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
6: Table II.4: Table II. Program Finance 4.13: Comparative Rankings of Philippines and Five Other Asian Countries on Rule of Law.1 Figure II.9: Table II. Management Structure for Implementation E. 2003-2005 Case Inflows by Type of Case. Conclusions 82 82 82 83 83 87 88 90 91 92 94 95 95 96 98 100 101 FIGURES Figure I. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public C.1 TABLES Table I. 2004-2006 Caseload. Performance Monitoring V. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system 4. 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.C. 2007 Comparison of Budget Structures. Program Design 2. Lessons for the Philippines 1. 2000-2007 Distribution of Judiciary Budget by Expense Class. accountability. Priority Results 1. 2000-2007 Distribution of MOOE Authorized Appropriations for Lower Courts.1 Figure II.11: Table II. Benefits and Costs F. 2004-2006 Caseload.3: Table II. All Courts.1 Table II. 2006 Archival Rates.3 Figure V. Special Issues D. 2007 National Appropriations for Key Justice Sector Agencies.2 Figure II.5: Table II. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Indicators G. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence.7: Table II.12: Table II. 2007 4 10 11 14 14 15 15 16 17 20 20 21 21 23 ii . integrity. 2007 Appropriations Annual Judiciary Budget as Percentage of the National Expenditure Program.8: Table II.10: Table II. Disposition and Clearance Rates. 2007 Vacancies in Judicial Positions as of 31 July 2007 Philippine Judicial Academy Courses and Participation.1 Table II. and transparency 3. 2007 Approved Court Personnel Positions.2: Table II. Governance of Program Implementation 3. Goals and Objectives B. 2006 Authorized Appropriations of Selected Quasi-Judicial Bodies. A JUSTICE SECTOR STRATEGY FOR THE PHILIPPINES A. The Philippine justice system will have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice 2. Government and Justice System. Disposition and Clearance Rates by Court.
19: Table II. 2000-2006 Caseload. December 2007 103 113 115 123 129 165 175 iii .22: Table II. Terms of Reference 2. 2007 NPS Appropriations. Accomplishments under the Action Program for Judicial Reform 6.15 Table II.20: Table II. 2005 National Expenditure. Summary Records and Participants from Consultations. Persons Interviewed 5. NLRC. Disposition and Clearance Rates. 2003-2007 Disposition Rates of Regional and Field Prosecutors of NPS. Jan 2002-Mar 2007 Disputes Settled in the Barangay Justice System. 2006 Passage Rate for Bar Examination. 1999-2006 23 23 25 27 29 30 32 33 34 36 37 1.17: Table II. 2000-2005 Caseload and Dispositions. Illustrative Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Long-Term Justice Sector Strategy 7. Disposition and Clearance Rates.24: ANNEXES Caseload.18: Table II. Regional and Field Offices. 2007 Distribution of Authorized Appropriations between Central Offices and Police Stations. Corrections System.16: Table II. 2000-2006 Statistical Summary of Court-Annexed Mediation. Biographic Summaries 3. Bibliography 4. PNP. DARAB. Office of Ombudsman.14 Table II.23: Table II. 1999-2005 Budgets of Selected National Law Enforcement Agencies.21: Table II.Table II.
Justice. Law and Order Sector Reform Program iv .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. 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-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 .
More than 80% of the budget goes to salaries and allowances of court personnel. as well as lower courts. public defense. vii . about 20% of the authorized total. all operating with multiple-judge structures. The network also includes 24 quasi-judicial agencies. The courts are financed primarily from the government’s budget. Less than 2.166 lower courts throughout the country. The structure of legal and institutional safeguards for the security of person and property received thoughtful and extensive treatment in the present Constitution. The Judiciary comprises a Supreme Court. 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. The Constitution provides that Congress cannot reduce the Judiciary’s annual budget below the amount appropriated for the previous year. In addition to the Judiciary.000 positions for judicial and non-adjudicative personnel in the Judiciary. The criminal justice system includes law enforcement.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The rule of law has featured prominently in the governance of the Republic of the Philippines throughout its modern history.” 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. prosecution. adopted in 1987 following the February 1986 revolution that ended the prolonged authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos. even though the Constitution declares that the Judiciary “shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. available resources are inadequate to meet the demands of the courts’ workload. collectively known as the system’s “other pillars. These supplemental resources. and justice-oriented civil society groups also play roles in the administration of justice. There are more than 32. raise questions of transparency and uncertainty in the financing of basic judicial functions.300 are for justices and judges. the network embraces an extensive and diverse array of organizational actors and activities. including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Court of Tax Appeals. Court of Appeals.6% for maintenance and operating expenses and only about 2% for capital outlays. the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. corrections and rehabilitation agencies. including 56 Shari’a courts in the Autonomous Regions of Muslim Mindanao. as presently administered. However. exercise judicial review. universities. with its broad constitutional mandate to render decisions. The Philippine justice system consists of a network of interlocking institutions. resulting in a ratio of 14 staff per judge. Staff vacancies of about 3. There are more than 450 vacancies in judicial positions. 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. and the Sandiganbayan (a special anticorruption court). with 12. That prohibition is respected in practice. There are some 2. and prescribe binding rules. and community and indigenous justice systems. alternative dispute resolution systems administered by public and private organizations.” A number of nongovernmental organizations. Also.500 represent more than 12% of the authorized workforce.
with annual dispositions clearing only about 40% of total workload. The Court adopted revised rules of civil procedure in 1997 and revised rules of criminal procedure in 2000. They are held to a standard that their findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. Clearance rates in the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals are less than 30% of total caseload. an initial pilot test of the new decentralized system has been deferred. These agencies operate under common general rules of procedure. Traditionally centralized court management is to be replaced with a system of regional administrative offices operating under delegated authority from the Court Administrator. mediation. The courts rely primarily on manual systems for caseflow management. Once final. Disposition and clearance rates in the principal quasi-judicial agencies are comparable to those in the courts. supplemented by published agency rules. decisions of most quasi-judicial agencies can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. In recent years. Enforcement of these codes has been criticized as lacking in transparency and even handedness. The Supreme Court has broad constitutional authority to prescribe rules of procedure and rules of evidence. the Judicial and Bar Council. each headed by a recognized expert. while coverage is increasing. 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. In both civil and criminal cases delays and continuances are common and trials are normally sporadic rather than continuous. under the direction of the elected Barangay Chairman. Automated systems for the collection and reporting of statistics are being pilot tested. The Barangay Justice System (BJS) uses conciliation. Through its 14 academic departments. The settlement rate is about 75%. Most quasi-judicial agencies are administratively attached to executive departments and their decisions are subject to review by the heads of those departments. the Academy conducts a regular program of courses for aspirants to judicial appointment. More than 70% of the approximately 450. Where there are fewer than three candidates the position remains vacant.000 cases filed each year in the Philippine courts are criminal prosecutions. Procedures are informal. and arbitration to resolve disputes between residents of the same municipal unit. The Philippine Judicial Academy provides judicial education and training. There is a high rate of success in settling cases that go through the mediation process. The Judiciary has modern codes of conduct for judges and court employees. About 14% are ordinary civil disputes. However. still only a small percentage of eligible cases are referred and mediated under this voluntary procedure. Each judicial appointment must be made from a list of at least three nominees. quasijudicial agency functions. and 15% are other kinds of cases. The parties may not be represented by lawyers. and a variety of specific themes. judicial career enhancement. Disputes eligible for consideration under BJS must use that system before viii . However. the disposition of cases has exceeded inflows.Judges are appointed by the President on the basis of recommendations from a constitutional body. The number of cases handled each year under this system approaches the number of cases decided by the Philippine courts. However. backlogs remain high. court personnel skills. Quasi-judicial agencies dispose of thousands of cases each year in a broad range of specialized fields.
At senior levels. There is no systematized training program. A substantial part of the workload is created by the probable cause determinations and related investigations that precede the judicial phase of criminal prosecutions. which is subject to the direction of the Secretary of Justice. Workloads are heavy and disposition rates are low. However. created in 2001. The low volume of appealed cases indicates that. The NPS. Mediation and arbitration are widely used by the public sector. Also. the PNP is often called on to carry out functions for other law enforcement agencies that have less of a national presence.000. so long as they are compatible with national law and internationally recognized human rights. Prosecution is primarily the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service (NPS). the PNP is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. with about 1. satisfactory resolutions are being achieved through customary remedies. by and large. In addition. The Council includes the Central Bank Governor (chair). However. Administratively. a force of some 125. New prosecutors are recruited largely from recent law school graduates. with 84% consumed by personal services and 12% used for maintenance and operating expenses. the National Bureau of Investigation is the premier investigative body. If the BJS does not resolve a dispute. a new alternative dispute resolution law enacted in 2004 promises to invigorate the use of these remedies. The centrally managed PNP budget is devoted heavily to personnel costs (87%). and the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. such as the Philippine Drug Enforcement Administration. It has proven effective in protecting against the use of the Philippines as a site for laundering the proceeds of unlawful activity. the Commissioner of Insurance. The Commission is authorized to hear appeals from decisions affecting indigenous populations. An impressive innovation in law enforcement is the Anti-Money Laundering Council.700 investigators and related staff. leaving only 4% for capital expenditures. About 30 other national agencies exercise some law enforcement functions.000. with 11% for maintenance and operations and only 2% for capital outlays. Low compensation is an obstacle to attracting highly qualified police candidate. about one-half of whom are prosecutors. The National Police Commission provides oversight for the PNP. a party may take it to the court that otherwise would have jurisdiction. the agency also needs to be responsive to local governments that have roles in police recruitment and discipline and provide supplemental resources. As in the case of the courts and the police. The NPS budget is centrally managed. The NPS lacks adequate ix . local governments often augment national appropriations for prosecutors. The volume of commercial mediation and arbitration remains quite limited. Coordination with other law enforcement agencies is carried out through a National Law Enforcement Coordinating Council.being filed in a court. a mandatory retirement age of 56 results in rapid turnover and lack of continuity in leadership positions. Salaries are low. is headed by a Chief State Prosecutor and has a total staff of some 4. The operation of customary legal systems is facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. The principal law enforcement agency is the Philippine National Police (PNP). Implementing regulations have not yet been adopted to make the new legal regime operational. Indigenous populations (exceeding 12 million people) may use their own commonly accepted justice systems and institutions.
The Department of Justice oversees the Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR). a number of which operate legal clinics through which fourth year law students provide supervised assistance to indigent clients. and a drug treatment and rehabilitation center. the PAO is the primary organization providing legal services to the poor. The Office of the Ombudsman has exclusive responsibility for prosecuting corruption cases against senior government officials in the Sandiganbayan. but no action has been taken on that recommendation. A review commission recommended a consolidation of corrections functions in 1996.000.6 billion. It shares with the NPS the function of prosecuting lower ranking officials and others charged with corruption in the regular courts. Pretrial detention can continue for years. deal with transitions from prison to society.000 personnel. Public defense is the function of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). the PAO is within the Department of Justice. The Office of the Ombudsman has a small staff of about 1. but it operates as an autonomous entity. has been identified as one of the causes of delay in the criminal courts. In 2006.100 and a high vacancy rate. The Office also conducts administrative proceedings to resolve lesser corruption complaints.6 million poor people. Other organizations involved in the administration of justice include the following: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) includes all 40. Beyond its responsibilities in the criminal justice system. which contribute to a low disposition rate for cases and a growing backlog. Administratively. There are about 100 law schools. and rehabilitation functions involve a number of agencies. 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. More than 95% of the 62. The IBP is the primary channel for the discipline of attorneys. The total annual budget for the entire corrections system is about PhP 4. city. 1993 legislation to create a Legal Education Board to accredit x . to indigents. Arrested persons are most often confined initially in police detention facilities.100 district. with about 7. provincial governors appoint wardens to manage 79 provincial and 25 sub-provincial jails. A number of public and private organizations and some individual attorneys also provide some legal assistance. also in the Department of Justice.management systems and information technology. This small office of 1.850 employees represents indigent defendants in criminal proceedings. which operates seven national penitentiaries. plays an active role in legal education. In addition. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in the Department of the Interior and Local Government. However.400 BUCOR employees manages a prison population of 25. The Supreme Court exercises oversight of legal education through its control over admission to the practice of law. An authorized force of 2. the PAO provided assistance to some 4. and municipal jails. is responsible for about 1.000 attorneys in the country. corrections. 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. and provides legal assistance to the poor. The Parole and Probation Administration and the Board of Pardon and Parole. estimated to be at least 500. Detention. Some municipal jails remain under the control of the Philippine National Police.000 detainees in BJMP jails have not yet been tried and sentenced. a juvenile training center. The shortage of prosecutors. including criminal defense.
2. and public information about the outcomes of complaints of unethical conduct. human resources and information. values. Issues include executive branch involvement in judicial budget management. but are important stakeholders in how well the system operates. Thus. and competent human resources. provide information to the public. their dissemination. Accountability. Improvement of information and case management systems and more adequate facilities and equipment will be important tools for greater efficiency. incentives. Integrity. Responding to this challenge requires changes in norms. and generally inadequate budgets to permit needed investments in capacity development. excessive reliance on revenue from fees for basic needs. management of finance. Increased accountability of the justice system is a challenge shared by the justice agencies with civil society. Most law schools are members of the voluntary Philippine Association of Law Schools. The reform agenda needs to encourage public interest in the xi . Several organizations are less directly involved in the operation of the justice system. and Facilities A threshold challenge is to build within justice organizations a strong capacity for strategic planning. High Standards of Independence. While the ultimate objective is broad access and excellent service to the public. practices. This challenge is related to the need for resources to invest in building those basic capacities. and expectations. monitor the operation of the courts and government agencies. and offer legal services to the poor. These include organizations that do research. Organizational challenges include duplication and lack of coherence in agency responsibilities and inadequate coordination between justice organizations. 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. effective disciplinary systems. Business Practices. 1. improved service depends upon increased efficiency. 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. take public positions on justice policy issues.law schools has not been implemented. adherence to ethical values. inadequate transparency in support from local governments. and a culture of managing for results. the four objectives combine to provide a framework of efficiency. Enhancing integrity in the justice system will require a review of existing ethical rules. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems. competence and service for sector-wide reform. public access to clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints. and Transparency A principal challenge to independence is the inadequate financing of the justice system. Procedures. A major challenge of capacity is overcoming the chronic delay and congestion throughout the justice system. training programs.
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. the justice system. The APJR has been sustained by a series of opinion surveys and by support from the international community. A related challenge is the need to improve popular awareness of the law. established the leadership of the Supreme Court. Building capacity at the community level will be important to legal empowerment. two decades of reform have restored a sound institutional framework for the administration of justice. On the whole. the National Council on the Administration of Justice is focused on criminal justice coordination. During the past six years a number of specific reforms and improvements to the administration of justice have been directly attributable to the APJR. xii .” 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). and career development. a program management office to facilitate implementation. a host of long-term projects and activities is underway. institutional incentive systems. In addition to the APJR executive committee. and the availability of information about issues and channels for obtaining information and assistance. These interagency. training. with priorities and cost estimates. helped to restore the independence of 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. and a system of coordination among justice organizations and communication with stakeholders. Capable and Motivated Human Resources Vacancies are a major problem. make up that system. and initiated a continuing justice reform effort. 4. 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. Issues include recruitment. 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. Expanded availability of appellate court opinions and increased availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms would also improve service to the public. physical environment. Low salaries and poor working conditions impede the ability of the public sector to attract the best candidates with high ethical standards. In addition. 3. together. This structure has helped to stimulate reform initiatives in justice organizations outside the Judiciary. Significant achievements include: o The creation and strengthening of courts and other justice organizations. Its governance system includes an executive committee with broad representation from the justice community.performance of the justice system and to encourage justice organizations to be responsive to that interest. multi-year plan. The APJR established a coherent. 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.
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.
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. and A survey of facilities with a view to assuring that property. small claims. and judicial branches will decriminalize bouncing check cases and will authorize and put into operation simplified procedures. legislative. and transparency. minor offenses that are essentially private disputes.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. integrity. and other types of cases that impose inordinate workloads and contribute to delays and congestion. achieve savings. This objective involves many different things: the adequacy of ethical systems. 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. and supplies meet minimum standards for secure. including prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute. with a view to reallocating and concentrating prosecutorial resources on the investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects for obtaining conviction. together with adequate measures to assure: o o that employees receive training in the requirements 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 meet immediate needs for improvements to facilities. xvii . that the standards of the ethical code are integrated into the organization’s career development and other incentive structures. The executive. increase efficiency. accountability. is a matter of great concern here. o 2. reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons. public access to information. for the expedited consideration of bouncing checks. including mediation. which affects all the objectives. and dignified operations and service to the public. freedom from political interference. and civil society monitoring of performance. equipment. and assure clear lines of authority and continuity of leadership. efficient. The overarching issue of justice system financing. The justice organizations will complete one-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs. 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.
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. and judicial branches of government will establish policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment. This structure will respect the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. legislative. including the nomination of candidates for appointment to judicial and other senior offices. career development. The executive. and workforce allocation. A policy of transparency should extend from the nomination of judges and other officials to the volume. Civil society organizations. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system. legislative. and that effective disciplinary systems are in place. will be systematically monitoring the operation of the justice system. 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. alleged violations are being quickly investigated. Public perceptions of the justice organizations and their operations will be regularly surveyed and the survey results published. The communications media will be keeping the public informed of the observations of such monitoring. training. and minimize dependence on. This objective involves issues of selection. including the organized bar. and of clear and convenient procedures for complaints of alleged violations. All justice organizations will have in force policies to assure maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system. of statements of assets and income of public officials. and judicial branches of government will adopt a new legislative and regulatory structure for financing the justice system. and suitable penalties are being imposed where allegations are substantiated. The role of human resources is so important and so complex that it warrants being treated as an objective in its own right. speed and quality of services performed. o The executive. It will assure the transparency of. including active dissemination of information and the facilitation of monitoring by civil society organizations. compensation and benefits. working conditions. 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 . In this regard.o that the public is effectively informed of the code’s ethical standards. Justice organizations that exercise functions requiring independence of judgment will enjoy legal autonomy consistent with the required independence for the performance of their functions. fees and local government contributions to meet basic operating expenses of national justice organizations. to the discipline of justice system personnel. It will require accountable and transparent financial management by all justice organizations.
investigations. and sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity and gender. and Transparent incentives and disciplinary measures that reward good performance. 4. Evaluation to measure the performance of personnel against established criteria of efficiency and adherence to standards of conduct. including training to develop skills needed for performance at progressively higher levels. elevate professionalism. Programs will emphasize interactive methods. help employees adapt to change. relations with police. Elements of the program will include the following: o o Court management training to foster professional administration while reducing management burdens on judges. It involves perceptions of how well the justice system protects the security of xix . Training for representatives of community justice centers in dispute resolution procedures. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public.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. and case management. and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts. Career development to provide employees who demonstrate good performance and aptitude with opportunities for advancement to increased responsibilities and increased remuneration. and complementary materials such as handbooks that will be of continuing value in the performance of duties after training is completed. o The justice organizations will have in operation enhanced education and training programs for their employees to improve skills. interdisciplinary participation. increase productivity. evidence collection. commitment to public service. and For all. and punish misconduct and neglect of duties. 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. 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. equal treatment of individuals. courtroom skills. and communicating with justice organizations. and encourage inter-institutional collaboration. incorporation in education and training activities of components on development of leadership skills. sources of legal assistance to the poor. Police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests. 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. Development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation.
the services it provides. prosecutors and public attorneys assigned to meet the needs for their services at all lower court stations. 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. 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 the varying capacities and needs of these widely diverse organizations. law schools. The definition of the justice sector should be a pragmatic and flexible one. and collaborate with the organized bar. it involves services to the poor and disadvantaged to empower them to obtain equal treatment under the law. with vacancy rates below 10%. how the justice system operates. nongovernmental organizations. reflecting the scope of the issues to be addressed under the strategic plan. and how to obtain those services. The alternative dispute resolution regime authorized by legislation in 2004 will be in full force and generating increased use of alternative dispute resolution measures. including support for community justice centers. Priority results to be achieved by 2012 with respect to this objective include the following: There will be a sufficient number of judges. coordinate the work of service providers. needs for autonomy and independent action by the numerous organizations within the justice sector. rights and obligations of citizens. The organization of work under the strategic plan will need to take into account interests of policy consistency. Community policing units will be in operation in cities and municipalities throughout the country. Mobile justice units will provide services to communities that lack the presence of courts and related facilities. Court-annexed mediation units will be operational and available to serve the needs in all the lower court stations throughout the country. in the courts and in alternative dispute resolution systems. and community centers and networks to assure the sustainability of popular education and legal awareness efforts. And. The specific xx . This program will include measures to make available practical resource materials. 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 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.person and property through formal and informal procedures. basic to a society committed to the rule of law. 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.
Department of Justice Department of the Interior and Local Government. Department of Budget and Management. Integrated Bar of the Philippines. foster consensus on priorities for action and resource allocation. 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. carry out.organizations included in the operation of the strategic plan need to be identified at the outset. National Economic and Development Authority. xxi . and oversee and support the development and implementation of action plans of organizations and working groups in the justice sector. The Executive Staff would assist efforts to identify. financing. 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. Organizations represented in the Policy Leadership Council might include: o o o o o o o o o o o The Judiciary. The Council would review monitoring and evaluation arrangements and assure an ongoing public information program and dialogue with national stakeholders and international development partners. although the participating organizations could change from time to time. and periodic review and update of the justice sector strategic plan. Office of the Ombudsman. oversight agencies. 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. with more frequent oversight and support provided through a Steering Group made up of officials of those organizations. in which organizations with major responsibilities for the administration of justice. Department of Social Welfare and Development. and document priority actions and related matters of timing. could provide overall policy guidance for the development. implementation. and major stakeholders are represented. monitoring and evaluation. The Council would foster coherence and coordination among organizations in the justice sector. Philippine Association of Law Schools. 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. The Council might choose to carry out some responsibilities through one or more Committees with limited membership from among the member 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 essence of a sector-wide strategic plan is its alignment of policies. Systems infrastructure – equipment. and the security and well being of all who reside in. taking into account financing from national resources as well as from international development partners for the justice sector. and a corresponding dramatic increase in public confidence in the system. and rationalization of workforces should all reduce the costs and increase the efficiency of operating the justice system. manage change. 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. 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. and Program management – the operation of the governance structure described above for implementing the strategy. increase efficiency. and case management systems. and do business in the Philippines. fewer prisoners in protracted pretrial detention. 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. visit. and assistance from international development partners. and equipment. installation and maintenance of modern administrative. 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. Fewer pending cases in the courts. and achieve results. fees for services. automation of information systems. Human resources development – strengthening the skills of personnel to make the most effective use of new technology. consolidation of duplicative functions. accelerated and broadly based economic and social development. maintenance. facilities. Full implementation of the suggested priorities under the strategy should produce a dramatic improvement in the performance of the Philippine justice system by 2012. strategies and actions with resources. Beyond the immediate benefits of reduced operating costs and improved service. 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. augmented by transparent local government contributions. improved management should increase productivity and create savings. financial. xxii . The principal source of financing will have to be the government budget. technology. 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.
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. foster a culture of lawfulness.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. court procedures. academia.8 Justices and judges hold office in good behavior until age 70 and their salaries may not be decreased.10 1 . 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. with representation from the executive. 12 months for lower collegiate courts.7 Judicial appointments are made by the President on the basis of recommendations by a Judicial and Bar Council. admission to the practice of law. It also incorporates elements of precolonial customary law and the Shari ‘a law of the country’s Muslim population. The Court can also disapprove rules of procedure by special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.3 The Congress. In the postindependence era these traditions have been enriched by national innovations as well as models from international practice in certain areas of jurisprudence. the bar.I. The Constitution established separate executive. but also the duty of the courts to review acts of government for possible grave abuses of discretion.4 Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced below the level of the previous year.9 Subject to case by case exception. chaired by the Chief Justice. legislative. 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. 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. and private sector.5 The Supreme Court has broad power to prescribe rules on the protection of constitutional rights.6 The Supreme Court appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary and exercises administrative supervision over the courts and their personnel. after final pleadings have been filed. decisions must be reached within 24 months for the Supreme Court. and judicial branches of government. The Constitution established substantive rights as well as a framework of governance to protect those rights. vesting the judicial power in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. and legal assistance for the poor. 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. legislative. and assure the equal protection of rights and the fair and timely resolution of disputes. including the power to discipline judges and remove them for cause. and three months for other lower courts. in defining the jurisdiction of the courts. and judicial branches.
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. integrity. identify and analyze needs. efficiency. including prosecutors. Important achievements include the adoption of ethical standards for judges. it stimulated additional reforms of those other justice sector institutions. corrections agencies. the business community. 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. launched by the Supreme Court in 2001. As a result. This continuing process has attained significant accomplishments. and civil society organizations. especially APJR.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. attorneys. improved administrative and financial management systems for the courts.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. court dockets remain highly congested and delays are excessive. There has been no overall justice sector policy and no structure (other than normal budget procedures) for setting priorities. However. New and reformed organizations have not developed the capacity to implement all the demands imposed upon them by growing workloads and numerous reform initiatives. The most comprehensive of the various reforms has been the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). and they have not built strong internal incentive systems that would help employees adapt to change. By encouraging broad participation. and guiding and monitoring performance on a sector-wide basis. new educational (including continuing education) programs for judges and lawyers. the Philippine justice system still faces many fundamental challenges that have been impervious to the efforts of reformers. While focused on the Judiciary. public defenders. All these efforts have benefited from extensive stakeholder consultations and analytical studies that have identified issues and suggested possible areas for corrective action. and fashion appropriate responses. APJR recognized that progress in judicial reform required the involvement of other institutions. including in particular the Ombudsman and the Commission on Human rights. increased judicial salaries and better working conditions. At the same time. organizing work. they have tended to proceed in parallel. court personnel. the experience of the past 20 years has shown how difficult it is to achieve and sustain the Constitution’s ideals. the organized bar. responding to the challenge of implementing reforms that require fundamental change is a slow and arduous process. 12 Yet. There has not been a significant and sustained investment in strengthening their capacity to manage their increased and more complex responsibilities. police. and transparency. and greater access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. On the other hand. allocating resources among various reform initiatives.13 There has been a great deal of inter-institutional communication and coordination in these reform efforts. Workloads in organizations throughout the justice sector are unrealistically high. Accordingly. 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 . universities. and police. On the whole. effectiveness. accountability.
25-0. cites political interference. 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%. a slip from the previous year attributed in part to low scores on law and contracts.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. and backlog and delays in resolving cases. 21 the Heritage Foundation’s 2007 Index of Economic Freedom. inadequate services to the poor.19 Additional indicators of comparative performance with regard to governance.”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.resources and physical infrastructure are often grossly inadequate or poorly allocated and managed. inconsistent application of procedural rules. Examples include reports by Freedom House. which concentrates on judicial corruption. 1996-2006. 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. largely with prisoners awaiting trial. Public confidence in the integrity of justice system operators. lack of monitoring framework. The Global Competitiveness Report ranking for the Philippines is 75 of 125 countries in 2006 and 71 of 131 in 2007. including the ability of the Philippines to compete in the global economy. 20 the Economic Freedom of the World 2007 Annual Report published by the Fraser Institute.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. The Philippines country report in its 2007 Global Corruption Report. uncertainties.”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. low budgets and salaries. or an annual loss amounting to between P7 billion and P13 billion in 1999 alone. and economic competitiveness. 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. while generally independent.” an August 2007 publication 3 . Transparency International. the World Bank and the World Economic Forum. in the World Bank report Governance Matters 2007. and social development. with the country report noting that “the rule of law continues to be weak” and that “the judiciary. All these deficiencies combine to constitute a negative influence on the quality of Philippine democratic. costs. The private sector is frustrated by the uncertainties and unpredictability about how the law will be interpreted and applied. The populations of already overcrowded jails are growing.46) of GDP growth annually.18 The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report ranked the Philippines at 61 of 80 countries examined in 2002. while conviction rates remain very low. Access to justice. is hampered by corruption and inefficiency.22 and “Confidence in Asian Judicial Systems. is impeded by a widespread lack of knowledge about the substance and procedures of the law. and in many cases physical remoteness of the courts. human rights. and the delays. economic. the rule of law and business climate are contained in the Country Data Report for the Philippines. dependence on donors for budgetary support. despite the expanded availability of alternative dispute resolution. is disturbingly low overall. control of corruption.
1 COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FIVE OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES ON THE RULE OF LAW.24 Table I. 2006 The clear implication of these data is that significantly improved performance of the justice system could have important practical benefits for the Philippines. Figure I. 19. Table I. 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. 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. 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. which is a significant factor in all the reports that under underlie the rankings for the Philippines on the other indices cited above. 23 Perceived inadequacies in the administration of justice have also been the subject of individual negative comments from international observers.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.of the Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd. and 22.1 COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FIVE OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES ON THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT. 18. the objective would be a justice sector 4 . Rather than a judicial reform program that involved other institutions.
As the work proceeded. and other stakeholders. as identified in the list of persons interviewed at Annex 4. 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. the team developed draft recommendations and tested them in public consultation meetings with broad participation from government. 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). Development of short.program of direct relevance for all aspects of the administration of justice. a San Francisco-based consulting firm that specializes in the rule of law. participation and transparency. Inc. development partners. Vicenta Alinsug. In December 2006 the ADB awarded a contract to DPK Consulting. The terms of reference for this activity are set out at Annex 1. The DPK/CPRM team for this activity. a Manilabased consulting firm specializing in public governance. The team worked on an intermittent basis throughout 2007. This contract included technical assistance (TA) in for a number of activities relating to the administration of justice. On the basis of this research and consultation.and long-term strategic funding initiatives and prioritized. In addition. It reviewed the current structure and operation of the Philippine justice system. Especially in the justice sector. 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. Accordingly. 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. and Carolyn Mercado. the team shared ideas with a number of individuals in the justice sector in order to capture a large number of perspectives. combined with contemporary efforts to engage justice sector operators. it was seen as essential that a sector-wide approach be developed with broad dialogue. Biographical summaries of team members are set out at Annex 2. each of which was complementary to the others. Each of the team members brought a distinctive expertise to this task. where many organizations have responsibilities for policy and operations. the team conducted interviews with a wide range of stakeholders and experts in the subject matter. included James Michel. Facilitation of agreement with the Government and other development partners of the reform agenda. and it examined the experience of other countries that have instituted justice sector-wide programs. Determination of appropriate timing and sequencing of various actions and clarification of implementing arrangement. and Development of a performance monitoring system that includes benchmarks and indicators to track progress in implementation. costspecific investments. the 5 . In response to the Court’s request. under the overall leadership of TA team leader Barry Walsh. 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. The principal sources for the research are identified in the bibliography at Annex 3. working with CPRM Consultants.
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. for their patient and skillful guidance throughout this undertaking. and to Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum. including with respect to governance structures. performance indicators. and systems of performance monitoring and evaluation. Director of the Supreme Court Program Management Office. This report synthesizes the findings of the team’s extensive research. and organize what we have learned in a way that reflects the many helpful suggestions we have received. The judgments in this report are entirely our own and we have sole responsibility for any errors of omission or commission herein. The team has benefited enormously from the information and insights that so many have shared with us. other justice sector institutions.Judiciary. the private sector. 6 . We are especially indebted to Debra Kertzman. as well as international development partners. Summary records of the major public consultations conducted in Manila and Cebu in December 2007 are at Annex 7. We have tried our best to synthesize. and civil society. consolidate. 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. Senior Financial Sector Specialist of the Asian Development Bank.
Freedom in the World. See Sison.supremecourt.freedomhouse.mbc. July 2000. Maria Lourdes.ide. Carmelo. Section 15(1).jp/English/Publish/Als/pdf/05. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 7 . Sherwood. Freedom House groups countries into three broad categories in this annual survey of political rights and civil liberties: free. and Joseph J. http://www.kreative. partly free. suppressing democratic institutions in the process.gov. Ibid.net/ipbenefits/tucson/isnie2004/ISNIE2004.ph/economic_research/mbcrr/no89/default. and Myrna Feliciano. Sereno. All these reports of Transparency International are at www. Articles III. Ibid. “Philippine Judicial Reforms. 1987-2000. 2001 (manuscript on file in CPRM). Sections 5. Improving the Investment Climate. http://www.apjr-sc-phil.” International Society for New Institutional Economics.apjr.gov. MBC Research Report No. www. Ibid.go. Institute of Developing Economies. 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.Notes to Chapter I 1 See Pangalangan.org. Marcos. May 2007. See the APJR website at http://www. Section 3.pdf. See the Makati Business Club commentary on the 2007 World Bank report.” Supreme Court of the Philippines. http://www. 89. See also Chapter III and Annex 5 of this report. Burdensome Business. pages 1-5. Sections 10. 11. www. http://www. See also National Integrity Systems.ph/aboutphil. www.htm. XI and XIII. Ibid. Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Emmanuel de Dios. 2006. Capuno. “Judicial Performance: Its Economic Impact in Seven Countries. 6. 2006 and 2007. Constitution.” University of the Philippines.org. supra.. The Philippine Judicial System. March 2001. Country Study Report: Philippines. and not free. “Justice and the Cost of Doing Business: The Philippines.doingbusiness. Editor. 11. 1987.org/pub-reports. Tokyo. Section 8. Section 2. elected in 1965. for a brief outline of the history of the Philippine Judicial System.transparency. Robert M.htm. Freedom House. Section 5. Ibid.com.ph. Raul. Section 1. Ibid.org. 2004. note 2. Ibid. Article VIII.
Philip.worldbank.pdf. December 2006.extrajudicialexecutions. and Mary Anastasia O’Grady. Timothy. The analysis of the Philippines is at http://www.freetheworld.p df.net/verbatim/philip-alston-statement02222007. Hong Kong.inquirer. http://www. 737.mbc. the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial. Economic. Global Competitiveness Index rankings and 2006-2007 comparisons.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2007/gcr2007_rankings. 2007. see Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008.com. Alston. Kim R. Summary. 20 21 22 23 24 8 . Heritage Foundation. For the 2006 and 2007 Global Competitiveness rankings. Civil. http://www.com/2007/EFW_Complete_Publication_2007.pdf.heritage. November 2007.” in Human Rights Report – 2006: The State of Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations. http://www. http://info. This report cites weak enforcement of existing laws and impunity of elites as factors that create a “difference between theory and reality. Washington.” http://www. 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. World Economic Forum. 2007 Index of Economic Freedom: The Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity. Social and Cultural Rights. www. Kane. See also the final report of the Special Rapporteur.org/index/country. 29 August 2007. in a statement made while visiting the Philippines in February 2007.org/governance/wgi2007. For example. Political.ph/economic_research/survey-gcr.org/reports/A_HRC_8_Philippines_Advance_Edited. The Asian Human Rights Commission.weforum.pdf. Table 4. Holmes.ahrchk.” 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.pdf.net/hrreport/2006/AHRC2006HRReport.19 See statement of Makati Business Club on the 2002 ranking. No. 2007. http://material. or Arbitrary Executions. Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights. Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial. Asian Intelligence: An Independent Fortnightly Report on Asian Business and Politics.cfm?id=Philippines.
and some 2. Likewise. However. These include 56 Shari’a circuit and district courts in the Autonomous Regions in Muslim Mindanao. the description seeks to capture its role. and prescribe binding regulations and rules of evidence and procedure. If the Philippines is to adopt a justice sector strategy. and program results. defense. 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. Overview The Philippine Judiciary includes the Supreme Court.166 lower courts located throughout the country. alternative dispute resolution systems. reflecting the nature of the organization or activity and the traditions and practices of the society. either by appeal or by petition alleging a grave abuse of discretion. an effective network of such institutions provides an orderly framework conducive to liberty. The Philippine Justice System The essential functions of any justice system are the resolution of disputes. security. These judgments are ultimately pragmatic ones. In addition. the entities historically identified as being within the “other pillars” of criminal justice (prosecution. 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. three collegiate (with multi-judge panels) higher courts. quasi-judicial administrative bodies. These administrative adjudications are usually regarded as a part of the justice system. and well being in which accepted rules are fairly and equally applied. 2 Alternative dispute resolution systems 9 . corrections and rehabilitation). The description of the justice system is followed by a discussion of the challenges that the system faces. the Philippine Judiciary. the network that comprises the justice system necessarily embraces a far more extensive and diverse array of organizational actors and activities. human resources. exercise judicial review. For each group of organizations. not all of which could reasonably be considered to be a part of the administration of justice. and legal clinics). and other organizations with a primary focus on the administration of justice (the organized bar. law enforcement. procedures. Description of the Justice System 1. university law schools. with its constitutional mandate to render decisions. 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. In a free society. the legislative branch of government is generally not considered a part of the justice system. its implementation will be a dynamic process in which decisions will be needed continually in the interests of policy coherence. 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. and performance. The following description of the Philippine justice system examines the courts.II. workload. But the enactment of legislation creating courts or prescribing the elements of a crime obviously involves the justice system in a very direct way. structure. Some activities are multi-sectoral and some organizations perform a range of functions. 1 To be sure. management efficiency. budget. A. the protection of rights. plays a central role. and the enforcement of obligations. For example. justice-oriented civil society organizations.
