March 13, 2007 

· Posted in: Human Rights

A ‘rotten’ criminal justice system

(http://pcij.org/blog/2007/03/13/a-rotten-criminal-justice-system)

A NEW report by a Hong Kong-based regional rights group damns the Philippines’s
criminal justice system for failing to deliver justice to its people and contributing to the
widespread human rights violations in the country.
Calling the criminal justice system in the country “rotten,” the 192-
page report of the Asian Legal Resource Center (ALRC)describes
how the police and the courts fail to investigate and solve various
human rights violations because of the lack of sincerity, despite
well-established institutions on paper.
The ALRC report comes barely a month after a United Nations
special rapporteur scored the military for remaining in “a state of
almost total denial” on the issue of extrajudicial killings, and which
was followed by the release of the Melo Commission
report pointing to circumstantial evidence linking some elements of the military to the
executions.
The ALRC is an independent regional non-governmental organization with general
consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council. It is the sister
organization of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
Read the ALRC report, “The criminal justice system of the Philippines is rotten.”

This is the first lengthy report the ALRC has published exclusively on the Philippines,
gathering 110 cases of killings, torture, disappearances, abductions, illegal arrests and
intimidation involving 227 victims in the last two years. Of 81 cases of killings it has
documented, none has been solved so far.
Basil Fernando, ALRC and AHRC executive director, says these stories reveal a pattern of
extreme cruelty and state complicity.
“Filipinos are being threatened, tortured, abducted, killed and destroyed with a brutality
that no civilized state would permit. This cruel behavior is permitted, and encouraged,
because the country’s institutions for criminal justice are in fact so barbaric that together
they bear no resemblance to any modern system of justice.”
Fernando also points out that activists are not the only ones targeted. “Common people
also suffer. The entire people of the Philippines are targeted under this rotten system.
Even in a case of common murder, it is unlikely that any investigation or prosecution is
carried out.”
The ALRC report also notes that the abuses are happening despite a constitution that
has assimilated modern international human rights and the country’s ratification of
international laws on human rights more than any country in Asia. The Philippines was
even elected last year to two key United Nations bodies: the Human Rights Council and
the Economic and Social Council.
“The fact that the country has failed to implement key recommendations that the UN
Human Rights Committee made in December 2003, in accordance with its obligations
under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also speaks of the low
value that the government places on its commitments under international law, despite
appearances to the contrary,” the report adds.
With the collapse of law enforcement, Fernando says there is now a virtual impunity in
the country — one that is “written largely across the face of criminal justice in the
Philippines: perpetrators of killings, torture, abductions and other gross abuses have
easy assurances that they will get away with whatever they have done.”
ALRC’s analysis of the “deep institutional rot” afflicting the criminal justice system
identifies the following basic problems:
Flawed and misguided criminal investigations
The police are the first and biggest obstacle to victims and their families obtaining
justice in the Philippines. Where family members and witnesses come forward, they
often find that police investigations contradict their versions of incidents. Police
investigators sometimes make premature pronouncements about the motive for a
killing and its cause, flatly rejecting alternative suggestions, particularly where state
officers or persons allegedly connected to them are among the possible suspects.
Criminal investigation in the Philippines is also mocked by way of the establishment of
ineffectual and biased special “task force” units for specific crimes. In August 2006 the
president of the Philippines reportedly instructed the police task force established to
investigate cases of alleged extrajudicial killings (Usig) to resolve at least ten within the
following ten weeks. This was never done. Had it been, it would still take 14 years to
resolve all the cases of killings known at the time of the instruction. Evidently, the
statement was intended as little more than a publicity stunt, as indeed the task force to
which it was directed appears to be.
Non-existent victim and witness protection
Most victims of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines have had threats on their lives
beforehand; some already having survived earlier attacks. Those who seek protection are
frustrated by the unresponsiveness of state agencies that supposedly have obligations
to assist in such instances. Many end up dead.
The failure of the witness protection program must be attributed squarely to the rotten
condition of its implementing agency, the Department of Justice. Public prosecutors,
who are its officers, have also failed in their duty to refer witnesses for inclusion in the
protection programme. Even in the most serious cases of extrajudicial killing, torture and
disappearance, they are not known to have made recommendations and applications
for protection.
The justice secretary is directly responsible for the witness protection program, as
recommendations on protection must obtain his endorsement, and as the program
operates under his oversight. Yet instead of ensuring that his department works
effectively for all witnesses in need of protection, Justice Secretary Gonzalez has on
several occasions blamed witnesses and families of the dead for not cooperating.

