This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Project Number: 38277 August 2006
Republic of the Philippines: Enhancing the Autonomy, Accountability, and Efficiency of the Judiciary, and Improving the Administration of Justice
(Financed by the Japan Special Fund)
Prepared by CPRM Consultants, Inc. DPK Consulting For Supreme Court of the Philippines
This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
FINAL REPORT TO THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK ON A LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES January 2008
605 Market Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 Tel: +1 (415) 495-7772 Fax: +1 (415) 495 6017
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
ADB TA 4832- PHI - IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PROJECT (COMPONENT B)
AN ADB-FUNDED TA PROJECT
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
ADB TA 4832- PHI - IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PROJECT (COMPONENT B)
AN ADB-FUNDED TA PROJECT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. II. INTRODUCTION THE PHILIPPINE JUSTICE SYSTEM A. Description of the Justice System 1. Overview 2. The Courts 3. Quasi-Judicial Agencies 4. Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems 5. Other Pillars of the Criminal Justice System 6. Other Organizations B. Challenges to the Justice System 1. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems, Procedures, Business Practices, and Facilities 2. High Standards of Independence, Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency 3. Capable and Motivated Human Resources 4. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public RECENT JUSTICE SECTOR REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINES A. Summary Description of Reforms 1. Restoring the Foundations of the Justice System 2. Building a Sound Justice System on Restored Foundations 3. Creating an Institutional Framework for Systematic Justice Reform B. Achievements and Shortcomings of Philippine Justice Reforms 1. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems, Procedures, Business Practices, and Facilities 2. High Standards of Independence, Integrity, Accountability and Transparency 3. Capable and Motivated Human Resources 4. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public A SECTOR-WIDE APPROACH TO JUSTICE REFORM A. The Nature of the Sector-Wide Approach B. Experience of Other Countries with Justice Sector-Wide Reforms 1. Uganda 2. Papua New Guinea 3. Guyana 4. Other Countries iv vii 1 9 9 9 11 22 24 29 37 40 40 44 45 46 57 57 57 58 59 64 66 67 68 69 75 75 76 76 77 79 81
12: Table II.3: Table II. 2007 Appropriations Annual Judiciary Budget as Percentage of the National Expenditure Program. 2006 System of Checks and Balances Integrated Court System of the Philippines and Related Jurisdictions Agency Jurisdiction for Confinement and Correction of Offenders Statement of Strategic Goal for Long-Term Justice Reform 4 11 13 37 88 Comparative Rankings of the Philippines and Five Other Asian Countries on the Business Environment. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public C. Performance Monitoring V. 2003-2005 Case Inflows by Type of Case.6: Table II. 2004-2006 Caseload. and transparency 3.1 Figure II.1 TABLES Table I.5: Table II. 2007 National Appropriations for Key Justice Sector Agencies.1 Table II. Government and Justice System. Lessons for the Philippines 1. Priority Results 1.8: Table II.4: Table II.1 Table II. The Philippine justice system will have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice 2.2 Figure II. Management Structure for Implementation E. 2006 Archival Rates. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence.11: Table II. integrity.1 Figure II.3 Figure V. A JUSTICE SECTOR STRATEGY FOR THE PHILIPPINES A. Disposition and Clearance Rates. 2007 Approved Court Personnel Positions. 2006 Authorized Appropriations of Selected Quasi-Judicial Bodies.C. Conclusions 82 82 82 83 83 87 88 90 91 92 94 95 95 96 98 100 101 FIGURES Figure I. Special Issues D.13: Comparative Rankings of Philippines and Five Other Asian Countries on Rule of Law. 2000-2007 Distribution of Judiciary Budget by Expense Class. Goals and Objectives B. Program Finance 4. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Indicators G. All Courts. accountability. 2000-2007 Distribution of MOOE Authorized Appropriations for Lower Courts.2: Table II. 2007 Comparison of Budget Structures. Disposition and Clearance Rates by Court. Benefits and Costs F. 2007 4 10 11 14 14 15 15 16 17 20 20 21 21 23 ii .10: Table II. 2007 Vacancies in Judicial Positions as of 31 July 2007 Philippine Judicial Academy Courses and Participation. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system 4.7: Table II. 2004-2006 Caseload.9: Table II. Program Design 2. Governance of Program Implementation 3.
Terms of Reference 2. Jan 2002-Mar 2007 Disputes Settled in the Barangay Justice System. DARAB. 2003-2007 Disposition Rates of Regional and Field Prosecutors of NPS. Office of Ombudsman. 2007 Distribution of Authorized Appropriations between Central Offices and Police Stations.20: Table II. Summary Records and Participants from Consultations. Disposition and Clearance Rates. 2000-2006 Statistical Summary of Court-Annexed Mediation. 2006 Passage Rate for Bar Examination.15 Table II. 2000-2005 Caseload and Dispositions. Persons Interviewed 5.24: ANNEXES Caseload.Table II.18: Table II. 1999-2006 23 23 25 27 29 30 32 33 34 36 37 1.17: Table II. Accomplishments under the Action Program for Judicial Reform 6.21: Table II. Disposition and Clearance Rates. PNP. NLRC.22: Table II. 2005 National Expenditure. 2007 NPS Appropriations.14 Table II. Bibliography 4. Illustrative Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Long-Term Justice Sector Strategy 7.23: Table II. Corrections System. 2000-2006 Caseload. Biographic Summaries 3. 1999-2005 Budgets of Selected National Law Enforcement Agencies. December 2007 103 113 115 123 129 165 175 iii .16: Table II.19: Table II. Regional and Field Offices.
ACRONYMS ABA ADB ADR AIB ALG AM APJR ARMM BESF BIR BJMP BJS BOI BPP BPTTT BUCOR CA CAB CAM CAMIS CBAA CDDRP CFM CFMO CIDA CJ CLEBM CMIS CMO COA COMELEC CSC CSO CTA DAR DARAB DBM DILG DOF DOJ DSWD ECC ERC e-NGAS FGD GAA GJLOS American Bar Association Asian Development Bank Alternative Dispute Resolution Agricultural Inventions Board Alternative Law Groups Administrative Memorandum Action Program for Judicial Reform Autonomous Regions In Muslim Mindanao Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing Bureau of Internal Revenue Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Barangay Justice System Board of Investments Board of Pardons and Parole Bureau of Patents. Justice. Trademarks and Technology Transfer Bureau of Corrections Court of Appeals Civil Aeronautics Board Court-Annexed Mediation Case Administration Management Information System Central Board of Assessment Appeals Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Project Caseflow Management Central Financial Management Office Canadian International Development Agency Chief Justice Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters Case Management Information System Court Management Office Commission on Audit Commission on Elections Civil Service Commission Civil Society Organization Court of Tax Appeals Department of Agrarian Reform Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Department of Budget and Management Department of the Interior and Local Government Department of Finance Department of Justice Department of Social Welfare and Development Employees Compensation Commission Energy Regulatory Commission Electronic National Government Accounting System Focus Group Discussion General Appropriations Act Governance. Law and Order Sector Reform Program iv .
Law and Order Sector-Wide Approach Judicial Dispute Resolution Judicial Reform Support Project Justice Sector Reform Strategy Judicial Reform Initiative Support Local Government Unit Land Registration Authority Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Municipal Circuit Trial Court Metropolitan Trial Court Management Information Systems Office Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures Municipal Trial Court Municipal Trial Court in Cities National Bureau of Investigation National Commission on Indigenous Peoples National Capital Region National Electrification Commission National Economic and Development Authority Non-Government Organization National Justice Information System National Labor Relations Commission National Prosecution Service National Telecommunications Commission Office of the Court Administrator Office of the Ombudsman Office of the President Philippine-Australia Human Resource Development Facility Public Attorney’s Office Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Public Education on the Rule of Law Advancement and Support Philippine Judicial Academy Philippine Mediation Center Program Management Office Philippine National Police Parole and Probation Administration v .GSIS HRD IBP IC ICC ICT IDP IDR IP IPRA ISSP IT JBC JBESF JDF JLOS JRD JRSP JSRS JURIS LGU LRA MCLE MCTC METC MISO MOOE MTC MTCC NBI NCIP NCR NEA NEDA NGO NJIS NLRC NPS NTC OCA OMB OP PAHRDF PAO PDEA PERLAS PHILJA PMC PMO PNP PPA Government Service Insurance System Human Resource Development Integrated Bar of the Philippines Insurance Commission Indigenous Cultural Communities Information and Communication Technology Internally Displaced Person Institute on Dispute Resolution Indigenous Peoples Indigenous People’s Rights Act Information Systems Strategic Plan Information Technology Judicial and Bar Council Judiciary Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing Judicial Development Fund Justice.
RA RCAO RTC SC SCAW SEC SSS SWAP TNA TA TAF UNCITRAL UP USAID WB Republic Act Regional Court Administration Office Regional Trial Court Supreme Court Supreme Court Appointments Watch Securities and Exchange Commission Social Security Commission Sector-wide Approach Training Needs Analysis Technical Assistance The Asia Foundation United Nations Commission on International Trade Law University of the Philippines United States Agency for International Development World Bank vi .
raise questions of transparency and uncertainty in the financing of basic judicial functions. The Judiciary comprises a Supreme Court. resulting in a ratio of 14 staff per judge. corrections and rehabilitation agencies. The Philippine justice system consists of a network of interlocking institutions. More than 80% of the budget goes to salaries and allowances of court personnel. including 56 Shari’a courts in the Autonomous Regions of Muslim Mindanao. Less than 2. Staff vacancies of about 3.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The rule of law has featured prominently in the governance of the Republic of the Philippines throughout its modern history. alternative dispute resolution systems administered by public and private organizations. and prescribe binding rules. with 12. and community and indigenous justice systems. the Department of Budget and Management in the Executive Branch exercises control over the use of funds and the amounts and timing of releases for expenditure. universities. the network embraces an extensive and diverse array of organizational actors and activities. There are more than 32. adopted in 1987 following the February 1986 revolution that ended the prolonged authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos. Staffing patterns and position descriptions for staff are rigid and do not allow judges to reorganize work or redeploy employees to where they are most needed. available resources are inadequate to meet the demands of the courts’ workload. In addition to the Judiciary. all operating with multiple-judge structures. However. There are some 2.500 represent more than 12% of the authorized workforce. The courts are financed primarily from the government’s budget. Court of Tax Appeals.300 are for justices and judges. The Constitution provides that Congress cannot reduce the Judiciary’s annual budget below the amount appropriated for the previous year. as presently administered. about 20% of the authorized total.” The Judiciary augments amounts allocated to it in the government budget with court fees and contributions from local governments to support lower courts located in their respective territories. The structure of legal and institutional safeguards for the security of person and property received thoughtful and extensive treatment in the present Constitution. vii . The criminal justice system includes law enforcement.6% for maintenance and operating expenses and only about 2% for capital outlays.166 lower courts throughout the country.” A number of nongovernmental organizations. There are more than 450 vacancies in judicial positions. including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. prosecution. and the Sandiganbayan (a special anticorruption court). as well as lower courts. That prohibition is respected in practice. the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. and justice-oriented civil society groups also play roles in the administration of justice. The network also includes 24 quasi-judicial agencies. collectively known as the system’s “other pillars. These supplemental resources. exercise judicial review. Court of Appeals. even though the Constitution declares that the Judiciary “shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. with its broad constitutional mandate to render decisions. Also.000 positions for judicial and non-adjudicative personnel in the Judiciary. public defense.
However. with annual dispositions clearing only about 40% of total workload. Procedures are informal. Traditionally centralized court management is to be replaced with a system of regional administrative offices operating under delegated authority from the Court Administrator. The Court adopted revised rules of civil procedure in 1997 and revised rules of criminal procedure in 2000. Automated systems for the collection and reporting of statistics are being pilot tested. quasijudicial agency functions. The parties may not be represented by lawyers. while coverage is increasing. still only a small percentage of eligible cases are referred and mediated under this voluntary procedure. In both civil and criminal cases delays and continuances are common and trials are normally sporadic rather than continuous. decisions of most quasi-judicial agencies can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. each headed by a recognized expert. These agencies operate under common general rules of procedure. and arbitration to resolve disputes between residents of the same municipal unit. backlogs remain high. However. Enforcement of these codes has been criticized as lacking in transparency and even handedness. Disputes eligible for consideration under BJS must use that system before viii . The number of cases handled each year under this system approaches the number of cases decided by the Philippine courts. The Barangay Justice System (BJS) uses conciliation. About 14% are ordinary civil disputes. mediation. Once final. Clearance rates in the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals are less than 30% of total caseload. Disposition and clearance rates in the principal quasi-judicial agencies are comparable to those in the courts. In recent years. The Judiciary has modern codes of conduct for judges and court employees. There is a high rate of success in settling cases that go through the mediation process. and a variety of specific themes. judicial career enhancement. They are held to a standard that their findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court has broad constitutional authority to prescribe rules of procedure and rules of evidence.000 cases filed each year in the Philippine courts are criminal prosecutions. The courts rely primarily on manual systems for caseflow management. Most quasi-judicial agencies are administratively attached to executive departments and their decisions are subject to review by the heads of those departments.Judges are appointed by the President on the basis of recommendations from a constitutional body. The Philippine Judicial Academy provides judicial education and training. and 15% are other kinds of cases. supplemented by published agency rules. The settlement rate is about 75%. However. the disposition of cases has exceeded inflows. court personnel skills. under the direction of the elected Barangay Chairman. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms exist within and outside the judicial system to settle civil disputes and the civil aspects of criminal cases: A Supreme Court-initiated system of court-annexed mediation is now operating with 731 courts in all regions. Through its 14 academic departments. More than 70% of the approximately 450. an initial pilot test of the new decentralized system has been deferred. the Academy conducts a regular program of courses for aspirants to judicial appointment. Where there are fewer than three candidates the position remains vacant. Each judicial appointment must be made from a list of at least three nominees. the Judicial and Bar Council. Quasi-judicial agencies dispose of thousands of cases each year in a broad range of specialized fields.
the agency also needs to be responsive to local governments that have roles in police recruitment and discipline and provide supplemental resources. and the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. about one-half of whom are prosecutors.000. However. the PNP is often called on to carry out functions for other law enforcement agencies that have less of a national presence. a force of some 125. local governments often augment national appropriations for prosecutors. a party may take it to the court that otherwise would have jurisdiction. An impressive innovation in law enforcement is the Anti-Money Laundering Council. The low volume of appealed cases indicates that. by and large. the PNP is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. Also.000. There is no systematized training program. Prosecution is primarily the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service (NPS). Salaries are low. satisfactory resolutions are being achieved through customary remedies. with 11% for maintenance and operations and only 2% for capital outlays. The Commission is authorized to hear appeals from decisions affecting indigenous populations. The volume of commercial mediation and arbitration remains quite limited. the National Bureau of Investigation is the premier investigative body. with 84% consumed by personal services and 12% used for maintenance and operating expenses. The NPS budget is centrally managed. Mediation and arbitration are widely used by the public sector. Administratively. As in the case of the courts and the police. Low compensation is an obstacle to attracting highly qualified police candidate. If the BJS does not resolve a dispute. leaving only 4% for capital expenditures. created in 2001. with about 1. A substantial part of the workload is created by the probable cause determinations and related investigations that precede the judicial phase of criminal prosecutions. Indigenous populations (exceeding 12 million people) may use their own commonly accepted justice systems and institutions. The NPS lacks adequate ix . The principal law enforcement agency is the Philippine National Police (PNP). About 30 other national agencies exercise some law enforcement functions. a new alternative dispute resolution law enacted in 2004 promises to invigorate the use of these remedies. However. Workloads are heavy and disposition rates are low. The operation of customary legal systems is facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. a mandatory retirement age of 56 results in rapid turnover and lack of continuity in leadership positions. which is subject to the direction of the Secretary of Justice. New prosecutors are recruited largely from recent law school graduates. The Council includes the Central Bank Governor (chair). Coordination with other law enforcement agencies is carried out through a National Law Enforcement Coordinating Council.being filed in a court. so long as they are compatible with national law and internationally recognized human rights. such as the Philippine Drug Enforcement Administration. the Commissioner of Insurance. At senior levels. Implementing regulations have not yet been adopted to make the new legal regime operational. The centrally managed PNP budget is devoted heavily to personnel costs (87%). is headed by a Chief State Prosecutor and has a total staff of some 4. The National Police Commission provides oversight for the PNP. It has proven effective in protecting against the use of the Philippines as a site for laundering the proceeds of unlawful activity. In addition. The NPS.700 investigators and related staff.
Some municipal jails remain under the control of the Philippine National Police.000 attorneys in the country. estimated to be at least 500.000. including criminal defense. This small office of 1. to indigents. The total annual budget for the entire corrections system is about PhP 4. In 2006. There are about 100 law schools. and a drug treatment and rehabilitation center. The Parole and Probation Administration and the Board of Pardon and Parole. but it operates as an autonomous entity.000 personnel. Administratively. the PAO is the primary organization providing legal services to the poor. The Supreme Court exercises oversight of legal education through its control over admission to the practice of law. a juvenile training center. Arrested persons are most often confined initially in police detention facilities. Beyond its responsibilities in the criminal justice system. the PAO is within the Department of Justice. and municipal jails. 1993 legislation to create a Legal Education Board to accredit x . city. deal with transitions from prison to society.000 detainees in BJMP jails have not yet been tried and sentenced.management systems and information technology. provincial governors appoint wardens to manage 79 provincial and 25 sub-provincial jails. The shortage of prosecutors. A pilot initiative to mediate minor offenses in cases where there is no strong state interest in prosecution shows potential to diminish a significant present burden on the criminal justice system. plays an active role in legal education. corrections. In addition. It shares with the NPS the function of prosecuting lower ranking officials and others charged with corruption in the regular courts.100 and a high vacancy rate. has been identified as one of the causes of delay in the criminal courts. Public defense is the function of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). The Department of Justice oversees the Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR). with about 7. The Office of the Ombudsman has a small staff of about 1. and provides legal assistance to the poor. which operates seven national penitentiaries. The IBP is the primary channel for the discipline of attorneys. Detention. which contribute to a low disposition rate for cases and a growing backlog. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in the Department of the Interior and Local Government. A number of public and private organizations and some individual attorneys also provide some legal assistance. Pretrial detention can continue for years.850 employees represents indigent defendants in criminal proceedings.100 district. also in the Department of Justice. A review commission recommended a consolidation of corrections functions in 1996. The Office of the Ombudsman has exclusive responsibility for prosecuting corruption cases against senior government officials in the Sandiganbayan.6 million poor people. a number of which operate legal clinics through which fourth year law students provide supervised assistance to indigent clients. is responsible for about 1. but no action has been taken on that recommendation. Other organizations involved in the administration of justice include the following: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) includes all 40.6 billion. More than 95% of the 62. However. The Office also conducts administrative proceedings to resolve lesser corruption complaints. An authorized force of 2. and rehabilitation functions involve a number of agencies. the PAO provided assistance to some 4. A special legal regime permits youthful offenders to be diverted from the criminal justice process and corrections system and to undertake restoration measures such as restitution or community service.400 BUCOR employees manages a prison population of 25.
Issues include executive branch involvement in judicial budget management. and public information about the outcomes of complaints of unethical conduct. Integrity. the four objectives combine to provide a framework of efficiency. Thus. Increased accountability of the justice system is a challenge shared by the justice agencies with civil society. adherence to ethical values. improved service depends upon increased efficiency. Organizational challenges include duplication and lack of coherence in agency responsibilities and inadequate coordination between justice organizations. These include organizations that do research. This challenge is related to the need for resources to invest in building those basic capacities. competence and service for sector-wide reform. take public positions on justice policy issues. The reform agenda needs to encourage public interest in the xi . A major challenge of capacity is overcoming the chronic delay and congestion throughout the justice system. effective disciplinary systems. Business Practices. excessive reliance on revenue from fees for basic needs. and Facilities A threshold challenge is to build within justice organizations a strong capacity for strategic planning. their dissemination. High Standards of Independence. While the ultimate objective is broad access and excellent service to the public. Improvement of information and case management systems and more adequate facilities and equipment will be important tools for greater efficiency. values. human resources and information. and expectations. provide information to the public. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems. inadequate transparency in support from local governments. practices. and generally inadequate budgets to permit needed investments in capacity development.law schools has not been implemented. and a culture of managing for results. but are important stakeholders in how well the system operates. Challenges to this highly developed and sophisticated justice system can be described by reference to four interrelated objectives that the system needs to meet if it is to fulfill its role for the benefit of the Philippine nation and society. 1. Enhancing integrity in the justice system will require a review of existing ethical rules. management of finance. Most law schools are members of the voluntary Philippine Association of Law Schools. Accountability. training programs. Several organizations are less directly involved in the operation of the justice system. and competent human resources. public access to clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints. The justice system needs to escape from the vicious circle of low investment and limited capacity into a pattern of increased productivity sustained with adequate resources. and offer legal services to the poor. incentives. and Transparency A principal challenge to independence is the inadequate financing of the justice system. Responding to this challenge requires changes in norms. 2. Procedures. monitor the operation of the courts and government agencies.
together. Building capacity at the community level will be important to legal empowerment. The APJR has been sustained by a series of opinion surveys and by support from the international community. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public Challenges begin with the need to coordinate the fragmented efforts of many organizations that provide legal services to the poor. and initiated a continuing justice reform effort.performance of the justice system and to encourage justice organizations to be responsive to that interest. Its governance system includes an executive committee with broad representation from the justice community. the justice system. make up that system. two decades of reform have restored a sound institutional framework for the administration of justice. Capable and Motivated Human Resources Vacancies are a major problem. 4. a program management office to facilitate implementation. Low salaries and poor working conditions impede the ability of the public sector to attract the best candidates with high ethical standards. During the past six years a number of specific reforms and improvements to the administration of justice have been directly attributable to the APJR. Significant achievements include: o The creation and strengthening of courts and other justice organizations. On the whole. and the availability of information about issues and channels for obtaining information and assistance. This structure has helped to stimulate reform initiatives in justice organizations outside the Judiciary. A third phase was introduced in November 1998 in Chief Justice Hilario Davide’s policy statement that became known as the ”Davide Watch. physical environment. the National Council on the Administration of Justice is focused on criminal justice coordination. A second phase of reform during the 1990s concentrated on strengthening the human and institutional capabilities that were required to respond to the increased workload and growing number of reforms. Expanded availability of appellate court opinions and increased availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms would also improve service to the public. and career development. The APJR established a coherent. xii . inter-branch mechanisms demonstrate recognition in recent reform efforts of the multi-faceted character of the justice system and the interdependence of the organizations that. and a system of coordination among justice organizations and communication with stakeholders. established the leadership of the Supreme Court. with priorities and cost estimates. These interagency. Issues include recruitment. training. In addition to the APJR executive committee.” This phase of reform acquired its definition in the February 2000 Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary and the August 2001 Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). In addition. A related challenge is the need to improve popular awareness of the law. 3. helped to restore the independence of the Judiciary. institutional incentive systems. a host of long-term projects and activities is underway. There have been three phases in a continuous process of reform since 1986: An initial phase of reform measures during the period following the February 1986 revolution created a sound constitutional basis for an effective justice system. multi-year plan.
o o o o o o
The reform of laws, rules, and procedures; The adoption and enhancement of ethical standards; The creation of new educational programs; Increased judicial compensation and a reduction in vacancies in the Judiciary; Improved administrative and financial management; and Expanded access to alternative dispute resolution systems.
The reform process has demonstrated an impressive capacity to identify and analyze needs and to fashion appropriate responses. On the other hand, the challenge of implementing reforms that require fundamental change is a slow and arduous process. Despite the considerable achievements of the reforms, many of the justice system’s most serious performance shortcomings persist. These deficiencies combine to constitute a negative influence on the quality of Philippine democratic, economic, and social development. The justice system is a factor that contributes to the relatively low ranking of the Philippines in comparative rankings of democratic governance, human rights, control of corruption, and economic competitiveness. In particular: o o o o o o o Court dockets remain highly congested and delays are excessive. Workloads in organizations throughout the justice sector are unrealistically high. Human and financial resources and physical infrastructure are often grossly inadequate or poorly allocated and managed. Jail populations are growing, largely with prisoners awaiting trial, while conviction rates remain very low. Public confidence in the integrity of justice system operators, while higher for some organizations than others, is disturbingly low overall. The private sector is frustrated by the uncertainties and unpredictability about how the law will be interpreted and applied. Access to justice, despite the expanded availability of alternative dispute resolution, is impeded by a widespread lack of knowledge about the substance and procedures of the law, inadequate services to the poor, and the delays, costs, uncertainties, and in many cases physical remoteness of the courts.
Informed observers attribute the persistence of these performance deficiencies to the vicious circle of limited implementation capacities, inadequate investment in increasing those capacities, and the lack of accountability for timely implementation. New and reformed organizations have not developed the capacity to implement the demands imposed on them by growing workloads and numerous reform initiatives, and they have not built strong internal incentive systems to help employees adapt to change. There has not been a significant and sustained investment in strengthening their capacities to manage their increased and more complex responsibilities. Accordingly, there has not evolved a strong commitment to accountability for implementing the many reforms that have been approved. Too often, new laws, rules, and plans of action have been adopted, but have not been fully or timely implemented.
Thus, the challenges remain: how to stimulate mutually reinforcing popular demand, political leadership, and institutional commitment to create a compelling dynamic for change; and how to achieve a political consensus that the benefits of improved performance and service to the public merit a higher priority for investment in the capacity of the justice system. Development has come to be seen as a process of societal change based on local responsibility for and commitment to integrated policies and results-oriented strategies. One manifestation of the evolving view of development is a shift from a project-based to a program-based approach, including increased reliance on the sector-wide approach (SWAP). A SWAP combines: Setting priorities in a medium-term strategy across the range of institutions in the sector; Creating a medium-term expenditure framework that includes all resources (domestic and international) for the sector, aligned with policy priorities and performance; and Establishing a government-led process for coordination, including detailed work programs, agreed implementation schedules, systems for performance monitoring and reporting, and consultation with development partners and other stakeholders. The sector-wide approach has been found to offer a way to improve coherence and coordination of efforts in sectors where many organizations have responsibilities for policy and operations. Several countries have undertaken SWAPs in the justice sector. While all these programs are of recent origin, the experience they represent, together with existing international guidance about sector programs, offers useful guidance. Lessons for the Philippines include: Strong linkage of resources to policies, strategies, action plans, and results is important. The constraint of resource limitations helps provide discipline in setting goals and priorities and focusing on a limited number of realistic and well defined objectives. It is important to align program objectives with institutional capacities, setting initial targets that are within the capacities of implementing organizations while strengthening capacities that will be needed to achieve increasingly ambitious results over the life of the program. All countries have established multi-agency management structures, reflecting the complexity of the justice sector and the multiplicity of institutional actors. It is necessary to assure reliable financing on a multi-year basis in the budget and also maximize the contribution of the international community, including through coordination mechanisms. Performance monitoring will benefit from awareness of the key performance indicators that have been measured in other countries to provide incentives for performance and convey persuasive reporting of results to help sustain the sector-wide reform. The research, analysis, and extensive consultations underlying this report lead to the judgment that the next phase of justice reform in the Philippines should be system-wide and holistic, should emphasize results through improved performance, should invest an adequate level of resources in building the necessary implementation capacity to achieve specific, measurable, and timely results, should assure accountability for achieving the desired results, and should foster a broad consensus of political, institutional, and popular support.
This report proposes a framework consisting of a strategic goal and four interrelated objectives for improved performance, with suggested priority results under those objectives that can be achieved in the next five years. The report describes a participatory governance structure to provide sector-wide guidance, oversight, coordination, and monitoring of performance. And it proposes a public investment plan as part of a medium-term expenditure framework to provide for the investment that will be needed over the five-year period of the strategic plan. The overarching theme of this reform framework is improved performance and measurable results. While debate about precise wording would be premature, broad agreement on an overall goal is useful at the outset. The following formulation of an overall goal is proposed as a basis for deliberations: This strategic plan is dedicated to the long-term goal of achieving and maintaining a justice system that will: o o o Provide universal access to services, equal treatment for the protection of rights, and the fair and timely resolution of disputes; Foster a culture of lawfulness, based on independence, integrity, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and transparency in the administration of justice; and Advance the rule of law as the foundation of a just, prosperous, and democratic Philippine society.
The proposed strategy set out in this report will seek to maximize progress toward that longterm goal over the next five years through a, system-wide program focused on achieving specific, measurable priority results relating to each of four interrelated objectives. The four proposed objectives are directed at efficiency (institutional capacity), values (independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency), competence (capable and motivated human resources), and service (access to justice and service to the public). Success will be measured not by inputs, such as the number of computers purchased, or by outputs, such as the number of judges trained. Rather, success will be determined by reference to the performance of the justice system in rendering valuable service to the public. Specific activities to achieve priority results – changes in laws or regulations, introduction of new technology, improved recruitment, training and utilization of human resources, engaging civil society – will be determined through participatory processes involving those responsible for implementation, with progress monitored by reference to objectives, key indicators, and results. The proposed objectives and related priority results to be achieved during the period of this strategic plan are the following: 1. The Philippine justice system will have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. This objective concentrates on the management systems, procedures, business practices, and facilities that are needed for efficient and effective operations. Justice organizations need basic management systems – for planning, finance, human resources, communication and information, performance monitoring, procurement and property management, and other functions. They also need the tools to make those systems productive, such as automated statistical, administrative, financial, and case management programs. And they need business practices and procedures that
encourage the timely resolution of disputes and the reduction of unmanageable caseloads. Priority results to be achieved by 2012 with respect to this objective include the following: Each justice organization in the public sector will have in operation a management capacity building plan to enable it to meet its responsibilities for the administration of justice, including strategic planning, financial management, human resources development, information management, procurement and property management, and results-based performance. Delay will be reduced in all justice organizations through: o o o o o o o rules that reward timeliness, protect officials who apply the rules, and diminish opportunities for delaying tactics; expanded use of alternative dispute resolution; maximum use of continuous trials in criminal and civil cases; incentives structures that integrate appropriate costs for delay and benefits for delay reduction into the day-to-day operation of the justice system; high standards, rigorously applied, to severely limit the use of interlocutory writs and appeals; procedures for prompt and inexpensive enforcement of judgments, arbitral awards, and outcomes of other forms of alternative dispute resolution; and reinforcement through monitoring, documenting, and publicizing results in order sustain new expectations of timeliness in the administration of justice.
Justice organizations that have developed plans for decentralized administrative and financial management will put those plans into operation. Other justice organizations with substantial field presence will develop and implement appropriate plans to streamline administrative and financial management which take into account the experience of implementing the existing decentralization plans. Justice organizations will put into operation on a nationwide basis a national system that will include information to be shared among justice organizations and other stakeholders. The system will include standards for records creation, classification, retrieval, filing, storage, archival, public disclosure, and disposal. The Judiciary, National Prosecution Service, Office of the Ombudsman, Public Attorney’s Office, Philippine National Police, and National Bureau of Investigation will all put into operation case management systems in order to facilitate the efficient administration of justice. The corrections system will put into operation a prisoner information system to track the status of individuals who are incarcerated or subject to supervision and assure that rights are protected and that individuals are released when their pending cases end without conviction or, if convicted, when their sentences are completed.
together with adequate measures to assure: o o that employees receive training in the requirements of ethical conduct. efficient. xvii . minor offenses that are essentially private disputes. These one-time initiatives will include: o o A purge of inactive cases to reduce the backlog and free up resources to manage active cases. o 2. This objective involves many different things: the adequacy of ethical systems. reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence. The executive and legislative branches will rationalize the organization of law enforcement and corrections functions in order to reduce duplication. with a view to reallocating and concentrating prosecutorial resources on the investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects for obtaining conviction. and civil society monitoring of performance. public access to information. and supplies meet minimum standards for secure. accountability. and transparency.The National Prosecution Service and the Office of the Ombudsman will put into place a simplified system (under revised rules as may be needed) for making prompt initial determinations of probable cause in criminal cases. and dignified operations and service to the public. The overarching issue of justice system financing. that the standards of the ethical code are integrated into the organization’s career development and other incentive structures. is a matter of great concern here. for the expedited consideration of bouncing checks. including prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute. which affects all the objectives. Priority results to be achieved by 2012 with respect to this objective include the following: Each justice organization will have in place a code of ethical conduct. A survey of detainees and prisoners to assure that there is no existing improper incarceration of individuals who are entitled to be released and that alternatives to imprisonment may be initiated in appropriate cases. and judicial branches will decriminalize bouncing check cases and will authorize and put into operation simplified procedures. equipment. freedom from political interference. and other types of cases that impose inordinate workloads and contribute to delays and congestion. small claims. achieve savings. including mediation. The justice organizations will complete one-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs. and A survey of facilities with a view to assuring that property. The executive. increase efficiency. and meet immediate needs for improvements to facilities. legislative. integrity. and assure clear lines of authority and continuity of leadership.
working conditions. The executive. alleged violations are being quickly investigated. and suitable penalties are being imposed where allegations are substantiated. will be systematically monitoring the operation of the justice system. and judicial branches of government will establish policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment. legislative.o that the public is effectively informed of the code’s ethical standards. 3. retention and advancement of public employees in the justice sector are made on the basis of merit and without regard to political or other extraneous considerations. It will require accountable and transparent financial management by all justice organizations. and judicial branches of government will adopt a new legislative and regulatory structure for financing the justice system. o The executive. including the nomination of candidates for appointment to judicial and other senior offices. including the organized bar. This objective involves issues of selection. The communications media will be keeping the public informed of the observations of such monitoring. career development. training. Civil society organizations. All justice organizations will have in force policies to assure maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system. This structure will respect the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. Justice organizations that exercise functions requiring independence of judgment will enjoy legal autonomy consistent with the required independence for the performance of their functions. including active dissemination of information and the facilitation of monitoring by civil society organizations. and will provide through a medium-term expenditure framework reliable assurance of consistent levels of resources needed to enable justice organizations to implement approved reforms over time. personnel costs make up more than 80% of the budget in all public justice sector institutions Priority results to be achieved by 2012 with respect to this objective include: xviii . The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system. A policy of transparency should extend from the nomination of judges and other officials to the volume. compensation and benefits. and workforce allocation. legislative. of statements of assets and income of public officials. The role of human resources is so important and so complex that it warrants being treated as an objective in its own right. and that effective disciplinary systems are in place. and minimize dependence on. and of clear and convenient procedures for complaints of alleged violations. fees and local government contributions to meet basic operating expenses of national justice organizations. Public perceptions of the justice organizations and their operations will be regularly surveyed and the survey results published. to the discipline of justice system personnel. It will assure the transparency of. In this regard. speed and quality of services performed.
Career development to provide employees who demonstrate good performance and aptitude with opportunities for advancement to increased responsibilities and increased remuneration. and encourage inter-institutional collaboration. Development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation. equal treatment of individuals.Each justice organization in the public sector will have in place a human resource program that will include the following elements: o o o Workforce reallocation to increase efficiency and professional competence in the performance of functions. including training to develop skills needed for performance at progressively higher levels. Police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests. increase productivity. It involves perceptions of how well the justice system protects the security of xix . and case management. evidence collection. Training for representatives of community justice centers in dispute resolution procedures. relations with police. This is the most important of the four objectives because it concerns the impact of reform on those who use (or wish to use) the justice system and those who are affected by it. Evaluation to measure the performance of personnel against established criteria of efficiency and adherence to standards of conduct. and For all. and communicating with justice organizations. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. o o o o The Legal Education Board provided for by the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 will be established and will put into operation a program of law school accreditation. Elements of the program will include the following: o o Court management training to foster professional administration while reducing management burdens on judges. courtroom skills. and Transparent incentives and disciplinary measures that reward good performance. 4. help employees adapt to change. Programs will emphasize interactive methods. and complementary materials such as handbooks that will be of continuing value in the performance of duties after training is completed. and punish misconduct and neglect of duties. investigations. elevate professionalism. sources of legal assistance to the poor. commitment to public service. interdisciplinary participation. o The justice organizations will have in operation enhanced education and training programs for their employees to improve skills. incorporation in education and training activities of components on development of leadership skills. and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts. and sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity and gender. Penology and prison management training for corrections system personnel to enable them to make the best use of humane and restorative methods for the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.
The organization of work under the strategic plan will need to take into account interests of policy consistency. in the courts and in alternative dispute resolution systems. It involves public awareness of rights and obligations under the law. and remedies and procedures available to enforce those rights and obligations under the law. how the justice system operates. prosecutors and public attorneys assigned to meet the needs for their services at all lower court stations. There will be in operation an active nationwide program of popular education and legal awareness to familiarize the general populace with the basic tenets of the legal system. and collaborate with the organized bar. and community centers and networks to assure the sustainability of popular education and legal awareness efforts. basic to a society committed to the rule of law. nongovernmental organizations. The Public Attorney’s Office will be playing a central role in coordinating with other justice organizations and with community organizations and networks in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of legal assistance to the poor and disadvantaged. There will be centers in communities at convenient locations where citizens can bring complaints and requests for information and assistance regarding the administration of justice. The specific xx . The definition of the justice sector should be a pragmatic and flexible one. The Supreme Court will arrange for the timely publication and dissemination of final decisions of all appellate courts so that the public will be informed of the quality and consistency of those decisions and so that the information and legal reasoning they reveal will be readily available to increase legal certainty and discourage frivolous appeals. The alternative dispute resolution regime authorized by legislation in 2004 will be in full force and generating increased use of alternative dispute resolution measures. and the varying capacities and needs of these widely diverse organizations. including support for community justice centers. And. Mobile justice units will provide services to communities that lack the presence of courts and related facilities. and how to obtain those services.person and property through formal and informal procedures. needs for autonomy and independent action by the numerous organizations within the justice sector. coordinate the work of service providers. rights and obligations of citizens. Court-annexed mediation units will be operational and available to serve the needs in all the lower court stations throughout the country. Community policing units will be in operation in cities and municipalities throughout the country. This program will include measures to make available practical resource materials. the services it provides. it involves services to the poor and disadvantaged to empower them to obtain equal treatment under the law. with vacancy rates below 10%. Priority results to be achieved by 2012 with respect to this objective include the following: There will be a sufficient number of judges. reflecting the scope of the issues to be addressed under the strategic plan. law schools.
The Executive Staff would assist efforts to identify. Philippine Association of Law Schools. Office of the Ombudsman. foster consensus on priorities for action and resource allocation.organizations included in the operation of the strategic plan need to be identified at the outset. and major stakeholders are represented. and oversee and support the development and implementation of action plans of organizations and working groups in the justice sector. and periodic review and update of the justice sector strategic plan. The Council would foster coherence and coordination among organizations in the justice sector. monitoring and evaluation. Department of Budget and Management. An organizational model that reflects national experience and the experience of other countries that have adopted sector-wide justice reform strategies might include the following: A Policy Leadership Council. Alternative Law Groups Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry The Council could meet several times a year at the level of the heads of organizations. It would keep the Council and Steering Group informed of progress achieved and issues that arise in the implementation of the strategic plan. The Council would review monitoring and evaluation arrangements and assure an ongoing public information program and dialogue with national stakeholders and international development partners. Organizations represented in the Policy Leadership Council might include: o o o o o o o o o o o The Judiciary. although the participating organizations could change from time to time. could provide overall policy guidance for the development. oversight agencies. Department of Social Welfare and Development. Department of Justice Department of the Interior and Local Government. Integrated Bar of the Philippines. xxi . Its essential responsibility would be to sustain vigorous implementation of the strategic plan and broad and harmonized national and international support in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the reform program. in which organizations with major responsibilities for the administration of justice. implementation. with more frequent oversight and support provided through a Steering Group made up of officials of those organizations. financing. A full-time Executive Staff would assist the Policy Leadership Council and Steering Group and coordinate the efforts of justice sector organizations and working groups included in the operation of the strategic plan. National Economic and Development Authority. and document priority actions and related matters of timing. The Council might choose to carry out some responsibilities through one or more Committees with limited membership from among the member organizations. carry out.
technology. and case management systems. Full implementation of the suggested priorities under the strategy should produce a dramatic improvement in the performance of the Philippine justice system by 2012. manage change.The essence of a sector-wide strategic plan is its alignment of policies. taking into account financing from national resources as well as from international development partners for the justice sector. xxii . and do business in the Philippines. automation of information systems. visit. and Program management – the operation of the governance structure described above for implementing the strategy. facilities. A substantial increase for the justice sector in the government budget will require a political determination that justice reform is a priority in which the government is prepared to invest on a sustained basis over the five-year duration of the strategic plan. fees for services. accelerated and broadly based economic and social development. and a corresponding dramatic increase in public confidence in the system. fewer prisoners in protracted pretrial detention. Systems infrastructure – equipment. The principal source of financing will have to be the government budget. Fewer pending cases in the courts. Beyond the immediate benefits of reduced operating costs and improved service. and achieve results. and rationalization of workforces should all reduce the costs and increase the efficiency of operating the justice system. improved management should increase productivity and create savings. Human resources development – strengthening the skills of personnel to make the most effective use of new technology. It would be highly desirable if the Department of Budget and Management were to develop a medium-term expenditure plan for the implementation of the strategic plan. and equipment. A public investment program to finance the strategic plan would need to cover four categories of investment: Improvements in the resource base of justice organizations – basic compensation. maintenance. Over time. Specific amounts required for the public investment plan and medium-term expenditure framework will have to be determined in light of the priority results and particular implementing actions selected for inclusion in the five-year strategy. improved performance of the justice system and increased access to justice will have a significant positive impact on respect for democratic values and human dignity. financial. strategies and actions with resources. installation and maintenance of modern administrative. and the security and well being of all who reside in. increase efficiency. consolidation of duplicative functions. An increase will also require a convincing justification that the intended results can be achieved and that the participating organizations will manage the additional resources responsibly and efficiently. augmented by transparent local government contributions. and assistance from international development partners.
chaired by the Chief Justice.2 The thoughtful and extensive treatment of this theme in the 1987 Constitution created a strong foundation for a revitalized system of justice that would advance the rule of law as a solid pillar of Philippine democracy. decisions must be reached within 24 months for the Supreme Court. Introduction The rule of law and the administration of justice have featured prominently in the evolution of governance in the Republic of the Philippines throughout its modern history. may not deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction vested by the Constitution or reorganize the Judiciary so as to undermine the security of judicial tenure.10 1 . The Constitution established separate executive. and assure the equal protection of rights and the fair and timely resolution of disputes. but also the duty of the courts to review acts of government for possible grave abuses of discretion.3 The Congress. Especially noteworthy constitutional safeguards for the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary include the following: The judicial power expressly includes not only the settlement of controversies involving legally enforceable rights. legislative.1 The abuse of the justice system and the manipulation of the rule of law during the prolonged authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos (1965-1986) gave rise to a national determination to build a new structure of legal and institutional safeguards for the security of person and property. It also incorporates elements of precolonial customary law and the Shari ‘a law of the country’s Muslim population. court procedures. foster a culture of lawfulness. vesting the judicial power in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.4 Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced below the level of the previous year.9 Subject to case by case exception.6 The Supreme Court appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary and exercises administrative supervision over the courts and their personnel. The Philippine legal system primarily reflects a civil law legacy from Spanish colonial rule and the constitutional and common law tradition of the American colonial period. academia. in defining the jurisdiction of the courts. The Court can also disapprove rules of procedure by special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. and judicial branches of government.7 Judicial appointments are made by the President on the basis of recommendations by a Judicial and Bar Council. the bar. 12 months for lower collegiate courts. In the postindependence era these traditions have been enriched by national innovations as well as models from international practice in certain areas of jurisprudence. and legal assistance for the poor. including the power to discipline judges and remove them for cause. with representation from the executive. legislative. and private sector. and three months for other lower courts. The Constitution established substantive rights as well as a framework of governance to protect those rights. and judicial branches. after final pleadings have been filed.8 Justices and judges hold office in good behavior until age 70 and their salaries may not be decreased.I.5 The Supreme Court has broad power to prescribe rules on the protection of constitutional rights. admission to the practice of law.
12 Yet. integrity. On the whole. universities. efficiency. public defenders. the history of reform to improve the Philippine justice system has shown an impressive capacity to restore a sound institutional framework for the administration of justice. While focused on the Judiciary. corrections agencies. new educational (including continuing education) programs for judges and lawyers. Important achievements include the adoption of ethical standards for judges. The most comprehensive of the various reforms has been the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). There has not been a significant and sustained investment in strengthening their capacity to manage their increased and more complex responsibilities. and fashion appropriate responses. identify and analyze needs. However. All these efforts have benefited from extensive stakeholder consultations and analytical studies that have identified issues and suggested possible areas for corrective action. and greater access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. increased judicial salaries and better working conditions. court dockets remain highly congested and delays are excessive. including prosecutors. New and reformed organizations have not developed the capacity to implement all the demands imposed upon them by growing workloads and numerous reform initiatives. Accordingly. This continuing process has attained significant accomplishments. launched by the Supreme Court in 2001. accountability.13 There has been a great deal of inter-institutional communication and coordination in these reform efforts. On the other hand. responding to the challenge of implementing reforms that require fundamental change is a slow and arduous process. improved administrative and financial management systems for the courts. including in particular the Ombudsman and the Commission on Human rights. attorneys. and transparency. they have tended to proceed in parallel. and guiding and monitoring performance on a sector-wide basis. At the same time. By encouraging broad participation. and police. and they have not built strong internal incentive systems that would help employees adapt to change. court personnel. police. and civil society organizations. the business community. especially APJR. effectiveness. it stimulated additional reforms of those other justice sector institutions. there has not evolved a strong commitment to accountability for implementing the many reforms that have been approved and there has not been a sufficient political consensus that investment in the capacity of the justice system deserves higher priority than it has received. Throughout this period the justice system has been the subject of numerous studies and reform initiatives to improve the delivery of justice services. Human and financial 2 . the Philippine justice system still faces many fundamental challenges that have been impervious to the efforts of reformers. APJR recognized that progress in judicial reform required the involvement of other institutions. the experience of the past 20 years has shown how difficult it is to achieve and sustain the Constitution’s ideals. the organized bar.11 These thoughtful measures demonstrate the importance that the framers of the 1987 Constitution attached to the rule of law and a system of justice that reflects qualities of independence. There has been no overall justice sector policy and no structure (other than normal budget procedures) for setting priorities. organizing work.The Constitution’s provisions for the accountability of public officers and the protection of human rights include the creation of offices with broad mandates in these areas. As a result. allocating resources among various reform initiatives. Workloads in organizations throughout the justice sector are unrealistically high.
46) of GDP growth annually.” an August 2007 publication 3 . cites political interference. the World Bank and the World Economic Forum. human rights. Public confidence in the integrity of justice system operators. the rule of law and business climate are contained in the Country Data Report for the Philippines. largely with prisoners awaiting trial.resources and physical infrastructure are often grossly inadequate or poorly allocated and managed. The Philippines country report in its 2007 Global Corruption Report. in the World Bank report Governance Matters 2007.25-0. 1996-2006.18 The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report ranked the Philippines at 61 of 80 countries examined in 2002. The populations of already overcrowded jails are growing. economic. is hampered by corruption and inefficiency. and backlog and delays in resolving cases. The private sector is frustrated by the uncertainties and unpredictability about how the law will be interpreted and applied. is disturbingly low overall.22 and “Confidence in Asian Judicial Systems. The decline in the ranking for the Philippines by Freedom House from the status of “free” in 2005 to “partly free” in 2006 and 2007 is attributed in part to corruption. and social development. including the ability of the Philippines to compete in the global economy. a slip from the previous year attributed in part to low scores on law and contracts. and the delays. inconsistent application of procedural rules. while conviction rates remain very low. inadequate services to the poor. and economic competitiveness. 20 the Economic Freedom of the World 2007 Annual Report published by the Fraser Institute. is impeded by a widespread lack of knowledge about the substance and procedures of the law. All these deficiencies combine to constitute a negative influence on the quality of Philippine democratic. control of corruption. and in many cases physical remoteness of the courts. Examples include reports by Freedom House. Access to justice.”15 The justice system is cited as a negative factor in the low comparative rankings of the Philippines on a number of widely known indices of democratic governance. 21 the Heritage Foundation’s 2007 Index of Economic Freedom. lack of monitoring framework. despite the expanded availability of alternative dispute resolution. The Global Competitiveness Report ranking for the Philippines is 75 of 125 countries in 2006 and 71 of 131 in 2007. noting that the time to enforce a contract is considerably longer than the average for the East Asia and Pacific region. while higher for some organizations than other. low budgets and salaries. which concentrates on judicial corruption. uncertainties. Transparency International. while generally independent.14 A supporting University of the Philippines research paper confirmed that “the current level of functioning of the legal system has an economic impact equivalent to foregoing at least 6-11 percent of total investment in the economy and foregoing at least one-fourth to one-half of a percentage point (0. or an annual loss amounting to between P7 billion and P13 billion in 1999 alone. costs. with the country report noting that “the rule of law continues to be weak” and that “the judiciary.17 The World Bank’s Doing Business ranks the Philippines at 126 of 175 countries studied for ease of doing business in 2006 and 133 of 187 countries in 2007.”16 Transparency International ranks the Philippines at 121 of 163 countries on its Corruption Perceptions Index for 2006 and 131 of 179 countries in 2007.19 Additional indicators of comparative performance with regard to governance. An analysis of the economic impact of judicial performance published in 2004 suggests that judicial dysfunction impairs national economic growth in the Philippines by as much as 23%. dependence on donors for budgetary support.
Figure I. COUNTRY WEF GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS (OF 131 RANKED 71 7 21 28 68 54 HERITAGE INDEX OF ECON FREEDOM (OF 161 RANKED 97 2 48 50 138 110 These comparative rankings of national business environments are generally consistent with the World Bank’s ranking of the same Asian countries with respect to the rule of law.24 Table I. Rather than a judicial reform program that involved other institutions. and 22. Table I.of the Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd.1 illustrates the comparative rankings with respect to the business environment of the Philippines and neighboring countries with which the Philippines competes in the global economy. 23 Perceived inadequacies in the administration of justice have also been the subject of individual negative comments from international observers. the objective would be a justice sector 4 . 2006 The clear implication of these data is that significantly improved performance of the justice system could have important practical benefits for the Philippines.1 COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FIVE OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES ON THE RULE OF LAW. 2007 TI CORRUPTION WB DOING PERCEPTIONS BUSINESS (OF 179 RANKED) (OF 187 RANKED) Philippines 131 133 Singapore 4 1 Malaysia 43 24 Thailand 84 15 Vietnam 123 91 Indonesia 143 123 Sources: Reports cited in notes 17. Near the end of the fifth year of APJR implementation the Supreme Court expressed interest in broadening and organizing the reform agenda in a way that would provide a structure for coherent reform of the administration of justice across the entire justice sector.1 COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FIVE OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES ON THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT. which is a significant factor in all the reports that under underlie the rankings for the Philippines on the other indices cited above. 18. 19.
the team conducted interviews with a wide range of stakeholders and experts in the subject matter. combined with contemporary efforts to engage justice sector operators. On the basis of this research and consultation.and long-term strategic funding initiatives and prioritized. a San Francisco-based consulting firm that specializes in the rule of law. The principal sources for the research are identified in the bibliography at Annex 3. the Asian Development Bank (ADB) included in a 2006 technical assistance grant an activity to facilitate agreement on a long-term justice sector strategy – a sector-wide approach (SWAP). The team worked on an intermittent basis throughout 2007.program of direct relevance for all aspects of the administration of justice. The team recognized that the ultimate design of any sector-wide strategy will depend upon decisions by those who will carry it out and those who will be affected by it. This contract included technical assistance (TA) in for a number of activities relating to the administration of justice. each of which was complementary to the others. Accordingly. The terms of reference for this activity are set out at Annex 1. The DPK/CPRM team for this activity. Facilitation of agreement with the Government and other development partners of the reform agenda. under the overall leadership of TA team leader Barry Walsh. participation and transparency. where many organizations have responsibilities for policy and operations. it studied the extensive record of studies and reforms over the past 20 years to improve the system’s ability to fulfill its role in the Philippine system of democratic governance and to serve the public interest. the team proceeded to examine the issues and develop recommendations in a manner that relied on what had been learned in previous reform efforts and stakeholder consultations. a Manilabased consulting firm specializing in public governance. the 5 . the team shared ideas with a number of individuals in the justice sector in order to capture a large number of perspectives. included James Michel. working with CPRM Consultants. Inc. and it examined the experience of other countries that have instituted justice sector-wide programs. It calls for the following with respect to the consideration of a justice sector SWAP for the Philippines: An assessment of previous long-term frameworks and related initiatives of development partners. Determination of appropriate timing and sequencing of various actions and clarification of implementing arrangement. It reviewed the current structure and operation of the Philippine justice system. costspecific investments. In December 2006 the ADB awarded a contract to DPK Consulting. and Carolyn Mercado. and Development of a performance monitoring system that includes benchmarks and indicators to track progress in implementation. Vicenta Alinsug. Each of the team members brought a distinctive expertise to this task. Biographical summaries of team members are set out at Annex 2. Especially in the justice sector. As the work proceeded. and other stakeholders. Development of short. development partners. In response to the Court’s request. it was seen as essential that a sector-wide approach be developed with broad dialogue. as identified in the list of persons interviewed at Annex 4. In addition. the team developed draft recommendations and tested them in public consultation meetings with broad participation from government.