007.454.473 4.868. Of the aggregate total budget.580 11. and the Bureau of Corrections in the Department of Justice.355. Prosecutions are the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service. and rehabilitation agencies.927 534. The courts provide lawyers to indigent litigants and exempt them from court fees and charges. FUNCTION 10 . collectively known as the system’s “other pillars. corrections. and arbitration by government agencies.985 75.474 10. conciliation.955.72 100.899 99. district and municipal jails.679. although some of them derive supplemental resources from fees for services and contributions from local governments.” 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.058 858.1 NATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR KEY JUSTICE SECTOR AGENCIES.902 Other 52.072 Prosecution 2.000 barangays and through customary procedures. The 2007 budget demonstrates that the justice system consumes about 4% of total national government expenditures.include court-annexed mediation. and a number of non-governmental organizations also provide free legal services and are involved in legal education.697 101. augmented by the Office of the Ombudsman with respect to certain corruption cases. Many other government and private institutions also provide legal services to those in need.771 Quasi-judicial Bodies 424.817 Grand Total 51.650 90.000 207. facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. and the economic life of some 12 million indigenous people and cultural minorities.1).642. several other Philippine law schools.541 43. 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAY Law Enforcement 37.116. cultural integrity. The Department of Social Welfare and Development. Table II.267 2. and police detention cells. the University of the Philippines. Board of Pardons and Parole. Public sector justice institutions are financed primarily by the national government. Public defense is primarily the job of the Public Attorney’s Office. 2007 Note: Entries include expenditures related to administration of justice that are identifiable in the GAA.789 284.050 597.939 Public Defense and Legal Aid 869.647.301 % of total 82. in partnership with law enforcement and corrections institutions.640 Courts 7.389.832 79.4 The criminal justice system includes law enforcement. prosecution. The Public Attorney’s Office is the primary institution for the provision of legal assistance for the poor.418 1. maintains ten centers for the rehabilitation of children and youth.466.426 9. citizen monitoring of judicial appointments. public defense. and commercial mediation and arbitration centers. more than 80% goes to salaries. city. 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.091.160 Corrections 2. The corrections system includes both national and local institutions: the Parole and Probation Administration.022 4.952 2. provincial. and other aspects of the administration of justice.366.53 2.734.625 982. the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology in the Department of the Interior and Local Government.75 14.349. to resolve disputes relating to ancestral lands.573 1. Several quasi-judicial agencies provide free legal assistance to poor individuals involved in disputes before those agencies.636 162. mediation.112 8. Community justice and indigenous justice systems are integrated into the formal system through the Barangay Justice System3 in each of the country’s approximately 42.616 61. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines.00 Source: General Appropriations Act (GAA).
6 0 61.007. 2007 TOTAL GOVERNMENT 356.0 JUSTICE SYSTEM 51. 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. power to pardon convicted individuals 3. are provided by law.816.6 9. legislative and judicial branches of government.5 The Judiciary operates within a constitutional structure of checks and balances among the executive. can override presidential veto 2. power of judicial review to rule on validity of laws 1.101.679.7 0 100. power of judicial review to rule on presidential actions LEGISLATIVE (Congress) 1.5 107. appointment of justices and judges 2.955. Figure II. power to grant amnesty JUDICIAL (Courts) 1. Table II.9 100.7 652.0 2. party leader 1. power to veto laws 2. consistent with the Constitution. can impeach and remove members of the Supreme Court 3.5 0.526. can impeach and remove the President 1. can create lower courts 2. 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.126.0 % OF TOTAL 31.2 1.1 SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES EXECUTIVE (President) 1.7 57.5 1.5 2.9 9. Supreme Court of the Philippines 11 .894. can prescribe statutory qualifications of lower court judges Source: Program Management Office.These allocations among personal services.339.3 % OF TOTAL 82.1 8. The Courts The Philippine Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.8 14.2). GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE SYSTEM (Amounts in Millions PhP) EXPENSE CLASSS Personal Services MOOE Capital Outlay Net Lending Total Source: BESF.2 COMPARISON OF 2007 BUDGET STRUCTURES.642. 6 Specific grants of jurisdiction to the various courts. as indicated in Figure II-1 below.
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
as well as a retired Supreme Court Justice.00 37. The Clerk of the Supreme Court serves as the Commission’s Secretary. Since December 2004.19 While members of the Supreme Court can be removed only by impeachment. Under the Constitution. Candidates from outside the Judiciary are normally recruited for the appellate courts. Source: Office of the Court Administrator.25 20.004 VACANT 0 4 0 0 152 16 33 58 173 5 19 460 VACANCY RATE (%) 0.271 FILLED 15 65 15 6 807 66 179 329 297 0 32 2. 17 together with a recruiting effort by the Judicial and Bar Council. vacancies have steadily declined to about 20% in September 2007.21 The Academy is headed by a board of trustees chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 16 .900 (12.81 100.20 Judicial training is the responsibility of the Philippine Judicial Academy.16 Judges initially appointed to the lower courts can be promoted to fill vacancies in more senior judicial positions. The Council has prescribed procedures and criteria to guide the recruitment. Justices and judges hold office during good behavior until age 70 or until incapacitated. However. including by removal from office. the total number of judicial vacancies (460 of 2.51 15.7 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 2.57 14. Vacancies occur often in localities where there are few candidates for judicial appointment. Table II.85 19. 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.99 36. 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. when the vacancy rate exceeded 30%.00 0. and the private sector.00 15.00 5.271 positions) remains substantial and the shortage of judges is especially serious in the ranks of the lowest tier of courts (Table II.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. Approximately 3.18 Where there are fewer than three candidates the position remains vacant. Career development for non-adjudicative personnel is not systematized and court employees are only rarely selected for judicial appointments. academia.7).regular members representing the organized bar.26 * Five Regional Trial Court judges currently serve simultaneously as Shari’a District Court judges.2%) of non-judicial staff positions were vacant at the end of 2006. Judicial and Bar Council.80 0. evaluation and selection of judicial nominees. Vacancies in judicial positions have been a serious problem. Supreme Court. each judicial appointment must be made from a list of at least three nominees. established in 1996. the Supreme Court has the authority to discipline judges of lower courts.
804 In addition to Judicial Academy programs. The Supreme Court adopted a new code of judicial conduct in 2004. It also has a rich content of courses on specific themes. and produces a number of educational publications. adopted a separate code of conduct for non-adjudicative personnel. 093 2. 751 233 146 66 38 2. It conducts a regular program of courses. has developed a number of electronic learning modules.Court.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. Those judges with internet access can use the Supreme Court’s on-line e-library. also in 2004. Appellate Court b. each headed by a recognized expert. including a pre-judicature program for aspirants to judicial appointment.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. and seminars for judges and other court personnel. all judges receive periodic CDs with recent decisions and other materials. The Academy has 14 academic departments in various fields of legal scholarship. the Supreme Court has distributed benchbooks and manuals to lower court judges and disseminates to judges updates of jurisprudence. The judicial disciplinary system has been criticized.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. courses for quasijudicial agencies. 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. judicial career enhancement programs. The Chancellor is a highly respected retired Supreme Court Justice. 836 97 73 693 3.8 PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COURSES AND PARTICIPATION. 22 The Philippine Judicial Academy provides training on ethics. 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. JURIS d. 278 113 69 1. and. Court-Annexed c. on the one hand. 775 191 145 137 600 15 3. for failing to protect 17 .5 / 4 0. Table II.
”26 Pursuant to that broad mandate. A number of lower court judges who have received these awards have been selected for promotion. such as the maintenance of Court records. financial management. as the site for a pilot test of this new system. some basic features of the rules are summarized here. 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. and shall not diminish. and budget management services. human resources management. The Court has selected Region 7.judges from harassment by aggressive lawyers and litigants. Civil cases are initiated by the filing of a complaint with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction and payment of related fees. increase. If the case is not settled in mediation. it has been criticized for failing to deal firmly and transparently with serious misconduct in the Judiciary. 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.24 The Clerk of Court provides adjudication support services. 25 Detailed planning and pilot projects toward this end are ongoing. In 2004.a of this chapter. d. However.4. such as the judicial excellence awards. the Supreme Court uses positive incentives to improve performance. in the framework of the Action Program for Judicial Reform.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 Supreme Court approved revised rules of civil procedure in 1997 and revised rules of criminal procedure in 2000. Most civil cases are eligible for court-annexed mediation under an innovation of recent years. or modify substantive rights. the Clerk of Court and the Court Administrator. but has yet to commence operation. described below in section A. e. such as procurement. The Court Administrator assists in the oversight and in the direct implementation of the administrative and financial operations of the lower courts. it proceeds to a pre-trial stage in which the parties may engage in exchanges of 18 . However. The court sheriff then serves on the defendant a summons with the complaint. The defendant is obliged to respond with an answer or motion to dismiss within a set period. The Court Administrator oversees a centralized system of procurement. as well as internal managerial support for the Supreme Court. and human resources for more than 2. 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.23 The Chief Justice is the chief executive officer of the Philippine courts. On the other hand. In addition to imposing sanctions for misconduct. progress has been slow in building the necessary implementation capacity. the Supreme Court approved a new system in which core administrative and financial management functions are to be performed by regional court administrative offices.000 courts throughout the country and associated administrative offices. which has 146 lower courts. 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. He is assisted in the performance of his executive duties by a number of Supreme Court committees and by two principal officials. The test program was formally inaugurated in December 2007.
consider motions for summary disposition.information and the court may receive evidence. malicious and oppressive prosecution. but involves the scheduling of several sessions to hear testimony and receive other evidence over a period of weeks or months. Postponements are common. Normally. The Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. the trial is not completed on consecutive 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. 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. once commenced. This may include settlement of civil liability. and schedule for the trial. this stage of the criminal procedure is believed to be a source of considerable delay. Some judges have expressed concern about the volume of these issuances and the difficulty of keeping pace with the flow of authoritative guidance. This concern is alleviated to some extent in the case of minor offenses by the existence of summary procedures. determinations of the admissibility of evidence. 31 In addition. numerous grounds for postponement and continuance exist. contributing to congestion of court dockets and chronic delay in the resolution of civil cases.” However. The Rules of Court provide for the trial. Once probable cause is found to exist and charges are filed in the appropriate court.” 29 Prosecutors make probable cause determinations as a basis for deciding whether to file charges. in total. the judicial process in a criminal case begins with the arraignment and entry of a plea. which are also available for civil cases with minimal amounts in controversy. If the accused pleads not guilty a pretrial phase is initiated. and the vast majority of criminal cases that proceed to trial do not result in conviction. 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. the Court issues each year hundreds of administrative circulars and memoranda on various aspects of judicial administration. As provided in the Constitution.32 19 . However. to “continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated. 493) prescribes time limits for pre-trial and trial phases of criminal proceedings that. The administrative process followed is discussed below in the description of the prosecution function. from the trouble. expense and anxiety of a public trial. Upon the conclusion of these stages. stipulations of fact. The 12-month period includes an allowance of 180 days for the trial alone.30 The Supreme Court also prescribes special rules for specific courts such as the Regional Trial Courts designated as family courts. the case proceeds to trial and decision. 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. once all proceedings are completed the judge must render a decision within 90 days.28 Enforcement requires a writ of execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. and to protect an accused person from open and public accusation of crime. The purpose of the preliminary investigation is to “secure the innocent against hasty. would require the lower courts to complete the process in less than 12 months. and to protect the state from useless and expensive trials. These brief descriptions of civil and criminal procedure can be found on the Supreme Court website. Most criminal defendants are unable to post bail. In practice.
The largest segment of the backlog in the first instance courts is made up of criminal prosecutions for bounced checks. which are handled under essentially the same procedures as more complex criminal cases.260 Source: Office of the Court Administrator.f. Table II.078 % DISTRIBUTION 71.033 190.41 107. with about 14% civil and 15% a variety of other types (Table II.978 49.321 488.242 53.765 TOTAL 988.579 478.765 1. More recently. Table II. 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.733 2006 299. Time limits prescribed in the Philippine Constitution and in legislation have encouraged the timely movement of cases through the courts.9 CASE INFLOWS BY TYPE OF CASE.770 70.383. 2004-2006 PENDING TOTAL INFLOW ON 1 JAN CASELOAD 2004 751.95 40.325 449. The Court of Appeals required an average of 2.9).855 479.644 61. Workload and Performance In recent years.188.019 1.229. Supreme Court of the Philippines The timely disposition of cases has been a major challenge for the courts.483 PENDING ON 31 DEC 738.055 1. total caseloads were increasing each year as the volume of cases entering the system was higher than the volume of cases leaving the system. shortages of judicial and non-adjudicative personnel (including prosecutors and public defenders).058 2006 709.10). inadequate information management systems.35 These cases are the result of 1979 legislation which made a 20 .41 CLEARANCE RATE (%) 39.6 years for decision.124. the delays persist.28 39.325 709. That is.900 62. Office of Court Administrator.6 years to decide cases.598 2005 738.879 414.44 13. time consuming procedures. Supreme Court Note: Excludes Supreme Court YEAR OUTFLOW 491.” the volume of cases disposed of as a percentage of total caseload. the “disposition rate” was negative.495 678.563 445. Until recently.62 Too many cases remain undecided for too long.777 DISPOSITION RATE (%) 102. About 71% of cases filed are criminal. the total number of cases disposed of has been declining despite the increase in the number of available judges as vacancies have been filled. Cases filed in the Sandiganbayan required on average a remarkable 6. cases have flowed into the Philippine courts at an annual rate of about 450. caseloads have slightly declined because inflows have diminished and the courts are disposing of more cases than are being filed each year.990 174.81 14.34 Nevertheless.10 CASELOAD. 2004-2006 TYPE OF CASE Criminal Cases Ordinary Civil Cases Other Cases TOTAL 2004 351. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES.495 414.489 66.580 2005 336.75 100 Source: CAMIS. As of 2003. The improved disposition rate has not resulted in significant improvement in the “clearance rate. However.273 478. and the low clearance rate means that backlogs remain high (Table II.77 106.733 1. including excessive judicial tolerance for delaying tactics. ALL COURTS.000. 33 Knowledgeable observers attribute these delays to a combination of factors. criminal and civil cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court remained in the court system for an average of five years before decision.
There is considerable variation in the rate of case disposition and case clearance among the different courts.27.226 34 487 450.05 117.158 1. Another reason is the statistical practice of counting multiple charges against a single defendant as multiple cases.99 96.545 242. and the Court of Tax Appeals. the transition from manual to automated statistical reporting and from stand-alone to networked systems for case management remains a challenge. 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. the impact of this criminal process falls increasingly upon the poor.085 860 CASE INFLOWS 4. CLEARANCE RATE (%) 41.760 114.538 1.14 53. This is the disposition of about one-third of the criminal cases filed.410 Courts First Level Courts 342.992 825 349. Supreme Court A large number of cases are “archived” (moved to inactive status) when there is no action for a period of six months.550 14. 2006 TOTAL TOTAL ARCHIVAL DISPOSED ARCHIVED RATE (%) Criminal 321.608 206.35 107.509 1.382 306.12 ARCHIVAL RATES.964 34.26 39.96 44.224 Source: Office of the Court Administrator. a number of judges in lower courts have developed stand-alone case information systems as management tools for their own courts. All courts submit monthly paper reports to the Office of the Court Administrator.72 121. This system can generate a range of statistical reports.826 Shari’a District 18 45 63 Courts Shari’a Circuit 250 545 795 Courts Total/Average 715686 419.414 20.60 28. As in the case of administrative and financial management. where they are integrated into a computer-assisted database.212 35.93 111.33 119.066 120.534 7.58 20. has had a number of unintended negative results by shifting to the state a larger part of the cost of collecting private debts. Supreme Court (Excludes Court of Appeals and Supreme Court) CASE TYPE Courts rely primarily on manual systems for caseflow management.505 2.600 29 308 685. intended to assure more effective enforcement of debts.11 CASELOAD. 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.person criminally responsible for debts owing as a consequence of a check that is not paid upon presentation to the bank. As the use of checks declines.11).50 41.218 548. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES BY COURT. This change in the law.582 28.521 2.50 Ordinary Civil 64.39 34. Table II.984 424 292 TOTAL CASELOAD 10.191 DISPOSITION RATE (%) 95.191 22. This large percentage is explained in part by the inclusion of cases in which the defendant was never apprehended.257 536.773 11.96 61. Additional pilots are planned for the Court of Appeals.10 Source: CAMIS.46 75. 21 .135.033 PENDING 31/12/06 6.347 517 327 187.445 4.836 4. Also.861 1. thus tending to inflate the number of cases recorded.152 CASE OUTFLOWS 4.28 TOTAL/AVERAGE 429. 2006 COURT LEVEL PENDING 31/12/05 6.64 Supreme Court Court of Appeals Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals Regional Trial 341.153 195. Table II. Office of the Court Administrator.04 Other cases 42.
The Administrative Code of 1987 prescribes general rules of procedure for the performance of quasi-judicial functions. most agencies prescribe supplemental rules to govern their own proceedings. its otherwise final decisions may be reviewed by the head of the department in which the agency is located. As exceptions.) 22 .37 There are also independent agencies with quasi-judicial powers. The courts are obliged to take judicial notice of agency rules that comply with these requirements.3. 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. finality of administrative decisions. and are attached to executive departments for policy coordination. 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. for example. The latter has only 178 authorized positions. The staffs of the quasi-judicial agencies are likewise quite modest. filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center. These include three independent constitutional commissions. Consistent with the pattern elsewhere in the justice sector. accepting their findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence. Appeals from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies do not appear to be a major part of the caseload of the Court of Appeals. unless otherwise required by law. who often leave to seek better paying positions as prosecutors or judges. They are obliged to allow the parties to present evidence. and maintained in an agency register that is open to public inspection. are the National Labor Relations Commission and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.39 Quasi-judicial agencies are held to a standard that their findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. powers of subpoena. decisions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Agency rules must be published. Budgets and Human Resources The budgets of the principal quasi-judicial agencies are not substantial. such as the constitutionally based Office of the Ombudsman and the statutory National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. rules of evidence. the Commission on Elections.13). internal appeals within the agency. The two most prolific agencies.38 These include standards for notice and hearing. and the Commission on Audit. the Civil Service Commission. and to identify in their decisions the reasons for their conclusions. there is high turnover by adjudicators. personal services consume the greatest part of the budget in most cases. For an agency so established. many of which are vacant.40 The courts generally treat the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies with respect. to reach their decisions on the basis of the evidence presented. with very small amounts dedicated to capital investment (Table II. However. boards or councils. most of the quasi-judicial agencies are under the administrative supervision of the President.36 Final decisions of the quasi-judicial agencies are rendered primarily by collective bodies such as commissions. Quasi-Judicial Agencies a. (Reportedly. As authorized by the Administrative Code. Once final. The former has 15 commissioners and 105 arbitrators deployed in its regional branches. b. decisions of most quasi-judicial agencies can be appealed only to the Court of Appeals. and judicial review. protection of rights to due process of law.
037 28. 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAYS -National Conciliation and Mediation Board 52.707 87.869 15.867 36.43 43.764 14.859 .285 32. 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.79 23.Table II. the National Labor Relations Commission maintained an average disposition rate of almost 87% and an average clearance rate of 27% (Table II. Table II.551 4.794 0 27.277 13.064 .348 83.075 543 0 14.919 33.041 10.306 20.720 16.79 2002 10.795 28.707 22.077 26.58 AVERAGE 86.459 14.691 24.60 Source: Accomplishment Report.72 100.73 27.415 CASE INFLOW 22.038 34.16 2003 11.77 2006 11.865 16.89 CLEARANCE RATE (in %) 57.135 31.454 .740 10.50 27.212 15.980 9. 2000-2006 YEAR PENDING BEGINNING YEAR 19.14 CASELOAD.86 47. 2000-2006 YEAR PENDING BEGINNING YEAR 13.80 49.826 18.826 18.62 24.113 30. Table II.06 99.400 369.15 CASELOAD. The disposition and clearance rates of the two most prolific agencies approximate the productivity of the courts.077 84.Civil Service Commission 12.509 3. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.146 37.76 26.59 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 AVERAGE Source: DARAB Secretariat During the same period.378 518 0 12. Workloads and Performance With their small budgets and workforces the quasi-judicial agencies dispose of a substantial volume of disputes.448 157.14).185 28.82 96.76 88.10 102.347 35.388 TOTAL CASELOAD 36.995 CASE INFLOW TOTAL CASELOAD CASE OUTFLOW PENDING YEAR END DISPOSITION RATE (in %) CLEARANCE RATE (in %) 31.185 87.352 17.483 95.13 AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS OF SELECTED QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES.15).37 26.847 38. 2006.622 20.995 91.834 75.820 8.704 .82 110.415 15.046 40.25 25.Energy Regulatory Commission 8.Commission on Elections 22.050 575.650 102.023 30.998 20. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD.990 1.348 24.329 DISPOSITION RATE (in %) 92.Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board 10.270 15.618 TOTAL 407.352 17.366 18.374 5.865 16.850 44.763 1.190 24.474 PENDING YEAR END 15.72 2000 11.533 17.834 28.Department of Agrarian Reform 14.592 .085 95.798 10.28 51.195 0 13.505 16.238 Source: GAA 2007 (includes appropriations for quasi-judicial functions that are identifiable in the GAA) AGENCY c.329 9.919 14.803 CASE OUTFLOW 21.016 17.474 22.366 18.629 31.54 46.032 9.Philippine Overseas Welfare Administration 16.93 107.051 .33 49. Specifically.030 17.533 17.29 2001 10.896 .87 50. National Labor Relations Commission (includes decisions and orders of the NLRC and all Regional Adjudication Boards 23 .70 2004 11.074 0 10.382 35.88 2005 9.424 8.558 28.334 18.National Labor Relations Commission 269.590 26.267 9.
These members. Currently there are units in all of the country’s judicial regions. payment of fees of mediators and PMC personnel. The PMC is responsible for setting up mediation centers in courthouses and other convenient locations throughout the country.44 The Supreme Court designated its training arm. 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. Most civil cases are subject to the court-annexed mediation procedure. And of the cases that were referred to mediation. While coverage is expanding.”42 The Executive Branch has long encouraged government agencies to seek to resolve disputes without resort to litigation. 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. including its powers. the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA).46 The collected amount forms part of a special Mediation Fund intended to ensure the financial sustainability of court-annexed mediation services. all experts in the field of alternative dispute resolution. PHILJA uses the Mediation Fund for setting up and operating PMC units. Court-Annexed Mediation In 2001. the Supreme Court amended the Rules of Court to authorize the collection of mediation fees from litigants. The Civil Code has long recognized compromise and arbitration as modes of settling disputes. thereby diminishing the potential benefits of the mediation procedure. The Supreme Court is developing an administrative order that will outline the structure of the PMC. 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 2006.49. collecting statistics. to manage courtannexed mediation and established the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) within PHILJA to give operational effect to the mediation system.48 With the creation of more PMC units providing mediation services. 24 . 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. some judges have been reluctant to refer cases to mediation and some litigants have declined to participate in this voluntary system. the Supreme Court established a system of court-annexed mediation. are assisted by PHILJA staff members who coordinate with personnel of the PMC units in overseeing mediation operations. functions. training. 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. less than half actually went through the entire mediation process. and staffing requirements In 2004. and advocacy and promotion of mediation and other modes of alternative dispute resolution. 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. seminars. Members of PHILJA’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee45 provide general management for the PMC. and monitoring schedules of mediators.47 The Mediation Fund has so far supported the establishment of an additional 20 PMC units.43 a. the number of cases referred to mediation by judges is still only a small percentage of the cases that are eligible.16). workshops and internships for mediators.4.41 The Supreme Court has encouraged alternative dispute resolution as the “wave of the future. serving a total of 731 courts. On the other hand.
are specifically exempted from BJS.000 barangays throughout the country.000 291 141 578 64 1. 52 It now governs the establishment. This tradition received formal recognition in 1978 when Presidential Decree No. mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes between residents of the same municipal unit. two out of three were satisfied with courtannexed mediation and the performance of accredited mediators. Table II.The 2005/6 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary conducted by the Social Weather Stations50 found that among judges with PMC units in their areas.665 2. administration and operation of dispute resolution in each of some 42. 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 60.946 3.197 178 113 42. Certain kinds of cases.480 649 339 657 139 1. 1508 established the Barangay Justice System (BJS).630 1.206 2. the Supreme Court authorized51 and the Philippine Mediation Center launched in August 2005 a program of mediation in the Court of Appeals.245 2. disputes involving real property located in different cities unless both parties agree to BJS jurisdiction cases involving the Agrarian Reform Law 25 . b.085 795 1.235 203 3. offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5.16 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION.708 4.678 NOT SETTLED 7.411 117 106 29.868 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. This community justice system was substantially revised by a chapter of the Local Government Code in 1991 known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.252 592 275 84.000.636 MEDIATED 29. however.828 1.378 786 61 7 12.546 SETTLED 21.960 366 4.947 615 1.322 1. Preliminary indications are that few litigants in the Court of Appeals are making use of this procedure. These include: cases brought by or against the government or an instrumentality thereof and or public officers or employees.992 4.269 2.480 940 480 1. Barangay Justice System There is a time honored tradition of amicably settling disputes among family and barangay members at the local level. Significantly. The BJS uses conciliation. the study revealed that satisfaction was greater among judges with heavier caseloads.
The BJS enjoys broad acceptance because the parties tend to know and respect the Barangay Captain and the persons constituting the Lupon. Legal advice may be provided by the provincial legal officer or prosecutor or municipal legal officer. The latter Department provides training for BJS operators and receives reports from the barangays on their caseloads. 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.55 However.56 These figures 26 . He is assisted by a Lupon.cases involving labor disputes. negotiator. A complainant can just drop by the house of the Barangay Captain to submit a complaint. In this informal and consensual system. an average of about 150. selected by lot from Lupon members. and actions to annul judgment on a compromise. the operation of the BJS is headed by the Barangay Chairman. if so. been previously submitted to the BJS and. the Barangay Captain is capable of taking on various roles – such as a fact-finder. mediator. In recent years the number has grown to about double that historical average (Table II. in fact. who live in the same barangay. The implementing rules provide that unless repudiated in court within ten days. as it may be otherwise applicable in a given case. local governments are under the administrative supervision of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. The percentage of mediated cases that were settled has remained consistently high. an elected official. 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.17). Minors or incompetents may be assisted or represented by their next of kin who are not lawyers. However. which operates without cost to the parties. 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. settlements under BJS generally have the full force and effect of a final court judgment. 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. and even guidance counselor to the disputants – thus facilitating dispute settlement. On the other hand. the BJS is inextricably woven within the political dynamics in the barangay. the BJS settled more than 4 million cases from 1980 to 2005. The Department of Justice issues rules and regulations defining operating policies and processes to guide the BJS. he refers the matter to a Pangkat.000 cases per year. Thus.54 a three-person conciliation commission selected by the disputants or. if they do not agree. Also. the process is informal and convenient. 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. The BJS prohibits the participation of lawyers to assist or represent disputants. whether a settlement was reached. The composition of the Lupon changes every three years with the election of the Barangay Chairman.53 10-20 persons of known integrity and impartiality that he selects from the community after consultation with the populace. broker. some problems remain in assuring that the courts are able to determine whether or not cases presented to them have. In each barangay. facilitator. Based on the records of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. If the Barangay Chairman is unable to resolve a case filed under the BJS through mediation or arbitration.
social justice and human rights and cultural integrity.00 75.78 86. http://www. NCIP hearing officers can consider these issues only after remedies under customary laws have been 27 . c. 547 84.asp. enforcement. but who are in need of justice services. The law provides that if a dispute involves ICCs/IPs. 59 If parties belong to the same ethno-linguistic group. 066 2001 158. which was vested with adjudicatory powers. 271 2002 137. 071 CASES SETTLED 309.show that the Barangay Justice System has been a significant institution for the resolution of disputes and the timely administration of justice. and interpretation of the IPRA. 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. 874 132. 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. conflict resolution institutions. 156 285. 605 60. the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the group’s settlement procedure. 905 57. 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.gov. selfgovernance and empowerment. 117 342. 448 1999 143. 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. 58 The IPRA expressly recognizes that ICCs/IPs have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems.60 77. Indigenous peoples have maintained their parallel justice systems through modern history. 407 259. 280 353.nscb. 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. 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. 855 40. 121 319. 781 154. 657 292. 368 394. Thus. But if the parties come from different ethno-linguistic groups. while the BJS surely disposes of some cases that otherwise would add to workload of the courts. 342 227. the parties may agree on the applicable procedures. and other customary laws and practices within their communities. 772 SETTLEMENT RATE (%) 74.66 76. 298 50. 912 2000 159.77 82. The large number of cases settled through the BJS speaks for itself. peace building processes. 998 Source: National Statistical Coordination Board. 521 129. 768 135. Indigenous Justice Systems Customary law and justice systems are recognized under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). 856 305. 148 114.80 2005 2004 124. if none exist.17 DISPUTES SETTLED IN THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM. 775 124.ph/stats/statdev/2006/ruleoflaw/Chapter_Rule_of_Law.53 85. 069 345. 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. customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute. 575 273. Table 11. 847 56. IPRA created the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). the dispute shall be settled in accordance with established procedures governing intertribal disputes. 029 302. On a formal level. 947 2003 179. 1999-2005 NUMBER OF MEDIATED CASES YEAR CRIMINAL CIVIL OTHERS TOTAL MEDIATED CASES 418.
Among other things. conciliation. An NCIP final decision. at the request of a party. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the National Labor Relations Commission have the greatest volume of mediation and arbitration among the quasi-judicial agencies. The decision of a hearing officer is subject to review. In particular. Implementing rules have been drafted. to prescribe rules and regulations for the implementation of this legislation. chaired by the Secretary of Justice. According to the statute. like the decisions of other quasi-judicial agencies.389 requests and disposed of 16. 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. 60 The volume of cases pending in the administrative adjudication process of the Commission is quite small. and provides clear rules for judicial review. and domestic and international arbitration. it adopts the modern UNCITRAL model law for international commercial arbitration. d. the Department of Agrarian Reform launched the use of mediation in the settlement of agrarian disputes.006 requests and disposed of 5. discussed above. may be appealed to the Court of Appeals. Mediation and Arbitration Mediation and arbitration are well established procedures in the public sector.exhausted. The NCIP has an annual budget of about PhP 460 million and a total staff of 1. 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. 46 provincial offices and 108 community centers nationwide. 63 the 1953 Arbitration Act. In the mid-1990s. The Commission’s Conciliation and Mediation Center received 6. the Congressional approval process has not been completed. it will be important that the Rules of 28 . by the NCIP en banc. authorizes the establishment of an office in the Department of Justice to assure appropriate standards in the conduct of alternative dispute resolution.” 66 This new legislation establishes a comprehensive approach to alternative dispute resolution. Arbitration is addressed in the 1949 Civil Code.610 in 2006.62 The Department’s Adjudication Board received 15. 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. the older laws continue to apply. 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. This legislative framework expressly excludes court-annexed mediation and the operation of the Barangay Justice system. 64 and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. The statute called for a committee.500 employees located at its national office in Metro Manila and at 12 regional offices.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 Environment and Natural Resources soon followed. as certified by the Council of Elders or other leaders. including mediation. these rules and regulations were to be submitted to a joint oversight committee of Congress for approval before the law could be implemented. joining in a collaborative effort with a private NGO to mediate environmental and natural resources conflicts. However.474 in 2006. Pending the entry into force of the 2004 legislation. The legal basis for private mediation and arbitration is presently in transition. only a few hundred at the regional level and less than 100 at headquarters. which provides a modern framework for mediation and arbitration.
000 positions. and administered by a national commission. conduct seizures and carry out criminal investigations. highly centralized administration is a source of inefficiency. the overwhelming share of the budget allocated to law enforcement goes to salaries. and district offices and police stations.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.68 5. the number of cases received has declined – to 37 in 2004.755 . including several agencies with officers who have power to make arrests.132 4.70 The possible consolidation of some police organizations has been suggested as a way to increase efficiency and reduce administrative costs.357 39.612. established in 1996 by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry.753 39.146 166. 14 of which have been settled or decided.21 11.Philippine National Police 34.444. primarily for plain-clothes investigators. leaving only limited amounts for maintenance and other operating expenses. and 32 in 2006.18).000 of which are for uniformed personnel.128 0 255.196 845.Court reflect the provisions of the 2004 Act with respect to judicial review of arbitral awards and other resolutions of alternative dispute resolution proceedings. In the meantime.National Bureau of Investigation 400.684 634. The National Bureau of Investigation has 1.Bureau of Customs 246. civilian in character.022 .Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency 428.946 67. and almost nothing for capital investment (Table II.809 0 132. established to fulfill the constitutional mandate for a police force that is national in scope.343. Since 2003. As in other organizations in the justice sector.25 2.501 770. 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAY . the volume of commercial mediation and arbitration is quite limited.18 BUDGETS OF SELECTED NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.054.730 positions. intelligence and police relations) are allocated to the field offices. As in the case of the courts. The PNP 29 .04 100. Table II. Less than one-fourth of amounts supporting police operations in the field (investigation. when it received 38 cases. Over the decade of its existence it has entertained 33 cases.69 The Philippine National Police has more than 125. resolving 286 of them. The other major law enforcement agency is the National Bureau of Investigation. More than 95% of appropriations are centrally managed. including salaries for police in the field. about 120.396 .041 41. (Table II.465 9.005 35.017 273. The principal forum is the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center. Law Enforcement The principal law enforcement agency is the Philippines National Police (PNP). There is also a commercial on-line dispute resolution service designed for disputes involving small money claims.914.583 TOTAL 36.538 3.927. provincial.593 . 35 in 2005. From 1989 until 2004 the Commission received 426 cases.19). municipal. Other Pillars of the Criminal Justice System a. more than 30 national agencies and local government units throughout the country perform some law enforcement functions. Arbitration of construction disputes is conducted under separate legislation 67 by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. The police also receive some resources from local governments.Dept of Transportation & Communications 64.369 Distribution in percent 87. In addition.000 708.