Ineffectual and biased prosecutors

Prosecutors make little or no attempt to conceal bias in their handling of criminal
complaints.
The extent of bias is again best illustrated by the head of the Department of Justice
himself. Secretary (Raul) Gonzalez has gone out of his way to defend the government by
flatly rejecting legitimate grievances about the inability of the authorities to stop
extrajudicial killings, referring to them as “black propaganda.” He has adopted the
language of the military and insinuated that unseen forces have taken advantage of the
situation as “one way to destabilize the government” by way of creating lawlessness
within the country, thereby putting the government into shame in the international
community: as if the government was not sufficiently adept at creating lawlessness and
putting itself to shame.
That Secretary Gonzalez feels safe in making open presumptions about the guilt or
innocence of persons lodging criminal complaints and indicating that the extent of
assistance given by his department depends upon what conclusions are drawn by its
officers as to the merits of the complainant rather than the complaint speaks volumes
about the rot at all levels of the criminal justice system of the Philippines.
Labeling “enemies”
Under section 14(2) of the Constitution of the Philippines “the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.” In practice the public labeling of
accused persons or victims as “communist fronts,” “destabilizers,” “enemies of the state,”
or “terrorists” negates this presumption and allows officials to do away with due
process. The double standards in implementation of laws are most obvious in cases
where such labels are applied. The use of labels also exposes victims, their families and
colleagues to the possibility of further violence, and denies them any hope of
protection. Once a person or organization has been labeled “leftist” or “enemy” then
there is no possibility of safety. Whatever they may or may not have done, they are in a
special category of persons and groups guilty by suspicion, for who the ordinary laws
and procedures, to the limited extent they operate for everyone else, are suspended.
Anybody extrajudicially killed in the Philippines is likely to be labeled a leftist by virtue of
the police having made a blanket assessment that these killings are the result of an
“internal purge” within the communist movement.

Command irresponsibility
Even though the Melo Commission concluded that Palparan and other military
commanders are liable for killings under the principle of command responsibility, there
is as yet no clear indication of how the government intends to deal with senior officers
found to be complicit in grave human rights violations.

The report recommends six steps which are intended more as starting points for new
ideas and discussion to address the grave problems afflicting the country’s criminal
justice system:
An urgent comprehensive review of the Philippines’s criminal justice system
The review will be done by an independent commission with the guidance and technical
support of key United Nations agencies and other international bodies, to be comprised
of senior judges, competent jurists, reputed academics and representatives from civil
society, including human rights organizations.
The commission will also investigate, prosecute and adjudicate cases, through public
consultations and other relevant methods, to identify defects and hindrances. It will
make full recommendations to the government and notify the public of the same within
six months.
Rationalizing the deficient witness protection program and law
In the interim, both the Department of Justice and Philippine National Police should
clarify and widely publicize a rational, accessible and comprehensive system of witness
and victim protection in accordance with the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit
Act (RA 6981), together with an explicit set of operational guidelines for police that
clearly stipulate officers’ duties to provide protection and spell out the sanctions that
will be taken against officers failing to comply.
A full review of the implementation and limitations of the Witness Protection, Security
and Benefit Act must be included as part of the work of the proposed independent
commission.
Strengthening agencies for the receipt, investigation and prosecution of
complaints against police and military officials
This is to ensure that grievances by the victims are properly addressed and acted upon
and that complainants obtain adequate protection, and interim measures immediately
introduced by which to hold police accountable, through an explicit set of sanctions, for
cases that have been filed in court that are found to have been deliberately fabricated.
Ending the use of labeling
There should be an explicit directive from the government that the practice of labeling
by the armed forces and other agencies is prohibited and that officials found
responsible for such practices will be removed from their positions and investigated for
criminal liability in subsequent killings, attempted killings or other incidents that may
have occurred in consequence.
Action on findings into extrajudicial killings
The findings of the Melo Commission should be followed by immediate investigations
and prosecutions of persons identified as responsibile for extrajudicial killings and other
abuses, whether directly or by virtue of command responsibility.
Enactment of domestic laws on torture, enforced disappearance and other
fundamental rights in accordance with binding agreements under international
treaties and the recommendations of treaty bodies
Aside from enacting domestic laws, implementing agencies should be established in
accordance with the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
The report also calls for the signing of the new International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; implementation of the
recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee of December 2003; and issuance
of a standing invitation to all United Nations human rights experts to visit the country.

7 of the biggest issues facing law enforcement in 2016

(https://www.policeone.com)

Jan 9, 2016

No one has to the ability to predict the future, and ancient soothsayers were not really
magical, but you don’t have to be Nostradamus to identify the challenges which might
lie ahead for law enforcement leaders this coming year. All we have to do is apply
historical information and meld it with intuition and data to foresee likely trends ahead.

The year 2015 has been among the most challenging of times for law enforcement.
Each year brings about a new set of triumphs and tragedies. The public scrutiny placed
upon police will require leaders to be more focused and vigilant than ever before.

Here are seven critical issues likely to confront law enforcement leaders in 2016.

1. Anti-Terrorism
Now is a good time to dust off those action plans that followed the 9/11 terrorist attack.
The recent carnage in Paris and San Bernardino has shown that the sleeping giant of
urban terrorism has awakened. Local law enforcement will once again play a critical role
in gathering intelligence and preparing for the possibility of an attack.