The judgments in this report are entirely our own and we have sole responsibility for any errors of omission or commission herein.Judiciary. and systems of performance monitoring and evaluation. It attempts to capture the views and the wisdom of those who know the Philippine justice system best and who have the largest stake in fulfilling the promise of the 1987 Constitution. as well as international development partners. other justice sector institutions. consolidate. Senior Financial Sector Specialist of the Asian Development Bank. The report combines with the local knowledge of those consulted the team’s own familiarity with contemporary international best practice in the organization and management of sector-wide development programs. including with respect to governance structures. Summary records of the major public consultations conducted in Manila and Cebu in December 2007 are at Annex 7. and civil society. performance indicators. and to Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum. We are especially indebted to Debra Kertzman. We have tried our best to synthesize. the private sector. 6 . This report synthesizes the findings of the team’s extensive research. The team has benefited enormously from the information and insights that so many have shared with us. and organize what we have learned in a way that reflects the many helpful suggestions we have received. Director of the Supreme Court Program Management Office. for their patient and skillful guidance throughout this undertaking.
2004. Institute of Developing Economies.htm.” International Society for New Institutional Economics.com.ph. Sections 5. Articles III. note 2. 6. May 2007. and not free. 2001 (manuscript on file in CPRM). Sereno.” University of the Philippines. Freedom House groups countries into three broad categories in this annual survey of political rights and civil liberties: free. Robert M.ph/aboutphil.org. Improving the Investment Climate. Ibid. See also Chapter III and Annex 5 of this report.htm.apjr-sc-phil. Section 8.gov.org. Tokyo. http://www.doingbusiness.ide. Editor. Ibid.. www. See also National Integrity Systems. Freedom in the World.org. and Joseph J. See the Makati Business Club commentary on the 2007 World Bank report. March 2001. Carmelo. partly free. www. Burdensome Business. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 7 . www.org/pub-reports.jp/English/Publish/Als/pdf/05.net/ipbenefits/tucson/isnie2004/ISNIE2004.supremecourt.go.ph/economic_research/mbcrr/no89/default. http://www. 11. July 2000. See Sison. Freedom House. XI and XIII. Sections 10. Ibid. Ibid.gov. Section 1. Ibid.freedomhouse. 11.transparency. Section 15(1). Section 5. Section 3. pages 1-5.mbc.Notes to Chapter I 1 See Pangalangan. MBC Research Report No. Emmanuel de Dios. Capuno. Maria Lourdes. Article VIII. http://www. http://www. 1987.apjr. Sherwood. declared martial law in 1972 and thereafter governed largely by presidential decree during most of his period in office under the transitional provisions of a short-lived 1973 constitution. Constitution. elected in 1965. 1987-2000. and Myrna Feliciano. Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. See the APJR website at http://www. Marcos. suppressing democratic institutions in the process. Country Study Report: Philippines.pdf. supra. 2006. “Judicial Performance: Its Economic Impact in Seven Countries.” Supreme Court of the Philippines. All these reports of Transparency International are at www.kreative. Ibid. “Philippine Judicial Reforms. 2006 and 2007. 89. The Philippine Judicial System. “Justice and the Cost of Doing Business: The Philippines. Ibid. Section 2. Raul. for a brief outline of the history of the Philippine Judicial System.
p df. Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights. http://www. The Asian Human Rights Commission.” http://www. 2007.com. November 2007. http://www. http://material. Heritage Foundation. http://info.com/2007/EFW_Complete_Publication_2007. For example. See also the final report of the Special Rapporteur.worldbank.extrajudicialexecutions. Philip. Social and Cultural Rights.” See also “Philippines: The Human Rights Situation in 2006 – Getting Away with Murder – Widespread extrajudicial killings combine with a defective system to ensure impunity and injustice. 737. Civil.heritage. Table 4. 2007 Index of Economic Freedom: The Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity. the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial.ahrchk. and Mary Anastasia O’Grady. summary or arbitrary executions asserted that “the vital flaw which undermines the utility of much of the judicial system is the problem of virtual impunity that prevails. Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial.mbc.net/hrreport/2006/AHRC2006HRReport.pdf.pdf. The analysis of the Philippines is at http://www. Summary.pdf. For the 2006 and 2007 Global Competitiveness rankings. in a statement made while visiting the Philippines in February 2007. Hong Kong. Economic.net/verbatim/philip-alston-statement02222007. 2007.ph/economic_research/survey-gcr.cfm?id=Philippines.pdf. Washington. Holmes.org/governance/wgi2007.inquirer. December 2006. www. see Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008. Political. Kane.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2007/gcr2007_rankings.weforum. No. 29 August 2007. or Arbitrary Executions. Global Competitiveness Index rankings and 2006-2007 comparisons. 20 21 22 23 24 8 . Asian Intelligence: An Independent Fortnightly Report on Asian Business and Politics.” in Human Rights Report – 2006: The State of Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations.org/index/country. This report cites weak enforcement of existing laws and impunity of elites as factors that create a “difference between theory and reality. Timothy.freetheworld.org/reports/A_HRC_8_Philippines_Advance_Edited. http://www. Kim R.19 See statement of Makati Business Club on the 2002 ranking. Alston. World Economic Forum.
The Philippine Justice System The essential functions of any justice system are the resolution of disputes. alternative dispute resolution systems. Among those decisions will be the identity of the organizations to be included within the operation of the justice sector program and the setting of priorities for how those organizations operate individually and in relation to one another. and program results. and well being in which accepted rules are fairly and equally applied. and performance. These include 56 Shari’a circuit and district courts in the Autonomous Regions in Muslim Mindanao. But the enactment of legislation creating courts or prescribing the elements of a crime obviously involves the justice system in a very direct way. In a free society. and some 2. and prescribe binding regulations and rules of evidence and procedure. corrections and rehabilitation). the protection of rights. The following description of the Philippine justice system examines the courts. structure. the network that comprises the justice system necessarily embraces a far more extensive and diverse array of organizational actors and activities. management efficiency. security. and the enforcement of obligations. either by appeal or by petition alleging a grave abuse of discretion. an executive agency that administers a government program as its primary responsibility may also conduct quasi-judicial adjudications otherwise within the jurisdiction of the courts. quasi-judicial administrative bodies. Some activities are multi-sectoral and some organizations perform a range of functions. These administrative adjudications are usually regarded as a part of the justice system. human resources. the legislative branch of government is generally not considered a part of the justice system. not all of which could reasonably be considered to be a part of the administration of justice. workload. justice-oriented civil society organizations.II. However. A. an effective network of such institutions provides an orderly framework conducive to liberty. defense. reflecting the nature of the organization or activity and the traditions and practices of the society. budget. its implementation will be a dynamic process in which decisions will be needed continually in the interests of policy coherence. For example. 1 To be sure. with its constitutional mandate to render decisions. exercise judicial review.166 lower courts located throughout the country. the description seeks to capture its role. 2 Alternative dispute resolution systems 9 . If the Philippines is to adopt a justice sector strategy. The performance of these functions depends everywhere upon a network of interlocking institutions that are involved in one way or another in the administration of justice and the delivery of justice services. university law schools. Overview The Philippine Judiciary includes the Supreme Court. the Philippine Judiciary. These judgments are ultimately pragmatic ones. and legal clinics). Likewise. plays a central role. procedures. law enforcement. For each group of organizations. some two dozen quasi-judicial bodies of the national government decide a wide range of specialized issues and their decisions are generally subject to judicial review. The description of the justice system is followed by a discussion of the challenges that the system faces. In addition. three collegiate (with multi-judge panels) higher courts. the entities historically identified as being within the “other pillars” of criminal justice (prosecution. Description of the Justice System 1. and other organizations with a primary focus on the administration of justice (the organized bar.
650 90.75 14. Community justice and indigenous justice systems are integrated into the formal system through the Barangay Justice System3 in each of the country’s approximately 42.00 Source: General Appropriations Act (GAA).939 Public Defense and Legal Aid 869.” The Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation are the primary actors among the more than 30 agencies of the national government that exercise law enforcement functions.022 4. The courts provide lawyers to indigent litigants and exempt them from court fees and charges.899 99.include court-annexed mediation.000 barangays and through customary procedures. and other aspects of the administration of justice. provincial.349.927 534. and a number of non-governmental organizations also provide free legal services and are involved in legal education. city. The corrections system includes both national and local institutions: the Parole and Probation Administration. mediation. Of the aggregate total budget. the University of the Philippines. and the Bureau of Corrections in the Department of Justice.679.697 101.1). conciliation.580 11.116.647. more than 80% goes to salaries.007.418 1. public defense. 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAY Law Enforcement 37. Board of Pardons and Parole.72 100. Table II. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines.1 NATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR KEY JUSTICE SECTOR AGENCIES. to resolve disputes relating to ancestral lands.985 75. The 2007 budget demonstrates that the justice system consumes about 4% of total national government expenditures.817 Grand Total 51. augmented by the Office of the Ombudsman with respect to certain corruption cases.4 The criminal justice system includes law enforcement.072 Prosecution 2.473 4. and the economic life of some 12 million indigenous people and cultural minorities.573 1. Public sector justice institutions are financed primarily by the national government. in partnership with law enforcement and corrections institutions.058 858.868. The Public Attorney’s Office is the primary institution for the provision of legal assistance for the poor. facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.771 Quasi-judicial Bodies 424. cultural integrity.734.642. leaving less than 15% for maintenance and other operational expenses (MOOE) and less than 3% for capital investment such as facilities and equipment (Table II.541 43. district and municipal jails. the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology in the Department of the Interior and Local Government.160 Corrections 2.355.636 162.789 284.366. Many other government and private institutions also provide legal services to those in need. FUNCTION 10 . 2007 Note: Entries include expenditures related to administration of justice that are identifiable in the GAA.616 61.902 Other 52. and rehabilitation agencies. collectively known as the system’s “other pillars.426 9. citizen monitoring of judicial appointments.112 8. maintains ten centers for the rehabilitation of children and youth.267 2. and police detention cells. The Department of Social Welfare and Development.389. Several quasi-judicial agencies provide free legal assistance to poor individuals involved in disputes before those agencies. although some of them derive supplemental resources from fees for services and contributions from local governments.301 % of total 82. several other Philippine law schools.952 2. corrections.625 982.466.454.53 2. and arbitration by government agencies. Public defense is primarily the job of the Public Attorney’s Office. prosecution.091.640 Courts 7.474 10.000 207.832 79.955.050 597. Prosecutions are the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service. and commercial mediation and arbitration centers.
526.0 JUSTICE SYSTEM 51.642. party leader 1.7 57. consistent with the Constitution.101.339. power of judicial review to rule on presidential actions LEGISLATIVE (Congress) 1.0 % OF TOTAL 31. power of judicial review to rule on validity of laws 1.2 COMPARISON OF 2007 BUDGET STRUCTURES. are provided by law.3 % OF TOTAL 82. can impeach and remove members of the Supreme Court 3.1 SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES EXECUTIVE (President) 1.5 The Judiciary operates within a constitutional structure of checks and balances among the executive. power to pardon convicted individuals 3.5 1.679.1 8.5 0.126. can impeach and remove the President 1.5 107. can prescribe statutory qualifications of lower court judges Source: Program Management Office. 6 Specific grants of jurisdiction to the various courts. appointment of justices and judges 2. GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE SYSTEM (Amounts in Millions PhP) EXPENSE CLASSS Personal Services MOOE Capital Outlay Net Lending Total Source: BESF.894.6 9.816.8 14. legislative and judicial branches of government. The Courts The Philippine Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. The courts exercise constitutional authority to settle controversies and to review individual acts of government to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion.955.9 9.7 652. can create lower courts 2. power to veto laws 2. 2007 TOTAL GOVERNMENT 356. can override presidential veto 2. power to grant amnesty JUDICIAL (Courts) 1.9 100.7 0 100. Figure II. Supreme Court of the Philippines 11 .5 2.007.2).2 1.6 0 61. MOOE and capital outlays for the justice system vary significantly from the higher levels for investment and maintenance in the total government budget (Table II. as indicated in Figure II-1 below.0 2. Table II.These allocations among personal services.
a. Structure The courts operate in an integrated hierarchy under the leadership and supervision of the Supreme Court. There are four levels of courts: 1. The Supreme Court, consisting of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices, sits en banc (a quorum of the 15 justices) or in divisions. It exercises limited original jurisdiction and has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan. 7 Also, decisions of two constitutional commissions (Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit) are subject to direct Supreme Court review. Supreme Court judgments cannot be further appealed and have the force of law. In addition to hearing and deciding cases, the Supreme Court has important oversight and management responsibilities. It prescribes rules on pleading, practice and procedure for all courts, and oversees admission to the practice of law and the organized bar. It also exercises administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. 2. The Court of Appeals consists of 69 justices in 23 divisions (17 in Manila, 3 in Cebu, and 3 in Cagayan de Oro). In addition to hearing appeals from decisions of lower courts, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the decisions of a large number of quasijudicial bodies, primarily in the executive branch, as indicated in Figure II.2. Decisions by the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Bureau of Customs involving tax law violations, however, are reviewed by the six-member Court of Tax Appeals. That court also has original jurisdiction over criminal offenses under the tax and tariff codes. A special collegiate court, the Sandiganbayan, with 15 justices, has original jurisdiction over corruption cases involving senior government officials. 3. The 959 Regional Trial Courts hear appeals from the municipal and metropolitan-level trial courts and have original jurisdiction over matters exceeding the powers of those lower courts. In civil matters, Regional Trial Court have original jurisdiction in cases that exceed the authority of lower (metropolitan and municipal) courts - PHP 300,000 or 400,000, certain property disputes, and other matters not within the exclusive jurisdiction of other courts. In criminal cases their original jurisdiction is for offenses punishable by more than six years imprisonment. A number of Regional Trial Courts have been designated to handle special matters, such as environmental, drug-related offenses, and intellectual property rights, including 68 designated as commercial courts, 99 designated as special courts for cases involving extrajudicial killings alleged to be politically motivated, and 101 designated as family courts.8 4. At the lowest level, 82 Metropolitan Trial Courts (all in Manila), 212 Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, 387 Municipal Trial Courts, and 470 Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are courts of first instance for lesser civil and criminal cases. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Barangay Justice System but not resolved by settlement or arbitration through that community-level alternative dispute resolution process may be brought to the metropolitan and municipal-level courts.
In addition, five Shari’a District Courts and 51 Shari’a Circuit Courts deal with family, personal, and property relations among members of the Muslim population. Legislation providing for a Shari’a Appellate Court9 has not been implemented. There is a high vacancy rate in the Shari’a Courts (Table II.7).
Figure II.2 INTEGRATED COURT SYSTEM OF THE PHILIPPINES AND RELATED JURISDICTIONS
SUPREME COURT INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Commission on Elections Commission on Audit
COURT OF APPEALS
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
SHARI’A APPELLATE COURT
NLRC SEC LRA AIB OP CSC CAB CBAA IC DAR NTC National Labor Relations Commission Securities and Exchange Commission Land Registration Authority Agricultural Inventions Board Office of the President Civil Service Commission Civil Aeronautics Board Central Board of Assessment Appeals Insurance Commission Department of Agrarian Reform National Telecommunications Commission Bureau of Patents, Trademarks & Technology Transfer National Electrification Administration Energy Regulatory Board Board of Investments Employees Compensation Commission Government Service Insurance System Social Security Commission
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT
FIRST LEVEL COURTS
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC)
SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT
BPTTT NEA ERB BOI ECC GSIS SSC -
BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM
Source: Program Management Office, Supreme Court of the Philippines
b. Budget and Finance The courts obtain financing from three major sources – the national government budget, contributions of local government units, and revenues from judicial fees and charges. The principal source of financing for the courts is the government budget. The Constitution protects the financial independence of the courts by providing that appropriations of the Judiciary may not be reduced by Congress below the amount appropriated for the previous year.10 Each year, in the preparation of the government’s annual budget, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) includes a lump sum for the Judiciary. The Supreme Court then informs DBM of the amounts within that ceiling it wishes to allocate among the various expense classes. DBM forwards those estimates to Congress using the prescribed budget format. In Congress, the proposed budget is subject to detailed scrutiny and the risk of some specific reallocations. Then, once the annual budget is enacted, the executive, acting through DBM, exercises control over the use of funds and the amounts and timing of releases, even though the Constitution declares that the Judiciary “shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.”11
In recent years, the total amount of the judicial budget has exceeded the level of the previous year, and increases since 2004 have been significant (Table II.4). Nevertheless, available resources continue to be inadequate to meet the demands of the courts’ workload.
Table II.3 ANNUAL JUDICIARY BUDGET AS PERCENT OF THE NATIONAL EXPENDITURE PROGRAM 2000-2007 (Amounts in Billions PhP)
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE PROGRAM 2000 682.5. 2001 707.1 2002 742.0 2003 825.1 2004 861.6 2005 907.6 2006 1,053.3 2007 1,126.3 Source: BESF 2002-2007 YEAR JUDICIARY OBLIGATION BUDGET 7.0 7.4 7.7 7.7 7.9 8.3 8.5 9.4 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 1.03 1.05 1.04 0.93 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.83
Many local government units contribute resources to the lower courts located in their respective territories. These contributions are not recorded in the financial accounting records of the Judiciary. It is believed that local governments vary considerably in their policies about contributions to local courts as well as in the amounts provided. Some local governments include annual contribution to local courts in their annual budgets, but most do not. These contributions come in many forms – monthly and travel allowances given personally to judges, cars for judges, office space, equipment and furniture, payment of charges for electricity, communication and other utilities, repair and maintenance of facilities, office supplies, and contractual personnel. The Judiciary is authorized to retain fees or charges that it collects and to deposit those revenues in a Judicial Development Fund (JDF), from which 80% are available for personnel costs and 20% are allocated to capital outlays.12 The JDF has become a substantial source of additional revenue for the Judiciary, augmenting its funds by more than PhP 1 billion annually in each of the past five years. Consistent with the pattern throughout the justice sector, more than 80% of the annual national budget contribution to the Judiciary goes to salaries and allowances of court personnel, with 12.60% for maintenance and other operating expenses and only 2.04% for capital outlays.
Table II.4 DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIARY BUDGET BY EXPENSE CLASS, 2000-2007 (Obligations in Millions PhP)
YEAR PERSONAL SERVICES 5,831.7 6,118,8 6,822.2 6,867.7 6,884.5 7,201.4 7,174.7 7,948.5 % MOOE % CAPITAL OUTLAY 50.1 68.3 195.9 136.7 173.1 133.4 129.7 486.3 % 0.72 0.30 2.54 1.77 2.20 1.61 1.52 5.03 2.04 TOTAL 7,044.1 7,433.8 7,737.4 7,709.9 7,878.2 8,286.8 8,534.7 9,355.8
2000 82.78 1,162.4 16.50 2001 82.31 1,246,0 16.76 2002 88.17 719.0 9.29 2003 89.08 705.5 9.15 2004 87.39 820.6 10.42 2005 86.90 952.1 11.49 2006 84.06 1,230.4 14.42 2007 82.15 1,240.7 12.82 AVE 85.36 12.60 Source: BESF 2002-2007, General Appropriations Act 2007.
A shortage of maintenance and other operating expense funds has led many lower court judges and personnel to pay for some necessities, such as basic furniture, office equipment, and supplies, from their personal resources. The amounts allocated for maintenance shown in Table II.5 are insufficient to pay utility bills, replacement of office supplies, and costs of routine maintenance. Despite an ongoing justice system infrastructure program begun in 1998 that has constructed or repaired hundreds of buildings, many court buildings are in poor condition, with courtrooms and other facilities poorly maintained. Inadequate storage space often leads to case files being stored in public areas without security, risking loss of important records. The Supreme Court Committee on Halls of Justice has estimated that progress to date has attained only 50% of the objective of locating all courts and related facilities in Halls of Justice
Table II.5 DISTRIBUTION OF MOOE ANNUAL AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS FOR LOWER COURTS, 2007
LOWER COURT (AND NUMBER) Regional Trial Courts (959) Metropolitan Trial Courts (82) Metropolitan Trial Courts in Cities (212) Municipal Trial Courts (387) Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (470) Shari’a District and Circuit Courts (56) Source: General Appropriations Act, 2007 AVERAGE NEW MOOE APPROPRIATIONS PER COURT (IN PHP) WHOLE YEAR MONTHLY 98,257.82 8,188.15 160,829.27 13,402.44 91,385.36 7,615.45 149,801.56 12,483.46 106,671.57 8,889.29 231,464.29 19,288.69
c. Human Resources There are more than 32,000 positions for judicial and non-adjudicative personnel in the Judiciary. Of these, fewer than 2,300 are for justices and judges.13 The ratio of non-adjudicative staff to judges is thus about 14 to one for the entire Judiciary; for the lower courts the ratio is about 13 to one (Table II.6). Staffing levels in the lower court branches are standardized and do not consider variations in caseloads among different salas (chambers). Court stations with multiple salas are provided common support positions in addition to positions directly allocated to judges. The staffing pattern and position descriptions are rigid and do not allow judges to reorganize work, redeploy employees to where they are most needed, or adopt multi-tasking schemes. Also, some positions are occupied by full-time employees but work content is intermittent, further inhibiting the efficient allocation of human resources.
Table II.6 APPROVED COURT PERSONNEL POSITIONS, 2007
COURT LEVEL TOTAL POSITIONS JUDICIAL POSITIONS STAFF RATIO PER JUDGE 158.3 24.0 25.6 37.6 12.7 14.2 Supreme Court 2,375 15 Court of Appeals 1,650 69 Sandiganbayan 385 15 Court of Tax Appeals 227 6 Lower Courts (RTC, 27,581 2,166 MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, Shari’a) TOTAL 32,218 2,271 Sources: Staffing Summary, GAA 2007; Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court
Judges are appointed by the President on the basis of nominations by the Judicial and Bar Council, a body established under the Constitution to foster the selection of judges on the basis of merit.14 The Council is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and includes the Secretary of Justice and a representative of Congress as ex-officio members, serving with four
00 37.regular members representing the organized bar. 17 together with a recruiting effort by the Judicial and Bar Council.19 While members of the Supreme Court can be removed only by impeachment. vacancies have steadily declined to about 20% in September 2007.900 (12.271 FILLED 15 65 15 6 807 66 179 329 297 0 32 2.99 36. Supreme Court. Since December 2004.7). Justices and judges hold office during good behavior until age 70 or until incapacitated. Vacancies occur often in localities where there are few candidates for judicial appointment.00 15. as well as a retired Supreme Court Justice.271 positions) remains substantial and the shortage of judges is especially serious in the ranks of the lowest tier of courts (Table II. and the private sector.00 0. However.57 14.2%) of non-judicial staff positions were vacant at the end of 2006. academia.18 Where there are fewer than three candidates the position remains vacant.20 Judicial training is the responsibility of the Philippine Judicial Academy. the total number of judicial vacancies (460 of 2.80 0. Candidates from outside the Judiciary are normally recruited for the appellate courts. when the vacancy rate exceeded 30%.81 100. The decline in vacancies appears to be attributable to legislation enacted in 2003 that authorized an increase in compensation for judges of 100% over four years.7 VACANCIES IN JUDICIAL POSITIONS AS OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2007 COURT Supreme Court Court of Appeals Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals Regional Trial Courts Metropolitan Trial Courts Metropolitan Trial Courts in Cities Municipal Trial Courts Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Shari’a District Courts* Shari’a Circuit Courts Total NUMBER OF POSITIONS 15 69 15 6 959 82 212 387 470 5 51 2.15 The Supreme Court has adopted a resolution to provide the Council with increased autonomy for administrative and financial management within the context of the Court’s 2004 decisions on decentralization of management in the Judiciary.26 * Five Regional Trial Court judges currently serve simultaneously as Shari’a District Court judges.51 15.21 The Academy is headed by a board of trustees chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 16 . Table II. The Council has prescribed procedures and criteria to guide the recruitment. each judicial appointment must be made from a list of at least three nominees. Under the Constitution. evaluation and selection of judicial nominees. The Clerk of the Supreme Court serves as the Commission’s Secretary.00 5.25 20. Vacancies in judicial positions have been a serious problem. Judicial and Bar Council. Approximately 3. including by removal from office. the Supreme Court has the authority to discipline judges of lower courts.004 VACANT 0 4 0 0 152 16 33 58 173 5 19 460 VACANCY RATE (%) 0.85 19. Source: Office of the Court Administrator.16 Judges initially appointed to the lower courts can be promoted to fill vacancies in more senior judicial positions. This high vacancy rate for staff is attributed primarily to the Supreme Court’s adherence to the government policy of leaving non-critical positions vacant when possible in the interest of saving scarce public resources. Career development for non-adjudicative personnel is not systematized and court employees are only rarely selected for judicial appointments. established in 1996.
The Chancellor is a highly respected retired Supreme Court Justice. including a pre-judicature program for aspirants to judicial appointment. Those judges with internet access can use the Supreme Court’s on-line e-library. judicial career enhancement programs. 836 97 73 693 3. on the one hand. Appellate Court b. courses for quasijudicial agencies. and produces a number of educational publications. The Supreme Court adopted a new code of judicial conduct in 2004. Court-Annexed c. It also has a rich content of courses on specific themes. 22 The Philippine Judicial Academy provides training on ethics. Rules governing grounds and procedures for administrative complaints against judges are set out in the Rules of Court (Rule 140). 2003. based on the widely accepted international standards set out in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. 093 2. 751 233 146 66 38 2. the Supreme Court has distributed benchbooks and manuals to lower court judges and disseminates to judges updates of jurisprudence.4 / 5 3 / 24 1/8 6 / 48 3 / 24 2 / 16 3 / 24 8 16 22 29 206 83 64 387 24 94 375 2 / 16 (OS) 30 / 240 44 / 352 20 / 160 6 / 48 35 / 280 3 / 24 24 / 192 33 / 264 14 / 448 4 / 32 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 2003 2004 2005 4. each headed by a recognized expert. for failing to protect 17 . also in 2004. all judges receive periodic CDs with recent decisions and other materials. 804 In addition to Judicial Academy programs. 278 113 69 1. and seminars for judges and other court personnel.2005 NATURE / TYPE OF ACTIVITY Regional Judicial Career Enhancement Program Orientation Seminars for NewlyAppointed Judges Pre-judicature Programs Executive Judges’ Training Special Focus Seminars Caseflow Management Convention-Seminars Career Enhancement Programs for Court Attorneys Development Programs for Court Personnel Teambuilding Mediation/ Refresher Courses/ Advocates’ Forums Mediation : a. The judicial disciplinary system has been criticized. JURIS d. Table II. adopted a separate code of conduct for non-adjudicative personnel. It conducts a regular program of courses.8 PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COURSES AND PARTICIPATION. 775 191 145 137 600 15 3. and. Cagayan de Oro City International Convention of AsiaPacific Judicial Education Forum Special Activities Professorial Competency Program for PHILJA Professors Discussion Session Computer Training for Bulacan Judges and Court Personnel Tele-Video Conference on Psychological Incapacity Seminars for Quasi-Judicial Bodies and Court Attorneys Source: Philippine Judicial Academy TOTAL NUMBERS OF TRAINING (DAYS / HOURS) 2003 2004 2005 41 / 328 20 / 160 43 / 344 33.5 / 4 0.5 / 268 21 / 168 4 / 32 4 / 32 3 / 24 3 / 24 16 / 128 6 / 48 32 / 256 8 / 64 4 / 32 8 / 64 0. The Academy has 14 academic departments in various fields of legal scholarship.Court. has developed a number of electronic learning modules.
e.”26 Pursuant to that broad mandate.000 courts throughout the country and associated administrative offices. Civil cases are initiated by the filing of a complaint with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction and payment of related fees. The court sheriff then serves on the defendant a summons with the complaint. increase. such as the judicial excellence awards. and shall not diminish. and budget management services.judges from harassment by aggressive lawyers and litigants. such as the maintenance of Court records. the Supreme Court uses positive incentives to improve performance. The defendant is obliged to respond with an answer or motion to dismiss within a set period. such as procurement. it proceeds to a pre-trial stage in which the parties may engage in exchanges of 18 .24 The Clerk of Court provides adjudication support services. On the other hand. The test program was formally inaugurated in December 2007. d. some basic features of the rules are summarized here. it has been criticized for failing to deal firmly and transparently with serious misconduct in the Judiciary. However. the Clerk of Court and the Court Administrator. The Court Administrator assists in the oversight and in the direct implementation of the administrative and financial operations of the lower courts. and human resources for more than 2.27 The details of court procedure are beyond the scope of this report. Administration The Supreme Court has broad authority for the administration of the courts. The number and breadth of the Court’s committees demonstrates the time and energy demanded of Justices for administrative responsibilities in addition to their judicial functions. 25 Detailed planning and pilot projects toward this end are ongoing. or modify substantive rights. progress has been slow in building the necessary implementation capacity. A number of lower court judges who have received these awards have been selected for promotion. which has 146 lower courts. Implicit in the decentralization process is the need to replace the many existing manual and stand-alone automated systems with integrated networks for administrative and financial management. The Court Administrator oversees a centralized system of procurement. The Court has selected Region 7. but has yet to commence operation. He is assisted in the performance of his executive duties by a number of Supreme Court committees and by two principal officials. in the framework of the Action Program for Judicial Reform. Most civil cases are eligible for court-annexed mediation under an innovation of recent years. If the case is not settled in mediation. In 2004.a of this chapter. the Supreme Court approved a new system in which core administrative and financial management functions are to be performed by regional court administrative offices. human resources management.23 The Chief Justice is the chief executive officer of the Philippine courts. In addition to imposing sanctions for misconduct. the Supreme Court approved revised rules of civil procedure in 1997 and revised rules of criminal procedure in 2000.4. as the site for a pilot test of this new system. financial management. as well as internal managerial support for the Supreme Court. However. Rules of Court An important constitutional power of the Supreme Court is the authority to prescribe rules of procedure to “provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases [that] shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. described below in section A. The inefficiencies and inevitable delays in this system of centralized decision-making and resource allocation have been associated with many of the problems of poor infrastructure and inadequate operating systems.
determinations of the admissibility of evidence. Some judges have expressed concern about the volume of these issuances and the difficulty of keeping pace with the flow of authoritative guidance. which are also available for civil cases with minimal amounts in controversy. Normally. This may include settlement of civil liability. expense and anxiety of a public trial. and to protect the state from useless and expensive trials. the limits do not include the preliminary investigation phase by the National Prosecution Service or any additional period of police custody prior to the preliminary investigation. and schedule for the trial. Most criminal defendants are unable to post bail. Postponements are common. the judicial process in a criminal case begins with the arraignment and entry of a plea. The purpose of the preliminary investigation is to “secure the innocent against hasty. This concern is alleviated to some extent in the case of minor offenses by the existence of summary procedures. once commenced. this stage of the criminal procedure is believed to be a source of considerable delay. The administrative process followed is discussed below in the description of the prosecution function. in total. the Court issues each year hundreds of administrative circulars and memoranda on various aspects of judicial administration. the trial is not completed on consecutive days. the case proceeds to trial and decision. and the vast majority of criminal cases that proceed to trial do not result in conviction. However. 31 In addition. malicious and oppressive prosecution. to “continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated. numerous grounds for postponement and continuance exist. 493) prescribes time limits for pre-trial and trial phases of criminal proceedings that. once all proceedings are completed the judge must render a decision within 90 days. The Supreme Court has published basic information about the stages of civil and criminal actions in the Philippine courts for the information of the public. and preside over a pre-trial hearing. The Rules of Court provide for the trial.32 19 . Once probable cause is found to exist and charges are filed in the appropriate court. stipulations of fact. The 12-month period includes an allowance of 180 days for the trial alone. but involves the scheduling of several sessions to hear testimony and receive other evidence over a period of weeks or months.” 29 Prosecutors make probable cause determinations as a basis for deciding whether to file charges. Criminal cases are commenced with an administrative stage involving a determination by the prosecution as to whether there is probable cause – reason to believe that an offense has been committed by the accused. contributing to congestion of court dockets and chronic delay in the resolution of civil cases. consider motions for summary disposition. and to protect an accused person from open and public accusation of crime. In practice. from the trouble. The Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. These factors give rise to concern that the criminal justice system includes prolonged detention of individuals who have not been convicted of an offense and probably will not be convicted.” However.28 Enforcement requires a writ of execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. If the accused pleads not guilty a pretrial phase is initiated.information and the court may receive evidence. Upon the conclusion of these stages. These brief descriptions of civil and criminal procedure can be found on the Supreme Court website. As provided in the Constitution. would require the lower courts to complete the process in less than 12 months.30 The Supreme Court also prescribes special rules for specific courts such as the Regional Trial Courts designated as family courts.
489 66.188.495 678. with about 14% civil and 15% a variety of other types (Table II.6 years for decision. which are handled under essentially the same procedures as more complex criminal cases.019 1. 2004-2006 PENDING TOTAL INFLOW ON 1 JAN CASELOAD 2004 751.990 174.580 2005 336. Cases filed in the Sandiganbayan required on average a remarkable 6. and (in the case of the appellate courts) the lack of clarity and consistency in the record of how previous appeals in similar cases were decided. the total number of cases disposed of has been declining despite the increase in the number of available judges as vacancies have been filled.77 106.563 445.81 14.f. The improved disposition rate has not resulted in significant improvement in the “clearance rate. 2004-2006 TYPE OF CASE Criminal Cases Ordinary Civil Cases Other Cases TOTAL 2004 351.978 49. cases have flowed into the Philippine courts at an annual rate of about 450.598 2005 738.033 190. caseloads have slightly declined because inflows have diminished and the courts are disposing of more cases than are being filed each year. Until recently.41 107.10). ALL COURTS.058 2006 709. The largest segment of the backlog in the first instance courts is made up of criminal prosecutions for bounced checks.644 61.9 CASE INFLOWS BY TYPE OF CASE.273 478.765 1.10 CASELOAD.75 100 Source: CAMIS.879 414.325 709.900 62. As of 2003. including excessive judicial tolerance for delaying tactics.242 53. Supreme Court of the Philippines The timely disposition of cases has been a major challenge for the courts. time consuming procedures.495 414.383. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES.” the volume of cases disposed of as a percentage of total caseload. Office of Court Administrator.765 TOTAL 988. the delays persist.34 Nevertheless.9).777 DISPOSITION RATE (%) 102.055 1. the “disposition rate” was negative. and the low clearance rate means that backlogs remain high (Table II.124. shortages of judicial and non-adjudicative personnel (including prosecutors and public defenders). The Court of Appeals required an average of 2.6 years to decide cases.000. Workload and Performance In recent years. Table II.325 449. total caseloads were increasing each year as the volume of cases entering the system was higher than the volume of cases leaving the system. That is.44 13.260 Source: Office of the Court Administrator. 33 Knowledgeable observers attribute these delays to a combination of factors.579 478.41 CLEARANCE RATE (%) 39. criminal and civil cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court remained in the court system for an average of five years before decision. About 71% of cases filed are criminal. Supreme Court Note: Excludes Supreme Court YEAR OUTFLOW 491.28 39. inadequate information management systems. Time limits prescribed in the Philippine Constitution and in legislation have encouraged the timely movement of cases through the courts. More recently. Table II.95 40.733 1.62 Too many cases remain undecided for too long.35 These cases are the result of 1979 legislation which made a 20 .733 2006 299.078 % DISTRIBUTION 71.321 488.855 479. However.483 PENDING ON 31 DEC 738.770 70.229.
Also.11).46 75.608 206.191 22.26 39.11 CASELOAD. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES BY COURT.538 1. Table II.545 242. 2006 TOTAL TOTAL ARCHIVAL DISPOSED ARCHIVED RATE (%) Criminal 321. As in the case of administrative and financial management.05 117. a number of judges in lower courts have developed stand-alone case information systems as management tools for their own courts.135. Additional pilots are planned for the Court of Appeals.760 114.96 61.414 20.033 PENDING 31/12/06 6.218 548. This is the disposition of about one-third of the criminal cases filed.39 34.410 Courts First Level Courts 342. and the Court of Tax Appeals. This large percentage is explained in part by the inclusion of cases in which the defendant was never apprehended. All courts submit monthly paper reports to the Office of the Court Administrator.60 28.158 1. the transition from manual to automated statistical reporting and from stand-alone to networked systems for case management remains a challenge.550 14.153 195.347 517 327 187.58 20.99 96. the impact of this criminal process falls increasingly upon the poor. Automated systems for the collection and reporting of court statistics are being pilot tested in the Pasay City lower courts and also in the Sandiganbayan.55 89.582 28.12 ARCHIVAL RATES.505 2. thus tending to inflate the number of cases recorded. As the use of checks declines. The low clearance rates in the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals as compared to other categories of courts in 2006 is noteworthy (Table II.534 7.93 111.984 424 292 TOTAL CASELOAD 10. Supreme Court (Excludes Court of Appeals and Supreme Court) CASE TYPE Courts rely primarily on manual systems for caseflow management. intended to assure more effective enforcement of debts.085 860 CASE INFLOWS 4.445 4. Supreme Court A large number of cases are “archived” (moved to inactive status) when there is no action for a period of six months. has had a number of unintended negative results by shifting to the state a larger part of the cost of collecting private debts.50 Ordinary Civil 64.836 4. This system can generate a range of statistical reports.person criminally responsible for debts owing as a consequence of a check that is not paid upon presentation to the bank.521 2.964 34. Another reason is the statistical practice of counting multiple charges against a single defendant as multiple cases. CLEARANCE RATE (%) 41.992 825 349.96 44.35 107.64 Supreme Court Court of Appeals Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals Regional Trial 341. 2006 COURT LEVEL PENDING 31/12/05 6.33 119. There is considerable variation in the rate of case disposition and case clearance among the different courts.382 306.72 121.152 CASE OUTFLOWS 4.191 DISPOSITION RATE (%) 95.226 34 487 450.10 Source: CAMIS.257 536.04 Other cases 42. 21 .509 1. Office of the Court Administrator.14 53.212 35. Table II.773 11.861 1.066 120. This change in the law.28 TOTAL/AVERAGE 429.224 Source: Office of the Court Administrator.826 Shari’a District 18 45 63 Courts Shari’a Circuit 250 545 795 Courts Total/Average 715686 419.600 29 308 685.50 41. where they are integrated into a computer-assisted database.27.
who often leave to seek better paying positions as prosecutors or judges. to reach their decisions on the basis of the evidence presented. Agency rules must be published. personal services consume the greatest part of the budget in most cases.) 22 . rules of evidence.38 These include standards for notice and hearing. such as the constitutionally based Office of the Ombudsman and the statutory National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. are the National Labor Relations Commission and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. most of the quasi-judicial agencies are under the administrative supervision of the President. there is high turnover by adjudicators. They are obliged to allow the parties to present evidence. b. amounting to some PhP 575 million in 2007 with more than 60% of that total attributable to a single agency: the National Labor Relations Commission. These include three independent constitutional commissions. with very small amounts dedicated to capital investment (Table II. and the Commission on Audit. its otherwise final decisions may be reviewed by the head of the department in which the agency is located. Appeals from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies do not appear to be a major part of the caseload of the Court of Appeals. decisions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be appealed to the Supreme Court. and to identify in their decisions the reasons for their conclusions. However. The staffs of the quasi-judicial agencies are likewise quite modest. finality of administrative decisions.3. The former has 15 commissioners and 105 arbitrators deployed in its regional branches. As exceptions. For an agency so established. Organization and Procedures The 2007 General Appropriation Act identifies 24 agencies in the national government that perform quasi-judicial functions affecting substantial rights and interests of private persons. Consistent with the pattern elsewhere in the justice sector. The latter has only 178 authorized positions. Quasi-Judicial Agencies a. and maintained in an agency register that is open to public inspection. accepting their findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence. boards or councils. many of which are vacant.13).40 The courts generally treat the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies with respect. internal appeals within the agency.39 Quasi-judicial agencies are held to a standard that their findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. Once final.36 Final decisions of the quasi-judicial agencies are rendered primarily by collective bodies such as commissions. the Civil Service Commission. As authorized by the Administrative Code. filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center. protection of rights to due process of law. The Administrative Code of 1987 prescribes general rules of procedure for the performance of quasi-judicial functions. for example. The courts are obliged to take judicial notice of agency rules that comply with these requirements.37 There are also independent agencies with quasi-judicial powers. and are attached to executive departments for policy coordination. (Reportedly. powers of subpoena. the Commission on Elections. The two most prolific agencies. most agencies prescribe supplemental rules to govern their own proceedings. Budgets and Human Resources The budgets of the principal quasi-judicial agencies are not substantial. and judicial review. decisions of most quasi-judicial agencies can be appealed only to the Court of Appeals. unless otherwise required by law.
the National Labor Relations Commission maintained an average disposition rate of almost 87% and an average clearance rate of 27% (Table II.980 9.919 33.37 26.348 24.533 17.212 15.998 20.Philippine Overseas Welfare Administration 16.798 10.86 47.795 28.352 17.16 2003 11.89 CLEARANCE RATE (in %) 57.13 AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS OF SELECTED QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES.448 157.14 CASELOAD.43 43.352 17.146 37.826 18.995 91.618 TOTAL 407.400 369.77 2006 11.388 TOTAL CASELOAD 36.037 28.Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board 10.474 PENDING YEAR END 15.590 26.032 9.691 24. 2000-2006 YEAR PENDING BEGINNING YEAR 19.459 14.82 110.483 95.87 50.93 107.865 16. National Labor Relations Commission (includes decisions and orders of the NLRC and all Regional Adjudication Boards 23 .077 26.334 18.Department of Agrarian Reform 14. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.454 .533 17.Civil Service Commission 12.074 0 10.National Labor Relations Commission 269.25 25.72 2000 11.551 4.366 18.72 100.763 1.995 CASE INFLOW TOTAL CASELOAD CASE OUTFLOW PENDING YEAR END DISPOSITION RATE (in %) CLEARANCE RATE (in %) 31.80 49.185 87.15).329 DISPOSITION RATE (in %) 92.195 0 13.73 27.064 .113 30.06 99.023 30.869 15.14).366 18.622 20.847 38.558 28.016 17.185 28.238 Source: GAA 2007 (includes appropriations for quasi-judicial functions that are identifiable in the GAA) AGENCY c.509 3.60 Source: Accomplishment Report.850 44.867 36. 2000-2006 YEAR PENDING BEGINNING YEAR 13.085 95.59 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 AVERAGE Source: DARAB Secretariat During the same period.10 102.15 CASELOAD.382 35.76 88.79 2002 10.707 87.33 49.051 .834 75.Energy Regulatory Commission 8.424 8. Table II.29 2001 10.050 575.415 CASE INFLOW 22.707 22.764 14.82 96. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD.038 34.826 18.347 35.704 .378 518 0 12.820 8.374 5.58 AVERAGE 86.803 CASE OUTFLOW 21.285 32.650 102.88 2005 9.505 16.592 .54 46.Commission on Elections 22. Workloads and Performance With their small budgets and workforces the quasi-judicial agencies dispose of a substantial volume of disputes.794 0 27.79 23. The disposition and clearance rates of the two most prolific agencies approximate the productivity of the courts.348 83.896 .077 84.190 24.030 17.474 22.50 27.046 40.62 24.270 15.415 15.990 1.Table II.277 13.267 9.041 10. the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board sustained an average disposition rate of almost 100% and a clearance rate of 50% from 2000 to 2006 (Table II.740 10. 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAYS -National Conciliation and Mediation Board 52.306 20.629 31.075 543 0 14.329 9. 2006.28 51.919 14.76 26. Specifically.70 2004 11.865 16.834 28.720 16. Table II.859 .135 31.
collecting statistics. the Supreme Court established a system of court-annexed mediation. to manage courtannexed mediation and established the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) within PHILJA to give operational effect to the mediation system. Currently there are units in all of the country’s judicial regions. An informal assessment of the court-annexed mediation experience demonstrated a 70 percent success rate from 2002 to 2006 in cases that went through the mediation process (Table II. and staffing requirements In 2004.46 The collected amount forms part of a special Mediation Fund intended to ensure the financial sustainability of court-annexed mediation services.41 The Supreme Court has encouraged alternative dispute resolution as the “wave of the future. The Supreme Court is developing an administrative order that will outline the structure of the PMC.16). Each unit is composed of one or more mediators and a small supporting staff (usually including the local clerk of court) to assist in tracking cases. Members of PHILJA’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee45 provide general management for the PMC. including its powers. less than half actually went through the entire mediation process.49. While coverage is expanding. The PMC is responsible for setting up mediation centers in courthouses and other convenient locations throughout the country. PHILJA uses the Mediation Fund for setting up and operating PMC units. functions.47 The Mediation Fund has so far supported the establishment of an additional 20 PMC units. serving a total of 731 courts. and advocacy and promotion of mediation and other modes of alternative dispute resolution. These members. Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms exist both within and outside the judicial system to settle civil disputes and the civil aspects of criminal cases without trial.43 a. workshops and internships for mediators. some judges have been reluctant to refer cases to mediation and some litigants have declined to participate in this voluntary system. A mandate to this effect contained in the Administrative Code of 1987 was just recently reinforced by an Executive Order signed by President Arroyo in April 2006.4. Most civil cases are subject to the court-annexed mediation procedure. and monitoring schedules of mediators.44 The Supreme Court designated its training arm. the number of cases referred to mediation by judges is still only a small percentage of the cases that are eligible. thereby diminishing the potential benefits of the mediation procedure. payment of fees of mediators and PMC personnel. The Civil Code has long recognized compromise and arbitration as modes of settling disputes. the Supreme Court amended the Rules of Court to authorize the collection of mediation fees from litigants.”42 The Executive Branch has long encouraged government agencies to seek to resolve disputes without resort to litigation. And of the cases that were referred to mediation. the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA). The policy of fostering the resolution of disputes without the need for recourse to the courts is reflected in national legislation over the past half century. Court-Annexed Mediation In 2001. seminars. 24 . the Supreme Court reinforced the expanded use of court-annexed mediation by mandating that all trial courts make a monthly inventory of cases eligible for mediation and refer these cases to the PMC. On the other hand. all experts in the field of alternative dispute resolution.48 With the creation of more PMC units providing mediation services. training. are assisted by PHILJA staff members who coordinate with personnel of the PMC units in overseeing mediation operations.
offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5.708 4.411 117 106 29.16 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION.480 940 480 1.000. Barangay Justice System There is a time honored tradition of amicably settling disputes among family and barangay members at the local level.480 649 339 657 139 1.269 2.206 2. 52 It now governs the establishment.992 4. however. Table II. mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes between residents of the same municipal unit.197 178 113 42.946 3.947 615 1. Preliminary indications are that few litigants in the Court of Appeals are making use of this procedure.085 795 1. Certain kinds of cases. b.252 592 275 84. This tradition received formal recognition in 1978 when Presidential Decree No.000 barangays throughout the country. two out of three were satisfied with courtannexed mediation and the performance of accredited mediators.245 2.The 2005/6 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary conducted by the Social Weather Stations50 found that among judges with PMC units in their areas. 1508 established the Barangay Justice System (BJS).378 786 61 7 12.630 1. The BJS uses conciliation.235 203 3.322 1. disputes involving real property located in different cities unless both parties agree to BJS jurisdiction cases involving the Agrarian Reform Law 25 .636 MEDIATED 29.960 366 4. JAN 2002-MAR 2007 TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES MEDIATION AREA REFERRED NCR Cebu Davao Leyte SoCKSarGen Misamis Oriental La Union Pampanga Negros Occidental Benguet Batangas Total Source: PHILJA 60. the Supreme Court authorized51 and the Philippine Mediation Center launched in August 2005 a program of mediation in the Court of Appeals. are specifically exempted from BJS.665 2.828 1.000 291 141 578 64 1. the study revealed that satisfaction was greater among judges with heavier caseloads.546 SETTLED 21. This community justice system was substantially revised by a chapter of the Local Government Code in 1991 known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Significantly. administration and operation of dispute resolution in each of some 42.868 SUCCESS RATE IN MEDIATED CASES 73% 73% 60% 69% 71% 53% 68% 57% 64% 66% 94% 70% Based on the initial success of mediation in the lower courts and a promising pilot test in 2002.678 NOT SETTLED 7. These include: cases brought by or against the government or an instrumentality thereof and or public officers or employees.
mediator. the BJS settled more than 4 million cases from 1980 to 2005.000 cases per year. the BJS is inextricably woven within the political dynamics in the barangay. as it may be otherwise applicable in a given case. an average of about 150. been previously submitted to the BJS and. the operation of the BJS is headed by the Barangay Chairman. On the other hand. if so. settlements under BJS generally have the full force and effect of a final court judgment. who live in the same barangay. if they do not agree. he refers the matter to a Pangkat. The implementing rules provide that unless repudiated in court within ten days. in fact. The Department of Justice issues rules and regulations defining operating policies and processes to guide the BJS.54 a three-person conciliation commission selected by the disputants or. Thus. Based on the records of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. broker. The system appeals to the traditional Filipino preference for a people-oriented manner of conciliation and mediation as opposed to the impersonal formality of court adjudication. selected by lot from Lupon members. The BJS prohibits the participation of lawyers to assist or represent disputants.17). some problems remain in assuring that the courts are able to determine whether or not cases presented to them have. He is assisted by a Lupon. some have questioned the ability of the BJS to provide impartial justice on the ground that it is operated by and reflects the interests of the politically powerful. In recent years the number has grown to about double that historical average (Table II. The Supreme Court has directed the courts to enforce the requirement that cases within the jurisdiction of the BJS be submitted to that system before being considered in any court. Minors or incompetents may be assisted or represented by their next of kin who are not lawyers. In each barangay.56 These figures 26 . The composition of the Lupon changes every three years with the election of the Barangay Chairman. the process is informal and convenient.55 However.cases involving labor disputes. and even guidance counselor to the disputants – thus facilitating dispute settlement. The BJS enjoys broad acceptance because the parties tend to know and respect the Barangay Captain and the persons constituting the Lupon. the Barangay Captain is capable of taking on various roles – such as a fact-finder. negotiator. If the Barangay Chairman is unable to resolve a case filed under the BJS through mediation or arbitration. facilitator. an elected official. However. The percentage of mediated cases that were settled has remained consistently high. Also. The latter Department provides training for BJS operators and receives reports from the barangays on their caseloads. whether a settlement was reached. A complainant can just drop by the house of the Barangay Captain to submit a complaint. Cases cognizable by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law that are not resolved at the community level through the BJS and are then filed in a court are subject to the court-annexed mediation process described above.53 10-20 persons of known integrity and impartiality that he selects from the community after consultation with the populace. In this informal and consensual system. which operates without cost to the parties. Legal advice may be provided by the provincial legal officer or prosecutor or municipal legal officer. local governments are under the administrative supervision of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. and actions to annul judgment on a compromise. Such advice shall be given only to the Pangkat or the Lupon chairman as may be necessary in the exercise of their functions and is limited strictly to questions of law.
ph/stats/statdev/2006/ruleoflaw/Chapter_Rule_of_Law. c. its principal value is that it provides an additional service of access to justice for people with needs that the formal court system is less able to meet. if none exist. 156 285. 547 84. 148 114. 998 Source: National Statistical Coordination Board. Thus. 905 57. 605 60. and interpretation of the IPRA. Some studies have found that many people who submitted their disputes to the system would probably not have gone to court if there were no Barangay Justice System. 947 2003 179. But if the parties come from different ethno-linguistic groups.77 82.17 DISPUTES SETTLED IN THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM.66 76. 368 394. 768 135. the dispute shall be settled in accordance with established procedures governing intertribal disputes. 855 40.60 77. NCIP hearing officers can consider these issues only after remedies under customary laws have been 27 . 071 CASES SETTLED 309. 407 259. The large number of cases settled through the BJS speaks for itself.show that the Barangay Justice System has been a significant institution for the resolution of disputes and the timely administration of justice. 847 56. This principle is subject to the important qualification that the indigenous law or practice must be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally recognized human rights. Indigenous peoples have maintained their parallel justice systems through modern history. The NCIP is empowered to hear and resolve all claims and disputes involving the rights of ICCs/IPs and all cases pertaining to the implementation. customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute. 448 1999 143. Table 11. enforcement. selfgovernance and empowerment. 58 The IPRA expressly recognizes that ICCs/IPs have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems.80 2005 2004 124. 657 292.78 86. This is consistent with findings in other countries where most beneficiaries of community justice systems are people who would be reluctant to hire a lawyer and go to court. 342 227.53 85. It is authorized to decide on appeal decisions made by its offices with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples to ancestral domain and land. 298 50. 775 124. 1999-2005 NUMBER OF MEDIATED CASES YEAR CRIMINAL CIVIL OTHERS TOTAL MEDIATED CASES 418. the parties may agree on the applicable procedures. IPRA created the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). 57 The law responds to the needs of more than 12 million indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) from at least 100 ethno-linguistic groups throughout the country. The law provides that if a dispute involves ICCs/IPs. and other customary laws and practices within their communities. 772 SETTLEMENT RATE (%) 74. Indigenous Justice Systems Customary law and justice systems are recognized under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). 029 302. which was vested with adjudicatory powers.asp. 521 129. but who are in need of justice services. social justice and human rights and cultural integrity. while the BJS surely disposes of some cases that otherwise would add to workload of the courts. On a formal level. 280 353. 575 273. conflict resolution institutions. 781 154. 271 2002 137. 117 342.00 75. 912 2000 159. 121 319. 066 2001 158. http://www. the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the group’s settlement procedure. 59 If parties belong to the same ethno-linguistic group. 856 305.gov. 874 132. peace building processes. 069 345.nscb.
as certified by the Council of Elders or other leaders. The decision of a hearing officer is subject to review.500 employees located at its national office in Metro Manila and at 12 regional offices. may be appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Commission’s Conciliation and Mediation Center received 6. Pending the entry into force of the 2004 legislation. Among other things. An NCIP final decision.exhausted. it will be important that the Rules of 28 . The small administrative caseload is an indication of success by NCIP in encouraging reliance on customary remedies to resolve disputes within the indigenous cultural communities and between indigenous peoples. including mediation. authorizes the establishment of an office in the Department of Justice to assure appropriate standards in the conduct of alternative dispute resolution. the Department of Agrarian Reform launched the use of mediation in the settlement of agrarian disputes. The Supreme Court is preparing some technical changes in the Rules of Civil Procedure to assure that they will be consistent with the new legislation when it takes effect.610 in 2006. According to the statute. these rules and regulations were to be submitted to a joint oversight committee of Congress for approval before the law could be implemented. In the mid-1990s.389 requests and disposed of 16. like the decisions of other quasi-judicial agencies. at the request of a party. by the NCIP en banc.474 in 2006. 63 the 1953 Arbitration Act.006 requests and disposed of 5. which provides a modern framework for mediation and arbitration. In particular. The NCIP has an annual budget of about PhP 460 million and a total staff of 1. only a few hundred at the regional level and less than 100 at headquarters. Mediation and Arbitration Mediation and arbitration are well established procedures in the public sector. the Congressional approval process has not been completed. and provides clear rules for judicial review.62 The Department’s Adjudication Board received 15. 60 The volume of cases pending in the administrative adjudication process of the Commission is quite small. discussed above. and domestic and international arbitration. conciliation. Many other government agencies have also made use of mediation and arbitration in response to the above-cited Executive Orders directing Executive Branch agencies to adopt this practice. However. The statute called for a committee. joining in a collaborative effort with a private NGO to mediate environmental and natural resources conflicts. the older laws continue to apply. Implementing rules have been drafted. it adopts the modern UNCITRAL model law for international commercial arbitration. to prescribe rules and regulations for the implementation of this legislation. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources soon followed. 46 provincial offices and 108 community centers nationwide. d.” 66 This new legislation establishes a comprehensive approach to alternative dispute resolution. This legislative framework expressly excludes court-annexed mediation and the operation of the Barangay Justice system. 61 A pilot initiative by the Department of Justice to mediate disputes that otherwise might result in criminal prosecution holds promise for providing timely remedial solutions as appropriate alternatives to incarceration while also diverting cases from crowded criminal court dockets.65 The 2004 legislation was designed to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution as an important means to “achieve speedy and impartial justice and declog court dockets. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the National Labor Relations Commission have the greatest volume of mediation and arbitration among the quasi-judicial agencies. Arbitration is addressed in the 1949 Civil Code. chaired by the Secretary of Justice. 64 and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. The legal basis for private mediation and arbitration is presently in transition.
