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
2006 Authorized Appropriations of Selected Quasi-Judicial Bodies.2: Table II.9: Table II.12: Table II. 2003-2005 Case Inflows by Type of Case. Governance of Program Implementation 3. Government and Justice System. 2000-2007 Distribution of Judiciary Budget by Expense Class. 2006 Archival Rates. 2004-2006 Caseload. and transparency 3. Benefits and Costs F. Priority Results 1. All Courts.11: Table II. 2004-2006 Caseload. 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. Management Structure for Implementation E. Disposition and Clearance Rates by Court.8: Table II. Goals and Objectives B. Special Issues D.5: Table II. Lessons for the Philippines 1.1 Table II.13: Comparative Rankings of Philippines and Five Other Asian Countries on Rule of Law. integrity.2 Figure II. 2007 Vacancies in Judicial Positions as of 31 July 2007 Philippine Judicial Academy Courses and Participation.10: Table II. The Philippine justice system will have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice 2.3 Figure V. Performance Monitoring V. Conclusions 82 82 82 83 83 87 88 90 91 92 94 95 95 96 98 100 101 FIGURES Figure I.1 Figure II. accountability. Program Design 2. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system 4.C.1 Figure II. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public C. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence.6: Table II.7: Table II.1 TABLES Table I.3: Table II.1 Table II. 2000-2007 Distribution of MOOE Authorized Appropriations for Lower Courts. Disposition and Clearance Rates. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Indicators G. 2007 Approved Court Personnel Positions. 2007 Comparison of Budget Structures. A JUSTICE SECTOR STRATEGY FOR THE PHILIPPINES A.4: Table II. Program Finance 4. 2007 National Appropriations for Key Justice Sector Agencies. 2007 Appropriations Annual Judiciary Budget as Percentage of the National Expenditure Program. 2007 4 10 11 14 14 15 15 16 17 20 20 21 21 23 ii .
17: Table II. Biographic Summaries 3. Summary Records and Participants from Consultations. NLRC.Table II.20: Table II.16: Table II.15 Table II. 2006 Passage Rate for Bar Examination.18: Table II.22: Table II. 2005 National Expenditure. Disposition and Clearance Rates. Illustrative Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Long-Term Justice Sector Strategy 7.21: Table II. 2007 Distribution of Authorized Appropriations between Central Offices and Police Stations. 1999-2005 Budgets of Selected National Law Enforcement Agencies.19: Table II. Bibliography 4. 1999-2006 23 23 25 27 29 30 32 33 34 36 37 1. Terms of Reference 2. 2000-2005 Caseload and Dispositions. Persons Interviewed 5. 2007 NPS Appropriations. 2000-2006 Statistical Summary of Court-Annexed Mediation. December 2007 103 113 115 123 129 165 175 iii . PNP. Regional and Field Offices.24: ANNEXES Caseload.14 Table II. Disposition and Clearance Rates. 2000-2006 Caseload. Jan 2002-Mar 2007 Disputes Settled in the Barangay Justice System. Office of Ombudsman. Accomplishments under the Action Program for Judicial Reform 6. DARAB. 2003-2007 Disposition Rates of Regional and Field Prosecutors of NPS.23: Table II. Corrections System.
Justice. Law and Order Sector Reform Program iv . 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.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.
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. 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 .
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 .
The courts are financed primarily from the government’s budget. Less than 2. Also. The Constitution provides that Congress cannot reduce the Judiciary’s annual budget below the amount appropriated for the previous year. with its broad constitutional mandate to render decisions. raise questions of transparency and uncertainty in the financing of basic judicial functions. the network embraces an extensive and diverse array of organizational actors and activities. available resources are inadequate to meet the demands of the courts’ workload.” A number of nongovernmental organizations.166 lower courts throughout the country.6% for maintenance and operating expenses and only about 2% for capital outlays. There are more than 450 vacancies in judicial positions. exercise judicial review. all operating with multiple-judge structures. adopted in 1987 following the February 1986 revolution that ended the prolonged authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos. 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. even though the Constitution declares that the Judiciary “shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. 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. with 12.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The rule of law has featured prominently in the governance of the Republic of the Philippines throughout its modern history. including 56 Shari’a courts in the Autonomous Regions of Muslim Mindanao. and prescribe binding rules. collectively known as the system’s “other pillars. The criminal justice system includes law enforcement.000 positions for judicial and non-adjudicative personnel in the Judiciary. Court of Tax Appeals. public defense. Staff vacancies of about 3. and justice-oriented civil society groups also play roles in the administration of justice. vii . and community and indigenous justice systems. That prohibition is respected in practice. the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. and the Sandiganbayan (a special anticorruption court).500 represent more than 12% of the authorized workforce. However. corrections and rehabilitation agencies.300 are for justices and judges. as presently administered. Court of Appeals. These supplemental resources. 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. In addition to the Judiciary. prosecution. resulting in a ratio of 14 staff per judge. There are some 2. universities. alternative dispute resolution systems administered by public and private organizations. There are more than 32. including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. as well as lower courts. about 20% of the authorized total. The Philippine justice system consists of a network of interlocking institutions. More than 80% of the budget goes to salaries and allowances of court personnel. The network also includes 24 quasi-judicial agencies.” 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.
However. In recent years. and 15% are other kinds of cases. In both civil and criminal cases delays and continuances are common and trials are normally sporadic rather than continuous. The courts rely primarily on manual systems for caseflow management. These agencies operate under common general rules of procedure. Each judicial appointment must be made from a list of at least three nominees. Where there are fewer than three candidates the position remains vacant. Through its 14 academic departments. supplemented by published agency rules. quasijudicial agency functions. Once final. More than 70% of the approximately 450. Quasi-judicial agencies dispose of thousands of cases each year in a broad range of specialized fields. However. There is a high rate of success in settling cases that go through the mediation process. the Academy conducts a regular program of courses for aspirants to judicial appointment. The parties may not be represented by lawyers. each headed by a recognized expert. Enforcement of these codes has been criticized as lacking in transparency and even handedness. decisions of most quasi-judicial agencies can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. Automated systems for the collection and reporting of statistics are being pilot tested. 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. The Court adopted revised rules of civil procedure in 1997 and revised rules of criminal procedure in 2000. the Judicial and Bar Council. The number of cases handled each year under this system approaches the number of cases decided by the Philippine courts. Disputes eligible for consideration under BJS must use that system before viii . The settlement rate is about 75%.000 cases filed each year in the Philippine courts are criminal prosecutions. and arbitration to resolve disputes between residents of the same municipal unit. Procedures are informal. Traditionally centralized court management is to be replaced with a system of regional administrative offices operating under delegated authority from the Court Administrator. backlogs remain high. About 14% are ordinary civil disputes. the disposition of cases has exceeded inflows. Disposition and clearance rates in the principal quasi-judicial agencies are comparable to those in the courts. The Barangay Justice System (BJS) uses conciliation. The Supreme Court has broad constitutional authority to prescribe rules of procedure and rules of evidence.Judges are appointed by the President on the basis of recommendations from a constitutional body. However. The Judiciary has modern codes of conduct for judges and court employees. Clearance rates in the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals are less than 30% of total caseload. with annual dispositions clearing only about 40% of total workload. The Philippine Judicial Academy provides judicial education and training. Most quasi-judicial agencies are administratively attached to executive departments and their decisions are subject to review by the heads of those departments. court personnel skills. still only a small percentage of eligible cases are referred and mediated under this voluntary procedure. under the direction of the elected Barangay Chairman. an initial pilot test of the new decentralized system has been deferred. mediation. judicial career enhancement. and a variety of specific themes. They are held to a standard that their findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence.
It has proven effective in protecting against the use of the Philippines as a site for laundering the proceeds of unlawful activity. leaving only 4% for capital expenditures. a new alternative dispute resolution law enacted in 2004 promises to invigorate the use of these remedies. The NPS. which is subject to the direction of the Secretary of Justice. a force of some 125.700 investigators and related staff. with 11% for maintenance and operations and only 2% for capital outlays. However.being filed in a court. a mandatory retirement age of 56 results in rapid turnover and lack of continuity in leadership positions. The operation of customary legal systems is facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Prosecution is primarily the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service (NPS). the Commissioner of Insurance. A substantial part of the workload is created by the probable cause determinations and related investigations that precede the judicial phase of criminal prosecutions. is headed by a Chief State Prosecutor and has a total staff of some 4. Workloads are heavy and disposition rates are low. Salaries are low. If the BJS does not resolve a dispute. The Council includes the Central Bank Governor (chair). Administratively. The centrally managed PNP budget is devoted heavily to personnel costs (87%). about one-half of whom are prosecutors. Low compensation is an obstacle to attracting highly qualified police candidate. with about 1. the PNP is often called on to carry out functions for other law enforcement agencies that have less of a national presence. The NPS budget is centrally managed. There is no systematized training program. satisfactory resolutions are being achieved through customary remedies. The low volume of appealed cases indicates that. An impressive innovation in law enforcement is the Anti-Money Laundering Council. Implementing regulations have not yet been adopted to make the new legal regime operational. However. As in the case of the courts and the police. 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. the agency also needs to be responsive to local governments that have roles in police recruitment and discipline and provide supplemental resources. The principal law enforcement agency is the Philippine National Police (PNP). About 30 other national agencies exercise some law enforcement functions. created in 2001. such as the Philippine Drug Enforcement Administration. the PNP is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and Local Government.000. so long as they are compatible with national law and internationally recognized human rights. At senior levels. Indigenous populations (exceeding 12 million people) may use their own commonly accepted justice systems and institutions. a party may take it to the court that otherwise would have jurisdiction. Also.000. Mediation and arbitration are widely used by the public sector. In addition. The NPS lacks adequate ix . with 84% consumed by personal services and 12% used for maintenance and operating expenses. New prosecutors are recruited largely from recent law school graduates. the National Bureau of Investigation is the premier investigative body. The Commission is authorized to hear appeals from decisions affecting indigenous populations. The National Police Commission provides oversight for the PNP. by and large. local governments often augment national appropriations for prosecutors. and the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Detention.850 employees represents indigent defendants in criminal proceedings. and provides legal assistance to the poor. This small office of 1. The Office also conducts administrative proceedings to resolve lesser corruption complaints. which operates seven national penitentiaries.100 and a high vacancy rate. deal with transitions from prison to society. 1993 legislation to create a Legal Education Board to accredit x . a juvenile training center. has been identified as one of the causes of delay in the criminal courts. Other organizations involved in the administration of justice include the following: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) includes all 40. the PAO provided assistance to some 4. the PAO is within the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court exercises oversight of legal education through its control over admission to the practice of law. The total annual budget for the entire corrections system is about PhP 4. More than 95% of the 62. The Parole and Probation Administration and the Board of Pardon and Parole. but it operates as an autonomous entity. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in the Department of the Interior and Local Government. including criminal defense. Pretrial detention can continue for years. In 2006. A number of public and private organizations and some individual attorneys also provide some legal assistance. The Office of the Ombudsman has exclusive responsibility for prosecuting corruption cases against senior government officials in the Sandiganbayan.400 BUCOR employees manages a prison population of 25. However. estimated to be at least 500. The Department of Justice oversees the Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR). and municipal jails. with about 7. A review commission recommended a consolidation of corrections functions in 1996. and rehabilitation functions involve a number of agencies. There are about 100 law schools. provincial governors appoint wardens to manage 79 provincial and 25 sub-provincial jails. plays an active role in legal education. Beyond its responsibilities in the criminal justice system. which contribute to a low disposition rate for cases and a growing backlog. Administratively. The shortage of prosecutors.6 billion.000.000 personnel. is responsible for about 1. the PAO is the primary organization providing legal services to the poor. 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. also in the Department of Justice. city. 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. Public defense is the function of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). In addition. a number of which operate legal clinics through which fourth year law students provide supervised assistance to indigent clients.000 attorneys in the country. Some municipal jails remain under the control of the Philippine National Police. An authorized force of 2.100 district. The Office of the Ombudsman has a small staff of about 1. Arrested persons are most often confined initially in police detention facilities. to indigents.6 million poor people. but no action has been taken on that recommendation.000 detainees in BJMP jails have not yet been tried and sentenced.management systems and information technology. and a drug treatment and rehabilitation center. corrections. It shares with the NPS the function of prosecuting lower ranking officials and others charged with corruption in the regular courts. The IBP is the primary channel for the discipline of attorneys.
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. Most law schools are members of the voluntary Philippine Association of Law Schools. Organizational challenges include duplication and lack of coherence in agency responsibilities and inadequate coordination between justice organizations. competence and service for sector-wide reform. This challenge is related to the need for resources to invest in building those basic capacities. 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. Improvement of information and case management systems and more adequate facilities and equipment will be important tools for greater efficiency. training programs. Issues include executive branch involvement in judicial budget management. their dissemination. 2. A major challenge of capacity is overcoming the chronic delay and congestion throughout the justice system. adherence to ethical values. management of finance. Procedures. provide information to the public. practices. 1.law schools has not been implemented. the four objectives combine to provide a framework of efficiency. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems. public access to clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints. values. While the ultimate objective is broad access and excellent service to the public. Several organizations are less directly involved in the operation of the justice system. These include organizations that do research. inadequate transparency in support from local governments. Increased accountability of the justice system is a challenge shared by the justice agencies with civil society. monitor the operation of the courts and government agencies. Enhancing integrity in the justice system will require a review of existing ethical rules. The reform agenda needs to encourage public interest in the xi . but are important stakeholders in how well the system operates. and Transparency A principal challenge to independence is the inadequate financing of the justice system. and offer legal services to the poor. and expectations. and a culture of managing for results. and competent human resources. Integrity. take public positions on justice policy issues. human resources and information. incentives. Thus. Business Practices. Responding to this challenge requires changes in norms. and Facilities A threshold challenge is to build within justice organizations a strong capacity for strategic planning. High Standards of Independence. Accountability. excessive reliance on revenue from fees for basic needs. and public information about the outcomes of complaints of unethical conduct. effective disciplinary systems. improved service depends upon increased efficiency. and generally inadequate budgets to permit needed investments in capacity development.
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. two decades of reform have restored a sound institutional framework for the administration of justice.performance of the justice system and to encourage justice organizations to be responsive to that interest. Expanded availability of appellate court opinions and increased availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms would also improve service to the public. On the whole. make up that system. Issues include recruitment. These interagency. and a system of coordination among justice organizations and communication with stakeholders. Its governance system includes an executive committee with broad representation from the justice community. xii . and career development. 3. with priorities and cost estimates. a host of long-term projects and activities is underway. 4. In addition to the APJR executive committee. This structure has helped to stimulate reform initiatives in justice organizations outside the Judiciary. and the availability of information about issues and channels for obtaining information and assistance. 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. physical environment. institutional incentive systems. training. established the leadership of the Supreme Court. and initiated a continuing justice reform effort. A third phase was introduced in November 1998 in Chief Justice Hilario Davide’s policy statement that became known as the ”Davide Watch. multi-year plan. 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. the justice system. In addition. Significant achievements include: o The creation and strengthening of courts and other justice organizations. Building capacity at the community level will be important to legal empowerment. 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. together. The APJR has been sustained by a series of opinion surveys and by support from the international community. Capable and Motivated Human Resources Vacancies are a major problem. a program management office to facilitate implementation.” 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). helped to restore the independence of the Judiciary. A related challenge is the need to improve popular awareness of the law. During the past six years a number of specific reforms and improvements to the administration of justice have been directly attributable to the APJR. The APJR established a coherent. Low salaries and poor working conditions impede the ability of the public sector to attract the best candidates with high ethical standards. the National Council on the Administration of Justice is focused on criminal justice coordination.
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.
accountability. The justice organizations will complete one-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs. and civil society monitoring of performance. including prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence. legislative. reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons. and A survey of facilities with a view to assuring that property. These one-time initiatives will include: o o A purge of inactive cases to reduce the backlog and free up resources to manage active cases. o 2. and transparency. is a matter of great concern here. and judicial branches will decriminalize bouncing check cases and will authorize and put into operation simplified procedures. equipment.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. that the standards of the ethical code are integrated into the organization’s career development and other incentive structures. xvii . This objective involves many different things: the adequacy of ethical systems. with a view to reallocating and concentrating prosecutorial resources on the investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects for obtaining conviction. integrity. The executive and legislative branches will rationalize the organization of law enforcement and corrections functions in order to reduce duplication. public access to information. 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. achieve savings. minor offenses that are essentially private disputes. and other types of cases that impose inordinate workloads and contribute to delays and congestion. for the expedited consideration of bouncing checks. together with adequate measures to assure: o o that employees receive training in the requirements of ethical conduct. and dignified operations and service to the public. and supplies meet minimum standards for secure. and assure clear lines of authority and continuity of leadership. freedom from political interference. The overarching issue of justice system financing. efficient. which affects all the objectives. increase efficiency. The executive. small claims. and meet immediate needs for improvements to facilities. including mediation. 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.
legislative. of statements of assets and income of public officials. All justice organizations will have in force policies to assure maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system. 3. The communications media will be keeping the public informed of the observations of such monitoring. The executive. This structure will respect the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. It will require accountable and transparent financial management by all justice organizations. working conditions. to the discipline of justice system personnel. It will assure the transparency of. o The executive. fees and local government contributions to meet basic operating expenses of national justice organizations. and will provide through a medium-term expenditure framework reliable assurance of consistent levels of resources needed to enable justice organizations to implement approved reforms over time. and suitable penalties are being imposed where allegations are substantiated. 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. including active dissemination of information and the facilitation of monitoring by civil society organizations. alleged violations are being quickly investigated. The role of human resources is so important and so complex that it warrants being treated as an objective in its own right. and workforce allocation. including the nomination of candidates for appointment to judicial and other senior offices. A policy of transparency should extend from the nomination of judges and other officials to the volume. and judicial branches of government will adopt a new legislative and regulatory structure for financing the justice system. Civil society organizations. and minimize dependence on. Public perceptions of the justice organizations and their operations will be regularly surveyed and the survey results published. speed and quality of services performed. In this regard. training.o that the public is effectively informed of the code’s ethical standards. including the organized bar. career development. compensation and benefits. and of clear and convenient procedures for complaints of alleged violations. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system. 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 . legislative. and judicial branches of government will establish policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment. and that effective disciplinary systems are in place. This objective involves issues of selection. Justice organizations that exercise functions requiring independence of judgment will enjoy legal autonomy consistent with the required independence for the performance of their functions. will be systematically monitoring the operation of the justice system.
and encourage inter-institutional collaboration. sources of legal assistance to the poor.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. Career development to provide employees who demonstrate good performance and aptitude with opportunities for advancement to increased responsibilities and increased remuneration. relations with police. commitment to public service. investigations. 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. including training to develop skills needed for performance at progressively higher levels. Police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests. 4. and sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity and gender. interdisciplinary participation. Training for representatives of community justice centers in dispute resolution procedures. elevate professionalism. and case management. Development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation. It involves perceptions of how well the justice system protects the security of xix . evidence collection. Penology and prison management training for corrections system personnel to enable them to make the best use of humane and restorative methods for the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. help employees adapt to change. increase productivity. o The justice organizations will have in operation enhanced education and training programs for their employees to improve skills. and punish misconduct and neglect of duties. courtroom skills. and Transparent incentives and disciplinary measures that reward good performance. incorporation in education and training activities of components on development of leadership skills. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. Programs will emphasize interactive methods. and communicating with justice organizations. and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts. and complementary materials such as handbooks that will be of continuing value in the performance of duties after training is completed. and For all. Evaluation to measure the performance of personnel against established criteria of efficiency and adherence to standards of conduct. 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. Elements of the program will include the following: o o Court management training to foster professional administration while reducing management burdens on judges. equal treatment of individuals.
The definition of the justice sector should be a pragmatic and flexible one. including support for community justice centers. it involves services to the poor and disadvantaged to empower them to obtain equal treatment under the law. Mobile justice units will provide services to communities that lack the presence of courts and related facilities. The alternative dispute resolution regime authorized by legislation in 2004 will be in full force and generating increased use of alternative dispute resolution measures. and the varying capacities and needs of these widely diverse organizations. Priority results to be achieved by 2012 with respect to this objective include the following: There will be a sufficient number of judges. how the justice system operates. 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. and collaborate with the organized bar. needs for autonomy and independent action by the numerous organizations within the justice sector. This program will include measures to make available practical resource materials. The organization of work under the strategic plan will need to take into account interests of policy consistency. in the courts and in alternative dispute resolution systems. 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. the services it provides. And. and remedies and procedures available to enforce those rights and obligations under the law. It involves public awareness of rights and obligations under the law. nongovernmental organizations. and community centers and networks to assure the sustainability of popular education and legal awareness efforts. The specific xx . 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. prosecutors and public attorneys assigned to meet the needs for their services at all lower court stations. 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. law schools. and how to obtain those services. reflecting the scope of the issues to be addressed under the strategic plan. Community policing units will be in operation in cities and municipalities throughout the country. coordinate the work of service providers. basic to a society committed to the rule of law. with vacancy rates below 10%. Court-annexed mediation units will be operational and available to serve the needs in all the lower court stations throughout the country. rights and obligations of citizens.person and property through formal and informal procedures.
implementation. foster consensus on priorities for action and resource allocation. and document priority actions and related matters of timing. Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Council might choose to carry out some responsibilities through one or more Committees with limited membership from among the member organizations. monitoring and evaluation. 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. could provide overall policy guidance for the development. carry out. The Council would review monitoring and evaluation arrangements and assure an ongoing public information program and dialogue with national stakeholders and international development partners. oversight agencies. Philippine Association of Law Schools. National Economic and Development Authority. Organizations represented in the Policy Leadership Council might include: o o o o o o o o o o o The Judiciary. Office of the Ombudsman.organizations included in the operation of the strategic plan need to be identified at the outset. and major stakeholders are represented. It would keep the Council and Steering Group informed of progress achieved and issues that arise in the implementation of the strategic plan. Department of Social Welfare and Development. financing. 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. and oversee and support the development and implementation of action plans of organizations and working groups in the justice sector. 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. Department of Justice Department of the Interior and Local Government. The Executive Staff would assist efforts to identify. 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. although the participating organizations could change from time to time. xxi . Its essential responsibility would be to sustain vigorous implementation of the strategic plan and broad and harmonized national and international support in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the reform program. Department of Budget and Management. The Council would foster coherence and coordination among organizations in the justice sector. and periodic review and update of the justice sector strategic plan.
augmented by transparent local government contributions. Systems infrastructure – equipment. and achieve results. accelerated and broadly based economic and social development. Over time. The principal source of financing will have to be the government budget. 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. technology. financial. manage change. xxii . Human resources development – strengthening the skills of personnel to make the most effective use of new technology. and the security and well being of all who reside in. strategies and actions with resources. Beyond the immediate benefits of reduced operating costs and improved service. increase efficiency. 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.The essence of a sector-wide strategic plan is its alignment of policies. automation of information systems. installation and maintenance of modern administrative. improved management should increase productivity and create savings. maintenance. and do business in the Philippines. 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 would be highly desirable if the Department of Budget and Management were to develop a medium-term expenditure plan for the implementation of the strategic plan. and equipment. 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. and rationalization of workforces should all reduce the costs and increase the efficiency of operating the justice system. Fewer pending cases in the courts. and case management systems. 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. facilities. and assistance from international development partners. visit. consolidation of duplicative functions. and a corresponding dramatic increase in public confidence in the system. taking into account financing from national resources as well as from international development partners for the justice sector. fees for services. Full implementation of the suggested priorities under the strategy should produce a dramatic improvement in the performance of the Philippine justice system by 2012. fewer prisoners in protracted pretrial detention. and Program management – the operation of the governance structure described above for implementing the strategy.