863.002.3 26.Investigation Services Sub – total GRAND TOTAL Source: GAA.075.0 100.204.086.4 98. SUPPORT TO OPERATION . OPERATIONS .0 35.101.7 73. It also serves as a forum for appeals from disciplinary actions.647. 2007 CENTRAL OFFICES AMOUNT 1.952.6 0.185.1 82. based on length of service.285.9 17. and other law enforcement agencies is a factor bearing on the efficiency and effectiveness of the PNP. The Supreme Court has confirmed that.205.0 11.922.0 821.0 11.2 100.284.0 73.0 100. and a clean record with regard to complaints.Police Relations Services . examination.425.Integrated Transformation Program addresses this issue through a plan for gradually shifting resource management from national headquarters to the field. They advance by promotion from within.356.013.0 100.129.0 27.808.0 38.0 100.0 The national commission to which the PNP reports in accordance with the Constitution is the National Police Commission.0 130.19 DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN CENTRAL OFFICES AND POLICE STATIONS.240.0 100. the PNP needs to be responsive to local governments.2 TOTAL AMOUNT 1. Nevertheless. In addition to the Commission and the Secretary.556.0 157.Intelligence Services .7 95. technically.336.740.2 54.0 118.0 285.0 431.271.0 327.0 35. under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of that department.0 153. Administratively.0 % 90. the risk of confusion of roles among the Department of the Interior and Local Government.161.0 100.414.0 61.8 0.0 1.649. REGIONAL AND FIELD OFFICES.0 1.0 37. completion of training.0 100.0 39. therefore.096.0 36.Operations Services .501. The PNP is often called on to carry out functions for other law enforcement agencies.411.0 100. Candidates enter the PNP on the recommendation of local authorities.232.255. a limitation that results in rapid turnover and lack of continuity in leadership positions.823.579.851.8 23. the National Police Commission.2 76.Logistical Services Sub-total 3.4 99.0 0.72 Also.047.459. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2. Table II.1 46.0 35. While police salaries have increased in recent years. FIELD/REGIONAL OFFICES AMOUNT % 131.0 % 100. 2007 FUNCTION/ PROGRAM 1. Recent surveys showed that more than half of police officers live in informal housing or as squatters.3 4.0 905.0 100.229. to an entry level equivalent to that for elementary school teachers.6 1. such as the Philippine Drug Enforcement Administration.Materiel Development . 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.011.9 53.0 9.240.627. the PNP is within the Department of the Interior and Local Government and. which operate local peace and order councils that address issues such as local police staffing.0 100.075. The Commission advises the President and the Secretary and monitors performance of the PNP with respect to the entire range of police operations.211.Health Services . local government authorities. Mandatory retirement is at age 56.73 30 .8 45.0 45.8 POLICE STATIONS.0 209.126.219. coordination with other law enforcement agencies is carried out through a National Law Enforcement Coordinating Council.0 1. PNP.685. that have more limited presence in the national territory.0 1. low compensation remains an obstacle to attracting highly qualified candidates.0 1.0 103.0 471.0 55. there is no doubt about the direct authority of the National Police Commission over the PNP.
organized crime. insurance. 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. and other financial transactions.77 The Council protects against the use of the Philippines as a site for laundering the proceeds of unlawful activity. with resulting citizen uncertainty about how to proceed and police insecurity about vulnerability to criticism. the NBI maintains an extensive criminal records database and performs the function of providing clearances for individuals such as those seeking employment abroad. organizational effectiveness. who enter the ranks as police cadets. seizures. an information management and analysis staff. A National Police Academy provides basic training for all new entrants.76 The Philippine National Police. The Commission monitors banking. Its secretariat consists of a compliance and investigation staff. often in collaboration with or in support of the PDEA. refers cases of possible criminal acts for prosecution. Additional guidance is contained in a Police Operations Manual. which serves a number of organizations and offers bachelor and master-level degrees.74 Education and training are provided by the Philippine Public Safety College. which provides guidance on individual behavior. Public opinion polls reveal widespread doubts abut the commitment of the police to combat corruption. the National Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies also are involved in combating these offenses. An impressive innovation in law enforcement is the Anti-Money Laundering Council. The NBI Academy provides an intensive 16-week training program for candidates. and an administrative and financial services division. Citizen complaints of police misconduct may be filed with any local People’s Law Enforcement Board. Its credibility has been demonstrated by the removal of the Philippines from the Financial Action Task Force list of non-cooperating countries and territories. Candidates must be college graduates and senior officers must be members of the bar. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) operates within the Department of Justice.The PNP has a Code of Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards. It has had a number of successes in its brief period of existence. 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. In addition to its investigatory responsibilities. The PDEA relies upon contracted agents and also relies on the PNP for some services. and the international community. This unique entity works closely with other Philippine agencies. NBI agents are generally respected as skilled investigators who can manage major cases and complex issues such as fraud. and respect for human rights and democratic principles. NBI has been seen by some to be in need of modernization. it applies for judicial orders to freeze assets.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. 31 . and crime scene investigations. the private sector. As appropriate. and by the Directorate for Human Resources and Doctrinal Development within the PNP. Created in 1936 and modeled after the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States. It maintains 15 regional and 21 district offices. created in 2001 as a financial intelligence unit. Legislation to reorganize and modernize the agency was introduced in the Senate in June 2007. a legal evaluation staff. such as arrests. and develops educational programs. and international offenses. Public consultations on this report revealed concerns about the multiplicity of channels for brining complaints about police conduct. computer crimes.
031.076. local governments augment national government appropriations for prosecutors.210.757.002. as an integral part of the Department of Justice.670. Prosecution and Public Defense i. however.766.163.572 billion in 2007) comprises 77% of the total Department of Justice budget.0 41. Prosecution The investigation of crimes and the prosecution of alleged offenders are primarily the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service (NPS).461.604. Budgeting is centralized within the Department.0 1.79 Its authorized workforce of more than 4. 82 As in the case of the courts and the police.000 positions is divided almost equally between prosecutors and support personnel. is subject to the direction of the Secretary of that Department and has no autonomous power of decision.20 NPS APPROPRIATIONS.0 1.753. The entry-level monthly salary is PhP 23.214. The prosecution of certain corruption cases.81 The NPS budget (PhP 1.422. However.117.5 million lump sum appropriated for special allowances for prosecutors RA 9279) New prosecutors are recruited largely from recent law school graduates. Neither the NPS headquarters nor the regional offices have financial management capacities or responsibilities. 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 and state counsels under Personal Service Maintenance and Operating Capital Outlay 0 0 Total 1. The NPS. About 12% is available for maintenance and other operating expenses. These contributions may be in cash or in kind. There is an ongoing effort to update obsolete manuals for prosecutors. 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.”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. furniture or equipment necessary to make it a usable training facility.0 2005/2006 BUDGET REENACTED (RA 9336) 1. Table II. vary in amount from place to place.b.461. almost all the budget is consumed by personal services. an office provided for in the Constitution for that purpose. 32 . 2003-2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) EXPENSE CLASSIFICATION 2003/2004 BUDGET REENACTED (RA 9206) 962.0 4.0 40.0 2007 (RA 9401)* 1. program. the reality is that prosecutors are even scarcer because more than 500 prosecutor positions are vacant. but remains a vacant building without the staff. A training site has been made available to the NPS.305. is managed by a separate Office of the Ombudsman.78 That office is described separately below. Consistent with the pattern throughout the justice sector.0 40. It is headed by a Chief State Prosecutor who is appointed by the President. with only 4% for capital outlays. with most of the vacancies in the field offices. There is no systemized training program and new prosecutors learn on the job.0 *excludes PnP 121. The authorized total number of prosecutors is les than the number of lower courts.
those cases brought against senior public officials.141 positions. At the end of 2005. If these successful pilot efforts could be institutionalized and scaled up to the national level there would be obvious benefits for all concerned. up to and including to the Secretary of Justice.47 81.605 cases – an average of 164 per prosecutor – under investigation or being prosecuted in the courts. A conviction rate of less than 20% and an archived case rate of more than 30% suggest a serious problem of effectiveness. The NPS is obliged by the Rules of Criminal Procedure to conduct preliminary investigations of complaints.749 cases referred to mediation.21 DISPOSITION RATES OF REGIONAL AND FIELD PROSECUTORS OF NPS. of which 274 were vacant at the end of 2006. public defenders.28 27.22 74.21).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 obtained approval in 2006 to employ an additional 40 prosecutors and 200 investigators.81 73.83 Rather than a quick judgment to guard against obvious police abuse of citizens. The authorized workforce of the Office of Ombudsman is 1. through its Office of the Special Prosecutor. that is. A case management system is in development.26 12. and judges would be able to concentrate on more serious crimes. Pilot programs in several cities to dispose of such cases through mediation between the accused and the injured party have shown encouraging results. Of 2. the case is filed in court.98 26.39 15. even though prospects for conviction may be low.601 were successfully resolved. If probable cause is found to exist. it requested an even larger number to keep up 33 . the probable cause process has evolved into an elaborate quasi-judicial proceeding in which prosecutors maintain an arms-length relationship with law enforcement agencies. has exclusive responsibility for prosecuting corruption cases in the Sandiganbayan.29 91. A code of ethics is nearing completion. The NPS only recently established a strategic planning office. and manage caseflow. However. The Office of Ombudsman shares with the NPS the function of prosecuting lower ranking officials before the regular courts.16 85.19 96. accused parties may present evidence. monitor performance. It has introduced administrative procedures for resolving those cases. The Office also handles administrative complaints against public officials. 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. At the same time overworked prosecutors. and initial decisions may be subjected to several levels of review.76 86. 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. The Office of the Ombudsman.88 17.17 76.54 66. The organization lacks management systems and information technology to maintain communication with its field offices. Of course. In particular. Table II.64 25.29 86. in urban areas actual caseloads are much higher.Workloads are heavy and disposition rates are low (Table 11.86 91. NPS had a pending volume of 338. victims would receive expedited recourse and accused offenders would have an alternative to imprisonment. 1.
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. including about 70 vacant positions. However. However. 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. 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.1 1.87 At present. it requires a degree of autonomy. In practice.859 % OF TOTAL 45.87 68. 2005 # OF CASES 8. 2005 PARTICULARS WORKLOAD .68 100.850.04 100.132 14.Dismissed/Exonerated . That autonomy was granted in legislation enacted in 2007 specifying that the “PAO shall be an independent and autonomous office.85 51.82 5. Slightly more than half the staff is made up of attorneys.00 40. but attached to the Department of Justice…for purposes of policy and program coordination. the PAO has an authorized staff of 1. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN. the State has a duty not only to prosecute alleged offenders.27 11.Beginning year pending . 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.576 536 9. but also to defend indigent persons who are accused of committing crimes. It is noteworthy that less than 6% of the cases disposed of in 2005 resulted in the imposition of a penalty. The combination of vacancies and a low personnel ceiling have contributed to a low disposition rate and growing backlog (Table II.727 11. 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. indigent defendants make up the majority of those who are subjected to the criminal justice system.Cases reopened Total Workload DISPOSITION .Cases received during year .22).47 2. Public Defense The Constitution guarantees to every person under investigation for the commission of an offense the right to “competent and independent counsel.22 CASELOAD AND DISPOSITIONS. The PAO is administratively a part of the Department of Justice.747 18.145 454 5.”86 The Chief Public Attorney is required to have the same qualifications as the Chief State Prosecutor and can be dismissed only for cause.Prosecuted .” This includes the right of a person who cannot afford counsel to be provided with one. 34 .97 ii.Penalty Imposed .with the workload.275 853 7.Closed/Terminated Total Disposition Year End Pending Disposition Rate Source: OMB Annual Report.”85 Accordingly.
89 However.000 in 2006. depending on the gravity of the offense. and municipal jails. These appointed attorneys do not necessarily have special expertise or experience in the field of criminal justice. in practice. 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. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.Beyond its responsibilities within the criminal justice system. municipal or provincial jail. About 10% are women and 2% are minors.90 Prior to the Bureau’s creation in 1991. 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. an essential element of access to justice. It is worth noting that there is no time limit on the length of time a detainee awaiting trial may be kept in jail. The number of detainees in BJMP-managed jails has increased considerably in recent years. imprisonment of those convicted. law school legal clinics. requiring that police detention not exceed a period of 12 to 36 hours. and nongovernmental organizations provide legal defense for indigent persons accused in criminal cases as well as other kinds of legal assistance to the poor.000 in 2000. In 2006. city.6 million poor clients in a range of criminal. In addition. 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. and programs for the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into society. Therefore. The legislation creating the BJMP contemplated the buildup of capacities for humane treatment and rehabilitation of detainees. the PAO has the largest role among all the many public and private organizations that provide legal services to the poor. less than 5% of detainees are serving sentences following conviction in court. The Local Government Code also authorizes provincial governments to operate jails for detainees awaiting trial and serving sentences of three years or less. is discussed below in the section of this chapter on challenges to the justice system. However. A 2003 survey found that more than 15% of individuals 35 . The broad question of legal services for the poor. It is striking that more than 95% of the jail population has not been sentenced.100 district. That is. 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. Corrections and Rehabilitation The criminal justice system includes the common practices of incarceration of individuals charged with serious offenses. This initial confinement is subject to specific time limits in the law. Detention. c. the number of detainees grew to exceed 62. city. BJMP’s 2007 authorized staffing pattern consists of almost 7. From about 35. PAO provided assistance to some 4. more than 98% of which are for uniformed personnel. about 750 municipal jails remain under PNP control. a prisoner/guard ratio of nine prisoners to one guard. 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.000 positions. the management of these facilities was under the jurisdiction of the Philippine National Police (PNP). civil and administrative cases.88 The PAO represents a large majority of indigent defendants in criminal cases. 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.
649 355. 2006 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) AGENCY PERSONAL SERVICES 1. operates seven national penitentiaries for the incarceration of prisoners serving sentences of more than three years. In general. As in the case of jails.91 The Bureau of Corrections. 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. The Bureau also operates a juvenile training center.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 Board acts on proposals for the release of a prisoner and determines suitability of the individual for reintegration into society.94 In 1996. a prisoner/guard ratio of 3. CORRECTIONS SYSTEM. and a drug treatment and rehabilitation center created in 2002.022 TOTAL 3. an integral part of the Department of Justice.123 4.466.92 Table II. but occupancy exceeds 25.93 children can be diverted from detention facilities into non-custodial conditions.152 11. of which 60% are in custodial roles.400 640. Their capacity to foster the rehabilitation of prisoners or to protect their human rights while incarcerated is limited. and the subsequently enacted Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. Once the Board approves probation or parole.400 authorized positions. detention and correction facilities suffer from extreme congestion.0 Source: General Appropriations Act. Under Supreme Court rules on juveniles in conflict with the law. Transition from jail or prison to society is the task of the Parole and Probation Administration and the Board of Pardon and Parole. with representation from other concerned agencies and civil society. Diversion programs are supervised by local social welfare development officers.272. a review committee chaired by the Department of Justice.000 children in the Philippines.incarcerated in provincial jails waited more than five years for the final hearing in their court cases.000.737 57.23 NATIONAL EXPENDITURE. The Bureau has about 2.116 13.207 MOOE 2006 APPROPRIATIONS CAPITAL OUTLAY 1. counseling.600. These diversion programs grew out of concerns about the incarceration of an estimated 4.004. both executive agencies under the direction of the Department of Justice. A youthful offender may undertake restorative measures such as restitution.407. recommended legislation to integrate jail and prison administration and consolidate the functions of the Bureau of Corrections and the Bureau of Jail 36 .64 prisoners to one guard.267. adopted in February 2002. The capacity of the nation’s prisons is 19.939 BJMP BUCOR Pardon and Parole Parole and Probation Administration TOTAL 2.878 350. or training in lieu of entering the normal criminal justice process.091. completed in 2003. the Administration supervises the release of the individual with a view to promoting rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. Thus.114 13. The Board also makes recommendations to the President for the exercise of executive clemency. the population of facilities operated by the Bureau of Corrections is growing.850 653 0 43.806. 2007 In addition.642.186 10.996 298.015 1.620 85. community service. they lack adequate sanitation and health care.
) The IBP has reported that 99 of the 40. However. adopted in 2000. improve the administration of justice. and enable the bar to discharge its public responsibilities more efficiently. The Organized Bar There are more than 40. by virtue of their oath of office as attorneys. provides a necessary tool for assuring that reforms adopted in principle are 37 . DILG 6. In addition.Management and Penology into a new Bureau of Correctional Services in the Department of Justice. Other Organizations a. process which it may elect to apply on its own initiative.3 AGENCY JURISDICTION FOR CONFINEMENT AND CORRECTION OF OFFENDERS AGENCY • Bureau of Corrections. Congress has not acted on this recommendation.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. In particular. including five disbarments. or are serving sentence of 3 years or less • Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. 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. Through its National Committee on Legal Aid the IBP supports legal aid offices in Manila and in 83 chapters nationwide.98 While functioning as a nongovernmental professional organization. It recommended the existing program of mandatory continuing legal education for attorneys and participates in the program’s governance. it provides the principal channel for the discipline and disbarment of attorneys. and conducts its own educational activities. DOJ FACILITY • National penitentiaries. works with law schools. are members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. prisons or penal farms • District Jails • City Jails • Municipal Jails • Philippine National Police.100 The above-mentioned requirement of continuing legal education for members of the bar.95 Figure II. establishing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as a corporate body with perpetual duration.000 attorneys enrolled with the Supreme Court. (The Supreme Court has a parallel. 99 It participates in collaborative educational arrangements with the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Department of Education. who: are undergoing trial or awaiting judgment/ sentencing of courts. the IBP plays an active role in legal education. The IBP is represented on the advisory committee established by the Supreme Court for the Action Program for Judicial Reform.” 97 The resolution of the Court integrating the Bar was implemented by a Presidential decree in 1973. but seldom used. All of them. 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.
Admission to the practice of law requires that bar examination applicants show they have completed all prescribed courses at an approved law school. will soon be made operational. 1999-2006 YEAR OF EXAMINATION 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: Newspaper reports. and in 2006 the Court created a task force to facilitate creation of the Board. while improving. in prescribing reforms in the bar examination in 2004.698 3. NUMBER OF EXAMINEES 3. through which fourth year law students may represent indigent clients under the supervision of a licensed attorney. the Legal Education Board has never been constituted.108 1. b. 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.61 27.84 32. Over the past five years. prescribe curricula.659 5.349 5249 5.101 Table II. has always been low.24 PASSAGE RATE FOR BAR EXAMINATION.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.59 20. presumably on the assumption that the Board would be established.103 Unfortunately.849 4. In the absence of a functioning Legal Education Board. found necessary in 1993. Most of them are members of the Philippine Association of Law Schools. The Supreme Court.transformed into actual practice by the major users of the justice system. Under this law.71 31. an organization formed in 1967 to help raise standards of legal education.893 PERCENTAGE WHO PASSED EXAMINATION 16.526 1.187 NUMBER WHO PASSED EXAMINATION 660 979 1.89 19. This practice is recognized and encouraged by Supreme Court rule. a law school may not operate unless it is accredited by the Board. the Supreme Court remains the principal source of reforms on law school curriculum through its supervision of the bar examination. and – most important – set standards of law school accreditation and accredit law schools.106 38 .978 4. A number of law schools have internship programs and operate legal clinics. This is considered the most rigorous of professional examinations and the percentage of those who pass.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.659 1. establish a law practice internship requirement.20 30. there remains hope that this reform. this system has come to be accepted by the bar. referred the question of law school accreditation to the Legal Education Board.266 917 1.105 Law schools play an important role in the legal representation of the poor.104 Apparently. set minimum standards for law school admission.68 20. Law Schools There are about 100 law schools in the Philippines.610 6. The Philippine bar examination is administered by the Supreme Court through a Bar Examination Committee.
and otherwise take an active interest in the administration of justice. the Makati Business Club. and exercises vigilance over the performance of the justice system. resident paralegals provide a range of practical services for the benefit of disadvantaged populations.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. 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. notes 17 and 18. Together. 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. and provides legal defense to indigents. The Association conducts research. a coalition that advocates policies to advance human rights and social justice. with initial emphasis on the Supreme Court. In addition to the above-mentioned Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. the Alternative Law Groups. They also provide links to other areas of public policy related to 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. and the Philippine Association of Law Schools. The Asia Foundation and USAID supported this initiative. These include organizations that do research. Examples of Makati Business Club publications on these issues are cited in Chapter I of this report. and working with lawyers representing indigent clients. provide information to the public. offer legal advice to the poor.108 In many communities. 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. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.c. thus becoming the Judicial Appointments Watch.107 More than 20 Alternative Law Groups around the country provide free legal assistance in poor communities. provides legal education.. such as improving competitiveness and combating corruption. is known for its active engagement in public policy deliberations on issues affecting business. including providing information about the justice system. composed of more than 800 senior executives of major companies. Among business groups. these groups form Alternative Law Groups. In 2007 it agreed to expand its role and to monitor appointments to other courts. assisting with government paperwork. especially in rural areas. The Supreme Court Appointments Watch was formed in 2005 by the Transparency and Accountability Network (itself a coalition). provides legal education under the mandatory continuing legal education program. the Association of Law Students of the Philippines. the Lawyers’ League for Liberty. monitor the performance of courts and government agencies. take public positions on issues of justice policy. 39 . Inc. including judicial efficiency and integrity. but are important stakeholders in how well the system operates. The consortium has taken an active role in monitoring the process of several recent nominations to the Supreme Court.
A threshold challenge is the need to build within the justice organizations a stronger capacity for strategic planning. and Facilities As noted above. It includes many admirable features. capacity for change management is needed. authority. As a result. preparation. and transparency. (ii) high standards of independence. is highly developed and sophisticated. management systems and infrastructure tend to be inadequate. and capable people are likely to be counterproductive unless the concerned institutions and people demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence. Some of the challenges relate directly to these issues of the scope and quality of service. or why implementation has been delayed. A strong institutional capacity and good systems produce improved access and service only if implemented by capable and motivated people. and service for system-wide reform. That is. Thus the four objectives combine to provide a context of efficiency. information management. Of course. foster a culture of lawfulness. This will require improved management systems and qualified. 40 . and advance the rule of law. This will require special efforts to assure adequate communication. and transparency. values. At the same time. monitor performance. the budgets of institutions in the justice system are committed primarily to personnel costs. adherence to ethical values. and report on results. meet objectives. integrity. 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. integrity. together with some ideas about addressing them. and resources. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems. adapt to changing circumstances. 1. Readily available technology is not being put to use. 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. Efforts to improve access and service through strengthened institutions. and alignment of incentive structures with new policies and programs. described above.B. Achieving greater efficiency and productivity will be essential to the success of any future justice reform. These challenges are summarized below. However. the ultimate objective is to assure that the system provides broad access and excellent service to the public. It is important to note that none of the four objectives alone provides the basis for improved performance of the justice system. human resources development (discussed separately below). The objectives are closely interrelated. accountability. and competent human resources. 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. Business Practices. (iii) capable and motivated human resources. Weak implementation capacity appears to be one reason why well designed reform initiatives have often experienced disappointing results. competence. Procedures. Challenges to the Justice System The Philippine justice system. and a culture of results-based performance management. One aspect of this problem is the need to overcome internal resistance to changes that threaten to reallocate work. financial management. accountability. leaving little for investment in modernizing technology and equipment – or for maintenance. and (iv) broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. trained people to implement those systems.
including for operating expenses and capital investment. and protect officials who apply the rules. 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. 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. and publicized in order to reinforce and sustain a new demand for and expectation of timeliness in the administration of justice. documented. a few weeks – would not only expedite the specific cases handled under these procedures. solely for the purpose of depriving a judgment of finality and thus preventing the issuance of a writ of execution. substantially delay proceedings in courts below. The justice system needs to escape from this vicious circle into a pattern of increased productivity. even when eventually denied. Judges and other officials too often acquiesce in these delaying tactics. Another specific measure to combat delay would be stringent standards for considering interlocutory writs and appeals from orders in ongoing proceedings. the following appear to warrant further consideration. The Supreme Court has recently taken action on this issue with respect to temporary restraining orders. the benefits of delay reduction need to be monitored. Third. But there is no evident way in which the needed capacity can be built at current funding levels. with strict time limits. A number of specific approaches to delay reduction have been proposed. 112 Anecdotal evidence confirms that applications for writs under Rule 65 constitute a substantial portion of the caseload of the Court of Appeals. The imminence of a trial that will produce an immediate decision has been a powerful stimulus for settlement in other countries. the bar.A related threshold challenge is the need for adequate budgets throughout the justice sector. the rules need to diminish opportunities for delaying tactics. 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. at most. 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. 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. leading to chronic congestion and delay. 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. Among these. The most ambitious change would be continuous trials for both civil and criminal cases. sustained with adequate resources. but that few of those applications are ultimately successful. but never fully implemented. Truly continuous trials – to be conducted in a few days or. the courts. leaving inadequate sums for maintenance and investment.111 However. This makes the cost of money retained by delaying payment of a judgment debt much less than if the same 41 . Building institutional capacity involves costs. combined with a steady volume of new cases. First. A major and persistent challenge to the justice system is the slow movement of cases. Second. reward timeliness. 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. Improved capacity should be able to help increase the productivity of investment and control costs. Responding to this situation of expectations and deeply ingrained patterns of behavior could include several measures.
An important aspect is the capacity for communication through compatible systems between headquarters and field offices and between organizations that need to work together. prosecution. the strengthening of institutional capacity will undoubtedly be the subject of debate about priorities. The recent Judicial Reform 42 . 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. It improves the efficiency of all the concerned organizations and helps them to rationalize their priorities and the distribution of workload. However. Efficient case management not only helps track individual cases. public defenders. freeing valuable time of the courts. prosecutors. Their importance is increased by the large volume of cases (including substantial backlogs) that burden courts. This could be alleviated by allowing simplified. identified needs for improvement in three general areas have received considerable attention: information. Greater prosecutorial discretion would expand the space for use of mediation in cases where there is no strong public interest in prosecution. public defenders. 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. and correction and rehabilitation agencies illustrates the point. technology and facilities. rapid determinations of probable cause to guard against obvious cases of arbitrary arrest or other abuse. and the procurement and maintenance of equipment. 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). together with broad discretion to decline prosecution in cases with poor prospects for conviction. It is important to distinguish between information management and automation. police and others. and what business processes should be linked among institutions. and the implementation of reforms. Computerized systems need to reflect decisions already made on what information should be collected and shared. administrative. 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.amount were borrowed from a bank. 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. 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. courts. One frequently raised example is the large volume of bouncing check cases. and law enforcement agencies to focus on more serious offenses and to reduce the backlog in the criminal docket. 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. the management of work. Information systems are essential to provide timely and accurate assessments of performance regarding service to the public. The example of a single case number usable by law enforcement. Case management systems are important tools for all justice organizations. This greater flexibility would leave prosecutors with more manageable workloads. This cause of delay would appear to be readily susceptible to corrective action by legislation or amendment to the Rules of Court. or alternative dispute resolution procedures. case management. These offenses could be decriminalized and handled through civil. prosecutors.
Another organizational challenge is posed by the fragmented responsibility for the system of detention. On the other hand. In addition. The decentralization of financial and administrative management in the courts. even more pressing needs exist in other justice sector institutions and these also need to be addressed. These conditions are directly relevant to the need for investment in information and case management systems. Conditions in overcrowded jails and prisons warrant early attention as a human rights issue. 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. the ability of local government units. Courts that lack computers and internet access will have obvious difficulties contributing to information and case management systems. adding to the congestion in the jails and penitentiaries where convicted prisoners are incarcerated. and rehabilitation. and trial of criminal cases could increase the number of convictions.c of this Chapter. comparable and. Many people working in the justice sector lack the most basic tools needed to perform efficiently. but also that of the Bureau of Corrections. The difficulties facing these organizations provide an indication how issues cross institutional lines within the justice system. case management has not been developed for other organizations. and the Department of Social Welfare and Development all have partial responsibilities.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. the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. can help the Judiciary to address this situation. Inadequate storage facilities pose risks that evidence. court files.114 While a pilot program has been launched for the courts and one is under study by the National Prosecution Service. and other essential information will be lost. as described above in Section A. At present. A broadly based systemic approach would seem to be in order. the Department of the Interior and Local Government. the Bureau of Corrections and other Department of Justice entities. Existing law requires police officers to retire at age 56 (including senior executives).5. 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). This would not only increase the workload of the BJMP. in some cases. This is compounded by the reliance on PNP personnel by other law enforcement agencies to provide operational support. prosecution. 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. However. 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. approved in 2004 but still not implemented. greater efficiency in the investigation. correction. Infrastructure deficiencies in the lower courts were also singled out for negative comment by the American Bar Association report. which operates many of those facilities. Reform of the procedures followed by the National Prosecution Service and by the courts could substantially reduce the number of detainees. 43 . Duplication of functions among law enforcement agencies inevitably creates inefficiencies. 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. resulting in brief tenure for the Director General and other senior officers of the PNP. the National Police Commission.
for example. For example. The administration of justice must be. fees reflect services for which the public will pay and are not a practical way to help meet many resource needs. Enhancing 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. Integrity. 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. Limited training 44 . and manages appropriations. the justice system operates within a system of checks and balances and must be accountable for its performance. it is established public policy to encourage the mediation of disputes. in national budgets are not keeping pace with growing workloads and increasing costs. presents it to Congress. The executive branch. There is no easy solution to the financial autonomy challenge. which develops the national budget. It justifies its involvement in the judicial budget in terms of accountability. At the same time. 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. The courts. is faced with many demands on limited resources and is dissatisfied with the fiscal management of the justice organizations. knowledge of those codes by the workforces and by the general public appears to be uneven. shall be automatically and regularly released. For the most part.2. 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. 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. cannot collect fees from prisoners. A principal challenge to independence is the inadequate financing of the judicial system. Local support for the justice system needs to be transparent and institutionalized. It probably requires a mutual effort by the justice organizations. If mediation has a strong potential to reduce the volume of litigation. and the public’s perception of integrity. in the justice system is a serious challenge. Accountability. Despite the constitutional promise that the Judiciary “shall enjoy fiscal autonomy” and that its appropriations “after approval. High Standards of Independence. and local authorities to find an accommodation based on gradually increased budgetary resources accompanied by increased transparency and demonstrated improvement in efficient management. the executive oversight agencies. Justice organizations that have been able to collect and retain fees for services have obtained some relief. on the other hand.”116 the amounts allocated to the Judiciary. can collect filing fees from litigants. unbiased – free of excessive political and financial pressures or criminal influence – and guided by ethical values. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. and must be seen to be. 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. These efforts to look outside the financial constraints and controls of official budgets can jeopardize integrity in pursuit of independence. the Congress. However. But reliance on fees for operating expenses risks distorting the services provided. and to the broader justice sector. Inadequate budgets for other justice organizations do not present the same constitutional issue.
Capable and Motivated Human Resources The ability of the justice system to attract and retain able and dedicated people is another serious challenge. Accountability for performance is a complicated challenge. 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. The necessary alternative is to increase the productivity of those on the rolls. 3. prosecutors. this relates to the need for investments in systems. Budget constraints will surely continue to impose limits on increases in the number of personnel. their dissemination. 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. This is especially important in helping employees adapt to the changes involved in implementing reforms. a judge who is overly tolerant of delaying tactics might be trained in how to control the pace of his or her docket. it will be necessary that the people who operate the justice system be enabled to make the best use of those improvements. procedures for public complaints of alleged unethical behavior vary from agency to agency and are not always clear and convenient to follow. given the large number of individuals involved in the administration of justice and the continued perception of widespread corruption. training does not change behavior in the workplace.capacity. and especially to recruit and retain those with strong values of ethical public service. The consolidation of information systems should provide a valuable tool for informing the public on a timely basis about the performance of justice organizations. transparent. A disturbing observation by many who have been involved in training judges. a sense of accomplishment. In addition to financial accountability and ethical behavior. observes the performance of official functions. too often. training programs within the justice system. It is a constant challenge to attract the best candidates possible. Skills enhancement for justice system personnel is a related challenge. In part. and facilities that will contribute to professional satisfaction. For example. and responsive to that public interest. The number of disciplinary cases seems small. This challenge is one that is shared by civil society. police. and reasonable working conditions. Vacancies are a major problem in most organizations. although increased salaries for judges appear to have reduced vacancies in the Judiciary. 45 . Low salaries and poor working conditions impede the ability of public service to compete for talent with the private sector. especially in a number of executive agencies. As efforts proceed to introduce modern systems. the justice system is challenged to demonstrate that it is performing its responsibilities honestly and efficiently. This is a reminder that institutional incentives need to be aligned with the desired performance if training is to be effective. limits the effectiveness of existing ethical codes. equipment. Public participation in such a review could give high visibility to the important issue of personal and institutional integrity in the justice sector. and other justice system personnel is that.118 Responding to this challenge may require a comprehensive review of existing ethical rules. processes and infrastructure. 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. Also. and public access to clear procedures. and publicizes what it learns through active and engaged communications media. This means they must be able to receive and make good use of training.
4. In any event. could help to retain valuable staff whose skills and experience might otherwise be lost. But much more is needed. 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. 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. 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. Beyond training is the challenge of allocating work to make the most effective use of valuable human resources and provide greater job satisfaction. justice is a public service and. Institutional accountability of justice organizations to the citizenry needs to reflect individual accountability of personnel for the good performance of their duties. but that action has not been taken to bring the Board into existence. providing broad access and excellent service is the ultimate objective. for their part. Greater flexibility in position descriptions and hours of work could also help increase productivity and contribute to more satisfying jobs.A particular concern in this regard is the need for collaboration between organizations. It is also said that prosecutors. 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. With more than 100 law schools and more than 5. 46 . Efforts to change behavior and adapt to reforms need incentives. Academic preparation for work in the justice system is a challenge that needs attention in the reform agenda. It is striking that the need for a Legal Education Board was recognized in 1993 legislation. Skills directly related to performance should be given preference in training curricula over more generalized academic instruction. Training suffers from limited resources.000 applicants for admission to the bar each year. as noted above. It is possible. high standards for admission to law school. Ultimately. 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. Imaginative career development. do not rely on the police for follow-on investigation. 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. providing skilled personnel with opportunities to use their expertise in a variety of institutional settings. assurances of adequate curricula and instruction. often driven more by the availability of donor-financed courses than by systematic institutional training plans. For most organizations opportunities are quite limited. and a system of accreditation seem especially important. The initiative by the Philippine Judicial Academy to organize a small number of multidisciplinary courses with multi-agency participation is a helpful beginning. 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. training needs to be made relevant to the performance of duties. including both rewards and a disciplinary element. for example. The consolidation of some support services could increase opportunities for career development and advancement by specialists in various functions. 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.
and LapuLapu City. not just the Supreme Court. 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. contribute to broadened participation in economic and social development. but it can be an instrument of legal empowerment and. Building capacity at the community level with the involvement of community residents is difficult. delay and uncertainty are themselves a denial of access to justice.” the Barangay Human Rights Action Centers supported by the Human Rights Commission. currently under discussion. In this way. The challenge of accountability of the justice system to an informed citizenry. Education and Communication. including through increased legal literacy. thus. increase legal certainty. could also include a venue for community centers.Progress on many of the issues discussed above will have a direct impact on citizens. The concept of an access to justice network at the community level. Institutionalizing programs at the community level might build on a number of impressive pilot efforts. but not the general public). The evolution of electronic publishing will make it possible to renew the public availability. An example of a specific issue is whether the publication of decisions by all the appellate courts. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The poor are likely to lack awareness of their rights and to be deterred by inconvenient locations of justice organizations. gaining effective access to justice may require community-based systems to assist and empower citizens in navigating the many channels that exist. on the poor and disadvantaged members of society. More broadly. the procedures by which citizens can obtain information about and access to the justice system for various purposes are numerous and sometimes overlap. various universities and legal clinics. and discourage frivolous appeals. Examples include the European Union-supported Supreme Court program on “Access to Justice for the Poor through Information. Publication of Court of Appeals decisions on that Court’s own website is planned to begin in 2008. One challenge is to coordinate fragmented efforts by the Public Attorney’s Office. promoting greater uniformity. In addition to general information programs. and be discouraged by extended delays that they cannot afford. In turn. of Court of Appeals decisions (once published in printed volumes. and diminishing the number of appeals in situations where a pattern of decisions is clearly established. However. Angeles City. The model court design developed with World Bank assistance. 47 . publication of more judicial decisions could foster greater consistency. might serve the public by increasing accountability. and now available to judges and others who have access to the Supreme Court’s elibrary. greater legal certainty and predictability would be a positive factor in encouraging investment and other economic activity in the Philippines. The existence of paralegals and civil society organizations operating in many communities could facilitate the staffing of such centers with knowledgeable individuals. for example. in Cebuano and Visayan communities. 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. which is to be piloted in Manila. For example. and the Bantay Banay program of Lihok Pilipina Foundation to combat violence against women. is particularly acute in the case of the poor and disadvantaged. especially. there are specific challenges about the impact of the justice system on the broader population and. The poor can be intimidated by costly and opaque processes. and others that provide legal assistance and services to the poor. discussed above. appears to have considerable promise.119 One other dimension of an informed public is the availability of legal information.
to some extent. have reduced the volume of litigation. Current rules for court-annexed mediation result in only a small percentage of eligible cases being submitted to mediation. Also. 48 . expanding access to justice while also diminishing the existing burden on the courts. the modern Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 remains in limbo. pending completion of the process for issuance of the implementing regulations and related modifications of the Rules of Court.Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have increased access to justice and. Expanding the availability of these mechanisms is still another challenge for increasing access to justice. The entry into force of this modern legislation could give impetus to further growth of alternative dispute resolution services.
g.php. approved 18 July 1984. Chapter 3. Using the Logical Framework for Sector Analysis and Project Design: A User’s Guide.” Development Assistance Committee. supra. Ibid. 8371.M. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 49 . civil service reform) and the specific links between the sector and other parts of he system (e. The Judicial Development Fund was created by Presidential Decree No. 99-4-06-SC. Section 8. 65. The Staffing Summary. Republic Act No. the 1991 Local Government Code of the Philippines. effective 1 December 2000. No.” in Harmonizing Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. Section 9.258 judicial positions. 27 April 2004. Republic Act 9227. Article VIII. See also Saldanha.ph/court%20issuances/rules/index. Ibid. Rules of Court.Notes to Chapter II 1 “The definition of a sector is pragmatic…Whatever definition is adopted. Section 3. of the Philippines..g. Family Courts Act of 1979. Section 2.supremecourt. supra.271 judicial positions. Artemio. General Appropriations Act. “Sector Wide Approaches. The Judicial and Bar Council uses a number of 2. OECD. Republic Act No. Guidelines and Reference Series. approved 1 August 1989. http://jbc. and John Whitte.gov. 8369. www. Constitution. of the Philippines. Asian Development Bank.php.ph/rules/rule9. approved 23 October 2003. See Panganiban.oecd. as amended by Republic Act No. Volume 1. note 5. it is important not to lose sight of general cross-sectoral issues (e. section 1. Cedric.” Philippine Daily Inquirer.gov. a Shari’a Appellate Court. June 1998. Ibid. 2007.asp. 8 June 1999. and the Office of the Court Administrator use a base figure of 2. is authorized by law but has not yet been established. 2 3 Presidential Decree No. according to a report on vacancies in the Judiciary released on 19 September 2007. See Rules 43. approved 29 October 1997. which resolves that the Shari’a Appellate Court be formally organized effective 1 January 2000. 23 September 2007. from roads to agriculture). Article VIII.supremecourt. 6734.ph/aboutphil/a8. JBC Order 009. 1949. 1987 Constitution of the Republic http://www.gov. note 5. of 1997.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. Supreme Court http://www. 7160. 03-11-16-SC. See also Supreme Court Administrative Circular A. page 40. Republic Act No. “Solving the Judicial Vacancy Problem. 1508 (1978). Article VIII. Constitution. A fourth higher court.. Administrative Matter No. approved 28 October 1997. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.