583 TOTAL 36. The National Bureau of Investigation has 1.444.501 770. intelligence and police relations) are allocated to the field offices. and 32 in 2006. including several agencies with officers who have power to make arrests.196 845.21 11. conduct seizures and carry out criminal investigations. Over the decade of its existence it has entertained 33 cases. more than 30 national agencies and local government units throughout the country perform some law enforcement functions. The police also receive some resources from local governments.National Bureau of Investigation 400. More than 95% of appropriations are centrally managed.022 . In addition.593 .000 of which are for uniformed personnel.612.730 positions.70 The possible consolidation of some police organizations has been suggested as a way to increase efficiency and reduce administrative costs.69 The Philippine National Police has more than 125.755 .0 Source: GAA 2007 (includes agencies with police functions and budgets that are identifiable in the GAA) AGENCY The PNP maintains an extensive network of regional.04 100.005 35. resolving 286 of them. provincial. 14 of which have been settled or decided. about 120.041 41.017 273. leaving only limited amounts for maintenance and other operating expenses.538 3.465 9. Since 2003. The principal forum is the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center.18). municipal. Arbitration of construction disputes is conducted under separate legislation 67 by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission.Dept of Transportation & Communications 64. The other major law enforcement agency is the National Bureau of Investigation.000 708. Less than one-fourth of amounts supporting police operations in the field (investigation. the number of cases received has declined – to 37 in 2004.146 166. and district offices and police stations.Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency 428.25 2. primarily for plain-clothes investigators. the volume of commercial mediation and arbitration is quite limited.927. Table II.357 39.68 5. Law Enforcement The principal law enforcement agency is the Philippines National Police (PNP).000 positions.054. (Table II. the overwhelming share of the budget allocated to law enforcement goes to salaries. and almost nothing for capital investment (Table II.Bureau of Customs 246. As in other organizations in the justice sector.Court reflect the provisions of the 2004 Act with respect to judicial review of arbitral awards and other resolutions of alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Other Pillars of the Criminal Justice System a.128 0 255.684 634. including salaries for police in the field. 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAY .753 39. 35 in 2005.369 Distribution in percent 87. and administered by a national commission.19).132 4. There is also a commercial on-line dispute resolution service designed for disputes involving small money claims.Philippine National Police 34. From 1989 until 2004 the Commission received 426 cases. highly centralized administration is a source of inefficiency.343. when it received 38 cases.809 0 132. established in 1996 by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In the meantime. established to fulfill the constitutional mandate for a police force that is national in scope.18 BUDGETS OF SELECTED NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.396 . The PNP 29 . civilian in character.946 67.914. As in the case of the courts.
to an entry level equivalent to that for elementary school teachers. 2007 FUNCTION/ PROGRAM 1.0 9. examination.205.0 100. Administratively. there is no doubt about the direct authority of the National Police Commission over the PNP.6 0. This statutory body 71 is chaired by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government and includes the Director General of the PNP and four individuals appointed by the President.1 82.647. and other law enforcement agencies is a factor bearing on the efficiency and effectiveness of the PNP.7 73.627. which operate local peace and order councils that address issues such as local police staffing.0 55.0 37. based on length of service. 2007 CENTRAL OFFICES AMOUNT 1. technically.219.4 98.356.0 73.823.8 POLICE STATIONS.185. FIELD/REGIONAL OFFICES AMOUNT % 131.7 95.Integrated Transformation Program addresses this issue through a plan for gradually shifting resource management from national headquarters to the field.0 36. The Supreme Court has confirmed that.851.161.0 61.Materiel Development .0 1.0 35.Logistical Services Sub-total 3.0 100.501.863.075. coordination with other law enforcement agencies is carried out through a National Law Enforcement Coordinating Council.0 100.8 45.211.0 % 90.013.101. low compensation remains an obstacle to attracting highly qualified candidates. The PNP is often called on to carry out functions for other law enforcement agencies.3 26. Recent surveys showed that more than half of police officers live in informal housing or as squatters.459.0 27.19 DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN CENTRAL OFFICES AND POLICE STATIONS. completion of training. Mandatory retirement is at age 56.0 100.204. that have more limited presence in the national territory.Investigation Services Sub – total GRAND TOTAL Source: GAA. OPERATIONS .1 46. Nevertheless. therefore.0 35.271. under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of that department.2 100.808.9 53.2 76.0 1.129. PNP.579.0 45.0 11.73 30 .3 4.0 1. the PNP needs to be responsive to local governments. While police salaries have increased in recent years.0 130. a limitation that results in rapid turnover and lack of continuity in leadership positions.414.0 39.72 Also.086.649.0 821.0 103.011.002. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2.285.0 157.952.096.0 153. the risk of confusion of roles among the Department of the Interior and Local Government. The Commission advises the President and the Secretary and monitors performance of the PNP with respect to the entire range of police operations. Candidates enter the PNP on the recommendation of local authorities.229.0 100.Health Services . REGIONAL AND FIELD OFFICES.075. In addition to the Commission and the Secretary. and a clean record with regard to complaints.Intelligence Services . They advance by promotion from within.0 327.2 54.240.0 471.0 The national commission to which the PNP reports in accordance with the Constitution is the National Police Commission.425.4 99. the National Police Commission.556. Table II.0 905.255.0 38.0 100.685.922.0 431.0 1.9 17.740.047.0 209.0 100. local government authorities.0 1.0 100. the PNP is within the Department of the Interior and Local Government and.284.Operations Services .411.232.0 35.126.6 1.0 11.240.8 23.0 118.0 % 100. such as the Philippine Drug Enforcement Administration.Police Relations Services . SUPPORT TO OPERATION . It also serves as a forum for appeals from disciplinary actions.336.0 100.0 100.2 TOTAL AMOUNT 1.0 0.8 0.0 285.
with resulting citizen uncertainty about how to proceed and police insecurity about vulnerability to criticism. NBI agents are generally respected as skilled investigators who can manage major cases and complex issues such as fraud. 31 . In addition to its investigatory responsibilities. and other financial transactions. it applies for judicial orders to freeze assets. computer crimes. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) operates within the Department of Justice. seizures.75 The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was created in 2002 under the Office of the President in order to focus on drug-related crimes. such as arrests. the private sector. and the international community. These Boards are authorized to adjudicate complaints and their decisions can be appealed to a regional appellate board and from there to a national appellate board. a legal evaluation staff. Additional guidance is contained in a Police Operations Manual. an information management and analysis staff.76 The Philippine National Police. Created in 1936 and modeled after the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States. As appropriate. the National Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies also are involved in combating these offenses. created in 2001 as a financial intelligence unit. Public consultations on this report revealed concerns about the multiplicity of channels for brining complaints about police conduct. It is chaired by the Governor of the Central Bank (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) and also includes the Commissioner of Insurance and the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. An impressive innovation in law enforcement is the Anti-Money Laundering Council. NBI has been seen by some to be in need of modernization. and respect for human rights and democratic principles. Legislation to reorganize and modernize the agency was introduced in the Senate in June 2007. which serves a number of organizations and offers bachelor and master-level degrees. organized crime. insurance. This unique entity works closely with other Philippine agencies. and international offenses. and an administrative and financial services division. and develops educational programs. organizational effectiveness. Its credibility has been demonstrated by the removal of the Philippines from the Financial Action Task Force list of non-cooperating countries and territories. which provides guidance on individual behavior.74 Education and training are provided by the Philippine Public Safety College. The NBI Academy provides an intensive 16-week training program for candidates.77 The Council protects against the use of the Philippines as a site for laundering the proceeds of unlawful activity. Candidates must be college graduates and senior officers must be members of the bar. It maintains 15 regional and 21 district offices. Its secretariat consists of a compliance and investigation staff. refers cases of possible criminal acts for prosecution. A National Police Academy provides basic training for all new entrants. The Commission monitors banking. It has had a number of successes in its brief period of existence. and by the Directorate for Human Resources and Doctrinal Development within the PNP. Citizen complaints of police misconduct may be filed with any local People’s Law Enforcement Board. often in collaboration with or in support of the PDEA. who enter the ranks as police cadets. the NBI maintains an extensive criminal records database and performs the function of providing clearances for individuals such as those seeking employment abroad. The PDEA relies upon contracted agents and also relies on the PNP for some services. Public opinion polls reveal widespread doubts abut the commitment of the police to combat corruption.The PNP has a Code of Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards. and crime scene investigations.
However. furniture or equipment necessary to make it a usable training facility.604.78 That office is described separately below. however. is subject to the direction of the Secretary of that Department and has no autonomous power of decision. almost all the budget is consumed by personal services. vary in amount from place to place.422. program.0 40.461.163. Prosecution and Public Defense i.031.20 NPS APPROPRIATIONS. The prosecution of certain corruption cases.b. is managed by a separate Office of the Ombudsman. 82 As in the case of the courts and the police.79 Its authorized workforce of more than 4. Prosecution The investigation of crimes and the prosecution of alleged offenders are primarily the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service (NPS). The NPS. and are not usually documented in a transparent manner that allows the precise amounts to be taken into account in the calculation of the NPS budget.0 40.0 2007 (RA 9401)* 1. as an integral part of the Department of Justice.076.757. an office provided for in the Constitution for that purpose. 32 .766. Neither the NPS headquarters nor the regional offices have financial management capacities or responsibilities.0 and state counsels under Personal Service Maintenance and Operating Capital Outlay 0 0 Total 1.670.0 1. but remains a vacant building without the staff.0 2005/2006 BUDGET REENACTED (RA 9336) 1. The Government’s Medium-Term Development Plan observes that “many prosecutors are still leaving to become private practitioners or judges” and “more than 500 prosecutors are needed to expedite the resolution of cases.5 million lump sum appropriated for special allowances for prosecutors RA 9279) New prosecutors are recruited largely from recent law school graduates.117. Consistent with the pattern throughout the justice sector.”80 Legislation enacted in 2004 to authorize special allowances for prosecutors from fees collected by the NPS has been insufficient to reduce the high level of vacancies and additional measures have been introduced to increase the compensation and retirement benefits of prosecutors in order to help overcome this problem.210. The authorized total number of prosecutors is les than the number of lower courts. There is no systemized training program and new prosecutors learn on the job.0 41. Budgeting is centralized within the Department.81 The NPS budget (PhP 1. These contributions may be in cash or in kind. The entry-level monthly salary is PhP 23.753. There is an ongoing effort to update obsolete manuals for prosecutors. It is headed by a Chief State Prosecutor who is appointed by the President.002. About 12% is available for maintenance and other operating expenses. local governments augment national government appropriations for prosecutors.461. A training site has been made available to the NPS.214.0 4.572 billion in 2007) comprises 77% of the total Department of Justice budget.305.0 *excludes PnP 121.0 1. Table II. 2003-2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) EXPENSE CLASSIFICATION 2003/2004 BUDGET REENACTED (RA 9206) 962. with only 4% for capital outlays. the reality is that prosecutors are even scarcer because more than 500 prosecutor positions are vacant. with most of the vacancies in the field offices.000 positions is divided almost equally between prosecutors and support personnel.
The NPS only recently established a strategic planning office.29 86.749 cases referred to mediation. The Department of Justice has sought to diminish the burden on prosecutors (and on the entire criminal justice system) of bouncing check cases and other minor offenses in which there is no strong state interest in criminal prosecution but there is an injured party. through its Office of the Special Prosecutor. up to and including to the Secretary of Justice.601 were successfully resolved. those cases brought against senior public officials. A case management system is in development.54 66.76 86.47 81.88 17. in urban areas actual caseloads are much higher. The Office also handles administrative complaints against public officials. and judges would be able to concentrate on more serious crimes. The Office of Ombudsman shares with the NPS the function of prosecuting lower ranking officials before the regular courts.89 A substantial part of the workload is created by the probable cause determinations and related investigations that precede the judicial phase of criminal prosecutions. The Office of the Ombudsman. 2000-2005 FUNCTION Investigation Cases Reinvestigation per court order Cases for Trial in RTC Source: NPS ANNUAL DISPOSITION RATE OF REGIONAL AND FIELD PROSECUTORS (%) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 91. the probable cause process has evolved into an elaborate quasi-judicial proceeding in which prosecutors maintain an arms-length relationship with law enforcement agencies. The NPS is obliged by the Rules of Criminal Procedure to conduct preliminary investigations of complaints.19 96. In particular. A code of ethics is nearing completion. has exclusive responsibility for prosecuting corruption cases in the Sandiganbayan.83 Rather than a quick judgment to guard against obvious police abuse of citizens. The Office obtained approval in 2006 to employ an additional 40 prosecutors and 200 investigators. and initial decisions may be subjected to several levels of review. accused parties may present evidence. and manage caseflow. If these successful pilot efforts could be institutionalized and scaled up to the national level there would be obvious benefits for all concerned. the case is filed in court. At the same time overworked prosecutors.64 25.21 DISPOSITION RATES OF REGIONAL AND FIELD PROSECUTORS OF NPS. Of course.605 cases – an average of 164 per prosecutor – under investigation or being prosecuted in the courts. The authorized workforce of the Office of Ombudsman is 1.28 27.98 26.22 74. NPS had a pending volume of 338. of which 274 were vacant at the end of 2006.26 12.39 15. 1.21). monitor performance. even though prospects for conviction may be low.16 85. However. Of 2.141 positions. It has introduced administrative procedures for resolving those cases.86 91.17 76. Table II.81 73. victims would receive expedited recourse and accused offenders would have an alternative to imprisonment.29 91. that is. it requested an even larger number to keep up 33 . The organization lacks management systems and information technology to maintain communication with its field offices. If probable cause is found to exist. A conviction rate of less than 20% and an archived case rate of more than 30% suggest a serious problem of effectiveness. At the end of 2005. Pilot programs in several cities to dispose of such cases through mediation between the accused and the injured party have shown encouraging results. public defenders.Workloads are heavy and disposition rates are low (Table 11.
Closed/Terminated Total Disposition Year End Pending Disposition Rate Source: OMB Annual Report.47 2. That autonomy was granted in legislation enacted in 2007 specifying that the “PAO shall be an independent and autonomous office. the State has a duty not only to prosecute alleged offenders.859 % OF TOTAL 45. 2005 # OF CASES 8. The combination of vacancies and a low personnel ceiling have contributed to a low disposition rate and growing backlog (Table II.145 454 5.576 536 9.727 11.97 ii. Slightly more than half the staff is made up of attorneys.04 100.87 68. Public Defense The Constitution guarantees to every person under investigation for the commission of an offense the right to “competent and independent counsel.132 14.275 853 7.Beginning year pending . However. However. 2005 PARTICULARS WORKLOAD .85 51.Prosecuted .with the workload. The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) is the principal organization responsible for fulfilling this constitutional duty of assuring the availability of a competent and independent legal defense in criminal proceedings against the poor. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN.”85 Accordingly. 34 .87 At present.82 5. indigent defendants make up the majority of those who are subjected to the criminal justice system.”86 The Chief Public Attorney is required to have the same qualifications as the Chief State Prosecutor and can be dismissed only for cause. The PAO is administratively a part of the Department of Justice.68 100.Dismissed/Exonerated . it requires a degree of autonomy.00 40. but also to defend indigent persons who are accused of committing crimes. the PAO has an authorized staff of 1.27 11.850.Penalty Imposed .747 18.1 1.22). but attached to the Department of Justice…for purposes of policy and program coordination. It is noteworthy that less than 6% of the cases disposed of in 2005 resulted in the imposition of a penalty.22 CASELOAD AND DISPOSITIONS. given its responsibility to act independently as an adversary to the National Prosecution Service (also a part of the Department of Justice) in representing persons under investigation or charged with the commission of offenses. the authorizing legislation provides for increased compensation for PAO attorneys and contemplates an increase in staffing so that there can be a PAO attorney for every court. including about 70 vacant positions.Cases received during year . PAO staff members also are required to have the same qualifications as their counterparts in the National Prosecution Service and enjoy protection against arbitrary dismissal. Table II.84 The Constitution further provides that in all criminal prosecutions the right of the accused includes “the right to be heard by himself and counsel. In practice.” This includes the right of a person who cannot afford counsel to be provided with one.Cases reopened Total Workload DISPOSITION .
88 The PAO represents a large majority of indigent defendants in criminal cases. is discussed below in the section of this chapter on challenges to the justice system. Therefore. There are 79 provincial and 25 sub-provincial jails whose wardens are appointed by provincial governors and which operate separately from the BJMP and PNP jails. more than 98% of which are for uniformed personnel. imprisonment of those convicted. If a PAO attorney is not available to represent an indigent defendant the trial court may appoint an individual “counsel de oficio” under Rule 138 of the Rules of the Court. PAO provided assistance to some 4. city. depending on the gravity of the offense. The broad question of legal services for the poor. city. the PAO has the largest role among all the many public and private organizations that provide legal services to the poor. and nongovernmental organizations provide legal defense for indigent persons accused in criminal cases as well as other kinds of legal assistance to the poor. About 10% are women and 2% are minors. These appointed attorneys do not necessarily have special expertise or experience in the field of criminal justice. From about 35. about 750 municipal jails remain under PNP control. civil and administrative cases. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. That is.000 positions. In addition. A 2003 survey found that more than 15% of individuals 35 . the management of these facilities was under the jurisdiction of the Philippine National Police (PNP). BJMP’s 2007 authorized staffing pattern consists of almost 7. suspected offenders may wait for weeks and even months in police holding cells before being released from custody or transferred to detention in a district. a prisoner/guard ratio of nine prisoners to one guard. The legislation creating the BJMP contemplated the buildup of capacities for humane treatment and rehabilitation of detainees. municipal or provincial jail.100 district.6 million poor clients in a range of criminal. Corrections and Rehabilitation The criminal justice system includes the common practices of incarceration of individuals charged with serious offenses.000 in 2000. In 2006. and municipal jails. Detention.90 Prior to the Bureau’s creation in 1991. less than 5% of detainees are serving sentences following conviction in court.Beyond its responsibilities within the criminal justice system. the number of detainees grew to exceed 62.89 However. It is worth noting that there is no time limit on the length of time a detainee awaiting trial may be kept in jail. an essential element of access to justice. and programs for the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into society. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in the Department of the Interior and Local Government is responsible for the management and operation of about 1. These are facilities for the detention of those against whom criminal charges are pending as well as those serving sentences of three years or less. Arrested persons are most often confined initially in police detention facilities maintained by various law enforcement agencies. stagnant budgets and a growing jail population have impeded the transfer of functions to BJMP. However. law school legal clinics. requiring that police detention not exceed a period of 12 to 36 hours. The Local Government Code also authorizes provincial governments to operate jails for detainees awaiting trial and serving sentences of three years or less. c. This initial confinement is subject to specific time limits in the law. The number of detainees in BJMP-managed jails has increased considerably in recent years. It is striking that more than 95% of the jail population has not been sentenced.000 in 2006. in practice.
a prisoner/guard ratio of 3.400 authorized positions.642.116 13. counseling.996 298.878 350. operates seven national penitentiaries for the incarceration of prisoners serving sentences of more than three years. detention and correction facilities suffer from extreme congestion. These diversion programs grew out of concerns about the incarceration of an estimated 4.015 1. The Bureau also operates a juvenile training center. Transition from jail or prison to society is the task of the Parole and Probation Administration and the Board of Pardon and Parole. and a drug treatment and rehabilitation center created in 2002. Thus.91 The Bureau of Corrections. they lack adequate sanitation and health care.939 BJMP BUCOR Pardon and Parole Parole and Probation Administration TOTAL 2.93 children can be diverted from detention facilities into non-custodial conditions. Their capacity to foster the rehabilitation of prisoners or to protect their human rights while incarcerated is limited.0 Source: General Appropriations Act. A youthful offender may undertake restorative measures such as restitution.091.267. the population of facilities operated by the Bureau of Corrections is growing. 2007 In addition. a review committee chaired by the Department of Justice.186 10.466. Under Supreme Court rules on juveniles in conflict with the law.114 13. CORRECTIONS SYSTEM. completed in 2003.407. In general.649 355.772 2. the Bureau of Child and Youth Welfare in the Department of Social Welfare and Development operates ten regional rehabilitation centers for youthful offenders. The capacity of the nation’s prisons is 19.004.022 TOTAL 3. The Board acts on proposals for the release of a prisoner and determines suitability of the individual for reintegration into society.000.620 85. and the subsequently enacted Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.23 NATIONAL EXPENDITURE. the Administration supervises the release of the individual with a view to promoting rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.850 653 0 43. adopted in February 2002.600.152 11.737 57.207 MOOE 2006 APPROPRIATIONS CAPITAL OUTLAY 1. The Board also makes recommendations to the President for the exercise of executive clemency. an integral part of the Department of Justice. Improving conditions will require a substantial investment beyond the limited resources provided in the normal budgets of organizations responsible for the detention and correction facilities.incarcerated in provincial jails waited more than five years for the final hearing in their court cases. or training in lieu of entering the normal criminal justice process. Once the Board approves probation or parole.94 In 1996.400 640.123 4. The Bureau has about 2. of which 60% are in custodial roles.806.64 prisoners to one guard. 2006 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) AGENCY PERSONAL SERVICES 1. Diversion programs are supervised by local social welfare development officers.272.92 Table II. both executive agencies under the direction of the Department of Justice. As in the case of jails. community service.000 children in the Philippines. with representation from other concerned agencies and civil society. recommended legislation to integrate jail and prison administration and consolidate the functions of the Bureau of Corrections and the Bureau of Jail 36 . but occupancy exceeds 25.
Congress has not acted on this recommendation. In particular. and enable the bar to discharge its public responsibilities more efficiently.3 AGENCY JURISDICTION FOR CONFINEMENT AND CORRECTION OF OFFENDERS AGENCY • Bureau of Corrections. including five disbarments. are members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. However. The IBP is represented on the advisory committee established by the Supreme Court for the Action Program for Judicial Reform. (The Supreme Court has a parallel. the IBP plays an active role in legal education. 99 It participates in collaborative educational arrangements with the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Department of Education. provides a necessary tool for assuring that reforms adopted in principle are 37 . but seldom used. Through its National Committee on Legal Aid the IBP supports legal aid offices in Manila and in 83 chapters nationwide. In addition. DILG • Provincial Government • Department of Social Welfare and Development • City Jails • Municipal Jails • Provincial Jails • Regional Rehabilitation Centers • Juvenile delinquents or youthful offenders JURISDICTION • National prisoners or those who are serving sentence of more than 3 years • Detainees. All of them.100 The above-mentioned requirement of continuing legal education for members of the bar. DILG 6. It recommended the existing program of mandatory continuing legal education for attorneys and participates in the program’s governance. and conducts its own educational activities. adopted in 2000. The Supreme Court’s constitutional authority to promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar96 confirms 1971 legislation that authorized the Supreme Court “to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such circumstances as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal profession.000 attorneys enrolled with the Supreme Court.98 While functioning as a nongovernmental professional organization. improve the administration of justice. or are serving sentence of 3 years or less • Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. it provides the principal channel for the discipline and disbarment of attorneys. by virtue of their oath of office as attorneys.Management and Penology into a new Bureau of Correctional Services in the Department of Justice. The Organized Bar There are more than 40.” 97 The resolution of the Court integrating the Bar was implemented by a Presidential decree in 1973.) The IBP has reported that 99 of the 40.000 lawyers admitted to practice in the Philippines were disciplined in 2005. the IBP carries out certain activities under its charter and the Rules of Court in furtherance of the purposes of the abovequoted 1971 legislation. DOJ FACILITY • National penitentiaries. works with law schools. establishing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as a corporate body with perpetual duration.95 Figure II. Other Organizations a. who: are undergoing trial or awaiting judgment/ sentencing of courts. process which it may elect to apply on its own initiative. prisons or penal farms • District Jails • City Jails • Municipal Jails • Philippine National Police.
while improving. In the absence of a functioning Legal Education Board.59 20.61 27.102 The central feature of the Legal Education Reform Act was the creation of a Legal Education Board with broad powers to supervise law schools.68 20.187 NUMBER WHO PASSED EXAMINATION 660 979 1. NUMBER OF EXAMINEES 3. 1999-2006 YEAR OF EXAMINATION 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: Newspaper reports.101 Table II. an organization formed in 1967 to help raise standards of legal education.103 Unfortunately.71 31.659 5. the Legal Education Board has never been constituted. there remains hope that this reform. establish a law practice internship requirement.106 38 .610 6.24 PASSAGE RATE FOR BAR EXAMINATION. This practice is recognized and encouraged by Supreme Court rule. found necessary in 1993.266 917 1. This is considered the most rigorous of professional examinations and the percentage of those who pass. It appears that the quality of course offerings is continually improving and that the program is making a contribution to the quality of performance by Philippine attorneys.893 PERCENTAGE WHO PASSED EXAMINATION 16. will soon be made operational.104 Apparently. presumably on the assumption that the Board would be established. set minimum standards for law school admission. a law school may not operate unless it is accredited by the Board. prescribe curricula.698 3.89 19. Under this law.84 32. Admission to the practice of law requires that bar examination applicants show they have completed all prescribed courses at an approved law school.transformed into actual practice by the major users of the justice system. referred the question of law school accreditation to the Legal Education Board. The Supreme Court. this system has come to be accepted by the bar. Law Schools There are about 100 law schools in the Philippines.526 1.349 5249 5. the Supreme Court remains the principal source of reforms on law school curriculum through its supervision of the bar examination.108 1.659 1. A number of law schools have internship programs and operate legal clinics.50 The poor performance of law school graduates in passing the bar examination led to the enactment of legislation in 1993 to improve legal education. has always been low.105 Law schools play an important role in the legal representation of the poor. in prescribing reforms in the bar examination in 2004. The Philippine bar examination is administered by the Supreme Court through a Bar Examination Committee. through which fourth year law students may represent indigent clients under the supervision of a licensed attorney.20 30. Most of them are members of the Philippine Association of Law Schools.849 4. Over the past five years. b. and in 2006 the Court created a task force to facilitate creation of the Board. and – most important – set standards of law school accreditation and accredit law schools.978 4.
monitor the performance of courts and government agencies. They also provide links to other areas of public policy related to the justice system. including providing information about the justice system.110 The group has made a number of suggestions to the Judicial and Bar Council on ways to increase the consistency and transparency of recommendations for judicial appointment.c.107 More than 20 Alternative Law Groups around the country provide free legal assistance in poor communities. and exercises vigilance over the performance of the justice system. The Asia Foundation and USAID supported this initiative. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. take public positions on issues of justice policy. Among business groups. including judicial efficiency and integrity. the Association of Law Students of the Philippines. The consortium has taken an active role in monitoring the process of several recent nominations to the Supreme Court. especially in rural areas. such as improving competitiveness and combating corruption. the Alternative Law Groups.108 In many communities. Inc. a coalition that advocates policies to advance human rights and social justice. The knowledge represented by these organizations and their capacities for disseminating information and broadening the base of participation in justice policy dialogue make their involvement important to the development and implementation of a sector-wide justice program. is known for its active engagement in public policy deliberations on issues affecting business. provides legal education under the mandatory continuing legal education program. These include organizations that do research.. Civil Society and the Private Sector A number of organizations in civil society and the private sector are less directly involved in the operation of the justice system. The Supreme Court Appointments Watch was formed in 2005 by the Transparency and Accountability Network (itself a coalition). with initial emphasis on the Supreme Court. and the Philippine Association of Law Schools. and working with lawyers representing indigent clients. In 2007 it agreed to expand its role and to monitor appointments to other courts. resident paralegals provide a range of practical services for the benefit of disadvantaged populations. In addition to the above-mentioned Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. but are important stakeholders in how well the system operates. offer legal advice to the poor. and provides legal defense to indigents. The Association conducts research. thus becoming the Judicial Appointments Watch. and otherwise take an active interest in the administration of justice. provide information to the public.109 A significant recent manifestation of civil society activism in relation to the justice system is the organization of a consortium to monitor judicial appointments. assisting with government paperwork. composed of more than 800 senior executives of major companies. Together. notes 17 and 18. the Lawyers’ League for Liberty. particular organizations that play substantial roles and have demonstrated their active interest and capacity to advance justice reform include the following: The Philippine Bar Association is a prestigious voluntary association of lawyers with a long tradition of human rights advocacy. provides legal education. Examples of Makati Business Club publications on these issues are cited in Chapter I of this report. the Makati Business Club. these groups form Alternative Law Groups. 39 .
preparation. (ii) high standards of independence. Procedures. accountability. A strong institutional capacity and good systems produce improved access and service only if implemented by capable and motivated people. and resources. and Facilities As noted above. Of course. and competent human resources. Some of the challenges relate directly to these issues of the scope and quality of service.B. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems. or why implementation has been delayed. These challenges are summarized below. authority. the budgets of institutions in the justice system are committed primarily to personnel costs. It is important to note that none of the four objectives alone provides the basis for improved performance of the justice system. Business Practices. is highly developed and sophisticated. human resources development (discussed separately below). and report on results. accountability. The objectives are closely interrelated. organized by reference to four objectives for reform that have been suggested in previous studies and in interviews and consultations with stakeholders: (i) strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. monitor performance. That is. it must confront major challenges if it is to fulfill its role to assure the equal protection of rights and the fair and timely resolution of disputes. trained people to implement those systems. integrity. 1. the ultimate objective is to assure that the system provides broad access and excellent service to the public. and a culture of results-based performance management. capacity for change management is needed. leaving little for investment in modernizing technology and equipment – or for maintenance. and capable people are likely to be counterproductive unless the concerned institutions and people demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence. information management. described above. (iii) capable and motivated human resources. adherence to ethical values. and advance the rule of law. meet objectives. This will require improved management systems and qualified. As a result. It includes many admirable features. 40 . and transparency. foster a culture of lawfulness. and service for system-wide reform. Challenges to the Justice System The Philippine justice system. At the same time. One aspect of this problem is the need to overcome internal resistance to changes that threaten to reallocate work. and transparency. Weak implementation capacity appears to be one reason why well designed reform initiatives have often experienced disappointing results. Thus the four objectives combine to provide a context of efficiency. However. adapt to changing circumstances. and (iv) broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. This will require special efforts to assure adequate communication. values. management systems and infrastructure tend to be inadequate. competence. Readily available technology is not being put to use. together with some ideas about addressing them. Efforts to improve access and service through strengthened institutions. financial management. Achieving greater efficiency and productivity will be essential to the success of any future justice reform. improved service also depends upon increased efficiency. Successful implementation of justice reforms will demand that participating organizations be able to do what they say they will do – that they relate budgets to strategy. and alignment of incentive structures with new policies and programs. A threshold challenge is the need to build within the justice organizations a stronger capacity for strategic planning. integrity.
First. Third.A related threshold challenge is the need for adequate budgets throughout the justice sector. and publicized in order to reinforce and sustain a new demand for and expectation of timeliness in the administration of justice. and other justice organizations need to give practical effect to any rules changes by integrating appropriate costs and benefits into the incentive structures found in day-to-day operation of the justice system. the courts. the bar. Among these. and protect officials who apply the rules. Higher standards for applications for writs under Rule 65 (and summary dismissal of applications not clearly meeting those standards) might help to relieve the appellate courts of an unnecessary burden while also expediting the disposition of cases in the lower courts. solely for the purpose of depriving a judgment of finality and thus preventing the issuance of a writ of execution. Responding to this situation of expectations and deeply ingrained patterns of behavior could include several measures. 112 Anecdotal evidence confirms that applications for writs under Rule 65 constitute a substantial portion of the caseload of the Court of Appeals. They would also confront litigants and attorneys in other cases with the need to weigh the options of settlement versus proceeding to an early continuous trial. Another specific measure to combat delay would be stringent standards for considering interlocutory writs and appeals from orders in ongoing proceedings. but that few of those applications are ultimately successful. a few weeks – would not only expedite the specific cases handled under these procedures. This makes the cost of money retained by delaying payment of a judgment debt much less than if the same 41 . the following appear to warrant further consideration. The Supreme Court has recently taken action on this issue with respect to temporary restraining orders. A major and persistent challenge to the justice system is the slow movement of cases. The imminence of a trial that will produce an immediate decision has been a powerful stimulus for settlement in other countries. Building institutional capacity involves costs. Improved capacity should be able to help increase the productivity of investment and control costs. leading to chronic congestion and delay. but never fully implemented. Second. Judges and other officials too often acquiesce in these delaying tactics. the benefits of delay reduction need to be monitored. But there is no evident way in which the needed capacity can be built at current funding levels. A specific cause of delay noted in a 2003 study 113 is the existing requirement for a writ of execution to enforce a judgment and the dilatory practice of filing “endless appeals” without follow-up action. combined with a steady volume of new cases. Truly continuous trials – to be conducted in a few days or.111 However. leaving inadequate sums for maintenance and investment. substantially delay proceedings in courts below. sustained with adequate resources. documented. a recent study of writs of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of the Court suggests that petitions for such writs add significantly to the workload of the appellate courts and. A number of specific approaches to delay reduction have been proposed. the rules need to diminish opportunities for delaying tactics. The most ambitious change would be continuous trials for both civil and criminal cases. reward timeliness. The justice system needs to escape from this vicious circle into a pattern of increased productivity. A recurrent complaint is that attorneys and litigants who believe they would benefit from delay insist on continuances in proceedings and even threaten to bring charges of misconduct against judges and other officials who seek to enforce deadlines. One reason suggested for these “endless” appeals is that the rate of interest used by the courts is well below commercial market rates. especially for organizations where budgets have been almost entirely consumed by personnel expenditures. at most. with strict time limits. even when eventually denied. including for operating expenses and capital investment.
or alternative dispute resolution procedures. together with broad discretion to decline prosecution in cases with poor prospects for conviction. and law enforcement agencies to focus on more serious offenses and to reduce the backlog in the criminal docket. Another recognized cause of delay in the criminal justice arena is the lengthy and complex procedures of the National Prosecution Service for the determination of probable cause. It improves the efficiency of all the concerned organizations and helps them to rationalize their priorities and the distribution of workload. It is important to distinguish between information management and automation. Expediting probable cause deliberations would also reduce extended periods of detention now experienced by many accused individuals while they await the outcome of those deliberations. the management of work. However. courts. One frequently raised example is the large volume of bouncing check cases. Case management systems are important tools for all justice organizations. police and others. the strengthening of institutional capacity will undoubtedly be the subject of debate about priorities. and the procurement and maintenance of equipment. case management. The example of a single case number usable by law enforcement. rapid determinations of probable cause to guard against obvious cases of arbitrary arrest or other abuse. prosecution. A review of these and other types of criminal cases that impose a heavy workload on the justice system might identify offenses more suitable for restorative remedies than criminal penalties.amount were borrowed from a bank. The success of pilot efforts by the Department of Justice to substitute mediation for prosecution of minor offenses suggests that here is considerable potential in this approach. The recent Judicial Reform 42 . Computerized systems need to reflect decisions already made on what information should be collected and shared. This cause of delay would appear to be readily susceptible to corrective action by legislation or amendment to the Rules of Court. and the implementation of reforms. An important aspect is the capacity for communication through compatible systems between headquarters and field offices and between organizations that need to work together. Their importance is increased by the large volume of cases (including substantial backlogs) that burden courts. Information systems are essential to provide timely and accurate assessments of performance regarding service to the public. Greater prosecutorial discretion would expand the space for use of mediation in cases where there is no strong public interest in prosecution. and correction and rehabilitation agencies illustrates the point. prosecutors. technology and facilities. This could be alleviated by allowing simplified. These offenses could be decriminalized and handled through civil. This greater flexibility would leave prosecutors with more manageable workloads. It would also relieve the courts of handling a large volume of criminal cases in which there is no active prosecution and which ultimately are archived. Beyond the basic question of delay reduction. identified needs for improvement in three general areas have received considerable attention: information. Efficient case management not only helps track individual cases. The preponderance of criminal cases in the workload of the justice system makes reduction in the number of such cases an obvious priority for reducing congestion in the justice system. freeing valuable time of the courts. public defenders. what data standards are appropriate. An immediate situation where coordination is needed to assure system compatibility is the simultaneous – but until now separate – development of a national justice information system under the leadership of the Supreme Court and the development by the Department of the Interior and Local Government of a national criminal information system (possibly as part of an Integrated Criminal Justice and Public Safety Information and Response System). prosecutors. public defenders. administrative. and what business processes should be linked among institutions.
which operates many of those facilities. Courts that lack computers and internet access will have obvious difficulties contributing to information and case management systems. On the other hand. correction. A broadly based systemic approach would seem to be in order.5. even more pressing needs exist in other justice sector institutions and these also need to be addressed. the ability of local government units. This is compounded by the reliance on PNP personnel by other law enforcement agencies to provide operational support. the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. At present. the Department of the Interior and Local Government.c of this Chapter. and other essential information will be lost. and others to perform oversight and the proliferation of coordination mechanisms (see note 70) diminish clarity in lines of authority and consume resources that might better be used to meet substantial needs for capital investment and maintenance. the National Police Commission. Overcrowding in jails is due largely to the detention of individuals whose cases are under investigation or who are awaiting trial (together constituting 95% of the population in BJMP-managed jails). comparable and. Conditions in overcrowded jails and prisons warrant early attention as a human rights issue. the Bureau of Corrections and other Department of Justice entities. Another organizational challenge is posed by the fragmented responsibility for the system of detention. Inadequate storage facilities pose risks that evidence. and rehabilitation. as described above in Section A. court files. adding to the congestion in the jails and penitentiaries where convicted prisoners are incarcerated. can help the Judiciary to address this situation. and trial of criminal cases could increase the number of convictions. Reform of the procedures followed by the National Prosecution Service and by the courts could substantially reduce the number of detainees. and the Department of Social Welfare and Development all have partial responsibilities. Existing law requires police officers to retire at age 56 (including senior executives). In addition. Duplication of functions among law enforcement agencies inevitably creates inefficiencies. case management has not been developed for other organizations. approved in 2004 but still not implemented. These conditions are directly relevant to the need for investment in information and case management systems. in some cases. The difficulties facing these organizations provide an indication how issues cross institutional lines within the justice system. Infrastructure deficiencies in the lower courts were also singled out for negative comment by the American Bar Association report. This would not only increase the workload of the BJMP. However. 43 .Index prepared by the American Bar Association identified the lack of an effective case management system as a weakness of the courts and noted the variety of individual systems used by judges. Inadequacies in facilities and equipment also impede efficient performance throughout the justice system. resulting in brief tenure for the Director General and other senior officers of the PNP. Organizational challenges to strong institutional capacity include the proliferation of agencies having overlapping responsibilities and others having multiple oversight responsibilities with regard to the Philippine National Police. Many people working in the justice sector lack the most basic tools needed to perform efficiently. The decentralization of financial and administrative management in the courts. The potential for confusion is aggravated by the rapid turnover of leadership within the organization.115 Interviews of judges and visits to courts confirm the poor working conditions that exist. prosecution. but also that of the Bureau of Corrections. The differing impacts on different agencies of changes in this field suggest the desirability of reconsidering the 1996 recommendation for consolidation of corrections system management. greater efficiency in the investigation.114 While a pilot program has been launched for the courts and one is under study by the National Prosecution Service.
These efforts to look outside the financial constraints and controls of official budgets can jeopardize integrity in pursuit of independence. Limited training 44 . High Standards of Independence. knowledge of those codes by the workforces and by the general public appears to be uneven. If mediation has a strong potential to reduce the volume of litigation. and must be seen to be. Local support for the justice system needs to be transparent and institutionalized. cannot collect fees from prisoners. A principal challenge to independence is the inadequate financing of the judicial system. For the most part. Inadequate budgets for other justice organizations do not present the same constitutional issue. But reliance on fees for operating expenses risks distorting the services provided. and the public’s perception of integrity. on the other hand. Integrity. But in all cases low levels of financing increase the attraction of schemes to find extra-budgetary resources – either for cash-strapped institutions or for underpaid employees. It justifies its involvement in the judicial budget in terms of accountability. 117 Most of the organizations within the justice system appear to have satisfactory codes of ethical conduct in place or (as in the National Prosecution Service) in development. presents it to Congress. which develops the national budget. Accountability. the executive oversight agencies. it is established public policy to encourage the mediation of disputes. unbiased – free of excessive political and financial pressures or criminal influence – and guided by ethical values. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. for example. why should an expansion of the courtannexed mediation system depend on the collection of fees from litigants (including those whose cases are not eligible for mediation)? Also. in the justice system is a serious challenge. and Transparency The challenges addressed in this section all relate to the credibility of the justice system. Also troubling is the supplemental financing through support provided to some justice organizations in cash or in kind by local governments.”116 the amounts allocated to the Judiciary. Despite the constitutional promise that the Judiciary “shall enjoy fiscal autonomy” and that its appropriations “after approval. and to the broader justice sector.2. For example. Enhancing integrity. The administration of justice must be. shall be automatically and regularly released. and local authorities to find an accommodation based on gradually increased budgetary resources accompanied by increased transparency and demonstrated improvement in efficient management. It probably requires a mutual effort by the justice organizations. Justice organizations that have been able to collect and retain fees for services have obtained some relief. fees reflect services for which the public will pay and are not a practical way to help meet many resource needs. this support is not transparent under present arrangements and it creates risks of dependence on the generosity of local officials who may have official or personal interests that involve the justice system. However. can collect filing fees from litigants. the justice system operates within a system of checks and balances and must be accountable for its performance. in national budgets are not keeping pace with growing workloads and increasing costs. The executive branch. the Congress. and manages appropriations. At the same time. The courts. is faced with many demands on limited resources and is dissatisfied with the fiscal management of the justice organizations. A recent survey of enterprises showed a disturbing level of doubt about the sincerity of a number of public sector justice organizations in fighting corruption. There is no easy solution to the financial autonomy challenge.
In addition to financial accountability and ethical behavior. The number of disciplinary cases seems small. A disturbing observation by many who have been involved in training judges. It is a constant challenge to attract the best candidates possible. training does not change behavior in the workplace. But that judge needs to see that adherence to deadlines and higher productivity will be rewarded and that there will be costs for condoning delay. This challenge is one that is shared by civil society. This is a reminder that institutional incentives need to be aligned with the desired performance if training is to be effective. police.capacity. The necessary alternative is to increase the productivity of those on the rolls. and public access to clear procedures. and especially to recruit and retain those with strong values of ethical public service. equipment. given the large number of individuals involved in the administration of justice and the continued perception of widespread corruption. Also. 3. this relates to the need for investments in systems. As efforts proceed to introduce modern systems. 45 . prosecutors. Budget constraints will surely continue to impose limits on increases in the number of personnel. Accountability for performance is a complicated challenge. The reform agenda needs to encourage public interest in the performance of organizations within the justice system and also encourage justice organizations to be open. Recent experience with citizen monitoring of Supreme Court appointments is an example of the practical reality that public institutions respond when the public demands information. their dissemination. For example. This means they must be able to receive and make good use of training. The consolidation of information systems should provide a valuable tool for informing the public on a timely basis about the performance of justice organizations. observes the performance of official functions. Skills enhancement for justice system personnel is a related challenge. transparent. and publicizes what it learns through active and engaged communications media. procedures for public complaints of alleged unethical behavior vary from agency to agency and are not always clear and convenient to follow. Vacancies are a major problem in most organizations.118 Responding to this challenge may require a comprehensive review of existing ethical rules. it will be necessary that the people who operate the justice system be enabled to make the best use of those improvements. although increased salaries for judges appear to have reduced vacancies in the Judiciary. and responsive to that public interest. Low salaries and poor working conditions impede the ability of public service to compete for talent with the private sector. Capable and Motivated Human Resources The ability of the justice system to attract and retain able and dedicated people is another serious challenge. In part. limits the effectiveness of existing ethical codes. processes and infrastructure. too often. training programs within the justice system. the justice system is challenged to demonstrate that it is performing its responsibilities honestly and efficiently. Public participation in such a review could give high visibility to the important issue of personal and institutional integrity in the justice sector. a judge who is overly tolerant of delaying tactics might be trained in how to control the pace of his or her docket. This is especially important in helping employees adapt to the changes involved in implementing reforms. and reasonable working conditions. especially in a number of executive agencies. a sense of accomplishment. and other justice system personnel is that. and facilities that will contribute to professional satisfaction.
It is striking that the need for a Legal Education Board was recognized in 1993 legislation. It is possible. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public The entire range of measures to improve the administration of justice needs to be seen from the perspective of the citizen who is affected by the justice system. providing broad access and excellent service is the ultimate objective. but that action has not been taken to bring the Board into existence. Academic preparation for work in the justice system is a challenge that needs attention in the reform agenda. Ultimately. 4. Justice agencies should be able to articulate clear standards of good performance and reward those who exceed the standards and penalize those who disregard them. The initiative by the Philippine Judicial Academy to organize a small number of multidisciplinary courses with multi-agency participation is a helpful beginning. Institutional accountability of justice organizations to the citizenry needs to reflect individual accountability of personnel for the good performance of their duties. With more than 100 law schools and more than 5. The consolidation of some support services could increase opportunities for career development and advancement by specialists in various functions. high standards for admission to law school. as noted above.000 applicants for admission to the bar each year. But much more is needed. could help to retain valuable staff whose skills and experience might otherwise be lost. Some observers see the quasi-judicial role of the prosecutor in making probable cause determinations as an impediment to closer collaboration with the police in the investigation of crimes and the development of evidence. 46 . It is also said that prosecutors. Implementation of the 1993 law would seem to have considerable potential for assuring the quality of legal education and the qualifications of new entrants in the legal profession. Training suffers from limited resources. Greater flexibility in position descriptions and hours of work could also help increase productivity and contribute to more satisfying jobs. In any event. Skills directly related to performance should be given preference in training curricula over more generalized academic instruction. Imaginative career development.A particular concern in this regard is the need for collaboration between organizations. including both rewards and a disciplinary element. for example. providing skilled personnel with opportunities to use their expertise in a variety of institutional settings. Beyond training is the challenge of allocating work to make the most effective use of valuable human resources and provide greater job satisfaction. and a system of accreditation seem especially important. do not rely on the police for follow-on investigation. The collaborative model developed by the Philippine Judicial Academy would seem to warrant careful study to see if it could be emulated by other organizations in the justice system. training needs to be made relevant to the performance of duties. for their part. For most organizations opportunities are quite limited. justice is a public service and. It will be necessary that training and other human resource practices seek to build a culture of shared purpose and public service in order to make cross-institution training produce the desired results. assurances of adequate curricula and instruction. Some have suggested that the police do not give sufficient priority to collecting and preserving evidence for use in the prosecution of those they arrest. Efforts to change behavior and adapt to reforms need incentives. often driven more by the availability of donor-financed courses than by systematic institutional training plans. that some functions now performed in the chambers of individual judges could be done more efficiently by small professional staffs for an entire hall of justice.
currently under discussion. Institutionalizing programs at the community level might build on a number of impressive pilot efforts. and be discouraged by extended delays that they cannot afford. 47 . contribute to broadened participation in economic and social development. greater legal certainty and predictability would be a positive factor in encouraging investment and other economic activity in the Philippines. delay and uncertainty are themselves a denial of access to justice. various universities and legal clinics. For example. could also include a venue for community centers. but it can be an instrument of legal empowerment and.Progress on many of the issues discussed above will have a direct impact on citizens. The poor are likely to lack awareness of their rights and to be deterred by inconvenient locations of justice organizations. Examples include the European Union-supported Supreme Court program on “Access to Justice for the Poor through Information. publication of more judicial decisions could foster greater consistency. not just the Supreme Court. for example. including through increased legal literacy. appears to have considerable promise. which is to be piloted in Manila. One challenge is to coordinate fragmented efforts by the Public Attorney’s Office. gaining effective access to justice may require community-based systems to assist and empower citizens in navigating the many channels that exist. thus. there are specific challenges about the impact of the justice system on the broader population and. increase legal certainty. Building capacity at the community level with the involvement of community residents is difficult. The concept of an access to justice network at the community level. and now available to judges and others who have access to the Supreme Court’s elibrary. and the Bantay Banay program of Lihok Pilipina Foundation to combat violence against women. An example of a specific issue is whether the publication of decisions by all the appellate courts. Publication of Court of Appeals decisions on that Court’s own website is planned to begin in 2008. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Education and Communication. and diminishing the number of appeals in situations where a pattern of decisions is clearly established. is particularly acute in the case of the poor and disadvantaged. The evolution of electronic publishing will make it possible to renew the public availability. In addition to general information programs. in Cebuano and Visayan communities.” the Barangay Human Rights Action Centers supported by the Human Rights Commission. might serve the public by increasing accountability. promoting greater uniformity. In turn. The existence of paralegals and civil society organizations operating in many communities could facilitate the staffing of such centers with knowledgeable individuals. discussed above. the procedures by which citizens can obtain information about and access to the justice system for various purposes are numerous and sometimes overlap. The challenge of accountability of the justice system to an informed citizenry. The model court design developed with World Bank assistance. The poor can be intimidated by costly and opaque processes. However. Angeles City. In this way. on the poor and disadvantaged members of society. Meeting the great demand with limited available resources demands efficiency in coordinating the delivery of legal services and also in assuring that potential recipients know where to turn and what are the implications of their various choices. especially. and others that provide legal assistance and services to the poor. of Court of Appeals decisions (once published in printed volumes. and discourage frivolous appeals. More broadly. Such publication will make the courts more accountable to the public for the quality and consistency of their decisions and will also provide a source of valuable information about how the courts are likely to decide various issues. and LapuLapu City. but not the general public).119 One other dimension of an informed public is the availability of legal information.
pending completion of the process for issuance of the implementing regulations and related modifications of the Rules of Court. the modern Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 remains in limbo. 48 . Expanding the availability of these mechanisms is still another challenge for increasing access to justice. expanding access to justice while also diminishing the existing burden on the courts. have reduced the volume of litigation. The entry into force of this modern legislation could give impetus to further growth of alternative dispute resolution services. Current rules for court-annexed mediation result in only a small percentage of eligible cases being submitted to mediation. to some extent.Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have increased access to justice and. Also.
