INACCESSIBLE JUSTICE AS JUSTICE DENIED: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE

JUSTICE SYSTEM BY THE LEAST PRIVILEGED***

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to
build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our
ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our
patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence
and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom,
love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

I. Introduction

In the recently released World Justice Project (WJP) 2020 Rule of Law index, the Philippines ranked
91st out of 128 in the overall index score on “rule of law.” One of the factors considered in the
overall index score is civil justice, which focuses on the issue of whether ordinary people can
resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system. Civil justice as a
factor measures whether civil justice systems are accessible and affordable as well as free of
discrimination, corruption, and improper influence of public officials and whether decisions are
enforced effectively. It also and examines whether court proceedings are conducted without
unreasonable delays. and whether decisions are enforced effectively. Based oOn this factor, the
Philippines obtained a global rank of 92 out of 128.

Our fundamental law, a living testament to the Filipino people’s triumph in a bloodless revolution
to win our freedoms, is replete with provisions holding sacrosanct the right to accessible justice
system and the indispensable role of an efficient justice system in a democracy. The 1987
Constitution enshrines foremost, Article III, Section 11 of the Bill of Rights, the right of the people,
particularly the least privileged, to “free access to the courts and quasi-judicial and adequate legal
assistance.” This provision declares the right to free access to courts and adequate legal assistance
notwithstanding the poverty of any person. Aside from our fundamental law, the right to access to
courts as a human right is also guided by the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR), Article 8 of which states that “[e]veryone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law.”

While not sharing the limelight with the same lumen as said constitutional provision, there are
other important provisions of the 1987 Constitution designed to highlight the vital role of an
accessible justice system in a free society. Section 5 of Article II, which Article lays out the basic
social and political creed of the Philippines, provides, viz:

The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property,
and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the
people of the blessings of democracy. (emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court was empowered by no less than the fundamental law of the Philippines to
protect and enforce constitutional rights. The 1987 Constitution provides in Article VIII, Section 5
(5):
 Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

x x x

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional

rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. x x x

>****

II. Definition of Tterms

A. Access

Access to justice is defined as the ability of people to seek and obtain a remedy through formal or
informal institutions of justice for grievances in compliance with human rights standards. There is
no access to justice where citizens fear the system, see it as alien, and do not access it; where the
justice system is financially inaccessible; where individuals have no lawyers; where they do not
have information or knowledge of rights; or where there is a weak justice system. 1

****

B. Least Privileged

***

The concept of indigent party under the applicable Rules of Court finds its origin on proceedings in
forma pauperis (pauper litigant). Rule 3, Section 22 of the 1964 Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 22. Pauper litigant.— Any court may authorize a litigant to prosecute his

action or defense as a pauper upon a proper showing that he has no means to that
effect by affidavits, certificate of the corresponding provincial, city or municipal
treasurer, or otherwise. Such authority once given shall include an exemption from
payment of legal fees and from filing appeal bond, printed record and printed brief.
The legal fees shall be a lien to any judgment rendered in the case favorably to the
pauper, unless the court otherwise provides.

Said provision was superseded by Rule 3, Section 21 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to wit:

Sec. 21. Indigent party. – A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or
defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is

1
 satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available
for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.

Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful
fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be
furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent
was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case
favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.

Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before
judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after hearing
that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or
property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by
the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court,
execution shall issue for the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other
sanctions as the court may impose.

The test for indigency is based on the capacity to afford the services of counsel after
considering his or her basic necessities for himself or herself and his or her family, and is
not based on a set financial amount. Hence, Section 19, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as
amended by A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC and A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, provides:

SEC. 19. Indigent litigants exempt from payment of legal fees.– Indigent litigants (a)
whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed an
amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee and (b) who do
not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax
declaration of more than three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos shall
be exempt from the payment of legal fees.

The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the
indigent litigant unless the court otherwise provides.

To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the litigant shall execute an

affidavit that he and his immediate family do not earn a gross income
abovementioned, and they do not own any real property with the fair value
aforementioned, supported by an affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the
truth of the litigant’s affidavit. The current tax declaration, if any, shall be attached
to the litigant’s affidavit.

