serve as a joint forum for dialogue on issues of common interest
and mechanism for effective coordination and sharing of information in support of planning and
implementation of joint initiatives among justice sector institutions specifically the Supreme
Court (SC), Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG) – while at all times respecting and preserving the independence of the offices.
Launched in November 2014, the justice zone is a flagship project of the Council. It is an
area or locality where a minimum number of inter-agency coordinative reforms are present,
rendering that area or locality fully compliant based on the rating system to be established.
The justice zone was developed due to the need to address delay and inefficiencies through
sector-wide coordinative efforts, while respecting the independence of all institutions concerned.
It is guided by the Justice Zone Strategy Map, an operations flow-chart that depicts the
following:
1. Entire lifetime of a criminal case:
a. Case start-up (complaint, arrest, investigation, case build-up);
b. Case adjudication (filing, prosecution, pre-judgment detention, decision);
c. Post-judgment incidents (probation, parole, service of sentence).
2. Overall track targets and milestones;
3. Each agency’s respective track activities and targets; and
4. Inter-agency coordination on intersecting activities.
The justice sector committed to establish eight (8) Justice Zone by year 2022 in the Philippine
Development Plan. Apart from Quezon City, Cebu City is one of the areas identified to be the
next Justice Zone, with consultations being conducted among Cebu City justice stakeholders.
Some of the key reform projects accomplished in 2014 to 2017 of the JSCC include:
1. eSubpoena – an automated notification system where the courts are able to send out
electronic subpoenas, and duly received by the concerned police officer through their
national headquarters.
2. Sector-Wide Capacity Building – such as joint trainings on forensics; preparation and
use of judicial affidavits and templates; and protocol for case management of child
victims of abuse and exploitation.
3. Memorandum of Agreement for Paralegal Units between BJMP and PAO - to allow
the efficient coordination of both agencies in jail decongestion, such as facilitating the
filing of motions to release qualified inmates, and regular visits through the eDalaw
program.
59
4. Sharing of criminal case inventory between the trial court and prosecutors
5. Development of JSCC Communications and Visibility Plan and JSCC Website
6. Development of Evidence Management System - To address the issues arising in
evidence management such as processing/ handling of evidence, chain of custody, and
procedures.
7. Sector planning and budgeting - The sectoral implementation of the Chapter on Swift
and Fair Administration of Justice in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) implies
a sectoral approach in budgeting and planning among justice sector agencies.
8. Sector Wide Data Reconciliation - To reconcile and standardize data and statistics
among justice sector agencies to ensure effective planning, monitoring and reporting.
9. Chapter on Swift and Fair Administration of Justice, Philippine Development Plan
(PDP) 2017-2022 -A whole chapter on Swift and Fair Administration of Justice is now
devoted in the recently approved Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022, which
adopts a sectoral approach in the implementation of its strategies and objectives.
JSCC Technical Working Groups’ 2017 Activities
Processes & Legislative ICT & Communications Sector Sector Wide Evidence
Capacity Agenda & Infrastructure & Partnership- Planning Data Management
Building Policies Building and Budgeting Reconciliation System
Completed Determination eSubpoena Drafted the Developed the Drafting of Development

all of areas for rollout as of Communications Chapter on Chapter on of
remaining Justice May 30, and Visibility Swift and Fair Justice modules
batches of Zones 2017 Plan Administration Statistics in of the first
the Joint Suggestions: Number of of Justice in the responders’
Forensics Cebu City, Courts the Philippine Philippine training on
Training for Makati City, registered: Development Statistical evidence
Judges, General 651 Plan (PDP) Development management
Prosecutors, Santos City Number of Plan (PSDP)
PAO Courts
Lawyers actually
and Police using: 444
in Quezon
City
Conducted Sharing of Fine tuning Ongoing Philippine Ongoing
Justice criminal of formulation Crime Index formulation
Zone cases eWarrant of the sector Project of TWG
General inventory System strategies and work plan
Orientation between activities
in Quezon Court and based on
City and Prosecutors (PDP)
Cebu City
60
BUDGET UTILIZATION REPORT
61
62
63
64
65
SANDIGANBAYAN
66
SANDIGANBAYAN
67
68
69
70

SC - Annual - 2016-2017 - Narrative Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SC - Annual - 2016-2017 - Narrative Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

_____________

The Judiciary Annual Report

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno

MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno

1. Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. 36. Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba

1. Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando 32. Justice Danton Q. Bueser

MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio (retired December 1, 2016)

MEMBERS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario

MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS

Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario

T he role and the nature of the courts are

This duty is by no measure a trivial one. With

This Annual Report, detailing the

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

The Judiciary ...................................................................................................................... iii

The Chief Justice’s Message ........................................................................................... ix

The Year in Review: 2016-June 2017 Highlights in Summary ................................ 1

Strengthening Adjudication ................................................................................ 2

The Work Of The Courts In Figures........................................................................... 13

Judicial Reforms Technical Report ............................................................................... 31

Budget Utilization Report ............................................................................................... 61

THE YEAR IN REVIEW: 2016-2017 HIGHLIGHTS IN SUMMARY

First Level Courts

Second Level Courts

Year Target Disposal Accomplishment

STREAMLINING PROCESSES AND FACILITATING ACCESS TO

The Supreme Court continued to exercise its constitutional rule-making power

The judiciary’s multi-pronged and strategically phased reform and development

Total number of years to dispose of a case

MAINSTREAMING MODERNIZATION AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY

The thrust to modernize court processes continued without letup. Initially, it

ENSURING INTEGRITY AND MAINTAINING DISCIPLINE

SHARPENING THE SAW

CROSS BORDER IMPACT

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION

The Supreme Court continued to provide greater access to information on the

THE WORK OF THE COURTS IN FIGURES

Table 1: Adjudication Figures for All Courts (2016)

Table 2: Adjudication Figures for All Courts (January to June 2017)

Table 3: Administrative Complaints

Table 4: Discipline of Lawyers

TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE JUDICIARY REFORM PROGRAMS

Pillar 1: Institutionalized Integrity and Increased Credibility

PILLAR 1: INSTITUTIONALIZED INTEGRITY AND I NCREASED C REDIBILITY

1. Transparency, and Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) Initiatives

b. Judicial Reform Information, Education, and Communication Initiatives

2012 - 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS

Court of Sandiganbayan Court of Tax TOTAL

2012 to 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS

Court of Sandiganbayan Court of Tax TOTAL

2012 - 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS

Regional Trial Court METC, MTCC, MTC, Total

2012 - 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL

CASES FILED 255 224 190 202 263 110 1244

PILLAR 2: R ATIONAL , PREDICTABLE, S PEEDY AND APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL ACTIONS

to a speedy disposition of their cases, provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure

2008 Rules 2016 Revised Rules

Covers claims not exceeding Covers claims not exceeding P200,000

Philippine Judicial Academy