3 The Congress.I. 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. and legal assistance for the poor. but also the duty of the courts to review acts of government for possible grave abuses of discretion.9 Subject to case by case exception. and judicial branches of government. and assure the equal protection of rights and the fair and timely resolution of disputes. legislative. and three months for other lower courts. 12 months for lower collegiate courts. chaired by the Chief Justice.5 The Supreme Court has broad power to prescribe rules on the protection of constitutional rights. 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. in defining the jurisdiction of the courts. after final pleadings have been filed. admission to the practice of law. court procedures. The Constitution established substantive rights as well as a framework of governance to protect those rights. 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.6 The Supreme Court appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary and exercises administrative supervision over the courts and their personnel. The Constitution established separate executive.7 Judicial appointments are made by the President on the basis of recommendations by a Judicial and Bar Council. with representation from the executive. foster a culture of lawfulness. The Court can also disapprove rules of procedure by special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. It also incorporates elements of precolonial customary law and the Shari ‘a law of the country’s Muslim population. including the power to discipline judges and remove them for cause. decisions must be reached within 24 months for the Supreme Court. academia. In the postindependence era these traditions have been enriched by national innovations as well as models from international practice in certain areas of jurisprudence.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.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. and private sector. and judicial branches. the bar. vesting the judicial power in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. 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.8 Justices and judges hold office in good behavior until age 70 and their salaries may not be decreased.10 1 .4 Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced below the level of the previous year.
they have tended to proceed in parallel. court personnel. launched by the Supreme Court in 2001. court dockets remain highly congested and delays are excessive. There has not been a significant and sustained investment in strengthening their capacity to manage their increased and more complex responsibilities. accountability. especially APJR. and transparency. new educational (including continuing education) programs for judges and lawyers.13 There has been a great deal of inter-institutional communication and coordination in these reform efforts. police. identify and analyze needs. the Philippine justice system still faces many fundamental challenges that have been impervious to the efforts of reformers. All these efforts have benefited from extensive stakeholder consultations and analytical studies that have identified issues and suggested possible areas for corrective action. and civil society organizations. Accordingly. While focused on the Judiciary. increased judicial salaries and better working conditions. and police. it stimulated additional reforms of those other justice sector institutions. there has not evolved a strong commitment to accountability for implementing the many reforms that have been approved and there has not been a sufficient political consensus that investment in the capacity of the justice system deserves higher priority than it has received. corrections agencies. universities. By encouraging broad participation.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. 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. As a result. Important achievements include the adoption of ethical standards for judges. efficiency. and fashion appropriate responses. and greater access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. attorneys. and guiding and monitoring performance on a sector-wide basis. improved administrative and financial management systems for the courts. Throughout this period the justice system has been the subject of numerous studies and reform initiatives to improve the delivery of justice services. Human and financial 2 . the organized bar. the experience of the past 20 years has shown how difficult it is to achieve and sustain the Constitution’s ideals. integrity. allocating resources among various reform initiatives. Workloads in organizations throughout the justice sector are unrealistically high. effectiveness. including prosecutors. However. The most comprehensive of the various reforms has been the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). including in particular the Ombudsman and the Commission on Human rights. This continuing process has attained significant accomplishments. APJR recognized that progress in judicial reform required the involvement of other institutions. organizing work. At the same time. On the whole. 12 Yet. public defenders. On the other hand. and they have not built strong internal incentive systems that would help employees adapt to change. responding to the challenge of implementing reforms that require fundamental change is a slow and arduous process. There has been no overall justice sector policy and no structure (other than normal budget procedures) for setting priorities. the business community.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. New and reformed organizations have not developed the capacity to implement all the demands imposed upon them by growing workloads and numerous reform initiatives.
is impeded by a widespread lack of knowledge about the substance and procedures of the law. inconsistent application of procedural rules. Transparency International. and backlog and delays in resolving cases.”16 Transparency International ranks the Philippines at 121 of 163 countries on its Corruption Perceptions Index for 2006 and 131 of 179 countries in 2007.19 Additional indicators of comparative performance with regard to governance. largely with prisoners awaiting trial. including the ability of the Philippines to compete in the global economy. low budgets and salaries. and the delays. economic.resources and physical infrastructure are often grossly inadequate or poorly allocated and managed. the World Bank and the World Economic Forum. Public confidence in the integrity of justice system operators. is disturbingly low overall. control of corruption. Examples include reports by Freedom House. dependence on donors for budgetary support. noting that the time to enforce a contract is considerably longer than the average for the East Asia and Pacific region. The private sector is frustrated by the uncertainties and unpredictability about how the law will be interpreted and applied.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. 21 the Heritage Foundation’s 2007 Index of Economic Freedom. cites political interference. Access to justice.22 and “Confidence in Asian Judicial Systems. which concentrates on judicial corruption. The Global Competitiveness Report ranking for the Philippines is 75 of 125 countries in 2006 and 71 of 131 in 2007. human rights. a slip from the previous year attributed in part to low scores on law and contracts. and economic competitiveness. 20 the Economic Freedom of the World 2007 Annual Report published by the Fraser Institute.” an August 2007 publication 3 . and social development. despite the expanded availability of alternative dispute resolution. or an annual loss amounting to between P7 billion and P13 billion in 1999 alone. the rule of law and business climate are contained in the Country Data Report for the Philippines. The populations of already overcrowded jails are growing.25-0. is hampered by corruption and inefficiency. uncertainties.46) of GDP growth annually. The Philippines country report in its 2007 Global Corruption Report. while generally independent. 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.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. All these deficiencies combine to constitute a negative influence on the quality of Philippine democratic. in the World Bank report Governance Matters 2007. lack of monitoring framework. while conviction rates remain very low.18 The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report ranked the Philippines at 61 of 80 countries examined in 2002. inadequate services to the poor. 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%. costs. with the country report noting that “the rule of law continues to be weak” and that “the judiciary.”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. while higher for some organizations than other. and in many cases physical remoteness of the courts.
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. Table I.1 COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FIVE OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES ON THE RULE OF LAW.of the Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd.1 COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FIVE OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES ON THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT. 2006 The clear implication of these data is that significantly improved performance of the justice system could have important practical benefits for the Philippines. 18. the objective would be a justice sector 4 . 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. and 22. which is a significant factor in all the reports that under underlie the rankings for the Philippines on the other indices cited above.24 Table I. Rather than a judicial reform program that involved other institutions.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. Figure I. 19. 23 Perceived inadequacies in the administration of justice have also been the subject of individual negative comments from international observers. 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.
The principal sources for the research are identified in the bibliography at Annex 3. each of which was complementary to the others. Vicenta Alinsug. and Carolyn Mercado. working with CPRM Consultants. costspecific investments. Accordingly. included James Michel. As the work proceeded. a San Francisco-based consulting firm that specializes in the rule of law. where many organizations have responsibilities for policy and operations. a Manilabased consulting firm specializing in public governance. Especially in the justice sector. the team developed draft recommendations and tested them in public consultation meetings with broad participation from government. In addition. Inc. It calls for the following with respect to the consideration of a justice sector SWAP for the Philippines: An assessment of previous long-term frameworks and related initiatives of development partners. Determination of appropriate timing and sequencing of various actions and clarification of implementing arrangement. it 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. Biographical summaries of team members are set out at Annex 2. and Development of a performance monitoring system that includes benchmarks and indicators to track progress in implementation. 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). This contract included technical assistance (TA) in for a number of activities relating to the administration of justice. Facilitation of agreement with the Government and other development partners of the reform agenda. and other stakeholders. Each of the team members brought a distinctive expertise to this task. On the basis of this research and consultation. The team worked on an intermittent basis throughout 2007.and long-term strategic funding initiatives and prioritized. In response to the Court’s request. development partners. and it examined the experience of other countries that have instituted justice sector-wide programs. 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 5 .program of direct relevance for all aspects of the administration of justice. The DPK/CPRM team for this activity. as identified in the list of persons interviewed at Annex 4. It reviewed the current structure and operation of the Philippine justice system. participation and transparency. it was seen as essential that a sector-wide approach be developed with broad dialogue. The terms of reference for this activity are set out at Annex 1. Development of short. In December 2006 the ADB awarded a contract to DPK Consulting. the team shared ideas with a number of individuals in the justice sector in order to capture a large number of perspectives. 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. combined with contemporary efforts to engage justice sector operators. the team conducted interviews with a wide range of stakeholders and experts in the subject matter. under the overall leadership of TA team leader Barry Walsh.
and civil society. Summary records of the major public consultations conducted in Manila and Cebu in December 2007 are at Annex 7. as well as international development partners. We have tried our best to synthesize. consolidate. Director of the Supreme Court Program Management Office. other justice sector institutions. The judgments in this report are entirely our own and we have sole responsibility for any errors of omission or commission herein. for their patient and skillful guidance throughout this undertaking. The team has benefited enormously from the information and insights that so many have shared with us. 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.Judiciary. and organize what we have learned in a way that reflects the many helpful suggestions we have received. We are especially indebted to Debra Kertzman. the private sector. 6 . performance indicators. and systems of performance monitoring and evaluation. Senior Financial Sector Specialist of the Asian Development Bank. and to Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum. including with respect to governance structures. 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. This report synthesizes the findings of the team’s extensive research.
elected in 1965. Capuno. Section 1. Section 8. Freedom House groups countries into three broad categories in this annual survey of political rights and civil liberties: free. www. See also Chapter III and Annex 5 of this report. Ibid.gov. Burdensome Business. Carmelo. The Philippine Judicial System.freedomhouse.go. and Myrna Feliciano. Institute of Developing Economies. “Justice and the Cost of Doing Business: The Philippines.doingbusiness. 89. Maria Lourdes.mbc. All these reports of Transparency International are at www. XI and XIII. May 2007.org. 2004. Article VIII.ph. March 2001.pdf. Section 3.com. See Sison. pages 1-5. for a brief outline of the history of the Philippine Judicial System..htm. 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.org/pub-reports. Country Study Report: Philippines. Section 5. 1987-2000. Raul. note 2. Ibid. Sereno. 11.net/ipbenefits/tucson/isnie2004/ISNIE2004. Articles III.ph/economic_research/mbcrr/no89/default. See also National Integrity Systems. Marcos.transparency. “Judicial Performance: Its Economic Impact in Seven Countries. July 2000.org.kreative.” University of the Philippines. MBC Research Report No.supremecourt. 2006. suppressing democratic institutions in the process. Constitution.” Supreme Court of the Philippines. http://www. Freedom House. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 7 . Improving the Investment Climate. Editor.gov.org.Notes to Chapter I 1 See Pangalangan. Ibid. Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. 11. http://www. Ibid. and Joseph J. Ibid. 2006 and 2007.apjr-sc-phil. Sections 10. partly free. http://www. Tokyo. Section 2. Freedom in the World. Sections 5. www. 1987. Ibid. http://www. www.ph/aboutphil. See the APJR website at http://www. See the Makati Business Club commentary on the 2007 World Bank report.htm.” International Society for New Institutional Economics. Emmanuel de Dios. “Philippine Judicial Reforms.ide. and not free.apjr.jp/English/Publish/Als/pdf/05. Section 15(1). 6. Robert M. Sherwood. 2001 (manuscript on file in CPRM). supra. Ibid.
http://www. 737.extrajudicialexecutions. Social and Cultural Rights. http://www. Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights. the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial.” 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.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2007/gcr2007_rankings. Philip. Political. Alston. For example. Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial. 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. Civil. This report cites weak enforcement of existing laws and impunity of elites as factors that create a “difference between theory and reality.pdf.org/index/country. and Mary Anastasia O’Grady.ph/economic_research/survey-gcr. 2007. Heritage Foundation. www.pdf. see Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008. 20 21 22 23 24 8 . or Arbitrary Executions.ahrchk. Summary. Holmes. The analysis of the Philippines is at http://www. Global Competitiveness Index rankings and 2006-2007 comparisons. November 2007.cfm?id=Philippines. Kim R.org/reports/A_HRC_8_Philippines_Advance_Edited.heritage. Table 4.” in Human Rights Report – 2006: The State of Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations. Kane. December 2006. http://www.freetheworld. 2007. For the 2006 and 2007 Global Competitiveness rankings. in a statement made while visiting the Philippines in February 2007. World Economic Forum. The Asian Human Rights Commission. 2007 Index of Economic Freedom: The Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity.mbc.net/hrreport/2006/AHRC2006HRReport. Asian Intelligence: An Independent Fortnightly Report on Asian Business and Politics.com/2007/EFW_Complete_Publication_2007. Timothy. No. 29 August 2007.worldbank.” http://www.org/governance/wgi2007.pdf. http://info.weforum. http://material.19 See statement of Makati Business Club on the 2002 ranking. Hong Kong.net/verbatim/philip-alston-statement02222007.p df.pdf.com. Economic. Washington. See also the final report of the Special Rapporteur.inquirer.
The description of the justice system is followed by a discussion of the challenges that the system faces. 1 To be sure. and performance. an effective network of such institutions provides an orderly framework conducive to liberty. the legislative branch of government is generally not considered a part of the justice system. and well being in which accepted rules are fairly and equally applied. Description of the Justice System 1. and program results. procedures.II. three collegiate (with multi-judge panels) higher courts. The Philippine Justice System The essential functions of any justice system are the resolution of disputes. structure. university law schools. and other organizations with a primary focus on the administration of justice (the organized bar. For example. and the enforcement of obligations. either by appeal or by petition alleging a grave abuse of discretion. budget. defense. workload. the entities historically identified as being within the “other pillars” of criminal justice (prosecution. The following description of the Philippine justice system examines the courts. However. not all of which could reasonably be considered to be a part of the administration of justice. In a free society. its implementation will be a dynamic process in which decisions will be needed continually in the interests of policy coherence. Overview The Philippine Judiciary includes the Supreme Court. quasi-judicial administrative bodies. But the enactment of legislation creating courts or prescribing the elements of a crime obviously involves the justice system in a very direct way. A. and legal clinics). 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. In addition. If the Philippines is to adopt a justice sector strategy. corrections and rehabilitation). alternative dispute resolution systems. and some 2. For each group of organizations. the network that comprises the justice system necessarily embraces a far more extensive and diverse array of organizational actors and activities. These administrative adjudications are usually regarded as a part of the justice system. exercise judicial review. with its constitutional mandate to render decisions. 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. 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. human resources. the description seeks to capture its role.166 lower courts located throughout the country. These judgments are ultimately pragmatic ones. reflecting the nature of the organization or activity and the traditions and practices of the society. law enforcement. the Philippine Judiciary. 2 Alternative dispute resolution systems 9 . 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. management efficiency. security. and prescribe binding regulations and rules of evidence and procedure. Likewise. These include 56 Shari’a circuit and district courts in the Autonomous Regions in Muslim Mindanao. Some activities are multi-sectoral and some organizations perform a range of functions. plays a central role. justice-oriented civil society organizations. the protection of rights.
580 11.771 Quasi-judicial Bodies 424. and commercial mediation and arbitration centers.832 79.454.349. public defense.902 Other 52.418 1.647. Prosecutions are the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service. Public sector justice institutions are financed primarily by the national government.474 10.952 2.75 14. in partnership with law enforcement and corrections institutions.” 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.636 162.53 2.426 9. and a number of non-governmental organizations also provide free legal services and are involved in legal education. augmented by the Office of the Ombudsman with respect to certain corruption cases. Board of Pardons and Parole.355.868. The corrections system includes both national and local institutions: the Parole and Probation Administration.058 858. 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAY Law Enforcement 37. provincial.091. several other Philippine law schools. citizen monitoring of judicial appointments.473 4.734.625 982. collectively known as the system’s “other pillars.573 1.541 43. the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology in the Department of the Interior and Local Government. district and municipal jails.160 Corrections 2. and other aspects of the administration of justice.116. prosecution. cultural integrity. Several quasi-judicial agencies provide free legal assistance to poor individuals involved in disputes before those agencies.include court-annexed mediation. mediation.679. The courts provide lawyers to indigent litigants and exempt them from court fees and charges. 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. FUNCTION 10 .1 NATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR KEY JUSTICE SECTOR AGENCIES.000 207.366. corrections. The Department of Social Welfare and Development. and the economic life of some 12 million indigenous people and cultural minorities.072 Prosecution 2. although some of them derive supplemental resources from fees for services and contributions from local governments.640 Courts 7.112 8. conciliation.939 Public Defense and Legal Aid 869. facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. city.000 barangays and through customary procedures. maintains ten centers for the rehabilitation of children and youth.466.899 99. The 2007 budget demonstrates that the justice system consumes about 4% of total national government expenditures.789 284.050 597. Public defense is primarily the job of the Public Attorney’s Office. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines.616 61. and police detention cells.1).007. 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. more than 80% goes to salaries.650 90. to resolve disputes relating to ancestral lands. Many other government and private institutions also provide legal services to those in need.955. and rehabilitation agencies.642.72 100.267 2.301 % of total 82. and the Bureau of Corrections in the Department of Justice.022 4. The Public Attorney’s Office is the primary institution for the provision of legal assistance for the poor. the University of the Philippines.4 The criminal justice system includes law enforcement.985 75.817 Grand Total 51. 2007 Note: Entries include expenditures related to administration of justice that are identifiable in the GAA. and arbitration by government agencies.697 101. Of the aggregate total budget.389. Table II.00 Source: General Appropriations Act (GAA).927 534.
007. can prescribe statutory qualifications of lower court judges Source: Program Management Office.101. Figure II.2 COMPARISON OF 2007 BUDGET STRUCTURES. power to veto laws 2.6 0 61. can impeach and remove the President 1. can impeach and remove members of the Supreme Court 3. legislative and judicial branches of government.126. are provided by law. power to grant amnesty JUDICIAL (Courts) 1.7 0 100.0 2.8 14.1 SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES EXECUTIVE (President) 1.3 % OF TOTAL 82.5 The Judiciary operates within a constitutional structure of checks and balances among the executive. 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.5 1. as indicated in Figure II-1 below. can create lower courts 2.2). Supreme Court of the Philippines 11 .7 652.679. power of judicial review to rule on presidential actions LEGISLATIVE (Congress) 1.816.5 0.955.9 100. party leader 1. GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE SYSTEM (Amounts in Millions PhP) EXPENSE CLASSS Personal Services MOOE Capital Outlay Net Lending Total Source: BESF.7 57. power to pardon convicted individuals 3.9 9. 6 Specific grants of jurisdiction to the various courts.894. appointment of justices and judges 2. The Courts The Philippine Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.These allocations among personal services.642.2 1.1 8. consistent with the Constitution.0 % OF TOTAL 31.5 2. can override presidential veto 2.6 9.526. 2007 TOTAL GOVERNMENT 356. power of judicial review to rule on validity of laws 1.5 107.339. Table II.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.
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
17 together with a recruiting effort by the Judicial and Bar Council. Judicial and Bar Council.900 (12.00 15.2%) of non-judicial staff positions were vacant at the end of 2006.57 14. Since December 2004. Approximately 3.7). established in 1996. Supreme Court. vacancies have steadily declined to about 20% in September 2007.7 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. as well as a retired Supreme Court Justice. The Council has prescribed procedures and criteria to guide the recruitment.00 37. Candidates from outside the Judiciary are normally recruited for the appellate courts.21 The Academy is headed by a board of trustees chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 16 . Career development for non-adjudicative personnel is not systematized and court employees are only rarely selected for judicial appointments. The Clerk of the Supreme Court serves as the Commission’s Secretary.81 100.00 5. academia.00 0. Justices and judges hold office during good behavior until age 70 or until incapacitated.99 36. Table II. each judicial appointment must be made from a list of at least three nominees.16 Judges initially appointed to the lower courts can be promoted to fill vacancies in more senior judicial positions. evaluation and selection of judicial nominees.25 20. the Supreme Court has the authority to discipline judges of lower courts.20 Judicial training is the responsibility of the Philippine Judicial Academy.51 15. Source: Office of the Court Administrator.271 positions) remains substantial and the shortage of judges is especially serious in the ranks of the lowest tier of courts (Table II. 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. 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. However.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. Vacancies occur often in localities where there are few candidates for judicial appointment.80 0.26 * Five Regional Trial Court judges currently serve simultaneously as Shari’a District Court judges. and the private sector. Vacancies in judicial positions have been a serious problem.19 While members of the Supreme Court can be removed only by impeachment.271 FILLED 15 65 15 6 807 66 179 329 297 0 32 2.18 Where there are fewer than three candidates the position remains vacant.85 19. including by removal from office. Under the Constitution.004 VACANT 0 4 0 0 152 16 33 58 173 5 19 460 VACANCY RATE (%) 0. the total number of judicial vacancies (460 of 2.regular members representing the organized bar. when the vacancy rate exceeded 30%.
on the one hand. has developed a number of electronic learning modules. and. Rules governing grounds and procedures for administrative complaints against judges are set out in the Rules of Court (Rule 140). and seminars for judges and other court personnel. Those judges with internet access can use the Supreme Court’s on-line e-library. 2003. It also has a rich content of courses on specific themes. Table II. courses for quasijudicial agencies. including a pre-judicature program for aspirants to judicial appointment.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 4.5 / 4 0. 836 97 73 693 3. 22 The Philippine Judicial Academy provides training on ethics. Appellate Court b.Court.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. all judges receive periodic CDs with recent decisions and other materials. judicial career enhancement programs. the Supreme Court has distributed benchbooks and manuals to lower court judges and disseminates to judges updates of jurisprudence. The Academy has 14 academic departments in various fields of legal scholarship. each headed by a recognized expert. 751 233 146 66 38 2. 775 191 145 137 600 15 3. 278 113 69 1. 804 In addition to Judicial Academy programs. The judicial disciplinary system has been criticized. Court-Annexed c. 093 2. based on the widely accepted international standards set out in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.8 PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COURSES AND PARTICIPATION. The Chancellor is a highly respected retired Supreme Court Justice. 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. and produces a number of educational publications. adopted a separate code of conduct for non-adjudicative personnel. for failing to protect 17 . The Supreme Court adopted a new code of judicial conduct in 2004. It conducts a regular program of courses. also in 2004.5 / 268 21 / 168 4 / 32 4 / 32 3 / 24 3 / 24 16 / 128 6 / 48 32 / 256 8 / 64 4 / 32 8 / 64 0.
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. If the case is not settled in mediation. the Supreme Court uses positive incentives to improve performance.a of this chapter. A number of lower court judges who have received these awards have been selected for promotion. d. In addition to imposing sanctions for misconduct. as the site for a pilot test of this new system.000 courts throughout the country and associated administrative offices. some basic features of the rules are summarized here. described below in section A.23 The Chief Justice is the chief executive officer of the Philippine courts. e. progress has been slow in building the necessary implementation capacity. 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. In 2004. the Clerk of Court and the Court Administrator.judges from harassment by aggressive lawyers and litigants. He is assisted in the performance of his executive duties by a number of Supreme Court committees and by two principal officials. it has been criticized for failing to deal firmly and transparently with serious misconduct in the Judiciary. human resources management. and human resources for more than 2. The Court Administrator oversees a centralized system of procurement. increase. which has 146 lower courts. The Court has selected Region 7. in the framework of the Action Program for Judicial Reform. The test program was formally inaugurated in December 2007. Administration The Supreme Court has broad authority for the administration of the courts. The court sheriff then serves on the defendant a summons with the complaint.27 The details of court procedure are beyond the scope of this report. The defendant is obliged to respond with an answer or motion to dismiss within a set period. and shall not diminish. or modify substantive rights. Most civil cases are eligible for court-annexed mediation under an innovation of recent years. and budget management services. 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. On the other hand.4. such as the judicial excellence awards.24 The Clerk of Court provides adjudication support services. 25 Detailed planning and pilot projects toward this end are ongoing. the Supreme Court approved a new system in which core administrative and financial management functions are to be performed by regional court administrative offices. it proceeds to a pre-trial stage in which the parties may engage in exchanges of 18 .”26 Pursuant to that broad mandate. financial management. Civil cases are initiated by the filing of a complaint with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction and payment of related fees. the Supreme Court approved revised rules of civil procedure in 1997 and revised rules of criminal procedure in 2000. such as procurement. However. 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. However. such as the maintenance of Court records. as well as internal managerial support for the Supreme Court. but has yet to commence operation. The Court Administrator assists in the oversight and in the direct implementation of the administrative and financial operations of the lower courts.
Most criminal defendants are unable to post bail. the trial is not completed on consecutive days. 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. the judicial process in a criminal case begins with the arraignment and entry of a plea. and the vast majority of criminal cases that proceed to trial do not result in conviction. in total. but involves the scheduling of several sessions to hear testimony and receive other evidence over a period of weeks or months. and to protect an accused person from open and public accusation of crime. to “continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated. which are also available for civil cases with minimal amounts in controversy. 31 In addition. once commenced. Postponements are common. The administrative process followed is discussed below in the description of the prosecution function. the Court issues each year hundreds of administrative circulars and memoranda on various aspects of judicial administration. Some judges have expressed concern about the volume of these issuances and the difficulty of keeping pace with the flow of authoritative guidance. 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.28 Enforcement requires a writ of execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. would require the lower courts to complete the process in less than 12 months. If the accused pleads not guilty a pretrial phase is initiated. the case proceeds to trial and decision.32 19 .information and the court may receive evidence. 493) prescribes time limits for pre-trial and trial phases of criminal proceedings that. This concern is alleviated to some extent in the case of minor offenses by the existence of summary procedures.” 29 Prosecutors make probable cause determinations as a basis for deciding whether to file charges. from the trouble. The Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. The Rules of Court provide for the trial. As provided in the Constitution. numerous grounds for postponement and continuance exist. contributing to congestion of court dockets and chronic delay in the resolution of civil cases. The purpose of the preliminary investigation is to “secure the innocent against hasty. These brief descriptions of civil and criminal procedure can be found on the Supreme Court website. The 12-month period includes an allowance of 180 days for the trial alone. In practice. and preside over a pre-trial hearing. stipulations of fact. malicious and oppressive prosecution. and schedule for the trial. 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. this stage of the criminal procedure is believed to be a source of considerable delay. Normally. determinations of the admissibility of evidence. 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. expense and anxiety of a public trial. However.” However. This may include settlement of civil liability. and to protect the state from useless and expensive trials. Once probable cause is found to exist and charges are filed in the appropriate court. once all proceedings are completed the judge must render a decision within 90 days. Upon the conclusion of these stages. consider motions for summary disposition.30 The Supreme Court also prescribes special rules for specific courts such as the Regional Trial Courts designated as family courts.