Security.” Standing committees include: Management Committee and Component Working Committees for the Judicial Reform Support Project. Committee on Public Information.pdf. III (criminal procedure). Committee on Computerization of the Courts. See also Article XI. pages 31-34. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Committee on Disposal of Forfeited Real Property Bonds. Ibid. March 12. There are also several ad hoc committees. Selection and Promotion Board. note 5. Committee on Computerization and Library. Raffle Committee for En Banc Cases. pages 47-49. as revised. Committee on Security. 03-06-13-SC) both became effective on 1 June 2004.) Two years later it received a legislative charter (Republic Act No. Committee on Legislative-Executive Relations.g.php.org/ethics/pdfs/Bangalore_principles.gov. Committee on Foreign Travel. Section 15. section 6. supra. 2005/2006 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary. judicial training had been provided by the University of the Philippines Law Center.gov. Constitution. Section 11. Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary. No. December 2006. and Executive Committee for the Action Program for Judicial Reform. 2005. 35-96. 118 SCRA 241. Personnel Development Committee. 8557. Raffle Committee for Division Cases. “The New Philippine Code of Judicial Conduct.19 20 21 Constitution. The Academy was originally established by Supreme Court order (Administrative Order No. Executive Committee for Judicial Reform Program. note 5. 1 April 2004. Section 2. supra. Committee on Protocol.supremecourt. Social Weather Stations. Supreme Court Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence Committee.ajs. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 50 . Article VIII. See Puno. Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban identifies 18 existing stand-alone computerized systems within the Judiciary in his 2005 book. 03-05-01 SC) and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (Administrative Matter No. http://jrn21. are at http://www. 1998. Change Management Committee. 03-02-05 SC. Constitution. Trocio v. establishing a special rule on guardianship of minors distinct from Rule 93 of the Rules of Court.pdf. Article VIII. and Janitorial Needs of the Halls of Justice. November 15.) Previously. Rules of Court.ph/forum_icsjr/ICSJR_Philippines%20(R%20Puno). Article VIII. Mata. See. 1982. Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Committee. Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters. of the Constitution states simply and clearly “The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. http://www. Supreme Court Annual Report. 2005. Part I (civil procedure) and Part http://wwwsupremecourt. Judicial Renaissance. Reynato. approved February 26. Administrative Matter No. Bids and Awards Committee for the Action Program on Judicial Reform.supremecourt. Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court and constituent subcommittees.R.ph/news/multimedia/inex.ph/court%20issuances/rules/index. section 5(5). e.php.gov. Bids and Awards Committee for the Maintenance. 34834. supra. Article VII. Reorganized Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Board and constituent subcommittees. 1996. note 5.) The Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Administrative Matter No. G. Committee on Advanced Syllabi.
Book VII. Civil Service Commission. 2003. Dean Eulogia Cueva. Chapter IV. 01-10-5-SC PHILJA. National Labor Relations Commission. No. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. Agabin. Energy Regulatory Commission. Section 19. See LM Power Engineering Corporation v. Presidential Decree 1508 instituted a system of amicable settlement of disputes at the barangay level without need of judicial recourse.” Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 of 16 September 1997 provides for consolidation of civil and criminal actions in these cases. Ibid. “An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes.. amended this system in 1991 to authorize barangay officials to conduct conciliation and mediation proceedings to settle disputes within their territorial jurisdiction. 25 July 1987. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. 7 April 2006. 69 Phil. Chapter IV. the Local Government Code. Batas Pambansa Blg.com. Chapter IV. 04-02-02-SC. Board of Investments. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups. Securities and Exchange Commission. is discussed separately below. Section 19. and Commissioner Linda L. approved 25 July 1987. Court of Industrial Relations. Civil Aeronautics Board. Administrative Code of 1987. 292. Agricultural Inventions Board. Book VII. Trademarks and Technology Transfer. Instituting the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Executive Department of Government. Central Board of Assessment Appeals. National Electrification Administration. Bureau of Patents. in the Business World Anniversary Report. Executive Order No. 292. Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 51 . The most recent legislative development. The five articles on arbitration in the Civil Code were supplemented in 1953 by Republic Act No. 876. National Conciliation and Mediation Board. Dean Eduardo de los Angeles. 523. supra. 292. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. Third Division. 8493. Speedy Trial Act of 1998. Department of Agrarian Reform. 20 July 2004 (effective 16 August 2004). 141833. Executive Order No. Chairman Alfredo F. Book VII. In 1978. Republic Act 7160. Legislation enacted in 1979 criminalized these cases. the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. 25 July 1987. Insurance Commission. 22. Perez. Tadiar. Administrative Code of the Philippines.bworldonline. Section 15. 34 35 Constitution. note 5. Hornilla. Ang Tibay v. The agencies named in the law include the Office of the Ombudsman. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. National Water Resources Board. Section 3. 635 (1940). Executive Order No.R. Executive Order No. Land Registration Authority. PhilJA’s ADR Committee is composed of the following: Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera. Social Security Commission. March 26. Justice Justo P. Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo Ponferrada. Republic Act No. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. but does not otherwise modify the applicable criminal procedure. Office of the President. Government Service Insurance System. Inc.33 Court delays were analyzed http://codex. Article VIII. National Telecommunications Commission. G. 16 October 2001. the Arbitration Law. and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 2005. Torres. Dean Pacifico A.
21 with exclusive jurisdiction on all matters involving employeremployee relations. the “matikadong” or “bagani” system of the Mansaka tribe in Davao del Norte. 8371. 2 April 2002. Republic Act No. Palawan have a tribal justice system called “panglaw”. a dialogue held to resolve disputes. The Kankanaey of the Cordillera has a system called “tongtong”. The Tagakaolo in Sarangani Province call their justice system “kasfala”. Sections 399-422 and Section 512. 04-3-15-SC-PHILJA.gov. appended to Supreme Court Administrative Matter No.php.ncip. For instance. 04-3-15-SC-PHILJA. 24 March 2004. Administrative Order No.org. the “tabunawai or temuay” of the Arumanen Manuvu. 14-93. 875. The Department of Agrarian Reform was created in 1971 under Republic Act 6389 to manage the national land reform program. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 52 . 23 March 1992.G. or in case they fail to agree. page 1. Chapter VII. 02-2002. 15 July 1993. See note 43. on Katarungang Pambarangay Implementation (From January 1980 to December 2005).dar. 02-04. “Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo” is constituted if the Lupon fails to settle the dispute.html. Implementing rules and regulations were issued in February 1992 under an administrative order by the President. Administrative Matter No. The Pangkat is composed of three members of the Lupon picked by the parties to the conflict. The National Labor Relations Commission was created in 1972 under Presidential Decree No. the Matigsalog people are using a customary law called “gantangan owey palavian” to resolve conflicts.gov. See Implementing Rules and Regulations on Mediation in the Trial Courts. 7160 incorporated the Barangay Justice System under Book III. with the guilty party paying a penalty. “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. See the extensive history of laws relating to agrarian reform at http://www. This occurs after the guilty person has been confined and made to stand for several hours in full view of the public.ph/indexmain. In Kitaotao. No. drawing lots shall determine the members (RA 7160. Republic Act No. including all disputes and grievances which may otherwise lead to strikes and lockouts under Republic Act No. actions taken. Section 65 See http://www.ph/darhistory2. DILG Summary of Cases filed. 270. Administrative Order No. and accompanying text. the Tagbanuas of Coron. 24 March 2004. supra. which usually requires a peace offering from the offender. approved 29 October 1997. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. Resolution No.ph. Section 404 [A]).47 48 Ibid.sws. Bukidnon. Title I. 88 O. 12. wherein a person found guilty of violating customary law is given 30 lashes by a council of tribal elders.58 The “kedefawan” tribal justice system of the Tedurays of Kidapawan in Cotabato. http://www. among many others have a tribal leader or council of elders resolve a dispute in the community.
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Republic Act No.” Social Weather Stations. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. the Bureau of Immigration. An Act Reorganizing and Modernizing the National Bureau of Investigation and Providing Necessary Fund Therefor. and the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency. Republic Act No.gov.p. “The 2007 SWS Business Survey on Corruption. the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking. of Law. 9285. councils and coordinating commissions with responsibilities for various aspects of law enforcement. In addition.org. 206 SCRA 290 (1996). 11 April 1978. approved 7 March 2003.html.ph. the National Council for Civil Aviation Security. Republic Act No. Executive Order No. there is a host of task forces.neda. 6975 and No. 9194. Title XIV. the Philippine Coast Guard. 1008 of 4 February 1985. 1953. Republic Act No. Article XVI. the Presidential Task Force on Transportation Strikes and/or Mass Actions. note 5. The website of Philippine Online Dispute Resolution is http://www. http://www.senate. the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.gov. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. the Presidential Anti-Illegal Recruiters Task Force. supra. “Basic Need: Rule http://www. April 2. Presidential Decree No. 262. 7 June 2002. the National Anti-Crime Commission. the Inter-Agency Council on Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children. the Bureau of Customs. Chapter 17. note 5. Senate Bill No. 9165. 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. Medium Term Development Plan. and the Philippine Ports Authority. supra. These include the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime. the Joint Task Force Against Trafficking in Persons. the National AntiKidnapping Task Force. 386. Other national law enforcement agencies that exercise police powers include the Airport Police.ph/lis/bill_res. 14th Congress. Section 5. 876. June 18. See also the 2003 amendments to comply with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force.aspx?congress=14&q=SBN-262. Republic Act No. 9160. Republic Act No. Constitution. The Philippine Star. approved 2 April 2004. 2004. the Construction Industry Arbitration Law. 9285.” 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 53 . the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission and Task Force. Article XI. approved 29 September 2001. 1275. the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force.disputeresolution. Constitution. 29 May 2007. Republic Act No. 1949.h/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010. July 2007.ph/about. 8551. Section 6. Executive Secretary. the National Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating Center. http://sws. the Optical Media Board.asp. and for other purposes. Carpio v. Republic Act No.
Supreme Court. approved 23 March 2007. National Survey of Inmates and Institutional Assessment: Final Report. 181. Conduct of Further Study on Operations and Linkages of the 5 Pillars of Justice. Breaking Rules: Children in Conflict with the Law and the Juvenile Justice Process – The Experience in the Philippines. Constitution. www. 2004. note 4. Article VIII. 6397.html. Article 125. Section 2. March 2006. 14th Congress. 9406.org. Article III.supremecourt. an “inquest. Rules of Court.org/docs/resources/publications/violence/summary.ibp.manilatimes. 212 and No. note 5. 09 Apr 2007.ph/pubreports/Survey%20of%20Inmates%20Final%20Report.gov. 850. First Regular Session.pdf. 3815 (1938).ph. a similar procedure. In cases where an accused person is arrested and detained without a warrant of arrest. It is believed that there are major delays in both preliminary investigations and inquests.” www. 17 September 1971. 4 May 1973. supra. Act No. http://www. See UNDP. supra. approved 4 May 2006. Republic Act No. Section 12.” is undertaken. Executive Order No. 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. July 2003. adopting the rules on mandatory continuing legal education for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Bar Matter No. See Rule 139A of the Rules of Court. supra. CPRM.net/national/2007/apr/09/yehey/metro/20070409met4. 324of 12 April 1996 established the review committee that developed the legislative proposal. Section 5. approved 13 December 1990. Ibid. See Supreme Court Resolution dated 22 August 2000. Republic Act No.81 Republic Act No.1. 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. See Save the Children-UK. http://apjr. Republic Act No. Senate Bills No. approved 28 March 2004. Rule 112. Implementing regulations of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council entered into force on 11 July 2006. UNDP. Ibid.crin. “A Brief History of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 30 June 2007. Final Report. Section 5(5). See Table II. 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 54 . PAO Gets a Boost with New PAO Bill. Section 63 of Republic Act 6975. 213. 9344. Canlas. Section 14.pdf. The Manila Times. Revised Penal Code. Presidential Decree No. 9279.
alternativelawgroups. and re creation of a task force to facilitate creation of the Legal Education Board. 23 December 1993. the system of non-continuous trials.org/about. http://www. and Xavier University. American Bar Association.100 101 102 103 104 http://www. Article VIII.” Constitution. Bar Matter 1161. Ibid. board or office to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.html.pdf.org/Documents/Events/2003/RETA5987/Final_Overview_Report.org.pdf. Ateneo School of Law. http://www. Attorneys and Admission to the Bar. criminal.” Law schools with legal clinics include the University of the Philippines (which pioneered in this field). The Asia Foundation. Rules of Court. March 2006. See Supreme Court Resolution dated 20 February 2007 re: procedure in extrajudicial or judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages. and offices. These statements are not true for trial courts in many locations.asp.2 years for decision.” Also. Legal Education Reform Act of 1993. Only the Supreme Court was identified as having “good” sincerity.ph. on average.ph/files/proj_scaw. Asian Development Bank Judicial Independence Project.org. Rita Linda. and other factors that contribute to the lengthy process. the judicial vacancy rate. The Sandiganbayan was evaluated as having “moderate” sincerity. finds that in 133 studied cases from Regional Trial Courts. Judicial Independence Overview and Country-Level Studies. Gimeno. http://www. “Rule 65: Posing Impediments to a Streamlined Judicial System. supra. 11. petitions to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court under Rule 65 involved. the trial courts and Ombudsman were ranked as “mediocre”.” 2007.tan. See Supreme Court Resolutions: on proposed reforms in the bar examinations. or administrative case before any trial court. 7662. July 2007. The report states “There is no effective case filing and tracking system. 061-03-SC. A more significant problem is maintenance and equipping of buildings. tribunal. October 2003. 99-10-05-O.abanet. 8 June 2004. www. which is often inefficient given the number of pending cases.” Ibid.org/pub-reports.mbc.M.adb. Judicial Reform Index for the Philippines. Section 1 of Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court authorize a fourth-year law student to “appear without compensation in any civil.asp?sec=index. www.: “There is insufficient budget allocated to equipment for trial level courts. 14 February 2006. Section 5. A manual system is in place in most courts. http://www. and the 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 55 .org/index.com. Ibid. Republic Act No. University of Santo Tomas. Rule 138.apjr-sc-phil. The 2006-2007 SWS Surveys of Enterprises on Corruption. http://www. courtrooms.ph. note 5.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006.philippinebar. Section 3. Arellano University. A.sws. page 77. With respect to facilities: “The Supreme Court and appellate-level courts…provide a highly respectable environment and infrastructure. Sections 7 and 8. Administrative Matter No.
2001. Department of the Interior and Local Government. World Bank. 2006. See also Golub. “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. Stephen.adb. http://www.html. and Philippine National Police were classified as ”poor” in the degree of their sincerity in fighting corruption. good governance.pdf. Equity.Department of Justice.org/Documents/Others/Law_ADB/lpr_2001.abanet. 119 56 . and Development. Recent surveys are available at http://www. 118 For example.” The World Bank Legal Review: Law. page 167. Volume 2. 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.org/cpr/discipline/sold/home. See the discussion of legal empowerment.
In addition.3 In addition. and parole and probation officers. Efforts to deal with this problem have included measures to increase efficiency as well as provisions to divert cases to alternative channels for resolution. Legislation was enacted to emphasize the rights of persons arrested. and initiated a pilot program to increase judicial efficiency through the use of continuous trials (1988 and 1989). adopted a code of professional responsibility for the legal profession and a code of judicial conduct (1988). issued comprehensive measures on court management to implement the Court’s regulatory powers under the new Constitution (1988). women and children as victims of crime. human rights. or offenses of special concern such as drug trafficking and money laundering. Recent Justice Sector Reforms The strong emphasis on justice. and initiated the continuing justice reform process. moral rectitude. development and implementation office to formulate ways to improve the administration of justice. This chapter describes the principal reform efforts and assesses their effectiveness with respect to these challenges.4 Simultaneous with the rebuilding of the Judiciary. inaugurated an era of reform that has continued to the present time. helped to restore the independence of the Judiciary. Together.2 During this period. Many of the reforms of the past two decades have strengthened the architecture of the justice system by establishing new courts. modernizing procedures.III. protection of intellectual property. including many it still faces as described in Chapter II of this report. the judicial dimension of justice reform has emphasized the qualities of independence. detained. A recurrent theme has been the chronic delay that afflicts the formal justice system. 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. These bold. Among these: 57 . public attorneys. including many discussed in Chapter II. A. early measures established the leadership of the Supreme Court. Summary Description of Reforms 1. and efficiency. Restoring the Foundations of the Justice System During the period following the February 1986 Revolution. have focused on particular issues. it established a planning. the new Constitution provided a sound basis for an effective justice system. including those provided for in the Constitution such as the Judicial and Bar Council and the Ombudsman. It also included the creation and restructuring of many organizations responsible for the administration of justice.”1 The Court issued authoritative guidelines for the nation’s judges on the administration of justice (1987). such as children in conflict with the law. coordinate with other organizations in the justice sector. From the beginning. 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. Other reforms. 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. the reform agenda included the establishment of new justice entities. and monitor the performance of judges and courts (1989). described in Chapter I of this report. or under custodial investigation. and creating or modifying organizational actors. such as law enforcement agencies and the public defender system. with the support of a Presidential directive.
and others involved in the administration of justice.”15 The enactment of the Speedy Trial Act in 1998 to specify time limits for various stages in criminal trials. the early years of the post-Constitution era included a focus on integrity and accountability in the entire public service.5 The Philippine National Police was reorganized.6 The Barangay Justice System was substantially revised.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. customary legal systems. 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.11 A series of adjustments to the jurisdiction.9 2. and areas of specialization of courts to enable them to manage their work more effectively. improving court procedures and administration. including the designation of family courts throughout the country. and the Philippine Public Safety College in an expanded Department of the Interior and Local Government. improving and reforming it to meet the challenges of the new millennium.12 The restructuring of the Office of the Court Administrator in1991 and 1996 to increase its efficiency in providing oversight of the courts. and it was consolidated with the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology.13 The establishment in 1997 of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples to facilitate the use by indigenous populations of parallel. with a view to expediting the disposition of criminal cases. placing greater responsibility on local authorities at the community level. and promoting legal education and court management.10 The creation of the Philippine Judicial Academy in 1996 to strengthen the capacity of judges. 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.16 58 . addressing causes of congestion and delay. Creating that capacity was a principal area of concentration through the 1990s. its relationships with the National Police Commission and local government units were revised.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. court personnel. size. replacing the Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office. 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.7 More generally. judicial candidates.
integrity and accountability. fairness and efficiency. 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. procedures and. effectiveness and efficiency. The APJR has six components: Judicial systems and procedures.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. They reflect a systematic identification of strengths and weaknesses. and accessibility. Andres Narvasa. the Supreme Court undertook to encourage the participation of other justice sector institutions in the consultations and planning. As the previous Chief Justice. concerned with the jurisdictional structure. concerned with the capacity of the Judiciary as an independent and accountable branch of government.17 Chief Justice Davide’s December 1998 policy statement. The Davide Watch.” 18 Accordingly. 59 . “It would be well to remember that the task of justice delivery is not the courts’ alone.” 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. had reminded one of the multi-sectoral consultations in this process. 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. looking at reform in a more systematic way and with more deliberate recognition of the roles of other justice sector organizations outside the Judiciary. Many of these studies were financed by international development partners. A number of additional studies have been undertaken to support the implementation of the APJR. The outcome of the consultations was the publication in February 2000 of Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. The principal studies are listed in the bibliography in Annex 3 to this report. it is shared by the executive and legislative branches of the government and the other four pillars of the criminal justice system. focused on four areas of reform: independence.3. such as the Asian Development Bank study of judicial independence and accountability and the World Bankassisted institutional review of the Judiciary. public trust and confidence. and the legal profession. management systems for the administration of justice. rules. which came to be known as the “Davide Watch. Institutional development. enhanced knowledge-based adjudication. the Blueprint of Action and the APJR represent a consolidation of the reform efforts that had gone on before. and of accomplishments and shortcomings. 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.
and punishment of corruption in the Judiciary and in the legal profession. the structure of the APJR has served as a focal point for coordinating reform efforts. monitoring. 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. as had many of the reforms of previous years described above.26 60 . The APJR established a coherent. foster public awareness.23 The inauguration of mandatory continuing legal education for attorneys in 2003. Access to justice by the poor. Institutional integrity development. concerned with the selection.Human resource management development.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.3 billion in 2001. For example. compensation. The cost of APJR implementation was estimated at PhP 4. concerned with assuring that the justice system includes genuine opportunities for participation by the marginalized and disadvantaged. thus facilitating the recruitment of qualified candidates for judicial appointment and reducing the number of vacancies in the Judiciary. and assure the sustainability of the reform program. and created an executive committee (including senior officials from outside the Judiciary) and a program management office to assure policy oversight. a number of reforms and improvements to the administration of justice have been directly attributable to the plan set out for APJR in 2001. In addition. approved by law in 2003. concerned with management systems to assure the success of the reform program. and Reform support systems. multi-year plan.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. with the expectation that a little over 50% would be financed from domestic resources. training. detection. career development. In all cases. with priorities and cost estimates. 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. Some other reforms that were not included in the original planning of the APJR have moved ahead on their own. concerned with the prevention.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.20 During the past six years. to assure that they are updated on legal developments and issues of professional responsibility. coordination. and discipline of judges and Judiciary staff. and follow-up actions. primarily development assistance. communication with stakeholders. with the balance (some PhP 2 billion) relying on external sources.
Parole and Probation Administration.29 The adoption of new codes of conduct for judges. with a view to expediting court proceedings.32 The issuance by the Supreme Court in 2004 of authoritative guidance for pre-trial procedures and discovery. With respect to other justice sector organizations. and guardianship. Public Attorney’s Office. National Bureau of Investigation. a number of reform initiatives have benefited from the momentum of the APJR. chattel mortgages. custody of minors. 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. and credit card fraud. banking. and notaries public in 2004.The revival in 2003 of the National Council on the Administration of Justice through a memorandum of agreement among the Justice Secretary. the use of distance learning. Board of Pardons and Parole. creating opportunities for greater efficiency in the management of the courts and related bodies. including with respect to adoption. including legislation on e-commerce. with a focus on improving the criminal justice system. Court Administrator. a host of long-term projects and activities is underway within the framework of the APJR to improve the administration of justice. Interior and Local Government Secretary. which has developed a broad array of laws on subjects such as maritime law. empowering the courts to conduct legal research with more reliably up-to-date and readily available materials.27 Steps toward the modernization of commercial law. including diversion of their treatment from the formal judicial system. 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.30 The enactment of a new legislative charter for alternative dispute resolution in 2004. 61 . corporate recovery and insolvency. and securitization.) Updating of rules on family law and related litigation procedures. primarily through the University of the Philippines Commercial Law Study Project. the sale of goods. annulment of marriage. The adoption by the Supreme Court in 2004 of new policies on decentralization of administration.35 In addition to these specific measures. and increased involvement of other organizations in multidisciplinary programs.31 The launch of the Supreme Court’s electronic library in 2004. Especially noteworthy among these are diagnostic efforts to provide a sound basis for policy decisions in the field of criminal justice.34 The enactment of legislation in 2007 to increase the autonomy of the Public Attorney’s Office and to strengthen its capacity. thereby increasing the availability of high quality legal services for the poor and disadvantaged.33 The enactment of legislation in 2006 to protect and establish appropriate treatment for children in conflict with the law. tariffs and customs. 28 (The modernization of commercial laws continues. and Integrated Bar President. employees in the Judiciary. A more extensive enumeration of achievements under the APJR is at Annex 5 to this report. and Bureau of Corrections.
and institutional capacities and responsibilities. “Institutional Strengthening the Shari’a Justice System (June 2004) examined the background of the Shari’a justice system. improving business processes related to electronic caseflow management. Accountability and Efficiency of the Judiciary and Improving the Administration of Justice. and Filipino Muslim Survey on Law and Social Justice (2006) As previously noted. and also provided technical assistance. That support has been forthcoming. linkages between the Barangay Justice System and the courts. The momentum of the APJR has also been sustained by a series of opinion surveys conducted by the respected Social Weather Stations organization. provided training and related equipment and materials.” (November 2004) examined the Office’s investigation and prosecution systems and developed a program to strengthen institutional capacities.” 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). which involves decentralization of judicial administration. improvement of court facilities (including the mobile courts). Office of the Ombudsman. involves the operationalizing of fiscal autonomy and capacity for self-governance in the Judiciary. and a long-term justice sector strategy.“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. with action plans for each of the pillars of the criminal justice system. A Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary (2006). Strengthening the Independence and Efficiency of the Judiciary. “Medium-Term Anticorruption Program. Particular undertakings include the following: An Asian Development Bank technical assistance project. “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 APJR depends upon financial support from the international community. capacity development for the National Prosecution Service. the operation of the courts. The World Bank Judicial Reform Support Project includes court reorganization. Multilateral development organizations and bilateral donors have financed a number of the diagnostic studies. The Bank has been a principal source of support for the creation and development of the Philippine Anti-Money Laundering Council. model courts with 62 . A baseline 1996 survey that preceded the APJR was entitled “Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession. “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. its legal and institutional foundations. including support for the reorganization of the Judicial and Bar Council and for the distance learning program of the Philippine Judicial Academy. The Asian Development Bank also supports APJR through a technical assistance project entitled Enhancing the Autonomy. Changes in the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession (2004). and opportunities for reform.
including court-annexed mediation. 63 . through the Philippine-Australian Human Resource Development Facility. AusAID also provides training and related activities. and for achieving consensus on the overall direction and strategic level decisions. 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. USAID has supported a wide range of reform activities. for discussing problems and issues. and has also supported the establishment of model police stations. The CIDA Court Administration Management Information System project supports the automation of statistical data collection and reporting from locations nationwide. Agencies performing alternative dispute resolution functions. seminars on the code of ethics. 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. and repair of selected Halls of Justice in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. and training of judges and Judiciary employees. strengthening of the Shari’a courts. judge-to-judge dialogues. 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. and continuous trials in the Sandiganbayan. along with USAID and the Asia Foundation. electronic learning for judges.” The committee was composed of representatives from the following organizations: Supreme Court. improved court rules and procedures. has also supported the current court-annexed mediation system and other administrative dispute resolution mechanisms.) The United Nations Development Programme has supported diagnostic studies such as the Medium-Term Criminal Justice System Development Plan. including the new facility for the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Youth Training Center for the Bureau of Corrections. improved discovery procedures. 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.automated systems. The Australian Agency for International Development has supported the development of benchbooks for trial court judges and. providing a valuable tool for case management and decongestion of court dockets. A particularly noteworthy aspect of the third phase of justice reform has been the reliance on interagency and inter-branch coordinating mechanisms. 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. (CIDA. Japan supports the Automated Fingerprint Information System project for the development of capacity in the Philippine National Police to use automated fingerprint identification.
largely carried out in connection with the formulation of the Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary and the APJR. COA. included the Chief of the Philippine National Police. President of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association. Integrated Bar of the Philippines Academe. Nevertheless. President of the League of Governors. collaborative. they demonstrate recognition of the multi-faceted character of the justice system. and President of the National Prosecutors’ League. Bureau of Corrections Director. chaired by the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government. and coordinating in nature. included the President of the Philippine Judges Association. the Supreme Court has created an institutional structure for leading a process of continued reform and improvement. A study of the Philippine criminal justice system in 2000 began with an expression of frustration with the state of the system and. Yet. established by a memorandum of agreement to coordinate work on criminal justice issues. National Bureau of Investigation Director. On the other hand. and of the interdependence of the organizations that. the delays in the courts: 64 . The experience of these bodies is valuable preparation for the creation of a participatory management structure for a long-term justice sector development strategy. many of the most serious shortcomings persist. 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. A second group. chaired by the Court Administrator. in particular. B. constitute that system. Too often. Chief Public Attorney. A third group. They do not have decision making or other executive responsibilities. and President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. President of the Trial Judges League. and plans of action have been adopted. DBM. rules.37 In addition. new laws. The most obvious example is the issue of delay. Oversight agencies (NEDA.Agencies responsible for the other pillars of the criminal justice system. chaired by the Secretary of Justice. despite all the excellent work done to put in place the reforms of the past 20 years. Civil Society. together. Over this period.38 Both these interagency and inter-branch structures are advisory. the National Council on the Administration of Justice. included three groups: One group. Director of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. the diagnostic studies listed in Annex 3 to this report. and President of the League of Barangays. CSC). identified major shortcomings in the justice system’s performance and proposed measures to overcome them. Parole and Probation Administrator. but have not been fully or timely implemented. included the Chief State Prosecutor.
Personnel shortages. to demand the timely appearance of witnesses. now that 65 . compounded by overly centralized and inefficient management systems and inadequate communications between field offices and headquarters. Absence of a small claims procedure.39 Six years later. and Continued inadequacy of access to justice and legal services by the poor and disadvantaged. Deficiencies in interagency coordination. The justice system. to refer attorneys to disciplinary authority for unprofessional and frivolous delaying tactics. Weakness of court management systems. following a period of extensive studies and reform initiatives. Overcrowding and inhumane conditions in jails and prisons and a lack of access by prisoners to legal assistance. has always been the target of criticism for abetting the retardation of court process. Weak capacities for administrative and financial management. Sequential rather than continuous trials. this reality in no way diminishes the value of what the reform program has accomplished. 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. along with other financing issues. among all these issues which remain unanswered. it underlines the immediate need to intensify the focus on results. However. Poor condition of facilities. This persistence of the challenges that confront the justice system is sobering. An inordinate backlog of cases. broader issues were raised in the diagnostic studies. frequently resulting in a filing to completion period of five or more years in civil and criminal cases.But perhaps. Nor does it support an inference that reform should be scaled back or abandoned. These include: Inadequate support in national budgets for justice institutions. shortages of prosecutors and public attorneys. Inefficient allocation of court personnel. and out-of-date information in justice institutions. Rather. the American Bar Association’s Judicial Reform Index expressed concern over “inefficiency. lack of equipment and supplies. since modern memory can recall. insufficient training. and otherwise to require parties to abide by prescribed time limits. and poor working conditions in justice institutions.40 While the above-quoted reports focus on the judicial process. and In criminal cases.” citing as contributing factors: The reluctance of judges to deny requests for postponement. These same issues are prominent in the discussion of current challenges to the justice system in Chapter II of this report.
(iii) capable and motivated human resources. as discussed above. resource constraints and weak management have combined to impede the institutional development and efficiency of many of these new and restructured organizations. There follows a summary of the achievements and shortcomings of past reforms. the inadequate investment in increasing their capacities. The emphasis in the next phase of reform needs to be on improving the system’s performance. Weak management systems and limited capacity to implement reforms are a legacy of inadequate budgets. and institutional commitment in order to create a compelling dynamic for change. and reorganizations that have created new responsibilities and new requirements for interinstitutional coordination. budgets – especially for investment and maintenance – have remained low throughout the justice sector even as workloads have increased. raises additional policy questions.the system’s foundations have been restored. integrity. and (iv) broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. Consistently over the years. investment in 66 . and the institutional structure for systematic reform created. 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. Informed observers attribute the persistence of the above-described performance deficiencies to several factors. especially from the standpoint of those who are affected by it. and the absence of accountability for failure to implement planned actions in a timely manner. and transparency. Modest budgetary increases for some organizations in recent years can begin to improve this situation if the additional resources are committed to capacity building. 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. accountability. This is the classic challenge faced by reformers in the Philippines and elsewhere: how to stimulate mutually reinforcing popular demand. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems. 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). 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. The past reforms have not satisfactorily resolved the budget issues. Any future reform program will need to address these impediments so that the necessary investments will be made. although reliance on fees. the necessary implementation capacities will be attained. and the substantial benefits of improved performance in the administration of justice and the operation of the rule of law will be realized. and Facilities The past 20 years have witnessed a flourishing of new and restructured institutions with responsibilities for the administration of justice: new courts. Business Practices. (ii) high standards of independence. Important decisions have been taken to modernize and improve the operation of the justice system: decentralization of court administration. broad political leadership. Procedures. 1. new executive branch agencies. However. 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. the soundness of the system rebuilt. the agreed measures will be carried out efficiently.
court employees. as has the program of mandatory continuing legal education for lawyers. Periodic decongestion actions to release some prisoners have not changed the basic dynamic of progressively increased overcrowding. 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. integrity.computerized information and case management systems. as well as improved management systems. High Standards of Independence. These issues have not been addressed in depth in previous reforms. accountability. updated laws and rules of court. 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. Rules for admission to the practice of law require the inclusion of legal ethics in law school curricula. One area where past reforms have produced little improvement in systems. 67 . Continuing issues of budget procedure raise questions as to the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. where training programs are generally constrained. the formulation of plans for facility enhancement. model police stations. Issues of independence. the implementation of court decongestion measures. and transparency also arise from the combination of low budgets and reliance on fee income and contributions from local government units. and facilities is in the overcrowded prisons and jails. and police. However. and the uniform application of case management systems. The existing relationship between the Judiciary and the Department of Budget and Management remains controversial. the justice sector has been slow in scaling up from pilot programs and making changes operational for general application. Current examples include the creation of model police stations by the Philippine National Police. Yet. Accountability. in part because of inadequate capacity to implement them. 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. model courts. such as the updated rules of civil and criminal procedure. The Philippine National Police have adopted a moral rehabilitation program for police officers who violate established standards. awareness of ethical responsibilities is only one of the areas where employees lack needed information. in addition to the generally applicable code of conduct for public employees. Integrity. and skillfully crafted action plans have often failed to produce the intended results. procedures. It is clear that the reforms have introduced many improved procedures. Justice sector organizations have included ethics courses in their training programs. However. 2. The Supreme Court has received more than a dozen reports on different aspects of management to support its strategy for administrative autonomy. Legislation proposed to improve the management structure of the corrections system has not been enacted. But the design of modern systems. in the absence of greater implementation capacity. such as computerized information systems. with persistent questions about the adequacy of current arrangements in preserving judicial autonomy and in fostering judicial accountability. and Transparency The reforms have included codes of ethics for judges. lawyers. it is difficult for the field of corrections to compete with other priorities for the attention of budget decisionmakers.
