Mark Jerome G.

Valdevieso

18-20707

A legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is

not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no
remedy at all. Hence, Justice delayed is justice denied.

Section 16 of Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that

“All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.” Thus, it is one of the
paramount rights of every Filipino to have the right to a speedy disposition of
cases.

Another constitutional provision which pertains to the disposition of

cases can be found in Paragraph 1, Section 15 of Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution, to wit:

“All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must
be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of
submission for the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate
courts, and three months for all lower courts.”

Despite such deadlines, even the Supreme Court is having the hard time
to comply. There is, therefore, a clear need to strictly comply with deadlines
set. It is not, however, clear as to what sanctions can be imposed upon the
offending court for failing to comply with said deadlines nor what is the effect
thereof upon the late decisions. Delayed resolution of cases emanates from
inefficiency, incompetence, sloth or laziness, corruption or conflict of interests
of court personnel.

For this reason, it is my humble suggestion that there should be a clear

set of disciplinary actions to those first and second level judges and justices
who cannot comply with the deadlines. A merit-demerit system which would
probably have a positive effect with their performance in the disposition of
cases.

In both civil and criminal actions, concern with procedural legality

requires a net period of time for giving notices and the preparation of
pleadings. These periods are however, often extended many times, even for
such an amorphous reason that counsel is “indisposed”.
 With the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, our judicial disposition of
cases was affected. It is of common knowledge that the Judiciary is now
utilizing the use of the advancement of the technology by conducting online
hearings. Submissions of pleadings are also done electronically during this
trying times. However, it is also of common knowledge that the advancement
of the technology is only focused in the highly populated or urbanized areas.
These advancements of the technology have not yet reached the most remote
areas in the Philippines having first level courts. Now, instead of efficiently
and effectively expediting the disposal of cases before their respective salas,
the first-level judges are more focused in the internet connectivity problems.
It could be more effective and efficient for the said judges if they be equipped
with gadgets such as prepaid internet modems and laptops which the judges
can use.

The use of gadgets mentioned, I think, is not only for the current
situation during this pandemic. It is a good investment since these gadgets
can also be used when the effects of the pandemic lessen. It is my humble
suggestion that the first and second level courts be allowed to conduct
online hearings even after the pandemic.

In the same vein, conducting an online hearing may also effectively and
efficiently expedite the disposition of cases even after the pandemic given that
the traffic condition in the Philippines is getting worse. By doing so, it may
also affect positively the health of our beloved ageing judges, justices and
counsels.