058 2006 709. 2004-2006 TYPE OF CASE Criminal Cases Ordinary Civil Cases Other Cases TOTAL 2004 351.242 53.325 449.77 106.” the volume of cases disposed of as a percentage of total caseload. Table II. More recently.75 100 Source: CAMIS. The largest segment of the backlog in the first instance courts is made up of criminal prosecutions for bounced checks.81 14.9 CASE INFLOWS BY TYPE OF CASE.41 CLEARANCE RATE (%) 39.483 PENDING ON 31 DEC 738.855 479.644 61.6 years for decision.563 445. That is. Office of Court Administrator.10 CASELOAD. Table II. time consuming procedures.44 13. the delays persist.35 These cases are the result of 1979 legislation which made a 20 .489 66.990 174.28 39.273 478.188. Cases filed in the Sandiganbayan required on average a remarkable 6.900 62. Workload and Performance In recent years. the total number of cases disposed of has been declining despite the increase in the number of available judges as vacancies have been filled.598 2005 738. Supreme Court Note: Excludes Supreme Court YEAR OUTFLOW 491.41 107.495 678. Until recently. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES. The improved disposition rate has not resulted in significant improvement in the “clearance rate.078 % DISTRIBUTION 71.9).879 414.10). About 71% of cases filed are criminal.019 1.6 years to decide cases. and the low clearance rate means that backlogs remain high (Table II.000. shortages of judicial and non-adjudicative personnel (including prosecutors and public defenders). caseloads have slightly declined because inflows have diminished and the courts are disposing of more cases than are being filed each year. However.978 49.033 190.777 DISPOSITION RATE (%) 102.325 709.321 488.124.580 2005 336.f. total caseloads were increasing each year as the volume of cases entering the system was higher than the volume of cases leaving the system.055 1. the “disposition rate” was negative. ALL COURTS. which are handled under essentially the same procedures as more complex criminal cases. including excessive judicial tolerance for delaying tactics. As of 2003. 2004-2006 PENDING TOTAL INFLOW ON 1 JAN CASELOAD 2004 751.95 40. criminal and civil cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court remained in the court system for an average of five years before decision. Supreme Court of the Philippines The timely disposition of cases has been a major challenge for the courts.765 1. with about 14% civil and 15% a variety of other types (Table II. 33 Knowledgeable observers attribute these delays to a combination of factors.770 70.495 414.733 2006 299. cases have flowed into the Philippine courts at an annual rate of about 450. The Court of Appeals required an average of 2. 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.579 478.765 TOTAL 988. inadequate information management systems. Time limits prescribed in the Philippine Constitution and in legislation have encouraged the timely movement of cases through the courts.260 Source: Office of the Court Administrator.733 1.62 Too many cases remain undecided for too long.34 Nevertheless.229.383.
a number of judges in lower courts have developed stand-alone case information systems as management tools for their own courts. thus tending to inflate the number of cases recorded.58 20.99 96.50 41.46 75.10 Source: CAMIS.158 1. 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.226 34 487 450.93 111.534 7.984 424 292 TOTAL CASELOAD 10.64 Supreme Court Court of Appeals Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals Regional Trial 341.33 119.773 11. the impact of this criminal process falls increasingly upon the poor. Additional pilots are planned for the Court of Appeals. intended to assure more effective enforcement of debts.085 860 CASE INFLOWS 4. This change in the law.28 TOTAL/AVERAGE 429. This system can generate a range of statistical reports. has had a number of unintended negative results by shifting to the state a larger part of the cost of collecting private debts.224 Source: Office of the Court Administrator.347 517 327 187. As the use of checks declines.39 34.12 ARCHIVAL RATES.135.152 CASE OUTFLOWS 4. Office of the Court Administrator.191 22.218 548.414 20.212 35.50 Ordinary Civil 64.27.person criminally responsible for debts owing as a consequence of a check that is not paid upon presentation to the bank. 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.14 53.608 206.72 121. CLEARANCE RATE (%) 41.600 29 308 685. There is considerable variation in the rate of case disposition and case clearance among the different courts.505 2. 21 . DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES BY COURT.60 28.11 CASELOAD. 2006 TOTAL TOTAL ARCHIVAL DISPOSED ARCHIVED RATE (%) Criminal 321.992 825 349.96 44.35 107.521 2. Also.033 PENDING 31/12/06 6.538 1. All courts submit monthly paper reports to the Office of the Court Administrator.11).153 195. As in the case of administrative and financial management.826 Shari’a District 18 45 63 Courts Shari’a Circuit 250 545 795 Courts Total/Average 715686 419.066 120.964 34. This is the disposition of about one-third of the criminal cases filed. where they are integrated into a computer-assisted database.445 4.410 Courts First Level Courts 342. Supreme Court (Excludes Court of Appeals and Supreme Court) CASE TYPE Courts rely primarily on manual systems for caseflow management. Another reason is the statistical practice of counting multiple charges against a single defendant as multiple cases.26 39. 2006 COURT LEVEL PENDING 31/12/05 6.96 61. Supreme Court A large number of cases are “archived” (moved to inactive status) when there is no action for a period of six months. This large percentage is explained in part by the inclusion of cases in which the defendant was never apprehended.550 14. Table II.382 306.55 89.545 242.836 4.760 114.191 DISPOSITION RATE (%) 95.05 117. the transition from manual to automated statistical reporting and from stand-alone to networked systems for case management remains a challenge.257 536.861 1. Table II.509 1.582 28. and the Court of Tax Appeals.04 Other cases 42.
many of which are vacant. and maintained in an agency register that is open to public inspection. powers of subpoena. filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center. and judicial review. For an agency so established.) 22 . 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. and the Commission on Audit. most of the quasi-judicial agencies are under the administrative supervision of the President.39 Quasi-judicial agencies are held to a standard that their findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. The two most prolific agencies. They are obliged to allow the parties to present evidence. Quasi-Judicial Agencies a. As authorized by the Administrative Code. rules of evidence. who often leave to seek better paying positions as prosecutors or judges. there is high turnover by adjudicators. decisions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be appealed to the Supreme Court. most agencies prescribe supplemental rules to govern their own proceedings. to reach their decisions on the basis of the evidence presented.37 There are also independent agencies with quasi-judicial powers. accepting their findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence. personal services consume the greatest part of the budget in most cases. the Civil Service Commission. As exceptions. internal appeals within the agency.3. such as the constitutionally based Office of the Ombudsman and the statutory National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. finality of administrative decisions. protection of rights to due process of law.40 The courts generally treat the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies with respect.36 Final decisions of the quasi-judicial agencies are rendered primarily by collective bodies such as commissions. its otherwise final decisions may be reviewed by the head of the department in which the agency is located.13). (Reportedly.38 These include standards for notice and hearing. decisions of most quasi-judicial agencies can be appealed only to the Court of Appeals. b. the Commission on Elections. and are attached to executive departments for policy coordination. for example. The latter has only 178 authorized positions. with very small amounts dedicated to capital investment (Table II. The former has 15 commissioners and 105 arbitrators deployed in its regional branches. and to identify in their decisions the reasons for their conclusions. These include three independent constitutional commissions. The courts are obliged to take judicial notice of agency rules that comply with these requirements. Appeals from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies do not appear to be a major part of the caseload of the Court of Appeals. Budgets and Human Resources The budgets of the principal quasi-judicial agencies are not substantial. Agency rules must be published. The staffs of the quasi-judicial agencies are likewise quite modest. The Administrative Code of 1987 prescribes general rules of procedure for the performance of quasi-judicial functions. unless otherwise required by law. are the National Labor Relations Commission and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. boards or councils. Organization and Procedures The 2007 General Appropriation Act identifies 24 agencies in the national government that perform quasi-judicial functions affecting substantial rights and interests of private persons. Consistent with the pattern elsewhere in the justice sector. Once final. However.
075 543 0 14.270 15.867 36.352 17.388 TOTAL CASELOAD 36.850 44.347 35.869 15.448 157.29 2001 10.14 CASELOAD.79 2002 10.58 AVERAGE 86.212 15.Civil Service Commission 12.76 26.622 20. Specifically.629 31.10 102.50 27.190 24.43 43.113 30.590 26.382 35.505 16.Energy Regulatory Commission 8.13 AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS OF SELECTED QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES.15 CASELOAD.051 .16 2003 11.285 32.366 18.79 23.030 17.267 9.023 30.Commission on Elections 22.374 5.135 31.720 16.366 18.980 9.794 0 27. Table II. 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAYS -National Conciliation and Mediation Board 52.06 99. 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.064 .618 TOTAL 407.Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board 10.865 16.15).86 47.998 20.415 CASE INFLOW 22.424 8.146 37.764 14.348 24.60 Source: Accomplishment Report.93 107.740 10.533 17.59 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 AVERAGE Source: DARAB Secretariat During the same period.238 Source: GAA 2007 (includes appropriations for quasi-judicial functions that are identifiable in the GAA) AGENCY c.334 18.995 CASE INFLOW TOTAL CASELOAD CASE OUTFLOW PENDING YEAR END DISPOSITION RATE (in %) CLEARANCE RATE (in %) 31.995 91.474 PENDING YEAR END 15.558 28.73 27.454 .795 28. 2000-2006 YEAR PENDING BEGINNING YEAR 13.483 95.89 CLEARANCE RATE (in %) 57.533 17.459 14.707 22. Workloads and Performance With their small budgets and workforces the quasi-judicial agencies dispose of a substantial volume of disputes.046 40.650 102.329 9.77 2006 11.415 15. Table II.919 33.551 4. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.88 2005 9.400 369.33 49.834 28.62 24.378 518 0 12.25 25.834 75.859 .329 DISPOSITION RATE (in %) 92.82 110.704 .847 38.826 18.041 10. National Labor Relations Commission (includes decisions and orders of the NLRC and all Regional Adjudication Boards 23 .28 51.016 17.82 96.820 8.87 50. the National Labor Relations Commission maintained an average disposition rate of almost 87% and an average clearance rate of 27% (Table II.037 28.306 20.474 22.826 18.348 83.Department of Agrarian Reform 14.074 0 10.185 87.691 24.37 26.76 88. The disposition and clearance rates of the two most prolific agencies approximate the productivity of the courts.195 0 13.896 .085 95.050 575.Table II.032 9.72 100. 2006.763 1. DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD.National Labor Relations Commission 269. 2000-2006 YEAR PENDING BEGINNING YEAR 19.038 34.509 3.077 26.707 87.990 1.Philippine Overseas Welfare Administration 16.185 28.352 17.54 46.14).865 16.277 13.803 CASE OUTFLOW 21.798 10.077 84.592 .80 49.919 14.72 2000 11.70 2004 11.
These members. and advocacy and promotion of mediation and other modes of alternative dispute resolution. are assisted by PHILJA staff members who coordinate with personnel of the PMC units in overseeing mediation operations. collecting statistics. 24 . and monitoring schedules of mediators. thereby diminishing the potential benefits of the mediation procedure.44 The Supreme Court designated its training arm. The PMC is responsible for setting up mediation centers in courthouses and other convenient locations throughout the country. less than half actually went through the entire mediation process. the Supreme Court amended the Rules of Court to authorize the collection of mediation fees from litigants. 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. to manage courtannexed mediation and established the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) within PHILJA to give operational effect to the mediation system. some judges have been reluctant to refer cases to mediation and some litigants have declined to participate in this voluntary system. While coverage is expanding.43 a. Most civil cases are subject to the court-annexed mediation procedure. The Civil Code has long recognized compromise and arbitration as modes of settling disputes.48 With the creation of more PMC units providing mediation services.4.”42 The Executive Branch has long encouraged government agencies to seek to resolve disputes without resort to litigation. 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.41 The Supreme Court has encouraged alternative dispute resolution as the “wave of the future. PHILJA uses the Mediation Fund for setting up and operating PMC units.49. Members of PHILJA’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee45 provide general management for the PMC. functions. workshops and internships for mediators. 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.47 The Mediation Fund has so far supported the establishment of an additional 20 PMC units. 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. the Supreme Court reinforced the expanded use of court-annexed mediation by mandating that all trial courts make a monthly inventory of cases eligible for mediation and refer these cases to the PMC. On the other hand. Currently there are units in all of the country’s judicial regions. The policy of fostering the resolution of disputes without the need for recourse to the courts is reflected in national legislation over the past half century. Court-Annexed Mediation In 2001. serving a total of 731 courts. seminars. and staffing requirements In 2004. payment of fees of mediators and PMC personnel. The Supreme Court is developing an administrative order that will outline the structure of the PMC. the Supreme Court established a system of court-annexed mediation. the number of cases referred to mediation by judges is still only a small percentage of the cases that are eligible. the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA).16). all experts in the field of alternative dispute resolution. training. including its powers.46 The collected amount forms part of a special Mediation Fund intended to ensure the financial sustainability of court-annexed mediation services. And of the cases that were referred to mediation.
The BJS uses conciliation. disputes involving real property located in different cities unless both parties agree to BJS jurisdiction cases involving the Agrarian Reform Law 25 .378 786 61 7 12.206 2.947 615 1.322 1.085 795 1. These include: cases brought by or against the government or an instrumentality thereof and or public officers or employees. two out of three were satisfied with courtannexed mediation and the performance of accredited mediators. 1508 established the Barangay Justice System (BJS). 52 It now governs the establishment. Certain kinds of cases. Significantly.269 2.000 291 141 578 64 1.252 592 275 84.235 203 3.665 2.480 940 480 1. Table II. administration and operation of dispute resolution in each of some 42. b.708 4. offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5. 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 60.245 2.630 1.197 178 113 42.946 3.868 SUCCESS RATE IN MEDIATED CASES 73% 73% 60% 69% 71% 53% 68% 57% 64% 66% 94% 70% Based on the initial success of mediation in the lower courts and a promising pilot test in 2002.678 NOT SETTLED 7.992 4. the Supreme Court authorized51 and the Philippine Mediation Center launched in August 2005 a program of mediation in the Court of Appeals. This tradition received formal recognition in 1978 when Presidential Decree No.960 366 4. mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes between residents of the same municipal unit. however.16 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION. Barangay Justice System There is a time honored tradition of amicably settling disputes among family and barangay members at the local level.411 117 106 29.480 649 339 657 139 1.000.546 SETTLED 21.000 barangays throughout the country.The 2005/6 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary conducted by the Social Weather Stations50 found that among judges with PMC units in their areas. Preliminary indications are that few litigants in the Court of Appeals are making use of this procedure. This community justice system was substantially revised by a chapter of the Local Government Code in 1991 known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.636 MEDIATED 29. are specifically exempted from BJS. the study revealed that satisfaction was greater among judges with heavier caseloads.828 1.
selected by lot from Lupon members. the operation of the BJS is headed by the Barangay Chairman. the BJS is inextricably woven within the political dynamics in the barangay. In recent years the number has grown to about double that historical average (Table II. Also. settlements under BJS generally have the full force and effect of a final court judgment. 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. If the Barangay Chairman is unable to resolve a case filed under the BJS through mediation or arbitration. who live in the same barangay. A complainant can just drop by the house of the Barangay Captain to submit a complaint. Cases cognizable by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law that are not resolved at the community level through the BJS and are then filed in a court are subject to the court-annexed mediation process described above. been previously submitted to the BJS and.000 cases per year. 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. He is assisted by a Lupon. On the other hand. negotiator. 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. Thus. Based on the records of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. some have questioned the ability of the BJS to provide impartial justice on the ground that it is operated by and reflects the interests of the politically powerful. in fact. The composition of the Lupon changes every three years with the election of the Barangay Chairman. The implementing rules provide that unless repudiated in court within ten days. the BJS settled more than 4 million cases from 1980 to 2005.53 10-20 persons of known integrity and impartiality that he selects from the community after consultation with the populace. The BJS enjoys broad acceptance because the parties tend to know and respect the Barangay Captain and the persons constituting the Lupon. an average of about 150.55 However. he refers the matter to a Pangkat. mediator. the Barangay Captain is capable of taking on various roles – such as a fact-finder. However. The percentage of mediated cases that were settled has remained consistently high. In each barangay. which operates without cost to the parties. broker. In this informal and consensual system. some problems remain in assuring that the courts are able to determine whether or not cases presented to them have.17). the process is informal and convenient. as it may be otherwise applicable in a given case. Legal advice may be provided by the provincial legal officer or prosecutor or municipal legal officer.54 a three-person conciliation commission selected by the disputants or. and actions to annul judgment on a compromise. The latter Department provides training for BJS operators and receives reports from the barangays on their caseloads.56 These figures 26 . The Department of Justice issues rules and regulations defining operating policies and processes to guide the BJS. Minors or incompetents may be assisted or represented by their next of kin who are not lawyers. local governments are under the administrative supervision of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. and even guidance counselor to the disputants – thus facilitating dispute settlement.cases involving labor disputes. if so. The BJS prohibits the participation of lawyers to assist or represent disputants. if they do not agree. facilitator. whether a settlement was reached. an elected official.
59 If parties belong to the same ethno-linguistic group. 1999-2005 NUMBER OF MEDIATED CASES YEAR CRIMINAL CIVIL OTHERS TOTAL MEDIATED CASES 418. 271 2002 137.78 86. 768 135. 847 56. 071 CASES SETTLED 309. peace building processes.ph/stats/statdev/2006/ruleoflaw/Chapter_Rule_of_Law. 368 394. 029 302. the dispute shall be settled in accordance with established procedures governing intertribal disputes.66 76. 156 285. NCIP hearing officers can consider these issues only after remedies under customary laws have been 27 . http://www.53 85. 998 Source: National Statistical Coordination Board. 547 84. 58 The IPRA expressly recognizes that ICCs/IPs have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems. which was vested with adjudicatory powers. while the BJS surely disposes of some cases that otherwise would add to workload of the courts. 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. 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. 066 2001 158. 148 114. enforcement. 448 1999 143. and other customary laws and practices within their communities. 342 227. 280 353. conflict resolution institutions. 298 50. 912 2000 159. customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute. 605 60. c.17 DISPUTES SETTLED IN THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM.60 77. 575 273. but who are in need of justice services.80 2005 2004 124.00 75. 657 292. social justice and human rights and cultural integrity. 521 129. 775 124. Table 11.asp. 856 305. 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. 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. 905 57. IPRA created the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). if none exist. But if the parties come from different ethno-linguistic groups. Thus. 117 342. 772 SETTLEMENT RATE (%) 74. 121 319.gov.77 82.show that the Barangay Justice System has been a significant institution for the resolution of disputes and the timely administration of justice. 855 40. 874 132. Indigenous Justice Systems Customary law and justice systems are recognized under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). The large number of cases settled through the BJS speaks for itself. 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. selfgovernance and empowerment. 069 345. 947 2003 179. 407 259. On a formal level. The law provides that if a dispute involves ICCs/IPs. 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. Indigenous peoples have maintained their parallel justice systems through modern history. 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. the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the group’s settlement procedure. and interpretation of the IPRA. 781 154. the parties may agree on the applicable procedures.nscb.
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. 64 and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. discussed above. the older laws continue to apply. d. it adopts the modern UNCITRAL model law for international commercial arbitration. The NCIP has an annual budget of about PhP 460 million and a total staff of 1.exhausted. which provides a modern framework for mediation and arbitration. authorizes the establishment of an office in the Department of Justice to assure appropriate standards in the conduct of alternative dispute resolution. joining in a collaborative effort with a private NGO to mediate environmental and natural resources conflicts. The decision of a hearing officer is subject to review. 63 the 1953 Arbitration Act. However. 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.474 in 2006. chaired by the Secretary of Justice. at the request of a party.389 requests and disposed of 16. In the mid-1990s. like the decisions of other quasi-judicial agencies. and provides clear rules for judicial review. The statute called for a committee. 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. Mediation and Arbitration Mediation and arbitration are well established procedures in the public sector. This legislative framework expressly excludes court-annexed mediation and the operation of the Barangay Justice system. as certified by the Council of Elders or other leaders. In particular. and domestic and international arbitration. According to the statute. Arbitration is addressed in the 1949 Civil Code.62 The Department’s Adjudication Board received 15. to prescribe rules and regulations for the implementation of this legislation. only a few hundred at the regional level and less than 100 at headquarters. the Congressional approval process has not been completed. it will be important that the Rules of 28 .” 66 This new legislation establishes a comprehensive approach to alternative dispute resolution. by the NCIP en banc. conciliation. The Commission’s Conciliation and Mediation Center received 6. 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. Among other things. may be appealed to the Court of Appeals. 46 provincial offices and 108 community centers nationwide. The legal basis for private mediation and arbitration is presently in transition. Pending the entry into force of the 2004 legislation.500 employees located at its national office in Metro Manila and at 12 regional offices. Implementing rules have been drafted.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.610 in 2006. including mediation. An NCIP final decision. the Department of Agrarian Reform launched the use of mediation in the settlement of agrarian disputes.006 requests and disposed of 5. these rules and regulations were to be submitted to a joint oversight committee of Congress for approval before the law could be implemented. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the National Labor Relations Commission have the greatest volume of mediation and arbitration among the quasi-judicial agencies. 60 The volume of cases pending in the administrative adjudication process of the Commission is quite small.
35 in 2005.70 The possible consolidation of some police organizations has been suggested as a way to increase efficiency and reduce administrative costs. From 1989 until 2004 the Commission received 426 cases. In addition.19).000 of which are for uniformed personnel.005 35. established to fulfill the constitutional mandate for a police force that is national in scope.69 The Philippine National Police has more than 125.753 39. leaving only limited amounts for maintenance and other operating expenses.Dept of Transportation & Communications 64.343. highly centralized administration is a source of inefficiency.022 . The PNP 29 .444.538 3. The police also receive some resources from local governments.18). As in other organizations in the justice sector.946 67. 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAY .369 Distribution in percent 87.25 2. More than 95% of appropriations are centrally managed. the number of cases received has declined – to 37 in 2004.054.809 0 132.04 100. the overwhelming share of the budget allocated to law enforcement goes to salaries. 14 of which have been settled or decided.68 5.755 .465 9. As in the case of the courts. resolving 286 of them.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.196 845.583 TOTAL 36.357 39.Court reflect the provisions of the 2004 Act with respect to judicial review of arbitral awards and other resolutions of alternative dispute resolution proceedings. intelligence and police relations) are allocated to the field offices.612.041 41.132 4.146 166. In the meantime. civilian in character. Law Enforcement The principal law enforcement agency is the Philippines National Police (PNP).593 . established in 1996 by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry.000 positions. (Table II. There is also a commercial on-line dispute resolution service designed for disputes involving small money claims. when it received 38 cases.914. primarily for plain-clothes investigators.128 0 255. and administered by a national commission. Since 2003.18 BUDGETS OF SELECTED NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.730 positions. Less than one-fourth of amounts supporting police operations in the field (investigation. Other Pillars of the Criminal Justice System a. Over the decade of its existence it has entertained 33 cases. conduct seizures and carry out criminal investigations. including several agencies with officers who have power to make arrests. municipal. 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 principal forum is the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center.Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency 428.396 . and district offices and police stations. Table II. provincial. The National Bureau of Investigation has 1.927. The other major law enforcement agency is the National Bureau of Investigation. and 32 in 2006. the volume of commercial mediation and arbitration is quite limited. and almost nothing for capital investment (Table II.501 770.Bureau of Customs 246.000 708. about 120.National Bureau of Investigation 400.684 634. including salaries for police in the field.017 273.Philippine National Police 34.21 11.
It also serves as a forum for appeals from disciplinary actions.204.161.205. Table II.0 35.0 61.Logistical Services Sub-total 3.740.0 % 100.0 1. SUPPORT TO OPERATION .952.0 0.7 95.096.240. such as the Philippine Drug Enforcement Administration.411.7 73.8 45.0 1. which operate local peace and order councils that address issues such as local police staffing. REGIONAL AND FIELD OFFICES.0 100.Health Services .627.0 103.075.425.2 76. and other law enforcement agencies is a factor bearing on the efficiency and effectiveness of the PNP. local government authorities.0 157. Candidates enter the PNP on the recommendation of local authorities. based on length of service.129. In addition to the Commission and the Secretary.19 DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN CENTRAL OFFICES AND POLICE STATIONS.2 100.1 46. 2007 CENTRAL OFFICES AMOUNT 1. to an entry level equivalent to that for elementary school teachers. the PNP needs to be responsive to local governments.863.0 39.0 37.0 100. technically.0 11.0 100.0 9. there is no doubt about the direct authority of the National Police Commission over the PNP.284.3 26.126.0 The national commission to which the PNP reports in accordance with the Constitution is the National Police Commission.232.3 4.8 23. The Supreme Court has confirmed that. PNP.0 100.0 1.0 100.Integrated Transformation Program addresses this issue through a plan for gradually shifting resource management from national headquarters to the field.0 905. They advance by promotion from within. 2007 FUNCTION/ PROGRAM 1.075.4 98.459.8 POLICE STATIONS.0 100.823.0 27.0 36.013. coordination with other law enforcement agencies is carried out through a National Law Enforcement Coordinating Council.185. Nevertheless.0 821.556.229.285.0 55.8 0. FIELD/REGIONAL OFFICES AMOUNT % 131.002.501.047. The Commission advises the President and the Secretary and monitors performance of the PNP with respect to the entire range of police operations.0 100.72 Also.0 431. a limitation that results in rapid turnover and lack of continuity in leadership positions. The PNP is often called on to carry out functions for other law enforcement agencies.0 35.0 153.922.6 0.0 209. Mandatory retirement is at age 56.851.0 100.0 100.0 11.4 99.6 1.0 118. Recent surveys showed that more than half of police officers live in informal housing or as squatters.685.Police Relations Services . and a clean record with regard to complaints. Administratively.Operations Services .Intelligence Services .271. OPERATIONS .0 327.0 1. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2.0 285.2 TOTAL AMOUNT 1.086. the National Police Commission.0 100.011. therefore.356.647.0 35.414. While police salaries have increased in recent years.0 1.Investigation Services Sub – total GRAND TOTAL Source: GAA.9 53.649.808.579.0 471.1 82. that have more limited presence in the national territory.0 73. examination.255. the PNP is within the Department of the Interior and Local Government and. low compensation remains an obstacle to attracting highly qualified candidates.0 38.101.9 17. completion of training. under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of that department.2 54. the risk of confusion of roles among the Department of the Interior and Local Government.Materiel Development .73 30 .211.3184.108.40.206 % 90.0 45.0 130. 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.
and respect for human rights and democratic principles. who enter the ranks as police cadets. 31 . This unique entity works closely with other Philippine agencies. and the international community. NBI agents are generally respected as skilled investigators who can manage major cases and complex issues such as fraud. The Commission monitors banking. The PDEA relies upon contracted agents and also relies on the PNP for some services. It maintains 15 regional and 21 district offices. and international offenses. often in collaboration with or in support of the PDEA. computer crimes. The NBI Academy provides an intensive 16-week training program for candidates. Legislation to reorganize and modernize the agency was introduced in the Senate in June 2007. it applies for judicial orders to freeze assets. 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. It has had a number of successes in its brief period of existence.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. a legal evaluation staff. insurance. Additional guidance is contained in a Police Operations Manual. the private sector. 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. which serves a number of organizations and offers bachelor and master-level degrees. In addition to its investigatory responsibilities. and develops educational programs. Public consultations on this report revealed concerns about the multiplicity of channels for brining complaints about police conduct. Its secretariat consists of a compliance and investigation staff. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) operates within the Department of Justice.The PNP has a Code of Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards. with resulting citizen uncertainty about how to proceed and police insecurity about vulnerability to criticism.77 The Council protects against the use of the Philippines as a site for laundering the proceeds of unlawful activity. and an administrative and financial services division. A National Police Academy provides basic training for all new entrants. Citizen complaints of police misconduct may be filed with any local People’s Law Enforcement Board. organized crime.74 Education and training are provided by the Philippine Public Safety College. As appropriate. the National Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies also are involved in combating these offenses. NBI has been seen by some to be in need of modernization. refers cases of possible criminal acts for prosecution. an information management and analysis staff. 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. which provides guidance on individual behavior. and by the Directorate for Human Resources and Doctrinal Development within the PNP.76 The Philippine National Police. Created in 1936 and modeled after the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States. such as arrests. created in 2001 as a financial intelligence unit. and crime scene investigations. Public opinion polls reveal widespread doubts abut the commitment of the police to combat corruption. An impressive innovation in law enforcement is the Anti-Money Laundering Council. seizures. Candidates must be college graduates and senior officers must be members of the bar. Its credibility has been demonstrated by the removal of the Philippines from the Financial Action Task Force list of non-cooperating countries and territories. and other financial transactions.