Traditional methods of policing are no match for the sophisticated urban terrorist who
utilizes high-powered weaponry, explosives and guerilla warfare tactics. Enhanced
specialized training will be required. Additionally, the challenge for law enforcement will
be to strike a balance between the need for sophisticated military-type equipment
against the public scrutiny about the “militarization of the police.”

This problem is compounded by the President’s 2015 decree that has led to the
confiscation of such vital equipment. Clearly, there is work to be done politically to
lobby for a reversal of course in the interest of local preparedness.

2. Body Worn Camera (BWC) Scrutiny

If your agency utilizes BWCs, be prepared to defend your policy for release or retention
of recordings. There is little consistency between departments when it comes to the
deployment of BWCs. The first two questions asked following a controversial incident
will be:

1. Was the officer’s BWC activated?

2. When can we (the public, media, attorneys, family, etc.) see the footage?

The decision to retain or release BWC recordings is clearly up to each individual

department. Whatever you choose to do, be consistent. Do not give in to the
temptation to release the BWC videos showing officers doing good deeds (saving lives,
helping homeless people, etc.) while withholding the controversial ones.

3. Civil Unrest
Protests and demonstrations for incidents and verdicts will likely continue in 2016.
Unfortunately, they won’t be short-lived and several will come out of one incident. The
first wave of unrest comes as a reaction to a particular incident. Then, there is a
demand for termination, prosecution, resignation, etc. of those involved. Next, there is
the reaction to a decision to prosecute or not.

Nationally organized groups will provide support for locals. In some cases, anarchist-
type protestors will travel to your city. Once again, training will be the key to
preparation for the line officers. Many lessons — positive and negative — can be
gleaned from the unrest seen in Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago, and elsewhere.

If you have not already done so, designate a person within the department to ensure
that action plans are in place and the troops are trained in effective crowd control
methods. Equally as important is the need to maintain positive relationships with local
faith-based groups and civic leaders. These relationships will prove invaluable in the
wake of a controversy.

4. Criminal Prosecution of Officers

There appears to be a growing desire to induce criminal prosecution for officers whose
actions result in injury or death. It is difficult to discern if there has always been a need
for such prosecutions, but perhaps just not the political will. Regardless, this scrutiny is
the new normal.

Little can be done to prepare for such situations other than to make sure the bar for
professional conduct is raised high within police organizations. The most common
activities whereby criminal prosecution could result are armed confrontations and
vehicle collisions. Identifying potential problems before they manifest into criminal
misconduct is essential.

Proper training in the use of deadly force and safe vehicle operations are paramount to
averting disaster in these critical areas. 

5. Federal Agency Involvement/Oversight

In the past few years, the Justice Department and other federal agencies have
responded rapidly to intervene on local police matters. This is likely a result of political
pressure from D.C. or a history of failures in various police and sheriff’s departments
across the U.S.
Regardless of the reason, it is a trend that must be reckoned. Much can be learned
from perusing existing published reports, consent decrees, monitors or other documents
where federal agencies have been involved. As the saying goes, “the best defense is an
offense.” Understand the federal process and the factors that lead to oversight. Develop
strategies and put safeguards in place based upon this research.

6. Recruitment and Retention

Recruiting and retaining officers is always a challenge. In 2016 and into the foreseeable
future, it’s going to be even harder to keep the cops you have in the wake of public
scrutiny. A recent article in USA Today indicates that open positions for California law
enforcement officers has increased by 603 percent since 2010, according to the Peace
Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST).

The last time this shortage occurred to this degree was back in the early-mid 2000s.
The difficulty then stemmed from trying to lure the candidates away from higher-paying
opportunities in the dotcom and other sectors. Nowadays, the reduced pension
benefits, understaffing, and the fear of making a mistake that will bring scrutiny and
perhaps criminal prosecution is difficult to overcome. It will require extra effort to keep
the morale and enthusiasm for policing at high levels.

As always, strong, competent leadership and a healthy relationship with your

community will offset negativity and maintain the esprit de corps that the profession so
rightly deserves. 

7. Social Media
Police cases are being tried in the court of public opinion on the internet. The favorite
media buzz phrase is, “officercaught on video” which immediately proscribes that an
officer was doing something wrong.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are utilizing social media to highly publicize cases in an effort to
prejudice the pool of potential jurors. In some cases, law enforcement has taken to
social media as a means to defend the actions of officers under scrutiny. This can be a
double-edged sword. Here again, consistency is essential. If you comment on one case
and not another, it suggests that there may be something nefarious to hide. Embrace
social media, but don’t be too over-zealous in its use. Develop a sound, reasonable
social media policy and stick to it regardless.

Conclusion
As we transition into 2016, we must recognize that these challenges will intensify and
will require our undivided attention. Take a moment to reflect upon these and other
trends that affect the policing profession, and give introspection as to your own
agency’s readiness. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead — 2016 will no doubt be yet
another year of rough seas.