General Appropriations Act. section 1. it is important not to lose sight of general cross-sectoral issues (e. effective 1 December 2000. note 5. Section 8. OECD. Article VIII.M. 2007. 8371. Artemio. according to a report on vacancies in the Judiciary released on 19 September 2007. 03-11-16-SC. June 1998. and the Office of the Court Administrator use a base figure of 2. note 5.ph/rules/rule9. See also Saldanha. Section 2. 8369. www.ph/court%20issuances/rules/index. which resolves that the Shari’a Appellate Court be formally organized effective 1 January 2000. 65. supra. 27 April 2004. a Shari’a Appellate Court. from roads to agriculture). “Solving the Judicial Vacancy Problem.g. 1949. Administrative Matter No.php.gov. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.271 judicial positions. JBC Order 009. Republic Act 9227. See Panganiban. Volume 1. Constitution.gov. of the Philippines. Republic Act No. of 1997. http://jbc. Cedric. approved 29 October 1997.. No. approved 28 October 1997. Ibid.. of the Philippines. 1508 (1978). Article VIII. 8 June 1999.g.ph/aboutphil/a8. Asian Development Bank.” in Harmonizing Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. 2 3 Presidential Decree No. A fourth higher court.oecd. Chapter 3. page 40. 6734. as amended by Republic Act No.258 judicial positions.asp. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 49 . The Staffing Summary. 7160. is authorized by law but has not yet been established. civil service reform) and the specific links between the sector and other parts of he system (e.php. Family Courts Act of 1979.” Development Assistance Committee. supra. and John Whitte. The Judicial and Bar Council uses a number of 2. Using the Logical Framework for Sector Analysis and Project Design: A User’s Guide. approved 23 October 2003. Ibid.supremecourt. Supreme Court http://www. Rules of Court.supremecourt. Republic Act No. The Judicial Development Fund was created by Presidential Decree No. See Rules 43. 99-4-06-SC. Guidelines and Reference Series. See also Supreme Court Administrative Circular A. the 1991 Local Government Code of the Philippines. Ibid.” Philippine Daily Inquirer. Constitution. 23 September 2007. Section 9.Notes to Chapter II 1 “The definition of a sector is pragmatic…Whatever definition is adopted.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. approved 1 August 1989. approved 18 July 1984. Republic Act No. Article VIII. Section 3. “Sector Wide Approaches. 1987 Constitution of the Republic http://www.gov.
Social Weather Stations.gov. Article VII. Personnel Development Committee. 1996. Raffle Committee for En Banc Cases. Committee on Protocol. 03-05-01 SC) and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (Administrative Matter No. Committee on Computerization and Library. Raffle Committee for Division Cases. Constitution. note 5. 34834. See also Article XI.pdf. are at http://www.supremecourt. Supreme Court Annual Report. Reorganized Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Board and constituent subcommittees.” Standing committees include: Management Committee and Component Working Committees for the Judicial Reform Support Project. Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary. pages 47-49. e. Reynato. See Puno. 2005/2006 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary. as revised.) The Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Administrative Matter No. G. Bids and Awards Committee for the Maintenance.ph/forum_icsjr/ICSJR_Philippines%20(R%20Puno). Article VIII. There are also several ad hoc committees.ph/news/multimedia/inex. Committee on Foreign Travel. Mata. 2005. section 5(5). Committee on Public Information.ph/court%20issuances/rules/index. 03-02-05 SC. Section 15. “The New Philippine Code of Judicial Conduct. November 15. 03-06-13-SC) both became effective on 1 June 2004. note 5.19 20 21 Constitution. Article VIII. Bids and Awards Committee for the Action Program on Judicial Reform.php. supra.gov. Committee on Disposal of Forfeited Real Property Bonds. Trocio v. Change Management Committee. Ibid. note 5. Selection and Promotion Board.org/ethics/pdfs/Bangalore_principles. Rules of Court. See. Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Committee. and Janitorial Needs of the Halls of Justice. Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court and constituent subcommittees. approved February 26. http://jrn21. Article VIII. 1998. 1982. Supreme Court Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence Committee.supremecourt. 8557.ajs. No. section 6. Section 11.gov.pdf. Committee on Computerization of the Courts.R. Committee on Legislative-Executive Relations.g. Part I (civil procedure) and Part http://wwwsupremecourt. 2005. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. supra. and Executive Committee for the Action Program for Judicial Reform.) Previously.php. March 12. judicial training had been provided by the University of the Philippines Law Center. Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban identifies 18 existing stand-alone computerized systems within the Judiciary in his 2005 book. Committee on Security. pages 31-34. supra. Judicial Renaissance. 1 April 2004. of the Constitution states simply and clearly “The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. 35-96. III (criminal procedure). Security. The Academy was originally established by Supreme Court order (Administrative Order No. Constitution. http://www. Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters. 118 SCRA 241. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 50 . Administrative Matter No. Section 2.) Two years later it received a legislative charter (Republic Act No. December 2006. establishing a special rule on guardianship of minors distinct from Rule 93 of the Rules of Court. Committee on Advanced Syllabi. Executive Committee for Judicial Reform Program.
PhilJA’s ADR Committee is composed of the following: Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera. The five articles on arbitration in the Civil Code were supplemented in 1953 by Republic Act No. Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Instituting the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Executive Department of Government. Department of Agrarian Reform. 523. 292. Justice Justo P. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 25 July 1987. March 26. Republic Act 7160. Dean Eulogia Cueva.” Supreme Court Circular No. 16 October 2001. the Local Government Code. 20 July 2004 (effective 16 August 2004). Executive Order No. 69 Phil. 22. Third Division. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. Social Security Commission. Section 19. Chairman Alfredo F. 2003. Torres. Speedy Trial Act of 1998. Republic Act No. 141833. Ang Tibay v. approved 25 July 1987. Board of Investments. Hornilla. National Labor Relations Commission. National Conciliation and Mediation Board. Section 3. Office of the President.R. Section 19. 292. Court of Industrial Relations. Chapter IV.33 Court delays were analyzed http://codex. Executive Order No. Section 15. Agricultural Inventions Board. 34 35 Constitution. is discussed separately below. Agabin. and Commissioner Linda L. Securities and Exchange Commission. 04-02-02-SC. Bureau of Patents. Administrative Code of the Philippines. See LM Power Engineering Corporation v. Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo Ponferrada. Book VII. in the Business World Anniversary Report. Perez. Batas Pambansa Blg. Dean Eduardo de los Angeles. Chapter IV. note 5. but does not otherwise modify the applicable criminal procedure. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Central Board of Assessment Appeals. In 1978. Article VIII. amended this system in 1991 to authorize barangay officials to conduct conciliation and mediation proceedings to settle disputes within their territorial jurisdiction. and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Legislation enacted in 1979 criminalized these cases. National Electrification Administration. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 635 (1940). The agencies named in the law include the Office of the Ombudsman. 876. 2005. Administrative Code of 1987. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 51 . Energy Regulatory Commission. Civil Aeronautics Board. 01-10-5-SC PHILJA. Book VII. Inc. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. “An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes. Executive Order No. Executive Order No. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups. 8493. Tadiar. Government Service Insurance System.com. Trademarks and Technology Transfer. 7 April 2006. the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. Land Registration Authority. Book VII.. Presidential Decree 1508 instituted a system of amicable settlement of disputes at the barangay level without need of judicial recourse. G. Dean Pacifico A. supra. Civil Service Commission. National Telecommunications Commission. 292.bworldonline. Ibid. The most recent legislative development. 25 July 1987. National Water Resources Board. Chapter IV. No. Insurance Commission. the Arbitration Law. 57-97 of 16 September 1997 provides for consolidation of civil and criminal actions in these cases.
Section 404 [A]). a dialogue held to resolve disputes. The Department of Agrarian Reform was created in 1971 under Republic Act 6389 to manage the national land reform program. See Implementing Rules and Regulations on Mediation in the Trial Courts. For instance. http://www. Administrative Order No. among many others have a tribal leader or council of elders resolve a dispute in the community. Administrative Order No. No. 02-2002. 21 with exclusive jurisdiction on all matters involving employeremployee relations.ph. This occurs after the guilty person has been confined and made to stand for several hours in full view of the public. including all disputes and grievances which may otherwise lead to strikes and lockouts under Republic Act No.org.58 The “kedefawan” tribal justice system of the Tedurays of Kidapawan in Cotabato. 2 April 2002. The National Labor Relations Commission was created in 1972 under Presidential Decree No. 8371.sws. 24 March 2004. the Matigsalog people are using a customary law called “gantangan owey palavian” to resolve conflicts. drawing lots shall determine the members (RA 7160. on Katarungang Pambarangay Implementation (From January 1980 to December 2005). Title I. The Pangkat is composed of three members of the Lupon picked by the parties to the conflict. Republic Act No. Section 65 See http://www. The Kankanaey of the Cordillera has a system called “tongtong”. with the guilty party paying a penalty. Sections 399-422 and Section 512. In Kitaotao.G. Resolution No. 12. “Lupon Tagapamayapa” is composed of the barangay chairman as chair who shall appoint the members of the Lupon subject to qualifications and possible oppositions to the proposed members. Chapter VII. approved 29 October 1997. 04-3-15-SC-PHILJA. 02-04.47 48 Ibid. the “tabunawai or temuay” of the Arumanen Manuvu. 875.gov.dar. supra. Palawan have a tribal justice system called “panglaw”.php. See note 43. wherein a person found guilty of violating customary law is given 30 lashes by a council of tribal elders. 14-93. 04-3-15-SC-PHILJA. the “matikadong” or “bagani” system of the Mansaka tribe in Davao del Norte. “Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo” is constituted if the Lupon fails to settle the dispute. Administrative Matter No. Republic Act No.html. 270. See the extensive history of laws relating to agrarian reform at http://www.gov. Bukidnon.ncip. page 1. appended to Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. The Tagakaolo in Sarangani Province call their justice system “kasfala”. and accompanying text. actions taken. 23 March 1992. Implementing rules and regulations were issued in February 1992 under an administrative order by the President. 24 March 2004. 15 July 1993. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.ph/darhistory2. DILG Summary of Cases filed. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 52 . which usually requires a peace offering from the offender. or in case they fail to agree.ph/indexmain. the Tagbanuas of Coron. 7160 incorporated the Barangay Justice System under Book III. 88 O.
the National Council for Civil Aviation Security. 6975 and No.ph/about.senate. 386.html. An Act Reorganizing and Modernizing the National Bureau of Investigation and Providing Necessary Fund Therefor. the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.neda.asp. the Bureau of Immigration. Title XIV. approved 29 September 2001. Article XVI. 876. http://www. Article XI. the Optical Media Board. 9165. approved 7 March 2003. 7 June 2002. 1008 of 4 February 1985. 206 SCRA 290 (1996). 1953. the National Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating Center. the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission and Task Force. Republic Act No. http://sws. Presidential Decree No. and for other purposes. the Construction Industry Arbitration Law. Republic Act No. 14th Congress. and the Philippine Ports Authority. 262. 9285. the Inter-Agency Council on Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children. supra.org.ph. the Bureau of Customs. See also the 2003 amendments to comply with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force.gov. “The 2007 SWS Business Survey on Corruption.aspx?congress=14&q=SBN-262. Constitution. the Presidential Anti-Illegal Recruiters Task Force.disputeresolution.63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Republic Act No. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 11 April 1978. Senate Bill No. Section 6. supra. 9194. there is a host of task forces. Republic Act No. Republic Act No. 2004. councils and coordinating commissions with responsibilities for various aspects of law enforcement. Republic Act No. Carpio v. “Basic Need: Rule http://www. July 2007. the Presidential Task Force on Transportation Strikes and/or Mass Actions. Executive Secretary. the Joint Task Force Against Trafficking in Persons. the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force.h/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010. the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking.ph/lis/bill_res. June 18. Republic Act No. 29 May 2007. Medium Term Development Plan.gov.p. 1949. In addition. Republic Act No. The Philippine Star.” Social Weather Stations.” 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 53 . The Chief State Prosecutor must be a professionally trained member of the legal profession of proven integrity and competence with at least five years experience in the legal profession prior to appointment. 9160. Section 5. 8551. 9285. the National Anti-Crime Commission. the National AntiKidnapping Task Force. These include the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime. Chapter 17. April 2. 1275. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. note 5. Other national law enforcement agencies that exercise police powers include the Airport Police. note 5. The website of Philippine Online Dispute Resolution is http://www. and the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency. Constitution. the Philippine Coast Guard. of Law. approved 2 April 2004. Executive Order No.
org/docs/resources/publications/violence/summary. See UNDP. 850. See Table II. 213.crin. 09 Apr 2007.org. approved 13 December 1990. Final Report. 324of 12 April 1996 established the review committee that developed the legislative proposal. Implementing regulations of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council entered into force on 11 July 2006. note 4. approved 4 May 2006. expressed the expectation that heads of jails will assist in rehabilitation and exercise care or the human rights and spiritual and physical well being of detainees. adopting the rules on mandatory continuing legal education for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 30 June 2007. Section 63 of Republic Act 6975. supra. supra. See Supreme Court Resolution dated 22 August 2000.pdf. The Manila Times.” www. 212 and No. 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 54 . 9344. Article VIII. 4 May 1973.81 Republic Act No. Ibid. approved 23 March 2007. 17 September 1971. March 2006. http://apjr. Ibid. Breaking Rules: Children in Conflict with the Law and the Juvenile Justice Process – The Experience in the Philippines. “A Brief History of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.net/national/2007/apr/09/yehey/metro/20070409met4. Bar Matter No. Act No.1.” is undertaken.ph/pubreports/Survey%20of%20Inmates%20Final%20Report. Supreme Court. See Save the Children-UK. www. Section 12. Executive Order No. Republic Act No. 14th Congress. Article 125. First Regular Session. National Survey of Inmates and Institutional Assessment: Final Report. Rules of Court. supra. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code requires that inquests be completed within a limited number of hours – not to exceed 36 hours in the most serious cases and shorter periods for lesser offenses. Constitution.supremecourt. Conduct of Further Study on Operations and Linkages of the 5 Pillars of Justice. approved 28 March 2004. See Rule 139A of the Rules of Court. Revised Penal Code. It is believed that there are major delays in both preliminary investigations and inquests. In cases where an accused person is arrested and detained without a warrant of arrest.ibp. Article III. UNDP. Constitution. http://www. Section 5(5). Canlas. CPRM. Rule 112. Senate Bills No. note 5. an “inquest.manilatimes.pdf. 9279. Section 2. Section 14. 3815 (1938). 181. Presidential Decree No. a similar procedure. PAO Gets a Boost with New PAO Bill. Section 5.ph. 2004.gov. 9406. Republic Act No. 6397.html. July 2003. Republic Act No.
supra. or administrative case before any trial court.com. Republic Act No.asp?sec=index. Bar Matter 1161. The Sandiganbayan was evaluated as having “moderate” sincerity. finds that in 133 studied cases from Regional Trial Courts.ph. Only the Supreme Court was identified as having “good” sincerity. Administrative Matter No. Ateneo School of Law.org/about. criminal. 99-10-05-O. www. The 2006-2007 SWS Surveys of Enterprises on Corruption. Attorneys and Admission to the Bar. page 77. American Bar Association.” Constitution. March 2006. The report states “There is no effective case filing and tracking system. courtrooms.” Law schools with legal clinics include the University of the Philippines (which pioneered in this field). http://www.org/index. 23 December 1993.abanet. the system of non-continuous trials. University of Santo Tomas. A manual system is in place in most courts.” Ibid.ph.asp. Ibid. note 5. and Xavier University. With respect to facilities: “The Supreme Court and appellate-level courts…provide a highly respectable environment and infrastructure. Gimeno. Rita Linda.100 101 102 103 104 http://www. “Rule 65: Posing Impediments to a Streamlined Judicial System. A. and other factors that contribute to the lengthy process. 061-03-SC. See Supreme Court Resolution dated 20 February 2007 re: procedure in extrajudicial or judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages. the judicial vacancy rate. the trial courts and Ombudsman were ranked as “mediocre”. Judicial Independence Overview and Country-Level Studies. board or office to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.philippinebar. Arellano University. 8 June 2004. Legal Education Reform Act of 1993. Ibid. Sections 7 and 8. www. Asian Development Bank Judicial Independence Project. Rule 138. Judicial Reform Index for the Philippines. Section 5.org. http://www. http://www. October 2003.pdf.sws.org.2 years for decision. tribunal. These statements are not true for trial courts in many locations. 7662. http://www. Rules of Court.ph/files/proj_scaw. on average. 14 February 2006.” Also. and the 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 55 . Article VIII.org/Documents/Events/2003/RETA5987/Final_Overview_Report.tan. and re creation of a task force to facilitate creation of the Legal Education Board.M.adb.: “There is insufficient budget allocated to equipment for trial level courts. which is often inefficient given the number of pending cases. See Supreme Court Resolutions: on proposed reforms in the bar examinations.” 2007. 11. Section 3.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006.org/pub-reports.alternativelawgroups. Section 1 of Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court authorize a fourth-year law student to “appear without compensation in any civil.html.mbc. petitions to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court under Rule 65 involved. and offices.apjr-sc-phil. http://www. A more significant problem is maintenance and equipping of buildings.pdf. The Asia Foundation. July 2007.
Volume 2. page 167. 2006.” The World Bank Legal Review: Law. good governance.html. the American Bar Association’s survey on lawyer discipline systems in 55 jurisdictions suggests somewhat higher caseloads and rates of disbarments than the Philippines for states having comparable numbers of lawyers. Equity.adb.org/cpr/discipline/sold/home.abanet. and Development. Recent surveys are available at http://www.Department of Justice. World Bank. and Philippine National Police were classified as ”poor” in the degree of their sincerity in fighting corruption. http://www. Department of the Interior and Local Government.org/Documents/Others/Law_ADB/lpr_2001. See the discussion of legal empowerment.pdf. “Legal Empowerment: Impact and Implications for the Development Community and the World Bank. and poverty reduction in Law and Policy Reform at the Asian Development Bank. See also Golub. Stephen. 118 For example. 2001. 119 56 .
inaugurated an era of reform that has continued to the present time. From the beginning. development and implementation office to formulate ways to improve the administration of justice. It also included the creation and restructuring of many organizations responsible for the administration of justice.3 In addition. These bold.2 During this period. including many discussed in Chapter II. Restoring the Foundations of the Justice System During the period following the February 1986 Revolution. Recent Justice Sector Reforms The strong emphasis on justice. including many it still faces as described in Chapter II of this report.”1 The Court issued authoritative guidelines for the nation’s judges on the administration of justice (1987).III. Other reforms. Efforts to deal with this problem have included measures to increase efficiency as well as provisions to divert cases to alternative channels for resolution. In addition. coordinate with other organizations in the justice sector. such as children in conflict with the law. Summary Description of Reforms 1. have focused on particular issues. or under custodial investigation. issued comprehensive measures on court management to implement the Court’s regulatory powers under the new Constitution (1988). the judicial dimension of justice reform has emphasized the qualities of independence. with the support of a Presidential directive. it established a planning. including those provided for in the Constitution such as the Judicial and Bar Council and the Ombudsman. and parole and probation officers. early measures established the leadership of the Supreme Court. This chapter describes the principal reform efforts and assesses their effectiveness with respect to these challenges. protection of intellectual property. Legislation was enacted to emphasize the rights of persons arrested. a justice system infrastructure program was inaugurated for the construction and rehabilitation of facilities for courts as well as for offices of other organizations in the justice system such as those of prosecutors. and the rule of law in the 1987 Constitution. and creating or modifying organizational actors. A. or offenses of special concern such as drug trafficking and money laundering. and initiated a pilot program to increase judicial efficiency through the use of continuous trials (1988 and 1989). A principal focus of the Supreme Court during this period was the reversal of the “downgrading of judicial prestige…and the many judicial problems spawned by extended authoritarian rule which effectively eroded judicial independence and self respect. and initiated the continuing justice reform process.4 Simultaneous with the rebuilding of the Judiciary. human rights. moral rectitude. the reforms of the past 20 years have shaped the Philippine justice system that exists today and have responded to the challenges the system has faced. and monitor the performance of judges and courts (1989). modernizing procedures. Many of the reforms of the past two decades have strengthened the architecture of the justice system by establishing new courts. women and children as victims of crime. such as law enforcement agencies and the public defender system. public attorneys. helped to restore the independence of the Judiciary. the reform agenda included the establishment of new justice entities. detained. and efficiency. the new Constitution provided a sound basis for an effective justice system. described in Chapter I of this report. Among these: 57 . adopted a code of professional responsibility for the legal profession and a code of judicial conduct (1988). A recurrent theme has been the chronic delay that afflicts the formal justice system. Together.
Creating that capacity was a principal area of concentration through the 1990s. and others involved in the administration of justice.9 2. improving court procedures and administration. court personnel. and the Philippine Public Safety College in an expanded Department of the Interior and Local Government. with a view to expediting the disposition of criminal cases. and promoting legal education and court management. Major elements on the reform agenda during this second phase included the following: The enactment of legislation in 1993 to establish standards and enhance the quality of legal education. Building a Sound Justice System on Restored Foundations The initial phase of reforms created responsibilities that demanded increased human and institutional capacity throughout the justice system.”15 The enactment of the Speedy Trial Act in 1998 to specify time limits for various stages in criminal trials. placing greater responsibility on local authorities at the community level. size.14 The creation in 1997 of a Judicial Reform Committee of the Supreme Court with a mandate to “conduct an in-depth examination of our present legal and judicial system for the purpose of upgrading. its relationships with the National Police Commission and local government units were revised. judicial candidates.13 The establishment in 1997 of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples to facilitate the use by indigenous populations of parallel.6 The Barangay Justice System was substantially revised.5 The Philippine National Police was reorganized. the early years of the post-Constitution era included a focus on integrity and accountability in the entire public service. including the designation of family courts throughout the country.16 58 . replacing the Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office. customary legal systems. and it was consolidated with the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology.12 The restructuring of the Office of the Court Administrator in1991 and 1996 to increase its efficiency in providing oversight of the courts.The Public Attorney’s Office was established in the Department of Justice with responsibility for defending indigents under investigation or charged with criminal offenses and providing other legal assistance to the poor.11 A series of adjustments to the jurisdiction.7 More generally. Measures included the requirement in the Administrative Code of 19878 that public employees declare their assets and liabilities and the enactment in 1989 of a code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees. addressing causes of congestion and delay. improving and reforming it to meet the challenges of the new millennium. and areas of specialization of courts to enable them to manage their work more effectively.10 The creation of the Philippine Judicial Academy in 1996 to strengthen the capacity of judges.
procedures and.” 18 Accordingly. The principal studies are listed in the bibliography in Annex 3 to this report. management systems for the administration of justice. the Supreme Court undertook to encourage the participation of other justice sector institutions in the consultations and planning.17 Chief Justice Davide’s December 1998 policy statement. Within two weeks following his appointment the new Chief Justice publicly declared his commitment to a policy of judicial reform with a statement of vision and a mission of achieving specific goals with respect to independence. A number of additional studies have been undertaken to support the implementation of the APJR. such as the Asian Development Bank study of judicial independence and accountability and the World Bankassisted institutional review of the Judiciary. enhanced knowledge-based adjudication. Andres Narvasa. had reminded one of the multi-sectoral consultations in this process. focused on four areas of reform: independence. The APJR has six components: Judicial systems and procedures.3. public trust and confidence. concerned with the capacity of the Judiciary as an independent and accountable branch of government. Institutional development. The development of the Blueprint of Action and the APJR was greatly facilitated by a series of diagnostic studies which informed the public consultations and the deliberations of policymakers. Creating an Institutional Framework for Systematic Justice Reform The appointment of Hilario Davide as Chief Justice in November 1998 marked the beginning of a third phase in the reform of the justice system. effectiveness and efficiency. which came to be known as the “Davide Watch.19 An additional 18 months of deliberations and consultations led to the Supreme Court’s adoption of the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) in August 2001. 59 . and of accomplishments and shortcomings. the Blueprint of Action and the APJR represent a consolidation of the reform efforts that had gone on before. The outcome of the consultations was the publication in February 2000 of Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. Many of these studies were financed by international development partners. and the legal profession.” was informed by an ongoing process of consultation initiated earlier in 1998 with assistance from the United Nations Development Programme and the National Economic and Development Authority to identify technical needs for justice reform. “It would be well to remember that the task of justice delivery is not the courts’ alone. They reflect a systematic identification of strengths and weaknesses. it is shared by the executive and legislative branches of the government and the other four pillars of the criminal justice system. concerned with the jurisdictional structure. fairness and efficiency. As the previous Chief Justice. The Davide Watch. rules. integrity and accountability. looking at reform in a more systematic way and with more deliberate recognition of the roles of other justice sector organizations outside the Judiciary. and accessibility.
thus facilitating the recruitment of qualified candidates for judicial appointment and reducing the number of vacancies in the Judiciary. and discipline of judges and Judiciary staff. foster public awareness. In all cases. approved by law in 2003. Access to justice by the poor. with the expectation that a little over 50% would be financed from domestic resources.20 During the past six years. Some other reforms that were not included in the original planning of the APJR have moved ahead on their own.Human resource management development. and created an executive committee (including senior officials from outside the Judiciary) and a program management office to assure policy oversight.23 The inauguration of mandatory continuing legal education for attorneys in 2003.22 The creation in 2001 of a comprehensive legislative framework to deny wrongdoers who engage in money laundering the financial benefit of their criminal acts. the UNDP-supported study on “Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice”21 emerged from a collaborative effort between the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. concerned with the selection. and follow-up actions. The cost of APJR implementation was estimated at PhP 4. concerned with the prevention. to assure that they are updated on legal developments and issues of professional responsibility.26 60 . and Reform support systems. coordination. multi-year plan. concerned with assuring that the justice system includes genuine opportunities for participation by the marginalized and disadvantaged. monitoring.25 The enactment of legislation in 2003 and 2004 to define the responsibilities of justice organizations to protect women and children against violence and trafficking in persons. For example. Institutional integrity development. detection. and punishment of corruption in the Judiciary and in the legal profession. the involvement of other justice organizations – in the consultation process related to the Blueprint of Action and the formulation and implementation of the APJR – has stimulated reform on the part of those other organizations. The APJR established a coherent. compensation. as had many of the reforms of previous years described above. career development. concerned with management systems to assure the success of the reform program. with the balance (some PhP 2 billion) relying on external sources. communication with stakeholders.3 billion in 2001. and assure the sustainability of the reform program. training. In addition. with priorities and cost estimates.24 The increase of judicial salaries by 100% over a four-year period. Significant reform initiatives during the period of the Blueprint of Action and the APJR include the following: The launch of the Philippine Mediation Center within the Philippine Judicial Academy in 2001 and the subsequent establishment of mediation centers for court-annexed mediation. the structure of the APJR has served as a focal point for coordinating reform efforts. a number of reforms and improvements to the administration of justice have been directly attributable to the plan set out for APJR in 2001. primarily development assistance.
and increased involvement of other organizations in multidisciplinary programs. and securitization. and notaries public in 2004. the use of distance learning. such as: “Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice” (June 2003) involved diagnostic studies of the National Prosecution Service. custody of minors.35 In addition to these specific measures.32 The issuance by the Supreme Court in 2004 of authoritative guidance for pre-trial procedures and discovery. and credit card fraud.30 The enactment of a new legislative charter for alternative dispute resolution in 2004.29 The adoption of new codes of conduct for judges. with a view to expediting court proceedings. the sale of goods. including with respect to adoption. corporate recovery and insolvency. including diversion of their treatment from the formal judicial system.27 Steps toward the modernization of commercial law. Board of Pardons and Parole. and guardianship.The revival in 2003 of the National Council on the Administration of Justice through a memorandum of agreement among the Justice Secretary. annulment of marriage. 61 .33 The enactment of legislation in 2006 to protect and establish appropriate treatment for children in conflict with the law. tariffs and customs. National Bureau of Investigation. Especially noteworthy among these are diagnostic efforts to provide a sound basis for policy decisions in the field of criminal justice. empowering the courts to conduct legal research with more reliably up-to-date and readily available materials. With respect to other justice sector organizations.) Updating of rules on family law and related litigation procedures.34 The enactment of legislation in 2007 to increase the autonomy of the Public Attorney’s Office and to strengthen its capacity. Parole and Probation Administration. These include such themes as the improvement and computerization of case management and administrative management systems and the strengthening of the educational programs of the Philippine Judicial Academy through an expansion of mandatory training courses. and Integrated Bar President. which has developed a broad array of laws on subjects such as maritime law. 28 (The modernization of commercial laws continues. Interior and Local Government Secretary. The adoption by the Supreme Court in 2004 of new policies on decentralization of administration. chattel mortgages. creating opportunities for greater efficiency in the management of the courts and related bodies. and Bureau of Corrections. including legislation on e-commerce.31 The launch of the Supreme Court’s electronic library in 2004. Public Attorney’s Office. a number of reform initiatives have benefited from the momentum of the APJR. employees in the Judiciary. thereby increasing the availability of high quality legal services for the poor and disadvantaged. A more extensive enumeration of achievements under the APJR is at Annex 5 to this report. with a focus on improving the criminal justice system. banking. a host of long-term projects and activities is underway within the framework of the APJR to improve the administration of justice. primarily through the University of the Philippines Commercial Law Study Project. Court Administrator.
capacity development for the National Prosecution Service. Strengthening the Independence and Efficiency of the Judiciary. and institutional capacities and responsibilities. including support for the reorganization of the Judicial and Bar Council and for the distance learning program of the Philippine Judicial Academy. and also provided technical assistance. A Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary (2006). Accountability and Efficiency of the Judiciary and Improving the Administration of Justice. Changes in the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession (2004). and opportunities for reform. “Philippine National Police Integrated Transformation Program” (June 2005) involved a review of the PNP and its overall institutional context and formulated an integrated reform program. linkages between the Barangay Justice System and the courts. model courts with 62 . the APJR depends upon financial support from the international community. Multilateral development organizations and bilateral donors have financed a number of the diagnostic studies.“Survey of Inmates” (July 2003) examined the corrections systems managed by federal and local authorities and provided recommendations on the protection of rights improvement of management. The World Bank Judicial Reform Support Project includes court reorganization.” (November 2004) examined the Office’s investigation and prosecution systems and developed a program to strengthen institutional capacities. provided training and related equipment and materials. “Medium-Term Development Plan for the Criminal Justice System” (December 2006) provides a roadmap for a rights-based approach to reform through strengthening the capacities of justice operators and of civil society. The momentum of the APJR has also been sustained by a series of opinion surveys conducted by the respected Social Weather Stations organization. which involves decentralization of judicial administration. improving business processes related to electronic caseflow management. That support has been forthcoming. The Bank has been a principal source of support for the creation and development of the Philippine Anti-Money Laundering Council.” More recent significant surveys relating to the justice system and available on the Social Weather Stations website36 include the following: Public Opinion Survey on Courts (2003). improvement of court facilities (including the mobile courts). Office of the Ombudsman. with action plans for each of the pillars of the criminal justice system. “Institutional Strengthening the Shari’a Justice System (June 2004) examined the background of the Shari’a justice system. involves the operationalizing of fiscal autonomy and capacity for self-governance in the Judiciary. Particular undertakings include the following: An Asian Development Bank technical assistance project. and Filipino Muslim Survey on Law and Social Justice (2006) As previously noted. The Asian Development Bank also supports APJR through a technical assistance project entitled Enhancing the Autonomy. and a long-term justice sector strategy. its legal and institutional foundations. the operation of the courts. “Medium-Term Anticorruption Program. A baseline 1996 survey that preceded the APJR was entitled “Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession.
improved discovery procedures. including the new facility for the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Youth Training Center for the Bureau of Corrections. strengthening of the Shari’a courts. (CIDA. 63 . providing a valuable tool for case management and decongestion of court dockets. for discussing problems and issues. and repair of selected Halls of Justice in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. The CIDA Court Administration Management Information System project supports the automation of statistical data collection and reporting from locations nationwide. and training of judges and Judiciary employees. through the Philippine-Australian Human Resource Development Facility. Agencies performing alternative dispute resolution functions.” The committee was composed of representatives from the following organizations: Supreme Court. judge-to-judge dialogues. The Australian Agency for International Development has supported the development of benchbooks for trial court judges and. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Enhanced Caseflow Management project supports the development of a caseflow management system for the lower courts that has been field tested and is expected to be rolled out in 2008. In particular: The Action Program for Judicial Reform provided for an interagency committee on judicial reform to serve as a “forum for the proper synchronization of all justice reform efforts outside and within the Judiciary. AusAID also provides training and related activities.automated systems. seminars on the code of ethics. A particularly noteworthy aspect of the third phase of justice reform has been the reliance on interagency and inter-branch coordinating mechanisms. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Judicial Reform Initiative project is concerned with engaging judges in mediation and conciliation in order to enhance access to justice. USAID has also supported a similar automated case management information system for the Sandiganbayan and another that is being developed for the Court of Appeals and the Court of Tax Appeals. Japan has also made important contributions to crucial physical infrastructure for the justice system. electronic learning for judges. The European Union Access to Justice project supports increased capacities of justice system operators and users in five provinces through a focus on human rights and increased access to justice for disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. USAID has supported a wide range of reform activities. has also supported the current court-annexed mediation system and other administrative dispute resolution mechanisms. and has also supported the establishment of model police stations. improved court rules and procedures. along with USAID and the Asia Foundation. including court-annexed mediation. Japan supports the Automated Fingerprint Information System project for the development of capacity in the Philippine National Police to use automated fingerprint identification. and for achieving consensus on the overall direction and strategic level decisions.) The United Nations Development Programme has supported diagnostic studies such as the Medium-Term Criminal Justice System Development Plan. and continuous trials in the Sandiganbayan.
DBM. National Bureau of Investigation Director. in particular. Nevertheless. A study of the Philippine criminal justice system in 2000 began with an expression of frustration with the state of the system and. together. B. and plans of action have been adopted. the delays in the courts: 64 . Director of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. On the other hand.Agencies responsible for the other pillars of the criminal justice system. rules. Parole and Probation Administrator. and coordinating in nature. Integrated Bar of the Philippines Academe. Chief Public Attorney. They do not have decision making or other executive responsibilities. despite all the excellent work done to put in place the reforms of the past 20 years. Over this period. but have not been fully or timely implemented. and of the interdependence of the organizations that. included the President of the Philippine Judges Association. The most obvious example is the issue of delay. the diagnostic studies listed in Annex 3 to this report. the National Council on the Administration of Justice. they demonstrate recognition of the multi-faceted character of the justice system. Achievements and Shortcomings of Philippine Justice Reforms Two decades of reform have restored the legitimacy of the nation’s justice system and achieved an impressive number of changes in law and practice necessary for the system’s effective functioning. The experience of these bodies is valuable preparation for the creation of a participatory management structure for a long-term justice sector development strategy. the Supreme Court has created an institutional structure for leading a process of continued reform and improvement. Too often. chaired by the Secretary of Justice. President of the Trial Judges League. President of the League of Governors. constitute that system.38 Both these interagency and inter-branch structures are advisory. included the Chief of the Philippine National Police. CSC). and President of the National Prosecutors’ League. and President of the League of Barangays. and President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. many of the most serious shortcomings persist. new laws. Civil Society.37 In addition. A second group. President of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association. chaired by the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government. COA. included three groups: One group. Bureau of Corrections Director. collaborative. chaired by the Court Administrator. Oversight agencies (NEDA. Yet. included the Chief State Prosecutor. largely carried out in connection with the formulation of the Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary and the APJR. identified major shortcomings in the justice system’s performance and proposed measures to overcome them. established by a memorandum of agreement to coordinate work on criminal justice issues. A third group.
These include: Inadequate support in national budgets for justice institutions. and out-of-date information in justice institutions. Inefficient allocation of court personnel. what concerns the ordinary Filipino – who is willingly or unwillingly dragged into the system as a litigant or as a witness is the predicament of delay.” citing as contributing factors: The reluctance of judges to deny requests for postponement. along with other financing issues.39 Six years later. These same issues are prominent in the discussion of current challenges to the justice system in Chapter II of this report. and otherwise to require parties to abide by prescribed time limits. However. broader issues were raised in the diagnostic studies.40 While the above-quoted reports focus on the judicial process. now that 65 . following a period of extensive studies and reform initiatives. Nor does it support an inference that reform should be scaled back or abandoned. Rather. and poor working conditions in justice institutions. it underlines the immediate need to intensify the focus on results. Deficiencies in interagency coordination.But perhaps. has always been the target of criticism for abetting the retardation of court process. the American Bar Association’s Judicial Reform Index expressed concern over “inefficiency. Weakness of court management systems. Overcrowding and inhumane conditions in jails and prisons and a lack of access by prisoners to legal assistance. to demand the timely appearance of witnesses. shortages of prosecutors and public attorneys. The justice system. insufficient training. lack of equipment and supplies. This persistence of the challenges that confront the justice system is sobering. Sequential rather than continuous trials. since modern memory can recall. Poor condition of facilities. and In criminal cases. this reality in no way diminishes the value of what the reform program has accomplished. to refer attorneys to disciplinary authority for unprofessional and frivolous delaying tactics. Personnel shortages. and Continued inadequacy of access to justice and legal services by the poor and disadvantaged. among all these issues which remain unanswered. Weak capacities for administrative and financial management. compounded by overly centralized and inefficient management systems and inadequate communications between field offices and headquarters. frequently resulting in a filing to completion period of five or more years in civil and criminal cases. Absence of a small claims procedure. An inordinate backlog of cases.
Important decisions have been taken to modernize and improve the operation of the justice system: decentralization of court administration. although reliance on fees. There follows a summary of the achievements and shortcomings of past reforms. and the absence of accountability for failure to implement planned actions in a timely manner. as discussed above. and the institutional structure for systematic reform created. The authority for some justice sector organizations to use fee income to augment their budgets has been a substitute for increased budgets in some cases. Procedures. accountability. Consistently over the years. and Facilities The past 20 years have witnessed a flourishing of new and restructured institutions with responsibilities for the administration of justice: new courts. The immediate cause is the vicious circle of limited implementation capacities in the justice organizations (including limited capacities to manage change and to manage for results). Weak management systems and limited capacity to implement reforms are a legacy of inadequate budgets. 1.the system’s foundations have been restored. Underlying this difficult environment is the lack of a political consensus that the benefits of improved performance and service to the public by the justice system outweigh the costs and risks. The past reforms have not satisfactorily resolved the budget issues. and transparency. However. integrity. Modest budgetary increases for some organizations in recent years can begin to improve this situation if the additional resources are committed to capacity building. investment in 66 . This is the classic challenge faced by reformers in the Philippines and elsewhere: how to stimulate mutually reinforcing popular demand. broad political leadership. Business Practices. organized by reference to the four interrelated objectives suggested in Chapter II as a holistic context for system-wide reform: (i) strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. the agreed measures will be carried out efficiently. and (iv) broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. the necessary implementation capacities will be attained. and reorganizations that have created new responsibilities and new requirements for interinstitutional coordination. especially from the standpoint of those who are affected by it. Any future reform program will need to address these impediments so that the necessary investments will be made. raises additional policy questions. and institutional commitment in order to create a compelling dynamic for change. the inadequate investment in increasing their capacities. budgets – especially for investment and maintenance – have remained low throughout the justice sector even as workloads have increased. new executive branch agencies. resource constraints and weak management have combined to impede the institutional development and efficiency of many of these new and restructured organizations. The achievements and shortcomings of reforms to date need to be assessed in their historic context as necessary preparation for a significantly improved delivery of justice services. (iii) capable and motivated human resources. The emphasis in the next phase of reform needs to be on improving the system’s performance. (ii) high standards of independence. and the substantial benefits of improved performance in the administration of justice and the operation of the rule of law will be realized. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems. Informed observers attribute the persistence of the above-described performance deficiencies to several factors. the soundness of the system rebuilt.
Periodic decongestion actions to release some prisoners have not changed the basic dynamic of progressively increased overcrowding. and transparency also arise from the combination of low budgets and reliance on fee income and contributions from local government units. However. One area where past reforms have produced little improvement in systems. as has the program of mandatory continuing legal education for lawyers. as well as improved management systems. it is difficult for the field of corrections to compete with other priorities for the attention of budget decisionmakers. integrity. It is clear that the reforms have introduced many improved procedures. the justice sector has been slow in scaling up from pilot programs and making changes operational for general application. Yet. model courts. in part because of inadequate capacity to implement them. where training programs are generally constrained. The Supreme Court has received more than a dozen reports on different aspects of management to support its strategy for administrative autonomy. the formulation of plans for facility enhancement. business practices. The objective of professionalizing the operation of the jails has been frustrated in substantial part by funding limitations that have left many jails still under the control of the Philippine National Police. Accountability. Legislation proposed to improve the management structure of the corrections system has not been enacted. Rules for admission to the practice of law require the inclusion of legal ethics in law school curricula. Issues of independence. Integrity. The number of detainees and prisoners continues to grow faster than the budgets for the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the Bureau of Corrections. the implementation of court decongestion measures. accountability. But the design of modern systems. However. 2. in the absence of greater implementation capacity. court employees. procedures. such as computerized information systems. updated laws and rules of court. lawyers. in addition to the generally applicable code of conduct for public employees.computerized information and case management systems. These issues have not been addressed in depth in previous reforms. and police. 67 . with persistent questions about the adequacy of current arrangements in preserving judicial autonomy and in fostering judicial accountability. The existing relationship between the Judiciary and the Department of Budget and Management remains controversial. The Philippine National Police have adopted a moral rehabilitation program for police officers who violate established standards. model police stations. and Transparency The reforms have included codes of ethics for judges. Justice sector organizations have included ethics courses in their training programs. such as the updated rules of civil and criminal procedure. and the uniform application of case management systems. and skillfully crafted action plans have often failed to produce the intended results. awareness of ethical responsibilities is only one of the areas where employees lack needed information. and facilities is in the overcrowded prisons and jails. High Standards of Independence. A particular issue that has been addressed in previous reform proposals has been the role of the Department of Budget and Management with regard to the Supreme Court’s proposed Judiciary budget and the release of appropriated funds to the Judiciary. Current examples include the creation of model police stations by the Philippine National Police. Continuing issues of budget procedure raise questions as to the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary.
There appears to be a lack of transparency and consistency in the response of the justice organizations to corruption allegations that has not been adequately addressed by previous reforms.”42 It would seem that the image of the justice system would be enhanced if were seen as a more effective instrument for combating corruption. the lowest rate of case clearance of any category of courts in the Philippines (Table II. The Supreme Court has commissioned an assessment of training for Judiciary personnel. organizational structures. budgets. However. and policies. disciplinary actions have been taken against judges. The Sandiganbayan has. Thus. the publicly announced grounds for disciplinary action are often causes other than corruption and. the credibility of other state institutions is diminished. The reforms have encouraged greater transparency. they have not otherwise encouraged citizen monitoring of justice system performance. An innovation in past reform efforts to enhance accountability of the justice system has been the support given to a consortium of civil society organizations to monitor the process for appointment of Supreme Court justices. as noted in the preceding paragraph. the absence of a freedom of information law leaves individuals seeking to exercise their right to information from public agencies at a disadvantage. However. lawyers.11). a shortcoming of the reforms in one area (low rates of disposition and conviction in corruption cases) has negative implications in another area of reform (perceived integrity of the criminal justice system). The recent determination of that civil society group to expand its activity to include other judicial appointments is a positive step toward greater accountability. including improved management as well as training for Council staff. However. the reforms have increased outreach to the public by the justice organizations. This helps to give credibility to the system. The conclusion of that study is to place the responsibility squarely on the justice system: “When the most important veto point – the judiciary – cannot perform its functions.41 One apparent cause of this perception is the inability of the justice system to deal effectively with alleged corruption outside the justice system. Public opinion surveys continue to indicate a widespread perception of corruption in the justice system. 3.A recent measure to increase autonomy is the 2007 legislation to provide for the autonomy of the Public Attorney’s Office within the Department of Justice. the number of disciplined officials is low. Beyond this activity. A question left unanswered by that action was the lack of comparable status for the National Prosecution Service. Public doubts about the integrity of the justice system and about the sincerity of justice organizations in fighting corruption suggest the need for a stronger effort to enhance accountability than has been evident in past reforms. A recent estimate suggested that a public official in the Philippines is 35 times more likely to escape prosecution for an act of corruption than a comparable official in Hong Kong. The rate of convictions obtained by the Office of the Ombudsman in the Sandiganbayan is very low. 68 . and police officers. In some cases. with most agencies now maintaining websites that contain information on their activities. by far. The Philippine Judicial Academy and the mandatory continuing legal education program for members of the bar are making a growing contribution to enhanced human capacity in the administration of justice. Capable and Motivated Human Resources The reforms have strengthened the judicial selection process by improving the capacity of the Judicial and Bar Council.
The reforms have not made employment in the justice sector an attractive career opportunity that will attract and retain a highly qualified workforce. Limited training opportunities are related to the lack of career development programs in most agencies. often with international financial support.43 In many justice agencies individuals are appointed to specific positions without a structure of eligibility for advancement based on experience and the acquisition of additional skills. is just one example of the troubling phenomenon of reforms adopted but not implemented. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.000 lawyers to the 2. and the support by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples for customary justice systems have contributed to increased access to justice at the community level. The Philippine Public Safety College. The expansion of services by the Public Attorney’s Office and. This.000 needed to provide coverage in all courts) under the legislation enacted in 2007 is a positive legacy of previous reforms. There are many issues that remain in need of attention. The Supreme Court only now is developing a career development program for court personnel. The promised doubling of the staff of the Public Attorney’s Office (from about 1.44 related efforts to train women and youth. An example is that increased compensation for judges has been accompanied by an increase in the number of prosecutors and Public Attorney’s Office staff seeking judicial appointments. Legal services for the needy are often fragmented and the choices available to intended beneficiaries are not always clear. to the detriment of other parts of the system. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public The Barangay Justice System. Human resource issues have not been dealt with in a comprehensive way in past reforms. Another is re-engineering of workforces to increase productivity. and a number of law schools have improved the availability of legal assistance and representation to poor and marginalized groups. Newly appointed prosecutors and public defenders enter on duty without an orientation program to train them in their important responsibilities.Training in executive branch agencies remains inadequate. and communication. A third issue is how to assure that training has a positive impact on the behavior of those who receive it after they return to the workplace. The Supreme Court program on information. and the work of many organizations 69 . Where conditions have improved for one group within the justice system. Among these is the need to assure the recruitment and selection of individuals who have the best qualifications. of course. It is especially troubling in this case because it concerns the qualification of those who will enter the legal profession. qualified individuals within the system have an incentive to seek to enter that favored group. The National Police Academy provides an introductory course for police cadets. however. restorative justice mechanisms of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. This is an important aspect of building internal incentive systems that will help employees adapt to change. The National Prosecution Service and the Public Attorney’s Office can offer only occasional courses. with possible savings by reducing the number of low-skilled positions and increasing compensation as skills are enhanced and staff more efficiently deployed. the provision of legal services by alternative law groups. The lack of implementation of the Legal Education Act has left the nation’s law schools without the incentives that the Act’s accreditation and oversight program would bring for assuring educational quality. 4. is able to provide in-service training only to a small percentage of police officers. including commitment to values of honesty and public service. education.
the operation of the justice system and the availability of legal services. Citizens need to be better informed not only about procedures. An expansion of services needs to be accompanied by an expansion of popular legal education. and improved information are needs that have grown even as past reforms have increased the scope of services available. However. the media. as shown in Appendix 5 of this report. the ultimate objective is to provide broad access and excellent service. coordination of efforts. The challenges. Rationalization. but also about their substantive rights and obligations under the law. 70 . implementing actions for the most part have involved studies and pilot programs. and if. Access to justice by the poor was a principal theme of the APJR.through the schools. as suggested above in Chapter II. These measures need to be greatly expanded. issues and constraints identified in 2001 remain. and training programs in communities are positive steps. comprising an entire chapter in the program’s supplement. There remains a widespread lack of public awareness about the rights and duties of citizens under the law. it will be necessary to give a much higher priority to services and education that will help achieve legal empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged. If equal treatment under the law is to be a goal of justice reform.
designating courts for kidnapping. 2005. Title III. http://apjr. No. Minister of National Defense. Administrative Order 51-96 of 3 May 1996. 146 SCRA 406. Executive Order No. approved 25 July 1987. 292. e. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. of the 1987 Constitution. carnapping and other heinous crimes under R. The Supreme Court has designated specific courts to hear cases involving specialized subject matter. robbery. Republic Act No. See also the Family Courts Act of 1997. 6713. Republic Act 8551. Supreme Court Report. Presidential Administrative Order No. dangerous drugs.pdf. 7438.A. 11 of 18 September 1992. and Supreme Court Administrative Matter No.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports. 30-91 of 30 September 1991. supra. Section 12. 22 February 2005. 8371. 1990. 292. 99 of 1 December 1988.” Supreme Court of the Philippines. 1986.. and juvenile justice. approved 10 October 1991. such as intellectual property rights. Quotation is from a paper by Justice Artemio Panganiban on 30 November http://jrn21. approved 27 April 1992. Republic Act 7160. 7659. Feliciano. Administrative Code of 1987. July 2000. provides for a Legal Education Board to accredit law schools and oversee their operation and curricula. Local Government Code of 1991. 1988-1989. note 3. designating the Regional Trial Courts to hear cases within the jurisdiction specified in the Family Courts Act. Executive Order No. Carmelo V. 7662.gov. Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990.. as of August 2007. 857. 1998. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 71 . 417. However. approved 28 October 1997. Republic Act 6975. 36-97. certain complex crimes. Adjustments included increased jurisdiction – for trial courts under Republic Act No.html. See Sison. page 3. approved February 25. Republic Act No. Republic Act No. The Legal Education Reform Act of 1993. and Myrna S. 8369. A further reorganization of the Office of the Court Administrator was effected by Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 98-7-01-SC. Chapter 5. Circular No.g. This legislation confirms in positive law guarantees set forth in Article III. “Philippine Judicial Reforms. 99-1-13-SC. approved December 14. 7902 (1995) and Republic Act No. Book IV. Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998. The Philippine Judicial Academy was established by Administrative Order 35-96 on 12 March 1996. as amended by Presidential Administrative Order No. commercial disputes. 7691 (1994) and for the Court of Appeals under Republic Act No. Supreme Court Circular No. the Board had not been established.Notes to Chapter III 1 2 Animas v.supremecourt. It obtained a legislative charter in Republic Act No. See.supremecourt. approved 26 February 1998. Section 14.ph/forum_icsjr/ICSJR_Philippines%20(A%20Panganiban). 8246 (1996). 9 June 1997. approved 20 February 1989. 1987-2000. Republic Act No. Republic Act No.