0 41.002. There is no systemized training program and new prosecutors learn on the job.163.81 The NPS budget (PhP 1.757. 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. an office provided for in the Constitution for that purpose.79 Its authorized workforce of more than 4. About 12% is available for maintenance and other operating expenses.670. is managed by a separate Office of the Ombudsman.78 That office is described separately below.0 1.0 40. The prosecution of certain corruption cases. 32 .5 million lump sum appropriated for special allowances for prosecutors RA 9279) New prosecutors are recruited largely from recent law school graduates.210. The authorized total number of prosecutors is les than the number of lower courts.766. however. 2003-2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) EXPENSE CLASSIFICATION 2003/2004 BUDGET REENACTED (RA 9206) 962.0 and state counsels under Personal Service Maintenance and Operating Capital Outlay 0 0 Total 1. with most of the vacancies in the field offices. Prosecution and Public Defense i. Consistent with the pattern throughout the justice sector.0 40. furniture or equipment necessary to make it a usable training facility.b. Neither the NPS headquarters nor the regional offices have financial management capacities or responsibilities. vary in amount from place to place. the reality is that prosecutors are even scarcer because more than 500 prosecutor positions are vacant.20 NPS APPROPRIATIONS.461.214.753. 82 As in the case of the courts and the police. These contributions may be in cash or in kind.0 2005/2006 BUDGET REENACTED (RA 9336) 1.0 4.305. as an integral part of the Department of Justice. with only 4% for capital outlays. is subject to the direction of the Secretary of that Department and has no autonomous power of decision.031. The entry-level monthly salary is PhP 23. Table II.572 billion in 2007) comprises 77% of the total Department of Justice budget.0 *excludes PnP 121. The NPS. Budgeting is centralized within the Department. A training site has been made available to the NPS.117.461.0 2007 (RA 9401)* 1.000 positions is divided almost equally between prosecutors and support personnel. almost all the budget is consumed by personal services. program.0 1.604. but remains a vacant building without the staff. 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. However. local governments augment national government appropriations for prosecutors.422. It is headed by a Chief State Prosecutor who is appointed by the President. There is an ongoing effort to update obsolete manuals for prosecutors.076. Prosecution The investigation of crimes and the prosecution of alleged offenders are primarily the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service (NPS).”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.
A conviction rate of less than 20% and an archived case rate of more than 30% suggest a serious problem of effectiveness.29 86. even though prospects for conviction may be low. At the end of 2005.76 86. those cases brought against senior public officials. If probable cause is found to exist.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. 1. it requested an even larger number to keep up 33 .83 Rather than a quick judgment to guard against obvious police abuse of citizens. the probable cause process has evolved into an elaborate quasi-judicial proceeding in which prosecutors maintain an arms-length relationship with law enforcement agencies.64 25. Of course. The Office obtained approval in 2006 to employ an additional 40 prosecutors and 200 investigators. Of 2.19 96.28 27. 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. through its Office of the Special Prosecutor. in urban areas actual caseloads are much higher.21 DISPOSITION RATES OF REGIONAL AND FIELD PROSECUTORS OF NPS. and initial decisions may be subjected to several levels of review.47 81.26 12. Table II. NPS had a pending volume of 338.22 74. The authorized workforce of the Office of Ombudsman is 1.86 91. In particular. the case is filed in court. that is. At the same time overworked prosecutors.Workloads are heavy and disposition rates are low (Table 11.21). The Office of the Ombudsman. and manage caseflow. The organization lacks management systems and information technology to maintain communication with its field offices.749 cases referred to mediation. A case management system is in development. and judges would be able to concentrate on more serious crimes. If these successful pilot efforts could be institutionalized and scaled up to the national level there would be obvious benefits for all concerned.88 17.17 76. The Office of Ombudsman shares with the NPS the function of prosecuting lower ranking officials before the regular courts.601 were successfully resolved. 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. up to and including to the Secretary of Justice. Pilot programs in several cities to dispose of such cases through mediation between the accused and the injured party have shown encouraging results. The Office also handles administrative complaints against public officials.39 15. has exclusive responsibility for prosecuting corruption cases in the Sandiganbayan.605 cases – an average of 164 per prosecutor – under investigation or being prosecuted in the courts. of which 274 were vacant at the end of 2006.141 positions. victims would receive expedited recourse and accused offenders would have an alternative to imprisonment. accused parties may present evidence.29 91.98 26.81 73. It has introduced administrative procedures for resolving those cases. A code of ethics is nearing completion.54 66. monitor performance. public defenders. However.16 85. The NPS is obliged by the Rules of Criminal Procedure to conduct preliminary investigations of complaints. The NPS only recently established a strategic planning office.
132 14.Penalty Imposed .87 At present. but also to defend indigent persons who are accused of committing crimes.Dismissed/Exonerated . Table II. 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.Cases reopened Total Workload DISPOSITION . 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.22 CASELOAD AND DISPOSITIONS. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN.87 68. the State has a duty not only to prosecute alleged offenders. The PAO is administratively a part of the Department of Justice. but attached to the Department of Justice…for purposes of policy and program coordination.97 ii. However. indigent defendants make up the majority of those who are subjected to the criminal justice system. 2005 PARTICULARS WORKLOAD . Public Defense The Constitution guarantees to every person under investigation for the commission of an offense the right to “competent and independent counsel.859 % OF TOTAL 45.Cases received during year .00 40.”86 The Chief Public Attorney is required to have the same qualifications as the Chief State Prosecutor and can be dismissed only for cause.27 11. 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. In practice. The combination of vacancies and a low personnel ceiling have contributed to a low disposition rate and growing backlog (Table II.Prosecuted .1 1. However.Beginning year pending .850.82 5.47 2. 34 .145 454 5.84 The Constitution further provides that in all criminal prosecutions the right of the accused includes “the right to be heard by himself and counsel.” This includes the right of a person who cannot afford counsel to be provided with one.68 100.275 853 7. It is noteworthy that less than 6% of the cases disposed of in 2005 resulted in the imposition of a penalty. 2005 # OF CASES 8. That autonomy was granted in legislation enacted in 2007 specifying that the “PAO shall be an independent and autonomous office. Slightly more than half the staff is made up of attorneys.”85 Accordingly.85 51.747 18. it requires a degree of autonomy. the PAO has an authorized staff of 1.Closed/Terminated Total Disposition Year End Pending Disposition Rate Source: OMB Annual Report.with the workload.22). including about 70 vacant positions. 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.727 11.04 100.
89 However. imprisonment of those convicted.000 positions. 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. and nongovernmental organizations provide legal defense for indigent persons accused in criminal cases as well as other kinds of legal assistance to the poor. BJMP’s 2007 authorized staffing pattern consists of almost 7. 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. and programs for the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into society. That is. The broad question of legal services for the poor. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. In addition. is discussed below in the section of this chapter on challenges to the justice system. city. about 750 municipal jails remain under PNP control.6 million poor clients in a range of criminal. municipal or provincial jail. the management of these facilities was under the jurisdiction of the Philippine National Police (PNP).100 district. law school legal clinics. requiring that police detention not exceed a period of 12 to 36 hours. 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.88 The PAO represents a large majority of indigent defendants in criminal cases. Corrections and Rehabilitation The criminal justice system includes the common practices of incarceration of individuals charged with serious offenses. city. the PAO has the largest role among all the many public and private organizations that provide legal services to the poor. It is striking that more than 95% of the jail population has not been sentenced. It is worth noting that there is no time limit on the length of time a detainee awaiting trial may be kept in jail. This initial confinement is subject to specific time limits in the law. in practice. 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. depending on the gravity of the offense. PAO provided assistance to some 4. A 2003 survey found that more than 15% of individuals 35 . stagnant budgets and a growing jail population have impeded the transfer of functions to BJMP. In 2006. a prisoner/guard ratio of nine prisoners to one guard.000 in 2006. The legislation creating the BJMP contemplated the buildup of capacities for humane treatment and rehabilitation of detainees. more than 98% of which are for uniformed personnel.90 Prior to the Bureau’s creation in 1991. 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. civil and administrative cases. The number of detainees in BJMP-managed jails has increased considerably in recent years. c.Beyond its responsibilities within the criminal justice system. and municipal jails. However. Arrested persons are most often confined initially in police detention facilities maintained by various law enforcement agencies. About 10% are women and 2% are minors. From about 35. an essential element of access to justice. the number of detainees grew to exceed 62.000 in 2000. 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. Detention. Therefore. These appointed attorneys do not necessarily have special expertise or experience in the field of criminal justice.
These diversion programs grew out of concerns about the incarceration of an estimated 4. but occupancy exceeds 25. The Bureau also operates a juvenile training center.091.620 85.015 1.806. they lack adequate sanitation and health care. an integral part of the Department of Justice. the Bureau of Child and Youth Welfare in the Department of Social Welfare and Development operates ten regional rehabilitation centers for youthful offenders. Transition from jail or prison to society is the task of the Parole and Probation Administration and the Board of Pardon and Parole.772 2.64 prisoners to one guard. CORRECTIONS SYSTEM. a review committee chaired by the Department of Justice.152 11.92 Table II.400 640. operates seven national penitentiaries for the incarceration of prisoners serving sentences of more than three years.272.004. or training in lieu of entering the normal criminal justice process.022 TOTAL 3.000. Under Supreme Court rules on juveniles in conflict with the law.000 children in the Philippines.94 In 1996. of which 60% are in custodial roles.850 653 0 43.207 MOOE 2006 APPROPRIATIONS CAPITAL OUTLAY 1. the Administration supervises the release of the individual with a view to promoting rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. both executive agencies under the direction of the Department of Justice. the population of facilities operated by the Bureau of Corrections is growing.466. 2007 In addition.878 350. The capacity of the nation’s prisons is 19.996 298. adopted in February 2002. Their capacity to foster the rehabilitation of prisoners or to protect their human rights while incarcerated is limited.93 children can be diverted from detention facilities into non-custodial conditions. In general.91 The Bureau of Corrections. with representation from other concerned agencies and civil society. A youthful offender may undertake restorative measures such as restitution.737 57.186 10.642. recommended legislation to integrate jail and prison administration and consolidate the functions of the Bureau of Corrections and the Bureau of Jail 36 .23 NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.407. and a drug treatment and rehabilitation center created in 2002. Thus. The Bureau has about 2. The Board acts on proposals for the release of a prisoner and determines suitability of the individual for reintegration into society. counseling.649 355.267.114 13. community service. a prisoner/guard ratio of 3. Diversion programs are supervised by local social welfare development officers. completed in 2003. and the subsequently enacted Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. 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.116 13. As in the case of jails.0 Source: General Appropriations Act. 2006 (Amounts in Thousands PhP) AGENCY PERSONAL SERVICES 1. Once the Board approves probation or parole.123 4. The Board also makes recommendations to the President for the exercise of executive clemency.939 BJMP BUCOR Pardon and Parole Parole and Probation Administration TOTAL 2.incarcerated in provincial jails waited more than five years for the final hearing in their court cases.400 authorized positions. detention and correction facilities suffer from extreme congestion.600.
who: are undergoing trial or awaiting judgment/ sentencing of courts. prisons or penal farms • District Jails • City Jails • Municipal Jails • Philippine National Police. adopted in 2000. DOJ FACILITY • National penitentiaries. It recommended the existing program of mandatory continuing legal education for attorneys and participates in the program’s governance. In addition. works with law schools. or are serving sentence of 3 years or less • Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. However. Congress has not acted on this recommendation.) The IBP has reported that 99 of the 40.95 Figure II. establishing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as a corporate body with perpetual duration. Other Organizations a.3 AGENCY JURISDICTION FOR CONFINEMENT AND CORRECTION OF OFFENDERS AGENCY • Bureau of Corrections. the IBP plays an active role in legal education. 99 It participates in collaborative educational arrangements with the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Department of Education. In particular.Management and Penology into a new Bureau of Correctional Services in the Department of Justice. process which it may elect to apply on its own initiative. The Organized Bar There are more than 40. and enable the bar to discharge its public responsibilities more efficiently. DILG 6. are members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. improve the administration of justice.000 attorneys enrolled with the Supreme Court.98 While functioning as a nongovernmental professional organization. The IBP is represented on the advisory committee established by the Supreme Court for the Action Program for Judicial Reform. the IBP carries out certain activities under its charter and the Rules of Court in furtherance of the purposes of the abovequoted 1971 legislation.100 The above-mentioned requirement of continuing legal education for members of the bar. (The Supreme Court has a parallel.” 97 The resolution of the Court integrating the Bar was implemented by a Presidential decree in 1973. by virtue of their oath of office as attorneys. All of them. 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. 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.000 lawyers admitted to practice in the Philippines were disciplined in 2005. provides a necessary tool for assuring that reforms adopted in principle are 37 . but seldom used. and conducts its own educational activities. Through its National Committee on Legal Aid the IBP supports legal aid offices in Manila and in 83 chapters nationwide. it provides the principal channel for the discipline and disbarment of attorneys. including five disbarments.
The Philippine bar examination is administered by the Supreme Court through a Bar Examination Committee.526 1. in prescribing reforms in the bar examination in 2004.68 20.610 6.104 Apparently. Law Schools There are about 100 law schools in the Philippines.698 3. This is considered the most rigorous of professional examinations and the percentage of those who pass.978 4. has always been low. set minimum standards for law school admission.659 5.893 PERCENTAGE WHO PASSED EXAMINATION 16.102 The central feature of the Legal Education Reform Act was the creation of a Legal Education Board with broad powers to supervise law schools.61 27. a law school may not operate unless it is accredited by the Board.105 Law schools play an important role in the legal representation of the poor.849 4. The Supreme Court. an organization formed in 1967 to help raise standards of legal education. this system has come to be accepted by the bar. Under this law. b. the Supreme Court remains the principal source of reforms on law school curriculum through its supervision of the bar examination.108 1. and – most important – set standards of law school accreditation and accredit law schools. and in 2006 the Court created a task force to facilitate creation of the Board. In the absence of a functioning Legal Education Board.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.20 30.59 20. there remains hope that this reform. NUMBER OF EXAMINEES 3.187 NUMBER WHO PASSED EXAMINATION 660 979 1. 1999-2006 YEAR OF EXAMINATION 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: Newspaper reports.103 Unfortunately. This practice is recognized and encouraged by Supreme Court rule.24 PASSAGE RATE FOR BAR EXAMINATION. 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. the Legal Education Board has never been constituted. will soon be made operational.84 32. Over the past five years. referred the question of law school accreditation to the Legal Education Board. Admission to the practice of law requires that bar examination applicants show they have completed all prescribed courses at an approved law school. through which fourth year law students may represent indigent clients under the supervision of a licensed attorney. A number of law schools have internship programs and operate legal clinics. presumably on the assumption that the Board would be established.89 19. found necessary in 1993. prescribe curricula. while improving.106 38 .71 31.transformed into actual practice by the major users of the justice system.659 1. establish a law practice internship requirement.349 5249 5.101 Table II.266 917 1. Most of them are members of the Philippine Association of Law Schools.
assisting with government paperwork. these groups form Alternative Law Groups.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. a coalition that advocates policies to advance human rights and social justice. Together. the Lawyers’ League for Liberty. In 2007 it agreed to expand its role and to monitor appointments to other courts. the Makati Business Club. including providing information about the justice system. and provides legal defense to indigents. take public positions on issues of justice policy. The consortium has taken an active role in monitoring the process of several recent nominations to the Supreme Court. Inc. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. notes 17 and 18. and exercises vigilance over the performance of the justice system. and otherwise take an active interest in the administration of justice. monitor the performance of courts and government agencies.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. with initial emphasis on the Supreme Court. Examples of Makati Business Club publications on these issues are cited in Chapter I of this report. 39 . These include organizations that do research. such as improving competitiveness and combating corruption. The Association conducts research. offer legal advice to the poor. 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. but are important stakeholders in how well the system operates. Among business groups. thus becoming the Judicial Appointments Watch.c. provide information to the public.. is known for its active engagement in public policy deliberations on issues affecting business. 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. resident paralegals provide a range of practical services for the benefit of disadvantaged populations. 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. provides legal education. provides legal education under the mandatory continuing legal education program. The Supreme Court Appointments Watch was formed in 2005 by the Transparency and Accountability Network (itself a coalition). The Asia Foundation and USAID supported this initiative. the Association of Law Students of the Philippines. and the Philippine Association of Law Schools. the Alternative Law Groups. especially in rural areas. They also provide links to other areas of public policy related to the justice system. and working with lawyers representing indigent clients. In addition to the above-mentioned Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. composed of more than 800 senior executives of major companies.108 In many communities. including judicial efficiency and integrity.107 More than 20 Alternative Law Groups around the country provide free legal assistance in poor communities.
As a result. the budgets of institutions in the justice system are committed primarily to personnel costs. Business Practices. trained people to implement those systems. adherence to ethical values. However. authority. Achieving greater efficiency and productivity will be essential to the success of any future justice reform. the ultimate objective is to assure that the system provides broad access and excellent service to the public. is highly developed and sophisticated. 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. It is important to note that none of the four objectives alone provides the basis for improved performance of the justice system. and alignment of incentive structures with new policies and programs. and transparency. integrity. foster a culture of lawfulness. and report on results. values. A strong institutional capacity and good systems produce improved access and service only if implemented by capable and motivated people. and capable people are likely to be counterproductive unless the concerned institutions and people demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence. 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. or why implementation has been delayed. Procedures. That is. and service for system-wide reform. and transparency. preparation. together with some ideas about addressing them. meet objectives. Efforts to improve access and service through strengthened institutions. Of course. integrity. This will require special efforts to assure adequate communication. adapt to changing circumstances.B. Weak implementation capacity appears to be one reason why well designed reform initiatives have often experienced disappointing results. Readily available technology is not being put to use. and (iv) broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. 1. described above. leaving little for investment in modernizing technology and equipment – or for maintenance. (ii) high standards of independence. and Facilities As noted above. and a culture of results-based performance management. accountability. A threshold challenge is the need to build within the justice organizations a stronger capacity for strategic planning. management systems and infrastructure tend to be inadequate. At the same time. and advance the rule of law. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems. 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. (iii) capable and motivated human resources. competence. Some of the challenges relate directly to these issues of the scope and quality of service. Thus the four objectives combine to provide a context of efficiency. financial management. capacity for change management is needed. human resources development (discussed separately below). improved service also depends upon increased efficiency. and competent human resources. The objectives are closely interrelated. One aspect of this problem is the need to overcome internal resistance to changes that threaten to reallocate work. accountability. These challenges are summarized below. information management. 40 . Challenges to the Justice System The Philippine justice system. It includes many admirable features. monitor performance. This will require improved management systems and qualified. and resources.
a few weeks – would not only expedite the specific cases handled under these procedures. 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. substantially delay proceedings in courts below. This makes the cost of money retained by delaying payment of a judgment debt much less than if the same 41 . The justice system needs to escape from this vicious circle into a pattern of increased productivity. leaving inadequate sums for maintenance and investment. Truly continuous trials – to be conducted in a few days or. including for operating expenses and capital investment. especially for organizations where budgets have been almost entirely consumed by personnel expenditures. The imminence of a trial that will produce an immediate decision has been a powerful stimulus for settlement in other countries. documented. The most ambitious change would be continuous trials for both civil and criminal cases.111 However. sustained with adequate resources.A related threshold challenge is the need for adequate budgets throughout the justice sector. the bar. and protect officials who apply the rules. Another specific measure to combat delay would be stringent standards for considering interlocutory writs and appeals from orders in ongoing proceedings. The Supreme Court has recently taken action on this issue with respect to temporary restraining orders. leading to chronic congestion and delay. Judges and other officials too often acquiesce in these delaying tactics. Second. the courts. 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. One reason suggested for these “endless” appeals is that the rate of interest used by the courts is well below commercial market rates. with strict time limits. solely for the purpose of depriving a judgment of finality and thus preventing the issuance of a writ of execution. and publicized in order to reinforce and sustain a new demand for and expectation of timeliness in the administration of justice. but that few of those applications are ultimately successful. A major and persistent challenge to the justice system is the slow movement of cases. A number of specific approaches to delay reduction have been proposed. the benefits of delay reduction need to be monitored. Responding to this situation of expectations and deeply ingrained patterns of behavior could include several measures. but never fully implemented. the following appear to warrant further consideration. 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. Third. reward timeliness. at most. Improved capacity should be able to help increase the productivity of investment and control costs. combined with a steady volume of new cases. 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. 112 Anecdotal evidence confirms that applications for writs under Rule 65 constitute a substantial portion of the caseload of the Court of Appeals. 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. Among these. First. even when eventually denied. the rules need to diminish opportunities for delaying tactics. 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. But there is no evident way in which the needed capacity can be built at current funding levels. Building institutional capacity involves costs.
rapid determinations of probable cause to guard against obvious cases of arbitrary arrest or other abuse. prosecution. public defenders. One frequently raised example is the large volume of bouncing check cases. This could be alleviated by allowing simplified. technology and facilities. Information systems are essential to provide timely and accurate assessments of performance regarding service to the public. 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. and what business processes should be linked among institutions. identified needs for improvement in three general areas have received considerable attention: information. prosecutors. together with broad discretion to decline prosecution in cases with poor prospects for conviction. Their importance is increased by the large volume of cases (including substantial backlogs) that burden courts. Efficient case management not only helps track individual cases. Beyond the basic question of delay reduction. Computerized systems need to reflect decisions already made on what information should be collected and shared. 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. public defenders. These offenses could be decriminalized and handled through civil. case management. and law enforcement agencies to focus on more serious offenses and to reduce the backlog in the criminal docket. The recent Judicial Reform 42 . It improves the efficiency of all the concerned organizations and helps them to rationalize their priorities and the distribution of workload. This greater flexibility would leave prosecutors with more manageable workloads. the management of work. 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. prosecutors. administrative. This cause of delay would appear to be readily susceptible to corrective action by legislation or amendment to the Rules of Court. and the procurement and maintenance of equipment. police and others. Case management systems are important tools for all justice organizations. freeing valuable time of the courts. the strengthening of institutional capacity will undoubtedly be the subject of debate about priorities. 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). However. An important aspect is the capacity for communication through compatible systems between headquarters and field offices and between organizations that need to work together. The success of pilot efforts by the Department of Justice to substitute mediation for prosecution of minor offenses suggests that here is considerable potential in this approach. The 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. The example of a single case number usable by law enforcement. what data standards are appropriate.amount were borrowed from a bank. or alternative dispute resolution procedures. and correction and rehabilitation agencies illustrates the point. It is important to distinguish between information management and automation. Greater prosecutorial discretion would expand the space for use of mediation in cases where there is no strong public interest in prosecution. courts. 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. and the implementation of reforms.
but also that of the Bureau of Corrections. the ability of local government units.5.114 While a pilot program has been launched for the courts and one is under study by the National Prosecution Service.c of this Chapter. the Department of the Interior and Local Government. the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. Duplication of functions among law enforcement agencies inevitably creates inefficiencies. 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. in some cases. which operates many of those facilities. approved in 2004 but still not implemented. 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). Many people working in the justice sector lack the most basic tools needed to perform efficiently.115 Interviews of judges and visits to courts confirm the poor working conditions that exist. Conditions in overcrowded jails and prisons warrant early attention as a human rights issue. Reform of the procedures followed by the National Prosecution Service and by the courts could substantially reduce the number of detainees. At present. greater efficiency in the investigation. 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. In addition. A broadly based systemic approach would seem to be in order. These conditions are directly relevant to the need for investment in information and case management systems.Index prepared by the American Bar Association identified the lack of an effective case management system as a weakness of the courts and noted the variety of individual systems used by judges. Inadequacies in facilities and equipment also impede efficient performance throughout the justice system. resulting in brief tenure for the Director General and other senior officers of the PNP. can help the Judiciary to address this situation. the Bureau of Corrections and other Department of Justice entities. and rehabilitation. correction. However. even more pressing needs exist in other justice sector institutions and these also need to be addressed. This is compounded by the reliance on PNP personnel by other law enforcement agencies to provide operational support. Courts that lack computers and internet access will have obvious difficulties contributing to information and case management systems. and other essential information will be lost. prosecution. 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. Inadequate storage facilities pose risks that evidence. comparable and. court files. Infrastructure deficiencies in the lower courts were also singled out for negative comment by the American Bar Association report. adding to the congestion in the jails and penitentiaries where convicted prisoners are incarcerated. This would not only increase the workload of the BJMP. as described above in Section A. On the other hand. The potential for confusion is aggravated by the rapid turnover of leadership within the organization. The difficulties facing these organizations provide an indication how issues cross institutional lines within the justice system. the National Police Commission. case management has not been developed for other organizations. Existing law requires police officers to retire at age 56 (including senior executives). and trial of criminal cases could increase the number of convictions. The decentralization of financial and administrative management in the courts. and the Department of Social Welfare and Development all have partial responsibilities. Another organizational challenge is posed by the fragmented responsibility for the system of detention. 43 .