About the author

Paul Cappitelli is a career law enforcement professional with over 35 years of
experience. From 2007-2012, Paul served as executive director of the California
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). Prior to this, he served
with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (SBSD) for 29 years retiring at the
rank of Captain. Paul has a Master's degree in Public Administration and a BS degree in
Business and Management.

Leading Change in Law Enforcement

By Dr. Chuck Russo, program director of Criminal Justice at American Military University

Change does not typically go over well in law enforcement organizations.

Perhaps one reason is that the vast majority of administrations do not tolerate
failure.
In business, a certain degree of risk-taking and failure are tolerated. Failure can
be somewhat of a badge of honor—at least an individual took the risk to succeed
in ways no one else would. However, in our paramilitary organizations, if an
officer fails while trying, that officer is often reprimanded or punished for his or
her failed actions. This action by leaders often stifles innovation and deters
others from trying new things.
However, change is necessary in all organizations and law enforcement leaders
must do a better job of helping their officers accept and prosper during change.
Ultimately, it’s important for leaders to realize that change is hard for everyone
and many people will require guidance and reassurance throughout the process.
Why Change Is So Hard
In general, people like to operate in their comfort zones and for many individuals,
the way things are is just fine. These individuals know the rules, they know what
they can and cannot do, and they can survive and succeed in such an
environment.
When something new is introduced it often upsets this delicate balance. All of a
sudden, the rules and possibly the players have changed. This situation causes
many people pain, discomfort, uncertainty, uneasiness, and, often, additional
work. As a result, many people resist change.
Change can also disrupt the balance of power in an organization. Those in
authority positions got there because of their proven knowledge and skills in the
current system, which may have taken years to build. With power comes control.
If power is redistributed, so is the control associated with it including control over
personnel, budgets, and resources.
[Related article: Putting Experience to Work: The Value of a Formal Mentoring
Program]
Change can also cause resentment and impede the support that new leaders
need to be successful. Individuals who feel they earned their position want others
to pay the same price they did. And, when others step into positions of power
without “earning it,” others in the system often do not support them.
Ways to Accept and Promote Change
Communicate Change
It is important for administrators to clearly communicate why change is
necessary. Often, agencies fail to tell those who are impacted by the change why
it’s happening.
Take, for example, the introduction of new technology. The administration may
have all the best intentions for bringing in a new piece of hardware or technology
but, if the reasons are not communicated, the people impacted by the new tool
will make up their own reasons. Often times, these two reasons do not match up,
which can cause conflict, resentment, and impede the acceptance and use of this
technology.
Realize You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know
For all of us, there are things we don’t even know that we don’t know. For
example, consider someone who spends his or her whole career at one agency
where they rise to a position of authority. If that person has not received outside
education or exposure to other agencies during their rise to the top, they may
have a very close-minded view.
A person’s limited experience often leads to limited solutions to problems. When
seeking a solution, he or she will review what was done in the past and maybe
seek out responses from similar nearby agencies. All this means that very little
change will occur.
By not knowing the resources out there and not having the ability to analyze and
question, those individuals are limiting their options. Chances are whatever
caused the issue to rise to the forefront will remain after the “solution” is applied.
To be a strong leader, one must realize there are things they do not know and
seek guidance from others. Leaders must also take the time to explain changes
to others and communicate why such change is important for the agency.

About the Author: Dr. Chuck Russo is the Program

Director of Criminal Justice at American Military
University (AMU). He began his career in law enforcement
in 1987 in Central Florida and was involved all areas of
patrol, training, special operations and investigations
before retiring from law enforcement in 2013. Dr. Russo
continues to design and instruct courses, as well as act as
a consultant for education, government and industry
throughout the United States and the Middle East. His recent research and
presentations focus on emerging technology and law enforcement applications,
in addition to post-traumatic stress and online learning.

PH has slowest justice system in the world

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/80394/ph-has-slowest-justice-system-in-the-
world-2#ixzz4JX3qwjvt 