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. lawyers. Beyond this activity. budgets.11). Thus. 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). organizational structures. they have not otherwise encouraged citizen monitoring of justice system performance. The Sandiganbayan has.”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 publicly announced grounds for disciplinary action are often causes other than corruption and. This helps to give credibility to the system.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.41 One apparent cause of this perception is the inability of the justice system to deal effectively with alleged corruption outside the justice system. with most agencies now maintaining websites that contain information on their activities. and police officers. Capable and Motivated Human Resources The reforms have strengthened the judicial selection process by improving the capacity of the Judicial and Bar Council. A question left unanswered by that action was the lack of comparable status for the National Prosecution Service. 68 . including improved management as well as training for Council staff. 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. the credibility of other state institutions is diminished. as noted in the preceding paragraph. the reforms have increased outreach to the public by the justice organizations. The recent determination of that civil society group to expand its activity to include other judicial appointments is a positive step toward greater accountability. The Supreme Court has commissioned an assessment of training for Judiciary personnel. 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. 3. 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. The reforms have encouraged greater transparency. The rate of convictions obtained by the Office of the Ombudsman in the Sandiganbayan is very low. However. 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 lowest rate of case clearance of any category of courts in the Philippines (Table II. However. the number of disciplined officials is low. 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. Public opinion surveys continue to indicate a widespread perception of corruption in the justice system. the absence of a freedom of information law leaves individuals seeking to exercise their right to information from public agencies at a disadvantage. by far. and policies. However. In some cases. disciplinary actions have been taken against judges.
44 related efforts to train women and youth.000 needed to provide coverage in all courts) under the legislation enacted in 2007 is a positive legacy of previous reforms. The reforms have not made employment in the justice sector an attractive career opportunity that will attract and retain a highly qualified workforce. The National Police Academy provides an introductory course for police cadets. 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. Legal services for the needy are often fragmented and the choices available to intended beneficiaries are not always clear. The promised doubling of the staff of the Public Attorney’s Office (from about 1. with possible savings by reducing the number of low-skilled positions and increasing compensation as skills are enhanced and staff more efficiently deployed.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. There are many issues that remain in need of attention. often with international financial support. 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.000 lawyers to the 2. the provision of legal services by alternative law groups. however. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Another is re-engineering of workforces to increase productivity. 4. The expansion of services by the Public Attorney’s Office and. Newly appointed prosecutors and public defenders enter on duty without an orientation program to train them in their important responsibilities. The Philippine Public Safety College. restorative justice mechanisms of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.Training in executive branch agencies remains inadequate. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public The Barangay Justice System. and a number of law schools have improved the availability of legal assistance and representation to poor and marginalized groups. is just one example of the troubling phenomenon of reforms adopted but not implemented. It is especially troubling in this case because it concerns the qualification of those who will enter the legal profession. This is an important aspect of building internal incentive systems that will help employees adapt to change. Among these is the need to assure the recruitment and selection of individuals who have the best qualifications. education. to the detriment of other parts of the system. 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. and the work of many organizations 69 . is able to provide in-service training only to a small percentage of police officers. and communication. Limited training opportunities are related to the lack of career development programs in most agencies. of course. The Supreme Court program on information. qualified individuals within the system have an incentive to seek to enter that favored group. The National Prosecution Service and the Public Attorney’s Office can offer only occasional courses. Where conditions have improved for one group within the justice system. The Supreme Court only now is developing a career development program for court personnel. This. including commitment to values of honesty and public service. 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. Human resource issues have not been dealt with in a comprehensive way in past reforms.
The challenges. but also about their substantive rights and obligations 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. the media. and improved information are needs that have grown even as past reforms have increased the scope of services available. 70 . the ultimate objective is to provide broad access and excellent service. Access to justice by the poor was a principal theme of the APJR. as shown in Appendix 5 of this report. comprising an entire chapter in the program’s supplement. However. as suggested above in Chapter II. the operation of the justice system and the availability of legal services. There remains a widespread lack of public awareness about the rights and duties of citizens under the law. These measures need to be greatly expanded. If equal treatment under the law is to be a goal of justice reform.through the schools. An expansion of services needs to be accompanied by an expansion of popular legal education. coordination of efforts. issues and constraints identified in 2001 remain. Citizens need to be better informed not only about procedures. and if. and training programs in communities are positive steps. Rationalization. implementing actions for the most part have involved studies and pilot programs.
Republic Act No. such as intellectual property rights. carnapping and other heinous crimes under R. Presidential Administrative Order No.pdf. Adjustments included increased jurisdiction – for trial courts under Republic Act No. of the 1987 Constitution. and juvenile justice. 8369.gov. Republic Act No. 6713. 99 of 1 December 1988. robbery.” Supreme Court of the Philippines. 1990. 30-91 of 30 September 1991. Supreme Court Circular No. designating the Regional Trial Courts to hear cases within the jurisdiction specified in the Family Courts Act. Republic Act No. See Sison. Chapter 5. 292. See. approved 10 October 1991. Section 12.A. approved 25 July 1987. approved 27 April 1992. Administrative Order 51-96 of 3 May 1996. commercial disputes. 8246 (1996). Title III. Quotation is from a paper by Justice Artemio Panganiban on 30 November http://jrn21. approved 26 February 1998.. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 71 .. July 2000. 8371. Carmelo V. Republic Act 8551. 7659. 146 SCRA 406.ph/apjr_pubreports.ph/forum_icsjr/ICSJR_Philippines%20(A%20Panganiban).supremecourt. certain complex crimes. 7662. 9 June 1997. This legislation confirms in positive law guarantees set forth in Article III. The Supreme Court has designated specific courts to hear cases involving specialized subject matter. Administrative Code of 1987.gov. 98-7-01-SC. designating courts for kidnapping. provides for a Legal Education Board to accredit law schools and oversee their operation and curricula. approved 20 February 1989. 857.g. Republic Act No. Minister of National Defense. 7691 (1994) and for the Court of Appeals under Republic Act No. 36-97. Book IV. A further reorganization of the Office of the Court Administrator was effected by Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 22 February 2005. Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990. 7902 (1995) and Republic Act No. No. note 3. However. as amended by Presidential Administrative Order No. See also the Family Courts Act of 1997. e. Executive Order No. Section 14. approved 28 October 1997. 1998. It obtained a legislative charter in Republic Act No. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. Circular No.supremecourt. 1986. Republic Act 6975. as of August 2007. the Board had not been established. Local Government Code of 1991. The Legal Education Reform Act of 1993. approved February 25. approved December 14. Supreme Court Report. 1987-2000. supra. dangerous drugs. 99-1-13-SC. 417. page 3.html. 1988-1989. “Philippine Judicial Reforms. 292. The Philippine Judicial Academy was established by Administrative Order 35-96 on 12 March 1996. 11 of 18 September 1992. Republic Act No.Notes to Chapter III 1 2 Animas v. 2005. and Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. Feliciano. 7438. http://apjr. Republic Act 7160. Executive Order No. and Myrna S. Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998.
Republic Act No. approved 14 June 2000. Republic Act No. providing guidance on the implementation of this law. approved 23 October 2003. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.gov. the 2001 amendments to the Tariff and Customs Code. Republic Act No. Supreme Court Administrative Order No. approved 28 April 2001. 03-06-13-SC and No. See. 9194. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 4 March 2003. Supreme Court Administrative Circular 20-2002. See also Supreme Court Circular No. “Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession towards the Third Millennium.apjr-sc-phil. http://www. Supreme Court Administrative Matter Nos.supremecourt. Davide. which provides recognition and protection of electronic records (see also the Electronic Evidence Rule of the Supreme Court. approved 12 February 1998. 9160. 9227. approved 19 March 2004.html. Republic Act No. http://www. 8792. effective 1 September 2003. Hilario. Administrative Matter No. August 2001. 8799. 38-98 of 11 August 1998.doj. approved 19 July 2000. page 39.org/pubreports. 1 May 2004. respectively. 9267.gov. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. establishing a legal. Ibid. Republic Act No.apjr-scphil. The Supreme Court approved the rules for mandatory continuing legal education in Bar Matter No. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 72 . 03-05-01 SC. 02-11-11 SC. Examples include the E-Commerce Act of 2000. See also the 2003 amendments to comply with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force. Republic Act No. Republic Act No. http://www. the General Banking Law of 2000.org/article/articleview/7/1/2. 15 March 2003. the Securities Regulation Code of 2000.approved 23 May 2000. 15 November 2005.htm. Republic Act No. Supreme Court. e. providing broader scope for banking transactions. 850 on 22 August 2000. tax and regulatory framework for asset securitization. establishing rules of procedure in asset forfeiture and freezing of assets in cases relating to money laundering offenses. Republic Act No. Supreme Court.ph/policy. Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. June 2003. and 03-02-05. Department of Justice Press Release dated 31 July 2003. 8791. page 3.ph/news_07-31-03. 9285. 9262. 02-11-10 SC. 01-7-01-SC. approved 29 September 2001. approved 8 March 2004. 9208. February 2000.” 11 December 1998. Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice. bringing Philippine standards into greater conformity with World Trade Organization customs valuation standards. and the Securitization Act of 2004.16 Republic Act No. 05-11-04. 8493. Republic Act No. United Nations Development Programme. 02-8-13. http://www. approved 7 March 2003. page ii. 2004. 113-2003. 24 April 2002. 9135. 1 August 2001). 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. 17 18 19 20 Action Program for Judicial Reform.g. approved 6 May 2003. Republic Act No. April 2.
399. Limits. approved 26 April 2006. Judicial Reform Index for http://www. 05-2-01-SC. http://www.sws. 03-11-16-SC.” April 2003. July 2000. approved 23 March 2007.pdf.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006. Education. 42 43 44 73 . Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 27 April 2004. 13 March 2007. Access to Justice for the Poor Project Information. Bhargava. 14 August 2004. Re: Career Development and Management Plan for the Judiciary.g. Republic Act No. page 118. and Challenges.org. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. The Supreme Court has undertaken a number of follow-up measures to this guidance. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 See. http://www. Feliciano. note 27. the Supreme Court approved greater autonomy in administrative management for Judicial and Bar Council in Administrative Matter No.ph. Department of Justice Press Release. supra.” Social Weather Stations.sws. 9344. Action Program for Judicial Reform. American Bar Association. 03-1-09-SC.” in Challenging Corruption in Asia: Case Studies and a Framework for Action. July 2007. Supreme Court. the Philippines. 9406. Communication Guidelines for Municipal Court Information Officers.apjr-sc-phil. See also Administrative Circular No. World Bank. Social Weather Stations will provide copies of older surveys removed from the website to conserve server space.32 For example. “The 2007 SWS Business Survey on Corruption. supra. http://www. Republic Act No. Social Weather Stations. Upon request. “The Philippine Criminal Justice System. “Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession. Vinay. 15 January 1999.abanet. 06-04-09-SC. 10 October 2006. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. page 102. e. See Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. “Anticorruption Initiatives in the Philippines: Breakthroughs.org/article/articleview/46/1/2/. and Alberto T. Muyot.org. and Emil Bolongaita.ph. note 20. March 2006. 2004. Myrna.
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. systems for performance monitoring and reporting. It seeks to achieve significant development results through three particular qualities: coherence among sectoral policy. social.IV. country ownership of and capacity for planning. political.2 In particular. based on analysis of current processes and outcomes. strategy. 1 Inherent in this view of development has been the recognition that the process has economic. including detailed work programs. 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. Implementing mechanisms are important. Encourage local capacity. based on five guiding principles: 1. 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.3 A. government-led process for coordination and dialogue. 3. and whether accountability requirements are being met. planning and policy skills. A SWAP is a program-based approach to development that operates at the level of an entire sector. and The establishment of a formalized. including increased reliance on the sector-wide approach (SWAP). 75 . activities and resources. 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. 2. agreed implementation schedules. Sector policy should be authored by the government – not by donors. A sector-wide performance monitoring system should be able to show whether sector goals are being achieved. including in management. environmental. all of which must be heeded. Work with the government to strengthen institutional capacity and accountability. it is now generally accepted that good governance and the rule of law are important factors for achieving sustainable development results. and coordinated international support of local development efforts. should fit clearly into the government’s policy and planning system and its national development strategy. and consultation with development partners and other stakeholders. and should be endorsed at a high political level. Set the sector program in context. implementation and monitoring. including the role of financial and procurement management. Support government ownership and leadership. whether the strategies for pursuing those goals are effective. and security dimensions. The OECD Development Assistance Committee has published guidance on harmonized donor support for SWAPs.
increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. and access to justice that ensures a strong economic environment to encourage private sector development and benefit poor and vulnerable people. In particular. 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. implemented in three. look for “quick wins” to sustain momentum. However. Take a long-term strategic view. purpose. including the Asian Development Bank and the European Commission. and proactive communication programs. the Ministry of Education with respect to the education sector or the Ministry of Health with respect to the health sector. 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.6 Initially. security of property. Be pragmatic and flexible. At the same time. typically using mechanisms such as inter-ministerial and inter-branch committees. Uganda The Uganda Justice. actions. and resources over a three.to five-year period.4. PURPOSE: Promote the rule of law. JLOS was introduced into the national development strategy and strategic investment plan in 2001 with the following structure of goal. 76 . Experience of Other Countries with Justice-Sector Wide Reform Programs Several countries have undertaken SWAPs in the justice sector. 5. Avoid overly ambitious objectives or unduly complex implementing structures. 1. SWAPs were employed in situations where a single line ministry in the developing country had broad authority over policy in the sector – for example.4 A number of donors and multilateral development organizations. B. and enhance the ability of the private sector to make and enforce commercial contracts. despite implementation complications. have also published their own policies and guidance regarding SWAPs. The sector strategy and related mediumterm expenditure framework should permit systematic planning of objectives. broad dialogue and participation. Recognize that sector programs typically involve institutional changes and organizational development over at least ten years. and strategic objectives: GOAL: Improve safety of the person. Define “sector” in a way that facilitates efficient implementation. 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.or five-year tranches. This experience demonstrated the linkages among the organizations involved in the administration of justice and the benefits of working together.
C. Civic and legal education sustained. As approved in 2001. efficiency. 77 .Strategic Objective 1 – Criminal Justice Reform: A. Accountability. The technical committee has established five working groups to deal with various issues. Law Reform Commission. The steering committee operates on many important issues through a leadership committee comprising the Chief Justice. B. Legal and law reform achieved. which also maintains communication with a donor group of 14 donors and multinational organizations. D. chaired by the Department of National Planning and Monitoring. and Increased focus on crime prevention and restorative justice and developing the informal system as a complementary part of the law and justice framework. Management oversight is provided by a steering committee whose members include the Ministry of Justice. Strategic Objective 2 – Commercial Justice Reform: A. Judicial Services Commission. and Minister of Internal Affairs. C. Expanding the role of civil society in the operation of JLOS is a recognized issue in the 2006-2011 strategic investment plan. Directorate of Public Prosecutors. Specialized skills for commercial lawyers. Ministry of Gender. 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. Planning and Economic Development. Commercial court customer service improved. reducing criminal case backlogs and time spent in pretrial detention. D. Improved sectoral coordination to target priorities. Implementation is managed by a technical-level committee of the participating organizations. Prison Service. B. and the Ministry of Finance. and in energizing commercial courts and enhancing their accountability. efficiency and improved operational performance. Commercial law reform. Minister of Justice. Police. and equity of access sustained across the justice system. Commercial registry reform. the Judiciary. Improved administration of justice. Labor and Social Development. 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. Day-to-day management is handled by a JLOS secretariat.8 2. A 2004 evaluation found that the program had achieved significant impacts in increasing communication.
Goal 2 – Improved Access to Justice and Just Results: A. B. Strengthen locally based.. 78 . Ensure accountability for corruption and the abuse and misuse of power. C. Support and build capacity in civil society to contribute to sector development. Reintegration and Deterrence: A. Public Solicitor and Public Prosecutor. Commissioner of Correctional Service. Strongly support robust and independent courts and commissions. B. highway safety. 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. as well as several other specialized agencies (e. Safety and Crime Prevention: A. C. gun possession and use. the Secretary of the Department of National Planning and Monitoring. Commissioner of Police. Support select. and. family and sexual violence).For operational purposes. D. Chief Magistrate. B. high priority initiatives (urban safety. Foster and build enhanced sector cooperation and coordination. B. A law and justice sector working group serves as executive agent for the national coordination mechanism. the policy has been converted into a strategic framework with the following structure of goals and objectives: Goal 1 – Improved Policing. The working group consists of two representatives from each of the organizations included in the national coordinating mechanism.g. Chief Ombudsman. Integrate HIV/AIDS response into the sector and agencies. B. Rebuild a professional police service that meets all legitimate community expectations. Its focus is on substantive policy and overall performance. Encourage communities to reconcile offenders and victims in a nonviolent manner. Reduce claims against the State. a community justice liaison unit). C. Goal 3 – Improved Reconciliation. Goal 5 – Improved Ability to Provide Law and Justice Services: A. C. as chair. Encourage civil society oversight of public administration. Remove obstacles to just results. This senior body provides oversight and direction and approves the sector budget. nonviolent dispute resolution. Goal 4 – Improved Accountability and Reduced Corruption: A. Maintain a national corrections system for persons who are a risk to society. Strengthen formal agencies to use resources properly. C. Secretary of Justice and Attorney General. Increase support for community-based crime prevention. Provide alternatives to imprisonment for less serious crimes and those awaiting trial.
greater accountability. and the final year for consolidating the gains and planning future reforms.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. With respect to performance management. M. K. They rely on transparent. and increased transparency. Prosecution – overcoming technical and legal constraints. and manages donor resources. Community safety – protecting people and property from crime and reduce fear of crime. 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. Prosecution – strengthening institutional capacity and clarifying relationship between prosecutors and police. Criminal procedure – eliminating the backlog of cases. the Law and Justice Sector Program is integrated into the country’s medium-term development program. F. Execution of judgments – increasing efficiency. 3. Alternatives to imprisonment –increasing the use of non-custodial sentences in appropriate cases. A significant difference. Guyana The Guyana Justice Sector Reform Strategy (JSRS)10 is newer than those of Uganda or Papua New Guinea. H. Judiciary – improving the control of public expenditures. monitors performance. Police institutional strengthening – enhancing capacity of the police as a “service” rather than a “force. C. with the first two years devoted to putting into place the foundations for implementation. however. They contribute to a better informed public debate. It is focused on four outputs to be pursued during the period 2006-2010. the secretariat tries to use indicators that have the following qualities: They are meaningful to civil society and government. G. Court of Appeals – eliminating the backlog of cases.” E. the second two years concentrated on implementing priority reforms. As in the case of Uganda. L. 79 . B. simple methods of data collection. D. J. Civil procedure – disposing of the backlog of cases. coordinates the work of multi-agency action groups. They enable year-to-year comparison. Investigations and charging – overcoming low conviction rate through enhanced skills. I. Reporting crime – increasing police receptivity to victims. is that international support comes almost entirely from Australia rather than involving a large number of donors. Administrative cases – modernizing procedures for judicial review of administrative actions.
C. Under the policy guidance of the steering committee. OUTPUT 3 – Activities for Improved Access to Justice. Paralegals and mediation. Civil education. Management of the JSRS is under the leadership of a high level steering committee of governmental and judicial officials. Upholds Their Responsibilities. OUTPUT 2 – Strengthened Linkages between Justice Institutions: A. Prisons – improving conditions. OUTPUT 4 – Activities to Enhance Citizen Trust in a Justice System Which Respects Their Rights. 80 . Communications – providing the public with clear messages of justice institutions’ performance and progress of the reform process. O. B.N. Funding civil litigation. C. Alternative dispute resolution. preparing and disseminating reports. D. 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. B. P. E. C. including measures to deal with pre-trial detainees. and Meets Their Needs: A. Criminal justice operational coordination. Accountability institutional framework – strengthening independent bodies for oversight and complaints. the change management teams and the technical secretariat in developing and monitoring indicators. B. Planning and resource allocation. Law reporting – assuring public access to court decisions. Government legal services – improving efficiency. D. Ethics – developing codes of conduct with clear sanctions for their breach. D. A technical secretariat will support all the institutions and change management teams. Coordinated approach to juvenile justice. and engaging key stakeholders in the process. Legal aid. conducting baseline studies. Monitoring and evaluation will involve the steering committee. change management teams within participating organizations and groups of institutions will bring together committed leaders with a mandate for change. New opportunity corps to develop appropriate treatment for young offenders. F. Sector-wide efficiency savings. Especially for the Poor and Vulnerable: A. E. Customer service. 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.
judicial. and a number of task forces that will report to the technical working group.12 Sierra Leone has initiated the design of a justice sector reform program with four goals: Safe communities. Public safety and security. human rights and the rule of law. Democracy. Justice. and civil justice and strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. 81 . A recent midterm review conducted under the auspices of the European Union found that work plans tended to be overly ambitious. Quality legal services to government and the general public. and civil society organizations involved in the administration of justice. It is anticipated that management will include a leadership group. 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.13 Ethiopia has conducted a number of studies and launched a justice system reform program. and a technical secretariat oversee seven thematic groups that address the above listed themes. aimed at improving human rights outcomes and accountability. and Capacity for effective leadership and management of change. Kenya’s ambitious Governance. integrity and anticorruption. Justice. 4. are estimated at US$ 10. with a program office to provide coordination. Constitutional development.Financing needs. law and order. it does not appear that a comprehensive plan and budget are in place. executive.5 million. juvenile. aimed at improving criminal. However. aimed at improving user satisfaction. Initial priority will be given to reforms that are essentially cost free or can be financed through efficiency savings or revenue enhancement.14 It appears that the program will seek to enhance the capacity and efficiency of legislative. a technical coordinating committee and stakeholders’ forum. a technical working group. Information about the program is available in secondary sources. Law and Order Sector Reform Program (GJLOS)11 is focused on seven broad themes: Ethics. This program and its management oversight and financing are still in development. Management is expected to be led by a steering committee under the leadership of the Ministry of Capacity Building. GJLOS has a governance structure similar to those of other countries – a cabinet level steering committee. Strengthened rule of law. educational. that capacity building had not been up to expectations. aimed at reducing crime and fear of crime. Improved justice service delivery. Access to justice. intended to come primarily from government and donor sources. monitoring and evaluation. Other Countries Several other countries have initiated SWAPs in the justice sector. or have plans to do so.
This is a reflection of the complexity of the sector and the multiplicity of institutional actors. modernization and transformation. Second.17 2. The formulation of plans is easier than their implementation.15 Recommended areas of concentration are identified as including reinvestment. C. action plans. jurisdiction and accountability. offer useful guidance. the public and the justice system. together with the general international guidance about sector programs. One has been to include budget and planning agencies – along with justice system operators – in the management structure of the sector program. at most.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. civil justice reform. rather than a long and overly ambitious wish list. A focus on a limited number of realistic and well defined objectives. Several elements of good practice can be seen in the experience of countries seeking to balance the competing needs for inclusion and for decisiveness. This linkage assures that projected results will not be impeded for lack of resources and creates a powerful incentive for achievement. In particular.A national task force in Jamaica recently completed an impressive report with recommendations for a comprehensive justice reform. 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. and results. it is important to forge a strong linkage of resources to policies. is more likely to achieve sustainable results. Nevertheless. 1. 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. inter-branch management structures for their justice sector programs. It is essential that objectives be attainable within the capacity of the implementing organizations. strategies. 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. and several are still in development. the sector-wide justice reform programs have been in place only for a few years. At the same time. structure. In all the countries studied. Lessons for the Philippines include the following. criminal justice reform. There are two practical ways in which this linkage has been established. the framework for change. A particularly important area for capacity strengthening efforts will be enhancing the results-based management skills of those responsible for program implementation. The other is to create a medium-term expenditure framework for the sector within which priorities are set. these national experiences in the justice sector. 82 . and institutionalizing justice reform. the foundations of the justice system. efforts to strengthen capacity will be needed to achieve increasingly ambitious results over the life of the program. Lessons for the Philippines The sector-wide approach to justice reform is a recent phenomenon. Governance of Program Implementation It is noteworthy that all the countries studied have established multi-agency. Program Design First and foremost.
These indicators. Average time from filing to disposition of: o o Probable cause determinations Court proceedings in criminal cases (normal and expedited) 83 . Nevertheless. and facilities Percentage of cases appealed and percentage of successful appeals from each category of courts. With these caveats in mind. adapted to the nomenclature of the Philippines justice system. Preliminary consultations with development partners suggest reluctance to contribute to a common fund. there appears to be support for a donor coordination mechanism focused on the justice sector. business practices. On the other hand. 4. In several cases. with its highly developed justice system. the specific action plans of individual agencies and multi-agency working groups have identified key performance indicators. Strong institutional capacity – systems. together with baseline data.18 Nevertheless. according to the framework of objectives described in Chapters II and III of this report. Several country programs have been the subject of external mid-term program evaluations to assess their impact after two or three years. The Philippine government will need to organize that support in a manner that will maximize its contribution to the effectiveness of the sector program. a lead donor has played a significant role in supporting program development and helping to finance the management system. have provided the basis for monitoring and evaluation systems. balanced groups of indicators are more reliable than single measures of progress. there follow illustrative examples of indicators from other countries. Published evaluations of progress toward program goals and objectives. 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. as the experts all caution. Performance Monitoring Within the strategic frameworks adopted by several countries. They are not addressed below because they do not appear to be directly relevant to the Philippines. Of course. it is instructive to be aware of the kinds of things measured in the justice sector programs of other countries.3. using key indicators and baseline data. The vast subject of performance monitoring is beyond the scope of this report. it would appear that domestic resources will be the principal source of financing. for convenience. They are grouped. The following illustrative examples are drawn from action plans developed under country programs described above. procedures. It will be necessary to assure agreement on a multi-year program of public investment within the medium-term expenditure framework. In the case of the Philippines. the formulation of specific indicators for the Philippines will flow from the particular outcomes identified as priority results for the justice sector. there is significant international support for justice reform in the Philippines. 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. Also. 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. such as a justice working group within the framework of the Philippine Development Forum.
84 . Volume of cases submitted to and resolved by all forms of alternative dispute resolution. and by other sources. disaggregated by region. Comparison of compensation to private sector counterparts. accountability. regulations. Improved case clearance rates. Average time spent in detention pending criminal investigation and judicial proceedings. and transparency Percentage of each justice sector organization’s expenditures covered by government budget. and other legal information. The following chapter of this report proposes some concrete ideas in this regard. and centers for dissemination of legal information and services. by fees. by occupational category and organization. Presence by region of police (per 100. Training received. High standards of independence. Percentage of operational units within each justice organization that participate fully in case management system. Timeliness and accessibility of publication of laws. Increase in budgets for maintenance and capital investment. These examples.000 population). Reduction of case backlogs. Public awareness of codes of conduct for public officials. prosecutors and public attorneys (workloads). Capable and motivated human resources Vacancy rates by occupational group and organization. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public Amount of fees required to pursue most common forms of civil claims. Number of youth incarcerated with adults. 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. adapted from the experience of other countries. by local contributions. integrity.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.
2005. 2006.g.pdf. IMF. International Center for Economic Growth.” in Applying the “Sectoral Approach” to the Legal and Judicial Domain.lawandjustice.pdf. OECD.gjlos. http://www. No.pdf. http://www.iadb. San Francisco. Michel. OECD. “Development Partnerships in the New Global Context. Linn Hammergren. www. United Nations.” Annex to Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation.cilc.org/Documents/Policies/Governance/default. Dory. “Approaches to Reform in Ethiopia.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/JSAHandbookWebEdition.. 1996. http://www.oecd.gov.org/dac.asp?p=policies#contents. 6. Especially relevant is Safety.Notes to Chapter IV 1 See A Better World for All.g. See Lindenberg.ke. Correspondence with Clare Manuel.adb.pdf.gov. James.ug. http://www. See. Guidelines for European Commission Support to Sector Programmes. http://idbdocs. The DAC Journal. http://www.pdf. May 2007.go.dfid. e.oecd.asp http://www. Ato Mandefrot Belay. page 7. “Sector-wide Approaches. Paris. See also the numerous publications cited at www. http://www. www.de/de/dokumente/en-prs-gps-uganda-part-2005. March 2007.jlos..” DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. Security and Accessible Justice: Putting Policy into Practice. Cambridge.sti.uk/pubs/files/safesecureaccjustice. Menberetsehai Tadesse. international consultant for Sierra Leone program. Volume 2. World Bank.pdf http://www.pdf.pg/www/html/7-home-page. and Adrian Di Giovanni.ke/Completed_Final_Report%20%20MTR_GJLOS_07. “Leading the Emerging Development Agenda: From Consensus to Action. OECD.” an article 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 85 .org/Documents/Policies/LTSF/long0302.org/wbi/governance. July 2002. and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence.gov. OECD. OECD. Inter-American Development Bank. www. See. e. Program Contents and Objectives. Justice Sector Assessments: A Handbook. 2005. 3. Inglehart. London. Paris. www. Chapter 3.gjlos. World Bank Group. Paris.worldbank. Reiling. The Human Development Race: Improving the Quality of Life in Developing Countries.adb. Cultural Change.worldbank. 2000. Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. August 2004.gtz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdfs/swap/swap312b. “Justice System Reform Program: Preliminary Reform Profile.org/wsdocs/getdocument. See Asian Development Bank. Proposal for Sector-Wide Approaches (SWAps).” Center for International Legal Cooperation. http://www.gina. February 2003.” Vol. November 2005. Modernization. “Sector-wide Approaches” in The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank (2001-2015). Governance: Sound Development Management. The Hague. Department for International Development. Cambridge University Press.asp.go.gy/justicreform/Guyana%20JSRS%20revised%20June%202006c. 1993.aspx?docnum=509733. 2005.nl/Conference_publication_2005. http://siteresources. Ronald and Christian Welzel.go. Marc.
and managing for results. 2d Edition. http://www.org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_online_version. See Vera Institute of Justice. 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.undp. November 2003. 2007.org/etools/docs/library/108518//kumssa_paper. Measuring Progress toward Safety and Justice: A Global Guide to the Design of Performance Indicators across the Justice Sector. 2.vera. page 52.” a paper presented by the Asian Development Bank Director for Governance and Regional Cooperation at a roundtable on better measuring. 5-6 June 2002. http://info. OECD Journal on Development.pdf. Governance Indicators: A Users’ Guide. Oslo.pdf.cba.adb. “Promoting Results Based Management in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries.asp?publication_id=207.worldbank. www. No.pdf.org/jamaicanjustice/pdf/jjsrtf_report_proposals. The alignment of resources to plans and results is generally recognized as an important ingredient of effective development..pdf. a summary of the recommendations is at http://www.” Volume 8.” “2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Review of the Results.org/jamaicanjustice/pdf/jjsrtf_report_final. Cedric. monitoring. http://www. 2007. 16 17 18 86 .pdf. United Nations Development Programme. 15 The June 2007 report of the task force is at http://www. See Saldanha. For example.org/publications/publications_5.cba.org/Documents/Periodicals/GB/governancebrief04.accompanying an October 2003 report on a CIDA court administration program in Ethiopia.
foster economic and social development. inadequate investment in strengthening those capacities. empower the poor and disadvantaged. In an environment of limited implementation capacities. It should emphasize results through improved performance. and the achievements and shortcomings of those reforms. an effective justice system is important. given the history of implementation difficulties in the Philippines. Second. since 1987. despite increased coordination in recent years. At the same time. Their use of monitoring and evaluation systems to measure progress by reference to established targets and key indicators is especially relevant. the experience of other countries has demonstrated the value of governance systems for managing justice sector reform programs that reflect the linkages among issues. It should invest an adequate level of resources to build implementation capacity and incentive systems so that specific. analyzing needs. there has not evolved a climate of accountability for achieving results or incentive systems to encourage and facilitate adaptation to change. Fourth. the results achieved to date are less than was hoped for. There is broad support for strengthening the justice system. Implementation of reforms has often been impeded by limitations in the capacities of the concerned organizations. resource constraints have impeded sustained investment in building the capacities needed for timely and full implementation. It will safeguard rights. and designing measures to improve performance. and generally contribute to the safety and well being of all who reside in. and actions. visit. Several observations stand out from this review and analysis: First. 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 results. measurable and timely results can be achieved and sustained.V. Third. And yet. Their experience also illustrates the importance of aligning resources with policies. And they have examined the experience of some other countries that have undertaken sector-wide approaches to justice reform. In addition. broad general agreement on the desirability of justice reform has not evolved into a consensus that early and substantial results are a national priority. rather than the system as a whole. the Philippine justice system has made significant progress. 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. especially in restoring a sound institutional structure for the administration of justice. organizations. strategies. and do business in the Philippines. They have summarized the history of reforms in the administration of justice since the 1987 Constitution. 87 . 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. and the absence of a compelling demand.
Strategic planning experts caution against premature debate about precise wording at the beginning of the process.It should involve shared participation in management by the concerned organizations. prosperous. impartial and swift justice. 1 Nevertheless. 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. and Advance the rule of law as the foundation of a just. has given rise to the following suggested goal statement: Figure V. Foster a culture of lawfulness. and the fair and timely resolution of disputes. and democratic Philippine society. accountability. integrity. efficiency. Hence.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. 88 . judicial independence and the pursuit of excellence should be preserved and at all times be predominant. the core values of the rule of law. together with the research and consultations undertaken in the course of preparing this report. effectiveness. a statement nominally concerned with the Judiciary and the legal profession. A single goal statement for an entire sector is more difficult than one for a single institution. equal justice.2 The inspiration of the above-quoted statement. institutional and popular support for continued progress over the long term. but which also declares more broadly: The system for the administration of justice must be geared to achieve the goal of delivering fair. It is thought better to develop initial consensus on specific issues rather than risk delaying the entire planning process or. There is some relevant precedent in the Davide Watch. equal treatment for the protection of rights. It should foster a broad consensus of political. which serves as a basis for the APJR. based on independence. while also respecting the distinct responsibilities and autonomy of all the participants. It should assure accountability for achieving the desired results. and transparency in the administration of justice. settling for generalities that paper over disagreements and leave unclear the shared vision to which stakeholders aspire. something on which there should be broad agreement at the beginning of a long journey involving many travelers. equally bad. a general statement of an overall goal can be useful in framing more specific objectives and priority results. A goal statement is an indication of the general destination. A.