it is established public policy to encourage the mediation of disputes. and to the broader justice sector. 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. For the most part. If mediation has a strong potential to reduce the volume of litigation.”116 the amounts allocated to the Judiciary. At the same time. for example. High Standards of Independence.2. Despite the constitutional promise that the Judiciary “shall enjoy fiscal autonomy” and that its appropriations “after approval. and the public’s perception of integrity. The executive branch. fees reflect services for which the public will pay and are not a practical way to help meet many resource needs. Local support for the justice system needs to be transparent and institutionalized. Limited training 44 . the executive oversight agencies. It probably requires a mutual effort by the justice organizations. 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. why should an expansion of the courtannexed mediation system depend on the collection of fees from litigants (including those whose cases are not eligible for mediation)? Also. in national budgets are not keeping pace with growing workloads and increasing costs. However. Also troubling is the supplemental financing through support provided to some justice organizations in cash or in kind by local governments. and manages appropriations. and local authorities to find an accommodation based on gradually increased budgetary resources accompanied by increased transparency and demonstrated improvement in efficient management. cannot collect fees from prisoners. shall be automatically and regularly released. But reliance on fees for operating expenses risks distorting the services provided. can collect filing fees from litigants. It justifies its involvement in the judicial budget in terms of accountability. Integrity. These efforts to look outside the financial constraints and controls of official budgets can jeopardize integrity in pursuit of independence. the Congress. knowledge of those codes by the workforces and by the general public appears to be uneven. which develops the national budget. 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. Enhancing integrity. The courts. the justice system operates within a system of checks and balances and must be accountable for its performance. is faced with many demands on limited resources and is dissatisfied with the fiscal management of the justice organizations. Inadequate budgets for other justice organizations do not present the same constitutional issue. Justice organizations that have been able to collect and retain fees for services have obtained some relief. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. on the other hand. A principal challenge to independence is the inadequate financing of the judicial system. and must be seen to be. The administration of justice must be. 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. Accountability. and Transparency The challenges addressed in this section all relate to the credibility of the justice system. presents it to Congress. in the justice system is a serious challenge. unbiased – free of excessive political and financial pressures or criminal influence – and guided by ethical values. For example. There is no easy solution to the financial autonomy challenge.
equipment. observes the performance of official functions. a judge who is overly tolerant of delaying tactics might be trained in how to control the pace of his or her docket. their dissemination. In part. 45 . This means they must be able to receive and make good use of training. Low salaries and poor working conditions impede the ability of public service to compete for talent with the private sector. Accountability for performance is a complicated challenge. and responsive to that public interest. transparent. Skills enhancement for justice system personnel is a related challenge. 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. and reasonable working conditions. 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. 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 challenge is one that is shared by civil society. and facilities that will contribute to professional satisfaction. Budget constraints will surely continue to impose limits on increases in the number of personnel. and publicizes what it learns through active and engaged communications media. and especially to recruit and retain those with strong values of ethical public service.118 Responding to this challenge may require a comprehensive review of existing ethical rules. police. This is especially important in helping employees adapt to the changes involved in implementing reforms. this relates to the need for investments in systems. a sense of accomplishment. although increased salaries for judges appear to have reduced vacancies in the Judiciary. too often. As efforts proceed to introduce modern systems. given the large number of individuals involved in the administration of justice and the continued perception of widespread corruption. prosecutors. In addition to financial accountability and ethical behavior. Capable and Motivated Human Resources The ability of the justice system to attract and retain able and dedicated people is another serious challenge. This is a reminder that institutional incentives need to be aligned with the desired performance if training is to be effective. especially in a number of executive agencies. training programs within the justice system. A disturbing observation by many who have been involved in training judges. it will be necessary that the people who operate the justice system be enabled to make the best use of those improvements. limits the effectiveness of existing ethical codes. Vacancies are a major problem in most organizations. and other justice system personnel is that. The consolidation of information systems should provide a valuable tool for informing the public on a timely basis about the performance of justice organizations.capacity. processes and infrastructure. procedures for public complaints of alleged unethical behavior vary from agency to agency and are not always clear and convenient to follow. 3. and public access to clear procedures. For example. It is a constant challenge to attract the best candidates possible. Also. training does not change behavior in the workplace. The number of disciplinary cases seems small. the justice system is challenged to demonstrate that it is performing its responsibilities honestly and efficiently. Public participation in such a review could give high visibility to the important issue of personal and institutional integrity in the justice sector.
The consolidation of some support services could increase opportunities for career development and advancement by specialists in various functions. Skills directly related to performance should be given preference in training curricula over more generalized academic instruction. high standards for admission to law school. Beyond training is the challenge of allocating work to make the most effective use of valuable human resources and provide greater job satisfaction. In any event. Ultimately. It is also said that prosecutors. Training suffers from limited resources. but that action has not been taken to bring the Board into existence. 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. for their part. 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. justice is a public service and. 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. Institutional accountability of justice organizations to the citizenry needs to reflect individual accountability of personnel for the good performance of their duties. Imaginative career development. 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. 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. For most organizations opportunities are quite limited. The initiative by the Philippine Judicial Academy to organize a small number of multidisciplinary courses with multi-agency participation is a helpful beginning. providing broad access and excellent service is the ultimate objective. including both rewards and a disciplinary element. do not rely on the police for follow-on investigation. assurances of adequate curricula and instruction.A particular concern in this regard is the need for collaboration between organizations. 46 . for example. providing skilled personnel with opportunities to use their expertise in a variety of institutional settings. often driven more by the availability of donor-financed courses than by systematic institutional training plans. Academic preparation for work in the justice system is a challenge that needs attention in the reform agenda. It is possible.000 applicants for admission to the bar each year. 4. as noted above. 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. But much more is needed. training needs to be made relevant to the performance of duties. Efforts to change behavior and adapt to reforms need incentives. It is striking that the need for a Legal Education Board was recognized in 1993 legislation. 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. With more than 100 law schools and more than 5. could help to retain valuable staff whose skills and experience might otherwise be lost. and a system of accreditation seem especially important. 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. Greater flexibility in position descriptions and hours of work could also help increase productivity and contribute to more satisfying jobs.
Education and Communication. greater legal certainty and predictability would be a positive factor in encouraging investment and other economic activity in the Philippines. especially.” the Barangay Human Rights Action Centers supported by the Human Rights Commission. increase legal certainty. The challenge of accountability of the justice system to an informed citizenry. might serve the public by increasing accountability. but it can be an instrument of legal empowerment and. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. More broadly. The poor are likely to lack awareness of their rights and to be deterred by inconvenient locations of justice organizations. In addition to general information programs. promoting greater uniformity. Publication of Court of Appeals decisions on that Court’s own website is planned to begin in 2008. and now available to judges and others who have access to the Supreme Court’s elibrary. Angeles City. The concept of an access to justice network at the community level. 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. not just the Supreme Court. contribute to broadened participation in economic and social development. In this way. on the poor and disadvantaged members of society. One challenge is to coordinate fragmented efforts by the Public Attorney’s Office. delay and uncertainty are themselves a denial of access to justice. 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. Examples include the European Union-supported Supreme Court program on “Access to Justice for the Poor through Information.119 One other dimension of an informed public is the availability of legal information. currently under discussion. The existence of paralegals and civil society organizations operating in many communities could facilitate the staffing of such centers with knowledgeable individuals. appears to have considerable promise. in Cebuano and Visayan communities. The model court design developed with World Bank assistance. publication of more judicial decisions could foster greater consistency. Institutionalizing programs at the community level might build on a number of impressive pilot efforts. for example. is particularly acute in the case of the poor and disadvantaged.Progress on many of the issues discussed above will have a direct impact on citizens. could also include a venue for community centers. various universities and legal clinics. the procedures by which citizens can obtain information about and access to the justice system for various purposes are numerous and sometimes overlap. discussed above. including through increased legal literacy. and be discouraged by extended delays that they cannot afford. and the Bantay Banay program of Lihok Pilipina Foundation to combat violence against women. gaining effective access to justice may require community-based systems to assist and empower citizens in navigating the many channels that exist. and discourage frivolous appeals. An example of a specific issue is whether the publication of decisions by all the appellate courts. Building capacity at the community level with the involvement of community residents is difficult. there are specific challenges about the impact of the justice system on the broader population and. In turn. and others that provide legal assistance and services to the poor. For example. and diminishing the number of appeals in situations where a pattern of decisions is clearly established. The poor can be intimidated by costly and opaque processes. 47 . However. thus. which is to be piloted in Manila. The evolution of electronic publishing will make it possible to renew the public availability. and LapuLapu City. of Court of Appeals decisions (once published in printed volumes. but not the general public).
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have increased access to justice and. Current rules for court-annexed mediation result in only a small percentage of eligible cases being submitted to mediation. to some extent. expanding access to justice while also diminishing the existing burden on the courts. pending completion of the process for issuance of the implementing regulations and related modifications of the Rules of Court. 48 . The entry into force of this modern legislation could give impetus to further growth of alternative dispute resolution services. Expanding the availability of these mechanisms is still another challenge for increasing access to justice. Also. have reduced the volume of litigation. the modern Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 remains in limbo.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 49 . 6734. 2007. June 1998. Republic Act No.M. 99-4-06-SC.gov. See Rules 43. supra.gov.gov. 1987 Constitution of the Republic http://www. Section 3. it is important not to lose sight of general cross-sectoral issues (e. Republic Act No. Volume 1. and John Whitte. 03-11-16-SC.ph/aboutphil/a8. See also Supreme Court Administrative Circular A. 2 3 Presidential Decree No. 8 June 1999.” Development Assistance Committee. No. 65. approved 23 October 2003. Article VIII. 1949. The Staffing Summary. of the Philippines. supra.g.supremecourt. section 1. Rules of Court. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act. note 5.php. page 40. “Solving the Judicial Vacancy Problem. Supreme Court http://www. A fourth higher court. www.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. Section 2. OECD.Notes to Chapter II 1 “The definition of a sector is pragmatic…Whatever definition is adopted. Article VIII.” Philippine Daily Inquirer.271 judicial positions. which resolves that the Shari’a Appellate Court be formally organized effective 1 January 2000.php. Republic Act 9227.ph/rules/rule9. Administrative Matter No. 23 September 2007. 8369.” in Harmonizing Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. 7160. The Judicial and Bar Council uses a number of 2. of 1997. civil service reform) and the specific links between the sector and other parts of he system (e. Cedric. 1508 (1978). Article VIII. “Sector Wide Approaches. Guidelines and Reference Series. See also Saldanha. Republic Act No. Using the Logical Framework for Sector Analysis and Project Design: A User’s Guide. Constitution. General Appropriations Act. note 5. 8371. and the Office of the Court Administrator use a base figure of 2. approved 1 August 1989. effective 1 December 2000. See Panganiban. according to a report on vacancies in the Judiciary released on 19 September 2007. of the Philippines. a Shari’a Appellate Court. http://jbc. Chapter 3. Constitution.258 judicial positions.. approved 28 October 1997. Section 9.. Ibid. is authorized by law but has not yet been established. the 1991 Local Government Code of the Philippines. from roads to agriculture). Artemio. approved 29 October 1997. JBC Order 009.g. as amended by Republic Act No. Family Courts Act of 1979. 27 April 2004. Section 8. Ibid. approved 18 July 1984.asp.oecd.ph/court%20issuances/rules/index.supremecourt. Ibid. Asian Development Bank. The Judicial Development Fund was created by Presidential Decree No.
ph/forum_icsjr/ICSJR_Philippines%20(R%20Puno). Section 2.19 20 21 Constitution. Mata. 2005. Part I (civil procedure) and Part http://wwwsupremecourt. Supreme Court Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence Committee. supra. Ibid.supremecourt. Committee on Public Information. 34834. Article VII. 1998. Trocio v. Committee on Computerization of the Courts. 2005/2006 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary. Rules of Court. Security. Committee on Security. Supreme Court Annual Report. Bids and Awards Committee for the Maintenance. No. e.php. Bids and Awards Committee for the Action Program on Judicial Reform.) Previously.) The Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Administrative Matter No. 03-02-05 SC. supra. Section 15. Committee on Disposal of Forfeited Real Property Bonds.org/ethics/pdfs/Bangalore_principles. Committee on Foreign Travel. Executive Committee for Judicial Reform Program. Article VIII. 2005. December 2006. pages 31-34.gov. Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Committee. III (criminal procedure).” Standing committees include: Management Committee and Component Working Committees for the Judicial Reform Support Project. http://jrn21. section 6. Committee on Computerization and Library. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.pdf. note 5. 8557.gov. Raffle Committee for En Banc Cases. Constitution. Committee on Legislative-Executive Relations. Reynato. Section 11.php.R. Change Management Committee.pdf. 1996. Reorganized Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Board and constituent subcommittees.ajs. Committee on Advanced Syllabi. and Janitorial Needs of the Halls of Justice. 118 SCRA 241.ph/court%20issuances/rules/index. note 5. Selection and Promotion Board. Committee on Protocol. The Academy was originally established by Supreme Court order (Administrative Order No. Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters. Article VIII. Article VIII. 03-06-13-SC) both became effective on 1 June 2004.g. supra.) Two years later it received a legislative charter (Republic Act No. See also Article XI. judicial training had been provided by the University of the Philippines Law Center. 03-05-01 SC) and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (Administrative Matter No. approved February 26. G. as revised. See Puno. establishing a special rule on guardianship of minors distinct from Rule 93 of the Rules of Court. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 50 . Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban identifies 18 existing stand-alone computerized systems within the Judiciary in his 2005 book. note 5. Personnel Development Committee.ph/news/multimedia/inex. Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court and constituent subcommittees. Judicial Renaissance.supremecourt. There are also several ad hoc committees. 1982. http://www. and Executive Committee for the Action Program for Judicial Reform. “The New Philippine Code of Judicial Conduct. Social Weather Stations. March 12. Raffle Committee for Division Cases. 1 April 2004.gov. section 5(5). 35-96. Administrative Matter No. Constitution. are at http://www. of the Constitution states simply and clearly “The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary. November 15. pages 47-49. See.
Section 19.33 Court delays were analyzed http://codex. 01-10-5-SC PHILJA. Perez. Court of Industrial Relations. Executive Order No. PhilJA’s ADR Committee is composed of the following: Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera. 292. National Telecommunications Commission. Justice Justo P. Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo Ponferrada. Section 15. 57-97 of 16 September 1997 provides for consolidation of civil and criminal actions in these cases. Executive Order No. Ang Tibay v. Agabin. Trademarks and Technology Transfer.” Supreme Court Circular No. 16 October 2001. Social Security Commission. Department of Agrarian Reform. Batas Pambansa Blg. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups. Instituting the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Executive Department of Government. Central Board of Assessment Appeals. 292. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. note 5. Energy Regulatory Commission. Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. supra. G. Dean Pacifico A. Government Service Insurance System. the Arbitration Law. Agricultural Inventions Board. Presidential Decree 1508 instituted a system of amicable settlement of disputes at the barangay level without need of judicial recourse. Bureau of Patents. and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. The five articles on arbitration in the Civil Code were supplemented in 1953 by Republic Act No. 04-02-02-SC. Tadiar. in the Business World Anniversary Report. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 876. Administrative Code of the Philippines. approved 25 July 1987. Legislation enacted in 1979 criminalized these cases.R. National Water Resources Board. March 26. Civil Aeronautics Board. the Local Government Code. Republic Act No. Republic Act 7160. Board of Investments. 523. Chairman Alfredo F. the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. Third Division. In 1978. 34 35 Constitution. Torres. Ibid. Executive Order No. 2003.com. Insurance Commission. Chapter IV. Chapter IV. 25 July 1987. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 51 . Inc. is discussed separately below. 22. but does not otherwise modify the applicable criminal procedure. Administrative Code of 1987. Dean Eulogia Cueva. Book VII. and Commissioner Linda L. The most recent legislative development. “An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes. 292. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. 635 (1940). Speedy Trial Act of 1998. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Section 3. Book VII. 2005. Dean Eduardo de los Angeles. Hornilla. Securities and Exchange Commission.bworldonline. See LM Power Engineering Corporation v.. Executive Order No. Civil Service Commission. 20 July 2004 (effective 16 August 2004). 69 Phil. No. National Labor Relations Commission. Office of the President. Section 19. amended this system in 1991 to authorize barangay officials to conduct conciliation and mediation proceedings to settle disputes within their territorial jurisdiction. 8493. Article VIII. 25 July 1987. 7 April 2006. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. The agencies named in the law include the Office of the Ombudsman. 141833. Book VII. National Electrification Administration. Land Registration Authority. National Conciliation and Mediation Board. Chapter IV.
“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. 14-93. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. or in case they fail to agree. See Implementing Rules and Regulations on Mediation in the Trial Courts. appended to Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. For instance. including all disputes and grievances which may otherwise lead to strikes and lockouts under Republic Act No.58 The “kedefawan” tribal justice system of the Tedurays of Kidapawan in Cotabato. Chapter VII. approved 29 October 1997. Implementing rules and regulations were issued in February 1992 under an administrative order by the President.ph/indexmain. See note 43. among many others have a tribal leader or council of elders resolve a dispute in the community.html. The Tagakaolo in Sarangani Province call their justice system “kasfala”. 02-2002. the “matikadong” or “bagani” system of the Mansaka tribe in Davao del Norte. The Department of Agrarian Reform was created in 1971 under Republic Act 6389 to manage the national land reform program. 24 March 2004. 04-3-15-SC-PHILJA. The National Labor Relations Commission was created in 1972 under Presidential Decree No. and accompanying text. 15 July 1993.php. No. 7160 incorporated the Barangay Justice System under Book III. 24 March 2004. supra. Palawan have a tribal justice system called “panglaw”. Republic Act No. with the guilty party paying a penalty.ph. Section 65 See http://www.47 48 Ibid. Administrative Order No. 270. wherein a person found guilty of violating customary law is given 30 lashes by a council of tribal elders. page 1. 12. 21 with exclusive jurisdiction on all matters involving employeremployee relations. “Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo” is constituted if the Lupon fails to settle the dispute.G. drawing lots shall determine the members (RA 7160. 02-04. DILG Summary of Cases filed. Administrative Matter No. http://www. 88 O. Sections 399-422 and Section 512.ncip. This occurs after the guilty person has been confined and made to stand for several hours in full view of the public. a dialogue held to resolve disputes.dar. The Kankanaey of the Cordillera has a system called “tongtong”. In Kitaotao. 8371. Resolution No. 23 March 1992.sws.ph/darhistory2.gov. The Pangkat is composed of three members of the Lupon picked by the parties to the conflict. Section 404 [A]). which usually requires a peace offering from the offender. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 52 . actions taken. 875. Bukidnon.gov. the “tabunawai or temuay” of the Arumanen Manuvu. the Matigsalog people are using a customary law called “gantangan owey palavian” to resolve conflicts. See the extensive history of laws relating to agrarian reform at http://www. the Tagbanuas of Coron. 04-3-15-SC-PHILJA. 2 April 2002. Title I.org. Republic Act No. on Katarungang Pambarangay Implementation (From January 1980 to December 2005). Administrative Order No.
262. and the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency. supra. 9285. Constitution. Republic Act No.ph/lis/bill_res.asp. 9160. These include the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. note 5. Republic Act No.disputeresolution. See also the 2003 amendments to comply with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force. 9194.p. Carpio v. 11 April 1978. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.html. 9285. April 2. 29 May 2007. Senate Bill No. June 18. Executive Order No. the Presidential Task Force on Transportation Strikes and/or Mass Actions. Chapter 17.aspx?congress=14&q=SBN-262. of Law. the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force. Constitution. 8551.gov. and for other purposes. the Philippine Coast Guard. the Joint Task Force Against Trafficking in Persons. Other national law enforcement agencies that exercise police powers include the Airport Police. The Philippine Star. the Bureau of Customs. the Construction Industry Arbitration Law. there is a host of task forces. Presidential Decree No. 876. Republic Act No. note 5. approved 29 September 2001. the National Anti-Crime Commission. 1275. the Optical Media Board.neda. 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.63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Republic Act No. Section 5. the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission and Task Force. Medium Term Development Plan. July 2007. the National AntiKidnapping Task Force. An Act Reorganizing and Modernizing the National Bureau of Investigation and Providing Necessary Fund Therefor. the National Council for Civil Aviation Security.” 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 53 . Republic Act No. Republic Act No. Section 6. approved 2 April 2004. supra. 1953. the Inter-Agency Council on Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children. the National Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating Center. 6975 and No.h/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010. “The 2007 SWS Business Survey on Corruption. 14th Congress. the Bureau of Immigration. Executive Secretary.ph. the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking. 206 SCRA 290 (1996). 7 June 2002. The website of Philippine Online Dispute Resolution is http://www. Title XIV.senate. 2004.org. http://www. http://sws.” Social Weather Stations. 1008 of 4 February 1985. Republic Act No. and the Philippine Ports Authority. “Basic Need: Rule http://www. 9165. In addition. Republic Act No.gov. the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. councils and coordinating commissions with responsibilities for various aspects of law enforcement. the Presidential Anti-Illegal Recruiters Task Force. 1949.ph/about. Article XVI. 386. approved 7 March 2003. Article XI.
supra. 6397. It is believed that there are major delays in both preliminary investigations and inquests. Rule 112. See Rule 139A of the Rules of Court. Constitution.org/docs/resources/publications/violence/summary.pdf. http://apjr. Article 125. supra. 3815 (1938). In cases where an accused person is arrested and detained without a warrant of arrest. Section 5. See Supreme Court Resolution dated 22 August 2000. Breaking Rules: Children in Conflict with the Law and the Juvenile Justice Process – The Experience in the Philippines.” www.ph.ibp. approved 13 December 1990. Republic Act No. Constitution. July 2003.81 Republic Act No. Rules of Court. National Survey of Inmates and Institutional Assessment: Final Report. 30 June 2007. Presidential Decree No. a similar procedure. Conduct of Further Study on Operations and Linkages of the 5 Pillars of Justice. 9344. Canlas. Bar Matter No. Implementing regulations of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council entered into force on 11 July 2006. www.ph/pubreports/Survey%20of%20Inmates%20Final%20Report. 14th Congress. UNDP. Section 14. 324of 12 April 1996 established the review committee that developed the legislative proposal. Section 2. 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 54 . approved 28 March 2004. Article VIII. Supreme Court.pdf. Republic Act No.net/national/2007/apr/09/yehey/metro/20070409met4. Ibid. 09 Apr 2007. http://www. note 4.crin. an “inquest. Final Report. CPRM. 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.manilatimes. adopting the rules on mandatory continuing legal education for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. See UNDP. 181.” is undertaken. First Regular Session. 212 and No.1. 9279. PAO Gets a Boost with New PAO Bill. See Table II. Section 63 of Republic Act 6975.supremecourt. 9406.html. supra. See Save the Children-UK. 2004. Ibid. 4 May 1973. approved 23 March 2007.gov. Article III. approved 4 May 2006. The Manila Times. Section 12.org. note 5. 213. March 2006. Act No. Republic Act No. Section 5(5). 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. Senate Bills No. “A Brief History of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 850. Revised Penal Code. Executive Order No. 17 September 1971.
on average. See Supreme Court Resolution dated 20 February 2007 re: procedure in extrajudicial or judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages.org/index.” Constitution.2 years for decision.ph. Rules of Court.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006.pdf.ph/files/proj_scaw. Attorneys and Admission to the Bar. Only the Supreme Court was identified as having “good” sincerity.html. July 2007. note 5. 8 June 2004. and the 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 55 .mbc. which is often inefficient given the number of pending cases. With respect to facilities: “The Supreme Court and appellate-level courts…provide a highly respectable environment and infrastructure.philippinebar.” Ibid. Section 3. 061-03-SC.asp?sec=index.org/Documents/Events/2003/RETA5987/Final_Overview_Report. and offices.pdf. 99-10-05-O. board or office to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school. 11. “Rule 65: Posing Impediments to a Streamlined Judicial System.alternativelawgroups. Asian Development Bank Judicial Independence Project. http://www. courtrooms.org. petitions to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court under Rule 65 involved. The report states “There is no effective case filing and tracking system. A manual system is in place in most courts.org.org/pub-reports.adb. and Xavier University. Administrative Matter No. page 77. www.asp. www. Bar Matter 1161. Arellano University.100 101 102 103 104 http://www. the trial courts and Ombudsman were ranked as “mediocre”. 14 February 2006. 7662. http://www. Section 1 of Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court authorize a fourth-year law student to “appear without compensation in any civil. Ibid.M.: “There is insufficient budget allocated to equipment for trial level courts. The 2006-2007 SWS Surveys of Enterprises on Corruption.” Also. Rita Linda. American Bar Association.ph. Section 5. or administrative case before any trial court. The Asia Foundation.sws. Rule 138. October 2003.” Law schools with legal clinics include the University of the Philippines (which pioneered in this field). A. Legal Education Reform Act of 1993.apjr-sc-phil. the system of non-continuous trials. supra. Article VIII. 23 December 1993. March 2006. A more significant problem is maintenance and equipping of buildings. See Supreme Court Resolutions: on proposed reforms in the bar examinations. http://www.org/about. and re creation of a task force to facilitate creation of the Legal Education Board.abanet. http://www. The Sandiganbayan was evaluated as having “moderate” sincerity. Ateneo School of Law. These statements are not true for trial courts in many locations. tribunal. and other factors that contribute to the lengthy process.tan.” 2007. Judicial Reform Index for the Philippines. Gimeno. Republic Act No. Ibid. Sections 7 and 8. finds that in 133 studied cases from Regional Trial Courts. http://www.com. criminal. Judicial Independence Overview and Country-Level Studies. the judicial vacancy rate. University of Santo Tomas.
and Development. 2006. World Bank.Department of Justice. See also Golub. 2001.abanet. good governance. page 167.org/cpr/discipline/sold/home. “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. Recent surveys are available at http://www.html.pdf. http://www. Equity. Stephen.” The World Bank Legal Review: Law. 119 56 .adb. 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. See the discussion of legal empowerment.org/Documents/Others/Law_ADB/lpr_2001. Volume 2. and Philippine National Police were classified as ”poor” in the degree of their sincerity in fighting corruption. Department of the Interior and Local Government. 118 For example.
such as law enforcement agencies and the public defender system. Recent Justice Sector Reforms The strong emphasis on justice. Summary Description of Reforms 1. and initiated the continuing justice reform process. moral rectitude. including those provided for in the Constitution such as the Judicial and Bar Council and the Ombudsman.”1 The Court issued authoritative guidelines for the nation’s judges on the administration of justice (1987). the reform agenda included the establishment of new justice entities. the judicial dimension of justice reform has emphasized the qualities of independence. Other reforms. Efforts to deal with this problem have included measures to increase efficiency as well as provisions to divert cases to alternative channels for resolution. From the beginning. and the rule of law in the 1987 Constitution. These bold. A. including many discussed in Chapter II. have focused on particular issues. Legislation was enacted to emphasize the rights of persons arrested. Together. women and children as victims of crime. Many of the reforms of the past two decades have strengthened the architecture of the justice system by establishing new courts. or under custodial investigation. 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 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. This chapter describes the principal reform efforts and assesses their effectiveness with respect to these challenges. In addition. early measures established the leadership of the Supreme Court. inaugurated an era of reform that has continued to the present time. coordinate with other organizations in the justice sector. and monitor the performance of judges and courts (1989). protection of intellectual property. helped to restore the independence of the Judiciary. and efficiency. public attorneys. and parole and probation officers. and initiated a pilot program to increase judicial efficiency through the use of continuous trials (1988 and 1989). modernizing procedures.III. issued comprehensive measures on court management to implement the Court’s regulatory powers under the new Constitution (1988). and creating or modifying organizational actors. described in Chapter I of this report. Among these: 57 .4 Simultaneous with the rebuilding of the Judiciary. the new Constitution provided a sound basis for an effective justice system. including many it still faces as described in Chapter II of this report.3 In addition. 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. adopted a code of professional responsibility for the legal profession and a code of judicial conduct (1988). such as children in conflict with the law.2 During this period. human rights. Restoring the Foundations of the Justice System During the period following the February 1986 Revolution. A recurrent theme has been the chronic delay that afflicts the formal justice system. development and implementation office to formulate ways to improve the administration of justice. it established a planning. detained. or offenses of special concern such as drug trafficking and money laundering. with the support of a Presidential directive. It also included the creation and restructuring of many organizations responsible for the administration of justice.