38-98 of 11 August 1998. effective 1 September 2003. 8791. 2004. Supreme Court Administrative Order No. approved 19 March 2004. 03-06-13-SC and No.ph/policy. Supreme Court. 850 on 22 August 2000. Republic Act No. United Nations Development Programme. 17 18 19 20 Action Program for Judicial Reform. approved 14 June 2000. 24 April 2002. http://www. 15 November 2005. August 2001. 01-7-01-SC. bringing Philippine standards into greater conformity with World Trade Organization customs valuation standards. February 2000. Ibid.” 11 December 1998.doj. See. Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 72 . 1 May 2004. The Supreme Court has published a manual on ethics and has conducted orientation seminars for judges and court personnel to assure their familiarization with their responsibilities under the codes. Republic Act No.org/pubreports. approved 19 July 2000. 15 March 2003. approved 28 April 2001. approved 29 September 2001. 9227. Republic Act No. April 2. 9160. 113-2003. Administrative Matter No. tax and regulatory framework for asset securitization. which provides recognition and protection of electronic records (see also the Electronic Evidence Rule of the Supreme Court. 4 March 2003. providing guidance on the implementation of this law. e. 9194. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. Republic Act No. June 2003.gov. 03-05-01 SC.apjr-scphil. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. Examples include the E-Commerce Act of 2000. Supreme Court Administrative Matter Nos. 9267. establishing a legal.ph/news_07-31-03. page 39. 05-11-04.supremecourt.apjr-sc-phil. Republic Act No. the Securities Regulation Code of 2000. 9262. approved 6 May 2003. approved 23 October 2003. the General Banking Law of 2000.gov. http://www. the 2001 amendments to the Tariff and Customs Code. See also Supreme Court Circular No. http://www. Republic Act No. 8792.htm.16 Republic Act No. 1 August 2001). and the Securitization Act of 2004. Supreme Court Administrative Circular 20-2002. http://www. Republic Act No. and 03-02-05. approved 7 March 2003. respectively. Hilario. Republic Act No. establishing rules of procedure in asset forfeiture and freezing of assets in cases relating to money laundering offenses.org/article/articleview/7/1/2. Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. 9285. 8493. Supreme Court. Republic Act No. The Supreme Court approved the rules for mandatory continuing legal education in Bar Matter No. page 3. Republic Act No. 9208. “Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession towards the Third Millennium. 9135.g. Republic Act No.html. 8799. 02-8-13. approved 8 March 2004. Department of Justice Press Release dated 31 July 2003. See also the 2003 amendments to comply with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force. page ii. approved 12 February 1998. 02-11-11 SC. providing broader scope for banking transactions. Davide. 02-11-10 SC.approved 23 May 2000.
Social Weather Stations. 03-11-16-SC. 27 April 2004. Supreme Court. Department of Justice Press Release. 15 January 1999.sws. http://www. Social Weather Stations will provide copies of older surveys removed from the website to conserve server space. American Bar Association. July 2000. the Philippines. supra. Bhargava. 9406. 06-04-09-SC.apjr-sc-phil. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.” in Challenging Corruption in Asia: Case Studies and a Framework for Action. See Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. Re: Career Development and Management Plan for the Judiciary. 05-2-01-SC. and Challenges. The Supreme Court has undertaken a number of follow-up measures to this guidance. March 2006. World Bank. Feliciano. approved 26 April 2006. note 27. 10 October 2006. Limits. page 102. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No.org/article/articleview/46/1/2/. Action Program for Judicial Reform. http://www. 399. Judicial Reform Index for http://www. Education.” April 2003. approved 23 March 2007. Republic Act No. 03-1-09-SC. “The 2007 SWS Business Survey on Corruption. Republic Act No. 13 March 2007. Myrna. “Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession. July 2007. Communication Guidelines for Municipal Court Information Officers. note 20.abanet. page 118. the Supreme Court approved greater autonomy in administrative management for Judicial and Bar Council in Administrative Matter No.sws.ph. supra. e.g.pdf. 14 August 2004.32 For example. “Anticorruption Initiatives in the Philippines: Breakthroughs. Upon request. and Alberto T. Muyot.org. “The Philippine Criminal Justice System. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. See also Administrative Circular No.org. Access to Justice for the Poor Project Information.ph. 9344.” Social Weather Stations. and Emil Bolongaita. 2004. Vinay. http://www. 42 43 44 73 . 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 See.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006.
including detailed work programs. 3. 1 Inherent in this view of development has been the recognition that the process has economic. and security dimensions. and The establishment of a formalized. Encourage local capacity. should fit clearly into the government’s policy and planning system and its national development strategy. country ownership of and capacity for planning. environmental. Implementing mechanisms are important. Set the sector program in context. systems for performance monitoring and reporting. Support government ownership and leadership. agreed implementation schedules. The OECD Development Assistance Committee has published guidance on harmonized donor support for SWAPs. activities and resources. and should be endorsed at a high political level. The creation of a medium-term expenditure framework that includes all resources (domestic and international) for the sector and aligns resources with policy priorities and performance. Be aware of its implications for overall policy coherence and its effects on the role of central and local institutions. including the role of financial and procurement management. A SWAP is a program-based approach to development that operates at the level of an entire sector. government-led process for coordination and dialogue. all of which must be heeded. implementation and monitoring. The Nature of the Sector-Wide Approach One manifestation of the evolving view of development is a shift from a project-based to a program-based approach for organizing development efforts. Sector policy should be authored by the government – not by donors. and whether accountability requirements are being met. and consultation with development partners and other stakeholders. Work with the government to strengthen institutional capacity and accountability. A Sector-Wide Approach to Justice Reform Development has come to be seen as a process of societal change based on local responsibility for and commitment to integrated policies and strategies that are results oriented over the long term.IV. A sector-wide performance monitoring system should be able to show whether sector goals are being achieved. planning and policy skills. based on analysis of current processes and outcomes. social. including increased reliance on the sector-wide approach (SWAP).3 A. 75 . and coordinated international support of local development efforts. including in management. A SWAP combines a number of factors: The identification of policy priorities and the development of a medium-term strategy for delivering services across the range of institutions in the sector. It seeks to achieve significant development results through three particular qualities: coherence among sectoral policy. political. 2.2 In particular. strategy. whether the strategies for pursuing those goals are effective. it is now generally accepted that good governance and the rule of law are important factors for achieving sustainable development results. based on five guiding principles: 1.
and enhance the ability of the private sector to make and enforce commercial contracts. However.6 Initially.4 A number of donors and multilateral development organizations. B. 5. security of property.or five-year tranches. At the same time. typically using mechanisms such as inter-ministerial and inter-branch committees. have also published their own policies and guidance regarding SWAPs. including the Asian Development Bank and the European Commission. and proactive communication programs. look for “quick wins” to sustain momentum. JLOS was introduced into the national development strategy and strategic investment plan in 2001 with the following structure of goal.4. and access to justice that ensures a strong economic environment to encourage private sector development and benefit poor and vulnerable people.to five-year period. the Ministry of Education with respect to the education sector or the Ministry of Health with respect to the health sector. In particular. actions. SWAPs were employed in situations where a single line ministry in the developing country had broad authority over policy in the sector – for example. Law and Order Sector-Wide Approach (JLOS)7 had its origins in a pilot effort in the early 1990s to improve coordination of work to strengthen the criminal justice agencies. Experience of Other Countries with Justice-Sector Wide Reform Programs Several countries have undertaken SWAPs in the justice sector. the sector-wide approach has also been found to offer a way to improve coherence and coordination of efforts in sectors where many organizations have responsibilities for policy and operations. 1. despite implementation complications. Recognize that sector programs typically involve institutional changes and organizational development over at least ten years. This experience demonstrated the linkages among the organizations involved in the administration of justice and the benefits of working together. 76 . Avoid overly ambitious objectives or unduly complex implementing structures. and strategic objectives: GOAL: Improve safety of the person. and resources over a three. Define “sector” in a way that facilitates efficient implementation. PURPOSE: Promote the rule of law. Be pragmatic and flexible. implemented in three. The sector strategy and related mediumterm expenditure framework should permit systematic planning of objectives. the United Kingdom Department for International Development has issued guidance specifically on the justice sector5 and the World Bank has published a handbook on justice sector assessments. broad dialogue and participation. Uganda The Uganda Justice. Take a long-term strategic view. purpose. increase public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Papua New Guinea The Papua New Guinea Law and Justice Sector Program9 is based on a national policy that was developed in 2000 by a working group of senior managers from the justice agencies. the Judiciary. Commercial court customer service improved. which also maintains communication with a donor group of 14 donors and multinational organizations. efficiency. efficiency and improved operational performance. C. Planning and Economic Development. Strategic Objective 2 – Commercial Justice Reform: A. Management oversight is provided by a steering committee whose members include the Ministry of Justice. Police. Specialized skills for commercial lawyers. Commercial law reform. Civic and legal education sustained. B. Day-to-day management is handled by a JLOS secretariat.Strategic Objective 1 – Criminal Justice Reform: A. B. this policy focused on three desired outcomes: Improved functioning of the formal law and justice agencies to increase the effectiveness of the deterrence system and maintain the rule of law – and develop partnerships with the informal sector to deliver services. chaired by the Department of National Planning and Monitoring. Improved administration of justice. Ministry of Gender. Implementation is managed by a technical-level committee of the participating organizations. Judicial Services Commission. D. Minister of Justice. and in energizing commercial courts and enhancing their accountability. 77 . Prison Service. As approved in 2001. and Minister of Internal Affairs. Law Reform Commission. The steering committee operates on many important issues through a leadership committee comprising the Chief Justice. Commercial registry reform. and Increased focus on crime prevention and restorative justice and developing the informal system as a complementary part of the law and justice framework. D. A 2004 evaluation found that the program had achieved significant impacts in increasing communication. and equity of access sustained across the justice system. Directorate of Public Prosecutors.8 2. C. The technical committee has established five working groups to deal with various issues. reducing criminal case backlogs and time spent in pretrial detention. Labor and Social Development. and the Ministry of Finance. Legal and law reform achieved. Accountability. Improved sectoral coordination to target priorities. Expanding the role of civil society in the operation of JLOS is a recognized issue in the 2006-2011 strategic investment plan.
Maintain a national corrections system for persons who are a risk to society. Goal 2 – Improved Access to Justice and Just Results: A. C. Provide alternatives to imprisonment for less serious crimes and those awaiting trial. Goal 4 – Improved Accountability and Reduced Corruption: A. Public Solicitor and Public Prosecutor. highway safety. B. B. B. Remove obstacles to just results.g. Commissioner of Correctional Service. Increase support for community-based crime prevention. The working group consists of two representatives from each of the organizations included in the national coordinating mechanism. Chief Ombudsman. a community justice liaison unit). The management structure reflects the wide range of the reform agenda and the large number of participating agencies: A national coordinating mechanism includes the Chief Justice. Reintegration and Deterrence: A.. Encourage communities to reconcile offenders and victims in a nonviolent manner. Rebuild a professional police service that meets all legitimate community expectations. Strengthen formal agencies to use resources properly. Safety and Crime Prevention: A. as chair. high priority initiatives (urban safety. the policy has been converted into a strategic framework with the following structure of goals and objectives: Goal 1 – Improved Policing. B. the Secretary of the Department of National Planning and Monitoring.For operational purposes. C. C. Foster and build enhanced sector cooperation and coordination. D. C. and. Strongly support robust and independent courts and commissions. Its focus is on substantive policy and overall performance. family and sexual violence). nonviolent dispute resolution. Reduce claims against the State. as well as several other specialized agencies (e. Chief Magistrate. Ensure accountability for corruption and the abuse and misuse of power. B. gun possession and use. Goal 5 – Improved Ability to Provide Law and Justice Services: A. Support select. Secretary of Justice and Attorney General. Strengthen locally based. Integrate HIV/AIDS response into the sector and agencies. Goal 3 – Improved Reconciliation. This senior body provides oversight and direction and approves the sector budget. 78 . A law and justice sector working group serves as executive agent for the national coordination mechanism. C. Commissioner of Police. Support and build capacity in civil society to contribute to sector development. Encourage civil society oversight of public administration.
Prosecution – strengthening institutional capacity and clarifying relationship between prosecutors and police. Criminal procedure – eliminating the backlog of cases. F. They contribute to a better informed public debate. The program has identified objectives for each of the four output areas as follows: OUTPUT 1 – Enhanced Capacity of Justice Sector Institutions to Deliver Services Efficiently and Effectively: A. Reporting crime – increasing police receptivity to victims. J. It is focused on four outputs to be pursued during the period 2006-2010. the second two years concentrated on implementing priority reforms. Execution of judgments – increasing efficiency. H. Civil procedure – disposing of the backlog of cases. greater accountability. Court of Appeals – eliminating the backlog of cases. Investigations and charging – overcoming low conviction rate through enhanced skills. Community safety – protecting people and property from crime and reduce fear of crime. They enable year-to-year comparison. They rely on transparent. coordinates the work of multi-agency action groups. As in the case of Uganda. the Law and Justice Sector Program is integrated into the country’s medium-term development program. Guyana The Guyana Justice Sector Reform Strategy (JSRS)10 is newer than those of Uganda or Papua New Guinea. and increased transparency. Police institutional strengthening – enhancing capacity of the police as a “service” rather than a “force. is that international support comes almost entirely from Australia rather than involving a large number of donors. however. C. Alternatives to imprisonment –increasing the use of non-custodial sentences in appropriate cases.” E. With respect to performance management. D.These interagency bodies are supported by a law and justice sector secretariat that works to integrate the justice sector strategic framework in the work plans of concerned agencies. G. 79 . 3. L. M. monitors performance. Administrative cases – modernizing procedures for judicial review of administrative actions. with the first two years devoted to putting into place the foundations for implementation. K. and manages donor resources. I. A significant difference. Judiciary – improving the control of public expenditures. B. simple methods of data collection. Prosecution – overcoming technical and legal constraints. and the final year for consolidating the gains and planning future reforms. the secretariat tries to use indicators that have the following qualities: They are meaningful to civil society and government.
Accountability institutional framework – strengthening independent bodies for oversight and complaints. preparing and disseminating reports. Customer service. Funding civil litigation. Law reporting – assuring public access to court decisions. E. The JSRS will engage Guyanese civil society through a recently created National Commission on Law and Order and through reliance on civil society organizations for advocacy and services. A technical secretariat will support all the institutions and change management teams. P. Ethics – developing codes of conduct with clear sanctions for their breach. Management of the JSRS is under the leadership of a high level steering committee of governmental and judicial officials. conducting baseline studies. Prisons – improving conditions. Coordinated approach to juvenile justice. Legal aid. the change management teams and the technical secretariat in developing and monitoring indicators. Alternative dispute resolution. Upholds Their Responsibilities. D. Sector-wide efficiency savings. C. D. B. New opportunity corps to develop appropriate treatment for young offenders. Paralegals and mediation. OUTPUT 2 – Strengthened Linkages between Justice Institutions: A. D. Under the policy guidance of the steering committee. B. Government legal services – improving efficiency. Monitoring and evaluation will involve the steering committee. Criminal justice operational coordination.N. 80 . Civil education. OUTPUT 4 – Activities to Enhance Citizen Trust in a Justice System Which Respects Their Rights. C. and Meets Their Needs: A. including measures to deal with pre-trial detainees. Planning and resource allocation. and engaging key stakeholders in the process. E. OUTPUT 3 – Activities for Improved Access to Justice. B. Communications – providing the public with clear messages of justice institutions’ performance and progress of the reform process. O. F. change management teams within participating organizations and groups of institutions will bring together committed leaders with a mandate for change. C. Policy making/planning/resource allocation – enhancing capacity of Ministry of Legal Affairs to carry out its formal mission managing a system for administration of justice. Especially for the Poor and Vulnerable: A.
judicial. Management is expected to be led by a steering committee under the leadership of the Ministry of Capacity Building. aimed at reducing crime and fear of crime. Justice. and a technical secretariat oversee seven thematic groups that address the above listed themes. Justice. a technical coordinating committee and stakeholders’ forum.5 million. and civil society organizations involved in the administration of justice. Democracy. It is anticipated that management will include a leadership group. aimed at improving user satisfaction. integrity and anticorruption. monitoring and evaluation. A recent midterm review conducted under the auspices of the European Union found that work plans tended to be overly ambitious. Information about the program is available in secondary sources. it does not appear that a comprehensive plan and budget are in place. Strengthened rule of law. that capacity building had not been up to expectations. and Capacity for effective leadership and management of change. Law and Order Sector Reform Program (GJLOS)11 is focused on seven broad themes: Ethics.14 It appears that the program will seek to enhance the capacity and efficiency of legislative. juvenile. or have plans to do so. GJLOS has a governance structure similar to those of other countries – a cabinet level steering committee. educational. Other Countries Several other countries have initiated SWAPs in the justice sector. aimed at improving human rights outcomes and accountability.Financing needs. with a program office to provide coordination. Constitutional development.13 Ethiopia has conducted a number of studies and launched a justice system reform program. Quality legal services to government and the general public. and that the effectiveness of GJLOS efforts was impeded due to the lack of a sector policy embedded in the national policy and a lack of impact outside the capital city. a technical working group. Improved justice service delivery. law and order. aimed at improving criminal. 4. human rights and the rule of law. This program and its management oversight and financing are still in development. and a number of task forces that will report to the technical working group. and civil justice and strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. are estimated at US$ 10. Initial priority will be given to reforms that are essentially cost free or can be financed through efficiency savings or revenue enhancement.12 Sierra Leone has initiated the design of a justice sector reform program with four goals: Safe communities. 81 . executive. However. Kenya’s ambitious Governance. intended to come primarily from government and donor sources. Access to justice. Public safety and security.
these national experiences in the justice sector. Several elements of good practice can be seen in the experience of countries seeking to balance the competing needs for inclusion and for decisiveness. There are two practical ways in which this linkage has been established. is more likely to achieve sustainable results. efforts to strengthen capacity will be needed to achieve increasingly ambitious results over the life of the program.16 A related point is that the constraints of resource limitations help provide discipline for the setting of goals and objectives and the formulation of strategies and action plans intended to achieve the desired results. This linkage assures that projected results will not be impeded for lack of resources and creates a powerful incentive for achievement. The formulation of plans is easier than their implementation. criminal justice reform. In all the countries studied. jurisdiction and accountability. A third element of preparing for success is that it is important to align program objectives with institutional capacity to implement the strategies and action plans. 1. Lessons for the Philippines The sector-wide approach to justice reform is a recent phenomenon. structure. This is a reflection of the complexity of the sector and the multiplicity of institutional actors. Program Design First and foremost. together with the general international guidance about sector programs. In particular. inter-branch management structures for their justice sector programs. and several are still in development. several countries have found it useful to have the senior leadership group operate to some extent through a small executive committee that can speak with authority and reach decisions quickly. all have established mid-level technical committees in recognition that officials at the most senior levels will have only limited time and that there is often rapid turnover in cabinet-level posts. the foundations of the justice system. the sector-wide justice reform programs have been in place only for a few years. Governance of Program Implementation It is noteworthy that all the countries studied have established multi-agency.15 Recommended areas of concentration are identified as including reinvestment. civil justice reform. and results. Lessons for the Philippines include the following. modernization and transformation. Nevertheless. At the same time. and institutionalizing justice reform. offer useful guidance. One has been to include budget and planning agencies – along with justice system operators – in the management structure of the sector program.A national task force in Jamaica recently completed an impressive report with recommendations for a comprehensive justice reform. action plans. at most. it is important to forge a strong linkage of resources to policies. 82 . A particularly important area for capacity strengthening efforts will be enhancing the results-based management skills of those responsible for program implementation. the framework for change. A focus on a limited number of realistic and well defined objectives. strategies. C. Second. It is essential that objectives be attainable within the capacity of the implementing organizations. the public and the justice system.17 2. rather than a long and overly ambitious wish list. The other is to create a medium-term expenditure framework for the sector within which priorities are set.
Program Finance Most of the countries that have undertaken justice sector-wide programs have been low income countries that rely to a significant extent on donor funding. business practices. together with baseline data. Average time from filing to disposition of: o o Probable cause determinations Court proceedings in criminal cases (normal and expedited) 83 . appear to provide incentives for performance and also convey persuasive reporting of results to domestic stakeholders and international development partners that can help to sustain the necessarily long-term process of sector-wide reform. balanced groups of indicators are more reliable than single measures of progress. with its highly developed justice system. They are grouped. Of course. Nevertheless. using key indicators and baseline data. there appears to be support for a donor coordination mechanism focused on the justice sector. the specific action plans of individual agencies and multi-agency working groups have identified key performance indicators. and facilities Percentage of cases appealed and percentage of successful appeals from each category of courts. there follow illustrative examples of indicators from other countries. The following illustrative examples are drawn from action plans developed under country programs described above. The only departure from that framework is that the legislative and regulatory issues in other countries appear to be unique to each of those countries. for convenience. Strong institutional capacity – systems. it would appear that domestic resources will be the principal source of financing. according to the framework of objectives described in Chapters II and III of this report. Also.3. 4. The vast subject of performance monitoring is beyond the scope of this report. It will be necessary to assure agreement on a multi-year program of public investment within the medium-term expenditure framework. such as a justice working group within the framework of the Philippine Development Forum.18 Nevertheless. These indicators. With these caveats in mind. They are not addressed below because they do not appear to be directly relevant to the Philippines. procedures. Performance Monitoring Within the strategic frameworks adopted by several countries. the formulation of specific indicators for the Philippines will flow from the particular outcomes identified as priority results for the justice sector. Published evaluations of progress toward program goals and objectives. adapted to the nomenclature of the Philippines justice system. have provided the basis for monitoring and evaluation systems. Several country programs have been the subject of external mid-term program evaluations to assess their impact after two or three years. In several cases. Preliminary consultations with development partners suggest reluctance to contribute to a common fund. The Philippine government will need to organize that support in a manner that will maximize its contribution to the effectiveness of the sector program. In the case of the Philippines. On the other hand. there is significant international support for justice reform in the Philippines. it is instructive to be aware of the kinds of things measured in the justice sector programs of other countries. a lead donor has played a significant role in supporting program development and helping to finance the management system. as the experts all caution.
Percentage of operational units within each justice organization that participate fully in case management system. Timeliness and accessibility of publication of laws. are offered here to stimulate thinking about how to shape a sector-wide justice program that will best respond to the needs of the Philippines. disaggregated by region. Number of youth incarcerated with adults. prosecutors and public attorneys (workloads). High standards of independence. and centers for dissemination of legal information and services. by occupational category and organization. integrity. Comparison of compensation to private sector counterparts. Improved case clearance rates. Public awareness of codes of conduct for public officials. and transparency Percentage of each justice sector organization’s expenditures covered by government budget. The following chapter of this report proposes some concrete ideas in this regard. Average time spent in detention pending criminal investigation and judicial proceedings. accountability.000 population). 84 . regulations. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public Amount of fees required to pursue most common forms of civil claims. and other legal information.o o o o Court proceedings in civil cases (normal and expedited) Court-annexed mediation Barangay Justice System Appeals and other judicial reviews (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals). court decisions. Capable and motivated human resources Vacancy rates by occupational group and organization. by local contributions. Reduction of case backlogs. and by other sources. Volume of cases submitted to and resolved by all forms of alternative dispute resolution. by fees. Increase in budgets for maintenance and capital investment. adapted from the experience of other countries. Training received. These examples. Presence by region of police (per 100.
gov.asp.nl/Conference_publication_2005. See Asian Development Bank.sti. http://www.pdf.worldbank. Paris.g. IMF.. page 7. “Approaches to Reform in Ethiopia. See Lindenberg. “Leading the Emerging Development Agenda: From Consensus to Action.gy/justicreform/Guyana%20JSRS%20revised%20June%202006c.worldbank. 1993. “Development Partnerships in the New Global Context.” in Applying the “Sectoral Approach” to the Legal and Judicial Domain.org/wbi/governance. Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. Governance: Sound Development Management.org/Documents/Policies/Governance/default. Justice Sector Assessments: A Handbook. OECD.go. “Sector-wide Approaches. http://siteresources.adb.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/JSAHandbookWebEdition. Michel. San Francisco. The Hague. Dory. Reiling. “Justice System Reform Program: Preliminary Reform Profile. Linn Hammergren. http://www. London.ug.” Annex to Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation. See also the numerous publications cited at www.asp?p=policies#contents.org/dac. No. http://www.dfid. Cambridge University Press. United Nations. OECD. 2005. Chapter 3. Department for International Development. World Bank Group.pdf. Inter-American Development Bank. Marc. 6. Menberetsehai Tadesse. July 2002. and Adrian Di Giovanni.pdf.go. 2005. 2005.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdfs/swap/swap312b. 2006.oecd. Guidelines for European Commission Support to Sector Programmes.iadb. World Bank. International Center for Economic Growth.asp http://www. November 2005.org/wsdocs/getdocument. Security and Accessible Justice: Putting Policy into Practice.gjlos.org/Documents/Policies/LTSF/long0302.gov. May 2007.cilc. See. www.lawandjustice.adb. 3. www. Paris.pdf. Especially relevant is Safety. August 2004. March 2007.ke/Completed_Final_Report%20%20MTR_GJLOS_07. 1996.aspx?docnum=509733.. Volume 2.gjlos. Program Contents and Objectives.gov. http://www.pdf http://www. See. 2000.oecd.ke.pg/www/html/7-home-page. Correspondence with Clare Manuel. international consultant for Sierra Leone program. Paris.go.jlos. e. http://www. Cambridge. OECD. www. Modernization.de/de/dokumente/en-prs-gps-uganda-part-2005. Proposal for Sector-Wide Approaches (SWAps).g.gtz.Notes to Chapter IV 1 See A Better World for All. e. The DAC Journal. Ato Mandefrot Belay.pdf. The Human Development Race: Improving the Quality of Life in Developing Countries. http://www. http://idbdocs.gina. “Sector-wide Approaches” in The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank (2001-2015). Ronald and Christian Welzel.uk/pubs/files/safesecureaccjustice. OECD.pdf. http://www. Inglehart.” Center for International Legal Cooperation. February 2003.” an article 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 85 .” Vol.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cultural Change. www. OECD. James.” DAC Guidelines and Reference Series.
.adb.worldbank. 2007.pdf. monitoring. No. 5-6 June 2002.org/publications/publications_5. 16 17 18 86 . http://info. and managing for results. OECD Journal on Development. Oslo.pdf.accompanying an October 2003 report on a CIDA court administration program in Ethiopia. a summary of the recommendations is at http://www. Cedric.org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_online_version. 15 The June 2007 report of the task force is at http://www.” Volume 8.vera. 2.org/jamaicanjustice/pdf/jjsrtf_report_proposals.pdf.” “2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Review of the Results. www.org/Documents/Periodicals/GB/governancebrief04.org/jamaicanjustice/pdf/jjsrtf_report_final.cba.org/etools/docs/library/108518//kumssa_paper. November 2003.” a paper presented by the Asian Development Bank Director for Governance and Regional Cooperation at a roundtable on better measuring. 2d Edition. the initial survey on monitoring the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness includes as a key policy recommendation that developing countries should “increase efforts to link their plans much more closely to their budget and results frameworks. http://www. See Vera Institute of Justice. “Promoting Results Based Management in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries. http://www. page 52. The alignment of resources to plans and results is generally recognized as an important ingredient of effective development.undp. 2007. Governance Indicators: A Users’ Guide.asp?publication_id=207. See Saldanha. For example. United Nations Development Programme.pdf.cba.pdf. Measuring Progress toward Safety and Justice: A Global Guide to the Design of Performance Indicators across the Justice Sector.
organizations. And they have examined the experience of some other countries that have undertaken sector-wide approaches to justice reform. there has not evolved a climate of accountability for achieving results or incentive systems to encourage and facilitate adaptation to change. Assuring that the country will realize the benefits of such a system is clearly a worthwhile objective of public policy. reform efforts have tended to concentrate on specific institutions. and results. broad general agreement on the desirability of justice reform has not evolved into a consensus that early and substantial results are a national priority. In an environment of limited implementation capacities. There is broad support for strengthening the justice system. since 1987. given the history of implementation difficulties in the Philippines.V. strategies. especially in restoring a sound institutional structure for the administration of justice. and generally contribute to the safety and well being of all who reside in. Their use of monitoring and evaluation systems to measure progress by reference to established targets and key indicators is especially relevant. and do business in the Philippines. despite increased coordination in recent years. They have summarized the history of reforms in the administration of justice since the 1987 Constitution. Second. resource constraints have impeded sustained investment in building the capacities needed for timely and full implementation. It will safeguard rights. Fourth. These observations lead to the judgment that the next phase of justice reform in the Philippines should reflect the following qualities: The reform should be system-wide and holistic. 87 . Their experience also illustrates the importance of aligning resources with policies. inadequate investment in strengthening those capacities. the Philippine justice system has made significant progress. and the absence of a compelling demand. the results achieved to date are less than was hoped for. and actions. Implementation of reforms has often been impeded by limitations in the capacities of the concerned organizations. analyzing needs. It should invest an adequate level of resources to build implementation capacity and incentive systems so that specific. visit. Several observations stand out from this review and analysis: First. Third. an effective justice system is important. foster economic and social development. rather than the system as a whole. and the achievements and shortcomings of those reforms. empower the poor and disadvantaged. And yet. the experience of other countries has demonstrated the value of governance systems for managing justice sector reform programs that reflect the linkages among issues. measurable and timely results can be achieved and sustained. It should emphasize results through improved performance. In addition. At the same time. A Justice Sector Strategy Framework for the Philippines The preceding chapters of this report have described the operation of the Philippine justice system and the challenges the system faces. and designing measures to improve performance.
88 . equal treatment for the protection of rights. integrity.2 The inspiration of the above-quoted statement. It is thought better to develop initial consensus on specific issues rather than risk delaying the entire planning process or. and the fair and timely resolution of disputes. effectiveness. and Advance the rule of law as the foundation of a just. but which also declares more broadly: The system for the administration of justice must be geared to achieve the goal of delivering fair. efficiency. It should foster a broad consensus of political. prosperous. together with the research and consultations undertaken in the course of preparing this report. settling for generalities that paper over disagreements and leave unclear the shared vision to which stakeholders aspire.1 STATEMENT OF STRATEGIC GOAL FOR LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM This strategic plan is dedicated to the long term goal of achieving and sustaining a justice system for the Philippines that will: Provide universal access to services. equal justice. It should assure accountability for achieving the desired results. impartial and swift justice. accountability. judicial independence and the pursuit of excellence should be preserved and at all times be predominant. A. which serves as a basis for the APJR. has given rise to the following suggested goal statement: Figure V. equally bad. 1 Nevertheless. a statement nominally concerned with the Judiciary and the legal profession. There is some relevant precedent in the Davide Watch. institutional and popular support for continued progress over the long term. A goal statement is an indication of the general destination. something on which there should be broad agreement at the beginning of a long journey involving many travelers. and democratic Philippine society.It should involve shared participation in management by the concerned organizations. the core values of the rule of law. while also respecting the distinct responsibilities and autonomy of all the participants. a general statement of an overall goal can be useful in framing more specific objectives and priority results. Strategic planning experts caution against premature debate about precise wording at the beginning of the process. and transparency in the administration of justice. based on independence. Goals and Objectives Logic suggests that the development of a long-term strategy should begin with the formulation of a goal that indicates an overall purpose. A single goal statement for an entire sector is more difficult than one for a single institution. Foster a culture of lawfulness. Hence.
freedom from political interference. and case management programs. Confidence in the system’s integrity. They are suggested here as a framework for a holistic sectorwide reform of the Philippine justice system. working conditions. is a matter of great concern here. career development. training and utilization of human resources. The ultimate objective. It bears repeating here that these objectives are based on the role of justice as a public service. and progress will be monitored by reference to objectives. has identified many significant issues of widespread concern that tend to be concentrated in four interrelated themes. engaging civil society – will be determined through participatory processes involving those responsible for implementation. the research for this report. human resources. adherence to ethical values. and its accountability. together with new issues. results. and key indicators of performance. improved service also depends upon increased efficiency. integrity. procurement and property management. such as the number of computers purchased. measurable results. is to provide broad access and excellent service to the public. This objective concentrates on the management systems. and other functions. However. and civil society monitoring of performance. training. communication and information. therefore. business practices. accountability. The second objective is adherence to high standards of independence. performance monitoring. Section B) and the achievements and shortcomings of past reforms (Chapter III. Success will be measured not by inputs. or by outputs. The overarching issue of justice system financing. especially the interviews and consultations with stakeholders. and workforce allocation. administrative. success will be determined by measurable results of improved performance by the justice system in rendering valuable service to the public. As noted in Chapter II. The first objective is to have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. and facilities that are conducive to efficient and effective operations.The proposed strategy will seek to maximize progress toward that long-term goal (or a variation of the goal as may emerge from further deliberations) over the next five years through a holistic. The objectives are closely interrelated. This involves issues of selection. and competent human resources. in turn. and transparency in the administration of justice. Specific activities to achieve priority results – changes in laws or regulations. Rather. Section B) are organized by reference to those four themes. They also need the tools to make those systems productive. public access to information. depends upon confidence in its independence from political or other extraneous influences. This objective involves many different things: the adequacy of ethical systems (including the dissemination and enforcement of standards). procedures. And they need business practices and procedures that encourage the timely resolution of disputes and the reduction of unmanageable caseloads. However. A results-oriented reform must include a focus on the capacity of the implementing organizations to achieve the desired results. the role 89 . compensation and benefits. Those themes seek to capture in a coherent structure the essence of previous recommendations for reform that remain present concerns. system-wide program focused on achieving specific. its demonstrated transparency. This report’s descriptions of challenges to the justice system (Chapter II. rules. such as automated statistical. improved recruitment. The third objective is to have capable and motivated human resources throughout the justice system. finance. which affects all the objectives. It would be possible to regard the human dimension as a subset of the objective of strong institutional capacity. financial. introduction of new technology. Progress in all other areas depends upon confidence in the integrity of the justice system. such as the number of judges trained or laws enacted. Justice institutions need basic management systems – for planning.
therefore. Implementing actions will be linked to a public investment plan and medium-term expenditure framework as described in Section E. They are compatible. in the courts and in alternative dispute resolution systems. 90 . It involves perceptions of how well the justice system protects the security of person and property through formal and informal procedures. so complex. It involves public awareness of substantive legal rights and obligations. 3 These implementation plans for selected priority results should be developed through participatory means by those charged with achieving the intended result. will be carried out through the management structure described in Section D of this chapter. A strong orientation toward results that improve performance should begin by identifying the desired priority results and then defining the strategies and estimating the costs for achieving them. Subject to that kind of process.4 Oversight of implementation. and so dominant as a percentage of the budget of the justice sector. The hardest design challenge is to devise implementation plans describing how best to achieve the desired results. and what needs to change as part of the effort. The suggested priority results described below are intended to be achieved within that time frame. B. Common qualities of these suggested priorities are that they are all oriented to results that will improve performance of the justice system and. there follow recommendations for specific priority results for the period 2008-2012. realistic and time-bound. keyed to the four objectives described above. and how to obtain those services. it involves services to the poor and disadvantaged to empower them to obtain equal treatment under the law. what actions should be chosen. The fourth objective. how the justice system operates. and taking account of the previously identified challenges to the justice system and the achievements and shortcomings of previous reforms. is broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. this section suggests priorities that might be achieved over the course of the next five years. with targets that meet the “SMART” test of being specific. they are susceptible to determination of when the desired results have been achieved. for consideration by Philippine decisionmakers. basic to a society committed to the rule of law. Priority Results Within the framework of the foregoing objectives. insofar as possible. achievable. to which the other three objectives contribute. Many of the results suggested here represent a fulfillment of efforts already begun but not carried out to completion under previous reform plans and strategies. the services it provides. Philippine decisionmakers can choose from these suggestions in shaping the specific content of their strategic plan. Of course. This is the most important of the four objectives because it concerns the impact of reform on those who use (or wish to use) the justice system and those who are affected by it. measurable. At some time before 2012 another set of priorities will need to be identified for a subsequent phase of reform.of human resources is so important. with specific actions and accountability for completing those actions specified in annual implementation plans. the abovequoted goal statement requires a continuous process of reform and the goal will not be attained in five years. The five-year time frame for the priorities suggested here represents a reasonable horizon for strategic planning. And. that it warrants being treated as an objective in its own right. including the sequencing of reform actions and the arrangements for participation by the various justice organizations in particular actions.
human resources development. public attorneys. public disclosure. including the Judiciary and the Philippine National Police. procurement and property management. Complementary information systems of individual organizations will be compatible with the national system. rigorously applied.1. procedures for prompt and inexpensive enforcement of judgments. Each justice organization in the public sector will have in operation a management capacity building plan designed to enable it to meet its responsibilities for the administration of justice. Delay will be reduced in all justice organizations through: rules that reward timeliness. archival. and corrections agencies. and reinforcement through monitoring. below) at the time of its formulation and the Steering Group will review the plan’s implementation. storage. Each plan will be subject to review by the Steering Group of the Policy Leadership Council (see section D. incentives structures that integrate appropriate costs for delay and benefits for delay reduction into the day-to-day operation of the justice system. expansion of the use of alternative dispute resolution. This result includes resolution of any conflict between the potentially competing proposals for a National Criminal Information System (possible as part of an Integrated Criminal Justice and Public Safety Information and Response System) and for a National Justice Information System. protect officials who apply the rules. information management. The system will include standards for records creation. and publicizing results in order sustain new expectations of timeliness in the administration of justice. including police. and outcomes of other forms of alternative dispute resolution. retrieval. Other justice organizations with substantial field presence will develop and implement appropriate plans to streamline administrative and financial management which take into account the experience of implementing the existing decentralization plans. and diminish opportunities for delaying tactics. classification. with milestones and an implementation schedule. An organization’s participation in the implementation of the strategic plan for the justice sector will depend on satisfactory progress in building the necessary management capacity so that expectations will be aligned with ability to perform. will put those plans into operation. high standards. and results-based performance (including monitoring and evaluation). to severely limit the use of interlocutory writs and appeals. 91 . The Philippine justice system will have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. arbitral awards. Justice organizations will put into operation on a nationwide basis an information system that will include information to be shared among justice organizations and other stakeholders. Each plan will include strategic planning. filing. maximum use of continuous trials in criminal and civil cases. Justice organizations that have already developed plans for decentralized administrative and financial management. prosecutors. documenting. financial management. and disposal. courts.
that the standards of the ethical code are integrated into the organization’s career development and other incentive structures. and meet immediate needs for improvement to facilities. efficient. together with adequate measures to assure: that employees receive training in the requirements of ethical conduct. in order to reduce duplication. increase efficiency. Each justice organization will have in place a code of ethical conduct.The Judiciary. and that individuals are released when their pending cases end without conviction or. A survey of detainees and prisoners to assure that there is no existing improper incarceration of individuals who are entitled to be released and that alternatives to imprisonment may be initiated in appropriate cases. and supplies meet minimum standards for secure. small claims. and National Bureau of Investigation will all put into operation case management systems in order to facilitate the efficient administration of justice. and judicial branches will decriminalize bouncing check cases and will authorize and put into operation simplified procedures. and other types of cases that impose inordinate workloads and contribute to delays and congestion. equipment. with a view to reallocating and concentrating prosecutorial resources on the investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects for obtaining conviction. achieve savings. 2. National Prosecution Service. that children are diverted from imprisonment with adults to appropriate facilities. integrity. if convicted. legislative. The executive. The National Prosecution Service and the Office of the Ombudsman will put into place a simplified system (under revised rules as may be needed) for making prompt initial determinations of probable cause in criminal cases. Philippine National Police. when their sentences are completed. including mediation. including commissions and task forces for coordination of law enforcement activities. These one-time initiatives will include: A purge of inactive cases to reduce the backlog and free up resources to manage active cases. The executive and legislative branches will rationalize the organization of law enforcement and corrections functions. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence. The corrections system will put into operation a prisoner information system to track the status of individuals who are incarcerated or subject to supervision and assure that rights (including rights to legal counsel) are protected. The justice organizations will complete one-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs. and A survey of facilities with a view to assuring that property. and transparency. accountability. reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons. Public Attorney’s Office. and assure clear lines of authority and continuity of leadership. and dignified operations and service to the public. Office of the Ombudsman. minor offenses that are essentially private disputes. 92 . including prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute. for the expedited consideration of bouncing checks.
a policy of public access to information about the operation of the justice system should reflect the spirit of such laws.that the public is effectively informed of the code’s ethical standards. alleged violations are being quickly investigated. retention and advancement of public employees in the justice sector are made on the basis of merit and without regard to political or other extraneous considerations. speed and quality of services performed. and judicial branches of government will establish policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment. will be systematically monitoring the operation of the justice system. and minimize dependence on. of statements of assets and income of public officials. However. and public perceptions of the justice organizations and their operations will be regularly surveyed and the survey results published. A policy of transparency should extend from the nomination of judges and other officials to the volume. including the nomination of candidates for appointment to judicial and other senior offices. 93 . It will require accountable and transparent financial management by all justice organizations. with a presumption in favor of disclosure and narrow specific standards and procedures for exceptions. to the discipline of justice system personnel.) The executive. such as heads of Departments. and suitable penalties are being imposed where allegations are substantiated. of clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints of alleged violations. All justice organizations will have in force policies to assure the maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system. legislative. and of the disposition of complaints and disciplinary actions taken. Civil society organizations. including through active dissemination activities and the facilitation of monitoring by civil society organizations. and that effective disciplinary and transparent systems are in place. A general freedom of information law is beyond the scope of this report. Justice organizations that exercise functions requiring independence of judgment will enjoy legal autonomy consistent with the required independence for the performance of their functions. It will assure the transparency of. Through a medium-term expenditure framework it will provide reliable assurance of consistent levels of resources needed to enable justice organizations to plan for and implement approved reforms over time. and judicial branches of government will adopt a new legislative and regulatory structure for financing the justice system. The executive. the communications media will be keeping the public informed of the observations of such monitoring. fees and local government contributions to meet basic operating expenses of national justice organizations. The existing practice of publication by the Philippine Judicial Academy of summations of Supreme Court decisions in administrative cases provides a model on which to build. legislative. including the organized bar. (This result is intended to address the lack of equilibrium between the statutory autonomy of the Public Attorney’s Office and the lack of comparable status for the National Prosecution Service as well as the existing permissibility of appeals to political officials. from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies. This structure will respect the constitutional principle of fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary.
Each justice organization in the public sector will have in place a human resource program that will include the following elements: Workforce reallocation to increase efficiency and professional competence in the performance of functions. and case management. The Legal Education Board provided for by the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 will be established and will put into operation a program of law school accreditation. relations with police. and Transparent incentives and disciplinary measures that reward good performance.3. evidence collection. Education and training will emphasize interactive methods. and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts. incorporation in education and training activities of components on the development of leadership skills. and punish misconduct and neglect of duties. and sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity and gender. courtroom skills. and communicating with justice organizations. investigations. The justice organizations will have in operation enhanced education and training programs for their employees. and complementary materials such as handbooks that will be of continuing value in the performance of duties after training is completed. Periodic evaluation to measure the performance of personnel against established criteria of efficiency and adherence to standards of conduct. 94 . interdisciplinary participation. Penology and prison management training for corrections system personnel to enable them to make the best use of humane and restorative methods for the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. help employees adapt to change. Career development to provide employees who demonstrate good performance and aptitude with opportunities for advancement to increased responsibility and increased remuneration. and For all. commitment to public service. increase productivity. Training for representatives of community justice centers (see the suggested priorities for access to justice and service to the public below) in dispute resolution procedures. including training to develop skills needed for performance at progressively higher levels. designed to improve skills. Police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system. sources of legal assistance to the poor. Elements of the program will include the following: Court management training to foster professional administration while reducing management burdens on judges (an objective of increasing importance as decentralization of court administrative and financial management proceeds). Development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation. equal treatment of individuals. and encourage inter-institutional collaboration. elevate professionalism.
Access to clean air and water. The alternative dispute resolution regime authorized by legislation in 2004 will be in full force and generating increased use of alternative dispute resolution measures. and public health in urban centers afflicted with environmental challenges are among the examples of environmental issues that can be expected to become more prominent on the agenda of the justice system. prosecutors and public attorneys assigned to meet the needs for their services at all lower court stations. There will be in operation an active nationwide program of popular education and legal awareness to familiarize the general populace with the basic tenets of the legal system. and community centers and networks to assure the sustainability of popular education and legal awareness efforts. sources of legal assistance to the poor. These community justice centers will include individuals trained in the Barangay Justice System procedures as well as individuals familiar with other mechanisms for dispute resolution. Some of these will fit well within the framework described above. new priorities are sure to arise. This program will include measures to consolidate and expand the gains of previous legal information programs. and Public Attorney’s Office will remain below 10%. make available practical resource materials. and remedies and procedures available to enforce those rights and obligations under the law. preservation of natural resources. Toward this end. The Public Attorney’s Office will be playing a central role in coordinating with other justice organizations and with community organizations and networks in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of legal assistance to the poor and disadvantaged. vacancies in the Judiciary. rights and obligations of citizens. Special Issues In the five-year period of this strategic plan. There will be conveniently located centers in communities where citizens can bring complaints and requests for information and assistance regarding the administration of justice.4. nongovernment organizations. C. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. National Prosecution Service. law schools. One foreseeable example of a special issue is the need for increased attention to legal conflicts concerning the environmental implications of all forms of economic activity. Another example is 95 . and collaborate with the organized bar. Mobile justice units will provide services to communities that lack the presence of courts and related facilities. Others may require adaptation of the framework. There will be a sufficient number of judges. The Supreme Court will arrange for the timely publication and dissemination of final decisions of all appellate courts so that the public will be informed of the quality and consistency of those decisions and so that the information and legal reasoning they reveal will be readily available to increase legal certainty and discourage frivolous appeals. Community policing units will be in operation in cities and municipalities throughout the country. coordinate the work of service providers. and procedures for communicating with justice organizations. including support for community justice centers. Court-annexed mediation units will be operational and available to serve the needs in all the lower court stations throughout the country.
As discussed in Chapter IV. fostering a culture of lawfulness. and To coordinate the efforts of a wide range of organizations within the justice system in a manner that preserves their autonomy and independence. and facilitate accurate and timely reporting to stakeholders. the Action Program for Judicial Reform provided for an interagency committee on judicial reform. including the possibility of a compact between the executive and judicial branches of government. is that APJR program management. D.the growing internationalization of the economy. The Philippines is hardly a stranger to this idea. An 96 . With a sector-wide reform. accommodates their widely diverse needs and capacities. strategies. respects their distinct legal authorities and responsibilities. In particular. multi-tiered governance structure would seem best suited to meet the many and sometimes competing policy interests and operational needs described above. Other countries have found it necessary to create multi-agency. A flexible. Implementation plans will need to be flexible so that these additional priorities can be accommodated with minimal disruption. that authority needs to respect the separation of powers and cannot impair the independence of the courts or other involved organizations. To align program objectives with implementation capacities. At the same time. being focused on the Judiciary. these include the needs: To reinforce strong linkage of resources to policies. and the need to balance the participation of senior leaders who have many responsibilities with the participation of technical experts. Management Structure for Implementation In the Philippines. however. The Philippines is seeking to be a welcome site for productive investment and job creation. To balance participation in the decision making process with the need for timely decisions. the multi-agency governance structure needs to have executive authority with respect to the reform. was under the direction of the Supreme Court and the interagency committee was only an advisory body. and advancing the rule of law. Therefore. To establish and maintain discipline in the setting of realistic. inform decisions on future priorities. well defined objectives and the formulation of implementing strategies and action plans. Its justice system’s ability to deal with the complexities of international commerce will be an even more important factor than previously. and results.5 The difference. multi-branch governance structures to manage reform efforts involving a sector that is so complex and includes so many institutional actors with very different needs and capacities. To identify key performance indicators and monitor and evaluate performance across the sector so as to provide incentives. including capacities to manage change and manage for results. and facilitates productive collaboration among them. as in other countries that have undertaken a sector-wide approach to justice reform. the management structure for implementation must address several needs. no single organization can reasonably be expected to have authority over all the others in the sector. Consideration must be given to the most appropriate way to establish such a governance structure. The justice system will need to be alert to such trends and able to respond to them in appropriate ways that advance the overall goal of providing universal access to justice.
the Chief Justice and the heads of the appropriate executive 97 . empowered to resolve important and urgent matters that may arise between meetings of the full group. the practice of other countries that have undertaken justice sector-wide reform programs. and operate alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that are integral to the administration of justice. the Philippine Association of Law Schools. It would meet four times a year (and in additional special sessions if necessary) to review progress. monitor the system’s performance. Taking into account previous national experience with inter-branch and interagency coordination in the justice sector. The Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior and Local Government are the principal executive agencies responsible for prosecution. The Office of the Ombudsman is the lead agency for the enforcement of institutional and individual integrity in the public service. The National Economic and Development Authority and the Department of Budget and Management are the principal oversight agencies for the organizations in the justice sector.organizational model that reflects both Philippine practice with previous reforms and also the experience of other countries might include the following: At the most senior level. The Department of Social Welfare and Development exercises important responsibilities in the system of juvenile justice and services to the poor. Policy Leadership Council members might be selected from among the heads of the following organizations: The Judiciary Department of Justice Department of the Interior and Local Government Department of Social Welfare and Development Office of the Ombudsman National Economic and Development Authority Department of Budget and Management Integrated Bar of the Philippines Philippine Association of Law Schools Alternative Law Groups Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. and foster consensus and coherence among the participating organizations. This Council would be made up of heads of organizations with major responsibilities for the administration of justice as well as oversight agencies responsible for budget and policy coordination and major stakeholders. The Judiciary. financing. Some countries have found it useful to designate an executive committee from among policy leaders. address major policy issues. and views expressed in the consultations on this report. law enforcement. the Alternative Law Groups. public defense. a Policy Leadership Council could provide overall policy guidance for the development. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines. and incarceration and rehabilitation of offenders. implementation. has the constitutional duty to decide disputes and protect rights. and periodic review and updating of an overall justice sector strategy. of course. provide legal services to those with limited means of access to justice. and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry all represent the perspectives of constituencies that represent citizens before the justice system. For example.