Rather. It bears repeating here that these objectives are based on the role of justice as a public service. The objectives are closely interrelated. and workforce allocation. training. integrity. human resources. improved service also depends upon increased efficiency. such as the number of judges trained or laws enacted. Success will be measured not by inputs. A results-oriented reform must include a focus on the capacity of the implementing organizations to achieve the desired results. business practices. freedom from political interference. And they need business practices and procedures that encourage the timely resolution of disputes and the reduction of unmanageable caseloads. This involves issues of selection. such as the number of computers purchased. and transparency in the administration of justice. Justice institutions need basic management systems – for planning. working conditions. procurement and property management. public access to information. and key indicators of performance. Section B) and the achievements and shortcomings of past reforms (Chapter III. Progress in all other areas depends upon confidence in the integrity of the justice system. in turn. communication and information. performance monitoring. procedures. Specific activities to achieve priority results – changes in laws or regulations. The third objective is to have capable and motivated human resources throughout the justice system. The first objective is to have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. results. measurable results. system-wide program focused on achieving specific. finance. engaging civil society – will be determined through participatory processes involving those responsible for implementation.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. As noted in Chapter II. the role 89 . career development. and facilities that are conducive to efficient and effective operations. depends upon confidence in its independence from political or other extraneous influences. therefore. such as automated statistical. and its accountability. The second objective is adherence to high standards of independence. is to provide broad access and excellent service to the public. The ultimate objective. financial. or by outputs. accountability. adherence to ethical values. and progress will be monitored by reference to objectives. training and utilization of human resources. its demonstrated transparency. especially the interviews and consultations with stakeholders. and other functions. This report’s descriptions of challenges to the justice system (Chapter II. This objective involves many different things: the adequacy of ethical systems (including the dissemination and enforcement of standards). Section B) are organized by reference to those four themes. The overarching issue of justice system financing. is a matter of great concern here. and case management programs. the research for this report. Those themes seek to capture in a coherent structure the essence of previous recommendations for reform that remain present concerns. This objective concentrates on the management systems. Confidence in the system’s integrity. It would be possible to regard the human dimension as a subset of the objective of strong institutional capacity. However. improved recruitment. compensation and benefits. and competent human resources. They also need the tools to make those systems productive. introduction of new technology. However. and civil society monitoring of performance. They are suggested here as a framework for a holistic sectorwide reform of the Philippine justice system. rules. success will be determined by measurable results of improved performance by the justice system in rendering valuable service to the public. together with new issues. administrative. which affects all the objectives. has identified many significant issues of widespread concern that tend to be concentrated in four interrelated themes.
there follow recommendations for specific priority results for the period 2008-2012. Philippine decisionmakers can choose from these suggestions in shaping the specific content of their strategic plan.of human resources is so important. what actions should be chosen. basic to a society committed to the rule of law. And. that it warrants being treated as an objective in its own right. The five-year time frame for the priorities suggested here represents a reasonable horizon for strategic planning.4 Oversight of implementation. and taking account of the previously identified challenges to the justice system and the achievements and shortcomings of previous reforms. measurable. the services it provides. Common qualities of these suggested priorities are that they are all oriented to results that will improve performance of the justice system and. insofar as possible. so complex. and what needs to change as part of the effort. Subject to that kind of process. 3 These implementation plans for selected priority results should be developed through participatory means by those charged with achieving the intended result. It involves perceptions of how well the justice system protects the security of person and property through formal and informal procedures. keyed to the four objectives described above. the abovequoted goal statement requires a continuous process of reform and the goal will not be attained in five years. Priority Results Within the framework of the foregoing objectives. how the justice system operates. with targets that meet the “SMART” test of being specific. it involves services to the poor and disadvantaged to empower them to obtain equal treatment under the law. in the courts and in alternative dispute resolution systems. they are susceptible to determination of when the desired results have been achieved. Of course. for consideration by Philippine decisionmakers. achievable. At some time before 2012 another set of priorities will need to be identified for a subsequent phase of reform. and how to obtain those services. realistic and time-bound. including the sequencing of reform actions and the arrangements for participation by the various justice organizations in particular actions. is broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. to which the other three objectives contribute. 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. with specific actions and accountability for completing those actions specified in annual implementation plans. B. 90 . will be carried out through the management structure described in Section D of this chapter. The suggested priority results described below are intended to be achieved within that time frame. The fourth objective. Implementing actions will be linked to a public investment plan and medium-term expenditure framework as described in Section E. 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. 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. It involves public awareness of substantive legal rights and obligations. They are compatible. 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. therefore. this section suggests priorities that might be achieved over the course of the next five years.
filing. including the Judiciary and the Philippine National Police. 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. with milestones and an implementation schedule. 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. Each plan will include strategic planning. to severely limit the use of interlocutory writs and appeals. 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. 91 . Complementary information systems of individual organizations will be compatible with the national system. and diminish opportunities for delaying tactics. 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. high standards. classification. and outcomes of other forms of alternative dispute resolution. financial management. procedures for prompt and inexpensive enforcement of judgments. The Philippine justice system will have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. and corrections agencies.1. including police. Justice organizations that have already developed plans for decentralized administrative and financial management. incentives structures that integrate appropriate costs for delay and benefits for delay reduction into the day-to-day operation of the justice system. arbitral awards. Delay will be reduced in all justice organizations through: rules that reward timeliness. retrieval. will put those plans into operation. documenting. prosecutors. human resources development. procurement and property management. courts. rigorously applied. archival. and publicizing results in order sustain new expectations of timeliness in the administration of justice. expansion of the use of alternative dispute resolution. below) at the time of its formulation and the Steering Group will review the plan’s implementation. storage. The system will include standards for records creation. and disposal. 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. public attorneys. information management. protect officials who apply the rules. public disclosure. maximum use of continuous trials in criminal and civil cases. Each plan will be subject to review by the Steering Group of the Policy Leadership Council (see section D. and results-based performance (including monitoring and evaluation). and reinforcement through monitoring.
Philippine National Police.The Judiciary. that children are diverted from imprisonment with adults to appropriate facilities. The executive and legislative branches will rationalize the organization of law enforcement and corrections functions. achieve savings. and transparency. Office of the Ombudsman. and dignified operations and service to the public. and that individuals are released when their pending cases end without conviction or. 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. and other types of cases that impose inordinate workloads and contribute to delays and congestion. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence. increase efficiency. for the expedited consideration of bouncing checks. and A survey of facilities with a view to assuring that property. 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. Public Attorney’s Office. 92 . accountability. when their sentences are completed. and National Bureau of Investigation will all put into operation case management systems in order to facilitate the efficient administration of justice. These one-time initiatives will include: A purge of inactive cases to reduce the backlog and free up resources to manage active cases. in order to reduce duplication. equipment. 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. reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons. 2. legislative. that the standards of the ethical code are integrated into the organization’s career development and other incentive structures. small claims. with a view to reallocating and concentrating prosecutorial resources on the investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects for obtaining conviction. minor offenses that are essentially private disputes. and assure clear lines of authority and continuity of leadership. including mediation. efficient. including commissions and task forces for coordination of law enforcement activities. The justice organizations will complete one-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs. if convicted. integrity. including prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute. and meet immediate needs for improvement to facilities. and supplies meet minimum standards for secure. The executive. and judicial branches will decriminalize bouncing check cases and will authorize and put into operation simplified procedures. together with adequate measures to assure: that employees receive training in the requirements of ethical conduct. National Prosecution Service. Each justice organization will have in place a code of ethical conduct.
Justice organizations that exercise functions requiring independence of judgment will enjoy legal autonomy consistent with the required independence for the performance of their functions. and suitable penalties are being imposed where allegations are substantiated. legislative. This structure will respect the constitutional principle of fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. A policy of transparency should extend from the nomination of judges and other officials to the volume. 93 . 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. with a presumption in favor of disclosure and narrow specific standards and procedures for exceptions. (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. fees and local government contributions to meet basic operating expenses of national justice organizations. from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies. 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. such as heads of Departments.that the public is effectively informed of the code’s ethical standards. Civil society organizations. and judicial branches of government will adopt a new legislative and regulatory structure for financing the justice system. alleged violations are being quickly investigated. speed and quality of services performed. 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. legislative. and minimize dependence on. and that effective disciplinary and transparent systems are in place. including the organized bar. including through active dissemination activities and the facilitation of monitoring by civil society organizations. A general freedom of information law is beyond the scope of this report. However. of clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints of alleged violations. It will assure the transparency of. a policy of public access to information about the operation of the justice system should reflect the spirit of such laws. the communications media will be keeping the public informed of the observations of such monitoring. of statements of assets and income of public officials. It will require accountable and transparent financial management by all justice organizations. and public perceptions of the justice organizations and their operations will be regularly surveyed and the survey results published. The executive. and judicial branches of government will establish policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment.) The executive. All justice organizations will have in force policies to assure the maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system. to the discipline of justice system personnel. including the nomination of candidates for appointment to judicial and other senior offices. and of the disposition of complaints and disciplinary actions taken. will be systematically monitoring the operation of the justice system.
and complementary materials such as handbooks that will be of continuing value in the performance of duties after training is completed. 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. and Transparent incentives and disciplinary measures that reward good performance. interdisciplinary participation.3. 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. and For all. and sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity and gender. including training to develop skills needed for performance at progressively higher levels. sources of legal assistance to the poor. Education and training will emphasize interactive methods. and punish misconduct and neglect of duties. and case management. and communicating with justice organizations. incorporation in education and training activities of components on the development of leadership skills. investigations. 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. Development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation. relations with police. increase productivity. help employees adapt to change. evidence collection. 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. Periodic evaluation to measure the performance of personnel against established criteria of efficiency and adherence to standards of conduct. 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). commitment to public service. and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts. and encourage inter-institutional collaboration. Police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests. The justice organizations will have in operation enhanced education and training programs for their employees. 94 . elevate professionalism. courtroom skills. equal treatment of individuals. Career development to provide employees who demonstrate good performance and aptitude with opportunities for advancement to increased responsibility and increased remuneration. designed to improve skills. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system.
and remedies and procedures available to enforce those rights and obligations under the law. 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. 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. Court-annexed mediation units will be operational and available to serve the needs in all the lower court stations throughout the country. Others may require adaptation of the framework. 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. Toward this end. sources of legal assistance to the poor. C. make available practical resource materials. including support for community justice centers. There will be a sufficient number of judges. new priorities are sure to arise. Another example is 95 . Special Issues In the five-year period of this strategic plan. law schools. 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. 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.4. Access to clean air and water. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. rights and obligations of citizens. and procedures for communicating with justice organizations. and Public Attorney’s Office will remain below 10%. Community policing units will be in operation in cities and municipalities throughout the country. preservation of natural resources. 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. coordinate the work of service providers. and collaborate with the organized bar. vacancies in the Judiciary. Some of these will fit well within the framework described above. prosecutors and public attorneys assigned to meet the needs for their services at all lower court stations. Mobile justice units will provide services to communities that lack the presence of courts and related facilities. and community centers and networks to assure the sustainability of popular education and legal awareness efforts. The alternative dispute resolution regime authorized by legislation in 2004 will be in full force and generating increased use of alternative dispute resolution measures. This program will include measures to consolidate and expand the gains of previous legal information programs. National Prosecution Service. nongovernment organizations. There will be conveniently located centers in communities where citizens can bring complaints and requests for information and assistance regarding the administration of justice.
however. the management structure for implementation must address several needs. fostering a culture of lawfulness. D. As discussed in Chapter IV. To identify key performance indicators and monitor and evaluate performance across the sector so as to provide incentives. To establish and maintain discipline in the setting of realistic. the Action Program for Judicial Reform provided for an interagency committee on judicial reform. At the same time. was under the direction of the Supreme Court and the interagency committee was only an advisory body. To balance participation in the decision making process with the need for timely decisions. including capacities to manage change and manage for results. 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 the need to balance the participation of senior leaders who have many responsibilities with the participation of technical experts. Other countries have found it necessary to create multi-agency. and facilitates productive collaboration among them. inform decisions on future priorities. 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. these include the needs: To reinforce strong linkage of resources to policies. respects their distinct legal authorities and responsibilities. To align program objectives with implementation capacities.the growing internationalization of the economy. and results. as in other countries that have undertaken a sector-wide approach to justice reform. no single organization can reasonably be expected to have authority over all the others in the sector. the multi-agency governance structure needs to have executive authority with respect to the reform. multi-tiered governance structure would seem best suited to meet the many and sometimes competing policy interests and operational needs described above. Consideration must be given to the most appropriate way to establish such a governance structure. The Philippines is seeking to be a welcome site for productive investment and job creation. that authority needs to respect the separation of powers and cannot impair the independence of the courts or other involved organizations. accommodates their widely diverse needs and capacities. 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. and facilitate accurate and timely reporting to stakeholders. is that APJR program management. Management Structure for Implementation In the Philippines. Implementation plans will need to be flexible so that these additional priorities can be accommodated with minimal disruption. well defined objectives and the formulation of implementing strategies and action plans. With a sector-wide reform. An 96 . Therefore. strategies. and advancing the rule of law. being focused on the Judiciary. including the possibility of a compact between the executive and judicial branches of government. In particular. Its justice system’s ability to deal with the complexities of international commerce will be an even more important factor than previously. The Philippines is hardly a stranger to this idea. A flexible.5 The difference.
the Philippine Association of Law Schools. 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. empowered to resolve important and urgent matters that may arise between meetings of the full group. The Judiciary. the practice of other countries that have undertaken justice sector-wide reform programs.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. implementation. 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. of course. a Policy Leadership Council could provide overall policy guidance for the development. The Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior and Local Government are the principal executive agencies responsible for prosecution. and operate alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that are integral to the administration of justice. It would meet four times a year (and in additional special sessions if necessary) to review progress. and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry all represent the perspectives of constituencies that represent citizens before the justice system. law enforcement. the Alternative Law Groups. public defense. address major policy issues. the Chief Justice and the heads of the appropriate executive 97 . Taking into account previous national experience with inter-branch and interagency coordination in the justice sector. financing. and foster consensus and coherence among the participating organizations. provide legal services to those with limited means of access to justice. and periodic review and updating of an overall justice sector strategy. and views expressed in the consultations on this report. has the constitutional duty to decide disputes and protect rights. and incarceration and rehabilitation of offenders. For example. Some countries have found it useful to designate an executive committee from among policy leaders. The Office of the Ombudsman is the lead agency for the enforcement of institutional and individual integrity in the public service. monitor the system’s performance. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 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 Department of Social Welfare and Development exercises important responsibilities in the system of juvenile justice and services to the poor.
the National Prosecution Service. The role of the Executive Staff will be to facilitate and coordinate the efforts of justice sector organizations and working groups of such organizations. public attorneys. equilibrium in the volume of new cases and completed cases in all justice organizations. 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. implementing strategies and actions. The Steering Group will also review arrangements for monitoring and evaluation and assure an ongoing communication effort to inform the public. to identify. First. carry out. engage national stakeholders. substantial reduction 98 . timing. primarily through their annual action plans. more manageable workloads for judges. and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology might all participate directly. The Executive Staff will address related matters of inter-institutional coordination. E. and maintain a dialogue with international development partners. the essence of a sector-wide strategy is its alignment of resources with policies. The logic is that adequate financing and staffing will enable activities to further the goals and objectives of the sector reform. As discussed above in Chapter IV. A second measure would be to encourage the Philippines Development Forum. financing. and issues confronted in the implementation of the strategic plan. to establish a justice sector committee or. obstacles encountered. monitoring and evaluation. a justice sector subcommittee of its existing governance committee. 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. There are two ways in which this logic should be reinforced. Additional resources are accompanied by increased monitoring of performance and increased accountability for results. alternatively. 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. 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. prosecutors. and document priority actions. 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. if the Department of Budget and Management were to develop a medium-term expenditure framework for the implementation of the justice sector reform program.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. the principal venue for dialogue with international development partners. and a corresponding dramatic increase in public confidence in the system. and other justice system operators. That would provide a further incentive for organizations within the justice sector to demonstrate their ability to make good use of resources and. Results should include greatly reduced backlogs and congestion in courts and other adjudicatory bodies. the Public Attorney’s Office. by demonstrating opportunities for additional progress. Below the most senior level. For example. improve prospects for additional resources. Organizations within Departments with multiple functions could participate in the Steering Group. A full-time Executive Staff will be needed to assist the Policy Leadership Council and the Steering Group. the Bureau of Corrections.
greatly improved service to the public. fees charged for services by justice organizations. The principal source of financing will have to be the government budget. and assistance from international development partners. Government appropriations should be augmented by local government contributions. The public investment program is an important first step towards the development of a justice sector medium-term expenditure framework. Implementation will require a public investment program reflecting anticipated costs for achieving the selected priorities.) As previously suggested. 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. 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. Human resource development. and legal empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged. and capital outlays (including for construction and rehabilitation of physical infrastructure) that are required to operate a progressively improving justice sector. and monitoring of the entire process of reform implementation.4% of planned investment would be financed with domestic funds and 46. including costs for the operation of the management structure described in Section D of this chapter for oversight guidance. maintenance and operating expenses. The framework will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and approved by the government. strategies. amounts for maintenance and other operating expenses.55% from external financing – primarily official development assistance. 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. international support might best be organized by establishing a justice working group within the Philippine Development Forum. and ensure that the performance of the justice system continues to improve on a sustainable basis. and case management systems. and Program management.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 the one-time costs of a national information system for the justice sector and other administrative. It will establish the overall and annual expenditure aggregates in personal services. such a framework is essential to link resources with policies. As discussed in Chapter IV of this report. including increases in basic salaries and other compensation for employees. (The Action Program for Judicial Reform anticipated that 53. with a specific annual breakdown over next five years and including indications of expenditures. financial. maintain established capacities in justice organizations. 99 . Systems infrastructure. Specific targets for these benefits will need to be established in implementation plans. increased juridical security for investment in economic opportunities. proposed sources of financing. and adequate facilities and equipment. together with continuing operating and maintenance costs associated with those systems. including costs to enable personnel throughout the justice sector to implement new systems and adapt to the entire range of contemplated reforms. and timing of funds availability. and implementation plans.
such as average time for disposition of cases (an indicator). should result in a smaller. but better compensated and more efficient workforce. means of verification. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Indicators A monitoring and evaluation system for the justice sector strategy will be necessary to enable the government. Consolidation of some law enforcement and corrections functions should eliminate some duplicative expenses. where there are 14 employees for every judge. this means that program elements should be summarized in a logical framework that sets out intended outputs and outcomes. anticipate problems. Rationalization of the support staff in the Judiciary. as suggested above. national stakeholders. greater efficiency in the criminal justice system should reduce the number of detainees awaiting trial at public expense. The setting of practical targets. It would also be necessary to see if more judges. 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. the priority results suggested above are outcomes intended to achieve the four objectives. and gain lessons for continuing improvement of program implementation. Progress toward these outcomes needs to be measured by reference to targets and key performance indicators included in annual action plans. 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. 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.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. For example. For example. apply corrective measures. The monitoring system should be based upon and compatible with the existing system that the government uses to measure the resources. outputs. and assumptions about risks that bear on performance. prosecutors and public attorneys make a difference in performance with respect to issues. Within that framework. and development impacts of other programs. prosecutors and public attorneys to meet the needs of each court station. Among other things. One aspect of financing is that initial investments in improved management should over time increase productivity and thereby create savings. the development of budgets for actions to achieve those targets. and development partners to measure progress. A good justification needs to be presented before decisions are made that would foreclose consideration of a new initiative. will require 100 . F. 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. There would have to be a budget corresponding to the steps to be accomplished. 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. outcomes. 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). and the identification of appropriate indicators. performance targets and indicators.
the continuing efforts over the past two decades to restore the institutions of the justice system. competence (capable and motivated human resources). the speed of decisions (including in disciplinary proceedings). These considerations can help provide a foundation for building the necessary consensus. scope of access. From this review. publication of decisions (including in disciplinary proceedings). accountability. coordination. the volume of petitions for certiorari. 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. It is the correlation of improved performance on these issues with economic and social progress. and monitoring of performance. oversight. Additional examples from the experience of other countries are set out at the end of Chapter IV of this report. this report proposes a framework consisting of a strategic goal and four interrelated objectives for improved performance. The report describes a participatory governance structure to provide sector-wide guidance. 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. percentage of final decisions appealed. G. and respect for democratic values and human dignity. Conclusions This report has documented the long tradition of support for the rule of law in the Philippines. An illustrative logical framework for a monitoring and evaluation plan is at Annex 6 of this report. and the current state of the administration of justice. and service (broad access to justice and excellent service to the public). integrity.the participation of the individuals who know the system best and will be accountable for implementation of the reform. values (independence. 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. 101 . and transparency). and timeliness of the public services it provides. It is necessary to concentrate on measures that will demonstrably improve the performance of the entire justice system and the quality. and that this will require a significant financial investment in capacity building and increased accountability for timely implementation of planned actions. In turn. 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. On the basis of extensive research and stakeholder consultations. with suggested priority results under those objectives that can be achieved in the next five years. Chapter I of this report identifies a number of comparative indices of democratic governance. human rights. The four objectives are directed at efficiency (institutional capacity). The true significance of these indices is not how the Philippines compares with other countries. the security and well being of people. The consultations on this report confirmed many of the targets and indicators set out in the logical framework. The overarching theme of this reform framework is improved performance and measurable results. control of corruption. and percentage of the jail population in pretrial detention. and economic competitiveness in which the relatively low ranking of the Philippines is related to weak performance by the justice system. Examples of suggestions made for indicators in the consultations included the number of vacancies in justice organizations.
Our task as consultants has been to identify technical issues and technical responses. We cannot. 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. however. 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. assert with a high degree of confidence that justice reform that will produce substantial benefits is attainable. 102 . of course. We can.
html. and J.org/1About.ph/policy. pages 165-188. 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.g. “Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession towards the Third Millennium. Parmeter.gov. Worcester.. Chandler House Press. 2000.. 103 . Section G. See. 2001. Implementing. Inc.mfdr. 2 3 4 5 http://apjr. 2007. Supreme Court. Robert W.Notes to Chapter V 1 Bradford. http://www.supremecourt.gov.1. e. Key Performance Indicators: Developing. Hoboken. Simplified Strategic Planning: A No-Nonsense Guide for Busy People Who Want Results Fast!. Hilario. John Wiley & Sons. Davide.” 11 December 1998. and Using Winning KPIs. Peter Duncan. David.htm. See Principles of Managing for Development Results at http://www. page 118.ph/apjr_pubreports.supremecourt. Action Program for Judicial Reform.html.
However. the impact of such reforms depends on the effectiveness of other pillars of justice and other government law enforcement agencies55. 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). and agreed to chair the WG. 2001. including actions to improve and decentralize its administrative and financial operations. 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. effective. Accountability and Efficiency of the Judiciary.2 The recommendations under the ADB TA led the Supreme Court (SC) to adopt several key reform initiatives.4 3. output. the SC oversaw the formation of a new working group (WG) comprising representatives from four of the five pillars of justice (judiciary. prosecutors and public defenders. The TA first appeared in ADB Business Opportunities on 30 May 2006. 2001. Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001–2006 (with supplement). and well-governed justice system is predicated on (i) an independent. Manila (TA 3693. 4832-PHI: Enhancing the Autonomy. 2. and efficiency. the Asian Development Bank (ADB) provided technical assistance (TA) to the Government to meet these same objectives.PHI). A more trustworthy. The Fact-Finding Mission in April 2006 reached an understanding with the Government on the purpose. Moreover. 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. 1 2 3 4 5 Supreme Court. ADB. cost estimates. police and law enforcers. During the 2005 Country Strategy and Programming Mission. accountable. With ADB’s support. Republic of the Philippines. the Philippines has demonstrated significant leadership in developing and implementing a comprehensive judicial reform agenda under the APJR. and corrections system)3 to broaden the reform agenda. who will retire at the end of 2006.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. The new program.1 In 2001. capacity and budgetary constraints have slowed the pace of reforms. In addition to the four pillars of justice. 105 . The Government also requested an expansion in the scope of the TA to include improvements in the administration of justice. 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. and Improving the Administration of Justice 1. along with a new TA. The proposed TA focuses only on the first four pillars. Subsequently. The Government of the Philippines adopted the 6-year Action Plan for Judicial Reform (APJR) in November 2000 to strengthen judicial independence. and implementation arrangements for the TA. which in turn depend on strong political will to apply the law consistently. was included in the 2005–2007 Philippine country strategy and program (CSP) and confirmed at the 7 March 2006 CSP confirmation meeting. and (ii) effective law enforcement. effectiveness. The fifth pillar of justice is the community. about 23 national government agencies perform quasi-judicial functions and 34 have law enforcement functions. methodology and key activities. and efficient judiciary.
Under the reform program. provides financing for the implementation of a package of reforms. For example. and functions developed under the ADB TA and approved by the SC in April 2004 must be implemented. Delays in the Administration of Justice. administrative and financial operations will be decentralized to the SC. and improve accountability and the delivery of services to the courts. 8. systems. and related capacity-building and change management processes must be developed and implemented. and the OCA. a detailed administrative structure. A one-line ceiling provided by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) determines the details of the proposed annual budget of the judiciary. appellate and special courts. Delays in the administration of justice can be attributed to constraints in the judiciary and other pillars of justice. The backlog of requests results in long delays in payment and often the suspension of key services. lower-court requests for funds to make building repairs. and the 6 7 The Constitution provides that the judiciary’s budget cannot be reduced in absolute terms. the Judicial and Bar Council. Philippine courts continue to be saddled by case backlog. The project. 106 . Judiciary operations are funded primarily from the national budget6.4. Although the Philippine Constitution mandates fiscal autonomy for the judiciary. 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. case congestion (backlog) and delay in case processing violates the litigants’ rights to a speedy trial and erodes public confidence in the courts. to enable the vertical integration of the new systems. The SC has chosen Region 7. 7. Pilot implementation will cover a pilot court (Lapu Lapu). National budget allocations are augmented by the Judicial Development Fund. However. which comprises court fees and other revenues collected by the court and contributions from local government units (LGUs). In the judiciary.2% in 1998 to less than 1% in 2004. replace equipment. CCAO. The SC would like to set up the new CCAO and CFMO and a pilot RCAO at the same time. lower courts are often forced to seek alternative assistance from LGUs. based on local government ability and willingness to contribute. Region 7 RCAO. Fiscal and Administrative Autonomy of the Judiciary. made at the discretion of local executives. fulfilling this constitutional mandate has been a challenge. the release of allotments and cash and the reallocation of budget details are subject to overall national government priorities. 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. There are no reliable data on the amount or type of resource contribution of LGUs. assume core administrative and financial management functions. the new administrative structure. To fill gaps in funding. and DBM review and approval. spending regulations applied to other government agencies without fiscal autonomy. 6. a formula. Centralized administration is inefficient and promotes further dependence on LGU funding. for the pilot RCAO to take advantage of synergies with the World Bank Judicial Reform Support Project. and CFMO. or pay utility bills must be submitted to and processed by the OCA. 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. To enable the SC to exercise fiscal autonomy. which has 146 lower courts administratively organized into 89 lowercourt stations.000 lower courts are managed centrally by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). but the judiciary’s share in the national budget has declined from 1. funded with a loan from the World Bank. The budget of the appellate and special courts continues to be controlled by the DBM. which is setting up a model hall of justice in the region.77 But before the new structure can be established. and staffing and operating procedures must be prepared and operationalized. was developed to systematize LGU contributions and make them nonnegotiable. the Philippine Judicial Academy. 9. Under the ADB TA. while the administrative and financial management functions of the more than 2. There is currently no-judiciary-wide resource management perspective. 5.
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. and e-payment systems. which is now being evaluated before being implemented nationwide. Core information about persons who have been accused. those who want to check whether a particular person has a criminal record may need to go directly to the courts. including the Katarungang Pambarangay (Barangay Justice System. who have successfully developed similar systems in their own courts. limited access to research materials undermines the ability of the NPS and the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) to prepare and try cases. The APJR studies also reviewed the effectiveness of other measures intended to speed up the administration of justice. only analyzes information that is provided to it. or convicted is often not readily available. are supporting the SC in enhancing the pilot project. While the SC has taken commendable steps to increase judicial efficiency by introducing information and communication technology (ICT). 107 . prosecutors may lack the requisite skills to prepare specific types of cases. and delays in retrieval. including an electronic library. Processes for collecting. The effectiveness and efficiency of prosecutors were identified by the study as important in this regard. resulting in incomplete files. 12. Judges have no effective way of ensuring that cases filed before them have previously been settled or have undergone settlement proceedings through the BJS.docket clearance rates of judges is only 40–45%. was prepared recently. The implementation of APJR reforms will be evaluated shortly by the SC. A team of judges. also delays the administration of justice. Thus. The results of the evaluation will be used to update priorities and focus and reprogram resources toward the full implementation of the reforms. unless they are repudiated in court within 10 days of being handed down. based on the recommendations of earlier studies. especially in information sharing. the SC developed a case-flow management system (CFM) in Pasay. without systematic case management. settlements reached through the BJS are often not enforced and the issues discussed in the settlement are brought once again before the courts. retrieving. and sharing information often differ. 14. A related study showed the need for case-load management reforms and a monitoring framework to track judicial efficiency in this area. The National Bureau of Investigation. 13. CFM software. new prosecutors working in the NPS are not given regular training and must learn on the job. storing. 10. A proposed road map for integrated justice sector reforms. 8 For example. most courts still lack Internet access and thus cannot use the e-library or submit reports to the SC electronically. including the management of case documents. inconsistencies in information collected. Not all courts report this information to the bureau. which prepares clearances. also under the APJR. 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. However. In addition. Long-Term Strategy for the Justice Sector. However. Gaps in the accuracy of required information often go undetected. detained. Moreover. resulting in duplicative collection. because of the limited funds available for capital outlays. Hence. Studies made under the APJR revealed that up to 33% of pending cases continue to be delayed and generally remain open after 2 years. 11. Poor coordination and collaboration among the four pillars of justice. or BJS). 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. The SC therefore drew up a Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Strategy (2003) under the APJR. there is no integrated system with data on arrest warrants and convictions that have been issued by the judiciary. 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.8 Privacy and security of information are also concerns. Other prosecutors are trained ad hoc. Thus.
and sharing of core information. including funding options. and well-governed justice system that more effectively upholds the rule of law. and a pilot RCAO in Region 7. accountability and efficiency. the TA will strengthen judicial autonomy. (ii) (iii) 108 . The TA will promote a more trustworthy. Through its outputs. Administration of justice. (d) giving the judiciary and NPS better access to research materials needed to develop cases (Web-based). (b) developing business processes and systems to integrate the BJS into the judicial process in Region 7. The TA will assist as well in developing a sustainable capacity development strategy for prosecutors. Long-term strategy for the justice sector. to increase efficiency and accountability (in the work of the judiciary. storage. (b) review related initiatives of other development partners. 16. B.THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE A. by developing the framework for a national justice information system (NJIS) and the related ICT framework. The TA will help improve the overall management of information coming from all pillars of justice. and improve the administration of justice. The TA will also support the pilot implementation in Region 7 of the formula standardizing LGU contributions to the judiciary. and operating procedures and systems for the new CCAO. along with related capacity-building and change management support. it will (a) assess strategic long-term frameworks that have been prepared for the sector. The TA will identify the core information needs and develop business processes to facilitate the collection. efficient. Methodology and Key Activities The TA will focus on three key reform areas: (i) Fiscal and administrative autonomy of the judiciary. Impact and Outcome 15. while addressing security and privacy concerns. (c) improving communications and connectivity among the courts by providing Wi. and (f) develop a performance monitoring system that includes benchmarks and indicators to track progress in implementation. (e) determine the appropriate timing and sequencing of various actions and clarify implementation arrangements.and long-term strategic funding initiatives and prioritize and cost specific investments.Fi antennas in courts with adequate information technology infrastructure. and (b) a new accountability system within the decentralized framework. (c) facilitate agreement with the Government and other development partners on the reform agenda. The TA will focus on facilitating agreement on a uniform approach to reform in the justice sector in close coordination with other development partners. including prosecutors deputized by the OMB to handle cases of corruption. staffing. including an integrity unit within the pilot RCAO. CFMO. 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. to start with). and (e) developing a case management system to track the status of probable-cause cases assigned to prosecutors. To this end. (d) develop short. It will also assist in (a) implementing the CFM for the judiciary in Region 7. retrieval.
Coordinate with the PMO. during which use of the service can be monitored to clarify whether the service should be continued. program development. and synchronize funding agency initiatives and contributions in developing a long-term program for the sector. and coordination among development partners. In coordination with the domestic legal and judicial reform expert. on the long-term justice sector strategy. develop a draft sector wide program framework. Supervise the domestic training expert in developing a sustainable capacity development strategy for NPS prosecutors. and poverty reduction experts. quarterly. and other development partners to ensure close coordination in. and for developing a longterm strategy for the justice sector. In close coordination with the PMO and pillars of justice working group (WG). He or she shall (i) Supervise the national case management. policy matrices. and ongoing development partner initiatives in the justice sector. This expert shall oversee the implementation of component B and be responsible for developing and implementing recommendations to enhance access to research materials. Develop a program monitoring and performance evaluation mechanism. including development partners. WG. The expert shall have significant experience in justice sector reforms. The expert shall also oversee the preparation of inception. Review the need for access to an Internet service provider that includes the relevant US laws and cases. 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. In close coordination with the PMO and with support from the domestic legal and judicial reform expert. including indicators and benchmarks to track and review the progress in program implementation. and identify gaps in available information. and strong ownership of. training. arrange for access for 1 year. Assist the PMO. including the integration of consultant reports in this component. If recommending access to such a provider. and formulate the program logical framework. the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). the National Prosecution Service (NPS). and draft final and final reports. and ADB in obtaining consensus among development partners and the Government on the reform agenda. define the program focus and priorities. the national fiscal and administrative reform expert and coordinator. including the development of approaches to reform. reform initiatives. Also review the possibility of arrangements with Philippine and US law schools for training to address key legal research gaps.TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR CONSULTANTS Component B: Improved Administration of Justice and Long-Term Justice Sector Development Strategy 1. case management systems and process engineering. as well as the program structure and its lending and technical assistance components as may be necessary. and develop short-term and long-term strategic funding initiatives. the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). review research materials available to the judiciary (with a focus on the Court of Tax Appeals) and the NPS in key priority areas. International Team Leader and Justice Sector Reform Expert (5 person-months). organize workshops to facilitate consensus among key stakeholders. Review proposals for long-term reforms in the justice sector. (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 109 . and related expenditure needs to fund the reform agenda.
case management experts) and oversee the implementation of their work plans. business process reengineering. In coordination with the domestic legal and judicial reform expert and the case management experts. implementation. This expert shall have the following tasks: (i) Case-load management reforms. including their resolution. develop case management processes and procedures for probable-cause cases handled by prosecutors. (a) supervise domestic case management experts and the domestic legal and judicial reform expert in the preparation. This consultant will be responsible for developing the framework for a new National Justice Information System (NJIS). Review the assessment and recommend ways of addressing perceived gaps. 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. 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. ICT procurement planning. International Case Management Expert (2 person-months). This expert shall assist the judiciary and other pillars of justice in developing and implementing case-load management processes and systems. In coordination with the team leader. 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. 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. Submit progress reports to the team leader on the status of implementation of the work plans. and local disputes that were filed in the courts but were dismissed for failure to seek mediation through the BJS). Barangay Justice System in Region 7. information systems (IS) functional and user requirements definition. and ICT project management. International Justice Information Systems Expert (3 person-months). (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. (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. To more effectively integrate the Barangay Justice System (BJS) in Region 7 into the judicial process. IT experts) and supervise the implementation of their work plans. He or she shall have relevant experience in the development and implementation of justice information systems in developed markets. 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. 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. (ii) (iii) (iv) 3.2. to enable the NPS and OMB to track the status of cases. The assessment shall also focus on the core information needs of each pillar. Case management system for NPS and OMB. The recommendations should reflect relevant international (ii) 110 .
and make the appropriate revisions. 5. business process reengineering. if not available. They will review and. and data-sharing functions across the pillars and the ICT infrastructure framework. manage. Domestic Legal and Judicial Reform Expert (8 person-months). These experts shall each have at least 5 years’ experience in business reengineering and ICT development and be familiar with justice sector operations. Domestic Case Management Expert (3 person-months) and Domestic Case Management Systems and Process Reengineering Expert (5 person-months). competencies. 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. policies. as a result of having worked on related reform initiatives. and (b) assess change management requirements and develop an implementation scheme. structures. (a) develop the NJIS framework. (iv) (v) 4. linkages) needed to implement. including the change management requirements. and maintain the NJIS. and standards for the successful implementation and maintenance of the NJIS. develop the information system architecture of the relevant agencies of the pillars of justice. obtain feedback. Supervise the IT experts in defining the institutional capacities and specific organizational arrangements (functions. In coordination with other international experts. With the support of the IT experts. These experts will work closely together (i) in the rollout of caseload management reforms in Region 7. and change management framework. and implementation and analysis of survey results. as well as a change management framework for the NJIS. 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. (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. (ii) development of new related business processes and procedures. staffing. present the proposal to the pillars of justice working group (WG). identifying key information systems and their functionalities. (iii) With the support of the IT experts.experience and best practices in the development and implementation of justice information systems. They shall work under the supervision of the international justice information system expert and shall assist in the design of the NJIS system architecture. strategic databases. 6. prepare a report detailing the proposed NJIS. With the support of the PMO. and ICT planning and design. implementation plan. the international justice sector expert will develop more detailed terms of reference for this expert. The international justice information systems expert shall provide more detailed terms of reference for these experts. They will also define the scope of the NJIS and the functionalities of its information systems. organize workshops to develop related capacity and facilitate consensus on the NJIS. 111 . These experts shall each have at least 5 years of relevant experience in the development of enterprise information systems. A more detailed work plan and terms of reference will be developed by the international case management expert. considering the absorptive capacity of the implementing institutions. 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). (ii) preparation of a survey on the use of the BJS in Region 7. This expert shall be a lawyer with at least 5 years’ experience and be familiar with the operations of the Philippine justice sector.
teaching. and propose a training strategy to fill those gaps. He or she shall analyze the impact of the APJR on the poor and the expected impact of proposed TA interventions. particularly in the justice sector. and implement several shortterm training modules. Using the ADB Handbook as a guide. and related experience in training. 8. including funding options. This expert shall have at least 5 years of relevant experience in the design and implementation of capacity-building strategies and programs. He or she should have a background in law and capacity building and be experienced in criminal litigation. This expert shall assess the capacities of prosecutors in the NPS. this expert shall develop methodologies and tools and provide capacity development to SC in the conduct of poverty impact assessment on justice sector reforms. This expert shall have at least 5 years’ experience in assessing the impact of public sector programs on poverty. Domestic Poverty Reduction Expert (2 person-months). This expert shall work in close coordination with the team leader and the domestic legal and judicial reform expert.7. identify gaps in capacity. 112 . He or she will work under the supervision of the international team leader and the justice sector reform expert. capacity building. Domestic Training Expert (2 person-months).