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. customary legal systems. and the Philippine Public Safety College in an expanded Department of the Interior and Local Government.6 The Barangay Justice System was substantially revised. with a view to expediting the disposition of criminal cases. and promoting legal education and court management. and others involved in the administration of justice.16 58 . including the designation of family courts throughout the country.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. improving court procedures and administration.”15 The enactment of the Speedy Trial Act in 1998 to specify time limits for various stages in criminal trials. replacing the Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office. court personnel. judicial candidates. 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. placing greater responsibility on local authorities at the community level. improving and reforming it to meet the challenges of the new millennium. the early years of the post-Constitution era included a focus on integrity and accountability in the entire public service. its relationships with the National Police Commission and local government units were revised. addressing causes of congestion and delay.5 The Philippine National Police was reorganized. size. 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.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. Creating that capacity was a principal area of concentration through the 1990s.13 The establishment in 1997 of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples to facilitate the use by indigenous populations of parallel. and areas of specialization of courts to enable them to manage their work more effectively.11 A series of adjustments to the jurisdiction.9 2.12 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.7 More generally.10 The creation of the Philippine Judicial Academy in 1996 to strengthen the capacity of judges.
A number of additional studies have been undertaken to support the implementation of the APJR.3. fairness and efficiency. Many of these studies were financed by international development partners. which came to be known as the “Davide Watch. As the previous Chief Justice. and accessibility. had reminded one of the multi-sectoral consultations in this process. the Blueprint of Action and the APJR represent a consolidation of the reform efforts that had gone on before. looking at reform in a more systematic way and with more deliberate recognition of the roles of other justice sector organizations outside the Judiciary. 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. focused on four areas of reform: independence. Andres Narvasa.” 18 Accordingly. The outcome of the consultations was the publication in February 2000 of Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. procedures and. it is shared by the executive and legislative branches of the government and the other four pillars of the criminal justice system.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. public trust and confidence. the Supreme Court undertook to encourage the participation of other justice sector institutions in the consultations and planning. and the legal profession. 59 . effectiveness and efficiency. They reflect a systematic identification of strengths and weaknesses. rules. The development of the Blueprint of Action and the APJR was greatly facilitated by a series of diagnostic studies which informed the public consultations and the deliberations of policymakers. Creating an Institutional Framework for Systematic Justice Reform The appointment of Hilario Davide as Chief Justice in November 1998 marked the beginning of a third phase in the reform of the justice system. “It would be well to remember that the task of justice delivery is not the courts’ alone. The principal studies are listed in the bibliography in Annex 3 to this report. concerned with the jurisdictional structure. such as the Asian Development Bank study of judicial independence and accountability and the World Bankassisted institutional review of the Judiciary. The Davide Watch. and of accomplishments and shortcomings. integrity and accountability.” 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. management systems for the administration of justice. The APJR has six components: Judicial systems and procedures.17 Chief Justice Davide’s December 1998 policy statement. Institutional development. concerned with the capacity of the Judiciary as an independent and accountable branch of government. enhanced knowledge-based adjudication.
as had many of the reforms of previous years described above. career development.Human resource management development. and punishment of corruption in the Judiciary and in the legal profession. The APJR established a coherent. 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.20 During the past six years. and follow-up actions. and discipline of judges and Judiciary staff. to assure that they are updated on legal developments and issues of professional responsibility. and Reform support systems. training. compensation.3 billion in 2001. concerned with the prevention. multi-year plan. In all cases. For example. with priorities and cost estimates. and created an executive committee (including senior officials from outside the Judiciary) and a program management office to assure policy oversight. concerned with management systems to assure the success of the reform program.22 The creation in 2001 of a comprehensive legislative framework to deny wrongdoers who engage in money laundering the financial benefit of their criminal acts. the structure of the APJR has served as a focal point for coordinating reform efforts. and assure the sustainability of the reform program. concerned with assuring that the justice system includes genuine opportunities for participation by the marginalized and disadvantaged. approved by law in 2003. with the expectation that a little over 50% would be financed from domestic resources. In addition. coordination. monitoring. detection.23 The inauguration of mandatory continuing legal education for attorneys in 2003. foster public awareness. 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. Access to justice by the poor. concerned with the selection.26 60 . a number of reforms and improvements to the administration of justice have been directly attributable to the plan set out for APJR in 2001. Institutional integrity development. with the balance (some PhP 2 billion) relying on external sources.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. The cost of APJR implementation was estimated at PhP 4. primarily development assistance. 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. communication with stakeholders.24 The increase of judicial salaries by 100% over a four-year period. Some other reforms that were not included in the original planning of the APJR have moved ahead on their own. thus facilitating the recruitment of qualified candidates for judicial appointment and reducing the number of vacancies in the Judiciary.
employees in the Judiciary. annulment of marriage. A more extensive enumeration of achievements under the APJR is at Annex 5 to this report. 61 .29 The adoption of new codes of conduct for judges. which has developed a broad array of laws on subjects such as maritime law. chattel mortgages.35 In addition to these specific measures. 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. tariffs and customs. 28 (The modernization of commercial laws continues.27 Steps toward the modernization of commercial law. the use of distance learning. a host of long-term projects and activities is underway within the framework of the APJR to improve the administration of justice. including with respect to adoption. thereby increasing the availability of high quality legal services for the poor and disadvantaged. including legislation on e-commerce. banking. and guardianship. with a focus on improving the criminal justice system. and increased involvement of other organizations in multidisciplinary programs. primarily through the University of the Philippines Commercial Law Study Project. National Bureau of Investigation. empowering the courts to conduct legal research with more reliably up-to-date and readily available materials. With respect to other justice sector organizations. a number of reform initiatives have benefited from the momentum of the APJR. Board of Pardons and Parole. 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. the sale of goods. corporate recovery and insolvency.31 The launch of the Supreme Court’s electronic library in 2004. Court Administrator. and notaries public in 2004. creating opportunities for greater efficiency in the management of the courts and related bodies.The revival in 2003 of the National Council on the Administration of Justice through a memorandum of agreement among the Justice Secretary.30 The enactment of a new legislative charter for alternative dispute resolution in 2004. Parole and Probation Administration. and Integrated Bar President. and Bureau of Corrections. The adoption by the Supreme Court in 2004 of new policies on decentralization of administration. custody of minors. including diversion of their treatment from the formal judicial system. Interior and Local Government Secretary.) Updating of rules on family law and related litigation procedures.32 The issuance by the Supreme Court in 2004 of authoritative guidance for pre-trial procedures and discovery. 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 securitization. and credit card fraud. Public Attorney’s Office. with a view to expediting court proceedings.33 The enactment of legislation in 2006 to protect and establish appropriate treatment for children in conflict with the law.
and institutional capacities and responsibilities. Multilateral development organizations and bilateral donors have financed a number of the diagnostic studies. The Asian Development Bank also supports APJR through a technical assistance project entitled Enhancing the Autonomy. “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. Changes in the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession (2004). the APJR depends upon financial support from the international community. the operation of the courts. “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. The momentum of the APJR has also been sustained by a series of opinion surveys conducted by the respected Social Weather Stations organization.“Survey of Inmates” (July 2003) examined the corrections systems managed by federal and local authorities and provided recommendations on the protection of rights improvement of management. The World Bank Judicial Reform Support Project includes court reorganization. Accountability and Efficiency of the Judiciary and Improving the Administration of Justice. its legal and institutional foundations. provided training and related equipment and materials. “Institutional Strengthening the Shari’a Justice System (June 2004) examined the background of the Shari’a justice system. and a long-term justice sector strategy. A baseline 1996 survey that preceded the APJR was entitled “Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession.” (November 2004) examined the Office’s investigation and prosecution systems and developed a program to strengthen institutional capacities. Office of the Ombudsman. The Bank has been a principal source of support for the creation and development of the Philippine Anti-Money Laundering Council. improvement of court facilities (including the mobile courts). capacity development for the National Prosecution Service. Particular undertakings include the following: An Asian Development Bank technical assistance project.” 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). and Filipino Muslim Survey on Law and Social Justice (2006) As previously noted. “Medium-Term Anticorruption Program. and opportunities for reform. model courts with 62 . linkages between the Barangay Justice System and the courts. and also provided technical assistance. which involves decentralization of judicial administration. with action plans for each of the pillars of the criminal justice system. That support has been forthcoming. A Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary (2006). including support for the reorganization of the Judicial and Bar Council and for the distance learning program of the Philippine Judicial Academy. involves the operationalizing of fiscal autonomy and capacity for self-governance in the Judiciary. Strengthening the Independence and Efficiency of the Judiciary. improving business processes related to electronic caseflow management.
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. 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. seminars on the code of ethics. and training of judges and Judiciary employees. providing a valuable tool for case management and decongestion of court dockets. and has also supported the establishment of model police stations. through the Philippine-Australian Human Resource Development Facility. judge-to-judge dialogues. The CIDA Court Administration Management Information System project supports the automation of statistical data collection and reporting from locations nationwide. including the new facility for the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Youth Training Center for the Bureau of Corrections. for discussing problems and issues. improved court rules and procedures. improved discovery procedures. strengthening of the Shari’a courts. Japan has also made important contributions to crucial physical infrastructure for the justice system. 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. has also supported the current court-annexed mediation system and other administrative dispute resolution mechanisms. A particularly noteworthy aspect of the third phase of justice reform has been the reliance on interagency and inter-branch coordinating mechanisms. (CIDA.” The committee was composed of representatives from the following organizations: Supreme Court. along with USAID and the Asia Foundation. Japan supports the Automated Fingerprint Information System project for the development of capacity in the Philippine National Police to use automated fingerprint identification. The Australian Agency for International Development has supported the development of benchbooks for trial court judges and.automated systems. Agencies performing alternative dispute resolution functions. and continuous trials in the Sandiganbayan. 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. USAID has supported a wide range of reform activities. and repair of selected Halls of Justice in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. electronic learning for judges. and for achieving consensus on the overall direction and strategic level decisions. 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. including court-annexed mediation. 63 .) The United Nations Development Programme has supported diagnostic studies such as the Medium-Term Criminal Justice System Development Plan. AusAID also provides training and related activities.
COA. President of the League of Governors. and plans of action have been adopted. included the President of the Philippine Judges Association. largely carried out in connection with the formulation of the Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary and the APJR. established by a memorandum of agreement to coordinate work on criminal justice issues. Too often. A third group.Agencies responsible for the other pillars of the criminal justice system.37 In addition. Director of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. President of the Trial Judges League. but have not been fully or timely implemented. included the Chief of the Philippine National Police. the delays in the courts: 64 . identified major shortcomings in the justice system’s performance and proposed measures to overcome them. Parole and Probation Administrator. the Supreme Court has created an institutional structure for leading a process of continued reform and improvement. chaired by the Court Administrator. included three groups: One group. chaired by the Secretary of Justice. constitute that system. collaborative. in particular. despite all the excellent work done to put in place the reforms of the past 20 years. Bureau of Corrections Director. National Bureau of Investigation Director. they demonstrate recognition of the multi-faceted character of the justice system. new laws. A second group. rules. many of the most serious shortcomings persist. Nevertheless. included the Chief State Prosecutor. and coordinating in nature. the diagnostic studies listed in Annex 3 to this report. Yet. the National Council on the Administration of Justice. A study of the Philippine criminal justice system in 2000 began with an expression of frustration with the state of the system and. Integrated Bar of the Philippines Academe. The most obvious example is the issue of delay. together. Oversight agencies (NEDA. and President of the League of Barangays. 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. and President of the National Prosecutors’ League. chaired by the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government. Civil Society.38 Both these interagency and inter-branch structures are advisory. Over this period. On the other hand. and of the interdependence of the organizations that. B. DBM. President of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association. Chief Public Attorney. They do not have decision making or other executive responsibilities. CSC). and President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The experience of these bodies is valuable preparation for the creation of a participatory management structure for a long-term justice sector development strategy.
These include: Inadequate support in national budgets for justice institutions.” citing as contributing factors: The reluctance of judges to deny requests for postponement. 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. shortages of prosecutors and public attorneys. among all these issues which remain unanswered. the American Bar Association’s Judicial Reform Index expressed concern over “inefficiency. Nor does it support an inference that reform should be scaled back or abandoned. These same issues are prominent in the discussion of current challenges to the justice system in Chapter II of this report. Rather. Sequential rather than continuous trials. has always been the target of criticism for abetting the retardation of court process. now that 65 . Deficiencies in interagency coordination. and otherwise to require parties to abide by prescribed time limits. frequently resulting in a filing to completion period of five or more years in civil and criminal cases. and poor working conditions in justice institutions. Overcrowding and inhumane conditions in jails and prisons and a lack of access by prisoners to legal assistance. compounded by overly centralized and inefficient management systems and inadequate communications between field offices and headquarters. and out-of-date information in justice institutions.But perhaps. to demand the timely appearance of witnesses. Weakness of court management systems. insufficient training. An inordinate backlog of cases. lack of equipment and supplies. Absence of a small claims procedure. this reality in no way diminishes the value of what the reform program has accomplished. Personnel shortages. along with other financing issues.39 Six years later. since modern memory can recall. However. Weak capacities for administrative and financial management.40 While the above-quoted reports focus on the judicial process. to refer attorneys to disciplinary authority for unprofessional and frivolous delaying tactics. The justice system. following a period of extensive studies and reform initiatives. and Continued inadequacy of access to justice and legal services by the poor and disadvantaged. broader issues were raised in the diagnostic studies. This persistence of the challenges that confront the justice system is sobering. it underlines the immediate need to intensify the focus on results. and In criminal cases. Inefficient allocation of court personnel. Poor condition of facilities.
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). and reorganizations that have created new responsibilities and new requirements for interinstitutional coordination. 1. raises additional policy questions. 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 system’s foundations have been restored. Procedures. Consistently over the years. especially from the standpoint of those who are affected by it. the soundness of the system rebuilt. integrity. There follows a summary of the achievements and shortcomings of past reforms. Important decisions have been taken to modernize and improve the operation of the justice system: decentralization of court administration. investment in 66 . as discussed above. and transparency. (iii) capable and motivated human resources. Business Practices. Any future reform program will need to address these impediments so that the necessary investments will be made. Modest budgetary increases for some organizations in recent years can begin to improve this situation if the additional resources are committed to capacity building. Informed observers attribute the persistence of the above-described performance deficiencies to several factors. and the absence of accountability for failure to implement planned actions in a timely manner. and (iv) broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. Weak management systems and limited capacity to implement reforms are a legacy of inadequate budgets. and the substantial benefits of improved performance in the administration of justice and the operation of the rule of law will be realized. However. This is the classic challenge faced by reformers in the Philippines and elsewhere: how to stimulate mutually reinforcing popular demand. the inadequate investment in increasing their capacities. although reliance on fees. budgets – especially for investment and maintenance – have remained low throughout the justice sector even as workloads have increased. the agreed measures will be carried out efficiently. accountability. and the institutional structure for systematic reform created. Strong Institutional Capacity – Systems. and institutional commitment in order to create a compelling dynamic for change. 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. resource constraints and weak management have combined to impede the institutional development and efficiency of many of these new and restructured organizations. new executive branch agencies. 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. broad political leadership. The past reforms have not satisfactorily resolved the budget issues. the necessary implementation capacities will be attained. organized by reference to the four interrelated objectives suggested in Chapter II as a holistic context for system-wide reform: (i) strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. The emphasis in the next phase of reform needs to be on improving the system’s performance. (ii) high standards of independence. and Facilities The past 20 years have witnessed a flourishing of new and restructured institutions with responsibilities for the administration of justice: new courts.
procedures. One area where past reforms have produced little improvement in systems. as well as improved management systems. and transparency also arise from the combination of low budgets and reliance on fee income and contributions from local government units. and the uniform application of case management systems. Legislation proposed to improve the management structure of the corrections system has not been enacted. Periodic decongestion actions to release some prisoners have not changed the basic dynamic of progressively increased overcrowding. it is difficult for the field of corrections to compete with other priorities for the attention of budget decisionmakers. the justice sector has been slow in scaling up from pilot programs and making changes operational for general application. 2. as has the program of mandatory continuing legal education for lawyers. in the absence of greater implementation capacity. and skillfully crafted action plans have often failed to produce the intended results. The Supreme Court has received more than a dozen reports on different aspects of management to support its strategy for administrative autonomy. and police. model courts. However. model police stations. Accountability. The number of detainees and prisoners continues to grow faster than the budgets for the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the Bureau of Corrections. the implementation of court decongestion measures. and facilities is in the overcrowded prisons and jails. accountability. Yet. Rules for admission to the practice of law require the inclusion of legal ethics in law school curricula. Integrity. High Standards of Independence. 67 . such as computerized information systems. lawyers. However. But the design of modern systems. and Transparency The reforms have included codes of ethics for judges. where training programs are generally constrained. Current examples include the creation of model police stations by the Philippine National Police. These issues have not been addressed in depth in previous reforms. updated laws and rules of court. with persistent questions about the adequacy of current arrangements in preserving judicial autonomy and in fostering judicial accountability. Continuing issues of budget procedure raise questions as to the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. 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. Justice sector organizations have included ethics courses in their training programs. integrity. The existing relationship between the Judiciary and the Department of Budget and Management remains controversial. the formulation of plans for facility enhancement. 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. It is clear that the reforms have introduced many improved procedures. in part because of inadequate capacity to implement them.computerized information and case management systems. business practices. 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. Issues of independence. court employees. The Philippine National Police have adopted a moral rehabilitation program for police officers who violate established standards. such as the updated rules of civil and criminal procedure.
However. However. Thus. the lowest rate of case clearance of any category of courts in the Philippines (Table II.”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. as noted in the preceding paragraph. the credibility of other state institutions is diminished. In some cases. This helps to give credibility to the system. 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. Capable and Motivated Human Resources The reforms have strengthened the judicial selection process by improving the capacity of the Judicial and Bar Council. budgets. The Sandiganbayan has. including improved management as well as training for Council staff. 3. 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. the absence of a freedom of information law leaves individuals seeking to exercise their right to information from public agencies at a disadvantage. lawyers. the publicly announced grounds for disciplinary action are often causes other than corruption and. organizational structures. disciplinary actions have been taken against judges. 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. Beyond this activity. 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. 68 .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. The reforms have encouraged greater transparency. by far. they have not otherwise encouraged citizen monitoring of justice system performance. The rate of convictions obtained by the Office of the Ombudsman in the Sandiganbayan is very low. However. The recent determination of that civil society group to expand its activity to include other judicial appointments is a positive step toward greater accountability. 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 reforms have increased outreach to the public by the justice organizations.11). and policies. The Supreme Court has commissioned an assessment of training for Judiciary personnel. A question left unanswered by that action was the lack of comparable status for the National Prosecution Service.A recent measure to increase autonomy is the 2007 legislation to provide for the autonomy of the Public Attorney’s Office within the Department of Justice. the number of disciplined officials is low. 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. 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). and police officers.
the provision of legal services by alternative law groups. and the work of many organizations 69 . 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. 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. This is an important aspect of building internal incentive systems that will help employees adapt to change. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Supreme Court program on information. The Philippine Public Safety College. and a number of law schools have improved the availability of legal assistance and representation to poor and marginalized groups. to the detriment of other parts of the system.Training in executive branch agencies remains inadequate. The National Police Academy provides an introductory course for police cadets. It is especially troubling in this case because it concerns the qualification of those who will enter the legal profession. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public The Barangay Justice System. This. Another is re-engineering of workforces to increase productivity.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. 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. restorative justice mechanisms of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. is just one example of the troubling phenomenon of reforms adopted but not implemented.000 lawyers to the 2. Among these is the need to assure the recruitment and selection of individuals who have the best qualifications. Legal services for the needy are often fragmented and the choices available to intended beneficiaries are not always clear.44 related efforts to train women and youth. Where conditions have improved for one group within the justice system. is able to provide in-service training only to a small percentage of police officers. education. The expansion of services by the Public Attorney’s Office and.000 needed to provide coverage in all courts) under the legislation enacted in 2007 is a positive legacy of previous reforms. 4. The promised doubling of the staff of the Public Attorney’s Office (from about 1. often with international financial support. and communication. including commitment to values of honesty and public service. however. Newly appointed prosecutors and public defenders enter on duty without an orientation program to train them in their important responsibilities. Human resource issues have not been dealt with in a comprehensive way in past reforms. with possible savings by reducing the number of low-skilled positions and increasing compensation as skills are enhanced and staff more efficiently deployed. Limited training opportunities are related to the lack of career development programs in most agencies. qualified individuals within the system have an incentive to seek to enter that favored group. The reforms have not made employment in the justice sector an attractive career opportunity that will attract and retain a highly qualified workforce. There are many issues that remain in need of attention. of course. The National Prosecution Service and the Public Attorney’s Office can offer only occasional courses. The Supreme Court only now is developing a career development program for court personnel. 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 improved information are needs that have grown even as past reforms have increased the scope of services available.through the schools. 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. Rationalization. Access to justice by the poor was a principal theme of the APJR. as suggested above in Chapter II. issues and constraints identified in 2001 remain. However. the media. and if. Citizens need to be better informed not only about procedures. and training programs in communities are positive steps. as shown in Appendix 5 of this report. but also about their substantive rights and obligations under the law. 70 . An expansion of services needs to be accompanied by an expansion of popular legal education. coordination of efforts. comprising an entire chapter in the program’s supplement. the operation of the justice system and the availability of legal services. implementing actions for the most part have involved studies and pilot programs. These measures need to be greatly expanded. If equal treatment under the law is to be a goal of justice reform. There remains a widespread lack of public awareness about the rights and duties of citizens under the law. the ultimate objective is to provide broad access and excellent service. The challenges.
http://apjr. supra. 7438. 9 June 1997. This legislation confirms in positive law guarantees set forth in Article III.pdf. 98-7-01-SC. 30-91 of 30 September 1991. approved 26 February 1998. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997.. 8246 (1996). However. Chapter 5. 417. commercial disputes. Presidential Administrative Order No. Minister of National Defense.ph/apjr_pubreports. Republic Act 6975. Title III..html. The Legal Education Reform Act of 1993. note 3. 7662. The Philippine Judicial Academy was established by Administrative Order 35-96 on 12 March 1996. The Supreme Court has designated specific courts to hear cases involving specialized subject matter. Republic Act No. e.g. Local Government Code of 1991. the Board had not been established. Executive Order No. 7659. Carmelo V. Republic Act No.A.gov. See Sison. 36-97. Executive Order No. See. 1998. 22 February 2005. approved 10 October 1991. Feliciano. Circular No. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 71 . approved 20 February 1989. 99-1-13-SC. Republic Act No.supremecourt. Republic Act 8551. and Myrna S. 1990. designating the Regional Trial Courts to hear cases within the jurisdiction specified in the Family Courts Act. 2005. provides for a Legal Education Board to accredit law schools and oversee their operation and curricula. Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998. 292. and Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. approved 25 July 1987. Supreme Court Circular No. July 2000. 8369. Section 14. approved 28 October 1997. 6713. certain complex crimes. 1988-1989. A further reorganization of the Office of the Court Administrator was effected by Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990. Book IV. Administrative Code of 1987. and juvenile justice.ph/forum_icsjr/ICSJR_Philippines%20(A%20Panganiban). 292.” Supreme Court of the Philippines. approved February 25. 1986.supremecourt. 1987-2000. 146 SCRA 406. page 3. 99 of 1 December 1988. Administrative Order 51-96 of 3 May 1996. as of August 2007. Republic Act No. designating courts for kidnapping.gov. 857. “Philippine Judicial Reforms. of the 1987 Constitution.Notes to Chapter III 1 2 Animas v. dangerous drugs. Supreme Court Report. 8371. 7691 (1994) and for the Court of Appeals under Republic Act No. robbery. Republic Act 7160. Quotation is from a paper by Justice Artemio Panganiban on 30 November http://jrn21. approved 27 April 1992. as amended by Presidential Administrative Order No. Adjustments included increased jurisdiction – for trial courts under Republic Act No. carnapping and other heinous crimes under R. 7902 (1995) and Republic Act No. No. Republic Act No. 11 of 18 September 1992. See also the Family Courts Act of 1997. approved December 14. Section 12. such as intellectual property rights. It obtained a legislative charter in Republic Act No.
org/pubreports. 9262. the 2001 amendments to the Tariff and Customs Code. 9267. Examples include the E-Commerce Act of 2000. e.16 Republic Act No.supremecourt. Supreme Court Administrative Circular 20-2002. The Supreme Court approved the rules for mandatory continuing legal education in Bar Matter No. 02-11-11 SC. 9135. See. Republic Act No. approved 6 May 2003. the General Banking Law of 2000. the Securities Regulation Code of 2000. Supreme Court Administrative Matter Nos. United Nations Development Programme. approved 12 February 1998. Hilario. Republic Act No.gov. providing guidance on the implementation of this law. August 2001. Republic Act No. 8799. 02-11-10 SC. approved 19 March 2004. Davide. 4 March 2003. approved 7 March 2003. approved 23 October 2003. Department of Justice Press Release dated 31 July 2003.html. 24 April 2002. http://www. 15 November 2005. 03-06-13-SC and No. and 03-02-05. Republic Act No. Administrative Matter No. Republic Act No. Republic Act No. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 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. February 2000. http://www. which provides recognition and protection of electronic records (see also the Electronic Evidence Rule of the Supreme Court.” 11 December 1998. Republic Act No. respectively. June 2003. 1 August 2001). Republic Act No.doj. 113-2003. Supreme Court. Ibid. See also Supreme Court Circular No. See also the 2003 amendments to comply with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force.org/article/articleview/7/1/2.apjr-sc-phil. tax and regulatory framework for asset securitization. Republic Act No. http://www.ph/news_07-31-03. 850 on 22 August 2000. 9285. 9160. 03-05-01 SC. Supreme Court. Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice.htm. establishing a legal. Republic Act No. and the Securitization Act of 2004.ph/policy. establishing rules of procedure in asset forfeiture and freezing of assets in cases relating to money laundering offenses. 05-11-04. 02-8-13. approved 8 March 2004. 38-98 of 11 August 1998.g. Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. April 2. 17 18 19 20 Action Program for Judicial Reform. approved 29 September 2001. Republic Act No. 1 May 2004. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 72 . “Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession towards the Third Millennium. page ii. page 3. http://www. 01-7-01-SC. 9194.approved 23 May 2000.apjr-scphil. 9227. Supreme Court Administrative Order No. page 39. effective 1 September 2003. 8493.gov. bringing Philippine standards into greater conformity with World Trade Organization customs valuation standards. 8792. 2004. approved 28 April 2001. approved 19 July 2000. 8791. approved 14 June 2000. 9208. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 15 March 2003. providing broader scope for banking transactions.