The Philippines, I am sure, is in the Guinness World Records as the country with the
slowest judicial system. Of this, we should not be proud but be ashamed. We just
marked the anniversaries of two mass killings in the Philippines, both of which made
world records: the Maguindanao massacre where 58 poor souls, including 32 media
workers, were murdered; and the Ozone Disco Club fire in Quezon City that claimed the
lives of 162 persons, most of them young men and women celebrating their graduation.
In the Ozone Disco fire, the trial of those responsible for the tragedy took almost 19
years, much longer than the sentences imposed on them by the court. In the
Maguindanao massacre, the court is still hearing the bail petitions of some of the
accused, five years into the trial.
Indeed, this is true not only of these two shocking mass murders but also of almost all
cases filed in court. The cases against Imelda Marcos et al., for example, have been
pending since 1986 when the Marcos dictatorship was toppled by angry citizens. That’s
two-and-a-half decades ago. Not only is Imelda still out of prison, she continues to
behave as if she is still the first lady. Instead of being in jail, she is in the House of
Representatives as congresswoman for Ilocos Norte. Her son Bongbong is a senator
salivating to be president, and daughter Imee is governor of Ilocos Norte.
And that is one reason that crime and corruption are thriving in the Philippines in spite
of scores of charges filed against the malefactors. Ironically, the number of grafters and
criminals has increased since People Power. Who would be afraid of the law when they
know that even if they are caught, they can stay out of prison for decades during which
time they can continue doing what they have been doing and prospering from them?
Crime and corruption can never be eliminated, or even slowed down, unless there is
quick justice.
One reason given for the slow wheels of justice is the “clogged court dockets”—too
many cases being tried by too few courts and judges. This gets worse every year, as
new cases pile up as fewer and fewer cases get to be decided by the courts.
Two other reasons: the dilatory tactics by the defense and the lackadaisical attitude of
the judges. A motion for postponement is almost always granted by the judges who feel
no urgency to finish a case quickly. The legal principle that “justice delayed is justice
denied” no longer has any meaning for judges and lawyers.
Ironically, the appellate courts themselves, including the Supreme Court, abet the
delays. They are too quick to issue temporary restraining orders (TROs). The high court
is the worst of all. While lower courts can issue TROs for limited periods only, the
tribunal can issue, and often does, TROs for indefinite periods.
Also, the appellate courts are quick to accept petitions for certiorari questioning the
decisions of lower courts, and then take forever deciding them on the merits.
The Maguindanao massacre trial has been delayed so much by this tactic of the
defense.
The puzzle is why the trials of the Ozone Disco fire and the Maguindanao massacre are
taking so long (although the defendants in the Ozone Disco fire have been declared
guilty by the court, the cases are not yet finished as they can still file motions for
reconsideration and appeals) when they are very simple cases. In both cases there are
the hundreds of corpus delicti, the suspects have been clearly identified, and the cause
or motive is evident. They are not some murky murder mystery cases where the
prosecutors have to piece together circumstantial evidence. They are what can be
described as open-and-shut cases. The guilt of the accused are very clear and evident.
So why is it taking the courts decades to decide them? Because most of the judges are
lazy.
Most judges conduct trials for only half-a-day. The trial of each case lasts for only one
hour, after which it is scheduled again at least one month later. Postponements usually
last longer, up to 60 days, after which there may be another motion for postponement
based on some flimsy excuse. Many judges and government prosecutors absent
themselves during scheduled trials, forcing still more postponements of all the cases
scheduled for trial that day.
So what can be done? One is to appoint more judges and justices. Another is for the
Supreme Court to crack the whip on lower court judges, and set the example by quickly
deciding appeals and petitions elevated to it. A third is to hold continuous trials until the
cases are submitted for decision. (There used to be a contest among Metro Manila
judges on who is “the fastest judge alive.” It may be a good idea to restore it.) And
most important, to crack down on corruption in the judiciary and the prosecution arm of
the government (and also in the ranks of private practitioners). A granddaughter once
asked me: “Why do trials in the Philippines take many years, but on television they take
only one hour?”
Try answering that.

A Critical Analysis of the Justice System in The Philippines

Posted On Friday, October 16, 2009 at at 5:33 PM by Andrew

INTRODUCTION
The problem that I wish to tackle with regards to this paper is the judiciary of the
Philippines. It would be an inquiry with regards to the vital roles of the Philippine
Judiciary in the Philippine state and society and more importantly the problems and
issues that the Philippine Judiciary is being confronted with. It would tackle on the
possible causes of the problems and the possible solutions to these problems.

There has been degradation with regards to the state of the current politics in the
Philippines. Graft and corruption, crimes, scams and many illegal acts are being accused
of many different government officials in the different branches of the government. I
believe that it is necessary to study that branch of the government which is tasked to
uphold the justice and the truth in the country which is the Judiciary. The Philippine
Judiciary was designed to uphold fair and impartial justice, effectively and efficiently.
This study is significant because if the Judiciary which was believed to be the guardian
of justice and truth, is itself corrupted, therefore, justice could not truly be upheld in
our country. The Judiciary takes part in ensuring the political stability and thus it should
be allowed to function to its optimum to prevent any disruption in its functions and
duties.

The delimitation of the paper would be a brief and concise History of the Judiciary from
the Pre-Hispanic period to the contemporary period. The paper would concentrate on
the main problems and issues concerning the Philippine Judiciary in the Contemporary
period and the solutions provided by different agencies, sectors and the author.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

With the problems that I have tackled in this paper, the theoretical framework which I
believe would be applicable would be the society-centered approach which focuses on
the interest groups and how they influence policy making in the state. In this paper, an
example of how interest groups affect the judiciary is during the time of EDSA 2 where,
people from different sectors and interest groups joined together to end the reign of
Erap. Having a lot of these interest groups for the removal of Erap from office, the
judiciary gave in to what the people want and put GMA into office. Another instance by
which interest groups affect the functions of the judiciary is with regards to solving the
problems of the Judiciary. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines(IBP) which is an
interest group conduct surveys and studies in order to come up with projects and
suggestions for the improvement and development of the Philippine Judiciary. This
sectoral group is one of the many interest groups that influence the policy-making and
other functions of the judiciary.