She earned her bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from the University of San Carlos. NOVIB. She also previously served as executive director of the Developmental Legal Assistance Center. Maastricht School of Business in the Netherlands. and the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Carolyn A. and international organizations. Mercado received a B. Mercado was an intern with the Center of International Environmental Law in Washington. U. in political science from the University of the Philippines. Judiciary-Wide Automated Case Management Information System. and in other senior management positions in the United States Government. review and integration of studies and reform programs. and diagnostic studies and reform programs for the Department of Justice. cum laude. She has been involved in the Philippine justice sector reform since 1999. a San Francisco firm that specializes in international cooperation in support of good governance and the rule of law.. and other forms of dispute resolution. He received his J. playing lead consulting roles in the development. He previously served as Principal Deputy Legal Adviser. and the Office of the Ombudsman. US Department of State. and graduate diploma in Urban and Regional Planning (with distinction) from Queensland University of Technology in Australia. 113 . San Sebastian College of Law. Case Decongestion Strategy. operationalization of court-annexed mediation. Ms. including the formulation of administrative reforms for the Judiciary. He has performed consulting assignments for the United States Government. Ms. and Acting Deputy Administrator and Acting Administrator of USAID (1992-1993). including as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (1983-1987). Vicenta Alinsug is the President of CPRM Consultants Inc. LL. She assists in other selected activities within the Foundation's Law and Governance program and handles mediation and conflict management. She was also a Hubert Humphrey Fellow in international environmental law. and as a legal aide to a member of the Philippine Senate. the Action Program for Judicial Reform.S. the International Maritime Organization. coordination. From 1994 until 1999. Ambassador to Guatemala (1987–1989). 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. the United Nations Development Programme. Mercado manages the Law and Human Rights program of The Asia Foundation in the Philippines.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. She was coteam leader of an Asian Development Bank program on strengthening the independence and accountability of the Judiciary. from the University of the Philippines College of Law. USAID Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean (1990-1992).D. and completed post graduate studies in plan implementation and development financing from the Institute of Economic Development Studies in Italy. He returned to USAID in 1999 as Counselor to the Agency and left public service at the end of 2000. She has served as lecturer on environmental law at Ateneo de Manila University. from Saint Louis University. and the Development Academy of the Philippines. other governments.B. he was Chair of the Development Assistant Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Philippine National Police. corporate secretary of the Alternative Law Groups. where he presided over the principal international forum for donor policy coordination. 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. Previously. she served consultancies in Manila for the World Bank. University of Washington and a European Union Scholar in environmental resource management. Prior to joining the Foundation.A. as well as for DPK Consulting and other private consulting organizations.
“Philippines: The Human Rights Situation in 2006 – Getting Away with Murder – Widespread extrajudicial killings combine with a defective system to ensure impunity and injustice. http://chapterzone.ph. Freedom in the World-Philippines.adb. National Statistics Office. 20007. August 2001. 2006. http://siteresources.asp.freedomhouse. http://www. May 2006. Philippines Country Strategy and Program. Philippine Justice Reform Initiatives Supreme Court. http://www. Quimson. “Basic Need: Peace and Order” and “Basic Need: Rule of Law.transparency. Freedom House.html.gov.org/globalex/Philippines1.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY Information on the Philippines Asian Development Bank. Washington. Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001-2006 (with Supplement).worldbank. Gabriella. National Integrity Systems Transparency International Country Study Report of the Philippines.” http://www.census. World Bank. Philippine Legal Research.pdf Campos. National Economic and Development Authority.org/INTPHILIPPINES/Resoureces/PHILCASMain. New York University.nyulawglobal. World Bank.org/index.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/c175. http://material. April 2005. The Philippines in Figures. 2006. Asian Human Rights Commission. 2007.neda. From the Grassroots: The Justice Reform Agenda of the Poor and Marginalized.” in Human Rights Report – 2006: The State of Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations. Alternative Law Groups. 2007. 2004-2010. Chapters 16 and 17. http://info.worldbank. Hong Kong.gov. Inc.ph/apjr_pubreports.htm. Governance Matters 2007. http://apjr.pdf. Republic of the Philippines. 2005-2007.net/hrreport/2006/AHRC2006HRReport.org/Documents/CSPs/PHI/2005/default.ahrchk.pdf “Country Data Report for Philippines. February 2004. Santos-Ong. Milagros. Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. December 2006.org.gov. Transparency International. 1999.. National Medium Term Development Plan. J. www. Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of the Philippines.php/content/download/15149/162858. http://www. 1996-2006. 115 .html. Edgardo and Jose Luis Syquia. Managing the Politics of Reform: Overhauling the Legal Infrastructure of Public Procurement in the Philippines.ph/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010.supremecourt.
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Department of Justice. Inc. http://apjr. Investing in Justice: Expenditure Review of the Philippine Judiciary. UNDP. Judicial Reform Index for the Philippines. 2006.supremecourt. Vicenta. Supreme Court of the Philippines. November 2005.gov.pdf.ph/apjr_pubreports. UNDP. 2005. 2004. 6.” Vol. Alston. CPRM Consultants.html.” March 2005.gov. February 2007. “Anticorruption Initiatives in the Philippines: Breakthroughs. November 2007.org/Documents/Reports/CGA/phi. Civil. Article 2. http://apjr. World Bank. 1.ph/index. On Balance: Judicial Reforms in the Philippines. Country Governance Assessment: Philippines.gov. Limits. Philip. Vinay. Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication.” in Challenging Corruption in Asia: Case Studies and a Framework for Action. http://apjr. American Bar Association.extrajudicialexecutions.. 116 .supremecourt.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006. CPRM Consultants. October 2003.ph/apjr_pubreports. http://www. Economic. Final Report: Change Management for the Judiciary. December 2006. Asian Legal Resource Center.html.html. 2000. June 2003. Bhargava.asp. http://www. http://www. The Asia Foundation.ph/apjr_pubreports. National College of Public Administration and Governance. Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights.html. March 2006. Political. Medium-Term Development Plan for the Criminal Justice System (2007-2010). page 102. Chapter VII. “The Legal and Judicial System. www. or Arbitrary Executions.gov. Supreme Court.pdf. Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice. Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial. No. Philippine Justice System Studies Alinsug. Legal System in Philippines.abanet. Supreme Court. Center for Policy and Executive Development. Inc. National Center for State Courts. and Challenges.adb. 2005. Asian Development Bank. ASEAN Law Association.supremecourt. University of the Philippines. Summary. “The Criminal Justice System of the Philippines Is Rotten. 2005.pnp. Final Report Capsule: Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary. Social and Cultural Rights.html. http://www. Enhancing Communication between the Judiciary and the Citizenry.aseanlawassociation. CPRM Consultants Inc.org/reports/A_HRC_8_Philippines_Advance_Edited. and Emil Bolongaita.Philippine National Police Integrated Transformation Program.org/legal.
html. Hunter.ph/apjr_pubreports. Revised Final Report: Medium-Term Anticorruption Plan and Public Investment Program.gov. Supreme Court. Philippine National Police. 2000. UNDP. Supreme Court of the Philippines. http://apjr. June 2004. “The Philippines: Towards significant judicial reform. Rosemary. January 2007. USAID. - - - Español.ph/apjr_pubreports. Final Report: Transforming the Philippine National Police (PNP) to a More Capable. World Bank.. Chapter 7. Revised Design Report.gov. National Survey of Inmates and Institutional Assessment.ph/apjr_pubreports.supremecourt. UNDP.ph/apjr_pubreports.supremecourt. Final Report. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Office of the Ombudsman. March 2006.html.gov. Final Report: Philippines Formulation of Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Strategy Project.supremecourt.ph/apjr_pubreports.gov. Review of Organizational Options. http://apjr. A Study on the Efficacy and Efficiency of the Barangay Justice System (Katarungang Pambarangay). http://apjr. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. UNDP.supremecourt. Organizational and Financial Study of the Philippine Mediation Center and its Units.html.supremecourt. 2007. January 2007. The Asia Foundation. July 2000.gov. 2003. http://apjr.html.supremecourt.supremecourt. June 2005. http://apjr.html. 117 . Global Corruption Report 2007. Supreme Court.” in Transparency International. Manila. http://apjr. The Barangay Justice System Review.gov. Preliminary Report: Judiciary-Wide Automated Case Management Information System. Supreme Court. Supreme Court. December 2003.ph/apjr_pubreports. UNDP. July 2000 http://apjr. March 2000.html. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Organizational and Financial Study of the Philippine Mediation Center and its Units. Gerry Roxas Foundation. Final Report: Institutional Strengthening of the Shari’a Justice System (Phase 1).ph/apjr_pubreports. Muyot.gov. The Philippine Criminal Justice System. November 2004. 2004. 2005. http://apjr.ph/apjr_pubreports.org. Inc. Final Report: Conduct of Further Study on Operations and Linkages of the 5 Pillars of Justice. Dolores.- Final Report: Formulation of Administrative Reforms. www.supremecourt. Myrna and Alberto T. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Effective and Credible Police Force (Phase 2).transparency.gov. Feliciano. Center for Public Resource management.html. Gerry Roxas Foundation.html. pages 258-262. World Bank.
html. Asian Development Bank. http://web. Sison.html.” Supreme Court of the Philippines. December 2006. Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession. July 2007. Pangalangan. UNDP.ide. Raymond. 2005/2006 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary. 1987-2000. 2004.ph/apjr_pubreports. Survey of Enterprises on Corruption. Freedom and Death Inside the Jail: A Look Into the Conditions of Quezon City Jail.ph/apjr_pubreports. Libertas. http://apjr. Supreme Court. and Myrna Feliciano. 1990. Institute of Judicial Administration. July 2003.ph/apjr_pubreports. Project Appraisal Document for Philippines Judicial Reform Project Support. 1996.adb.” in Judicial Independence Overview and Country-Level Summaries.html. http://apjr. Karen. Addressing Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice by the Poor and Disadvantaged. 2000. United Nations Development Programme. page 73. http://www. Raul.supremecourt.jp/English/Publish/Als/pdf/05. Supreme Court. Quezon City.supremecourt.gov. Judicial Sector Study of the Philippines. Urban Integrated Consultants.go. Inc.html.gov.pdf. World Bank. Report on the Effects of the Continuous Trial System on Litigation Time and Output in the National Capital Region.pdf. Narag. October 2003. June 2003. The Asia Foundation. http://apjr. USAID. Social Weather Station. 1998. Assessment of the Public Attorney’s Office. March 2001. “Philippines. Changes in the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession in the Philippines.gov. 2003.ph/apjr_pubreports.Hudes. Final Report: Infrastructure Program Requirements for the Judiciary.supremecourt. October 2003.org/Documents/Events/2003/RETA5987/Final_Overview_Report.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSiteP K=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P066076 118 . “Philippine Judicial Reforms. La Salle Institute of Governance.worldbank.. http://www.gov. h http://apjr. World Bank. Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice. Carmelo. 2003. Management Study of the Judiciary. July 2000.supremecourt. Supreme Court. University of the Philippines Law Center. The Philippine Judicial System. 2004. Institute of Developing Economies.
Cedric. 119 .org/Sourcebook/2-2ndEdition. Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System.utrechtlawreview.” Policy Research Working Paper. Saldanha. Measuring & Managing Results: Lessons for Development Cooperation. David. Where Should We Be Going?. Utrecht Law Review. OECD.org/Documents/Periodicals/GB/governancebrief04. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. June 2007. An Introduction to Results Management: Principles. 3. http://www. David C. Parmeter.html.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/wps4370.” ADB Governance Brief No. 2006. “Promoting Results Based Management in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries.org. Emerging Good Practice in Managing for Development Results: Sourcebook – Second Edition. 2007. 2006. Buscaglia. Schauffler. http://www. National Center for State Courts. Strasbourg. John Wiley & Sons. 2001. 2004. 2007. World Bank. Council of Europe.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/PimAlbers. European Judicial Systems. March 2004. Kusek. Co-Coordinators. Performance Standards. www. Edgardo and Maria Dakolias.. November 2002. Council of Europe. and Using Winning KPIs.pdf.pdf. Steelman. 1999. Issue 1. and Indicators Albers. 2004. Kaufmann. Improving Caseflow Management: A Brief Guide.worldbank. United Nations Development Programme.adb. May 2003.mfdr.pdf. as revised by the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices. Poate. http://www. Readings on Performance Indicators for the Judiciary. Implications. Hoboken. World Bank. Inc. Derek. and Applications. http://siteresources. Asian Development Bank.org/ethics/pdfs/Bangalore_principles. . October 2007. World Bank.” World Bank. Daniel and Aart Kraay. “Judicial accountability in the US state courts: Measuring court performance. Williamsburg. Implementing. http://www.org/publicsector/legal/legaltoolkit.. page 112. Pim.pdf.pdf. 1997.” European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. World Bank.ajs. http://www1. Key Performance Indicators: Developing.adb.” Vol. http://siteresources.worldbank.Results-Based Management. “Evaluating Judicial Systems: A Balance between Variety and Generalization.org. Richard and Luba Beardsley. Richard.“Key Functions of Legal Systems with Suggested Performance Measures. 4. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. The Hague. Rist. “Governance Indicators: Where Are We.worldbank. 2002. Jody Zall and Ray C. Comparative International Study of Court Performance Indicators: A Descriptive and Analytical Account. Messick.
Caroline and Christine Lao. 2004. Equity. Measuring Progress toward Safety and Justice: A Global Guide to the Design of Performance Indicators across the Justice Sector.htm.” Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor. Daniels. Washington. 2007. “Justice Indicators. Gerardo.org/oslocentre/docs05/cross/Justice%20Indicators%20Background%20 Paper.asp?publication_id=207.pdf.undp. 2007.pdf. Dam. Vandenabeele.” Paper prepared for the UNDP Governance Indicators Project.org/publications/publications_5. The Law-Growth Nexus: The Rule of Law and Economic Development. Golub. Law and Policy Reform at the Asian Development Bank. Brookings Institution Press.Tai. “Legal and Constitutional Disputes and the Philippine Economy. Asian Journal of Comparative Law. 1. Ghani. Ronald and Michael Trebilcock.net/ipbenefits/tucson/isnie2004/ISNIE2004. 2d Edition.org/legalempowerment/pdf/economic_poverty_rule_of_law. “Legal Empowerment: Impact and Implications for the Development Community and the World Bank. Vera Institute of Justice.undp.vera.pdf. Manila.pdf. http://www.undp. Oslo. 120 . Legal Identity for Inclusive Development. http://www.kreative. Robert.” International Society for New Institutional Economics. January 2006.upd.econ. Governance Indicators: A Users’ Guide. and the Rule of Law: Lessons from East Asia – Successes and Failures.pdf. 2006. April 2005. http://www.” February 2007. Stephen. Kenneth W. “Developing an Index of the Rule of Law: Sharing the Experience of Hong Kong. 2007. The Political Economy of Rule of Law Reform in Developing Countries. http://www. Benny.com/asjcl/vol2/iss1/art4. http://www.adb. 2001. “Economic Development. 2006. and Development. 99. Rule of Law and Development Asian Development Bank. No.” Volume 2. page 167.org/Documents/Others/Law_ADB/lpr_2001. United Nations Development Programme. World Bank. 2004. November 2003. “Judicial Performance: Its Economic Impact in Seven Countries. Ashraf. Asian Development Bank. Oslo. Sherwood..ph/respub/dp/pdf/DP2007-03. Poverty Reduction. Sicat. Volume 2. 26 Michigan Journal of International Law. http://www.bepress. http://www.edu. editors.” The World Bank Legal Review: Law.org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_online_version. www.
“Justice.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/CapacityDevelopment2/$file/Program%20Based %20Approaches-E. World Bank. Security and Accessible Justice: Putting Policy into Practice. http://www.org/go/topicguides/justice/justice-overview. http://www. 2007.gsdrc.” 2005.adb. Chapter 3. http://www.gov. OECD. Governance and Social Development Resource Centre. Dory. “Sectorwide Approaches.cba. November 21-22. Reiling.gina. www. Guidance for European Commission Support to Sector Programmes. and Anneli Alba.pdf. 2006. Proceedings of Conference on Justice Sector Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic Framework and Practical Lessons. British Council.acdicida.org/Documents/Policies/LTSF/long0302..ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdfs/swap/swap312a.Sector –Wide Approach Asian Development Bank. 2006. World Bank. Endroma. Brussels. Law and Order: The Uganda Experience. and Lessons. 2006-2010. Judiciary-Led Reforms in Singapore: Framework.” October 2006. Washington. Paris. Volume 2.dfid. http://www.gy/justicreform/Guyana%20JSRS%20revised%20June%202006c.pdf.gc. July 2002. http://www.sti.lawandjustice.pdf.za/alraesa/conferences/papers/ent_s2_edroma.uk/pubs/files/safesecureaccjustice.asp. http://www. Evelyn B. Lavergne.pdf.. Department for International Development. Justice Sector Assessments: A Handbook.oecd.pdf Jamaican Justice System Reform Project. February 2003. http://siteresources.htm. Canadian International Development Agency. CIDA Primer on Program-Based Approaches.gov. March 2007. 121 . http://www.worldbank.britishcouncil.org/kenya-justice-sector-conference.org/jaaicanjustice/index.” DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank (2001-2015).” http://www. Safety. Strategies. Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. Eveline N. London. “Sector Wide Approach in Justice.pg. “Lessons Learned from Judicial Reform: The ADB Experience.gov. http://www. Réal.adb. Papua New Guinea Government. Waleed Haider. OECD.org/dac/harmonisingpractices.doj.pdf. Guyana Justice Reform Strategy.asp?articleID=10829. Linn Hammergren. Malik. http://www.org/media/printer.gov. Fischer. European Commission. http://www. Law and Justice Sector Reform Website.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/JSAHandbookWebEdition . and Adrian Di Giovanni.htm.
Justice. Republic of Uganda.ke.Republic of Kenya. 122 .ug. Law and Order Sector Reform Website. http://www.worldbank. Justice.go. Governance.jlos. World Bank.go. http://www.gjlos.org/OESX5Q35R0. Law and Justice Institutions Website. http://go. Law and Order Sector Reform Website.
Department of Justice Antonio Fernandez. National Economic and Development Authority Jose Miguel Dela Rosa. Supreme Court Merceditas Gutierrez. National Commission on Indigenous Persons Anthony Carpio. Office of the Solicitor General Eduardo De Los Angeles. Acting Secretary of Justice Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum. Senior Deputy Court Administrator. Consultant.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 4 PERSONS INTERVIEWED Philippine Government and Judiciary Edgardo Acuna. Hernan. National Economic and Development Authority Susan Gavino. Supreme Court Gillian Dunuan. Director. Philippine Judicial Academy Agnes Devanadera. National Police Commission Sally Aquino. Director for Human Resources Development. Supreme Court Richard D. Department of Justice Rogelio Asignado. Center for Public Safety Service. Chief. National Commission on Indigenous Persons Zenaida Necesito-Elepaño. Vice President. Ombudsman Arthur K. Program Management Office. Assistant Chief State Prosecutor. Philippine Public Safety College Rosalina Bistoyong. Director. Management Staff. Dean. Program Management Office. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Marius Corpus. Management Staff. Philippine Public Safety College 123 . Chief of Planning and Research Services. Department of Interior and Local Government Baby Catherine Cruz. Attorney. Economic Development Specialist. Philippine Judicial Academy Mina Importante. Undersecretary for Public Order and Safety. Fadullon. Executive Director. Senior Prosecutor. Clerk of the National Commission on Indigenous Persons Justice Ameurfina Herrera. Chancellor. Philippine National Police Lourdes Aniceto.
Judge. National Economic and Development Authority 124 . Department of Interior and Local Government Laura Pascua. Bureau of Jails and Municipal Prisons. Undersecretary. Chief Public Attorney. Department of Finance Rolando G. Director of Personnel and Administrative Services. Commission on Human Rights Avelino Razon. National Police Commission Romulo Neri. Project Manager. Undersecretary for Local Government. Vice Chair. Department of Budget and Management Manuel Pontanal.General Clarito Jover. Chair. Chair. Public Attorney’s Office Jose Midas Marquez. Chief of Staff. Undersecretary for Policy. Manila Linda Malenab-Hornilla. Supreme Court Myrna Medina. Deputy Chief Public Attorney. Chief of Legal Affairs. Alternative Dispute Resolution Department. National Police Commission Alfredo F. Department of Justice Rowena San Pedro. National Economic and Development Authority Monica Pagunsan. National Police Commission Macapancat Mama. Director of Crime Prevention. Program Management Office. Regional Trial Court. Department of Budget and Management Persida Rueda-Acosta. National Police Commission Dennis Siervo. Tadiar. Pasig City Celia Sanidad-Leones. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Purificacion Quisumbing. Tungpalan. Commissioner. Philippine National Police Mario Relampagos. Department of Justice Austere Panadearo. National Police Commission Reynato Puno. Undersecretary. Secretary of Socioeconomic Planning. Director. Philippine Judicial Academy Roberto Tan. Department of Interior and Local Government Aida Layug. Deputy Director General. Director Management Services Office. Judge. Director General. Office of the Chief Justice. Regional Trial Court. Philippine National Police Isidro Siriban.
Program Manager. Mission Director. Development Policy Officer. Director. Law and Justice Thematic Group. Philippines-Canada Cooperation Office Richard Messick. Asian Development Bank Jon Lindborg. Millennium Challenge Corporation Eva Pastrana Gutierrez. USAID Eveline Fischer. International Criminal Investigative Training and Assistance Program (ICITAP). UNDP Jose Edgardo Campos. Legal/Judicial Reform Adviser. Democracy and Governance Office. Gerardo Porta. Chief State Prosecutor. Embassy of Japan Debra Kertzman. General Counsel. Assistant Director. Governance. Co-Director. Deputy Chief. Development Cooperation. Finance and Trade Division. Asian Development Bank Bradley Parks. Senior Financial Sector Specialist. Deputy General Counsel. European Commission Klaus Preschle. Legal Affairs. Program Officer. World Bank Keith Crawford. Minister of Economic Affairs. USAID Maria Longi. Director. Civic Participation Specialist. Southeast Asia Department. Asian Development Bank John Alkpala. Millennium Challenge Corporation Jose Mendoza. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. US Department of Justice 125 .Martin Villarama. Court of Appeals Basilio Wandag. Australian Embassy Emmanuel Buendia. Department of Justice International Development Partners Jaseem Ahmed. Associate Justice. National Commission on Indigenous Persons Jovencito Zuño. Rule of Law Division. Embassy of Japan Jeffrey Thomas. USAID Steven Edminster. World Bank Arthur Mitchell. Director. Asian Development Bank Kunihiko Higashi. Governance Officer. Lead Public Sector Specialist. Threshold Program. Second Secretary. USAID Akira Sugiyama.
ROLE Edwin Glindro. Center for Community Advancement Benjamin Allen. East Asia and Pacific. Management Systems International Scott Ciment. Chief of Party. Management Systems International Roger Dallas. Philippines. World Bank Sam Zappia. Libertas Judge Evelyn Lance. Executive Director. CTA Closed Case Study. Country Director. Trustee. Management Systems International Gregorio Batiller. Chief Counsel. Chief of Party. Counsellor. Advisor. Dean. Judicial Reform Specialist 126 . American Chamber of Commerce John Dinsdale. Treasurer. Chief of Party. Legal Department. American Bar Association Phyllis Cox. European Commission Access to Justice Project Cecilia Vales. Far Eastern University Florangel Braid. Development Cooperation. Team Leader. American Chamber of Commerce Crisanto Frianeza. Chairman. Papua New Guinea-Australia Law and Justice Sector Program John Forbes. CIDA Felipe Ureta Redshaw. Country Director. Institute of Law. Asian Institute for Journalism and Communication Roberto Cadiz. Senior Program Officer. Libertas Teresa Cannady. Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Rita Linda Gimeno. Philippines.Anthony Toft. Australian Embassy Civil Society and Subject Matter Experts Carina Agarao. Lead Procurement Specialist. MCA Threshold Program. President. Attorney. Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Glenda Gloria. Newsbreak Louie Tito Guia. World Bank Narcisa Umali. American Bar Association George Carmona. USAID ROLE Program. Secretary General. Attorney Andres Bautista. Team Leader. MCA Threshold Program.
Team Leader.Renato Lopez. Director. Circuit Judge. Attorney. Sayoc & De Los Angeles Steven Rood. Attorney. Masanta. Asian Institute for Journalism and Communication Cesar Villanueva. Alternative Law Groups. Romulo. Justice Reform Initiatives. Jack Miranda. European Union Access to Justice Project Ramon Tuazon. Newsbreak Claro Parlade. MCA Threshold Program. President. Inc. The Asia Foundation Robert Sears. Arellano University Law School Clare Manuel. Project Director. Integrated Bar of the Philippines D. US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Carolyn Sobritchea. American Bar Association Mariano Magsalin. MSI Ricardo Romulo. Brooks Smith. Attorney Custodio Parlade. Buenaventura. Attorney. Corruption Prevention Specialist. Ateneo Law School 127 . Dean. Attorney Carol Pascual Sanchez. Dean. American Bar Association Marites Nañguilan Vitug. American Chamber of Commerce Jose Vicente Salazar. Country Representative. Executive Director. Law and Development Partnership Marlon Manuel.
Bacolod. Prospects and Recommendations The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). eliminating some 641 cases from the court dockets. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5.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. So far. 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. 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. 1 129 . Study Completed. b) design a case decongestion and delay reduction strategy. Supreme Court Administrative Circulars. five model courts have been established in Pampanga. Court Management Systems Caseload Survey and Development of Case Decongestion Plan Case Decongestion and Reduction of Delay Strategy Project. and c) design a sustainable mechanism for improving the Judiciary’s capacity in caseload and court performance management. However. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. 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. Baguio/Benguet. 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). and Cagayan de Oro City. docket cleansing (similar to the concept of the “onetime case decongestion project ” is going to be initiated in the Court of Appeals. JDR hassuccessfully settled around 41% of cases that have undergone JDR. La Union. 2006). 2006). A study on Access to Justice and Effectiveness of ADR approaches was likewise completed. Recommendation to conduct a one-time case decongestion project is still unimplemented.
The following activities were scheduled to be conducted in RTCs and MeTCs in the Cities of Pasig. Pateros. 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. manage and monitor the undertaking that is the rollout of CAMIS to lower courts. and the Municipalities of Taguig. 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. 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. 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. 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.net software. CAMIS Rollout Implementation The CAMIS Rollout Implementation Team was created to plan. 4) Users training. A total of 189 personnel from 45 RTCs and 13 MeTCs were trained to use the CAMIS software. 46 2006 created the CAMIS Rollout Implementation Team. These activities concerning 55 trial courts and 528 court personnel were scheduled to end on September 2006.Net due to financial considerations and the development of the Case Flow Management System Phase II. 2006). synchronize coordinate. 2006). 2 130 . and San Juan: 1) CAMIS change management orientation. Mandaluyong. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. as the latter is envisioned to be rolled out with the CAMIS. 5) System installation and hand holding. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars.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. The Supreme Court through Memorandum Order No. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. 2) Data clean up. Phase I involved the automation of data collection and processing of the CMOOCA.net software The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). 3) Assessment of the availability of hardware and Internet facilities. The Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library decided to temporarily postpone the Rollout of CAMIS. Marikina. (CAMIS).
The initial work with the Court of Tax Appeals has also started. 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. improve case and caseflow management in the Court of Appeals. 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. Trainings on records management. 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. Current work is being done for the integration of CMIS with other IT systems of the Supreme Court.g. control. and archiving techniques for key divisions and court personnel have also been conducted. 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. including automation. Expected roll-out will be in March 2008.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. which will be implemented under the Judicial Reform Support Project 131 . Management and Information System Department) to manage the CMIS.
Development and Pilot Implementation of an Enhanced Case flow Management (CFM) System for First and Second Level Courts The Project involves the design. 2006 and was pilot-tested in Pasay City on December 2006.out delayed due to change in leadership in the Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library. testing. It entails the elimination of unnecessary time intervals or case events. The CFM’s main feature is the case tracking system upon which a software was developed. 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. pilot implementation. 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. Case Flow Management (CFM) Pilot Project in Pasay City Courts October 2002. 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. Pursuant to said recommendations. and the addition of necessary case events so that the case is moved reasonably swiftly and disposition time shortened. Procurement of more CAT machines held in abeyance as the SC OCA is looking into cheaper alternatives (using ordinary keyboard and foot pedals) 132 . among others. The software development phase was completed on November 30.July 2004 USAID/EGTA The Supreme Court implemented a pilot project on case flow management (CFM) in 2002. The pilot project was assessed in April 2006 by a team of judges and court personnel. 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 CFM software was pilot-tested in the Regional Trial Courts and Metropolitan Trial Courts in Pasay City from October 2003 to June 2005.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2 TO DO Completed. 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. development. 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.
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. Republic Act No.dialogues on the videos.Consultation with the Bar and Bench on the Four Studies (Memoranda. The broad scope of Rule 65 allows a party to question any act by any tribunal. 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. The suggested roundtable discussion has not materialized. The results of the assessment were published in January 2007 as part of the ABA Legal Assessment Series. Review of Civil Procedure Rules Moreover.Study on the Possible Expansion of the Scope of Recognizance . The law likewise provides that the entire trial period shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of 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.Strengthening the Rules in Civil Forfeiture and Money Laundering . and Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice) . or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Nationwide consultations were done to inform judges about the revised procedures and to solicit comments. Recognizance.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. COMMENTS Sandiganbayan has adopted new internal rules of procedures in line with the adoption of CMIS. Some legal practitioners Others: . except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 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. and to promote international arbitration as well as enforcement of foreign judgments.Study on the Scope of the Rules of Procedures for Criminal Cases . It also supported the nationwide consultation. 3 133 .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. 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. with respect to matters 3 filed of first instance for trial. Summary Procedure.) 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. 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. board. Assessment report given to the Supreme Court Committee on Rules but no action yet. by alleging simply that such act was performed with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
space for training and meetings with media. and heads of pertinent agencies. 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. 134 . Study compatibility of the Rules of Court with eCommerce laws Awaiting decision of the SC Rules Committee as regards the recommended changes. public access to judicial records archives. A roundtable discussion/workshop is being planned with the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court to discuss proposed revisions of the Rules of Evidence. Visayas.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 .implementation of continuing research and evaluation of the Rules of Court. The members serve on an ad hoc basis taking into consideration the specific subject matter for consideration. etc. 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.institutional capacity requirements. 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 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. The Committee is convened by an Associate Justice of the SC. court-annexed mediation services. selected magistrates. Roundtable discussion is yet to happen. survivor-sensitive facilities. interview rooms. and Mindanao. and its members consist of private practitioners. and operating systems and procedures defined and incorporated in the design of the Judicial Research Institute . lawyers.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.
The SC Library Services distributes e-Library CDs quarterly. tracking. continuing assessment and reform formulation and policy recommendation on judicial concerns. the digitization of SC decisions has started. material development procedures and operating systems Full system operation and stabilization 135 . access. 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.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. 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.
there are concrete gains towards the institutionalization Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) in trial courts. 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. ensure balanced distribution of caseload. 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. access. .Results of the study presented to internal and external stakeholders in February 2007. promote access. decide.) Institutionalization of ADR – Court Annexed Mediation On decongesting court dockets. 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. etc. 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. Final report submitted in May 2007. This was achieved with only 113 mediation centers covering 731 out of the existing 2. and other implications of laws affecting the jurisdictional structure of the courts. From 2002March 2007. The study looked into the different quasi-judicial agencies providing Alternative Dispute Resolution. A study on “Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure” has been completed in January 2007. 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.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 2. The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). CAM resolved a total of 29. 2006). 2006). Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. 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. simplification of case processing procedures and standards.678 cases at 70% success rate. 4 136 .258 courts in the country.
137 . Cebu. The Institute is envisioned as a vehicle for improving the theory and practice of all forms of dispute resolution. provide a forum for discussion of ADR ideas and practices. It targets the legal community starting from law students. and Davao. and later on in the expansion areas in Cagayn de Oro. The Institute further aims to establish a national network of ADR academics and practitioners which can guide the development of ADR in the country. 2005 to June 30. Law Center Institute on Dispute Resolution (IDR) and Other Related Projects July 1. Pilot–testing of appellate mediation (called Court of Appeals Mediation) Establishment of an ADR Institute Installed an ADR Institute Establishment of the U. Installing Supreme Court Capacity for Continuing Monitoring and Assessment of ADR Institutions Other ADR Initiatives Passage of an ADR Legislation In 2004. General Santos. increase public awareness of various modes of ADR. the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law was passed. and provide ADR services to the general public. has trained more than 500 mediators in three pilot areas (Metro Manila. and a national conference that provided a venue for the discussion of concerns regarding the implementation of court-annexed mediation. lecturers.). 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. 2006 The University of the Philippines Law Center established the Institute on Dispute Resolution (IDR). practitioners. ADR orientation for family court judges. law professors. It intends to encourage new thinking in negotiation theory and ADR. 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.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. Tacloban. the integration of the ADR curriculum. and researchers. the financial and administrative study of the PMC Units. etc.P. Development and implementation of a Communication Plan for Court-Annexed Mediation.
resources. institutional setup and operation of the system. Presentation of the results of the comprehensive review of the Barangay Justice System (performance. including documentation of HRD Best Practices. and overall capacity build-up 4.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. Judicial Performance management System Development of Judicial Management System Training Needs Assessments have been conducted. The Supreme Court has already produced gender-sensitive. institutions. and rights-based IEC materials. services. and communication strategies for various stakeholders. 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. ADB TA 4832 Component B. and the HRD Training Framework (5-Year HRD Capability-Building Plan. institutional. Continue installation of strengthening measures for the Barangay Justice System (including training. 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. establish Legal Information Desks in 1080 barangays to function in coordination with MCIOs.) 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 . development of information. education. systems & procedures) and proposed reengineering of the governance.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. Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy BJS. child-friendly.
Its goals include the following: (1) (2) build on. 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. opportunities to discuss court processes. and the overall court system. identify systemic and operational challenges.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4 TO DO Personnel. operations. 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. civil society and community contributions in monitoring the conduct. and Case Delay: Problems and Solutions Dialogues have been completed. It seeks to promote just. and enable them to propose and adopt responsive solutions consistent with national standards yet responsive to local needs. actual and/or potential. (3) Judge to Judge Dialogues Docket Management and Corporate Principles in Judicial Administration. 139 . strengthen and consolidate the desire of the courts. speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases. court personnel. and provide the courts and their personnel opportunities to develop their core competencies. the judges and their personnel to further improve their court processes. COMMENTS • Others Improving Judicial Performance in the ARMM These judicial reform initiatives in the ARMM seek to enhance judicial governance in the area. Ongoing To achieve these. 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 performance of judges. provide the courts. as well as the various other stakeholders.