March 2006. note 20. 03-11-16-SC. Communication Guidelines for Municipal Court Information Officers. http://www. Republic Act No. page 118.g.pdf.sws. 13 March 2007. “Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006. and Challenges.org/article/articleview/46/1/2/. See Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. and Alberto T. Republic Act No. Social Weather Stations. supra. Social Weather Stations will provide copies of older surveys removed from the website to conserve server space. “The 2007 SWS Business Survey on Corruption. Myrna. Muyot.org. Vinay. Access to Justice for the Poor Project Information. 2004.32 For example.ph. 05-2-01-SC. The Supreme Court has undertaken a number of follow-up measures to this guidance. the Supreme Court approved greater autonomy in administrative management for Judicial and Bar Council in Administrative Matter No.org. Limits. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. See also Administrative Circular No.apjr-sc-phil. July 2000.” Social Weather Stations. supra. Supreme Court. Judicial Reform Index for http://www. 399. 03-1-09-SC.sws. “The Philippine Criminal Justice System. Feliciano. page 102.abanet. http://www. 15 January 1999. approved 26 April 2006.” April 2003. American Bar Association. World Bank. Department of Justice Press Release. “Anticorruption Initiatives in the Philippines: Breakthroughs. Action Program for Judicial Reform. 14 August 2004. Education. 27 April 2004.ph. and Emil Bolongaita. 06-04-09-SC. the Philippines. 10 October 2006. Bhargava. 42 43 44 73 . Upon request. note 27. Re: Career Development and Management Plan for the Judiciary. approved 23 March 2007. July 2007. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 See. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 9344. 9406. http://www.” in Challenging Corruption in Asia: Case Studies and a Framework for Action. e. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No.
A SWAP is a program-based approach to development that operates at the level of an entire sector. political. strategy. whether the strategies for pursuing those goals are effective. A sector-wide performance monitoring system should be able to show whether sector goals are being achieved. government-led process for coordination and dialogue. environmental. and consultation with development partners and other stakeholders. agreed implementation schedules. and whether accountability requirements are being met. country ownership of and capacity for planning. 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. social. including in management. 1 Inherent in this view of development has been the recognition that the process has economic. Set the sector program in context. planning and policy skills. Encourage local capacity. Implementing mechanisms are important. 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. activities and resources. it is now generally accepted that good governance and the rule of law are important factors for achieving sustainable development results. Be aware of its implications for overall policy coherence and its effects on the role of central and local institutions.3 A. and coordinated international support of local development efforts. and security dimensions. implementation and monitoring. 75 . systems for performance monitoring and reporting. The OECD Development Assistance Committee has published guidance on harmonized donor support for SWAPs. including the role of financial and procurement management. including increased reliance on the sector-wide approach (SWAP). based on five guiding principles: 1. Sector policy should be authored by the government – not by donors. all of which must be heeded. should fit clearly into the government’s policy and planning system and its national development strategy. and should be endorsed at a high political level. based on analysis of current processes and outcomes.IV.2 In particular. Support government ownership and leadership. including detailed work programs. 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. 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. 3. It seeks to achieve significant development results through three particular qualities: coherence among sectoral policy. Work with the government to strengthen institutional capacity and accountability. 2. and The establishment of a formalized.
increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. SWAPs were employed in situations where a single line ministry in the developing country had broad authority over policy in the sector – for example.to five-year period. Take a long-term strategic view. including the Asian Development Bank and the European Commission. and strategic objectives: GOAL: Improve safety of the person. At the same time. security of property. and access to justice that ensures a strong economic environment to encourage private sector development and benefit poor and vulnerable people.6 Initially. This experience demonstrated the linkages among the organizations involved in the administration of justice and the benefits of working together. 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. Uganda The Uganda Justice. In particular. and enhance the ability of the private sector to make and enforce commercial contracts. JLOS was introduced into the national development strategy and strategic investment plan in 2001 with the following structure of goal. 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. 5. typically using mechanisms such as inter-ministerial and inter-branch committees. have also published their own policies and guidance regarding SWAPs. However. despite implementation complications. broad dialogue and participation. Be pragmatic and flexible. 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. purpose. Experience of Other Countries with Justice-Sector Wide Reform Programs Several countries have undertaken SWAPs in the justice sector. Define “sector” in a way that facilitates efficient implementation. and resources over a three. PURPOSE: Promote the rule of law. and proactive communication programs. 1. the Ministry of Education with respect to the education sector or the Ministry of Health with respect to the health sector. Recognize that sector programs typically involve institutional changes and organizational development over at least ten years. implemented in three.4 A number of donors and multilateral development organizations. 76 . look for “quick wins” to sustain momentum. B.4. actions. Avoid overly ambitious objectives or unduly complex implementing structures. The sector strategy and related mediumterm expenditure framework should permit systematic planning of objectives.or five-year tranches.
and Increased focus on crime prevention and restorative justice and developing the informal system as a complementary part of the law and justice framework. 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. B. B. and the Ministry of Finance. C. Legal and law reform achieved. As approved in 2001. and in energizing commercial courts and enhancing their accountability. chaired by the Department of National Planning and Monitoring. efficiency. 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. Specialized skills for commercial lawyers. Ministry of Gender. Law Reform Commission.8 2. Day-to-day management is handled by a JLOS secretariat. Commercial law reform. D. Prison Service. Judicial Services Commission. Implementation is managed by a technical-level committee of the participating organizations. Strategic Objective 2 – Commercial Justice Reform: A. the Judiciary. Directorate of Public Prosecutors. and Minister of Internal Affairs. The technical committee has established five working groups to deal with various issues. 77 . Commercial registry reform. Police. The steering committee operates on many important issues through a leadership committee comprising the Chief Justice.Strategic Objective 1 – Criminal Justice Reform: A. which also maintains communication with a donor group of 14 donors and multinational organizations. Expanding the role of civil society in the operation of JLOS is a recognized issue in the 2006-2011 strategic investment plan. C. Civic and legal education sustained. and equity of access sustained across the justice system. Labor and Social Development. A 2004 evaluation found that the program had achieved significant impacts in increasing communication. Planning and Economic Development. Minister of Justice. D. Management oversight is provided by a steering committee whose members include the Ministry of Justice. efficiency and improved operational performance. Accountability. reducing criminal case backlogs and time spent in pretrial detention. Improved administration of justice. Improved sectoral coordination to target priorities. Commercial court customer service improved.
a community justice liaison unit). Reduce claims against the State. Goal 2 – Improved Access to Justice and Just Results: A. 78 . A law and justice sector working group serves as executive agent for the national coordination mechanism. high priority initiatives (urban safety. nonviolent dispute resolution. Strengthen formal agencies to use resources properly. as chair. B. highway safety. Goal 3 – Improved Reconciliation. Reintegration and Deterrence: A. Strengthen locally based. Goal 4 – Improved Accountability and Reduced Corruption: A. Public Solicitor and Public Prosecutor. the Secretary of the Department of National Planning and Monitoring. Commissioner of Police. Safety and Crime Prevention: A. Ensure accountability for corruption and the abuse and misuse of power.For operational purposes.. Integrate HIV/AIDS response into the sector and agencies. C. Goal 5 – Improved Ability to Provide Law and Justice Services: A. D. Support select. family and sexual violence). Increase support for community-based crime prevention. Chief Ombudsman. B. Encourage communities to reconcile offenders and victims in a nonviolent manner. C. C. Provide alternatives to imprisonment for less serious crimes and those awaiting trial. 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. the policy has been converted into a strategic framework with the following structure of goals and objectives: Goal 1 – Improved Policing. Rebuild a professional police service that meets all legitimate community expectations. The working group consists of two representatives from each of the organizations included in the national coordinating mechanism. Foster and build enhanced sector cooperation and coordination. Maintain a national corrections system for persons who are a risk to society. as well as several other specialized agencies (e. Commissioner of Correctional Service. Encourage civil society oversight of public administration. Its focus is on substantive policy and overall performance. Secretary of Justice and Attorney General.g. Support and build capacity in civil society to contribute to sector development. B. and. B. gun possession and use. Strongly support robust and independent courts and commissions. C. Remove obstacles to just results. Chief Magistrate. This senior body provides oversight and direction and approves the sector budget. C. B.
Judiciary – improving the control of public expenditures. A significant difference.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. Prosecution – strengthening institutional capacity and clarifying relationship between prosecutors and police. the second two years concentrated on implementing priority reforms. Administrative cases – modernizing procedures for judicial review of administrative actions. It is focused on four outputs to be pursued during the period 2006-2010. With respect to performance management. D. with the first two years devoted to putting into place the foundations for implementation. K. 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. Execution of judgments – increasing efficiency. Police institutional strengthening – enhancing capacity of the police as a “service” rather than a “force. greater accountability. and manages donor resources. coordinates the work of multi-agency action groups. B. M. H. is that international support comes almost entirely from Australia rather than involving a large number of donors. Reporting crime – increasing police receptivity to victims. and the final year for consolidating the gains and planning future reforms. monitors performance. As in the case of Uganda. G. the secretariat tries to use indicators that have the following qualities: They are meaningful to civil society and government. Civil procedure – disposing of the backlog of cases. L. simple methods of data collection. the Law and Justice Sector Program is integrated into the country’s medium-term development program. They contribute to a better informed public debate. They enable year-to-year comparison. 3. Guyana The Guyana Justice Sector Reform Strategy (JSRS)10 is newer than those of Uganda or Papua New Guinea. F. Court of Appeals – eliminating the backlog of cases. C. Community safety – protecting people and property from crime and reduce fear of crime. They rely on transparent. Prosecution – overcoming technical and legal constraints. Investigations and charging – overcoming low conviction rate through enhanced skills. and increased transparency. Criminal procedure – eliminating the backlog of cases. Alternatives to imprisonment –increasing the use of non-custodial sentences in appropriate cases. I. however. J. 79 .” E.
including measures to deal with pre-trial detainees. Communications – providing the public with clear messages of justice institutions’ performance and progress of the reform process. the change management teams and the technical secretariat in developing and monitoring indicators. B. A technical secretariat will support all the institutions and change management teams. C. P. Upholds Their Responsibilities. C. E. Criminal justice operational coordination. E. preparing and disseminating reports. Paralegals and mediation. Monitoring and evaluation will involve the steering committee. Customer service. Sector-wide efficiency savings. Alternative dispute resolution. Funding civil litigation. D. C. Accountability institutional framework – strengthening independent bodies for oversight and complaints. OUTPUT 2 – Strengthened Linkages between Justice Institutions: A. Civil education. OUTPUT 4 – Activities to Enhance Citizen Trust in a Justice System Which Respects Their Rights. New opportunity corps to develop appropriate treatment for young offenders. change management teams within participating organizations and groups of institutions will bring together committed leaders with a mandate for change. and engaging key stakeholders in the process. Under the policy guidance of the steering committee. Law reporting – assuring public access to court decisions. Planning and resource allocation.N. O. conducting baseline studies. Ethics – developing codes of conduct with clear sanctions for their breach. D. 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. Prisons – improving conditions. B. Management of the JSRS is under the leadership of a high level steering committee of governmental and judicial officials. and Meets Their Needs: A. Legal aid. D. Government legal services – improving efficiency. Especially for the Poor and Vulnerable: A. 80 . OUTPUT 3 – Activities for Improved Access to Justice. B. F. Coordinated approach to juvenile justice. 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.
Justice. Law and Order Sector Reform Program (GJLOS)11 is focused on seven broad themes: Ethics. Improved justice service delivery. aimed at improving human rights outcomes and accountability. Quality legal services to government and the general public. and a number of task forces that will report to the technical working group. educational. aimed at improving criminal. This program and its management oversight and financing are still in development. Democracy. However. are estimated at US$ 10. Constitutional development. Other Countries Several other countries have initiated SWAPs in the justice sector. and civil justice and strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.13 Ethiopia has conducted a number of studies and launched a justice system reform program. juvenile. 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. Justice. law and order. judicial. Initial priority will be given to reforms that are essentially cost free or can be financed through efficiency savings or revenue enhancement. Public safety and security. A recent midterm review conducted under the auspices of the European Union found that work plans tended to be overly ambitious. that capacity building had not been up to expectations. it does not appear that a comprehensive plan and budget are in place. human rights and the rule of law. and civil society organizations involved in the administration of justice. intended to come primarily from government and donor sources. monitoring and evaluation.14 It appears that the program will seek to enhance the capacity and efficiency of legislative. GJLOS has a governance structure similar to those of other countries – a cabinet level steering committee. or have plans to do so. and a technical secretariat oversee seven thematic groups that address the above listed themes. Information about the program is available in secondary sources. integrity and anticorruption.Financing needs. aimed at improving user satisfaction. and Capacity for effective leadership and management of change. aimed at reducing crime and fear of crime. 81 . Kenya’s ambitious Governance. Management is expected to be led by a steering committee under the leadership of the Ministry of Capacity Building. Access to justice. Strengthened rule of law.12 Sierra Leone has initiated the design of a justice sector reform program with four goals: Safe communities.5 million. a technical working group. executive. with a program office to provide coordination. It is anticipated that management will include a leadership group. 4. a technical coordinating committee and stakeholders’ forum.
In all the countries studied. Program Design First and foremost. inter-branch management structures for their justice sector programs. rather than a long and overly ambitious wish list. these national experiences in the justice sector. action plans. criminal justice reform. 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. This linkage assures that projected results will not be impeded for lack of resources and creates a powerful incentive for achievement. A particularly important area for capacity strengthening efforts will be enhancing the results-based management skills of those responsible for program implementation. Governance of Program Implementation It is noteworthy that all the countries studied have established multi-agency. is more likely to achieve sustainable results. efforts to strengthen capacity will be needed to achieve increasingly ambitious results over the life of the program.16 A related point is that the constraints of resource limitations help provide discipline for the setting of goals and objectives and the formulation of strategies and action plans intended to achieve the desired results. structure. In particular. the public and the justice system. 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. together with the general international guidance about sector programs. and results.A national task force in Jamaica recently completed an impressive report with recommendations for a comprehensive justice reform. There are two practical ways in which this linkage has been established. Nevertheless. Second. the sector-wide justice reform programs have been in place only for a few years. A focus on a limited number of realistic and well defined objectives. Lessons for the Philippines include the following. the framework for change. One has been to include budget and planning agencies – along with justice system operators – in the management structure of the sector program. and institutionalizing justice reform. the foundations of the justice system. civil justice reform. modernization and transformation. strategies. The other is to create a medium-term expenditure framework for the sector within which priorities are set. 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 several are still in development. offer useful guidance. 1. Lessons for the Philippines The sector-wide approach to justice reform is a recent phenomenon. This is a reflection of the complexity of the sector and the multiplicity of institutional actors. The formulation of plans is easier than their implementation. At the same time. jurisdiction and accountability. 82 . Several elements of good practice can be seen in the experience of countries seeking to balance the competing needs for inclusion and for decisiveness.15 Recommended areas of concentration are identified as including reinvestment.17 2. It is essential that objectives be attainable within the capacity of the implementing organizations. C. it is important to forge a strong linkage of resources to policies. at most.
Of course. for convenience. it would appear that domestic resources will be the principal source of financing. it is instructive to be aware of the kinds of things measured in the justice sector programs of other countries. according to the framework of objectives described in Chapters II and III of this report. Strong institutional capacity – systems. Several country programs have been the subject of external mid-term program evaluations to assess their impact after two or three years. In the case of the Philippines. Nevertheless. a lead donor has played a significant role in supporting program development and helping to finance the management system. Preliminary consultations with development partners suggest reluctance to contribute to a common fund. the specific action plans of individual agencies and multi-agency working groups have identified key performance indicators. the formulation of specific indicators for the Philippines will flow from the particular outcomes identified as priority results for the justice sector.3.18 Nevertheless. With these caveats in mind. On the other hand. together with baseline data. Performance Monitoring Within the strategic frameworks adopted by several countries. balanced groups of indicators are more reliable than single measures of progress. business practices. The Philippine government will need to organize that support in a manner that will maximize its contribution to the effectiveness of the sector program. there appears to be support for a donor coordination mechanism focused on the justice sector. as the experts all caution. They are not addressed below because they do not appear to be directly relevant to the Philippines. In several cases. there is significant international support for justice reform in the Philippines. using key indicators and baseline data. 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. there follow illustrative examples of indicators from other countries. Published evaluations of progress toward program goals and objectives. Average time from filing to disposition of: o o Probable cause determinations Court proceedings in criminal cases (normal and expedited) 83 . procedures. The vast subject of performance monitoring is beyond the scope of this report. It will be necessary to assure agreement on a multi-year program of public investment within the medium-term expenditure framework. The following illustrative examples are drawn from action plans developed under country programs described above. These indicators. with its highly developed justice system. Also. and facilities Percentage of cases appealed and percentage of successful appeals from each category of courts. adapted to the nomenclature of the Philippines justice system. 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. 4. have provided the basis for monitoring and evaluation systems. They are grouped. 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.
Public awareness of codes of conduct for public officials. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public Amount of fees required to pursue most common forms of civil claims. Timeliness and accessibility of publication of laws. Capable and motivated human resources Vacancy rates by occupational group and organization. High standards of independence. Reduction of case backlogs. Percentage of operational units within each justice organization that participate fully in case management system. Volume of cases submitted to and resolved by all forms of alternative dispute resolution. Training received. Improved case clearance rates. prosecutors and public attorneys (workloads). Increase in budgets for maintenance and capital investment. regulations. adapted from the experience of other countries. disaggregated by region. by local contributions. The following chapter of this report proposes some concrete ideas in this regard. Number of youth incarcerated with adults. Average time spent in detention pending criminal investigation and judicial proceedings.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). accountability. and other legal information. These examples. by occupational category and organization. 84 . and centers for dissemination of legal information and services. Presence by region of police (per 100. and by other sources. and transparency Percentage of each justice sector organization’s expenditures covered by government budget. 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. court decisions. Comparison of compensation to private sector counterparts.000 population). by fees. integrity.
. Proposal for Sector-Wide Approaches (SWAps).gov.adb.g.jlos.uk/pubs/files/safesecureaccjustice. Governance: Sound Development Management.” in Applying the “Sectoral Approach” to the Legal and Judicial Domain.lawandjustice.gina. “Approaches to Reform in Ethiopia.oecd. “Development Partnerships in the New Global Context. www.pg/www/html/7-home-page.aspx?docnum=509733. http://www. Chapter 3.” Vol. OECD. World Bank Group. http://www.org/Documents/Policies/Governance/default. Inter-American Development Bank. Especially relevant is Safety.dfid. http://siteresources. “Sector-wide Approaches. The Human Development Race: Improving the Quality of Life in Developing Countries..gjlos.worldbank. e.gov. http://www. The Hague.worldbank. The DAC Journal. London. Guidelines for European Commission Support to Sector Programmes. “Justice System Reform Program: Preliminary Reform Profile. http://www. 2006.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. OECD. James. Menberetsehai Tadesse. Paris. Paris. e. Security and Accessible Justice: Putting Policy into Practice. Volume 2. Program Contents and Objectives.” an article 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 85 .nl/Conference_publication_2005. international consultant for Sierra Leone program.go. 3.de/de/dokumente/en-prs-gps-uganda-part-2005.go. See also the numerous publications cited at www. Correspondence with Clare Manuel. 1993. August 2004. November 2005.asp?p=policies#contents.org/Documents/Policies/LTSF/long0302. page 7.gy/justicreform/Guyana%20JSRS%20revised%20June%202006c. See.ke. Paris.sti.pdf. “Sector-wide Approaches” in The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank (2001-2015). Inglehart. No.asp.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdfs/swap/swap312b.org/dac. Linn Hammergren.” Annex to Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation. Cambridge.g.adb. Michel.ke/Completed_Final_Report%20%20MTR_GJLOS_07. 2005. Dory. http://www. http://www.cilc. International Center for Economic Growth. http://idbdocs.pdf.iadb. OECD. July 2002. and Adrian Di Giovanni. May 2007.pdf http://www. OECD. Ronald and Christian Welzel.pdf.go.” DAC Guidelines and Reference Series.org/wbi/governance. See Asian Development Bank. See Lindenberg. 2005. www. See. World Bank. Cultural Change. United Nations. Reiling.pdf. Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. Ato Mandefrot Belay. Department for International Development.gtz. www. 6.asp http://www. Cambridge University Press. 1996. and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence.org/wsdocs/getdocument. March 2007. Modernization. http://www. 2005. Marc.gov. OECD. 2000.ug. IMF.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/JSAHandbookWebEdition.oecd.pdf.pdf.” Center for International Legal Cooperation.Notes to Chapter IV 1 See A Better World for All. “Leading the Emerging Development Agenda: From Consensus to Action. San Francisco. Justice Sector Assessments: A Handbook. www. February 2003.gjlos.
” a paper presented by the Asian Development Bank Director for Governance and Regional Cooperation at a roundtable on better measuring.cba. http://www.pdf.worldbank.” Volume 8.pdf. Cedric.asp?publication_id=207.” “2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Review of the Results. 5-6 June 2002. www. Oslo. See Saldanha. a summary of the recommendations is at http://www. November 2003.org/jamaicanjustice/pdf/jjsrtf_report_final.undp. 2.org/etools/docs/library/108518//kumssa_paper. 15 The June 2007 report of the task force is at http://www. http://www.pdf. For example.adb. 16 17 18 86 . 2007.cba.org/jamaicanjustice/pdf/jjsrtf_report_proposals.org/Documents/Periodicals/GB/governancebrief04. The alignment of resources to plans and results is generally recognized as an important ingredient of effective development. 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. monitoring. 2007.org/publications/publications_5.pdf. page 52.accompanying an October 2003 report on a CIDA court administration program in Ethiopia. 2d Edition. OECD Journal on Development..vera.pdf. “Promoting Results Based Management in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries.org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_online_version. http://info. United Nations Development Programme. No. Governance Indicators: A Users’ Guide. See Vera Institute of Justice. and managing for results. Measuring Progress toward Safety and Justice: A Global Guide to the Design of Performance Indicators across the Justice Sector.