Another approach which could be used in understanding the problems in the judiciary is
the system-centered approach which is concerned with how the international
community could influence the policy-making in a country. This could be seen in the
Abadilla 5 Case wherein a problem of Court delay which lasted for more than a decade
and continues to be unresolved is being confronted by the AHRC (Asian Human Rights
Commission) which is based in Hong Kong. The AHRC is non-governmental organization
which monitors and lobbies human rights in Asia and this is part of the international
community which could take part in affecting the way the judiciary works in Asian
countries with regards to Human Rights.

BODY

I. Brief History of the Philippine Judiciary

A system of justice is already present in the Philippine even before the pre-Hispanic
period. The system of justice was presided by datus and chieftains. They were
responsible for hearing criminal cases and civil claims. Arbiters were also chosen from
wise old men verse in custom and law to assist in adjudication. 
During the Spanish period, the Royal Audiencia together with the Governor General was
regarded as the Philippine judicial body. The Audiencia was dubbed to be the
predecessor of the present day Supreme Court but far from being an independent
judicial body due to several reasons. First of all, the concept of separation of powers
was still unknown during the Spanish period. Furthermore, the Audiencia was not
supreme in the cases it decided for it was still apeallable to the Consejo de Indias or the
Spanish Monarch.

During the Malolos Congress, the constitution called for the establishment of the
Supreme Court of Justice. However a system of an independent Philippine Judiciary was
not realized because the exigencies of the war between Spain and the American army
prevented its practical and realistic implementation.

During the American Period, on June 11, 1901, the Supreme Court of Justice was born
due to Act 136 or the Judiciary Act. However, a totally independent judicial body was
not totally realized during this period because most of cases were in favor of the
Americans.

The Tydings-McDuffie Law paved the way for Philippine Independence by which the
Philippines were to establish a commonwealth government for a period of ten years. It
was during this period that the 1935 Constitution was drafted. The 1935 Constitution
had several provisions for the improvement of the judiciary. These are: fixed security
tenure, compensation, and prohibition of transfer of judges from one district to another
without their consent. The power to exercise judicial review was an explicit provision in
the constitution.

There was little exercise of the power of judicial review from the period of 1946-1972.
However, the judiciary still exercised it power when they deemed it necessary. This
period is therefore marked the start of the improvement of the status of the judiciary.

However, the little independence that the Judiciary gained was lost during the Marcos
regime. Supreme power was given to Marcos. He was the sole appointing authority with
the power to remove justice officials whenever he wanted to. Thus the judiciary could
not go against him because of the danger it might do if they did.

However, after the martial law, the period of the 1986 Constitution, innovations were
provided to the Judiciary department and thus judicial independence was achieved to
some extent. Some of these provisions are: security of tenure, fiscal autonomy, creation
of the Judicial and Bar Council, expanded power of judicial review, and power to review
the proclamation of Martial Law and suspension of the Writ of habeas corpus. 

II. The Problems and Issues Confronting the Philippine Judiciary 

and Proposed Solutions to these Problems

It is necessary to tackle the problems that the Judiciary faces considering that it is one
of the cornerstones of the Philippine politics and government. According to the survey
mentioned in the International Herald Tribune, with regards to the effectiveness of the
judiciary for prosecuting and punishing individuals for corruption when abuses are
uncovered, the judiciary scored 9.06, with 10 being the most ineffective . Considering
this data, we would be able to see that there exists a problem with regarding the
judiciary which needs to be given attention.

The Judicial Reform Support Project states the different problems which they believe
are being faced by the Philippine Judiciary. Among the main problems are: a.) Delays in
the delivery of justice and associated limitations on access, and b) Widespread
perceptions of corruption in the judiciary. Other perceived problems are: a.) Ineffective
administrative structures and operating systems. b.) Deficient court technologies and
facilities, c) need for human resource development, and d.) need to improve public
information and collaboration with civil society. The Study of the TA 3693-PHI in 2003
may provide the reason for the perceived minor problems in the Judiciary mentioned
above. The problem perceived is the lack of budget which should have been secured
through the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy. 