2006 budget and recently submitted budget proposal. responsiveness. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. Strengthen the participation of the operating units in budget policy decision making processes. 5 140 . 06-11-09-SC (Feb. 2007) ADBTA4832:Enhancing the Autonomy. preparation. and within which annual expenditure programs are formulated Establish the mechanisms that will enable the Judiciary to determine and decide on the level. and procedures for improving the efficiency. 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. 2006). 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. current process for budget planning. and providing for the Initiation of Budgetary Operations for Pilot Projects”. systems. 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. as well as in expenditure planning and management that will be installed within a decentralized administrative structure.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. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Budgeting) The reform design report involves designing the core policies. 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. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. 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). JDF collections & disbursements. and Provide mechanisms to strengthen the accountability and capacity for continuing improvement in budgeting ADB TA 3693. authorization and execution. 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). composition. and prioritization of its annual expenditure program Install the policies. and speed of budget operations and services to courts within a decentralized institutional framework.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 1. 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. 27. Accountability. and procedures in fiscal management.
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. 2) Design of Revenue Generation Strategy Revenue Generation Strategy ADB TA 3693. 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.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. and a medium-term expenditure program as well as an annual expenditure program can be formulated and implemented. to improve the predictability of resources within which a sound judiciary strategic plan. and the design of the management process. 6) National Government Support 7) Local Government Contribution 8) Judicial Fees and Charges ADB TA 3693. The revised final technical report prescribes a reengineered revenue management system for the Judiciary. The first design report presented several strategic reform measures on revenue management and other systems relating to it.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 . and presents the proposed technical design of the revenue management system organized by major sources of revenues. This further underwent extensive consultations.
planning. 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. 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. revenue monitoring. 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. and forecasting. 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. Under the TA. and (3) the capability of PhilJA to deliver judicial training will be strengthened. impartiality.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. and accountability Install treasury operations functions and operating systems to ensure proper safekeeping. accountability. overall monitoring. SC AM No. The project draws on the recommendations of the earlier ADB technical assistance grant to the Supreme Court on decentralization 142 . (2) the appointment process and the accountability and incentive system under which the judges and justices function will be improved. (1) a framework for the judiciary’s fiscal and administrative autonomy will be designed. and competence.
physical assets management and components of the human resources development and a review and modification of the relevant operating policies.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Administrative Structure) The proposed administrative structure will entail the movement. ADB TA 3693. ADB TA 3693. revenue management.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. Installation and operationalization plan and instruments ready. formal structure. and eventually review by the Supreme Court. Reengineering of the Formal Administrative Structure 143 . 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 staffing of the judiciary. This was subsequently revised after several consultations. A replication plan will be developed including its financing requirements and change management process. financial accounting. and locations of several existing organization units within the judiciary. Implementation will involve intensive user training and handholding through the change process. region 7 judges and personnel and other stakeholders on-going and will continue throughout the implementation period. 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. cash management. Enhancing the Autonomy. (c) draws up the high-level and detailed administrative structure and internal functional configuration that reflect the vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of functions. functions. validations workshops. accountability as well as control of resources. the detailing and installation of the budgeting. abolition. It will involve changes in the functional relationships among units and offices. ADB TA 4832 Component A. transfer and modification of the structure. (b) defines the overall administrative and financial management functions that the judiciary will perform as a self-governing organization. It involves the creation of a pilot regional court administration office in Region 7.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. 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. operating systems. 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.
functional configuration. ADB and PMO had agreed to postpone the detailed assessment of the implications of the latest revision on the details of the structure. 98-7-01-SC (February 22. 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 . 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. 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. Manage resistance to reforms through an appropriate change management strategy COMMENTS SC AM No. operating systems. recruitment of core RCAO personnel undertaken Reengineering of the Administrative Operating Systems SC AM No. and staffing and redesigning of these until all the installation starts will provide the required time within which such consciousness can evolve.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.
Makati City. Court of Appeals. the implementation scheme.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. financing requirements and change management strategy. 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. It will identify key information systems and their functionalities. strategic databases and data sharing functions. 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. and Calamba. 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. this project will allow docket fees to be paid online. 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. EPayment is meant to avoid situations involving extended custody of money. The software has been accepted by users in pilot courts in Manila. It will allow interaction of Court offices such as the Supreme Court. JRSP Subcomponent A. Court of Tax Appeals. Laguna Currently being done.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. 145 . 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. thus. and Sandiganbayan through a Wide Area Network Connection.for the e-Payment Project.
05-3-08 SC Re: Computer Guidelines and Policies (March 15. Lapu-Lapu City. effective. some changes were made to the approved organization and function of the JBC. 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.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. Others SC AM No. 4.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) In the final report. and procedures in judicial discipline. ADB TA 3693. 2005) SC En Banc approved the Computer Guidelines and Policies submitted by the Computerization Committee. and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). and Imus. Judicial Appointments and Career Development Formulation of the Reorganization Plan of the Judicial and Bar Council - - HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ADB TA 3693. The 146 . administrative structure. 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. judicial career development. The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies. 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. The guidelines were issued to guide authorized users to an efficient. rules. Angeles City. The guidelines were initiated by the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) and approved by the SC Committee in Computerization. Davao City. Cagayan de Oro City. and functions.
and technological resources According to the report. d) enhancement of resources which may include financial. sustain. Adoption of additional mechanisms for further insulating the judicial appointment system from potential undue politicization and for enhancing the transparency. For these reasons. 3) Improvements in policies and policy implementation as well as in pertinent and specific procedures. Completed 147 . the SC has decided that the current scope of functions of the JBC should be maintained. 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. staffing. The SC views certain aspects of human resources development as purely within the internal administrative authority of the Supreme Court. structure. appropriateness. 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 JBC reorganization has been implemented along with key procedural reforms. 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. efficiency. and continuously improve the judicial appointment systems. Reforms in this area include providing the core organizational infrastructure. 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. the reengineering of internal functions. 2) establishing the enabling environment that will provide continuing capacity to implement. and key operating mechanisms of the JBC. administrative structure. human. and in particular.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. and staffing of the JBC and identified reforms in the judicial selection and nomination process towards weeding out the unfit from entering the courts.
screen and nominate candidates to judicial posts. and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). 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. 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.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. COMMENTS Sufficient ratio of equipment Regular monitoring. rules. Best international standards of transparency and accountability will be applied to produce a reengineered. and select nominees for judges to be appointed by the President. 2) Screening Process. the body constitutionally-mandated to search. screen.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. politically buffered process that will produce judges who attract the confidence of the community. 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. ADB TA 3693. and 3) Selection and Nomination Process JBC Dialogues The Judicial and Bar Council. 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. efficiency. judicial career development. The system will provide opportunities for vertical promotion and horizontal 148 . and feedback of training to help update and improve training programs Synchronize projects with trainings Strengthen HR Association ADB TA 3693. and gendersensitivity of JBC procedures for judicial nominations Dialogues completed. judicial career development. The judicial appointment process will consist of the following stages: 1) Assessment of Current Situation and Recruitment. and procedures in judicial discipline. Their work pushed the Judicial and Bar Council. conducted dialogues with various sectors during the selection process. and procedures in judicial discipline. evaluation. and functions. Court vacancy rates have significantly decreased in the areas where the dialogues were held.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. administrative structure. rules. The report proposed that a three-stage appointment process be examined from two aspects – methodology and criteria used at each stage. including the use of a point system for evaluating nominees Formulation of Judicial Career Development Plan ADB TA 3693. the constitutional body tasked to search. appropriateness. The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies.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 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. to conduct public interviews. The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies.
though the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF). and other attached agencies and offices. skill and ability (KSA) analysis thereafter followed to determine the KSA required of personnel in order to perform each task properly. Human Resource Development and Capability Building plan for all official and personnel of the judiciary. judicial career development. OCA. CA. Training Management Manual. Deliverables include the assessment report on the Judiciary’s training program. A task analysis and knowledge. Sandiganbayan. Training Framework. the Supreme Court obtained Aus $496.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. 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 . to help eliminate incompetence within the judiciary. Sandiganbayan. Assessment of Training Needs completed 2. court administration. A training needs assessment of judicial personnel was also conducted. and judicial education SC AM No. Management Development Course for Court Administrators for presiding and executive judges of first and second level courts and Court Administrators of pilot RCAO. CTA. CTA. Strategic Human Resource Model More recently. Training Needs Analysis. A situational analysis was initially conducted to lay the groundwork for the subsequent steps in the TNA process. 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. 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. 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. CA. Under the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF).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. and SC. and Computerized Training Management System. and Performance Monitoring and Evaluation of the APJR. Documentation of Best Practices and Lessons.
and personnel administration including recruitment.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.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) 150 . 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. personnel performance evaluation. 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.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. 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. staffing. and 2) detailed vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of workflows and decision making authority particularly in the areas of planning and budgeting. career development and training. and personnel discipline ADB TA 3693. and personnel matters. salary administration.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.
(TAF) 2) Development of a Uniform Manual of Style on Judicial Writing for the Supreme Court. gender sensitive. To date. and lawyers. which required that PhilJA be given wider administrative decisionmaking authority. mediators.” The study evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of PhilJA’s educational programs. the following judicial education reform initiatives were undertaken by PhilJA: 1) E-Learning Modules PhilJA developed electronic learning for judges. six elearning modules (including remedial and civil law. (WB) ADB TA 3693. 3) enhancing curriculum development. 2) areas of judicial education andgoals. 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 . Completion of technical basis for distance education & full implementation of the program by PhilJA Based on the results of the study. and 4) distance education. 3) enhancing curriculum development. and financial latitude. design.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. control and accountability of its resources. etc. Results of the study revealed that judges are satisfied with the usefulness and relevance of PhilJA’s programs. ecommerce. a second study was conducted which looked into the “Impact of Judicial Education. Impact of Judicial Education and Directions for Change Further.) have been developed. and 4) distance education Ongoing. 2) areas of judicial education andgoals. 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. 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. and socially responsive education and training for judges and court personnel.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 3.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. and deliver effective. ADB TA 3693. actual possession.
might impede performance Design and implementation for the adoption of an independent remuneration policy ADB TA 3693. motivate judges to perform and continuously upgrade their competencies. 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 .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. 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. 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. 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.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.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. if not provided. COMMENTS “Presentation of the Architectural Design of the PhilJA Development Center in Tagaytay City” September 11.
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 .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.
5. for further study. 4. the Philippine Lawyers Association. 154 . 3. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y. dated 18 September 2000. 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. containing its findings and recommendations. 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. inputs and observations on PhiLJA’s proposed bar examination reforms. entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer. 7. Members of the academe and the legal profession were gathered to share their insights. dialogues. report and recommendation. 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. the Commission on Higher Education. A paper was produced by the Committee. 2004 5 TO DO The Supreme Court resolved to adopt the following reforms. proposing structural and administrative reforms. Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and improving the essay examination. and Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections of essay questions to correct variations in the level of test standards COMMENTS 1. Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40% of the total number of questions. changes in the design and construction of questions. the Final Report of the Special Study Group to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters. the Philippine Association of Law Schools. and the methodological reforms concerning the marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar examination. Bar Reform In terms of bar reform. comments. 2. Proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. the Philippine Bar Association and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar. the Philippine Association of Law Professors. submitted to the Supreme Court its Final Report.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. Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. lectures. with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. The Supreme Court en banc referred. 6. the University of the Philippines College of Law. there was support for the conduct of studies. Quiason as members. The Special Study Group. Arellano Law Foundation.net Designation of two(2) examiners per subject depending on the number of examinees .1awphil.
posters with scenes depicting ethical situations covered by the code were developed. 90 orientation seminars on the New Code of Judicial Conduct among justices and judges were conducted. and court personnel Comprehensive Manual on the Code of Ethics To further address the issue of corruption within the judiciary. are displayed in public areas of courthouses throughout the country. Another workshop is being planned for members of the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM). INTEGRITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 1. The posters. As a follow-through activity to the trainings. the World Bank supported the Supreme Court in coming up with this manual explaining the code of ethics to members of the judiciary. annotation to the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary was developed published. From May 2004 to December 2005. which utilized cartoon pictures to ease language issues. The annotated edition was launched in February 2007.000 court personnel. including all court staff in Metro Manila.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. 2. These posters are expected to reinforce the code provisions to court personnel and inform the public about the new rules. The symposium included an overview of the Bangalore Principles and training on interactive methods of teaching judicial ethics. lawyers. were trained on the new Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. In partnership with the Philippine Judicial Academy. judges. 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). Supreme Court Employees Manual has also been completed Continuing training Continuing trainings on the Code of Ethics & the Code of Judicial Conduct 155 . Improvement of the Code of Ethics of the Judiciary Review and improvement of the Code of Ethics for Justices. 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. including legal experts and other stakeholders to discuss additional changes to the bar exam in 2007. In November 2004. over 4. 40 law professors and judges participated in a judicial ethics symposium in Manila.
This is meant to provide members of the judiciary with information and insight on the role and functions of judiciaries in democratic states. Resource persons from other jurisdictions. Docket Management and Corporate Principles in Judicial Administration. The Role of Trial Court Judges in Pre-Trial and Courtroom Management. and Case Delay: Problems and Solutions 3. usually a justice or judge and participation in the dialogues is exclusive to members of the Philippine Judiciary. The Role of Judges in the Reform Process. in-country dialogues among justices and judges. 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.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 the Judiciary in a Global Economy. Some of the topics of the dialogues include: The Role of the Judiciary as the Third Branch of Government.
the implementation of the project has resulted in the successful hearing of 754 cases and the release of 300 detainees in Metro Manila. Known as The Justice on Wheels Project. utilizing relevant indicators and milestones. 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. The project has been expanded through the acquisition of two additional vehicles for deployment in the Visayas and Mindanao. among others. Mobile Court functioned in Metro Manila for sometime. The bus houses a small courtroom and offices of the first or second level court judge assigned via a rotation scheme. with the further acquisition of another vehicle being contemplated for deployment in Luzon. 2006). Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. on level of knowledge and understanding of the accused of the legal protections and status of his/her case. and is staffed by court personnel and a mediator. It focused.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. particularly between arrest and arraignment. As of August 2005. 2006). Study Completed Study completed. 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. The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). 6 157 . 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. dispersed population and limited transport facilities. for the monitoring and evaluation of long-term improvement of access to justice in the country. availability of adequate aid. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 1. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars.
The strategy will include funding options. Effective. programs. and Credible Police Force (Phase I) November 2003. Completed Study Completed Study Completed. constraints. Tranforming the Philippine National Police to a More Capable. issues. threats. programs. paint an accurate picture of the problems. and 4) prepare a pilot project implementation plan Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice Through Reforms in the Department of Justice January 2003. as well as its performance in specific areas.June 2003 The project aimed to undertake diagnostic studies. 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.January 2004 The project aimed to conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) to identify issues.December 2004 The project aimed to 1) consolidate. Transforming the Philippine National Police to a More Capable. as well as opportunities affecting the PNP. challenges. and Credible Police Force (Phase II) June 2004. 3) formulate reform agenda for the PNP. Reform recommendations for implementation Need for resources to implement the reforms Study Completed. area specific reviews and baseline data development that will enable a thorough assessment of the DOJ and its functions. and new challenges. weaknesses. concerns. and analyze the results of the four FGDs conducted. 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.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. functions.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 overall capacities and performance. Reform recommendations for implementation. weaknesses. review. Need for resources to implement the reforms Diagnostics completed 158 . mandate. Effective. 2) conduct institutional assessment of the PNP structure.
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. along with Supreme Court justices. the ALGs published a book called “From the Grassroots: The Justice Reform Agenda of the Poor and the Marginalized. and efficient judiciary. initially collaborated on a project entitled Justice Link. The dialogue between the Supreme Court and the basic sectors. and its resource groups.December 2005 Completed The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). 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". The Alternative Law Groups Inc. 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.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. and administration of justice as embodied in APJR. the Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Bill has been signed into law. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5.. 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. and empower the poor and marginalized groups to make use of judicial and quasi-judicial services. assessment. Programme for Rehabilitating Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) December 2004. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. The primary vehicle for this component is the Alternative Law Groups (ALGs. 2006). building peace in Mindanao. Six priority bills have been pushed – one of which. 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. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. 7 159 . and formulate institutional mechanism for an effective judiciary-civil society/community collaboration in improving the administration of justice to the poor.) In this regard. 2006). intended to tackle the following: access to justice by the poor and marginalized groups and communities. 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 also conducted a survey of various law school curriculum to explore the possibility of introducing human rights courses. Among others. effective. raise the level of public awareness about the judiciary and its role in good governance.
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. education. Lanao del Norte. have been released. 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. including training to enhance the sensitivity of law enforcers specifically on how they deal with the poor. Education. OCA Circular No. Most recently. Copies of these materials will be distributed to courts. namely: (1) institutionalization of the decentralized information function of the judiciary. and (4) legal reform. March 13. Capacity building will be pursued. 160 . From 1999-July 2007. MCIOs will disseminate information to facilitate access to justice for the poor especially women and children. Apart from providing free legal representation. This project has four components. which will ensure that the rights of the poor. (2) community development and empowerment of women and children. This was made possible through the sincere commitment of lawyers from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and human rights organizations. offices of the different pillars of justice and other public places nationwide. especially that of women and children. As regards component 1.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. Recently.M. No. Designating Clerks of Court of Concerned First Level Courts as Municipal Information Officer. in 8 accordance with IEC Guidelines.682 inmates. and Communication It covers 36 first-level courts in the provinces of Oriental Mindoro. 16-2007. a total of 7. legal information desks will be established in cooperation with the Barangay Council and Barangay Captain in the project areas. the Supreme Court was supposed to be the implementing agency. Medium Term Development Plan for the Criminal Justice System Ongoing with modifications 8 9 A. are upheld. 2007. 2007. Communication (IEC) Guidelines for Municipal Court Information Officers. Access to Justice for the Poor Project Information. (3) institutional development of law enforcement and the judiciary. At least 70% of the judges in the five selected provinces have already been trained. and Sultan Kudarat. the Office of the Clerk of Court has 9 designated a total of 17 clerks of court as MCIOs. 05-2-01-SC. 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. 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. Initially. including children. It seeks to create an enabling and supportive environment through the judiciary and law enforcement institutions as well as an amended overall legal framework. the EC will expand the information. Training of Municipal Court Judges and court personnel on the Barangay Justice System is also being pursued under this component. February 21. Education. Moreover. the executing agency for this project is the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Capiz. but due to possible constitutional issues involving project provisions that vested the Supreme Court with administrative control or supervision over other government agencies. Camarines Sur.
“Guidebook for Journalists Covering the Courts” and “Reader on Judiciary-Media Relations. the Department of Education (DepEd). is a joint project of the Supreme Court’s Program Management Office (SC-PMO). As such. and Libertas. and Student Handbook for High School Students. both elementary and high schools. Final outputs included materials such as a “Glossary of Legal Terms for Journalists”. which aims to enhance the public understanding of the fundamental principles that govern the operation of the judiciary. 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. The following prototype exemplars (or lesson plans) and student handbooks were developed: Teaching Exemplars for Classroom Use for Elementary Students.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. Teaching Exemplars for Classroom Use for High School Students. The aim of PERLAS is to educate and inform the general public. 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. PERLAS will enrich the existing curricula of the Department of Education for public schools. on the judiciary and the rule of law through the use of teaching and learning materials appropriate to their learning competencies. PERLAS is in supportof the Supreme Court’s Action Program for Judicial Reform which started in 2001. and at the same time. broaden the community support base for the ongoing judicial reforms through the use of said educational materials.” 161 . 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. specifically students from public schools.
dialogues and orientation seminars .Skills/seminars /cross visits .Production of information materials in various formats . Final outputs included materials such as a “Glossary of Legal Terms for Journalists”.Court-wide public information.Study feedback mechanisms .Mass-media judiciary manual . and communication system .court identity manual .” Chamber to Chamber Dialogues In partnership with the Supreme Court.Communicatio n plan .Survey of awareness and opinion . education. National Survey on the Users’ Experience and Perception of the Judiciary 162 . “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. The result of the 2-year dialogues was the improvement in the trust rating of the Supreme Court in the annual enterprise survey.Disclosure policy .awards system on performance Public Awareness and Opinion . “Guidebook for Journalists Covering the Courts” and “Reader on Judiciary-Media Relations.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Others OUTPUTS Judicial Organization Culture .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.
Collaboration with Civil Society Development of Feedback Research Facility Development and Implementation of Internal and External Communication Strategy 3. multi-sectoral support groups and interagency bodies COMMENTS 2. The Management Structure will provide the framework which will facilitate the translation of the strategy into action plans of justice institutions and stakeholder organizations. 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. 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. 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. along with a full-time executive staff. Development of Feedback Research Facility Development and Implementation of Internal and External Communication Strategy - 163 . 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.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.
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. and democratic society 2 2. RISKS AND MEASURES 165 .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. based on independence. accountability. and fair and timely resolution of disputes b) foster a culture of lawfulness. effectiveness. integrity. DILG) Financing plan is agreed upon and faithfully implemented throughout the program implementation period Strong support. 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. 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. and transparency in the administration of justice c) advance the rule of law as the foundation of a just. 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. prosperous. DOF. efficiency. NEDA.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).
DESIGN SUMMARY TARGETS/INDICATORS Percent increase in clearance rates in the courts. 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. accountability. NPS.2 Adherence to high standards of independence. integrity. 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. 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 . court decisions. Timeliness and public accessibility of publication of laws. regulations. 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. 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. LGU contributions to justice agencies accounted for. and other legal information.
Sufficient resources are provide at the right time and level to implement access to justice reforms. Number of youth incarcerated with adults. 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.DESIGN SUMMARY 2. of decisions on appeal reversed by higher court due to deficiencies in the application of law or in decision-writing 2.3 Capable and motivated human resources throughout the justice system TARGETS/INDICATORS Vacancy rates by occupational group and organization. disaggregated by region. RISKS AND MEASURES Improvement in resource support by DBM is needed and should be sustainable. 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. 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.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. 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. Leadership effective in implementing actions needed. professionalism and ethical conduct of policemen. judges and prosecutors Percent reduction in the no. 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.
functions and operations in the Judiciary. rigorously applied. NBI. documenting and publicizing results in order to sustain new expectations of timeliness in the administration of justice Implementation of existing decentralization plans in judiciary. and outcomes of other forms of alternative dispute resolution Reinforcement through monitoring. and diminish opportunities for delaying tactics. of lawyers and court users satisfied with accessibility of court decisions Decentralized administrative and financial management structures. PNP. and PAO in place and operational System survey Perception survey System survey Implementation issuances and reports 168 .decided case surveys Public reporting system on execution of judgment operational Percent increase in no. 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. arbitral awards. NPS.DESIGN SUMMARY 3 3. PNP.1 OUTPUTS (by outcome) Strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice Rules that reward timeliness. BJMP. 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 . protect officials who apply the rules. 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. to severely limit the use of interlocutory writs and appeals Improved procedures for prompt and inexpensive enforcement of judgments.
PAO. 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. 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.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. property. of prosecutor offices equipped to minimum facility standards No. of local jails equipped to minimum jail facility standards Enabling law operational Duplication reduced. efficient and dignified operations and services are met TARGETS/INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA ASSUMPTIONS. NPS. of police stations equipped to minimum facility standards No. of courts equipped to minimum court facility standards No. RISKS AND MEASURES Justice agencies sharing information through NJIS System survey Implementation issuances and reports PNP. including commissions and task forces for coordination of law enforcement activities implemented Enacted laws Implementation reports Systems and operations survey 169 . 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. reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons and meet immediate needs for improvement in facilities completed. NPS. 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. with prosecutorial discretion to decline prosecution One-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs. NPS and PAO Reduction in number of personnel overstaying in jails No. OMB performing case management with the aid of automated case management information systems No. of jails with operational prisoner information systems No. equipment and supplies to assure minimum standards for secure. 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.1. efficiency and savings generated.DESIGN SUMMARY 3. OMB. Judiciary.
2. integrate the standards in the code into the organizations’ career development and other incentive structures and into an effective and efficient disciplinary system.2 Each justice organization has in place a code of ethical conduct.3 Operational policies and procedures issued and operational Percent increase in perception of justice sector employees of adherence of decisions to policies and procedures. of statements of assets and income of public officials. No.DESIGN SUMMARY Legal structure for decriminalization of bouncing checks. System survey Key informant interviews Mini user survey 170 . and of clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints. disposition of complaints and actions taken. 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. and authorization and operation of simplified procedures for expedited handling of bounced checks and small claims. and policemen System survey Key informant interviews Mini surveys 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. and ensure that the public is effectively informed on the code’s ethical standards. and other types of cases that cause inordinate caseloads operational 3. together with adequate measures to assure employee training in the requirements of ethical conduct. Executive. legislative and judicial branches complete establish and operationalize policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment.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. 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 3.2 3. of compliant justice agencies No.2. integrity. minor offenses that are essentially private disputes.1 Adherence to high standards of independence.
budget reports Key informant interviews 3. NPS and PNP including accounting and financial reporting policies and processes No.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. a mediumterm expenditure framework to assure continuity of resources.DESIGN SUMMARY 3. of justice agencies with clear and operational public disclosure policies and procedures. minimal dependence on and maximum transparency of fees and local government contributions.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 3.3. RISKS AND MEASURES DILG reports System survey. with respect for fiscal autonomy of judiciary. 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 3.3 3.24 Operational legislative and regulatory structure for justice system finance. 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. 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 . 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.25 Policies to assure the maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system. in force in all justice organization No.
investigations. emphasizing interactive methods. elevate professionalism and encourage interinstitutional collaboration. 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. prosecutors. PNP and other public sector justice agencies Program documentation Implementation issuances Accomplishment reports No. including handbooks. increase productivity. public attorneys and policemen linked with pay operational Performance evaluation. and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts c) development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation. to foster professional administration while reducing the management burdens of judges b) police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests. 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. 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 .3. interdisciplinary participation. OMB. evidence collection. help employees adapt to change. Elements of the program include the following: a) court management. NPS. courtroom skills.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. RISKS AND MEASURES Alternative career paths for judges. and punish misconduct and neglect of duties 3. and complementary materials. relations with police.3 Justice organizations have in operation enhanced education and training program for their employees to improve skills.
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
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 .C.
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.g.g. 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 . 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. support) Expanding the definition of indigent clients Establishment of a system of accrediting paralegals Priority Urgent Indicators • Reduction of Cost of Litigation e.D.g.g. of cases requiring the services of a lawyer e. SERVICE Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem Reduce no.
paralegals and law students Establish separate youth homes for minors n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 179 . 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.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.
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. 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 .g.
2 A. 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.I. management system 181 .
Institutional Capacity Constraints Poor knowledge on how to access Justice especially the poor Desired Results Academe. 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.
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
prosecutors.Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem DOJ to collect fees. law enforcers accountable to a number of bodies/agencies Insufficient no. Appointment should be based on Merit. Law Student be encouraged to provide paralegal service 187 . judges and personnel among the pillars of justice system Additional allowance/hazard pay for public lawyers. prosecutors. of public lawyers. etc. of public lawyers. Children. investigation rooms for rape victims.g. Elderly and the Handicapped) Lack of Competence among the Members of the Lupon Training for Gender Sensitivity and Vulnerability Improvement of facilities e. 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. 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. prosecutors going to far flung areas Review of the appointment process of judges. SC circular re filing fees Priority Urgent Indicators Insensitivity to the Disadvantaged (particularly Women. Political INterventions in operations and choice in appointing heads of office B.
AREZA Head Executive Assistant. 2. The Asia Foundation JOSE MIGUEL R. CARDONA Executive Director. Office of the Solicitor General 9. 7. HOWARD B. DELA ROSA Consultant. CRUZ Economic Development Specialist 1. 4. 3. 10. Court of Tax Appeals ATTY. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MANILA ROMMEL ALIM ABITRIA Officer-in-charge. Public Attorney’s Office PACIFICO AGABIN Dean. BABY CATHERINE B. II. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council CLAIRE M. 11. 14. BALA Undersecretary. RUBY BITHAO-CAMARISTA Presiding Judge. ANNA LUZ B. 5.1. Metropolitan Trial Court Judges Association of the Philippines MA.II. ACOSTA Presiding Justice. 6. Humanitarian Legal Assistance Foundation ERNESTO D. Gender Justice Network Inc. CRYSTAL Director. Adhikain Para sa Karapatang Pambata ATTY. National Judicial Institute (JURIS Project) MA. CLEMENTIR Director. 188 . College of Law. Securities and Exchange Commission SHERIELYN BONIFACIO Project Officer. 12. BARIN Chairperson. DAMCELLE TORRES-CORTES Program Officer. Lyceum College ALICIA R. 1. 8. VICTORIA V. National Economic Development Authority ATTY. Department of Social Welfare & Development FE E. 13.
23. 25. Consultant Attorney. Presiding Judge. Govida Studies Inc. Philippine Bar Association VICTORIA V. 21. JR. 24. 26. 22. 16. LOANZON Vice-President. American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative 20. GUANZON Member steering Committee. Office of the State Prosecutor Department of Justice RONALDO GUTIERREZ Executive Director. RENATO LOPEZ. 27. Treasurer for Operations. RTC Manila President-Philippine Judges Association ROLANDO B. HERRADURA Administrator. VIRGILIO DE LOS REYES President. ROWENA V. 19. City Treasurer Office. 18. Assistant Chief State Prosecutor. Management Staff. JIMENO Past President. Upholding Life and Nature (ULAN) ISMAEL J. JR. 189 . 28. MARIA SOCORRO I. National Economic and Development Authority ATTY. Supreme Court of the Philippines ATTY. Parole & Probation Administration RITA LINDA V. 17. Quezon City Government ANTONIO EUGENIO JR. FALLER Senior State Solicitor and Chief of Staff. Asia Cause Lawyers Network MIGUEL F. IBP-QC Chapter ATTY. Free Legal Assistance Group ZENAIDA ELEPANO Court Administrator. VOLTAIRE ENRIQUEZ Asst. GUIDO.15. DIOKNO Secretary General. Office of the Solicitor General JUN FERNANDEZ Director IV.
38. 43. Committee on Justice. HON. REJANO Legal Officer III Bureau of Corrections Atty. MIRANDA Assistant Solicitor General. 36. PURIFICACION C. LIM Executive Director. ELMER M. Board of Pardons and Parole ATTY. PAQUITO OCHOA. NOGRALES Chairman. Makati Business Club ATTY. ELPIDIO G. GIRLIE F. 40. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice. MINITA V. 32. JR. Supreme Court of the Philippines GERARDO C. Quezon City Government MA. ALBERTO A. Office of the Solicitor General ATTY.29. Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal KARL B. 42. RUFO Senior Writer. Management Services Office Department of Justice SENATOR FRANCIS PANGILINAN Chairperson. Senate of the Philippines DR. YULORES. 33. SORIANO III President IBP Quezon City 190 . Rosario Setias-Reyes National Director. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ATTY. PAGUNSAN Director III. IBP-National Committee on Legal Aid ARIES C. Office of the City Administrator. ELIZABETH R NADROW Executive Vice-President Pederacion International De Abogadas (PIDA) Inc. 37. City Administrator. 41. VALERA-QUISUMBING Chairperson Commission on Human Rights ATTY. MONICA P.MACASPAC Chief Parole Officer. 30 31. 39. MARLON MANUEL Lawyer. 34. 35. Newsbreak ATTY.
1. 53 54. Jr. 2. 48. Quezon City MARIO E. ALO Director. THEODORE O. Vasquez. IBP-Cebu Chapter. (Rep. NANCY VILLANUEVA TEYLAN Acting City Atty. 3. 47. Diliman ATTY. 51 52. 4.IBP-Cebu Chapter PELAGIO APOSTOL Head. Office of the Ombudsman Region VII II. University of the Philippines. Office of 4the Legal Aid (UPOLA). ENRILE “BONG” L. Of Mayor Fernando). 191 . THOMAS Chief Planning Officer Department of Justice CHRISTIAN B. VALDERRAMA President Philippine Institute of Arbitrators Inc. (PIANG) PDDG JESUS A. City Government of Marikina ATTY.2. 49. Gregorio Tanaka Viterbo. Newsbreak JUAN DE ZUNIGA JR. Flag Metro Manila Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) MARITES VITUG Editor in Chief. VERSOZA The Deputy Chief PNP for Administration (IDCA) Philippine National Police Conrado M. IBP Cebu Chapter JOSELITO M. TE Director. VALENCIA City Legal Officer. 45 46. TEODOROM Executive Director Arellano Law Foundation RYAN C. Presiding Justice Court of Appeals Atty. Member. 50.44. JR. Assistant Governor & General Counsel Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas CEBU JEANNE IVY ABRINA Commission on Human Rights Region VII Office NOEL R ADLAWAN President.
Regional Legal Service. 9. L. University Bohol College of Law LLENA G. Regional Trial Court. 8. Inc. 15 16. ENRIQUE Y. Cebu 192 . MICHAEL DIGNOS Assistant City Attorney. RAUL P. PALS. BARBARONA Executive Director. Federacion Internacional De Abogadas Cebu Chapter ATTY. 10. LORETO M. CARREON Assistant Regional Director. RO VII LUDIVICO VISTAL CUTARAN Chief.M Dean-USP & Coll. 18. CEBU CITY EFREN C. Regional State Prosecutor. DURANO. 6. of Budget & Mgt. Lapu-lapu City Government FR. Law of Cebu. IPONG-AVILA OIC. BOHOLST President. DIOLASA Dilaab Foundation. 12. BALDERAS Assistant Regional Director. CARMELO DIOLA Dilaab Foundation. 17. Inc. 7. 11. Department of Justice JSUPT CESAR F. Dept. IBP-Cebu Chapter ATTY. GREGORIO AUSTRAL Dean. IBP. Region VII. NEDA VII MS. BJMP VII ATTY. SOCORRO BELARMINO Vice-President. 14. IBP GERALDONE FAITH ECONG Judge. Environmental Legal Assistance Center (ELAC) ATTY. BRICCIO JOSEPH C.5. ANNABELLE CENIZA-CHAVEZ Director IV. ARRIESCADO. Lapulapu City. JR. Police Regional Office VII PNP ATTY. CALICANO M. Auditor. 19.I. 13.
27.20. 31. Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 21. MARIA LUISA ONG Department of the Interior & Local Government ATTY. 28. 22. 32. ELIAS L. BJMP VII ATTY. DILAAB FOUNDATION INC. OPINION Dean. ESPINOSA PRO. 23. PSS ARTURO MENDEZ EVANGELISTA Chief Regional Investigation & Detective Mgt. DARYLL CHRISTIAN ESTRADA Program Steward. 26. 25. Inc. PAREDES Chairman. Eastern Samar State University HON. 34. Congressman Benhur L. VICTORIA HERMOSISIMA Secretary Counsel. ESTENZO Dean. Cebu City JINSP Jenesis U. PNP Regional Office VII TERESA FERNANDEZ Lihok Filipina Foundation. 24.M. Mongcopa Regional Hearing Officer. AUSTERE PANADERO Undersecretary. VICENTE R. FREE LAVA 193 . Inc. JOSELYN OESGUERA Consultant. House of Representatives ATTY. Division. JAYME JMP Regional Investigator / Bureau Prosecutor. JOSEFINA I. College of Law. ATTY. 33. ROLANDO M. University of Cebu MR. 29 30. LEIOLA Dilaab Foundation. J. BJMP VII ELENA O. IBP-Cebu Chapter BALDOMERO C. LIM Director. Department of the Interior & Local Government ATTY. Securities and Exchange Commission SJ02 ARNEL A. Salinbangon.
41. Mayor. EUGENE M. . SANIEL Executive Director. Department of Budget & Management HON. 38. Children Legal Bureau DR. JR. 36. EDILBERTO SANDOVAL Presiding Justice. SEVILLE. Sandiganbayan JOAN DYMPHNA G. 194 . Cebu NENGLEY TABUCANON VILLANUEVA Treasurer. Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu Chapter . 40. Department of Trade & Industry. 42. Vice President for Visayas. HON. ARTURO RADAHZA. GLORIA ZOSA SENO Resource Activities FRANCISCO A. 37.35. MARIO RELAMPAGOS Undersecretary. Lapu-Lapu City Gov’t HON. 39. SUMAMPONG TIDS. Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines ATTY.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.