As discussed above in Chapter IV. prosecutors. A full-time Executive Staff will be needed to assist the Policy Leadership Council and the Steering Group. the Bureau of Corrections. the Public Attorney’s Office. The logic is that adequate financing and staffing will enable activities to further the goals and objectives of the sector reform. and a corresponding dramatic increase in public confidence in the system. improve prospects for additional resources. It will provide the institutional memory of the justice sector reform and keep the Policy Leadership Council and the Steering Group informed of progress achieved. the principal venue for dialogue with international development partners. That would provide a further incentive for organizations within the justice sector to demonstrate their ability to make good use of resources and. if the Department of Budget and Management were to develop a medium-term expenditure framework for the implementation of the justice sector reform program. substantial reduction 98 . A second measure would be to encourage the Philippines Development Forum. that would be a valuable tool in showing where resources are going within the sector and how they might be allocated to achieve the best results. Below the most senior level. alternatively. There are two ways in which this logic should be reinforced. public attorneys. Organizations within Departments with multiple functions could participate in the Steering Group. the essence of a sector-wide strategy is its alignment of resources with policies. First. to identify. a justice sector subcommittee of its existing governance committee. monitoring and evaluation. the National Prosecution Service. E. The Steering Group will be the principal operational vehicle for sustaining vigorous implementation of the strategic plan and for fostering broad and harmonized national and international support to achieve the goals and objectives of the reform program. and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology might all participate directly. more manageable workloads for judges. primarily through their annual action plans. and other justice system operators. and maintain a dialogue with international development partners. Results should include greatly reduced backlogs and congestion in courts and other adjudicatory bodies. The Executive Staff will address related matters of inter-institutional coordination. equilibrium in the volume of new cases and completed cases in all justice organizations. financing. obstacles encountered.operating and oversight agencies (depending on the issue) might be constituted as an executive committee of the Policy Leadership Council to take on this role in the Philippines. timing. The Steering Group will also review arrangements for monitoring and evaluation and assure an ongoing communication effort to inform the public. engage national stakeholders. the Philippine National Police. Benefits and Costs Full implementation of the suggested priorities under the strategy should produce a dramatic improvement in the performance of the Philippine justice system by 2012. to establish a justice sector committee or. and document priority actions. by demonstrating opportunities for additional progress. The role of the Executive Staff will be to facilitate and coordinate the efforts of justice sector organizations and working groups of such organizations. implementing strategies and actions. For example. a Steering Group of mid-level experts from the same organizations that are represented in the Policy Leadership Council will work with individual justice organizations – and with groups of such organizations – to support and oversee the development of annual action plans to carry out the overall strategy. carry out. Additional resources are accompanied by increased monitoring of performance and increased accountability for results. and issues confronted in the implementation of the strategic plan.
fees charged for services by justice organizations. and monitoring of the entire process of reform implementation. Investments to be included in this public investment plan should include amounts over the next five years for each of the following four categories: Improvements in the resource base. maintain established capacities in justice organizations. including the one-time costs of a national information system for the justice sector and other administrative.4% of planned investment would be financed with domestic funds and 46. including costs to enable personnel throughout the justice sector to implement new systems and adapt to the entire range of contemplated reforms. and implementation plans.55% from external financing – primarily official development assistance. and assistance from international development partners. As discussed in Chapter IV of this report. amounts for maintenance and other operating expenses. with a specific annual breakdown over next five years and including indications of expenditures. The public investment program is an important first step towards the development of a justice sector medium-term expenditure framework. and capital outlays (including for construction and rehabilitation of physical infrastructure) that are required to operate a progressively improving justice sector. and case management systems. Human resource development. and adequate facilities and equipment. Implementation will require a public investment program reflecting anticipated costs for achieving the selected priorities. greatly improved service to the public. and legal empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged. proposed sources of financing. 99 . Government appropriations should be augmented by local government contributions.in the percentage of incarcerated persons who have not been convicted and a corresponding reduction in the length of time individuals are imprisoned prior to a judicial determination of charges against them. including costs for the operation of the management structure described in Section D of this chapter for oversight guidance. It will establish the overall and annual expenditure aggregates in personal services. (The Action Program for Judicial Reform anticipated that 53. and Program management.) As previously suggested. and timing of funds availability. together with continuing operating and maintenance costs associated with those systems. and ensure that the performance of the justice system continues to improve on a sustainable basis. financial. international support might best be organized by establishing a justice working group within the Philippine Development Forum. The framework will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and approved by the government. The public investment program and the broader medium-term expenditure framework will involve questions as to the sources of the substantial expenditures that will be required. Specific targets for these benefits will need to be established in implementation plans. maintenance and operating expenses. Specific amounts required for the public investment plan and medium-term expenditure framework will have to be determined in light of the priority results and particular implementing actions selected for inclusion in the five-year strategy. using indicators such as the examples in Chapter IV of this report. The principal source of financing will have to be the government budget. such a framework is essential to link resources with policies. increased juridical security for investment in economic opportunities. strategies. Systems infrastructure. including increases in basic salaries and other compensation for employees.
a suggested priority result in furtherance of broad access to justice and excellent service to the public is to have a sufficient number of judges. anticipate problems. apply corrective measures. prosecutors and public attorneys to meet the needs of each court station. as suggested above. There would have to be a budget corresponding to the steps to be accomplished. outcomes. An increase will also require a convincing justification that the intended results can be achieved and that the participating organizations will manage the additional resources responsibly and efficiently. Measurement of performance should be tied to budgeting through the Organization and Productivity Improvement Framework developed by the Department of Budget and Management to review institutional performance. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Indicators A monitoring and evaluation system for the justice sector strategy will be necessary to enable the government. For example. the development of budgets for actions to achieve those targets. such as average time for disposition of cases (an indicator). greater efficiency in the criminal justice system should reduce the number of detainees awaiting trial at public expense. outputs. will require 100 . and development partners to measure progress.It was made clear in the consultations for this report that a substantial increase for the justice sector in the government budget will require a political determination that justice reform is a priority in which the government is prepared to invest on a sustained basis over the five-year duration of the strategic plan. The setting of practical targets. where there are 14 employees for every judge. For example. and development impacts of other programs. Progress toward these outcomes needs to be measured by reference to targets and key performance indicators included in annual action plans. and the identification of appropriate indicators. Rationalization of the support staff in the Judiciary. and gain lessons for continuing improvement of program implementation. F. national stakeholders. should result in a smaller. One aspect of financing is that initial investments in improved management should over time increase productivity and thereby create savings. and assumptions about risks that bear on performance. Within that framework. This will involve an evaluation of costs and benefits in comparison with other sectors making claims on the limited “fiscal space” for increased funding within the budget. means of verification. The monitoring system should be based upon and compatible with the existing system that the government uses to measure the resources. the priority results suggested above are outcomes intended to achieve the four objectives. Consolidation of some law enforcement and corrections functions should eliminate some duplicative expenses. but better compensated and more efficient workforce. performance targets and indicators. this means that program elements should be summarized in a logical framework that sets out intended outputs and outcomes. prosecutors and public attorneys make a difference in performance with respect to issues. It would also be necessary to see if more judges. Among other things. A good justification needs to be presented before decisions are made that would foreclose consideration of a new initiative. The action plan for each year would identify inputs and outputs and the anticipated progress to be achieved toward achieving the result in that year (a target). The process of deciding on the budgetary resources available for the justice sector reform strategy will need to take into account the timing of other decisions on the Philippine government’s current medium-term expenditure framework.
An illustrative logical framework for a monitoring and evaluation plan is at Annex 6 of this report. Additional examples from the experience of other countries are set out at the end of Chapter IV of this report. These considerations can help provide a foundation for building the necessary consensus. with suggested priority results under those objectives that can be achieved in the next five years.the participation of the individuals who know the system best and will be accountable for implementation of the reform. control of corruption. coordination. the security and well being of people. the continuing efforts over the past two decades to restore the institutions of the justice system. it is clear that the principal challenge in the coming years will be to consolidate and build on the achievements of the previous reforms with an intense focus on implementation. oversight. The true significance of these indices is not how the Philippines compares with other countries. the effort to improve capacities for managing improved performance and increasing accountability – and the commitment of resources this will require – are likely to be sustained only if there is a political consensus that the benefits of improved justice system performance outweigh the costs and risks. this report proposes a framework consisting of a strategic goal and four interrelated objectives for improved performance. human rights. integrity. The report describes a participatory governance structure to provide sector-wide guidance. In turn. The four objectives are directed at efficiency (institutional capacity). G. The consultations on this report confirmed many of the targets and indicators set out in the logical framework. and timeliness of the public services it provides. From this review. It is the correlation of improved performance on these issues with economic and social progress. accountability. and monitoring of performance. scope of access. Examples of suggestions made for indicators in the consultations included the number of vacancies in justice organizations. the speed of decisions (including in disciplinary proceedings). competence (capable and motivated human resources). 101 . the volume of petitions for certiorari. and respect for democratic values and human dignity. It is necessary to concentrate on measures that will demonstrably improve the performance of the entire justice system and the quality. and percentage of the jail population in pretrial detention. and transparency). and that this will require a significant financial investment in capacity building and increased accountability for timely implementation of planned actions. and the current state of the administration of justice. And it proposes a public investment plan as part of a medium-term expenditure framework to provide for the investment that will be needed over the five-year period of the strategic plan. Conclusions This report has documented the long tradition of support for the rule of law in the Philippines. values (independence. The overarching theme of this reform framework is improved performance and measurable results. publication of decisions (including in disciplinary proceedings). and service (broad access to justice and excellent service to the public). Chapter I of this report identifies a number of comparative indices of democratic governance. On the basis of extensive research and stakeholder consultations. Our analysis is that achieving the suggested priority results will require a substantial improvement in the capacity of the justice organizations to manage for results and adapt to change. percentage of final decisions appealed. and economic competitiveness in which the relatively low ranking of the Philippines is related to weak performance by the justice system.
however. We can. We cannot. We hope that the findings and recommendations in this report will be useful in the dialogue that will determine whether a consensus on a sectorwide reform of the Philippine justice system can be achieved. of course. 102 . assert with a high degree of confidence that justice reform that will produce substantial benefits is attainable. offer recommendations on how to achieve political consensus on the relative importance of the justice system among the many policy issues competing for attention and resources.Our task as consultants has been to identify technical issues and technical responses.
Inc.gov. Action Program for Judicial Reform.1.html.” 11 December 1998. John Wiley & Sons. Robert W..gov. David.ph/policy.html. 2007.mfdr. Key Performance Indicators: Developing.supremecourt. and J. See Principles of Managing for Development Results at http://www. Peter Duncan.. Hilario. pages 165-188. 2001. and Using Winning KPIs. Implementing.supremecourt.org/1About. Worcester. Supreme Court. Management experts generally agree on the importance of participation by the concerned individuals within the organization who know the issues best for this level of operational planning. 2000. Hoboken.g.ph/apjr_pubreports. Chandler House Press. 103 . http://www. “Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession towards the Third Millennium.htm. Section G. Parmeter.Notes to Chapter V 1 Bradford. Davide. e. 2 3 4 5 http://apjr. Simplified Strategic Planning: A No-Nonsense Guide for Busy People Who Want Results Fast!. page 118. See.
including actions to improve and decentralize its administrative and financial operations. 1 2 3 4 5 Supreme Court. and efficiency. Subsequently. ADB. The fifth pillar of justice is the community. about 23 national government agencies perform quasi-judicial functions and 34 have law enforcement functions. and (ii) effective law enforcement. The TA first appeared in ADB Business Opportunities on 30 May 2006. During the 2005 Country Strategy and Programming Mission. was included in the 2005–2007 Philippine country strategy and program (CSP) and confirmed at the 7 March 2006 CSP confirmation meeting. The new program. and agreed to chair the WG. in response to the Government’s concerns that the judicial reforms would not be as effective if the other pillars of justice were not improved as well. the Asian Development Bank (ADB) provided technical assistance (TA) to the Government to meet these same objectives. The Fact-Finding Mission in April 2006 reached an understanding with the Government on the purpose. and corrections system)3 to broaden the reform agenda. the SC oversaw the formation of a new working group (WG) comprising representatives from four of the five pillars of justice (judiciary. and efficient judiciary. accountable. A more trustworthy. The proposed TA focuses only on the first four pillars. Moreover. Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001–2006 (with supplement). methodology and key activities. 2001.2 The recommendations under the ADB TA led the Supreme Court (SC) to adopt several key reform initiatives. 2.4 3. the Philippines has demonstrated significant leadership in developing and implementing a comprehensive judicial reform agenda under the APJR. 105 . capacity and budgetary constraints have slowed the pace of reforms. along with a new TA. effective. output. However. which in turn depend on strong political will to apply the law consistently. In addition to the four pillars of justice.1 In 2001.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE TA No. Technical Assistance to the Republic of the Philippines for Strengthening the Independence of the Judiciary (Financed from the Japan Special Fund and Cofinanced by the Government of Japan). prosecutors and public defenders. and well-governed justice system is predicated on (i) an independent. Accountability and Efficiency of the Judiciary. Manila (TA 3693. police and law enforcers. effectiveness. The Government of the Philippines adopted the 6-year Action Plan for Judicial Reform (APJR) in November 2000 to strengthen judicial independence. the impact of such reforms depends on the effectiveness of other pillars of justice and other government law enforcement agencies55. cost estimates. and Improving the Administration of Justice 1. who will retire at the end of 2006. Republic of the Philippines. the Government asked ADB to prepare a medium-term reform program for governance and the judicial sector and to develop a longer-term program for the justice sector in coordination with other development partners.PHI). The Government requested the prompt processing of the new TA to allow the SC to begin implementing reforms in the judiciary’s fiscal and administrative operations during the term of the current chief justice of the SC. With ADB’s support. 4832-PHI: Enhancing the Autonomy. The Government also requested an expansion in the scope of the TA to include improvements in the administration of justice. 2001. and implementation arrangements for the TA.
8. For example. spending regulations applied to other government agencies without fiscal autonomy. However. provides financing for the implementation of a package of reforms. In the judiciary. which has 146 lower courts administratively organized into 89 lowercourt stations.77 But before the new structure can be established. which comprises court fees and other revenues collected by the court and contributions from local government units (LGUs). funded with a loan from the World Bank. and the 6 7 The Constitution provides that the judiciary’s budget cannot be reduced in absolute terms. The backlog of requests results in long delays in payment and often the suspension of key services. based on local government ability and willingness to contribute. Core administrative and financial management functions for the lower courts will be further decentralized to between 13 and 19 regional court administrative offices (RCAOs) for all trial courts in the region. To enable the SC to exercise fiscal autonomy. systems. a detailed administrative structure. To fill gaps in funding. 9. Pilot implementation will cover a pilot court (Lapu Lapu). was developed to systematize LGU contributions and make them nonnegotiable. including the development and pilot implementation of computerized integrated administrative and financial management systems designed under the ADB TA and to be detailed under the proposed TA. Judiciary operations are funded primarily from the national budget6. Centralized administration is inefficient and promotes further dependence on LGU funding. Region 7 RCAO. and staffing and operating procedures must be prepared and operationalized. A Central Court Administrative Office (CCAO) responsible for administrative oversight and a Central Financial Management Office (CFMO) responsible for financial oversight of these decentralized units will be created. a formula. There is currently no-judiciary-wide resource management perspective. Philippine courts continue to be saddled by case backlog. There are no reliable data on the amount or type of resource contribution of LGUs. Delays in the administration of justice can be attributed to constraints in the judiciary and other pillars of justice. Under the reform program. 6. and functions developed under the ADB TA and approved by the SC in April 2004 must be implemented. but the judiciary’s share in the national budget has declined from 1. the new administrative structure. The SC has chosen Region 7. 106 . A one-line ceiling provided by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) determines the details of the proposed annual budget of the judiciary. replace equipment. or pay utility bills must be submitted to and processed by the OCA. for the pilot RCAO to take advantage of synergies with the World Bank Judicial Reform Support Project. case congestion (backlog) and delay in case processing violates the litigants’ rights to a speedy trial and erodes public confidence in the courts. The SC would like to set up the new CCAO and CFMO and a pilot RCAO at the same time. to enable the vertical integration of the new systems. and DBM review and approval. and improve accountability and the delivery of services to the courts. while the administrative and financial management functions of the more than 2. and CFMO. the release of allotments and cash and the reallocation of budget details are subject to overall national government priorities. and the OCA. CCAO. lower courts are often forced to seek alternative assistance from LGUs. the Judicial and Bar Council. which is setting up a model hall of justice in the region. The budget of the appellate and special courts continues to be controlled by the DBM. administrative and financial operations will be decentralized to the SC. the Philippine Judicial Academy. National budget allocations are augmented by the Judicial Development Fund. The project. assume core administrative and financial management functions. fulfilling this constitutional mandate has been a challenge. Delays in the Administration of Justice. lower-court requests for funds to make building repairs. 5. Under the ADB TA.4. appellate and special courts. made at the discretion of local executives.000 lower courts are managed centrally by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Fiscal and Administrative Autonomy of the Judiciary. 7. Although the Philippine Constitution mandates fiscal autonomy for the judiciary.2% in 1998 to less than 1% in 2004. and related capacity-building and change management processes must be developed and implemented.
Philippine law requires disputing parties to resort to the BJS before lodging a complaint in court and imparts the full force and effect of a final court judgment to amicable settlements under BJS. However. 12. also delays the administration of justice. most courts still lack Internet access and thus cannot use the e-library or submit reports to the SC electronically. Long-Term Strategy for the Justice Sector. it is difficult for the National Prosecution Service (NPS) of the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) (for prosecutors it deputizes) to track the status of probable-cause cases (preliminary investigations) handled by prosecutors. are supporting the SC in enhancing the pilot project. settlements reached through the BJS are often not enforced and the issues discussed in the settlement are brought once again before the courts. Core information about persons who have been accused. The recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the APJR need to be reconciled with this road map and the implementation issues (capacity and funding constraints) need to be clearly identified and understood so that the reform priorities can be set. A team of judges. The SC therefore drew up a Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Strategy (2003) under the APJR. The APJR studies also reviewed the effectiveness of other measures intended to speed up the administration of justice. because of the limited funds available for capital outlays. there is no integrated system with data on arrest warrants and convictions that have been issued by the judiciary. The National Bureau of Investigation. without systematic case management. including an electronic library. A proposed road map for integrated justice sector reforms. Gaps in the accuracy of required information often go undetected. 13. the SC developed a case-flow management system (CFM) in Pasay.docket clearance rates of judges is only 40–45%. also under the APJR. While the SC has taken commendable steps to increase judicial efficiency by introducing information and communication technology (ICT). retrieving. resulting in incomplete files. 107 . resulting in duplicative collection. and delays in retrieval. 10. Thus. A related study also identified the need to address issues related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the other pillars of justice to maximize the benefits of strategies to decongest case load and reduce delays. 14. new prosecutors working in the NPS are not given regular training and must learn on the job. only analyzes information that is provided to it. including the Katarungang Pambarangay (Barangay Justice System. storing. The effectiveness and efficiency of prosecutors were identified by the study as important in this regard. Studies made under the APJR revealed that up to 33% of pending cases continue to be delayed and generally remain open after 2 years. unless they are repudiated in court within 10 days of being handed down. In addition. Moreover. or BJS). 11. which prepares clearances. Hence. inconsistencies in information collected. prosecutors may lack the requisite skills to prepare specific types of cases. those who want to check whether a particular person has a criminal record may need to go directly to the courts. which is now being evaluated before being implemented nationwide. Processes for collecting. and e-payment systems. detained. limited access to research materials undermines the ability of the NPS and the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) to prepare and try cases. A related study showed the need for case-load management reforms and a monitoring framework to track judicial efficiency in this area. especially in information sharing. The results of the evaluation will be used to update priorities and focus and reprogram resources toward the full implementation of the reforms.8 Privacy and security of information are also concerns. However. Other prosecutors are trained ad hoc. CFM software. and sharing information often differ. was prepared recently. based on the recommendations of earlier studies. Thus. including the management of case documents. Judges have no effective way of ensuring that cases filed before them have previously been settled or have undergone settlement proceedings through the BJS. or convicted is often not readily available. Poor coordination and collaboration among the four pillars of justice. The implementation of APJR reforms will be evaluated shortly by the SC. 8 For example. Not all courts report this information to the bureau. who have successfully developed similar systems in their own courts.
efficient.and long-term strategic funding initiatives and prioritize and cost specific investments. (e) determine the appropriate timing and sequencing of various actions and clarify implementation arrangements. including funding options. retrieval. and sharing of core information. storage. and improve the administration of justice. To this end. including an integrity unit within the pilot RCAO. and well-governed justice system that more effectively upholds the rule of law. it will (a) assess strategic long-term frameworks that have been prepared for the sector. (ii) (iii) 108 . Administration of justice. to increase efficiency and accountability (in the work of the judiciary. The TA will assist as well in developing a sustainable capacity development strategy for prosecutors. and a pilot RCAO in Region 7. accountability and efficiency. B. It will also assist in (a) implementing the CFM for the judiciary in Region 7. while addressing security and privacy concerns. (b) developing business processes and systems to integrate the BJS into the judicial process in Region 7. (d) giving the judiciary and NPS better access to research materials needed to develop cases (Web-based). by developing the framework for a national justice information system (NJIS) and the related ICT framework. (c) facilitate agreement with the Government and other development partners on the reform agenda. along with related capacity-building and change management support. CFMO. to start with). The TA will help improve the overall management of information coming from all pillars of justice. The TA will focus on facilitating agreement on a uniform approach to reform in the justice sector in close coordination with other development partners.THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE A. and operating procedures and systems for the new CCAO. and (b) a new accountability system within the decentralized framework. (b) review related initiatives of other development partners. Long-term strategy for the justice sector. the TA will strengthen judicial autonomy. and (f) develop a performance monitoring system that includes benchmarks and indicators to track progress in implementation. The TA will identify the core information needs and develop business processes to facilitate the collection. and (e) developing a case management system to track the status of probable-cause cases assigned to prosecutors. The TA will also support the pilot implementation in Region 7 of the formula standardizing LGU contributions to the judiciary. (c) improving communications and connectivity among the courts by providing Wi. Impact and Outcome 15. Methodology and Key Activities The TA will focus on three key reform areas: (i) Fiscal and administrative autonomy of the judiciary. 16. including prosecutors deputized by the OMB to handle cases of corruption. (d) develop short. The TA will support the implementation of the judiciary’s new administrative and fiscal structure by assisting in developing and implementing (a) the detailed structure. Through its outputs. The TA will promote a more trustworthy. staffing.Fi antennas in courts with adequate information technology infrastructure.
review research materials available to the judiciary (with a focus on the Court of Tax Appeals) and the NPS in key priority areas. and identify gaps in available information. during which use of the service can be monitored to clarify whether the service should be continued. case management systems and process engineering. Review the need for access to an Internet service provider that includes the relevant US laws and cases. If recommending access to such a provider. the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). arrange for access for 1 year. and coordination among development partners. and synchronize funding agency initiatives and contributions in developing a long-term program for the sector. the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). Review proposals for long-term reforms in the justice sector. including indicators and benchmarks to track and review the progress in program implementation. quarterly. and formulate the program logical framework. reform initiatives. as well as the program structure and its lending and technical assistance components as may be necessary.TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR CONSULTANTS Component B: Improved Administration of Justice and Long-Term Justice Sector Development Strategy 1. and develop short-term and long-term strategic funding initiatives. and strong ownership of. the national fiscal and administrative reform expert and coordinator. WG. program development. International Team Leader and Justice Sector Reform Expert (5 person-months). Assist the PMO. define the program focus and priorities. In coordination with the domestic legal and judicial reform expert. policy matrices. In close coordination with the PMO and with support from the domestic legal and judicial reform expert. Also review the possibility of arrangements with Philippine and US law schools for training to address key legal research gaps. He or she shall (i) Supervise the national case management. and draft final and final reports. This expert shall oversee the implementation of component B and be responsible for developing and implementing recommendations to enhance access to research materials. including development partners. The expert shall also oversee the preparation of inception. Coordinate with the PMO. develop a draft sector wide program framework. (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 109 . and other development partners to ensure close coordination in. the National Prosecution Service (NPS). Develop a program monitoring and performance evaluation mechanism. and related expenditure needs to fund the reform agenda. and poverty reduction experts. and ADB in obtaining consensus among development partners and the Government on the reform agenda. The expert shall have significant experience in justice sector reforms. Supervise the domestic training expert in developing a sustainable capacity development strategy for NPS prosecutors. and ongoing development partner initiatives in the justice sector. The team leader and justice sector reform expert shall develop detailed terms of reference and related work plans for these other experts and review their deliverables. including the development of approaches to reform. including the integration of consultant reports in this component. In close coordination with the PMO and pillars of justice working group (WG). organize workshops to facilitate consensus among key stakeholders. training. and for developing a longterm strategy for the justice sector. on the long-term justice sector strategy.
and (b) oversee the development of new business processes and procedures for more effective integration of the BJS into judicial processes in Region 7 to allow more efficient tracking of the status of these disputes. In coordination with the domestic legal and judicial reform expert and the case management experts. implementation. International Justice Information Systems Expert (3 person-months). The recommendations should reflect relevant international (ii) 110 . The assessment shall also focus on the core information needs of each pillar. This consultant will be responsible for developing the framework for a new National Justice Information System (NJIS). and (c) develop and assist the domestic experts in the development of related court performance indicators to track progress in case decongestion and delay reduction. Case management system for NPS and OMB. He or she shall have relevant experience in the development and implementation of justice information systems in developed markets. IT experts) and supervise the implementation of their work plans. ICT procurement planning. He or she shall: (i) Develop detailed terms of reference and related work plans for the domestic justice information communications technology expert and information systems expert (collectively. including their resolution. (ii) (iii) (iv) 3.2. He or she shall have significant experience in developing and implementing case management systems for judiciaries and other pillars of justice in developed markets and in providing related capacity-building services. International Case Management Expert (2 person-months). and analysis of a survey on the use of the BJS in Region 7 (identify the number of local disputes subject to BJS mediation that were later refiled in the courts. to enable the NPS and OMB to track the status of cases. business process reengineering. information systems (IS) functional and user requirements definition. case management experts) and oversee the implementation of their work plans. and ICT project management. Barangay Justice System in Region 7. and local disputes that were filed in the courts but were dismissed for failure to seek mediation through the BJS). To more effectively integrate the Barangay Justice System (BJS) in Region 7 into the judicial process. Review the assessment and recommend ways of addressing perceived gaps. In coordination with the team leader. (a) supervise domestic case management experts and the domestic legal and judicial reform expert in the preparation. develop case management processes and procedures for probable-cause cases handled by prosecutors. This expert shall assist the judiciary and other pillars of justice in developing and implementing case-load management processes and systems. Submit progress reports to the team leader on the status of implementation of the work plans. This expert shall have the following tasks: (i) Case-load management reforms. Develop a methodology to enable the IT experts and the legal and judicial reform expert to assess the current information systems within each pillar of justice (information systems strategic plans and their implementation) and related institutional capacities. (a) develop detailed terms of reference and related work plans for the domestic case management expert and case management systems and process reengineering expert (collectively. (b) supervise the case management experts in the implementation of business processes and procedures to support the judiciary’s case-flow management system (CFM) in Region 7 courts.
This expert shall be a lawyer with at least 5 years’ experience and be familiar with the operations of the Philippine justice sector. as well as a change management framework for the NJIS. structures. Supervise the IT experts in defining the institutional capacities and specific organizational arrangements (functions. if not available. (ii) development of new related business processes and procedures. This expert shall be primarily responsible for assisting the international justice sector reform expert and other international experts on issues relating to the related legal framework and institutions in the Philippines. implementation plan. staffing. These experts shall each have at least 5 years’ experience in business reengineering and ICT development and be familiar with justice sector operations. Domestic Legal and Judicial Reform Expert (8 person-months). competencies. and (b) assess change management requirements and develop an implementation scheme. the international justice sector expert will develop more detailed terms of reference for this expert. 5. strategic databases. including the change management requirements. policies. They will review and. identifying key information systems and their functionalities. (iv) development of a new case management system for the NPS and OMB. and (iii) assistance to the international case management expert in organizing related workshops. Submit progress reports to the team leader on the status of work plan implementation. Justice Information and Communications Technology Expert (5 person months) and Domestic Information Systems Expert (2 person-months). manage. and ICT planning and design. and change management framework. and standards for the successful implementation and maintenance of the NJIS. With the support of the PMO. 111 . A more detailed work plan and terms of reference will be developed by the international case management expert. present the proposal to the pillars of justice working group (WG). The international justice information systems expert shall provide more detailed terms of reference for these experts. considering the absorptive capacity of the implementing institutions. 6. These experts will work closely together (i) in the rollout of caseload management reforms in Region 7. (ii) preparation of a survey on the use of the BJS in Region 7. With the support of the IT experts. and implementation and analysis of survey results. These experts shall each have at least 5 years of relevant experience in the development of enterprise information systems. as a result of having worked on related reform initiatives.experience and best practices in the development and implementation of justice information systems. (iv) (v) 4. and make the appropriate revisions. They will also define the scope of the NJIS and the functionalities of its information systems. linkages) needed to implement. prepare a report detailing the proposed NJIS. develop the information system architecture of the relevant agencies of the pillars of justice. business process reengineering. They will assess the business processes and business process reengineering of the key agencies of the pillars of justice and ensure systems readiness for computerization. In coordination with other international experts. (iii) With the support of the IT experts. obtain feedback. and data-sharing functions across the pillars and the ICT infrastructure framework. and maintain the NJIS. (a) develop the NJIS framework. organize workshops to develop related capacity and facilitate consensus on the NJIS. They shall work under the supervision of the international justice information system expert and shall assist in the design of the NJIS system architecture. Domestic Case Management Expert (3 person-months) and Domestic Case Management Systems and Process Reengineering Expert (5 person-months).
112 . capacity building. This expert shall have at least 5 years’ experience in assessing the impact of public sector programs on poverty. Domestic Training Expert (2 person-months). identify gaps in capacity. Domestic Poverty Reduction Expert (2 person-months). He or she will work under the supervision of the international team leader and the justice sector reform expert. including funding options.7. Using the ADB Handbook as a guide. This expert shall work in close coordination with the team leader and the domestic legal and judicial reform expert. particularly in the justice sector. and implement several shortterm training modules. and related experience in training. This expert shall assess the capacities of prosecutors in the NPS. He or she shall analyze the impact of the APJR on the poor and the expected impact of proposed TA interventions. this expert shall develop methodologies and tools and provide capacity development to SC in the conduct of poverty impact assessment on justice sector reforms. He or she should have a background in law and capacity building and be experienced in criminal litigation. This expert shall have at least 5 years of relevant experience in the design and implementation of capacity-building strategies and programs. teaching. 8. and propose a training strategy to fill those gaps.
He previously served as Principal Deputy Legal Adviser. and graduate diploma in Urban and Regional Planning (with distinction) from Queensland University of Technology in Australia. he was Chair of the Development Assistant Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Mercado was an intern with the Center of International Environmental Law in Washington. Prior to joining the Foundation. University of Washington and a European Union Scholar in environmental resource management. including the formulation of administrative reforms for the Judiciary. Judiciary-Wide Automated Case Management Information System. 113 . Case Decongestion Strategy. the International Maritime Organization. Ambassador to Guatemala (1987–1989). and the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources. He has performed consulting assignments for the United States Government. and as a legal aide to a member of the Philippine Senate. cum laude.D. She assists in other selected activities within the Foundation's Law and Governance program and handles mediation and conflict management. Vicenta Alinsug is the President of CPRM Consultants Inc. a San Francisco firm that specializes in international cooperation in support of good governance and the rule of law.A. playing lead consulting roles in the development. where he presided over the principal international forum for donor policy coordination. coordination. USAID Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean (1990-1992). Previously. and Acting Deputy Administrator and Acting Administrator of USAID (1992-1993). and other forms of dispute resolution. U. She has served as lecturer on environmental law at Ateneo de Manila University. He received his J. the United Nations Development Programme. Maastricht School of Business in the Netherlands. He returned to USAID in 1999 as Counselor to the Agency and left public service at the end of 2000. corporate secretary of the Alternative Law Groups. in political science from the University of the Philippines. US Department of State. Carolyn A. In government she headed the Systems and Procedures Bureau of the Department of Budget and Management and led governance and public sector reform programs and projects until 1997. operationalization of court-annexed mediation. From 1994 until 1999. and international organizations. Philippine National Police. She has been involved in the Philippine justice sector reform since 1999.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 2 BIOGRAPHIC SUMMARIES OF CONSULTANTS James Michel is an independent consultant in development cooperation and Senior Counsel to DPK Consulting. NOVIB.B. Mercado received a B. Mercado manages the Law and Human Rights program of The Asia Foundation in the Philippines.S. She was also a Hubert Humphrey Fellow in international environmental law. San Sebastian College of Law. the Action Program for Judicial Reform. and completed post graduate studies in plan implementation and development financing from the Institute of Economic Development Studies in Italy. from the University of the Philippines College of Law. and diagnostic studies and reform programs for the Department of Justice. from Saint Louis University. She also previously served as executive director of the Developmental Legal Assistance Center. review and integration of studies and reform programs. including as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (1983-1987). as well as for DPK Consulting and other private consulting organizations. LL. She was coteam leader of an Asian Development Bank program on strengthening the independence and accountability of the Judiciary. and in other senior management positions in the United States Government. She earned her bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from the University of San Carlos.. and the Office of the Ombudsman. she served consultancies in Manila for the World Bank. Ms. other governments. and the Development Academy of the Philippines. She was previously a consultant to the Asian Development Bank for the Strengthening the Independence and Accountability of the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Literacy for Supporting Governance projects. Ms.
Philippine Legal Research.htm.ph/apjr_pubreports. 1996-2006. 2004-2010. National Economic and Development Authority. World Bank. Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. April 2005.census. National Medium Term Development Plan.org/globalex/Philippines1. 2005-2007.neda. 1999.net/hrreport/2006/AHRC2006HRReport. May 2006. 2006. Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001-2006 (with Supplement). 2007. “Philippines: The Human Rights Situation in 2006 – Getting Away with Murder – Widespread extrajudicial killings combine with a defective system to ensure impunity and injustice. Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of the Philippines. http://info. Alternative Law Groups. http://www.org.ahrchk. From the Grassroots: The Justice Reform Agenda of the Poor and Marginalized. Freedom House.ph.asp. 2007.pdf. 115 . National Integrity Systems Transparency International Country Study Report of the Philippines.transparency.freedomhouse.worldbank.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY Information on the Philippines Asian Development Bank. Philippines Country Strategy and Program. Philippine Justice Reform Initiatives Supreme Court. Republic of the Philippines. Edgardo and Jose Luis Syquia. Managing the Politics of Reform: Overhauling the Legal Infrastructure of Public Procurement in the Philippines.html.pdf “Country Data Report for Philippines.org/Documents/CSPs/PHI/2005/default. Freedom in the World-Philippines.supremecourt. World Bank. Transparency International. www.” http://www.gov. August 2001. http://material. http://chapterzone.org/INTPHILIPPINES/Resoureces/PHILCASMain.org/index..org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/c175. 2006. Milagros.worldbank. National Statistics Office. Governance Matters 2007. New York University. http://apjr. December 2006. Chapters 16 and 17. J. http://www. Inc. The Philippines in Figures. Santos-Ong.ph/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010. Quimson.html. February 2004.gov. Asian Human Rights Commission. Gabriella.adb. Washington. Hong Kong. http://www.” in Human Rights Report – 2006: The State of Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations.php/content/download/15149/162858.gov.nyulawglobal.pdf Campos. “Basic Need: Peace and Order” and “Basic Need: Rule of Law. 20007. http://siteresources.
org/legal. Supreme Court. No. Vinay.ph/apjr_pubreports. Political. 116 . Asian Development Bank. Philippine Justice System Studies Alinsug. ASEAN Law Association. 6. CPRM Consultants.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006. http://www. www.adb. Article 2.supremecourt. Investing in Justice: Expenditure Review of the Philippine Judiciary. 2006. “Anticorruption Initiatives in the Philippines: Breakthroughs.html. Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial. Philip.gov.abanet.html.” March 2005. Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication.” in Challenging Corruption in Asia: Case Studies and a Framework for Action. Alston. 2005. Country Governance Assessment: Philippines. http://www. October 2003. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights. American Bar Association. http://www. Bhargava. Final Report: Change Management for the Judiciary. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. November 2007.aseanlawassociation. “The Legal and Judicial System. Limits. Summary. November 2005.html. Inc. Civil.html. page 102.pdf.supremecourt. World Bank. 2005. Department of Justice. Medium-Term Development Plan for the Criminal Justice System (2007-2010). and Emil Bolongaita.org/Documents/Reports/CGA/phi.ph/apjr_pubreports. National College of Public Administration and Governance. UNDP. March 2006.gov.org/reports/A_HRC_8_Philippines_Advance_Edited. “The Criminal Justice System of the Philippines Is Rotten. Enhancing Communication between the Judiciary and the Citizenry.ph/apjr_pubreports.html.gov. National Center for State Courts.pnp. UNDP.extrajudicialexecutions. Social and Cultural Rights. December 2006.asp.pdf. Vicenta. On Balance: Judicial Reforms in the Philippines. Supreme Court. CPRM Consultants Inc. and Challenges. February 2007. http://apjr. Asian Legal Resource Center.supremecourt.. University of the Philippines. June 2003. 2004. http://apjr. or Arbitrary Executions.gov. Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice. Legal System in Philippines. 1. CPRM Consultants. http://www.ph/index. Final Report Capsule: Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary. http://apjr. Economic.” Vol. Chapter VII. 2005. Center for Policy and Executive Development.Philippine National Police Integrated Transformation Program. The Asia Foundation. 2000. Judicial Reform Index for the Philippines. Inc.
A Study on the Efficacy and Efficiency of the Barangay Justice System (Katarungang Pambarangay). UNDP.html. Revised Design Report.html.org.gov.supremecourt.gov. - - - Español. 117 .. pages 258-262. http://apjr. http://apjr.gov. 2003. Supreme Court. Preliminary Report: Judiciary-Wide Automated Case Management Information System.ph/apjr_pubreports.- Final Report: Formulation of Administrative Reforms. March 2000.ph/apjr_pubreports. Review of Organizational Options. http://apjr.supremecourt. Manila.ph/apjr_pubreports. Organizational and Financial Study of the Philippine Mediation Center and its Units. The Barangay Justice System Review. Final Report: Transforming the Philippine National Police (PNP) to a More Capable. June 2005. Hunter. http://apjr.ph/apjr_pubreports. July 2000 http://apjr.html. Dolores.html. www.supremecourt. Chapter 7. 2004. World Bank.transparency.supremecourt.ph/apjr_pubreports. June 2004. November 2004.supremecourt. Revised Final Report: Medium-Term Anticorruption Plan and Public Investment Program. National Survey of Inmates and Institutional Assessment.” in Transparency International. Final Report: Institutional Strengthening of the Shari’a Justice System (Phase 1).supremecourt. Office of the Ombudsman. UNDP.gov.gov. 2005. http://apjr. Rosemary. Final Report. Gerry Roxas Foundation. Gerry Roxas Foundation. Feliciano. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Supreme Court of the Philippines. January 2007. UNDP.ph/apjr_pubreports. 2007.supremecourt. 2000. January 2007. Final Report: Philippines Formulation of Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Strategy Project.ph/apjr_pubreports. Final Report: Conduct of Further Study on Operations and Linkages of the 5 Pillars of Justice. Philippine National Police. Effective and Credible Police Force (Phase 2). World Bank. “The Philippines: Towards significant judicial reform. Myrna and Alberto T. The Asia Foundation. USAID. March 2006. December 2003. Supreme Court.gov. Organizational and Financial Study of the Philippine Mediation Center and its Units. http://apjr. Supreme Court.gov. Supreme Court of the Philippines.html. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. UNDP. Center for Public Resource management. http://apjr. July 2000.gov.html. Supreme Court of the Philippines.html. Muyot.ph/apjr_pubreports. The Philippine Criminal Justice System.html. Global Corruption Report 2007. Inc. Supreme Court.supremecourt.
Institute of Developing Economies. Urban Integrated Consultants. July 2000.ph/apjr_pubreports.supremecourt. and Myrna Feliciano.supremecourt. United Nations Development Programme. page 73. http://www. July 2003.ph/apjr_pubreports. 1998.html.ph/apjr_pubreports.ph/apjr_pubreports.worldbank. October 2003.jp/English/Publish/Als/pdf/05. http://www. 2000. Assessment of the Public Attorney’s Office. March 2001. Judicial Sector Study of the Philippines. Supreme Court. http://apjr.ide.” in Judicial Independence Overview and Country-Level Summaries. 2003. Karen. Pangalangan.gov. “Philippine Judicial Reforms. Final Report: Infrastructure Program Requirements for the Judiciary. 2005/2006 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary. Freedom and Death Inside the Jail: A Look Into the Conditions of Quezon City Jail. h http://apjr.html. July 2007. The Philippine Judicial System.” Supreme Court of the Philippines.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSiteP K=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P066076 118 . 1987-2000. http://web. The Asia Foundation. Raymond. Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice. Supreme Court. 1990.supremecourt.go. Inc. 2004. 1996. University of the Philippines Law Center. http://apjr. 2003.org/Documents/Events/2003/RETA5987/Final_Overview_Report.supremecourt. World Bank. Social Weather Station. Addressing Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice by the Poor and Disadvantaged. Quezon City. Narag. Management Study of the Judiciary. Carmelo.gov.gov. World Bank. Asian Development Bank. Report on the Effects of the Continuous Trial System on Litigation Time and Output in the National Capital Region.pdf. Project Appraisal Document for Philippines Judicial Reform Project Support.adb. October 2003.html. 2004.Hudes. USAID. Institute of Judicial Administration. Raul.. Libertas. UNDP. Survey of Enterprises on Corruption. Sison. December 2006. La Salle Institute of Governance. http://apjr. Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession. Changes in the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession in the Philippines.html.gov. June 2003. Supreme Court.pdf. “Philippines.
org/ethics/pdfs/Bangalore_principles. as revised by the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices. 1999. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. 2002. Pim.” Vol. National Center for State Courts. 119 . Kaufmann. Implementing. Steelman. 2004. May 2003. Inc. June 2007. Key Performance Indicators: Developing. Saldanha. Co-Coordinators. and Indicators Albers. The Hague.pdf. Issue 1.org/Documents/Periodicals/GB/governancebrief04. Comparative International Study of Court Performance Indicators: A Descriptive and Analytical Account. “Promoting Results Based Management in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries. Kusek. 4. World Bank. European Judicial Systems.worldbank. http://siteresources. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. page 112. Utrecht Law Review. 2004.org/publicsector/legal/legaltoolkit. World Bank.org/Sourcebook/2-2ndEdition.org. David C. Readings on Performance Indicators for the Judiciary. OECD. and Applications. An Introduction to Results Management: Principles.worldbank.adb.” World Bank. 2007. Hoboken. Council of Europe.. March 2004. http://siteresources. Implications.” ADB Governance Brief No.mfdr.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/wps4370. David.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/PimAlbers.org.pdf. United Nations Development Programme. http://www. 2007. World Bank. “Governance Indicators: Where Are We. Edgardo and Maria Dakolias. Performance Standards. http://www. and Using Winning KPIs.ajs.worldbank. Emerging Good Practice in Managing for Development Results: Sourcebook – Second Edition.” Policy Research Working Paper. http://www1. Buscaglia. Asian Development Bank. October 2007. Daniel and Aart Kraay.pdf.pdf.. Cedric. Parmeter. John Wiley & Sons. Derek. Improving Caseflow Management: A Brief Guide.adb. Strasbourg. Rist. Richard. Williamsburg. Richard and Luba Beardsley.” European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice.pdf. . Jody Zall and Ray C.“Key Functions of Legal Systems with Suggested Performance Measures. November 2002. 3. http://www. 2001. 2006. Council of Europe.html. 1997. 2006. Schauffler. Poate. “Judicial accountability in the US state courts: Measuring court performance.utrechtlawreview. “Evaluating Judicial Systems: A Balance between Variety and Generalization. Where Should We Be Going?. World Bank.Results-Based Management. Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System. Messick. Measuring & Managing Results: Lessons for Development Cooperation. http://www. www.
2d Edition. 2007. http://www. Robert.undp. and the Rule of Law: Lessons from East Asia – Successes and Failures. “Economic Development. Brookings Institution Press.vera. http://www. 2006.net/ipbenefits/tucson/isnie2004/ISNIE2004. Sicat. Dam. http://www.kreative.pdf.pdf. 26 Michigan Journal of International Law.htm.org/Documents/Others/Law_ADB/lpr_2001. “Legal Empowerment: Impact and Implications for the Development Community and the World Bank.org/legalempowerment/pdf/economic_poverty_rule_of_law.adb.Tai. Legal Identity for Inclusive Development.pdf. Oslo. http://www. Ronald and Michael Trebilcock. Measuring Progress toward Safety and Justice: A Global Guide to the Design of Performance Indicators across the Justice Sector. United Nations Development Programme. Oslo. 2007.upd. Governance Indicators: A Users’ Guide.pdf. Poverty Reduction. Sherwood. 2004.econ. “Developing an Index of the Rule of Law: Sharing the Experience of Hong Kong.ph/respub/dp/pdf/DP2007-03. April 2005. Ghani. January 2006. editors.” February 2007. 99.org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_online_version. Vera Institute of Justice.” Volume 2.bepress. www.undp. No.pdf. 120 . Vandenabeele. Asian Development Bank.com/asjcl/vol2/iss1/art4. “Legal and Constitutional Disputes and the Philippine Economy. Law and Policy Reform at the Asian Development Bank. 2004. Golub. 1. Stephen.undp. Manila.org/oslocentre/docs05/cross/Justice%20Indicators%20Background%20 Paper. The Law-Growth Nexus: The Rule of Law and Economic Development.” Paper prepared for the UNDP Governance Indicators Project. Gerardo. Caroline and Christine Lao. “Justice Indicators.” Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor.asp?publication_id=207. 2007. Ashraf. World Bank.org/publications/publications_5.” International Society for New Institutional Economics. Washington. http://www.edu. Asian Journal of Comparative Law. November 2003. 2001. Equity. http://www. page 167. 2006. The Political Economy of Rule of Law Reform in Developing Countries. Kenneth W. Rule of Law and Development Asian Development Bank. Benny.” The World Bank Legal Review: Law. and Development. Volume 2. Daniels. “Judicial Performance: Its Economic Impact in Seven Countries. http://www..
” 2005. November 21-22.” DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. Governance and Social Development Resource Centre. http://www. The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank (2001-2015). “Sectorwide Approaches. Réal.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/JSAHandbookWebEdition . March 2007.pdf. http://www. February 2003. July 2002. OECD.pdf. Eveline N.lawandjustice.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdfs/swap/swap312a. http://www. “Justice. and Anneli Alba. “Sector Wide Approach in Justice. Washington.cba. CIDA Primer on Program-Based Approaches.” October 2006.gov.uk/pubs/files/safesecureaccjustice.britishcouncil. 2006. Volume 2. European Commission. http://www.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. Chapter 3.NSF/vLUImages/CapacityDevelopment2/$file/Program%20Based %20Approaches-E. Guyana Justice Reform Strategy. Law and Order: The Uganda Experience. www.za/alraesa/conferences/papers/ent_s2_edroma.org/kenya-justice-sector-conference. Security and Accessible Justice: Putting Policy into Practice. Reiling.gy/justicreform/Guyana%20JSRS%20revised%20June%202006c. 121 .sti. “Lessons Learned from Judicial Reform: The ADB Experience. http://siteresources.oecd.. World Bank. London.asp. http://www. Justice Sector Assessments: A Handbook. World Bank. Department for International Development. and Adrian Di Giovanni.gina. Brussels. 2006-2010. Evelyn B.htm.dfid.Sector –Wide Approach Asian Development Bank. 2006.pdf. http://www. http://www. Lavergne.adb.asp?articleID=10829. Fischer.doj. British Council. Waleed Haider.org/go/topicguides/justice/justice-overview. Dory.worldbank. Malik. OECD.pdf Jamaican Justice System Reform Project.gov. Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery.gc.pg.gov. Papua New Guinea Government. Endroma.gsdrc.org/Documents/Policies/LTSF/long0302. 2007. http://www.pdf. Strategies.htm.ca/INET/IMAGES. Judiciary-Led Reforms in Singapore: Framework. Safety. Law and Justice Sector Reform Website. Canadian International Development Agency.. http://www. Paris.pdf.org/jaaicanjustice/index.adb.acdicida.org/media/printer. http://www. Guidance for European Commission Support to Sector Programmes. Proceedings of Conference on Justice Sector Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic Framework and Practical Lessons. Linn Hammergren. and Lessons.” http://www.gov.
Governance. World Bank.go.worldbank. Republic of Uganda. Justice. Law and Order Sector Reform Website. http://www. http://www.gjlos. 122 .ke.jlos.go.org/OESX5Q35R0. Law and Justice Institutions Website.ug. Law and Order Sector Reform Website.Republic of Kenya. http://go. Justice.
Philippine Public Safety College 123 . Office of the Solicitor General Eduardo De Los Angeles. Supreme Court Gillian Dunuan. Philippine National Police Lourdes Aniceto. Fadullon. Director. Program Management Office. Philippine Judicial Academy Mina Importante. Philippine Public Safety College Rosalina Bistoyong. National Economic and Development Authority Jose Miguel Dela Rosa. Supreme Court Merceditas Gutierrez. Chief. Executive Director. Supreme Court Richard D. Director. Ombudsman Arthur K. Vice President. Clerk of the National Commission on Indigenous Persons Justice Ameurfina Herrera. Director for Human Resources Development. Management Staff.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 4 PERSONS INTERVIEWED Philippine Government and Judiciary Edgardo Acuna. Senior Prosecutor. Undersecretary for Public Order and Safety. Management Staff. National Police Commission Sally Aquino. Department of Interior and Local Government Baby Catherine Cruz. Chancellor. Department of Justice Antonio Fernandez. Center for Public Safety Service. Attorney. Consultant. Hernan. Dean. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Marius Corpus. Chief of Planning and Research Services. Economic Development Specialist. National Commission on Indigenous Persons Zenaida Necesito-Elepaño. National Economic and Development Authority Susan Gavino. Assistant Chief State Prosecutor. Acting Secretary of Justice Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum. Department of Justice Rogelio Asignado. Philippine Judicial Academy Agnes Devanadera. Program Management Office. Senior Deputy Court Administrator. National Commission on Indigenous Persons Anthony Carpio.
Department of Justice Rowena San Pedro. National Economic and Development Authority 124 . Chair. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Purificacion Quisumbing. Undersecretary. Judge. Director General. Program Management Office. Department of Interior and Local Government Laura Pascua. Bureau of Jails and Municipal Prisons. Chief of Legal Affairs. Public Attorney’s Office Jose Midas Marquez. Department of Interior and Local Government Aida Layug. Chief of Staff. Philippine National Police Isidro Siriban. National Police Commission Alfredo F. Director of Personnel and Administrative Services. National Police Commission Dennis Siervo. Department of Finance Rolando G. National Police Commission Romulo Neri. Department of Budget and Management Persida Rueda-Acosta. Commission on Human Rights Avelino Razon. Undersecretary for Local Government. Tungpalan. Director. Manila Linda Malenab-Hornilla. Project Manager. Supreme Court Myrna Medina. Undersecretary for Policy. Philippine National Police Mario Relampagos. Department of Budget and Management Manuel Pontanal. Deputy Chief Public Attorney. Chair. Commissioner. National Police Commission Reynato Puno. Vice Chair. National Economic and Development Authority Monica Pagunsan. Director Management Services Office. Pasig City Celia Sanidad-Leones. Judge. National Police Commission Macapancat Mama. Regional Trial Court. Regional Trial Court. Secretary of Socioeconomic Planning. Director of Crime Prevention. Undersecretary. Alternative Dispute Resolution Department. Tadiar. Office of the Chief Justice. Philippine Judicial Academy Roberto Tan. Chief Public Attorney. Department of Justice Austere Panadearo. Deputy Director General.General Clarito Jover.
World Bank Arthur Mitchell. USAID Eveline Fischer. National Commission on Indigenous Persons Jovencito Zuño. Co-Director. Democracy and Governance Office. Asian Development Bank Jon Lindborg. Gerardo Porta. Director. Minister of Economic Affairs. Second Secretary. Philippines-Canada Cooperation Office Richard Messick. Senior Financial Sector Specialist. Law and Justice Thematic Group. Southeast Asia Department. Asian Development Bank Kunihiko Higashi. Program Officer. Director. Australian Embassy Emmanuel Buendia. International Criminal Investigative Training and Assistance Program (ICITAP). Legal/Judicial Reform Adviser. Program Manager. Legal Affairs. Governance Officer. UNDP Jose Edgardo Campos. USAID Maria Longi. World Bank Keith Crawford. USAID Akira Sugiyama. US Department of Justice 125 . Finance and Trade Division. Court of Appeals Basilio Wandag. European Commission Klaus Preschle. Lead Public Sector Specialist. Asian Development Bank Bradley Parks. Civic Participation Specialist. Department of Justice International Development Partners Jaseem Ahmed. Development Policy Officer. Embassy of Japan Debra Kertzman. Associate Justice. Deputy General Counsel. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Chief State Prosecutor. Director. Development Cooperation. Threshold Program. Mission Director. Governance. Asian Development Bank John Alkpala. Millennium Challenge Corporation Eva Pastrana Gutierrez. Rule of Law Division. Assistant Director. Embassy of Japan Jeffrey Thomas. USAID Steven Edminster. Millennium Challenge Corporation Jose Mendoza. General Counsel. Deputy Chief.Martin Villarama.
CTA Closed Case Study. World Bank Sam Zappia. Treasurer. Team Leader. Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Rita Linda Gimeno. World Bank Narcisa Umali. Legal Department. Management Systems International Scott Ciment. CIDA Felipe Ureta Redshaw. Advisor. MCA Threshold Program. Libertas Judge Evelyn Lance. Executive Director. ROLE Edwin Glindro. Attorney Andres Bautista. American Chamber of Commerce Crisanto Frianeza. Management Systems International Gregorio Batiller. USAID ROLE Program. Country Director. Institute of Law. Asian Institute for Journalism and Communication Roberto Cadiz. Secretary General. Dean. American Bar Association George Carmona. MCA Threshold Program. Attorney. Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Glenda Gloria. Lead Procurement Specialist. Senior Program Officer. Chief of Party. Philippines. Papua New Guinea-Australia Law and Justice Sector Program John Forbes. American Chamber of Commerce John Dinsdale. Far Eastern University Florangel Braid. Management Systems International Roger Dallas. Libertas Teresa Cannady. President. Chief of Party. Trustee. Newsbreak Louie Tito Guia. Australian Embassy Civil Society and Subject Matter Experts Carina Agarao. Team Leader. Philippines. Counsellor. Center for Community Advancement Benjamin Allen. Judicial Reform Specialist 126 . European Commission Access to Justice Project Cecilia Vales. American Bar Association Phyllis Cox. East Asia and Pacific. Country Director. Development Cooperation. Chief Counsel. Chairman. Chief of Party.Anthony Toft.