A.) Court Delays

As, the saying goes, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Court delay is one of the most
prevalent issues that confront the Judiciary. Cases filed may take years and might even
reach decades before they are decided. Article III Section 16 states that, all persons
shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases with regards to judicial, quasi-
judicial and administrative bodies. In Article VIII Section 15 of the Philippine
Constitution, it is stated that all cases must be decided within 24 months from the date
of submission to the Supreme Court. However, despite these provisions, court delay is
still an eminent problem confronting the Judiciary. An example of a case that
experience delay is the Abadilla-5 Case which lasted for almost a decade without proper
decision. Both the Supreme Court and afterwards the Court of Appeals had failed to
comply with the provision in the Constitution which requires them to give a speedy
disposition and decision about the case. This delay even led to the Asian Human Rights
Committee, an international organization, getting involved in the issue. . Such delays
should not be allowed. To accept court delays as a norm would have an enormous
consequence on the very fabric of the justice system. Delays would be doing injustice to
those people whose guilt has not been proven to suffer in prison without any sufficient
reason. Another example of court delay is that of the long term-trial of former president
Joseph Estrada. The case against Estrada on the basis of plunder and perjury was filed
April 4, 2001 . The decision was only made more than 6 years after which is in
September 2007. During the period of 6 years, Erap was only placed in house arrest in
his resthouse in Tanay, which I find to be unjust considering that other people in the
same position as Erap are locked in prison cells and not given special attention. Court
delay hinders serving of justice and at the same time extends the injustice given to the
innocent whose trials have not been decided. The cases above are only two of those
thousands of cases which would reveal the problem of Court delay. Granting justice is
one of the basic objectives of the Judiciary. The cases reveal that there exists a
problem of Court delay.

A solution used by the government in the past was the continuous trial system. In this
system, 90 days are allotted as trial period and trials must be held on times and date
agreed upon. During the test pilot of the continuous trial system, the judges observed
that, 1.) trial delays were brought down the: minimum, 2.) number of postponements
were decreased, 3.) undesirable system of resettings was stopped and 4.) settlements
by compromise in civil cases and plea bargaining in criminal cases increased. However,
it was criticized stating that: 1.) it was to the disadvantage of poor litigants who
couldn’t afford of seasoned lawyers and 2.) It was also to the disadvantage of lawyers
which are only allowed one appearance per day in courts which diminished their levels
of income. However, I believe that the income of the lawyers is not of a great issue
with regards to the Judiciary. The effective implementations and service of justice is the
main concern of the judicial system and not the income of lawyers. Even if, the income
of lawyers would decrease due to the continuous trial system, I still believe that the
income they get is still more than sufficient for them to live in a comfortable manner.
Moreover, serving justice for the poor litigants in the shortest period of time is far more
important with regards to this issue. After all, granting justice and truth is the one of
the primary functions of the Judiciary.

Despite the criticisms, the continuous trial system gradually solves the problem
regarding Court delays. The approval ratings for continuous trial system has increased
from the year 1995-2006 and thus give evidence to the acceptance and satisfaction of
the people and lawyers in the system (See Table 1)..

Another solution to the problem of delays is the creation of Barangay Justice Systems.
Through the Katarungang Pambarangay, small cases in communities could be decided
by Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo, and it is only after 15 days since it convenes that the
trial is moved to the courts. The Katarungang Pambarangay was also an effective
measure to decongest court dockets and minimize delay in case disposition. We could
also see that according to the survey, the satisfaction the Barangay Justice System has
increased from 1996-2006(See Table 2). It means that even if it is only in a gradual
state, the effectiveness of the Barangay Justice system and its effective
implementations is being realized.

Table 1
Sources: Mahar Mangahas, Linda Luz Guerrero and Marlon Manuel , “New 
 Diagnostic Study Sets Guideposts for Systematic Development of the Judiciary”. Media
Release, 10 December 2006. (Online copies available atwww.sws.org.ph/pr061210.htm)

Table 2

Sources: Mahar Mangahas, Linda Luz Guerrero and Marlon Manuel , “New 

Diagnostic Study Sets Guideposts for Systematic Development of the Judiciary”. Media
Release, 10 December 2006. (Online copies available at
www.sws.org.ph/pr061210.htm)

We could see that both the continuous trial system and the Barangay Justice System
provide a long-term solution with the problem of court delays. Immediate solutions may
not be realizable at the moment with regards to the problem, but long-term solutions
like the continuous trial system and Katarungang Pambarangay would in time, serve its
purpose and solve the problem of Court delay.

B.) Perceptions and Existence of Wide Spread Corruptions in the Judiciary

A survey in the year 2000 reveals that 62% of respondents believed that there were
significant levels of corruption within the judiciary. 65% of respondents believed that
“many” or “most” lawyers could be bribed and 57% thought the same about judges.
Considering this data, the Judiciary seems to have a very negative impression with
 regarding its performance. Some of the problems seen with regards to corruption are
partiality, bias of judges and bribery. An example of this is the case CARMEN P. EDAÑO,
COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FATIMA G. ASDALA, wherein the complainant charges the
judge for grave abuse of discretion and authority, and conduct unbecoming of a judge
regarding civil case no Q-97-30576 about the respondent Butler accepting paternity of
Edaño’s children. The judge’s decisions were all in favor of the respondent and there
was even evidence of Butler coming to the judges chambers. Respondent judge was
found GUILTY of gross insubordination and misconduct unbefitting of a member of the
judiciary and was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and
leave credits to which she may be entitled. 