Any falsity in the affidavit of litigant or disinterested person shall be sufficient cause
to dismiss the complaint or action or to strike out the pleading of that party, without
prejudice to whatever criminal liability may have been incurred. (emphasis added)

The Court, in the case of Spouses Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga 2, had the
occasion to/needed to explain the compatibility between the two above-mentioned provisions, viz:

2
Algura v. Naga, 536 PHIL. 819G.R. No. 150135, 830 ( October 30, 2006).
 In the light of the foregoing considerations, therefore, the two (2) rules can stand
together and are compatible with each other. When an application to litigate as an
indigent litigant is filed, the court shall scrutinize the affidavits and supporting
documents submitted by the applicant to determine if the applicant complies with
the income and property standards prescribed in the present Section 19 of Rule 141
—that is, the applicant’s gross income and that of the applicant’s immediate family
do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and
the applicant does not own real property with a fair market value of more than
Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00). If the trial court finds that the
applicant meets the income and property requirements, the authority to litigate as
indigent litigant is automatically granted and the grant is a matter of right.

However, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements have not been met,
then it would set a hearing to enable the applicant to prove that the applicant has
"no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities
for himself and his family." In that hearing, the adverse party may adduce
countervailing evidence to disprove the evidence presented by the applicant; after
which the trial court will rule on the application depending on the evidence
adduced. In addition, Section 21 of Rule 3 also provides that the adverse party may
later still contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is
rendered by the trial court, possibly based on newly discovered evidence not
obtained at the time the application was heard. If the court determines after
hearing, that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient
income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and
collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the
court, execution shall issue or the payment of prescribed fees shall be made, without
prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose.

On the other hand, the indigency test found in Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) Memorandum Circular
(M.C.) No. 18, s. 2002 as amended,3 reads:

Section 3. Indigency Test. – Taking into consideration recent surveys’ on the amount
needed by an average Filipino family to (a) buy its “food consumption basket” and
(b) pay for its household and personal expenses, the following applicant shall be
considered as an indigent person:

1. If residing in Metro Manila, whose net income does not exceed Php14,000.00 a
month;

2. If residing in other cities, whose net income does not exceed Php13,000.00 a
month;

3. If residing in other places, whose net income does not exceed Php12,000.00 a
month.

3
Department of Justice, Memorandum Circular No. 02, s. 2010 [M.C. No. 02-10], § 1 (January 27, 2010).
Section 3, Article II, Public Attorney’s Office Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 2002, as amended by
Memorandum Circular No. 02, s. 2010.
 x x x

The term “least advantaged” is not limited to the above-mentioned indigent litigants alone. A.M. No.
17-03-09-SC also includes in its coverage those “other persons of limited means,” or those who
would not be financially able to afford the services of counsel. The term includes marginalized
groups and entities such as farmers, indigenous peoples, children in conflict with the law, victims of
gender violence, and other similar causes. 4 Likewise, persons qualified for assistance under
Memorandum of Agreements and Department of Justice Directives, 5 as provided in PAO M.C. No.
18, s. 2002 as amended, includes, among others, farmer-beneficiaries of the Agrarian
Reform Law, indigent laborers, indigent aliens, qualified overseas contract workers, and
barangay health workers.

III. Importance

The Constitution is a law for rulers andd for people equally in war and in peace and covers with the
shield of its protection all classes of men at all times and under all circumstances. 6 Section 11 of
Article III of the Constitution provides that free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty . This
constitutional provision imposes a duty on the judicial branch of the government which cannot be
taken lightly.7

The Court, speaking through Justice Bersamin, has enunciated in RE: Query of Mr. Roger C.
Prioreschi Re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc.:8

The importance of the right to free access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies and
to adequate legal assistance cannot be denied. A move to remove the provision on
free access from the Constitution on the ground that it was already covered by the
equal protection clause was defeated by the desire to give constitutional stature to
such specific protection of the poor.

***

IV. Obstacles in Aaccessing Jjustice and Philippine Pprograms to Aaddress Tthem

One of the major obstacles in accessing justice is the cost of legal advice and representation. As a
response thereto, and by virtue of Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme
Court has enacted A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC, entitled the “Community Legal Aid Service Rule,” which
mandates lawyers to make their legal services available to the public in an efficient and convenient
4
Supreme Court, Rule on Community Legal Aid Service, A.M. No. 12-03-09-SC, ¶ 4 (2019)Section 4 (e), A.M. No.
17-03-09-SC.
5
Department of Justice, Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 2002 [M.C. No. 18-02], § 5 (May 9, 2002)Section 5,
Article II, Public Attorney’s Office Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 2002, as amended by Memorandum Circular
No. 02, s. 2010..
6
Cayaga v. Tangonan, G.R. No. L-40970160 Phil. 906, 908 (1975)., August 21, 1975, citing Ex-parte Milligan 4 Wal,
2, 132, 18 L. ed. 281, 295
7
People v. Rio, 278 Phil. 715, 720 (1991).G.R. No. 90294, September 24, 1991.
8
Supreme Court, RE: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi Re Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the Good
Shepherd Foundation, Inc, A.M. No. 09-6-9-SC, (August 19, 2009).
mannerefficiently and conveniently by rendering pro bono services to those who otherwise would
be denied access to adequate legal services.