Director. Executive Director. Dean. American Bar Association Marites Nañguilan Vitug. Integrated Bar of the Philippines D. US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Carolyn Sobritchea. Circuit Judge. Team Leader. Buenaventura. Masanta. Asian Institute for Journalism and Communication Cesar Villanueva.Renato Lopez. Attorney Custodio Parlade. Brooks Smith. American Chamber of Commerce Jose Vicente Salazar. MCA Threshold Program. Attorney Carol Pascual Sanchez. Arellano University Law School Clare Manuel. Sayoc & De Los Angeles Steven Rood. Dean. Corruption Prevention Specialist. American Bar Association Mariano Magsalin. Project Director. The Asia Foundation Robert Sears. Jack Miranda. Alternative Law Groups. Romulo. Newsbreak Claro Parlade. Country Representative. Attorney. Attorney. Law and Development Partnership Marlon Manuel. MSI Ricardo Romulo. President. Attorney. Justice Reform Initiatives. Ateneo Law School 127 . European Union Access to Justice Project Ramon Tuazon. Inc.
Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. 1 129 . and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. Bacolod. eliminating some 641 cases from the court dockets. Prospects and Recommendations The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). Recommendation to conduct a one-time case decongestion project is still unimplemented. La Union. and Cagayan de Oro City. Study Completed. Supreme Court Administrative Circulars. five model courts have been established in Pampanga. 2006). OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1 TO DO COMMENTS JUDICIAL SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES Project end date will be in September 2008 A research study is currently being undertaken: The Gender Dimensions of ADR problems. JDR hassuccessfully settled around 41% of cases that have undergone JDR. July 2001-October 2003 SC-OCA and CPRM conducted a study that aims to (a) identify and analyze the causes of delay and case congestion cases in the courts. 2006). b) design a case decongestion and delay reduction strategy.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 5 ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER THE ACTION PROGRAM FOR JUDICIAL REFORM (2001-2007) APJR COMPONENT 1. However. JURIS has also generated a model work process flow and organizational system for mediation centers that could be the basis for expanding mediation services in the country. Justice Reform Initiative Support (JURIS) Aims to reduce docket congestion through diversion and resolution of cases through mediation by providing mediation support through the Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) which is mediation done by judges (compared with courtannexed mediation where mediation is done by hired mediators). A study on Access to Justice and Effectiveness of ADR approaches was likewise completed. Court Management Systems Caseload Survey and Development of Case Decongestion Plan Case Decongestion and Reduction of Delay Strategy Project. So far. docket cleansing (similar to the concept of the “onetime case decongestion project ” is going to be initiated in the Court of Appeals. and c) design a sustainable mechanism for improving the Judiciary’s capacity in caseload and court performance management. Baguio/Benguet.
In particular services are provided to develop and implement business processes and procedures to support the Judiciary’s case-flow management system (CFM) in region 7 courts and develop related court performance indictors to track progress in case decongestion and delay reduction. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. These activities concerning 55 trial courts and 528 court personnel were scheduled to end on September 2006. as the latter is envisioned to be rolled out with the CAMIS.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Reengineering of the Case Management System OUTPUTS Re-engineered case management systems ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2 TO DO Re-engineering and standardization of case management procedures in all courts COMMENTS ADB TA 4832 Component B. 2) Data clean up. Phase I involved the automation of data collection and processing of the CMOOCA. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. Pateros. 2006). 4) Users training. 5) System installation and hand holding. 2) Case management system for NPS and OMB This involves the development of case management processes and procedures for probable cause cases handled by prosecutors to enable NPS and OMB to track status of cases.net software. (CAMIS). including their resolution Case Administration Management Information System (CAMIS) February 2003-June 2004 The project aimed to build and strengthen the capacity of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) to establish and support a Case Management Information System. Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy 1) Caseload management reforms This involves the development and implementation of caseload management processes and systems and related capacity building services. CAMIS Rollout Implementation The CAMIS Rollout Implementation Team was created to plan. synchronize coordinate. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5.net software The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). The team conducted coordination activities with the trial courts of Quezon City and Makati City for the clean up of the Monthly Report of cases and completed the preparations for the rollout of the CAMIS. A total of 189 personnel from 45 RTCs and 13 MeTCs were trained to use the CAMIS software. Marikina. manage and monitor the undertaking that is the rollout of CAMIS to lower courts. The following activities were scheduled to be conducted in RTCs and MeTCs in the Cities of Pasig. 2006). and the Municipalities of Taguig. 2 130 . Mandaluyong. The Supreme Court through Memorandum Order No. and San Juan: 1) CAMIS change management orientation. 3) Assessment of the availability of hardware and Internet facilities. 46 2006 created the CAMIS Rollout Implementation Team.Net due to financial considerations and the development of the Case Flow Management System Phase II. The Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library decided to temporarily postpone the Rollout of CAMIS.
Trainings on records management. Other related initiatives in case management information system include: Cutting Through the Paper Chase: Towards an Effective and Efficient Information Flow at the Supreme Court of the Philippines Automated Case Management and Information System in the Court of Tax Appeals Use of Continuous Trial System on Selected Cases in the Sandiganbayan Reducing Docket Congestion in the Sandiganbayan Study on the Causes of Delay in the Court of Tax Appeals Proposed. Technical assistance in change management to support the sustainable and continuous implementation of the Case Management Information System (“CMIS”) introduced in each court. public information on CMIS. Automated Case Management and Information System in the Sandiganbayan The project Development of the Case Management Information System (CMIS) in the Sandiganbayan includes the training of justices in the use of computers and use of technology in effective case and caseflow management and relevant Sandiganbayan personnel (e. improve case and caseflow management in the Court of Appeals.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2 TO DO Automated Case Management and Information System in CA and CTA COMMENTS CMIS is currently being replicated in the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals. The initial work with the Court of Tax Appeals has also started. control.g. Current work is being done for the integration of CMIS with other IT systems of the Supreme Court. Management and Information System Department) to manage the CMIS. This includes the review and development of employee performance indicators and milestones within the context of ongoing automation Development of the Functional Specifications and System Concept for a Judiciary-wide Automated Case Management System (Expanded CDDRP) The project will provide the functional specifications and system concept/definition for a judiciary-wide automated case management system. and archiving techniques for key divisions and court personnel have also been conducted. including automation. which will be implemented under the Judicial Reform Support Project 131 . Expected roll-out will be in March 2008.
pilot implementation. Development and Pilot Implementation of an Enhanced Case flow Management (CFM) System for First and Second Level Courts The Project involves the design. testing. Roll-out of the prototype system developed to the rest of the court system Integration of the EPayments System & the IBP Database to the Enhanced Case Management System (eCFM) Integration of CFM with CAMIS (WB) Roll. It uses previously determined track assignments under the Differentiated Case Management process. development. 2006 and was pilot-tested in Pasay City on December 2006.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2 TO DO Completed. Pursuant to said recommendations. The assessors underscored the need to enhance the CFM system and software to include more case tracking features and generation of data for the Court Administration Management Information System (CAMIS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The pilot project was assessed in April 2006 by a team of judges and court personnel. among others. The CFM software was pilot-tested in the Regional Trial Courts and Metropolitan Trial Courts in Pasay City from October 2003 to June 2005. Introduction of New Transcription and Recording Technology Installation of computer-aided transcription technology in the selected courts Procurement of computeraided transcription machines Computer-aided transcription machines and high-speed scanners have been procured for the Sandiganbayan.out delayed due to change in leadership in the Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library. It entails the elimination of unnecessary time intervals or case events. CFM refers to court supervision of the time and case events or stages in the movement of a case through the court system from the point of filing to disposition. and process and system documentation of the Enhanced CFM System that is integrated with the existing CAMIS of the OCA and other application systems that may be developed later. COMMENTS Case Flow Management Assessment conducted in May 2006. the Supreme Court of the Philippines will undertake a project that seeks to improve the CFM for a more expeditious disposition of cases and more efficient management of dockets of all first and second level courts. and the addition of necessary case events so that the case is moved reasonably swiftly and disposition time shortened. The software development phase was completed on November 30. Procurement of more CAT machines held in abeyance as the SC OCA is looking into cheaper alternatives (using ordinary keyboard and foot pedals) 132 .July 2004 USAID/EGTA The Supreme Court implemented a pilot project on case flow management (CFM) in 2002. Case Flow Management (CFM) Pilot Project in Pasay City Courts October 2002. The CFM’s main feature is the case tracking system upon which a software was developed.
ABA supported the Review of the Civil Procedure Rules by conducting an assessment of the 1997 Civil Procedure Rules (Rule 1-71 of the Rules of Court. Assessment report given to the Supreme Court Committee on Rules but no action yet. Nationwide consultations were done to inform judges about the revised procedures and to solicit comments.) Civil procedure and commercial law experts suggested revisions in order to ensure that that the Rules do not impede the flow of commerce and foreign investment. The law likewise provides that the entire trial period shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial. The suggested roundtable discussion has not materialized. and Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice) . Republic Act No.dialogues on the videos. 8943 (or the Speedy Trial Act) mandates trial courts to hold continuous trial on criminal cases on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible to ensure speedy trial. Recognizance. or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.Study on the Scope of the Rules of Procedures for Criminal Cases . Review of Civil Procedure Rules Moreover. Some legal practitioners Others: . 3 133 . board. the Speedy Trial rules and the rules encouraging appropriate continuous trials are emphasized Development and production of video materials on Pre Trial in Civil and Criminal Cases/ Nationwide Consultation Dialogues With Office of the Court Administrator. Technical assistance was provided in the review and possible revision of the Rule 65 to prevent the abuse thereof in order to delay the hearing of cases.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Streamlining of the Rules of Court OUTPUTS Streamlined Rules of Court ACCOMPLISHMENTS Study on Rule 65 (on Interlocutory Appeals) 2 TO DO Amendment to the Rule is being studied by the SC Rules Committee.Continued Research Assistance on the Revision of Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan Speedy Trial Rules & Rules on Continuous Trial In the Court of Tax Appeals and in the Sandiganbayan. Summary Procedure. COMMENTS Sandiganbayan has adopted new internal rules of procedures in line with the adoption of CMIS. by alleging simply that such act was performed with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. with respect to matters 3 filed of first instance for trial. The Supreme Court en banc has to make a decision on whether or not to institutionalize the Revised Rules as there have been clamor from lower court judges to revert to the old rules. It also supported the nationwide consultation.Consultation with the Bar and Bench on the Four Studies (Memoranda. The results of the assessment were published in January 2007 as part of the ABA Legal Assessment Series. and to promote international arbitration as well as enforcement of foreign judgments. The broad scope of Rule 65 allows a party to question any act by any tribunal. except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.Strengthening the Rules in Civil Forfeiture and Money Laundering .Study on the Possible Expansion of the Scope of Recognizance . video materials were produced and developed on the conduct of pre-trial in civil & criminal cases & use of deposition-discovery measures based on the revised Rules of Procedures in Civil and Criminal Cases for future judicial training.
including operationalization of systems and procedures and specific work flows that will generate information and enable continuing assessment by year 2 of reform implementation . The pilot model integrated courts will be newly constructed (as in the Manila Hall of Justice) or renovated (Lapu-Lapu City) and designed to have features including space for family courts. and its members consist of private practitioners. interview rooms. survivor-sensitive facilities.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS Facility for continuing review and improvement of the Rules of Court ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2 TO DO Establish internal institutional capacities for the continuing review and improvement of the rules of court . space for training and meetings with media. and operating systems and procedures defined and incorporated in the design of the Judicial Research Institute . selected magistrates. Roundtable discussion is yet to happen. Visayas. etc. and Mindanao. The Committee is convened by an Associate Justice of the SC. 134 . and heads of pertinent agencies. lawyers. The members serve on an ad hoc basis taking into consideration the specific subject matter for consideration. The Committee has no institutionalized mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Rules on actual practice Rules of Court compatible with eCommerce laws Analysis of the Rules of Evidence and the Electronic Rules of Evidence for the republic of the Philippines An “Analysis of the Rules of Evidence and the Electronic Rules of Evidence for the republic of the Philippines” was also undertaken by ABA.institutional capacity requirements. Completion of Lapu-Lapu City Hall of Justice (target date September 2007) Completion of Angeles City Hall of Justice (target date April 2008) Manila City Hall of Justice – financing gap Nationwide Development of Model Courts Development of Model Pilot Courts Infrastructure Development of model pilot courts infrastructure to showcase the reforms in each of the three regions of Luzon. A roundtable discussion/workshop is being planned with the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court to discuss proposed revisions of the Rules of Evidence.implementation of continuing research and evaluation of the Rules of Court. Study compatibility of the Rules of Court with eCommerce laws Awaiting decision of the SC Rules Committee as regards the recommended changes. court-annexed mediation services. public access to judicial records archives.comprehensive report on the overall assessment and recommendations on the Rules of Court Improve capability of the Committee on the Revision of Rules Consider issues surrounding its temporary status as an ad hoc committee COMMENTS Committee on the Revision of Rules The Committee was reorganized by then Chief Justice Hilario Davide.
and generally acquire continuing learning on judicial matters through research and development Design and operation plan for the Institute Operationalization of the Institute COMMENTS Electronic Judicial Library Integrated Electronic Library System Establishment of electronic judicial library and research facilities. access. open book scanners have been procured and the elibrary is now functional (WB) Digitization of Sandiganbayan’s Decisions for Publication in its Website Training on the Use of Digitized Legal Materials on Graft and Corruption in the Sandiganbayan Installation of the Electronic Library System nationwide with central control station to service legal research requirements of courts and clients Installation of library inventory.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS Judicial Performance Management system Judicial Research Facility ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2 TO DO Output of initial study could not immediately be ‘automated’ Design and establishment of a judicial research institute to conduct continuing studies and adaptation of methodologies on international best practices. tracking. material development procedures and operating systems Full system operation and stabilization 135 . continuing assessment and reform formulation and policy recommendation on judicial concerns. The SC Library Services distributes e-Library CDs quarterly. the digitization of SC decisions has started.
678 cases at 70% success rate. Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ADR) Comprehensive Diagnostic Study of the ADR Mechanism Establishment of CourtAnnexed Mediation System ADR comprehensive diagnostic reform report Installed courtannexed ADR - Institute the capacity in the Supreme Court to review the efficiency. CAM resolved a total of 29. and other implications of laws affecting the jurisdictional structure of the courts. This was achieved with only 113 mediation centers covering 731 out of the existing 2. etc. 4 136 . ensure balanced distribution of caseload. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. 2006). contributing to a steady decline in the overall caseload of Philippine courts. This study became the basis for the development of courtannexed mediation (aside form studies done in the eighties and early experiments on court-annexed mediation. Final report submitted in May 2007. there are concrete gains towards the institutionalization Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) in trial courts. 2006). and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). Ensure sustainability of courtannexed mediation Final Guidelines on Mediator’s Fees Final Guidelines on the Philippine Mediation Center PhilJA intends to expand courtannexed mediation through the creation of more PMC units in selected judicial regions. simplification of case processing procedures and standards.) Institutionalization of ADR – Court Annexed Mediation On decongesting court dockets. decide.258 courts in the country. . and dispose of cases b) Reorganize the existing courts by adding and/or removing certain salas per judicial region based on case inflow and caseload Study completed/ Installed capacity for continuing review of laws on court jurisdictional structure 3. promote access. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. Presentation of the Study on the Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure to SC justices scheduled for possible adoption and implementation of recommendations UPERDFI recommendations: a) Specialization of courts in order to more effectively and efficiently hear.Results of the study presented to internal and external stakeholders in February 2007. A study on “Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure” has been completed in January 2007.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 2. From 2002March 2007. The study looked into the different quasi-judicial agencies providing Alternative Dispute Resolution. Court Jurisdictional Structure Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4 TO DO COMMENTS Reorganized court jurisdictional structure Study on the Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure Reorganization of the court jurisdictional structure to have a clear delineation of jurisdiction among courts to prevent misfiling. access.
provide a forum for discussion of ADR ideas and practices. Tacloban. lecturers. Development and implementation of a Communication Plan for Court-Annexed Mediation. 2005 to June 30. General Santos. and later on in the expansion areas in Cagayn de Oro. It targets the legal community starting from law students.). has trained more than 500 mediators in three pilot areas (Metro Manila. increase public awareness of various modes of ADR. law professors. The Institute is envisioned as a vehicle for improving the theory and practice of all forms of dispute resolution. Pilot–testing of appellate mediation (called Court of Appeals Mediation) Establishment of an ADR Institute Installed an ADR Institute Establishment of the U. the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law was passed.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4 TO DO COMMENTS The Philippine Judicial Academy. and Davao. 2006 The University of the Philippines Law Center established the Institute on Dispute Resolution (IDR). etc. It intends to encourage new thinking in negotiation theory and ADR. ADR orientation for family court judges. Plan to expand appellate court mediation to Cebu and Cagayan de Oro Court of Appeals by 2008 Ensure the sustainability of the Institute on Dispute Resolution The IDR conducted a National Conference on ADR that gathered various stakeholders of ADR for a candid discussion of issues and prospects Implementing Rules and Regulations of the ADR Law have yet to be approved by Congress Preparatory advocacy work include the Reforming Administration of Justice Through Coalition Advocacy Bill on the Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs in the Philippines The following trainings have been conducted: Mediation Course for Lawyers Court of Appeals Mediation Faculty Workshop Focus Group Discussions for Stakeholders in Mediation Forum on Best Practices and Practical Solutions in Mediation with the Singapore Mediation Center and Tele-Conference Linking Cebu and Davao Mediators Trainings Several trainings on ADR have been completed. Cebu. and a national conference that provided a venue for the discussion of concerns regarding the implementation of court-annexed mediation. The Institute further aims to establish a national network of ADR academics and practitioners which can guide the development of ADR in the country.P. and provide ADR services to the general public. Law Center Institute on Dispute Resolution (IDR) and Other Related Projects July 1. and researchers. the integration of the ADR curriculum. practitioners. Synergies within this network will introduce improvements in ADR research and pedagogy as well as coordinate efforts on a national basis to afford a level of uniformity in ADR instruction. 137 . Installing Supreme Court Capacity for Continuing Monitoring and Assessment of ADR Institutions Other ADR Initiatives Passage of an ADR Legislation In 2004. the financial and administrative study of the PMC Units.
institutional setup and operation of the system. child-friendly. Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy BJS. and overall capacity build-up 4. education. Judicial Performance management System Development of Judicial Management System Training Needs Assessments have been conducted. development of information. institutional. Training of Trainers for Barangay Justice System Strengthening BJS comprehensive diagnostic and reform report A study on the Efficacy and Efficiency of the Barangay Justice System has been completed. services. and procedural set up) and implementation in full swing for 25% of barangays by end of the reform implementation Ongoing There have been various trainings on the Barangay Justice System.court integration business processes and procedures Barangay justice system in Region 7 To integrate the BJS into the judicial processes this assistance involves the development of business processes and procedures for more effective integration of BJS into the judicial process in region 7. including documentation of HRD Best Practices. and the HRD Training Framework (5-Year HRD Capability-Building Plan.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4 TO DO COMMENTS Launching of the ADR Pilot Model Courts Evaluation of the Mediation Project Refresher Course for Mediators Production of Mediation Video Orientation Seminar on Mediation for Lawyers Strengthening of the Barangay Justice System (BJS) Strengthened BJS Strengthen the barangay justice system Component 2 which is concerned with community development and empowerment of women and children seeks to accomplish the following: strengthen the barangay justice system by training members of the Lupon on the revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law in each of the 360 barangays. institutions. establish Legal Information Desks in 1080 barangays to function in coordination with MCIOs. Continue installation of strengthening measures for the Barangay Justice System (including training. and communication strategies for various stakeholders. and rights-based IEC materials. systems & procedures) and proposed reengineering of the governance.) Professional development for excellence which includes strengthening the overall capacities of the Philippine Judicial Academy and the formulation and implementation of a gendersensitive Human Resources and Development Master Plan for Non-Judicial These are components of WB project that still need to be implemented 138 . The Supreme Court has already produced gender-sensitive. ADB TA 4832 Component B. resources. Presentation of the results of the comprehensive review of the Barangay Justice System (performance.
It seeks to promote just. court personnel. and performance of judges. civil society and community contributions in monitoring the conduct. operations. as well as the various other stakeholders. Its goals include the following: (1) (2) build on. provide the courts. (3) Judge to Judge Dialogues Docket Management and Corporate Principles in Judicial Administration. and the overall court system. the judges and their personnel to further improve their court processes. speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases. COMMENTS • Others Improving Judicial Performance in the ARMM These judicial reform initiatives in the ARMM seek to enhance judicial governance in the area. strengthen and consolidate the desire of the courts. It shall initially involve the development of core competencies of the courts while system operational processes are being mapped and diagnosed with the principal users – the lawyers and the litigants. and enable them to propose and adopt responsive solutions consistent with national standards yet responsive to local needs.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4 TO DO Personnel. identify systemic and operational challenges. Implementation of the computerized judicial performance management system within the higher courts and the three pilot courts model courts Development of alternative feedback mechanisms to strengthen media. 139 . Ongoing To achieve these. simple judicial action documents form-template library for use by the courts have been developed as an intermediate step toward the development of an automated management information system. and provide the courts and their personnel opportunities to develop their core competencies. actual and/or potential. opportunities to discuss court processes. and Case Delay: Problems and Solutions Dialogues have been completed.
JDF collections & disbursements.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Budgeting) Key features of the design are the following: 1) 2) adoption of total resources budgeting system separation of oversight and operational functions and decentralization of operational decision making: a) CFMO will assist CJ in the formulation of the medium term revenue and expenditure program based on the strategic plan. The specific design objectives include the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Put in place the capacity for medium-term budgeting that is coordinated with the strategic plan and medium-term revenue plan. systems. and procedures in fiscal management. Financial Management System Improve financial management systems of the judiciary JRSP c2 Improving Financial Management Systems of the Judiciary Electronic New Government Accounting System (e-NGAS) operational in 2006 Detailing of decentralized financial management systems on-going ADB TA 3693. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. Strengthen the participation of the operating units in budget policy decision making processes. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. preparation. and Provide mechanisms to strengthen the accountability and capacity for continuing improvement in budgeting ADB TA 3693. 2006 budget and recently submitted budget proposal. composition.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 1.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Budgeting) The reform design report involves designing the core policies. and procedures for improving the efficiency. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. Fiscal Autonomy and Financial Resources Generation Design of Financial Management Autonomy Strategy OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO COMMENTS INSTITUTIONS DEVELOPMENT Fiscal Autonomy Strategy SC AM No. responsiveness. and Efficiency of the Judiciary and Improving the Administration of Justice SC approved the draft resolution entitled “Implementing the Operation of the Judicial Autonomy Fund. 2006). Accountability. and within which annual expenditure programs are formulated Establish the mechanisms that will enable the Judiciary to determine and decide on the level. 2007) ADBTA4832:Enhancing the Autonomy. 2006). b) CFMO will assist the CJ in processing and approval of Being piloted in the RCAO Formulation of A SixYear Expenditure Program and Development of a Sound Formula to Compute the Cost of Judicial Output The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). authorization and execution. 06-11-09-SC (Feb. 5 140 . and prioritization of its annual expenditure program Install the policies. and providing for the Initiation of Budgetary Operations for Pilot Projects”. 27. systems. Decentralized financial management systems to be piloted in Region 7 in conjunction with the Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in late 2007 Pilot testing still to be implemented. SC also approved request of TA consultants in securing the data needed for the drafting of the proposed systems and procedures for the installation of the reformed budgetary system for the pilot project in decentralization including: budget data. current process for budget planning. as well as in expenditure planning and management that will be installed within a decentralized administrative structure. and speed of budget operations and services to courts within a decentralized institutional framework.
and a medium-term expenditure program as well as an annual expenditure program can be formulated and implemented. A budget tracking and accountability system will be installed using budget operations procedures – a reporting system of physical and financial performance will be put in place and will be linked with judicial performance system Being piloted in the RCAO. 6) National Government Support 7) Local Government Contribution 8) Judicial Fees and Charges ADB TA 3693.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO transactions that have enterprise-wide application and will require standardization and prioritization long term and strategic plan based targets institutionalized performance monitoring and budget accountability mechanisms COMMENTS 3) 4) Institutionalization of measures Other measures to enhance transparency and accountability of the judiciary budget: 1) Judiciary will prepare a Judiciary Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing. and to strengthen internal and external transparency in the revenue management operations at all levels in the organization. This further underwent extensive consultations. and the design of the management process.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Revenue Management) The revenue management system is anchored in the following design strategy: 1) remove the negotiability and ensure the objectiveness and automaticity of the amount determination and remittance/release of funding support from the national government and local government units 2) Build and establish a case for equity in the distribution of the national budget 141 . The revised final technical report prescribes a reengineered revenue management system for the Judiciary. to improve the predictability of resources within which a sound judiciary strategic plan. The first design report presented several strategic reform measures on revenue management and other systems relating to it. 2) Design of Revenue Generation Strategy Revenue Generation Strategy ADB TA 3693. and presents the proposed technical design of the revenue management system organized by major sources of revenues.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Revenue Management) The reform objectives of the design of the revenue management system are the following: to ensure insulation of the process of determining and providing funding support to the Judiciary from vulnerability to undue political influence or pressure.
overall monitoring. accountability. (1) a framework for the judiciary’s fiscal and administrative autonomy will be designed. impartiality. and competence. revenue monitoring. SC AM No. 04-3-17 SC Resolution Re: Final Report on Administrative Structure of the Judiciary The following reports were submitted by the SC PMO to the SC En Banc: Study has been completed As a result of these studies. planning. and forecasting. and (3) the capability of PhilJA to deliver judicial training will be strengthened.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS 9) ACCOMPLISHMENTS Revenue Management Process 5 TO DO among the three branches of the government as basis for establishing the formula based determination of annual national government budget support to the Judiciary Establish the justification for regular LGU funding support to the Judiciary and design a quantifiable and objective formula for determining the amount of budget support Systematize the entire revenue management process within a decentralized administrative framework to improve policy formulation. Under the TA. (2) the appointment process and the accountability and incentive system under which the judges and justices function will be improved. and accountability Install treasury operations functions and operating systems to ensure proper safekeeping. and reporting of funds inflows and outflows – a Judiciary Trust Fund which will house all revenue collections and from which all expenditures will be drawn will be established COMMENTS 3) 4) 5) 2. a project on Decentralization of administrative functions in pilot model courts has been initiated to decentralize the administrative functions in the three pilot model courts. Administrative Structure and Operations Design of Administrative Independence Strategy Administrative Management Autonomy Strategy Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary (ADB – TA 3693 PHI) December 2001 – June 2006 The TA aims to contribute to the improvement of the Philippine judiciary by supporting its independence. The project draws on the recommendations of the earlier ADB technical assistance grant to the Supreme Court on decentralization 142 .
cash management. region 7 judges and personnel and other stakeholders on-going and will continue throughout the implementation period. financial accounting. Implementation will involve intensive user training and handholding through the change process. physical assets management and components of the human resources development and a review and modification of the relevant operating policies. (b) defines the overall administrative and financial management functions that the judiciary will perform as a self-governing organization. ADB TA 3693. It involves the creation of a pilot regional court administration office in Region 7. This was subsequently revised after several consultations. (c) draws up the high-level and detailed administrative structure and internal functional configuration that reflect the vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of functions. and staffing of the judiciary. transfer and modification of the structure. operating systems. Reengineering of the Formal Administrative Structure 143 . Accountability and Efficiency of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice This TA implements on pilot basis the approved reforms on the decentralization of the administrative and financial operations of the judiciary in order to strengthen the operationalization of its fiscal autonomy.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Administrative Structure) The proposed administrative structure will entail the movement. A replication plan will be developed including its financing requirements and change management process.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Administrative Structure) The First Design Report presented an assessment of the existing administrative functions. functions. abolition. revenue management. The revised final technical report: (a) identifies and defines the oversight administrative and financial management functions to be assumed by the Judiciary to operationalize judicial autonomy. accountability as well as control of resources. ADB TA 4832 Component A. Enhancing the Autonomy. and eventually review by the Supreme Court. Judicial Appointments and Career Development Strengthening the Judicial Appointment and Career Development System and Capacity of the Judicial & Bar Council (JBC) Budgeting Cash Management Financial Accounting Judicial Remuneration Physical Assets Management Revenue Management Supreme court En Banc issued resolutions to authorize implementation Consultation process with OCA.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) Operational pilot regional court administration office in region 7 with expected improved efficiencies in administrative and financial management and operations Replication plan ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO COMMENTS Guide to managing the change process Judiciary Medium-Term Development Plan (2006-2011) Judiciary Standards and Indicators System Administrative Structure Human Resource Development Staffing Strategic Planning Judicial Education Desk Review. ADB TA 3693. formal structure. Installation and operationalization plan and instruments ready. A set of dispositive actions that define the conversion from the old structure to the new one is prescribed in the implementation strategy volume of this revised final report. and locations of several existing organization units within the judiciary. the detailing and installation of the budgeting. It will involve changes in the functional relationships among units and offices. validations workshops.
2005) Re: Resolution Providing for the Staffing Pattern of the Office of the Court Administrator SC En Banc approved the proposed Revised Organizational Chart of the Court Administrator as well as the Duties and Functions of its officials JRSP Implementation of the administrative decentralization approved by the SC in 2006 Establishment of the pilot Regional Court Administration office (RCAO) in Region 7 ongoing. and staffing and redesigning of these until all the installation starts will provide the required time within which such consciousness can evolve. 98-7-01-SC (February 22. Manage resistance to reforms through an appropriate change management strategy COMMENTS SC AM No. operating systems. functional configuration.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO As of date of the final report. ADB and PMO had agreed to postpone the detailed assessment of the implications of the latest revision on the details of the structure. Judicial Appointments and Career Development Strengthening the Judicial Appointment and Career Development System and Capacity of the Judicial & Bar Council (JBC) Budgeting Cash Management Financial Accounting Judicial Remuneration Physical Assets Management Revenue Management Formulation of migration and impact mitigation strategies Acquisition of financial resources for impact mitigation strategy and for reengineered organization structure and staffing Implementation of the new administrative structure and staffing Design and installation of the enterprise-wide operating systems 144 . 04-3-17 SC Resolution Re: Final Report on Administrative Structure of the Judiciary The following reports were submitted by the SC PMO to the SC En Banc: Guide to managing the change process Judiciary Medium-Term Development Plan (2006-2011) Judiciary Standards and Indicators System Administrative Structure Human Resource Development Staffing Strategic Planning Judicial Education Desk Review. recruitment of core RCAO personnel undertaken Reengineering of the Administrative Operating Systems SC AM No.
and Sandiganbayan through a Wide Area Network Connection. Formulation of the Supreme Court Information System Strategic Plan (ISSP) 2002 The ISSP aims to outline the activities and identify the technical and financial requirements for the reengineering and computerization of the Supreme Court’s primary business processes. It will identify key information systems and their functionalities. This will establish the Judiciary Data Center and ICT Network Infrastructure Development Project which aims to develop an access point for judiciary information database and operational system. The JRSP has supported the procurement of IT-related goods and services for pilot courts and the development of the MISO Data Center and the development of the software.for the e-Payment Project.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Staffing Structure and Reengineering Formulation and Institutionalization of Judicial Research Group 3. the implementation scheme. EPayment is meant to avoid situations involving extended custody of money. The NJIS is expected to facilitate the processing of cases and improve justice services through an efficient information organization and sharing scheme among justice sector institutions. Court of Appeals. Makati City. Laguna Currently being done. JRSP Subcomponent A. Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy National Justice Information System (NJIS) NJIS framework Identified IS and strategic data bases Define data sharing functions Financing and Implementation plan Change management strategy The NJIS provides an information systems and technology framework for a justice sector –wide information system. The software has been accepted by users in pilot courts in Manila. strategic databases and data sharing functions. thus. and Calamba. financing requirements and change management strategy. 145 . Information Systems Capacity Improvement Formulation of Information Systems Strategic Plan OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO COMMENTS Design of the formal administrative structure and staffing completed Formulation and Institutionalization of Judicial Research Group ADB TA 4832 Component B. It will allow interaction of Court offices such as the Supreme Court. this project will allow docket fees to be paid online.7: Lot A: Judiciary Data Center and ICT Network Infrastructure Development Project/JRSP: Management and Consultancy Services for the Development of the Judiciary’s ICT Capacity Information and communications technology development to manage the overall information and communications needs of the judiciary. Court of Tax Appeals.
The 146 . Judicial Appointments and Career Development Formulation of the Reorganization Plan of the Judicial and Bar Council - - HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ADB TA 3693. effective. 2005) SC En Banc approved the Computer Guidelines and Policies submitted by the Computerization Committee.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) In the final report. and secured use of the computer system of the Supreme Court (SC) as part of the Information and Communication Technology Program of the SC.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Reengineering of Archives/ Library Operations Management Assessment/Installation of Transcription Equipment in Courts OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO Installation and operationalization of enterprise-wide library and archival system COMMENTS Procurement of transcription equipment Procurement of more transcription machines for all courts (should be at an annual rate of 20% of courts from year 1 to 6) Guidelines and policies have been issued and approved. Cagayan de Oro City. judicial career development. Angeles City. 05-3-08 SC Re: Computer Guidelines and Policies (March 15. The guidelines were initiated by the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) and approved by the SC Committee in Computerization. Davao City. administrative structure.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) The report contains specific reform design recommendations in the following areas: judicial appointments. and Imus. Infrastructure and Support Facilities Construction and Improvement of Halls of Justice/Court Houses Formulation of Judicial Infrastructure Program Acquisition of first budgetary release for Halls of Justice Construction of Halls of Justice Preparation of Infrastructure Master Plan for the Judiciary Preparation of Feasibility Study for the HOJ Pilot Site in Bacolod City. and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). and functions. rules. 4. and procedures in judicial discipline. The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies. some changes were made to the approved organization and function of the JBC. The guidelines were issued to guide authorized users to an efficient. Others SC AM No. ADB TA 3693. Cavite Acquisition of first budgetary release for Halls of Justice Ongoing construction of 2 halls of justice Pursue systematic expansion consistent with the infrastructure master plan (Halls of Justice) Upgrading of Printing Press Facilities Upgrading of Printing Press Facilities 1. Lapu-Lapu City.
2) establishing the enabling environment that will provide continuing capacity to implement. and continuously improve the judicial appointment systems. and key operating mechanisms of the JBC. and providing mechanisms to insulate the process from undue politicization. several reforms have been implemented by the JBC in improving the transparency of the selection and nomination processes by more extensive publication of vacancies and list of candidates and nominees. the SC has decided that the current scope of functions of the JBC should be maintained. d) enhancement of resources which may include financial. administrative structure. and technological resources According to the report.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO revisions imply that the current fragmentation of human resources development functions will be maintained. sustain. The JBC reorganization has been implemented along with key procedural reforms. appropriateness. and gendersensitivity of JBC procedures for judicial nominations COMMENTS The reform proposals focus on the following: 1) defining the proper role and functional scope of the JBC and its relationship with the judiciary. and staffing of the JBC and identified reforms in the judicial selection and nomination process towards weeding out the unfit from entering the courts. Completed 147 . For these reasons. staffing. and in particular. Formulation of the Reorganization Plan of the Judicial and Bar Council Strengthening the Capacity of the Judicial and Bar Council Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary (ADB TA 3693) The TA provided assistance in improving the internal functional configuration. the reengineering of internal functions. Strengthen current functions of JBC Functions of the JBC should be strengthened by infusing attendant policy and research capacities as well as administrative and financial management capabilities. 3) Improvements in policies and policy implementation as well as in pertinent and specific procedures. efficiency. The SC views certain aspects of human resources development as purely within the internal administrative authority of the Supreme Court. human. Reforms in this area include providing the core organizational infrastructure. Adoption of additional mechanisms for further insulating the judicial appointment system from potential undue politicization and for enhancing the transparency. structure.
Best international standards of transparency and accountability will be applied to produce a reengineered. The system will provide opportunities for vertical promotion and horizontal 148 . rules. The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies. The report proposed that a three-stage appointment process be examined from two aspects – methodology and criteria used at each stage. rules. and functions. The judicial appointment process will consist of the following stages: 1) Assessment of Current Situation and Recruitment. and procedures in judicial discipline. and select nominees for judges to be appointed by the President. judicial career development. and feedback of training to help update and improve training programs Synchronize projects with trainings Strengthen HR Association ADB TA 3693.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) The report contains specific reform design recommendations in the following areas: judicial appointments. The consortium’s firm stand on the need for transparency and accountability made the SCAW effective in raising awareness and engaging the public in the judicial appointment process. administrative structure. The dialogues proved to be effective in disseminating information and clarifying issues regarding the Council’s processes and in inviting more applicants to judicial posts. and 3) Selection and Nomination Process JBC Dialogues The Judicial and Bar Council. the body constitutionally-mandated to search. Supreme Court Appointments Watch A consortium of legal professionals and civil society organizations organized as the Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW) achieved substantial gains in closely monitoring the nomination and appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court. and functions. politically buffered process that will produce judges who attract the confidence of the community. The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies. and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). and gendersensitivity of JBC procedures for judicial nominations Dialogues completed. and procedures in judicial discipline. appropriateness. to conduct public interviews. 2) Screening Process. judicial career development.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) Adoption of additional mechanisms for further insulating the judicial appointment system from potential undue politicization and for enhancing the transparency. and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) The report contains specific reform design recommendations in the following areas: judicial appointments. evaluation.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) The final report recommends the institutionalization of a Judicial Career Development System. ADB TA 3693. COMMENTS Sufficient ratio of equipment Regular monitoring. Their work pushed the Judicial and Bar Council. the constitutional body tasked to search.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Reengineering of the Judicial Appointment Process OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO ADB TA 3693. Expansion of SCAW efforts to include appointments in the Sandiganbayan and the appellate courts Reforms are underway in the Council as some of the recommendations of SCAW are taken into consideration. administrative structure. screen and nominate candidates to judicial posts. efficiency. conducted dialogues with various sectors during the selection process. Court vacancy rates have significantly decreased in the areas where the dialogues were held. screen. including the use of a point system for evaluating nominees Formulation of Judicial Career Development Plan ADB TA 3693.
CA. Training Management Manual. and Computerized Training Management System. the following long term HR activities are being endorsed: 1) Court Management Development Course 2) 3) 4) Strategic Human Resource Management Capability Building in Management of Court Operations Capability Building in ELaw 149 . CTA. policies and practices. 2005) Human Resource Development SC En Banc approved the award of contract for the Human Resource Development consultancy services to Orient Integrated Development Consultant. OCA. Training Framework. The judicial career path will be created by limiting lateral entry to the court and through the use of voluntary court-user feedback mechanism for self-evaluation and improvement of judges and court personnel COMMENTS Others Assessment of training needs for the judiciary Judicial Reform Support Project – Human Resources Development – Assessment of the Judiciary’s Training Programs and related Policies and Practices Judicial Reform Support Project – Human Resources Development – Training Needs Assessment of the Philippine Judiciary Training Course in Japan on performance evaluation. Under the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF). Sandiganbayan. A training needs assessment of judicial personnel was also conducted.000 for a project on short and long-term HR solutions including short-term training on the following: Strategic HR Model for the HR Staff of the SC. 05-01-19-SC (January 25. CTA. Deliverables include the assessment report on the Judiciary’s training program. court administration. and other attached agencies and offices. and SC. and Performance Monitoring and Evaluation of the APJR. Management Development Course for Court Administrators for presiding and executive judges of first and second level courts and Court Administrators of pilot RCAO. Training and development of Court Personnel Overall Assessment of Training Requirements in the Context of the Judicial reform Program and Formulation and Implementation of Capacity Building Program for NonJudicial Personnel Conduct of assessment of training needs Assessment of the training needs (TNA) of non-judicial personnel An assessment of the training needs (TNA) of non-judicial personnel was conducted which will serve as basis for preparing an integrated institutional training plan. and judicial education SC AM No. Sandiganbayan. skill and ability (KSA) analysis thereafter followed to determine the KSA required of personnel in order to perform each task properly. the Supreme Court obtained Aus $496.though the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF). A situational analysis was initially conducted to lay the groundwork for the subsequent steps in the TNA process. Human Resource Development and Capability Building plan for all official and personnel of the judiciary. Assessment of Training Needs completed 2.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO upgrading based on the level of competence/seniority. to help eliminate incompetence within the judiciary. A task analysis and knowledge. CA. Strategic Human Resource Model More recently. judicial career development. Documentation of Best Practices and Lessons. Training Needs Analysis.
and personnel discipline ADB TA 3693. career development and training.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Human Resources Developmentl) Judiciary to assume the personnel administration functions being exercised by the executive branch over the organization. and personnel matters. The design covers the following: 1) definition of the human resources development (HRD) functions of an independent Judiciary and the corresponding overall human resources management institutional capacities and framework.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) 150 .Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Human Resources Developmentl) The detailed technical design report prescribes a holistic and integrated Judiciary human resources development system for non-judicial personnel. and 2) detailed vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of workflows and decision making authority particularly in the areas of planning and budgeting. salary administration.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS Definition of institutional capacity requirements for improved human resources development ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO ADB TA 3693. staffing. and perform the appropriate human resources development functions of a self-governing organization Establishment of an Organization and Human Resources Development Office within the Central Court Administration Office which will perform oversight functions in human resources development for the entire Judiciary Adoption by the Judiciary of a more flexible compensation structure that widens opportunities for upgrading the compensation of employees Adoption of an appropriate vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of human resources development functions. and personnel administration including recruitment. personnel performance evaluation. consistent with the decentralized administrative structure and delineation of functions among units of the same organizational level Integration of human resources development with strategic planning and budgeting to ensure meaningful contribution to the achievement of organizational goals COMMENTS ADB TA 3693.
control and accountability of its resources. (TAF) 2) Development of a Uniform Manual of Style on Judicial Writing for the Supreme Court. gender sensitive.) have been developed.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial Education) The report initially focused on enhancing four areas of judicial education: 1) framework development. a second study was conducted which looked into the “Impact of Judicial Education. six elearning modules (including remedial and civil law. Judicial Education Reengineering of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJA) OUTPUTS Strengthened PhilJA ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO Study completed COMMENTS Re-engineering PhilJA CPRM conducted a study which stressed the need to strengthen PhilJA’s institutional structure and to establish it as a unique institution within the Judiciary. which required that PhilJA be given wider administrative decisionmaking authority. design. and socially responsive education and training for judges and court personnel. ADB TA 3693.” The study evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of PhilJA’s educational programs. and 4) distance education Ongoing. mediators. Completion of technical basis for distance education & full implementation of the program by PhilJA Based on the results of the study. (WB) ADB TA 3693. the following judicial education reform initiatives were undertaken by PhilJA: 1) E-Learning Modules PhilJA developed electronic learning for judges.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 3. and financial latitude. and 4) distance education. Re-engineering of the PhilJA Training Strategy including redesign of the training curricula Comprehensive Survey Report on the Assessment of Judicial Education Reengineered PhilJA training strategy Study completed Study completed JURIS Judicial Education Development and Redesigning of the of the Philippine Judicial Academy Training Programs This activity aims to strengthen the capacity of PhiLJA to plan. 3) enhancing curriculum development. 3) enhancing curriculum development.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial Education) The report initially focused on enhancing four areas of judicial education: 1) framework development. Results of the study revealed that judges are satisfied with the usefulness and relevance of PhilJA’s programs. actual possession. System of Seminar and Symposia on Judicial Education Inter-Country Studies on Comparative Best Practice Completed comparative experience training Intensive Study Program for Judicial Educators Study of comparative international experience and best practice 151 . etc. Impact of Judicial Education and Directions for Change Further. and lawyers. To date. ecommerce. and deliver effective. 2) areas of judicial education andgoals. 2) areas of judicial education andgoals.
if not provided. Remuneration Systems Reengineering Review and Application of International Trends and Best Practice Formulation of an Independent Remuneration Policy Strategy and Remuneration Systems Reengineering OUTPUTS PHILJA Complex ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO Ongoing. motivate judges to perform and continuously upgrade their competencies. 2007 Production of Benchbooks to be used by Judges Conduct Review and Application of International Trends and Best Practice Design of remuneration system ADB TA 3693.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Remuneration) The report presents the detailed technical design of the new judicial remuneration model.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Remuneration) Study completed. This report builds on the First Design Report which dealt with the analysis of judicial remuneration and highlighted issues that impact on the judges independence and on the ability of the judiciary to attract talented lawyers to join the bench. It also included recommendations on judicial salary structure as well as improved benefits that will free judges and justices from worrying about necessary life support and amenities which. Recommendations include the following: Responsibility for implementation of the new judicial remuneration system should be transferred from DBM to the appropriate entity within the Judiciary Creation of a Judiciary Remuneration Commission Creation of an independent remuneration tribunal Creation of a compensation and benefits division at central administrative office Creation of compensation and benefits unit at the decentralized units Implementation of the remuneration system Implementation of the remuneration system 152 . might impede performance Design and implementation for the adoption of an independent remuneration policy ADB TA 3693.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Construction and Equipping of PHILJA Tagaytay Training Center Development of Appropriate Research tools Development of Manuals for Improved Judicial System 4. COMMENTS “Presentation of the Architectural Design of the PhilJA Development Center in Tagaytay City” September 11.
IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 5. Legal Education Assessment of the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Program Assessment of the Formal Legal Education System Development of Curriculum and Institutional Standards on Legal Education OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO COMMENTS Survey and Seminars on the MCLE Survey of the legal community on the effectiveness of the providers of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) – (ABA) _ Conduct an Assessment of the Formal Legal Education System Design of legal education and continuing legal education curriculum and program delivery standards. Conduct of continuing studies on comparative and best practices as inputs to continuing learning and improvement of judicial education from year 1 through 6 of the reform implementation _ Executive Interchange On International Experience and Best Practice _ _ 153 .
7. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. the Final Report of the Special Study Group to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y. Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson. comments. and the methodological reforms concerning the marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar examination. 154 . 5. there was support for the conduct of studies. with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. 2. and Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections of essay questions to correct variations in the level of test standards COMMENTS 1. The Supreme Court en banc created a "Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms" to conduct studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools. roundtable discussions and workshops throughout the country for capability building in bar reform initiatives. Formulation of essay test questions and "model answers" as part of the calibration of test papers. The Supreme Court en banc referred. report and recommendation. Creation and organization of readership panels for each subject area to address the issue of bias or subjectivity and facilitate the formulation of test questions and the correction of examination booklets. dialogues. changes in the design and construction of questions. inputs and observations on PhiLJA’s proposed bar examination reforms. The Special Study Group. Arellano Law Foundation. A paper was produced by the Committee. the Philippine Association of Law Schools. 2004 5 TO DO The Supreme Court resolved to adopt the following reforms. 6. 4. the Commission on Higher Education. entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer. for further study. 3. containing its findings and recommendations.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Others OUTPUTS Bar Reforms ACCOMPLISHMENTS Bar Matter 1161 Re: Proposed Reforms in the Bar Examinations June 8. Members of the academe and the legal profession were gathered to share their insights. the University of the Philippines College of Law. the Philippine Lawyers Association.net Designation of two(2) examiners per subject depending on the number of examinees . dated 18 September 2000. Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and improving the essay examination. lectures.1awphil. Quiason as members. proposing structural and administrative reforms. the Philippine Association of Law Professors. Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40% of the total number of questions. Bar Reform In terms of bar reform. Proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. submitted to the Supreme Court its Final Report. the Philippine Bar Association and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar.
As a follow-through activity to the trainings. 90 orientation seminars on the New Code of Judicial Conduct among justices and judges were conducted. Supreme Court Employees Manual has also been completed Continuing training Continuing trainings on the Code of Ethics & the Code of Judicial Conduct 155 . including all court staff in Metro Manila. In November 2004.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO COMMENTS Knowledge-Sharing Forum on Professional Examinations A Knowledge-Sharing Forum on Professional Examinations was also held for the sharing of best practices in the regulation of professions and conduct of large-scale examinations. the World Bank supported the Supreme Court in coming up with this manual explaining the code of ethics to members of the judiciary. In partnership with the Philippine Judicial Academy. From May 2004 to December 2005. INTEGRITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 1. Another workshop is being planned for members of the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM). and court personnel Comprehensive Manual on the Code of Ethics To further address the issue of corruption within the judiciary. judges. The posters. which utilized cartoon pictures to ease language issues. lawyers. including legal experts and other stakeholders to discuss additional changes to the bar exam in 2007. are displayed in public areas of courthouses throughout the country. The symposium included an overview of the Bangalore Principles and training on interactive methods of teaching judicial ethics. over 4. were trained on the new Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. The annotated edition was launched in February 2007. 2. posters with scenes depicting ethical situations covered by the code were developed. These posters are expected to reinforce the code provisions to court personnel and inform the public about the new rules. Formulation and Conduct of Training Towards the Improvement of Integrity in the Bench Development and implementation of training programs towards improvement of integrity in the Bench Orientation Seminars on the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Code of Conduct for Personnel Various training sessions were conducted. 40 law professors and judges participated in a judicial ethics symposium in Manila. annotation to the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary was developed published. Supporting Improvements to the Institutional Integrity of the Judiciary and Bar (Review of Judicial and Legal Ethics) Annotation of the Code of Judicial Conduct In partnership with The Philippine Judicial Academy and the University of the Philippines – Institute of Judicial Administration (UP-IJA).000 court personnel. Improvement of the Code of Ethics of the Judiciary Review and improvement of the Code of Ethics for Justices.
Docket Management and Corporate Principles in Judicial Administration. The Role of the Judiciary in a Global Economy. The Role of Judges in the Reform Process.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO Continuing dialogues COMMENTS Judge to Judge Dialogues The dialogues provide a comparative perspective on the role and functions of judiciaries through a series of high-level. The Role of Trial Court Judges in Pre-Trial and Courtroom Management. in-country dialogues among justices and judges. This is meant to provide members of the judiciary with information and insight on the role and functions of judiciaries in democratic states. Some of the topics of the dialogues include: The Role of the Judiciary as the Third Branch of Government. and Case Delay: Problems and Solutions 3. Improvement of the Disciplinary System and Institutionalizing an Integrity Infrastructure Unit Improvement of the Disciplinary System Improvement of the Disciplinary System The Supreme Court is currently preparing a proposal on the institutionalization of the integrity infrastructure unit after the USAID offered to support such an initiative Institutionalizing an Integrity Infrastructure Unit - Institutionalizing an Integrity Infrastructure Unit 156 . Collaboration of Civil Society Groups and the Media for Combatting Graft and Corruption Design and implementation of program for collaboration with civil society groups Design and implementation of program for media collaboration - Design and implementation of program for collaboration with civil society groups Design and implementation of program for media collaboration Review of APJR: Enhancement of Communication Plan with the involvement of inter-office representatives who can provide updates for internal stakeholders & information to media - 4. Resource persons from other jurisdictions. usually a justice or judge and participation in the dialogues is exclusive to members of the Philippine Judiciary.
6 157 . As of August 2005. 2006). for the monitoring and evaluation of long-term improvement of access to justice in the country. number of overstaying detainees and number of juveniles in detention not separated from adults Development of policy options for addressing affordability constraints to access to the court system by the poor Mobile Courts Strengthening access to justice via mobile courts in sites with large land areas. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. this aims to literally bring the courts to the people via an airconditioned bus. Improvement of Access to Justice by the Poor through the Judicial Reform Program Conduct of Impact Assessment of Impact of the Judicial Reform Program on Access to Justice by the Poor OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 6 TO DO COMMENTS ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY THE POOR Expanded Caseload Survey July 2002-June 2003 To develop a tool. and is staffed by court personnel and a mediator. dispersed population and limited transport facilities. Study completed Design and Implementation of Programs for the Mobilization of Public and Private Sector Resources Towards Improving Affordability of Judicial Services by the Poor National Survey of Inmates November 2002.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 1. Mobile Court functioned in Metro Manila for sometime. Study Completed Study completed. with the further acquisition of another vehicle being contemplated for deployment in Luzon. It focused. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. utilizing relevant indicators and milestones.June 2003 The project is a national survey that covers representative samples from persons in detention ranging from those incarcerated in detention ranging from those incarcerated at the national penitentiary to those in low-class municipal police station precinct jails. among others. Known as The Justice on Wheels Project. on level of knowledge and understanding of the accused of the legal protections and status of his/her case. The bus houses a small courtroom and offices of the first or second level court judge assigned via a rotation scheme. The project has been expanded through the acquisition of two additional vehicles for deployment in the Visayas and Mindanao. particularly between arrest and arraignment. The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). 2006). the implementation of the project has resulted in the successful hearing of 754 cases and the release of 300 detainees in Metro Manila. availability of adequate aid.