There are several measures being pushed through by different sectors and institutions
for the solutions of this problem. For the IBP, one of the most effective ways of
preventing the corruption in the judiciary is through thorough judicial education . Other
solutions suggested to the problem is evaluation of the existing ethics code applicable
to judges and court staff and revising it as needed. I believe that judicial education is a
must in solving the problem of corruption in the judiciary. We must also have an
awareness of this corruption. We must follow the example of Carmen Edaño who stood
against the corruption of the judges that she has experienced. It is by showing these
lawyers and judges that there wrongdoings don’t go unpunished that they would stop
doing such acts.

C.) Fiscal Autonomy leading to other problems

Fiscal autonomy is a privilege granted to the judiciary by the Constitution as part of

ensuring its independence. However, according to the study conducted by Araneta, in
practice, the judiciary’s budget and cash releases are subject to the same terms and
conditions applied to agencies without fiscal autonomy. This then may be seen as the
cause of the other problems arising in the judiciary like lack of supplies, deficient court
technologies and facilities and many others. This problem may be a cause of Court
delays, considering the fact that there are not enough trial courts available to
accommodate all the cases being filed. For the proposed budget of 2007, the judiciary
was given a budget of P9.6 billion which is a mere 1% of the entire budget while on the
other hand the executive branch receives around 570 billion, around more than half of
the entire budget . I agree with Senator Aquilino Pimental, “…we should not allow a
situation where the judiciary, as the last recourse of victims of injustice, will be crippled
 in discharging its functions due to insufficient funds. That will only aggravate the
country’s troubles... ” Indeed, the judiciary must be given sufficient funds for it to work
effectively. Considering all the poor infrastructures, and facilities of the judiciary, a call
for a larger budget is needed to solve the problems of the judiciary. I believe that the
most effective solution to the problem is to allot a greater budget for the judicial
department. The judiciary must be given sufficient budget which would allow it to
perform its function well. If the Judiciary is crippled by the problems it faces due to lack
of budget, then the whole country would suffer the consequences of its poor
performance.

CONCLUSIONS

With regards to the data provided above, I have come up with several conclusions. First
of all, the judiciary itself is aware of the problems that confront it. There are even
studies with regards on how to solve the problems of the judiciary. Solutions have also
been proposed by different organizations and sectors regarding the issues of the
judiciary.

However, in my opinion, the solutions are only gradually having an effect for the
improvement of the judiciary. I further believe that it is through the proper and
effective implementation of these solutions that the judiciary would be able to eradicate
the problems that it faces. With regards to the corruption in the judiciary, I would like
to quote from the article of the IBP which states, “Deprive a man a corruptible lawyer,
he cannot corrupt a judge.” A bribe needs a lawyer to perpetrate the corruptive act. As
long as lawyers uphold their sense of justice, I believe that the level of corruption and
bribery in the Judiciary would be minimized. Another suggestion for the Judiciary to be
efficient and effective is through continuous education with regards to the law and the
ethics of Law. However, for these suggestions to be realized, the solution would again
be a larger budget allotment to the judicial department for the implementation of its
projects and cases. Without a budget to start with, any attempts to solve the problem
of the judiciary would not be possible. The Judiciary is the one responsible for
upholding the justice and truth in the country. No matter how competitive the members
and employees of the judiciary are, without sufficient budget to help them function in
their optimum performance, the judicial problems would remain and may even get
worse.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Conde. Carlos H. “Philippines most corrupt, survey says”. International Herald Tribune. 
March 13, 2007. International Herald Tribune. February 23, 2008. .
Article III Section 16, The Philippine 1987 Constitution.
Asian Human Rights Commission. “PHILIPPINES: Excessive court delay is not an 
acceptable judicial practice”. Asian Human Rights Commission-Statement. January 29,
2008. Asian Human Rights Commission. February. 23, 2008. 
“Criminal Case No. 26558”. 
Atienza, Ma. Ela L. and Baylon, Ferdinand. “The Judiciary.” Philippine Politics and 
Governance: An Introduction. Morada, Noel M. and Tadem, Teresa, eds. (Quezon City:
Department of Political Science, University of The Philippines, Diliman, 2006), Chapter
14.
Aquino, Belinda A. (ed.) Administration of Justice in the Philippines (Quezon City: UP 
Center for Integrative and Development Studies and UP Press, 1994), pp.52-55
Combating Corruption in the Philippines. May 3, 2000. February 23, 2008.
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1974. Supreme Court E-Library. July 26, 2007. February 23, 2008. 
Judges: Grave Abuse of discretion and Authority, and of conduct unbecoming of a
Judge. 
Philippine Judicial Academy. August 2007. February 23, 2008. 
“Forum sponsored by the American Bar Association.” Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Feb. 19-20, 2007. February 23, 2008. 
“Initial Public Information Document (PID): Judicial Reform Support Project” 
Elsie Louise P. Araneta. TA 3693-PHI: “Strengthen the Independence of the Judiciary”. 
Technical Assistance Completion Report. May 31, 2003. February 23, 2008.