Additionally, the PAO, formerly known as the Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office, was strengthened
through the amendments to Executive Order No. 292 9 introduced by Republic Act No. 9406. 10 Under
E.O. No. 292 as amended, the PAO shall independently discharge its mandate to render free legal
representation, assistance and counselling to indigent persons in criminal, civil, labor,
administrative and other quasi-judicial cases. 11 Similar to the provision of the Rules of Court, E.O.
No. 292 as amended exempts the clients of the PAO from payment of docket and other fees
incidental to instituting an action in court and other quasi-judicial bodies. 12 However, the PAO
extends free legal services to an applicant who is indigent and whose case is meritorious. As such, a
party requesting to be represented by the PAO must comply with the merit test and indigency test.
Under PAO Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 2002, a case shall be considered meritorious if an
assessment of the law and evidence on hand discloses that the legal services of the office will assist
of be in aid of or in the furtherance of justice taking into consideration the interests of the party and
those of the society.

***

V. Analysis and Recommendation

***

It should also be stressed that access to justice requires people’s awareness of their rights under
the law. Without awareness on the people’s rights, the pursuit of the State to protect human rights
will continue to be antagonized and the citizenry will be blindly passive on human rights violations.

The Commission on Human Rights must strengthen the exercise of its constitutional power to
establish a continuing program of research, education and information to enhance respect for the
primacy of human rights.13 In symmetry to this is Section 3(2), Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution,
which reads:

9
Instituting the Administrative Code of 1987 [ADMINISTRATIVE CODE], Executive Order No. 292, sec. 15 (1987).
10
Entitled “An Act Reorganizing and Strengthening the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), Amending for the Purpose
Pertinent Provisions of Executive Order No. 292, Otherwise Known as the “Administrative Code of 1987”, as
Amended, Granting Special Allowance to PAO Officials and Lawyers, and Providing Funds Therefor.”
11
The entire Section reads: “SEC. 14-A. Powers and Functions. – The PAO shall independently discharge its mandate
to render, free of charge, legal representation, assistance, and counselling to indigent persons in criminal, civil,
labor, administrative, and other quasi-judicial cases. In the exigency of service, the PAO may be called upon by
proper government authorities to render such service to other persons, subject to existing laws, rules and
regulations.”
12
The entire Section reads: “Section 16-D. Exemption from Fees and Costs of the Suit. – The clients of the PAO shall
be exempt from payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court and other quasi-
judicial bodies, as an original proceeding or on appeal. The costs of the suit, attorney’s fees and contingent fees
imposed upon the adversary of the PAO clients after a successful litigation shall be deposited in the National
Treasury as trust fund and shall be disbursed for special allowances of authorized officials and lawyers of the PAO.”
13
CONST. Art. XIII, Section 18 (4).
 SECTION 3. (1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the
Constitution as part of the curricula.

(2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect
for human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical
development of the country, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen
ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline,
encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and technological
knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.

Similarly, Article 26(2) of the UDHR provides that education shall be directed to th e e strengthening
of respect forof human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Corollary thereto, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 27 directs the inclusion of the study and
understanding of human rights in the curricula of all levels of education and training in all schools
in the country. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9201, entitled “An Act Declaring December 4 to 10 as
National Human Rights Consciousness Week” (2003), tasks all educational institutions to celebrate
Human Rights Week on December 4 to 10 to propagate a “human rights culture that aims at
sustainable development in the country.” While these laws and policies may be considered a step
forward in rights awareness in the Philippines as they signify a national commitment to the
protection and respect for human rights, there is a need to

For legal aid representations, the Congress has given tax incentive through allowing lawyers who
render free legal services to deduct from their income tax.

With the advent of technology, it is high time for the Philippines to adopt technological measures in
providing access to justice. ****

VI. Conclusion