Transforming the Philippine National Police to a More Capable. as well as its performance in specific areas. 2) conduct institutional assessment of the PNP structure. threats. as well as opportunities affecting the PNP. weaknesses. challenges. constraints. The strategy will include funding options. and overall capacities and performance. concerns. functions. and Credible Police Force (Phase II) June 2004.June 2003 The project aimed to undertake diagnostic studies. and analyze the results of the four FGDs conducted. Reform recommendations for implementation.December 2004 The project aimed to 1) consolidate. Effective. programs. and the implementation of shortterm training modules National Forum on Access to Justice through Reforms in the Five Pillars of the Justice System The national forum aims to provide a venue where the various agencies and organizations comprising the five pillars of justice share with each other the current state of their pillar Study on the Public Attorney’s Office December 2002. area specific reviews and baseline data development that will enable a thorough assessment of the DOJ and its functions. Completed Study Completed Study Completed. paint an accurate picture of the problems. Need for resources to implement the reforms Diagnostics completed 158 . review. and new challenges.January 2004 The project aimed to conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) to identify issues. Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy Capacity assessment and capacity development program for NPS and OMB Implemented short-term training modules NPS Capacity Building An assessment of the capacity of NPS prosecutors will be undertaken and will provide the basis for the development of a training strategy that will fill capacity gaps. programs. and 4) prepare a pilot project implementation plan Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice Through Reforms in the Department of Justice January 2003. Tranforming the Philippine National Police to a More Capable. 3) formulate reform agenda for the PNP. Reform recommendations for implementation Need for resources to implement the reforms Study Completed. and Credible Police Force (Phase I) November 2003. Effective. issues. weaknesses. mandate.June 2003 The project aimed to generate data on the state of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). as well as strengths and opportunities of the Office.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Activities with the other pillars of justice for improved access by the poor OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 6 TO DO Continue collaborating with other pillars of justice for improved access by the poor COMMENTS ADB TA 4832 Component B.
and formulate institutional mechanism for an effective judiciary-civil society/community collaboration in improving the administration of justice to the poor. The Alternative Law Groups Inc. assessment. the Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Bill has been signed into law. the dialogue aimed to provide venues for the Supreme Court and members of grassroots organizations and communities to focus on the need for an independent. and its resource groups. This involves networking and collaboration between the Judiciary and civil society for undertaking cooperative reform advocacy in order to improve the quality of judicial services and access to justice.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Formulation and implementation of mechanisms and agreements for the adoption of social pricing mix for legal fees and generation of judicial revenues and funds to support legal requirements of the poor OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 7 TO DO Implementation of mechanisms and agreements for the adoption of social pricing mix for legal fees and generation of judicial revenues and funds to support legal requirements of the poor COMMENTS Study on Addressing Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice by the Poor and the Disadvantaged August 2004-June 2005 The study aimed to develop policy options that would address affordability constraints to access the court system by the poor and propose mechanisms that would implement these policies National Survey on Private Legal Practitioners to Monitor Access to Justice by the Disadvantaged December 2002-June 2003 The project aimed to generate data on the perception. Six priority bills have been pushed – one of which. Programme for Rehabilitating Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) December 2004. The primary vehicle for this component is the Alternative Law Groups (ALGs.) In this regard. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. initially collaborated on a project entitled Justice Link. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. 2006). Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. 2006). The dialogue between the Supreme Court and the basic sectors.” The ALGs also conducted a survey of various law school curriculum to explore the possibility of introducing human rights courses. 7 159 . building peace in Mindanao. Reform Advocacy Support Assessment and Strategic Planning Research Study entitled “Evaluating the Capacity of the Poor to Access Justice and the Capacity of the ALG as a Justice Reform Advocate is ongoing. and efficient judiciary. intended to tackle the following: access to justice by the poor and marginalized groups and communities. and experiences of private legal practitioners belonging to the IBP and ALGs on judicial legal remedies available to the poor "Justice Link: Institutionalizing Citizen's Feedback Mechanism on the Judiciary".December 2005 Completed The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). effective.. Formulation of Community Feedback Mechanism To Address Delay Formulation of Community Feedback Mechanism To Address Delay Project discontinued due to differences between the Supreme Court and the Alternative Law Groups which were not resolved. along with Supreme Court justices. raise the level of public awareness about the judiciary and its role in good governance. and administration of justice as embodied in APJR. Among others. and empower the poor and marginalized groups to make use of judicial and quasi-judicial services. Others Institutional Strengthening of the Shari’a Justice System Project April 2004-June 2004 The project focuses on the comprehensive review of the Shari’a court systems and its institutional strengthening. the ALGs published a book called “From the Grassroots: The Justice Reform Agenda of the Poor and the Marginalized.
Camarines Sur. Moreover. OCA Circular No. 2007. the program empowered inmates through parallel trainings on court procedures to help them understand their situation and case Access to Justice for the Poor through Information. February 21. Communication (IEC) Guidelines for Municipal Court Information Officers. Apart from providing free legal representation. 2007. but due to possible constitutional issues involving project provisions that vested the Supreme Court with administrative control or supervision over other government agencies. namely: (1) institutionalization of the decentralized information function of the judiciary. including children. (3) institutional development of law enforcement and the judiciary. Medium Term Development Plan for the Criminal Justice System Ongoing with modifications 8 9 A. and communication infrastructure of the court system by delegating one clerk of court as Municipal Court Information Officer (MCIO) for each of selected 36 first-level courts in the project area.M. education. (2) community development and empowerment of women and children. MCIOs will disseminate information to facilitate access to justice for the poor especially women and children. March 13. Most recently. 05-2-01-SC.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 7 TO DO Ongoing COMMENTS BalikLaya: A Jail Decongestion Project in the Manila City and Pasay City Jails Jail Decongestion Activities were aimed at releasing overstaying prisoners from crowded jails. Education. in 8 accordance with IEC Guidelines. the EC will expand the information. 160 . including training to enhance the sensitivity of law enforcers specifically on how they deal with the poor. Capiz. As regards component 1.682 inmates. the Office of the Clerk of Court has 9 designated a total of 17 clerks of court as MCIOs. It seeks to increase access to justice by the poor and vulnerable sectors in selected provinces to enhance their knowledge about their basic rights and the judicial system. the executing agency for this project is the Department of Social Welfare and Development. especially that of women and children. Recently. Education. and Sultan Kudarat. Lanao del Norte. 16-2007. and (4) legal reform. This was made possible through the sincere commitment of lawyers from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and human rights organizations. It seeks to create an enabling and supportive environment through the judiciary and law enforcement institutions as well as an amended overall legal framework. are upheld. and Communication It covers 36 first-level courts in the provinces of Oriental Mindoro. the Supreme Court launched information wallsheets and brochures on the stages of Civil and Criminal Actions aimed to guide and inform litigants of the processes involved in filing a case. From 1999-July 2007. Training of Municipal Court Judges and court personnel on the Barangay Justice System is also being pursued under this component. No. have been released. legal information desks will be established in cooperation with the Barangay Council and Barangay Captain in the project areas. Initially. which will ensure that the rights of the poor. the Supreme Court was supposed to be the implementing agency. At least 70% of the judges in the five selected provinces have already been trained. This project has four components. a total of 7. Access to Justice for the Poor Project Information. Capacity building will be pursued. Copies of these materials will be distributed to courts. Designating Clerks of Court of Concerned First Level Courts as Municipal Information Officer. offices of the different pillars of justice and other public places nationwide.
and Libertas. The aim of PERLAS is to educate and inform the general public. both elementary and high schools. Formulation of Disclosure Policy and Implementation Procedures Translation/Popularizati on of Selected Judicial Materials to Filipino and Other Regional Dialects Establishments of a Speakers Bureau Development. is a joint project of the Supreme Court’s Program Management Office (SC-PMO). specifically students from public schools. Final outputs included materials such as a “Glossary of Legal Terms for Journalists”. Teaching Exemplars for Classroom Use for High School Students. broaden the community support base for the ongoing judicial reforms through the use of said educational materials. “Guidebook for Journalists Covering the Courts” and “Reader on Judiciary-Media Relations. on the judiciary and the rule of law through the use of teaching and learning materials appropriate to their learning competencies. Public Information for Better Transparency and Improved Access to Justice Formulation of Judicial Public Information Program PERLAS Project The Public Education on the Rule of Law Advancement and Support (PERLAS) project. the Department of Education (DepEd). PERLAS is in supportof the Supreme Court’s Action Program for Judicial Reform which started in 2001. PERLAS will enrich the existing curricula of the Department of Education for public schools. and at the same time. As such. The following prototype exemplars (or lesson plans) and student handbooks were developed: Teaching Exemplars for Classroom Use for Elementary Students. Production and Dissemination of Media Materials on the Judicial System - The exemplars are for field testing Need for resources to pilot test the exemplars Formulation of Disclosure Policy and Implementation Procedures Translation/Popularization of Selected Judicial Materials to Filipino and Other Regional Dialects Establishments of a Speakers Bureau Dissemination of the media materials on the judicial system - “Strengthening Judiciary-Media Relations” TAF supported the Supreme Court in a project called “Strengthening JudiciaryMedia Relations” which consisted of a series of nationwide dialogues between the Court and the media sector. which aims to enhance the public understanding of the fundamental principles that govern the operation of the judiciary. and Student Handbook for High School Students.” 161 .IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 7 TO DO Speed up procurement process COMMENTS REFORM SUPPORT SYSTEMS 1.
“Chamber to Chamber” project was also undertaken wherein the highest court conducted a series of nationwide dialogues with the different foreign and domestic chambers of commerce.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Others OUTPUTS Judicial Organization Culture .Communicatio n plan .Survey of awareness and opinion .Skills/seminars /cross visits .Production of information materials in various formats .Media coverage on judicial reform efforts ACCOMPLISHMENTS Conduct of dialogues and seminars 7 TO DO Development and adoption of a Court Identity Manual COMMENTS “Strengthening Judiciary-Media Relations” TAF supported the Supreme Court in a project called “Strengthening JudiciaryMedia Relations” which consisted of a series of nationwide dialogues between the Court and the media sector. Final outputs included materials such as a “Glossary of Legal Terms for Journalists”. and communication system . National Survey on the Users’ Experience and Perception of the Judiciary 162 .dialogues and orientation seminars . education. The result of the 2-year dialogues was the improvement in the trust rating of the Supreme Court in the annual enterprise survey.Mass-media judiciary manual .awards system on performance Public Awareness and Opinion .Court-wide public information.court identity manual .” Chamber to Chamber Dialogues In partnership with the Supreme Court.Disclosure policy . “Guidebook for Journalists Covering the Courts” and “Reader on Judiciary-Media Relations.Study feedback mechanisms .
Development of Feedback Research Facility Development and Implementation of Internal and External Communication Strategy - 163 . The Management Structure will provide the framework which will facilitate the translation of the strategy into action plans of justice institutions and stakeholder organizations. Collaboration with Civil Society Development of Feedback Research Facility Development and Implementation of Internal and External Communication Strategy 3. the corresponding financial and administrative oversight policies of the government as well as the management of the strategy’s implementation over a multi-year time frame. Advocacy and Collaboration for Reforms in the Other Pillars of Justice Long-term justice sector strategy adopted by justice system stakeholders ADB TA 4832 Component B. Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy 6) Long-term justice sector strategy The TA will assist justice sector stakeholders in the development and adoption of a long-term strategy for the strengthening and/or reform of the justice sector. The strategy will be agreed upon and will be implemented by a Policy Leadership Council which will be assisted by an executive committee and a steering group. multi-sectoral support groups and interagency bodies COMMENTS 2. along with a full-time executive staff.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS Networking and Collaboration ACCOMPLISHMENTS 7 TO DO Establishment of working linkages with target sectors Conduct of multi-sectoral conference on critical judicial issues Creation of watchdog organizations.
based on independence.1 SECTOR OUTCOMES Strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice Percent of cases appealed and percent of successful appeals from each category of courts Improvements in average time from filing to disposition of: o Probable cause determinations o Court proceedings in criminal cases (normal and expedited) o Court proceedings in civil cases (normal and expedited) o Court-annexed mediation o Barangay Justice System o Appeals and other judicial reviews (Supreme Court and Court of Appeals). accountability. DILG) Financing plan is agreed upon and faithfully implemented throughout the program implementation period Strong support. prosperous. DOF. NEDA.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 6 LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR STRATEGY Illustrative Monitoring and Evaluation Framework DESIGN SUMMARY 1 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT A Philippine justice system that will : a) provide universal access to justice services. and transparency in the administration of justice c) advance the rule of law as the foundation of a just. efficiency. integrity. and democratic society 2 2. o Quasi-judicial bodies Case statistics and management reports of justice agencies Statistical survey of open cases Organization visits Support by Executive and Legislative branches and sustained implementation by DBM to strengthen resource base on a sustainable basis and to play an active role in facilitating capacity building reforms implementation is crucial. equal treatment for the protection of rights. and fair and timely resolution of disputes b) foster a culture of lawfulness. RISKS AND MEASURES 165 . Reform leadership and sufficient implementation and implementation management will be required in each concerned institution Inter-branch and multi-department policy leadership committee and its executive steering committee will play strong role in providing coordination. achieving consensus on issues and measures and facilitative processes and in providing capacity development assistance Percent improvement in court user opinion on the speed of dispute resolution in the courts Percent improvement in perception of the poor of accessibility of justice institutions Percent improvement in pubic perception of fair and impartial justice Percent improvement in business community opinion of the fairness and efficiency of dispute resolution Percent improvement in investor confidence in the Philippines Public opinion survey Ratings of international survey institutions (such as global competitiveness reports) Strong and sustained leadership and cooperation among the three branches of government Demonstrated and sustained commitment and support by the government through oversight agencies (DBM. effectiveness. monitoring and public information by civil society groups and media Development partners playing well orchestrated support and facilitating role through out the implementation process TARGETS/INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA ASSUMPTIONS.
DESIGN SUMMARY TARGETS/INDICATORS Percent increase in clearance rates in the courts. regulations. NPS. incorporated in agencies’ books of accounts and financial reports Judiciary annually submitting to Congress a Judiciary Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing Percent improvement in public perception of the integrity of justice institutions and personnel Public perception survey Review of agency websites. RISKS AND MEASURES Staffing patterns and population statistics Focus group discussions with key CSOs Key informant interviews Survey of prosecutors Mini-survey and FGDs with civil society groups Mini survey Requires strong leadership and sustained political will along with change management approaches to address resistance Civil society groups and the business community will be enjoined to play active role in pushing the reforms 2. LGU contributions to justice agencies accounted for. PAO and OMB Percent increase in the number of court cases settled through mediation Percent Increase in conviction rate in criminal cases Percent reduction in jail congestion rate Judge: population ratio by region Police: population ratio by region MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA ASSUMPTIONS. and transparency in the administration of justice Percent improvement in the perception of civil society organizations of the independence of prosecutors Percent improvement in the perception of prosecutors of their professional independence Reduced public perception of police politicization Percent increase in the number of police agents and prosecutors who believe they have legal independence Percent of people by economic status aware of codes of conduct for public officials.2 Adherence to high standards of independence. court decisions. integrity. Timeliness and public accessibility of publication of laws. accountability. and other legal information. document release reports Survey of a sample of justice service users Review of financial books and reports of concerned agencies JBESF document Public perception survey 166 .
judges and justices Focus group discussions with judges Focus group discussions with judges and justices Survey of case samples Percent improvement in public trust and confidence in the competencies.4 Broad access to justice and excellent service to the public Percent of poor population aware of their rights and obligations under the law Percent of poor population sufficiently aware of justice system services and procedures No. RISKS AND MEASURES Improvement in resource support by DBM is needed and should be sustainable. Public perception survey Focus group discussions with justices in SC and CA Public awareness survey Public awareness survey Key informant interviews (with business leaders) Key informant Interviews (with a selected sample of pauper litigants) Review of case records of detained personnel Direct observations Review of agency reports Review of NGO reports Strong civil society participation in advocacy for results. disaggregated by region. Number of youth incarcerated with adults. Percent of disciplinary cases due to incompetence and ignorance of duties Attrition rate in justice positions Percent of criminal cases dismissed due to poor case preparation Percent of criminal cases archived due to non apprehension of suspect Reduction in the average number of extensions granted by lower court judges MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA Review of Plantilla ASSUMPTIONS. judges and prosecutors Percent reduction in the no. Sufficient resources are provide at the right time and level to implement access to justice reforms. of decisions on appeal reversed by higher court due to deficiencies in the application of law or in decision-writing 2. Requires committed and sustained leadership to enforce reforms and monitor performance of responsible personnel Strong capacities of training providers Review of records and report of justice sector disciplining bodies Review of Plantilla Focus group discussions with prosecutors. Percent reduction in jail congestion rate Direct observations Review of agency records and reports 167 . of businessmen/firms who say that they have equal access to impartial justice Accessibility of procedures and services for exemption from docket fees and access to free legal assistance Average time spent in detention pending criminal investigation and judicial proceedings. Leadership effective in implementing actions needed.DESIGN SUMMARY 2. professionalism and ethical conduct of policemen.3 Capable and motivated human resources throughout the justice system TARGETS/INDICATORS Vacancy rates by occupational group and organization.
arbitral awards. of lawyers and court users satisfied with accessibility of court decisions Decentralized administrative and financial management structures. and diminish opportunities for delaying tactics.1 OUTPUTS (by outcome) Strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice Rules that reward timeliness. NBI. functions and operations in the Judiciary. documenting and publicizing results in order to sustain new expectations of timeliness in the administration of justice Implementation of existing decentralization plans in judiciary.DESIGN SUMMARY 3 3. and outcomes of other forms of alternative dispute resolution Reinforcement through monitoring. RISKS AND MEASURES Reduced number of continuances granted Streamlined and codified rules of court with improved provisions adopted Manual of procedures for prosecutors adopted Court statistics Supreme Court resolution Prosecutor’s Manual Percent of lower courts with operational court annexed mediation system Percent of prosecutors using ADR System survey Implementation report of PMC Maximum use of continuous trials in criminal and civil cases Percent increase in number of trial cases with continuous trials Percent decrease in the average litigation speed in lower courts and Sandiganbayan Case survey Case survey Case survey High standards. PNP. and incentive structures that integrate appropriate costs for delay and benefits for delay reduction into the day-to-day operation of the justice system in place and operational Expansion of the use of alternative dispute resolution TARGETS/INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA ASSUMPTIONS. protect officials who apply the rules. and other justice agencies decentralizing administrative and financial functions learning from the decentralization implementation experience Percent reduction in number of cases with interlocutory writs and appeals Average number of interlocutory writs in cases Percent reduction in periods between promulgation and execution of judgments . and PAO in place and operational System survey Perception survey System survey Implementation issuances and reports 168 . BJMP.decided case surveys Public reporting system on execution of judgment operational Percent increase in no. to severely limit the use of interlocutory writs and appeals Improved procedures for prompt and inexpensive enforcement of judgments. PNP. NPS. rigorously applied.
1. PAO. OMB performing case management with the aid of automated case management information systems No. of prosecutors using simplified system Percent increase in resources allocated to investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects of obtaining conviction % reduction in the median litigation time for small claims. including: a) a purge of inactive cases in justice organizations b) survey of detainees and prisoners to ensure that there is no existing improver incarceration and alternatives to imprisonment are initiated where appropriate c) survey of facilities. equipment and supplies to assure minimum standards for secure. of prosecutor offices equipped to minimum facility standards No. reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons and meet immediate needs for improvement in facilities completed. with prosecutorial discretion to decline prosecution One-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs. NPS. of courts equipped to minimum court facility standards No. and clear lines of authority and continuity of leadership assured Project completion reports Project completion reports Inventory reports Procurement reports System survey Rationalization of the organization of law enforcement and correction functions. of jails with operational prisoner information systems No.3 Strengthened information systems and case management systems within and across justice sector agencies Entry into operation of National Justice Information System integrated with the Integrated Criminal Justice and Public Safety Information and Response System for shared information and complementary information systems for individual agencies Entry into operation of case management system for judiciary. of police stations equipped to minimum facility standards No. NPS. including commissions and task forces for coordination of law enforcement activities implemented Enacted laws Implementation reports Systems and operations survey 169 .DESIGN SUMMARY 3. efficiency and savings generated. property. and PNP Entry into operation of prisoner information system in corrections agencies Entry into operation of a simplified system for prompt initial determinations of probable cause. Judiciary. of local jails equipped to minimum jail facility standards Enabling law operational Duplication reduced. RISKS AND MEASURES Justice agencies sharing information through NJIS System survey Implementation issuances and reports PNP. NPS and PAO Reduction in number of personnel overstaying in jails No. OMB. efficient and dignified operations and services are met TARGETS/INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA ASSUMPTIONS. bouncing checks and other related cases System survey Implementation issuances and reports System survey Implementation issuances and reports System survey Implementation issuances and reports Review of case information systems data Review of case reports Percent reduction in annual case backlogs in the courts.
legislative and judicial branches complete establish and operationalize policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment.2.2. and policemen System survey Key informant interviews Mini surveys 3. of compliant justice agencies No.2. accountability and transparency Justice organizations that exercise functions requiring independence of judgment enjoying legal autonomy consistent with the required independence in the performance of their functions TARGETS/INDICATORS Law and rules passed Simplified procedures for handling bouncing checks cases and small claims operational MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA Enabling law and rules Record of case disposition using new mechanisms Operations survey Key informant interviews ASSUMPTIONS. and authorization and operation of simplified procedures for expedited handling of bounced checks and small claims. and of clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints. System survey Key informant interviews Mini user survey 170 . and other types of cases that cause inordinate caseloads operational 3.DESIGN SUMMARY Legal structure for decriminalization of bouncing checks.2 3. together with adequate measures to assure employee training in the requirements of ethical conduct. RISKS AND MEASURES Effective policies and operational procedures for ensuring legal independence of prosecutors in place Effective policies and operational procedures for ensuring the legal independence of quasi-judicial agencies in place Effective policies and operational procedures for ensuring the legal independence of policemen in case investigations in place Executive orders Administrative issuances Opinion survey of prosecutors and members of quasi-judicial bodies. minor offenses that are essentially private disputes.3 Operational policies and procedures issued and operational Percent increase in perception of justice sector employees of adherence of decisions to policies and procedures. and ensure that the public is effectively informed on the code’s ethical standards. Executive. integrity. of statements of assets and income of public officials.2 Each justice organization has in place a code of ethical conduct. integrate the standards in the code into the organizations’ career development and other incentive structures and into an effective and efficient disciplinary system.1 Adherence to high standards of independence. retention and advancement of public employees in the justice sector are made on the basis of merit and without regard to political or other extraneous considerations. disposition of complaints and actions taken. of employees trained Percent of citizens aware of code’s ethical standards Percent of public satisfied with discipline systems Percent of meritorious complaints with appropriate penalties imposed 3. No.
Percent improvement in the perception of civil society organizations monitoring the justice sector of the transparency and information accessibility of justice agencies Policy disclosure policy issuances and operational manuals Mini survey Focus group discussions 3.24 Operational legislative and regulatory structure for justice system finance. of LGUs adopting the objective LGU contribution schemes Medium-term expenditure framework in place in key justice institutions DBM recognizes and establishes annual budgets within the medium-term expenditure frameworks of justice institutions MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA Enabling law Memorandum of Agreements and implementing guidelines ASSUMPTIONS.3. with respect for fiscal autonomy of judiciary. NPS and PNP including accounting and financial reporting policies and processes No.3 3.DESIGN SUMMARY 3. a mediumterm expenditure framework to assure continuity of resources. incentives and rewards operational Enabling issuances Accomplishment reports Key informant interviews Justice agencies with operational policies and procedures Agency issuances and orders Agency implementation reports 171 . minimal dependence on and maximum transparency of fees and local government contributions.1 Capable and motivated human resources Policies and procedures in place to assure appointments to public justice organizations are based on merit Each justice organization in the public sector has in place a human resource development program that includes the following elements: a) workforce reallocation to increase efficiency and professional competence in the performance of functions b) periodic performance evaluation to measure performance of personnel Improvements in the ratio between line and support positions Performance evaluation systems linked to discipline. in force in all justice organization No. budget reports Key informant interviews 3. and requirements for accountable and transparent financial management TARGETS/INDICATORS Judicial autonomy act passed and implemented System for LGU contributions in place and operational in the Judiciary.26 Public monitoring and evaluation of justice system operational Civil society organizations systematically monitoring justice system operations Media keeping public informed of observations of civil society monitoring Regular surveys and publication of survey results conducted Media programs Published survey materials 3.25 Policies to assure the maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system. of justice agencies with clear and operational public disclosure policies and procedures. RISKS AND MEASURES DILG reports System survey.
of judges and court personnel trained Training report Percent of trained judges and personnel gaining improved competencies Percent of police force trained Percent of trained policemen gaining improved competencies Percent of prosecutors and public attorneys trained Percent of trained prosecutors and public attorneys with improved competencies Percent of target correction personnel trained Percent of trained correction personnel with improved competencies Post training impact survey Training report Post training impact survey Training report Post training impact survey Training report Post training impact survey 172 . investigations. to foster professional administration while reducing the management burdens of judges b) police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests. elevate professionalism and encourage interinstitutional collaboration. increase productivity. OMB. and punish misconduct and neglect of duties 3. RISKS AND MEASURES Alternative career paths for judges. PNP and other public sector justice agencies Program documentation Implementation issuances Accomplishment reports No. interdisciplinary participation. help employees adapt to change. evidence collection. including handbooks.3 Justice organizations have in operation enhanced education and training program for their employees to improve skills. public attorneys and policemen linked with pay operational Performance evaluation. prosecutors. courtroom skills. personnel incentives and career advancement linked with remuneration policy and development training Compensation and safety nets for affected personnel in reforming justice organizations and acceptable to employees operational Enabling issuances Accomplishment reports Key informant interviews Enhanced education and training program operational in the Judiciary. emphasizing interactive methods.DESIGN SUMMARY against established criteria of efficiency and a and adherence to standards of conduct c) career development to provide employees who demonstrate good performance and aptitude with opportunities for advancement linked with increased remuneration and development training needed for performance at progressively higher levels d) transparent incentives and disciplinary measures that reward good performance. NPS. and complementary materials.3. Elements of the program include the following: a) court management. and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts c) development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation. relations with police. and case management d) penology and prison management for correction systems personnel to enable the best use of humane and restorative methods for the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders e) Training for representatives of community justice centers in TARGETS/INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA ASSUMPTIONS.
DESIGN SUMMARY dispute resolution procedures, sources of legal assistance to the poor and communicating with justice organizations components on commitment to public service, equal treatment of individuals and sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity and gender incorporated into the above training programs.
MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA Training report Mini public perception survey
ASSUMPTIONS, RISKS AND MEASURES
No. of community representatives trained Percent improvement in public perception of public service commitment, fairness and impartiality and cultural and gender sensitivity of justice personnel
The Legal Education Board provided for by the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993 established and a program of law school accreditation operational. 3.4 3.4.1 Broad access to justice and excellent services to the public Number of judges sufficient and number of prosecutors and public attorneys assigned at lower court stations sufficient
Percent of law schools assessed Percent of law schools accredited
Assessment reports Accreditation documents
No. of court stations with compliant ratios Judge population ratio Average caseload per judge, prosecutor and public attorney Vacancy rate % of remote municipalities and frequency of mobile justice units visits % decrease in the pace of litigation of cases in courts located in remote areas Percent of municipalities with justice centers within walking distance to communities in rural areas and one-ride distance to communities in urban areas No. of barangays and no of individuals therein trained in BJS dispute resolution procedures and other dispute resolution mechanisms.
System survey Implementation reports
Mobile justice units providing services to communities that lack the presence of courts and related facilities, including support for community justice centers Presence of conveniently located community justice centers where citizens can bring complaints and request information and assistance regarding the administration of justice, which will have individuals trained in BJS procedures, other mechanisms for dispute resolution, sources of legal assistance to the poor and procedures for communicating with justice organizations. Court-annexed mediation units in operation throughout the country Community policing units in operation in cities and municipalities throughout the country
Operations reports Case dockets reviews System survey
Percent . of lower courts with operational court-annexed mediation units No. of cities and municipalities with operational community policing services Percent of citizens feeling benefited from community policing services
System survey Implementation reports
System survey Implementation reports Mini community surveys Court websites
System for the timely publication and dissemination of final decisions of all
Time duration between promulgation of decision and its publication/dissemination
DESIGN SUMMARY appellate courts in place and operational
MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA
ASSUMPTIONS, RISKS AND MEASURES
Percent of law professionals of the view of the improving quality and consistency of court decisions Percent reduction in cases appealed 3.4.7 Nation-wide program of popular education and legal awareness to familiarize the general populace with the basic tenets the legal system, rights and obligations of citizens, and remedies and procedures available to enforce those rights and obligations under the law. PAO playing central role in coordinating with other justice organizations and with community organizations and networks in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of legal assistance to the poor and disadvantaged. The alternative dispute resolution regime authorized under the 2004 ADR law in full force Percent of poor population reached target level of education and awareness Percent of population accessing services provided resource materials and orientation
Court statistics Opinion survey of poor population Mini survey
No. of cities and municipalities with PAO synchronized legal services for the poor
Percent increase in the number of executive departments, private organization networks, with operational ADR services Percent of cases settled
IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUMMARY RECORD AND PARTICIPANTS FROM PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS, DECEMBER 2007 I. I.1
STAKEHOLDER INPUTS Manila
Needs/Issues Action Plan/ Recommendations to Address the problem minimized windows of politicization (appointment by merit) rationalized pay and career system for the justice sector practitioners decentralized procurement inclusion of the OSG in the multi-sector council being proposed Interrelated justice system (each pillar knows their role and exercise and be accountable for it) System of incentive and recognition in place Public educated on “multidoor” justice reduced demand of judicial service revised rules of courts (admissibility, continuous trial, inquest ) lawyers penalized for frivolous cases Priority Urgent Indicators
• Too many vacancies Politicized appointments of justices/judges • Highly inadequate number of prosecutors assigned in the 1st and 2nd level courts • Centralized procurement procedures • Recognition of the role of the Office of the Solicitor General as the law firm of the government • Lack of institutional capacity assessment of each agency per pillar • Lack of commitment by the stakeholders/duty bearers
• Lack of information advocacy by the concerned agencies - Delay in the resolution of cases - 1st/2nd level trial courts are receiving more cases - Corruption
• Handling capability of next pillar and lack of correction and rehabilitation facilities (corrections)
Enhanced alternative corrections
Needs/Issues • Lack of IT Based Management System • Fragmented institutional correction system • Obsolete RPC Provisions (re: penalties)
Action Plan/ Recommendations to Address the problem Automated Justice Information Management System Integrated correction and rehabilitation system Updated penal code and expansion of release/ recognizance (pre-trial detention)
Needs/Issues And Effects Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem Short-Term (Urgent) • • Improved selection process Speed up resolution of admin cases of judges and justices Regionalize disposition of Admin cases Incorporate civil society participation in judicial evaluation E-access to pending cases in SC Disclosure of SAL Improved performance rating system Report erring public officer to proper authorities Mid-Term (Priority) • Investigation of assets of justice system officers • E-access to decisions, pending cases of lower courts • Appointment of judges by SC • Pass legislation bill
NEEDS/ISSUES • More transparent and meritbased selection and appointment process • Need for greater integrity • Greater public access to information • Need for strong and effective accountability mechanisms • Greater financial independence EFFECTS • Corruption • Inefficiency • Politicization of the justice system • Poor public perception
• • • •
• Reduced number of vacancies • Higher public trust based on survey • Faster decision making • Open voting of JBC • SC resolution requiring mandatory disclosure of SAL • Decrease in certioraris filed • More thoughtful reporting by media • Status of admin cases readily available in SC website • Increase in number of suspended/relieved judges/justices
C. COMPETENCE Needs/Issues Action Plan/ Recommendations to Address the Problem Priority Urgent Indicators • Fill-up and Speed-up the appointment of vacancies • Make positions more attractive to young lawyers • Politicizing selection of judges • Accountability of judges for period of decisions increases w/ regionalization Promotion must be based on merit system Inventory as also indicator of delays/reversals Management Auditors for Judges and Prosecutors IBP to participate in monitoring of judges Alternatively an inspectorate system • Demand-driven MCLE • Training more urgent among/for quasi-judicial bodies • Issue of independence of prosecutors • Automation of case management • Develop Centers of Excellence among law schools • Rationalization Issue • Continuing education of Shari’ah Lawyers • Formal orientation of prosecution Update of Prosecution Manual Implementation of E-Courts Speedy resolution of cases Provide incentives 177 .
g. support) Expanding the definition of indigent clients Establishment of a system of accrediting paralegals Priority Urgent Indicators • Reduction of Cost of Litigation e.g. SERVICE Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem Reduce no. Fees/TSN costs (who are pauper litigants?) n/a n/a n/a • Length of time in resolving cases Review of certain provisions of the Rules of Court that cause delay Fine the lawyers who misuse court procedures Revisit the rules on reparation taking into consideration the opportunity lost and income of those acquitted in criminal cases Revisit and update antiquated provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other penal laws (e.D. of cases requiring the services of a lawyer e. of lawyers in certain areas Supreme Court to require lawyers/law firms to render free legal services to the poor/indigent as a means of earning MCLE credits Community service (free legal service) as sanction for erring lawyers n/a n/a n/a 178 .g.g. correction of entries in the birth certificate (administrative proceedings) Establishment of small claims court (e. decriminalize minor offenses) Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms n/a n/a n/a • Insufficient no.
paralegals and law students Establish separate youth homes for minors n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 179 .Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem Law schools to train and require students to render legal aid services LGU’s to provide lawyers for legal aid Priority Urgent Indicators • Gender Responsiveness of lawyers. prosecutors and judges • Improving condition of inmates / detainees Training/seminars on gender equality and gender sensitivity Regulated privatization of jails/prisons Provide inmates/prisoners access to court and government records Education and livelihood opportunities for inmates/prisoners Provide psycho-social interventions for the inmates/prisoners Strengthening of community based correction systems Encourage private sector to provide technical and financial support to prison facilities as part of their corporate social responsibility Adopt prisoner data base system to track status of prisoners and their sentences Providing prisoners/inmates access to free legal services of lawyers.
decriminalize minor offenses) Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms n/a n/a n/a • Insufficient no. of lawyers in certain areas Supreme Court to require lawyers/law firms to render free legal services to the poor/indigent as a means of earning MCLE credits Community service (free legal service) as sanction for erring lawyers Law schools to train and require students to render legal aid services LGU’s to provide lawyers for legal aid n/a n/a n/a 180 .Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem LGU’s to establish and maintain jails and provide subsistence allowance to inmates/prisoners Community service as an alternative penalty to minor offenses Priority Urgent Indicators • Length of time in resolving cases Review of certain provisions of the Rules of Court that cause delay Fine the lawyers who misuse court procedures Revisit the rules on reparation taking into consideration the opportunity lost and income of those acquitted in criminal cases Revisit and update antiquated provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other penal laws (e.g.
management system 181 .I. Cebu EFFICIENCY Institutional Capacity Constraints Desired Results Priority Urgent Specific Actions Lack of sufficient funds to equip (communication facilities and office equipment) court staff to make them efficient Poor/inadequate court technologies and/or facilities Lack of computers for records management Lack service vehicles to serve summons and notices (especially criminal cases) Overcrowded prisons Leniency in the enforcement of provisions of the rules that can expedite the disposition of cases Poor knowledge on how to access Justice System Competence of judges are not considered in relation to an assignment Inadequate data management system (Database of cases) Procedures on designating Special Courts One data base (linked) for all pillars Case information management system installed in all pillars Need to Steam line of procedures Absence of system for procurement and maintenance of property and supplies “Discretion” in Court Room Management (too much) Congestion of cases in courts Time and motion study of cases from enforcement pillar to post disposition to determine realistic timeframe for case disposition Decentralized Procurement system Each court has at least 3 computers for Info.2 A.
VALUES Needs/Issues Results Formulate a counter-culture program Codes of Conduct High Monitoring by Judges and Clerks of Court Sincere/dedicat ed public servants • Intensive seminars • proper monitoring • improve hiring process Priority Urgent Indicators/ Recommendations CORRUPTION • Judges tolerate their sheriffs’ and process servers asking for “pamasahe” & “snacks” • Culture of tolerating corruption • Widespread payments(facilitation/bribes) to obtain services (public complicity) lack of commitment to public service • lack of leadership and commitment • ineffective implementation of law ineffective human resources departmentm (if any) • lack of discipline • lack of info on procedures = fixers • no ADEQUATE ORIENTATION for NEWLY-HIRED COURT STAFF • different agency standards • lack of awareness of prohibited acts High Institutionalized HR development office Low • Create or strengthen the HRDO at all levels • Qualified staff for the HRDO 182 . NGOs/Pos Take active part in Disseminating basic legal information Law enacted authorizing Supreme Court to rationalize court assignments Expeditious resolution of admin cases against judges Priority Urgent Specific Actions Lack of courts compared to cases filed Perceived Corruption in Justice Sector Agencies Understaffing Work attitude of justice sector employees B. IBP.Institutional Capacity Constraints Poor knowledge on how to access Justice especially the poor Desired Results Academe.
Needs/Issues Ineffective selection process • lack of integrity • palakasan system • non-transparent selection of judges • politicized appointment process in judiciary • questionable backgrounds of judicial appointees delay in the disposition of disciplinary cases against judges and lawyers lack of program for moral recovery
Indicators/ Recommendations • Improve qualification standards (QS)
Speedy disposition of cases Enhanced value formation
• Apply the fast-track mode in the disposition of cases • Apply caseflow management • Value formation for all sectors/levels
COMPETENCY (Note: Thematic Group on this topic used a distinctive format.)
PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES SEEN FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM: • • • • • • • • • • Congestion and delays Unrealistically high workloads Inadequate/poorly managed infrastructure Growing jail populations Low public confidence in the integrity of the justice system Frustration of private sector over uncertainty and unpredictability of interpretation Inadequate access to justice Two-way reinforcement with stakeholders for efficiency and accessibility Institutional commitment for change Achieving political consensus on justice sector priority
ITEMS ADDED BY THE GROUP: • • • • • • • Lawyer competence and integrity Bureaucratic, slow internal administrative processes (leads to demoralization) Prosecution efficiency and judicial competence Clarity of roles & responsibilities and lack of coordination between/among involved agencies (ex., OPS & PNP) Reintegration of offenders into society (victims of efficiency, breaking down one of the pillars of justice which is rehabilitation) Inconsistency of benefits from one administration to another, plus clear and continuing reward system Protection of witnesses (compelled to testify with the right to remain silent)
THOUGHTS AND REACTIONS ON SWAP CHALLENGES: • Overhaul/amendment of Constitution o Better system of appointments for Judges which will raise competence o Better qualified and competent Barangay Captains (appointment vs. election?) (enhance criteria and/or appointive process with standard minimum qualifications) o Appointment of qualified and competent Lupon o Mandatory implementation of ADR Judges to practice real ADR Mandatory process of reporting compromise agreements to the MTC Political will o Strong and consistent implementation of impeachment processes o Consequences for misconduct, minor or major (lead by example) Genuine fiscal autonomy o Fixed allocation of national budget for judiciary which will enhance political will and determination to undertake reforms Improvement of Legal Processes o Limits on decision-making extensions for cases (other countries just give 1 year for case decision – look into how effective this has been) o Reluctance of retiring judges to entertain cases o Judges and fiscals from a province should not work in that province to avoid unnecessary conflict of interest o Expand support for Drugs court (court expansion to be a judicial function, not legislative function) Logistical support o Computers (and make judges computer literate) Accessing contributions of the different agencies within the justice sector Factoring in human nature (culture as Filipinos) to bring out the best and minimizing the bad Enhancing interpersonal relations of court staff to clients which also affects people’s perception of judiciary
• • •
HR ISSUES OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES: • PNP o Policemen with pending cases cannot be promoted (not fair) RA 8551 o Many authorities could dismiss policemen (NAPOLCOM en banc, PLEB, PNP CHIEF, PNP RD, OMBUDSMAN) o Clear decision-making limits, job descriptions, overlapping authority (Ex., local chief executives’ prerogatives) o Follow seniority in appointments
JUDICIARY, OPS, PAO o Inadequate staff support, undermanned (currently inadequate; 1 judge = 15 support staff) o Performance management for judges and justices (no information on how they are rated, performance guidelines, public dissemination of performance measures) o Heard (Perceived) that understaffing in NPS is deliberate so that savings are plowed into additional staff bonuses o Shortage of prosecutors (with few lawyers interested, due to low remuneration and poor working conditions) ACADEME o Law schools should train prospective lawyers on ADR o Require law schools to have community extension programs (e.g., help Lupon members)
PROPOSED ELEMENTS OF THE HR PROGRAM FOR EACH JUSTICE ORGANIZATION: • • • • • Workforce reallocation for increased efficiency and professional competence Performance management he Career development Rewards and recognition Enhanced training and development (and Management & Leadership Development)
The following additional elements are recommended: a) Organizational Culture Development b) Recruitment and Selection 5) PERCEIVED PRIORITIES: • • • • Enhanced training and development Reward system based on performance above average or good (good performance should be expected, beyond this would be rewarded) Better selection of new entrants Compensation structure of the judiciary (and all other agencies) to factor in hazard factors or hardship posts; better equivalency from one agency to another and have fairness within the sector Change job title of Clerk of Court so that their function as Court Manager or Administrator is acknowledged; streamline functions of Clerk of Court (erase the stigma of “clerk”) Clear delineation of responsibility and authority for judges and court administrators
• • 6)
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: • • • Clear key result areas for each agency and for the sector Working relationships resulting in one harmonious system (group-developed interagency rating system) (For overall judicial performance) Percentage of action/closure of issues vs. complaints filed or issues raised
• • • • • • •
(For PNP) Crime rate reduction trends; crimes per population/density (For prosecution) No. of cases filed vs. cases elevated to court (For prosecution efficiency) No. of convictions vis-à-vis cases filed (For judges) No. of days present/on leave/official business (IBP/ALGs/Law Schools) Number of pro bono service hours given to the different agencies within the justice sector (institutionalized assistance (Sectors) Standards of participation from agencies (which could help judiciary determine how well they are doing with or without this assistance) (Assistance hours to judiciary? ) Positive participation and support of local chief executives
Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem Value formation seminars for enforcers and other public officials Increase the salary of the officials Generation of awareness among the citizens – involving other pillars e.g. DECS, Church, etc. Utilizing the media for values formation Improving the award and incentive system to boost morale of public officials Improving the facilities of the offices Continuing capability building for public officials/servants Review of the unresponsive Policies/laws, particularly: Memorandum Circular 2007001, Human Security Act, RA 9344, etc. Utilizing the media and the other pillars to disseminate information regarding people’s rights e.g. DEPed, Church, etc. Review/repeal of unresponsive laws/DOJ circulars e.g. law allowing Priority Urgent Indicators
Poor Credibility and Image of public officials
Lack of awareness & assertion of rights by the Public
Restrictive Litigation Costs
Elderly and the Handicapped) Lack of Competence among the Members of the Lupon Training for Gender Sensitivity and Vulnerability Improvement of facilities e. Law Student be encouraged to provide paralegal service 187 . of public lawyers. law enforcers accountable to a number of bodies/agencies Insufficient no. prosecutors. prosecutors. of public lawyers. investigation rooms for rape victims.Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem DOJ to collect fees. judges and law enforcers Merit selection system Streamlining the disciplinary bodies for the law enforcers Providing of free legal assistance to law enforcers facing administrative/criminal cases in the line of duty Increasing the no. etc. prosecutors going to far flung areas Review of the appointment process of judges. Improving facilities for the access of handicapped individuals Training of Lupon Members in mediation monitoring the constitution of the Lupon Psychological testing for members of the Lupon Improvement of Selection/Criteria for Lupon Members Obstacles in Law Enforcement A. judges and personnel among the pillars of justice system Additional allowance/hazard pay for public lawyers. Appointment should be based on Merit. Political INterventions in operations and choice in appointing heads of office B.g. SC circular re filing fees Priority Urgent Indicators Insensitivity to the Disadvantaged (particularly Women. Children.
11.1. 13. Department of Social Welfare & Development FE E. 3. VICTORIA V. BARIN Chairperson. Metropolitan Trial Court Judges Association of the Philippines MA. DELA ROSA Consultant. College of Law. 8.II. Court of Tax Appeals ATTY. Securities and Exchange Commission SHERIELYN BONIFACIO Project Officer. 7. The Asia Foundation JOSE MIGUEL R. AREZA Head Executive Assistant. Lyceum College ALICIA R. ANNA LUZ B. HOWARD B. DAMCELLE TORRES-CORTES Program Officer. National Economic Development Authority ATTY. ACOSTA Presiding Justice. Humanitarian Legal Assistance Foundation ERNESTO D. 188 . Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council CLAIRE M. BALA Undersecretary. II. 12. Office of the Solicitor General 9. Adhikain Para sa Karapatang Pambata ATTY. CRYSTAL Director. Gender Justice Network Inc. 2. 1. 4. RUBY BITHAO-CAMARISTA Presiding Judge. 10. Public Attorney’s Office PACIFICO AGABIN Dean. National Judicial Institute (JURIS Project) MA. BABY CATHERINE B. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MANILA ROMMEL ALIM ABITRIA Officer-in-charge. 6. CRUZ Economic Development Specialist 1. 5. CARDONA Executive Director. 14. CLEMENTIR Director.
DIOKNO Secretary General. 21. RENATO LOPEZ. 26. National Economic and Development Authority ATTY. Govida Studies Inc. Management Staff. Presiding Judge. American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative 20. Supreme Court of the Philippines ATTY. 189 . 16. IBP-QC Chapter ATTY. 17. 24. LOANZON Vice-President. 22. Consultant Attorney. Upholding Life and Nature (ULAN) ISMAEL J. 19. 18. Philippine Bar Association VICTORIA V. GUIDO. Free Legal Assistance Group ZENAIDA ELEPANO Court Administrator. GUANZON Member steering Committee. VIRGILIO DE LOS REYES President. HERRADURA Administrator. FALLER Senior State Solicitor and Chief of Staff. RTC Manila President-Philippine Judges Association ROLANDO B. Asia Cause Lawyers Network MIGUEL F. Treasurer for Operations. Assistant Chief State Prosecutor. JR. Office of the Solicitor General JUN FERNANDEZ Director IV. Office of the State Prosecutor Department of Justice RONALDO GUTIERREZ Executive Director. JR. 23. 28. MARIA SOCORRO I. ROWENA V. 27. 25. Parole & Probation Administration RITA LINDA V. City Treasurer Office. JIMENO Past President.15. Quezon City Government ANTONIO EUGENIO JR. VOLTAIRE ENRIQUEZ Asst.
33. 37. 35. MARLON MANUEL Lawyer. MONICA P. ELIZABETH R NADROW Executive Vice-President Pederacion International De Abogadas (PIDA) Inc.MACASPAC Chief Parole Officer. 36. Board of Pardons and Parole ATTY. ELPIDIO G. Quezon City Government MA. NOGRALES Chairman.29. LIM Executive Director. 42. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice. PURIFICACION C. Newsbreak ATTY. Management Services Office Department of Justice SENATOR FRANCIS PANGILINAN Chairperson. Office of the City Administrator. Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal KARL B. SORIANO III President IBP Quezon City 190 . HON. 32. MIRANDA Assistant Solicitor General. Senate of the Philippines DR. 43. 38. JR. REJANO Legal Officer III Bureau of Corrections Atty. ALBERTO A. VALERA-QUISUMBING Chairperson Commission on Human Rights ATTY. PAGUNSAN Director III. YULORES. 41. MINITA V. 30 31. Office of the Solicitor General ATTY. Makati Business Club ATTY. Rosario Setias-Reyes National Director. 34. 40. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ATTY. City Administrator. 39. Committee on Justice. ELMER M. PAQUITO OCHOA. Supreme Court of the Philippines GERARDO C. IBP-National Committee on Legal Aid ARIES C. GIRLIE F. RUFO Senior Writer.
49. Gregorio Tanaka Viterbo.44. VALDERRAMA President Philippine Institute of Arbitrators Inc. 51 52. Newsbreak JUAN DE ZUNIGA JR. Office of 4the Legal Aid (UPOLA). University of the Philippines. 4. 47. VERSOZA The Deputy Chief PNP for Administration (IDCA) Philippine National Police Conrado M. TEODOROM Executive Director Arellano Law Foundation RYAN C. (Rep. Jr. 2. Presiding Justice Court of Appeals Atty. IBP Cebu Chapter JOSELITO M. Flag Metro Manila Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) MARITES VITUG Editor in Chief. 50. VALENCIA City Legal Officer. 48. Office of the Ombudsman Region VII II.IBP-Cebu Chapter PELAGIO APOSTOL Head. Of Mayor Fernando). Assistant Governor & General Counsel Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas CEBU JEANNE IVY ABRINA Commission on Human Rights Region VII Office NOEL R ADLAWAN President. ALO Director. IBP-Cebu Chapter. 53 54. ENRILE “BONG” L. 1. THOMAS Chief Planning Officer Department of Justice CHRISTIAN B. (PIANG) PDDG JESUS A. City Government of Marikina ATTY. 191 . THEODORE O.2. NANCY VILLANUEVA TEYLAN Acting City Atty. Member. Diliman ATTY. Quezon City MARIO E. 3. Vasquez. JR. TE Director. 45 46.
12. of Budget & Mgt. Regional Legal Service. Environmental Legal Assistance Center (ELAC) ATTY. Cebu 192 . Inc. Auditor. Department of Justice JSUPT CESAR F. RO VII LUDIVICO VISTAL CUTARAN Chief. 17.5. CARREON Assistant Regional Director. BRICCIO JOSEPH C. CARMELO DIOLA Dilaab Foundation.I. 11. 18. GREGORIO AUSTRAL Dean. Police Regional Office VII PNP ATTY. BOHOLST President. Federacion Internacional De Abogadas Cebu Chapter ATTY. 10. 8. IBP-Cebu Chapter ATTY. 9. ARRIESCADO. CEBU CITY EFREN C. 7.M Dean-USP & Coll. Region VII. Lapulapu City. L. Law of Cebu. Regional State Prosecutor. MICHAEL DIGNOS Assistant City Attorney. ANNABELLE CENIZA-CHAVEZ Director IV. IPONG-AVILA OIC. BJMP VII ATTY. SOCORRO BELARMINO Vice-President. 13. IBP GERALDONE FAITH ECONG Judge. DURANO. JR. 14. PALS. RAUL P. CALICANO M. 6. NEDA VII MS. BALDERAS Assistant Regional Director. BARBARONA Executive Director. Regional Trial Court. Inc. 19. Dept. LORETO M. DIOLASA Dilaab Foundation. University Bohol College of Law LLENA G. 15 16. ENRIQUE Y. IBP. Lapu-lapu City Government FR.
29 30. Eastern Samar State University HON. 25. Mongcopa Regional Hearing Officer. Inc. 26. OPINION Dean. ESTENZO Dean. University of Cebu MR. Division. DILAAB FOUNDATION INC.M. VICTORIA HERMOSISIMA Secretary Counsel. College of Law. JAYME JMP Regional Investigator / Bureau Prosecutor. Salinbangon. Securities and Exchange Commission SJ02 ARNEL A. AUSTERE PANADERO Undersecretary. 34. J. ROLANDO M. ELIAS L. JOSEFINA I. LIM Director. PNP Regional Office VII TERESA FERNANDEZ Lihok Filipina Foundation. FREE LAVA 193 . 33. PSS ARTURO MENDEZ EVANGELISTA Chief Regional Investigation & Detective Mgt. ESPINOSA PRO. Inc. IBP-Cebu Chapter BALDOMERO C.20. Department of the Interior & Local Government ATTY. 28. DARYLL CHRISTIAN ESTRADA Program Steward. MARIA LUISA ONG Department of the Interior & Local Government ATTY. 32. Cebu City JINSP Jenesis U. Congressman Benhur L. LEIOLA Dilaab Foundation. VICENTE R. 21. BJMP VII ELENA O. 24. JOSELYN OESGUERA Consultant. Integrated Bar of the Philippines. BJMP VII ATTY. PAREDES Chairman. House of Representatives ATTY. 22. 23. 27. ATTY. 31.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu Chapter . Cebu NENGLEY TABUCANON VILLANUEVA Treasurer. GLORIA ZOSA SENO Resource Activities FRANCISCO A. Department of Trade & Industry. Lapu-Lapu City Gov’t HON. HON. MARIO RELAMPAGOS Undersecretary. 38. 42. EDILBERTO SANDOVAL Presiding Justice. Vice President for Visayas. EUGENE M. . 40. 36. ARTURO RADAHZA. SEVILLE. SANIEL Executive Director.41. Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines ATTY. Mayor. 37. 39. Children Legal Bureau DR. SUMAMPONG TIDS.35. Department of Budget & Management HON. Sandiganbayan JOAN DYMPHNA G. 194 . JR.