In an environment of limited implementation capacities. and actions. And yet. rather than the system as a whole. Assuring that the country will realize the benefits of such a system is clearly a worthwhile objective of public policy. It should invest an adequate level of resources to build implementation capacity and incentive systems so that specific. They have summarized the history of reforms in the administration of justice since the 1987 Constitution.V. visit. and generally contribute to the safety and well being of all who reside in. broad general agreement on the desirability of justice reform has not evolved into a consensus that early and substantial results are a national priority. 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 do business in the Philippines. and the absence of a compelling demand. since 1987. In addition. Fourth. inadequate investment in strengthening those capacities. and the achievements and shortcomings of those reforms. analyzing needs. empower the poor and disadvantaged. At the same time. and results. there has not evolved a climate of accountability for achieving results or incentive systems to encourage and facilitate adaptation to change. Second. It will safeguard rights. despite increased coordination in recent years. Several observations stand out from this review and analysis: First. Their use of monitoring and evaluation systems to measure progress by reference to established targets and key indicators is especially relevant. 87 . Their experience also illustrates the importance of aligning resources with policies. There is broad support for strengthening the justice system. Third. given the history of implementation difficulties in the Philippines. measurable and timely results can be achieved and sustained. the Philippine justice system has made significant progress. especially in restoring a sound institutional structure for the administration of justice. 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. foster economic and social development. the experience of other countries has demonstrated the value of governance systems for managing justice sector reform programs that reflect the linkages among issues. and designing measures to improve performance. resource constraints have impeded sustained investment in building the capacities needed for timely and full implementation. an effective justice system is important. Implementation of reforms has often been impeded by limitations in the capacities of the concerned organizations. the results achieved to date are less than was hoped for. It should emphasize results through improved performance. And they have examined the experience of some other countries that have undertaken sector-wide approaches to justice reform. reform efforts have tended to concentrate on specific institutions. strategies. organizations.
A single goal statement for an entire sector is more difficult than one for a single institution. Foster a culture of lawfulness. 1 Nevertheless. while also respecting the distinct responsibilities and autonomy of all the participants. 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. which serves as a basis for the APJR. 88 . It should foster a broad consensus of political. prosperous. Strategic planning experts caution against premature debate about precise wording at the beginning of the process. It is thought better to develop initial consensus on specific issues rather than risk delaying the entire planning process or. institutional and popular support for continued progress over the long term. equally bad. A. equal treatment for the protection of rights. effectiveness.It should involve shared participation in management by the concerned organizations. judicial independence and the pursuit of excellence should be preserved and at all times be predominant. and the fair and timely resolution of disputes. and democratic Philippine society. a statement nominally concerned with the Judiciary and the legal profession. Hence. impartial and swift justice. There is some relevant precedent in the Davide Watch. accountability. integrity. but which also declares more broadly: The system for the administration of justice must be geared to achieve the goal of delivering fair. A goal statement is an indication of the general destination. and transparency in the administration of justice. based on independence. efficiency. the core values of the rule of law. something on which there should be broad agreement at the beginning of a long journey involving many travelers. and Advance the rule of law as the foundation of a just. together with the research and consultations undertaken in the course of preparing this report.2 The inspiration of the above-quoted statement. It should assure accountability for achieving the desired results.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. has given rise to the following suggested goal statement: Figure V. equal justice. a general statement of an overall goal can be useful in framing more specific objectives and priority results. settling for generalities that paper over disagreements and leave unclear the shared vision to which stakeholders aspire.
career development. therefore. The overarching issue of justice system financing. results. such as automated statistical. adherence to ethical values. training. such as the number of judges trained or laws enacted. human resources. Confidence in the system’s integrity. This involves issues of selection. measurable results. They also need the tools to make those systems productive. administrative. in turn. such as the number of computers purchased. The first objective is to have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. financial. And they need business practices and procedures that encourage the timely resolution of disputes and the reduction of unmanageable caseloads. and progress will be monitored by reference to objectives. However. A results-oriented reform must include a focus on the capacity of the implementing organizations to achieve the desired results. and other functions. has identified many significant issues of widespread concern that tend to be concentrated in four interrelated themes. business practices. especially the interviews and consultations with stakeholders.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. and competent human resources. together with new issues. and case management programs. As noted in Chapter II. integrity. and key indicators of performance. Section B) and the achievements and shortcomings of past reforms (Chapter III. rules. is to provide broad access and excellent service to the public. This report’s descriptions of challenges to the justice system (Chapter II. procedures. which affects all the objectives. and facilities that are conducive to efficient and effective operations. and civil society monitoring of performance. public access to information. It bears repeating here that these objectives are based on the role of justice as a public service. The third objective is to have capable and motivated human resources throughout the justice system. introduction of new technology. finance. communication and information. procurement and property management. They are suggested here as a framework for a holistic sectorwide reform of the Philippine justice system. performance monitoring. working conditions. depends upon confidence in its independence from political or other extraneous influences. However. improved recruitment. Specific activities to achieve priority results – changes in laws or regulations. accountability. freedom from political interference. The ultimate objective. is a matter of great concern here. training and utilization of human resources. the research for this report. Progress in all other areas depends upon confidence in the integrity of the justice system. or by outputs. Rather. The objectives are closely interrelated. improved service also depends upon increased efficiency. its demonstrated transparency. the role 89 . Those themes seek to capture in a coherent structure the essence of previous recommendations for reform that remain present concerns. compensation and benefits. system-wide program focused on achieving specific. and workforce allocation. Section B) are organized by reference to those four themes. The second objective is adherence to high standards of independence. success will be determined by measurable results of improved performance by the justice system in rendering valuable service to the public. Justice institutions need basic management systems – for planning. and transparency in the administration of justice. engaging civil society – will be determined through participatory processes involving those responsible for implementation. This objective concentrates on the management systems. This objective involves many different things: the adequacy of ethical systems (including the dissemination and enforcement of standards). Success will be measured not by inputs. and its accountability. It would be possible to regard the human dimension as a subset of the objective of strong institutional capacity.
At some time before 2012 another set of priorities will need to be identified for a subsequent phase of reform. 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. basic to a society committed to the rule of law. with specific actions and accountability for completing those actions specified in annual implementation plans.4 Oversight of implementation. The hardest design challenge is to devise implementation plans describing how best to achieve the desired results. 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. B. Priority Results Within the framework of the foregoing objectives. what actions should be chosen. in the courts and in alternative dispute resolution systems. Of course. Common qualities of these suggested priorities are that they are all oriented to results that will improve performance of the justice system and.of human resources is so important. achievable. and taking account of the previously identified challenges to the justice system and the achievements and shortcomings of previous reforms. Philippine decisionmakers can choose from these suggestions in shaping the specific content of their strategic plan. 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. therefore. the abovequoted goal statement requires a continuous process of reform and the goal will not be attained in five years. The five-year time frame for the priorities suggested here represents a reasonable horizon for strategic planning. Implementing actions will be linked to a public investment plan and medium-term expenditure framework as described in Section E. so complex. It involves perceptions of how well the justice system protects the security of person and property through formal and informal procedures. for consideration by Philippine decisionmakers. they are susceptible to determination of when the desired results have been achieved. realistic and time-bound. and what needs to change as part of the effort. And. is broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. It involves public awareness of substantive legal rights and obligations. that it warrants being treated as an objective in its own right. how the justice system operates. the services it provides. to which the other three objectives contribute. including the sequencing of reform actions and the arrangements for participation by the various justice organizations in particular actions. 90 . will be carried out through the management structure described in Section D of this chapter. keyed to the four objectives described above. and so dominant as a percentage of the budget of the justice sector. it involves services to the poor and disadvantaged to empower them to obtain equal treatment under the law. and how to obtain those services. They are compatible. The fourth objective. there follow recommendations for specific priority results for the period 2008-2012. Subject to that kind of process. measurable. with targets that meet the “SMART” test of being specific. 3 These implementation plans for selected priority results should be developed through participatory means by those charged with achieving the intended result. insofar as possible. The suggested priority results described below are intended to be achieved within that time frame. this section suggests priorities that might be achieved over the course of the next five years.
filing. documenting. below) at the time of its formulation and the Steering Group will review the plan’s implementation. Each plan will include strategic planning. 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. information management. financial management. 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. The Philippine justice system will have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. public attorneys. public disclosure. Delay will be reduced in all justice organizations through: rules that reward timeliness. 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. including the Judiciary and the Philippine National Police. incentives structures that integrate appropriate costs for delay and benefits for delay reduction into the day-to-day operation of the justice system. rigorously applied. 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. protect officials who apply the rules. and corrections agencies. high standards. and disposal. archival. procedures for prompt and inexpensive enforcement of judgments. human resources development. arbitral awards. courts. Each plan will be subject to review by the Steering Group of the Policy Leadership Council (see section D. retrieval. including police. storage. will put those plans into operation.1. to severely limit the use of interlocutory writs and appeals. maximum use of continuous trials in criminal and civil cases. Justice organizations that have already developed plans for decentralized administrative and financial management. 91 . and reinforcement through monitoring. Complementary information systems of individual organizations will be compatible with the national system. and results-based performance (including monitoring and evaluation). classification. and outcomes of other forms of alternative dispute resolution. and diminish opportunities for delaying tactics. procurement and property management. expansion of the use of alternative dispute resolution. prosecutors. The system will include standards for records creation. 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. and publicizing results in order sustain new expectations of timeliness in the administration of justice.
when their sentences are completed. and meet immediate needs for improvement to facilities. with a view to reallocating and concentrating prosecutorial resources on the investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects for obtaining conviction. that the standards of the ethical code are integrated into the organization’s career development and other incentive structures. Each justice organization will have in place a code of ethical conduct. Public Attorney’s Office. and National Bureau of Investigation will all put into operation case management systems in order to facilitate the efficient administration of justice. in order to reduce duplication. and judicial branches will decriminalize bouncing check cases and will authorize and put into operation simplified procedures. and A survey of facilities with a view to assuring that property. equipment. small claims. minor offenses that are essentially private disputes. The executive. integrity. Philippine National Police. 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. National Prosecution Service. The justice organizations will complete one-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs. achieve savings. 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. including commissions and task forces for coordination of law enforcement activities. including mediation.The Judiciary. 2. Office of the Ombudsman. and other types of cases that impose inordinate workloads and contribute to delays and congestion. reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons. and dignified operations and service to the public. increase efficiency. The executive and legislative branches will rationalize the organization of law enforcement and corrections functions. accountability. and that individuals are released when their pending cases end without conviction or. 92 . The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence. if convicted. including prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute. and assure clear lines of authority and continuity of leadership. legislative. A survey of detainees and prisoners to assure that there is no existing improper incarceration of individuals who are entitled to be released and that alternatives to imprisonment may be initiated in appropriate cases. and supplies meet minimum standards for secure. that children are diverted from imprisonment with adults to appropriate facilities. for the expedited consideration of bouncing checks. These one-time initiatives will include: A purge of inactive cases to reduce the backlog and free up resources to manage active cases. together with adequate measures to assure: that employees receive training in the requirements of ethical conduct. and transparency. efficient.
that the public is effectively informed of the code’s ethical standards. including the organized bar. Civil society organizations. the communications media will be keeping the public informed of the observations of such monitoring.) The executive. to the discipline of justice system personnel. (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. with a presumption in favor of disclosure and narrow specific standards and procedures for exceptions. legislative. Justice organizations that exercise functions requiring independence of judgment will enjoy legal autonomy consistent with the required independence for the performance of their functions. of statements of assets and income of public officials. speed and quality of services performed. All justice organizations will have in force policies to assure the maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system. from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies. will be systematically monitoring the operation of the justice system. A general freedom of information law is beyond the scope of this report. including the nomination of candidates for appointment to judicial and other senior offices. and judicial branches of government will adopt a new legislative and regulatory structure for financing the justice system. It will require accountable and transparent financial management by all justice organizations. and that effective disciplinary and transparent systems are in place. and minimize dependence on. However. and judicial branches of government will establish policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment. This structure will respect the constitutional principle of fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. alleged violations are being quickly investigated. retention and advancement of public employees in the justice sector are made on the basis of merit and without regard to political or other extraneous considerations. 93 . 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. A policy of transparency should extend from the nomination of judges and other officials to the volume. legislative. and suitable penalties are being imposed where allegations are substantiated. The executive. such as heads of Departments. including through active dissemination activities and the facilitation of monitoring by civil society organizations. fees and local government contributions to meet basic operating expenses of national justice organizations. a policy of public access to information about the operation of the justice system should reflect the spirit of such laws. It will assure the transparency of. and of the disposition of complaints and disciplinary actions taken. of clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints of alleged violations. 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. and public perceptions of the justice organizations and their operations will be regularly surveyed and the survey results published.
Development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation. Periodic evaluation to measure the performance of personnel against established criteria of efficiency and adherence to standards of conduct. Training for representatives of community justice centers (see the suggested priorities for access to justice and service to the public below) in dispute resolution procedures. including training to develop skills needed for performance at progressively higher levels. and punish misconduct and neglect of duties.3. and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system. and communicating with justice organizations. commitment to public service. designed to improve skills. 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). investigations. sources of legal assistance to the poor. elevate professionalism. evidence collection. and encourage inter-institutional collaboration. and complementary materials such as handbooks that will be of continuing value in the performance of duties after training is completed. 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. help employees adapt to change. 94 . increase productivity. Police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests. and sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity and gender. and Transparent incentives and disciplinary measures that reward good performance. and case management. Career development to provide employees who demonstrate good performance and aptitude with opportunities for advancement to increased responsibility and increased remuneration. and For all. 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. interdisciplinary participation. equal treatment of individuals. courtroom skills. relations with police. The justice organizations will have in operation enhanced education and training programs for their employees. 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. incorporation in education and training activities of components on the development of leadership skills. Education and training will emphasize interactive methods.
Mobile justice units will provide services to communities that lack the presence of courts and related facilities. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. nongovernment organizations. This program will include measures to consolidate and expand the gains of previous legal information programs. vacancies in the Judiciary.4. including support for community justice centers. Community policing units will be in operation in cities and municipalities throughout the country. There will be a sufficient number of judges. There will be conveniently located centers in communities where citizens can bring complaints and requests for information and assistance regarding the administration of justice. preservation of natural resources. sources of legal assistance to the poor. coordinate the work of service providers. and Public Attorney’s Office will remain below 10%. National Prosecution Service. 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. and collaborate with the organized bar. The Supreme Court will arrange for the timely publication and dissemination of final decisions of all appellate courts so that the public will be informed of the quality and consistency of those decisions and so that the information and legal reasoning they reveal will be readily available to increase legal certainty and discourage frivolous appeals. The 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. Toward this end. Others may require adaptation of the framework. Court-annexed mediation units will be operational and available to serve the needs in all the lower court stations throughout the country. law schools. One foreseeable example of a special issue is the need for increased attention to legal conflicts concerning the environmental implications of all forms of economic activity. 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. Another example is 95 . make available practical resource materials. Some of these will fit well within the framework described above. Special Issues In the five-year period of this strategic plan. rights and obligations of citizens. new priorities are sure to arise. and community centers and networks to assure the sustainability of popular education and legal awareness efforts. Access to clean air and water. C. and procedures for communicating with justice organizations. prosecutors and public attorneys assigned to meet the needs for their services at all lower court stations. and remedies and procedures available to enforce those rights and obligations under the law. The alternative dispute resolution regime authorized by legislation in 2004 will be in full force and generating increased use of alternative dispute resolution measures. 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.
To align program objectives with implementation capacities. Its justice system’s ability to deal with the complexities of international commerce will be an even more important factor than previously. is that APJR program management. the Action Program for Judicial Reform provided for an interagency committee on judicial reform. An 96 . these include the needs: To reinforce strong linkage of resources to policies. fostering a culture of lawfulness. Implementation plans will need to be flexible so that these additional priorities can be accommodated with minimal disruption. To balance participation in the decision making process with the need for timely decisions. multi-tiered governance structure would seem best suited to meet the many and sometimes competing policy interests and operational needs described above.the growing internationalization of the economy. To establish and maintain discipline in the setting of realistic. and the need to balance the participation of senior leaders who have many responsibilities with the participation of technical experts. the multi-agency governance structure needs to have executive authority with respect to the reform. accommodates their widely diverse needs and capacities. Other countries have found it necessary to create multi-agency. as in other countries that have undertaken a sector-wide approach to justice reform. Management Structure for Implementation In the Philippines. including the possibility of a compact between the executive and judicial branches of government. was under the direction of the Supreme Court and the interagency committee was only an advisory body. inform decisions on future priorities. To identify key performance indicators and monitor and evaluate performance across the sector so as to provide incentives. that authority needs to respect the separation of powers and cannot impair the independence of the courts or other involved organizations.5 The difference. Therefore. and To coordinate the efforts of a wide range of organizations within the justice system in a manner that preserves their autonomy and independence. respects their distinct legal authorities and responsibilities. and facilitates productive collaboration among them. being focused on the Judiciary. however. and advancing the rule of law. 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. including capacities to manage change and manage for results. strategies. At the same time. and facilitate accurate and timely reporting to stakeholders. well defined objectives and the formulation of implementing strategies and action plans. As discussed in Chapter IV. Consideration must be given to the most appropriate way to establish such a governance structure. D. The Philippines is seeking to be a welcome site for productive investment and job creation. the management structure for implementation must address several needs. With a sector-wide reform. In particular. The Philippines is hardly a stranger to this idea. A flexible. and results. 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. no single organization can reasonably be expected to have authority over all the others in the sector.
law enforcement. has the constitutional duty to decide disputes and protect rights. Some countries have found it useful to designate an executive committee from among policy leaders. The Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior and Local Government are the principal executive agencies responsible for prosecution. financing. 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. address major policy issues.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. empowered to resolve important and urgent matters that may arise between meetings of the full group. of course. and incarceration and rehabilitation of offenders. 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. and operate alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that are integral to the administration of justice. The Office of the Ombudsman is the lead agency for the enforcement of institutional and individual integrity in the public service. and periodic review and updating of an overall justice sector strategy. It would meet four times a year (and in additional special sessions if necessary) to review progress. the practice of other countries that have undertaken justice sector-wide reform programs. a Policy Leadership Council could provide overall policy guidance for the development. and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry all represent the perspectives of constituencies that represent citizens before the justice system. the Chief Justice and the heads of the appropriate executive 97 . and foster consensus and coherence among the participating organizations. the Philippine Association of Law Schools. The Department of Social Welfare and Development exercises important responsibilities in the system of juvenile justice and services to the poor. Policy Leadership Council members might be selected from among the heads of the following organizations: The Judiciary Department of Justice Department of the Interior and Local Government Department of Social Welfare and Development Office of the Ombudsman National Economic and Development Authority Department of Budget and Management Integrated Bar of the Philippines Philippine Association of Law Schools Alternative Law Groups Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Judiciary. monitor the system’s performance. public defense. Taking into account previous national experience with inter-branch and interagency coordination in the justice sector. the Alternative Law Groups. implementation. and views expressed in the consultations on this report. provide legal services to those with limited means of access to justice. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines. For example.
to establish a justice sector committee or. the essence of a sector-wide strategy is its alignment of resources with policies. Additional resources are accompanied by increased monitoring of performance and increased accountability for results. the National Prosecution Service. if the Department of Budget and Management were to develop a medium-term expenditure framework for the implementation of the justice sector reform program. to identify. alternatively. engage national stakeholders. Results should include greatly reduced backlogs and congestion in courts and other adjudicatory bodies. For example. and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology might all participate directly. the principal venue for dialogue with international development partners. and other justice system operators. and issues confronted in the implementation of the strategic plan. A second measure would be to encourage the Philippines Development Forum. It will provide the institutional memory of the justice sector reform and keep the Policy Leadership Council and the Steering Group informed of progress achieved. The Steering Group will also review arrangements for monitoring and evaluation and assure an ongoing communication effort to inform the public. The Executive Staff will address related matters of inter-institutional coordination. First. monitoring and evaluation. and maintain a dialogue with international development partners. 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. 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. more manageable workloads for judges. and a corresponding dramatic increase in public confidence in the system. and document priority actions. timing. Below the most senior level. As discussed above in Chapter IV. primarily through their annual action plans. carry out. equilibrium in the volume of new cases and completed cases in all justice organizations. financing. prosecutors. substantial reduction 98 . obstacles encountered.operating and oversight agencies (depending on the issue) might be constituted as an executive committee of the Policy Leadership Council to take on this role in the Philippines. a justice sector subcommittee of its existing governance committee. 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. the Philippine National Police. There are two ways in which this logic should be reinforced. implementing strategies and actions. E. A full-time Executive Staff will be needed to assist the Policy Leadership Council and the Steering Group. 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. the Public Attorney’s Office. 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. improve prospects for additional resources. That would provide a further incentive for organizations within the justice sector to demonstrate their ability to make good use of resources and. The logic is that adequate financing and staffing will enable activities to further the goals and objectives of the sector reform. Organizations within Departments with multiple functions could participate in the Steering Group. the Bureau of Corrections. by demonstrating opportunities for additional progress.
amounts for maintenance and other operating expenses. greatly improved service to the public. Government appropriations should be augmented by local government contributions. and legal empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged. Systems infrastructure. and case management systems. using indicators such as the examples in Chapter IV of this report. 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. financial. Human resource development. As discussed 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. including increases in basic salaries and other compensation for employees. The public investment program is an important first step towards the development of a justice sector medium-term expenditure framework. maintain established capacities in justice organizations. maintenance and operating expenses. and capital outlays (including for construction and rehabilitation of physical infrastructure) that are required to operate a progressively improving justice sector. (The Action Program for Judicial Reform anticipated that 53. fees charged for services by justice organizations. 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. and monitoring of the entire process of reform implementation. and assistance from international development partners. proposed sources of financing. increased juridical security for investment in economic opportunities. and timing of funds availability. Implementation will require a public investment program reflecting anticipated costs for achieving the selected priorities.) As previously suggested. and adequate facilities and equipment. 99 . with a specific annual breakdown over next five years and including indications of expenditures. strategies.4% of planned investment would be financed with domestic funds and 46.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. and implementation plans. Specific targets for these benefits will need to be established in implementation plans. The principal source of financing will have to be the government budget.55% from external financing – primarily official development assistance. and Program management. and ensure that the performance of the justice system continues to improve on a sustainable basis. international support might best be organized by establishing a justice working group within the Philippine Development Forum. including costs for the operation of the management structure described in Section D of this chapter for oversight guidance. The framework will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and approved by the government. such a framework is essential to link resources with policies. It will establish the overall and annual expenditure aggregates in personal services. 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.
For example. 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). means of verification. 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. this means that program elements should be summarized in a logical framework that sets out intended outputs and outcomes. and development impacts of other programs. outputs. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Indicators A monitoring and evaluation system for the justice sector strategy will be necessary to enable the government. 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. For example. Within that framework. the development of budgets for actions to achieve those targets. greater efficiency in the criminal justice system should reduce the number of detainees awaiting trial at public expense. should result in a smaller. 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. outcomes. apply corrective measures. such as average time for disposition of cases (an indicator). national stakeholders.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. Progress toward these outcomes needs to be measured by reference to targets and key performance indicators included in annual action plans. where there are 14 employees for every judge. Rationalization of the support staff in the Judiciary. A good justification needs to be presented before decisions are made that would foreclose consideration of a new initiative. prosecutors and public attorneys to meet the needs of each court station. but better compensated and more efficient workforce. The setting of practical targets. and the identification of appropriate indicators. and development partners to measure progress. prosecutors and public attorneys make a difference in performance with respect to issues. 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. anticipate problems. There would have to be a budget corresponding to the steps to be accomplished. and assumptions about risks that bear on performance. the priority results suggested above are outcomes intended to achieve the four objectives. and gain lessons for continuing improvement of program implementation. Among other things. will require 100 . 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. as suggested above. The monitoring system should be based upon and compatible with the existing system that the government uses to measure the resources. Consolidation of some law enforcement and corrections functions should eliminate some duplicative expenses. performance targets and indicators. F. One aspect of financing is that initial investments in improved management should over time increase productivity and thereby create savings. It would also be necessary to see if more judges.
101 . Conclusions This report has documented the long tradition of support for the rule of law in the Philippines. control of corruption. An illustrative logical framework for a monitoring and evaluation plan is at Annex 6 of this report. 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. and economic competitiveness in which the relatively low ranking of the Philippines is related to weak performance by the justice system. oversight. 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. and monitoring of performance. Examples of suggestions made for indicators in the consultations included the number of vacancies in justice organizations. Additional examples from the experience of other countries are set out at the end of Chapter IV of this report. accountability. The overarching theme of this reform framework is improved performance and measurable results. percentage of final decisions appealed. 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. 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. the continuing efforts over the past two decades to restore the institutions of the justice system. scope of access. the security and well being of people. and percentage of the jail population in pretrial detention. competence (capable and motivated human resources). On the basis of extensive research and stakeholder consultations. integrity. human rights. and timeliness of the public services it provides. coordination. The consultations on this report confirmed many of the targets and indicators set out in the logical framework. It is necessary to concentrate on measures that will demonstrably improve the performance of the entire justice system and the quality. with suggested priority results under those objectives that can be achieved in the next five years. and that this will require a significant financial investment in capacity building and increased accountability for timely implementation of planned actions. It is the correlation of improved performance on these issues with economic and social progress. The true significance of these indices is not how the Philippines compares with other countries. the speed of decisions (including in disciplinary proceedings). and the current state of the administration of justice. In turn. The four objectives are directed at efficiency (institutional capacity). From this review. The report describes a participatory governance structure to provide sector-wide guidance. and respect for democratic values and human dignity. and service (broad access to justice and excellent service to the public).the participation of the individuals who know the system best and will be accountable for implementation of the reform. These considerations can help provide a foundation for building the necessary consensus. Chapter I of this report identifies a number of comparative indices of democratic governance. and transparency). publication of decisions (including in disciplinary proceedings). this report proposes a framework consisting of a strategic goal and four interrelated objectives for improved performance. values (independence. G. the volume of petitions for certiorari.
We cannot.Our task as consultants has been to identify technical issues and technical responses. 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. 102 . of course. We can. 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. however.
. 2007. http://www.g.gov. “Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession towards the Third Millennium.ph/policy. Hoboken. pages 165-188.html. Chandler House Press. 103 . David. Action Program for Judicial Reform.org/1About. See Principles of Managing for Development Results at http://www. Inc. e. and J.. Implementing. page 118.supremecourt. Parmeter. Key Performance Indicators: Developing. Supreme Court. Robert W. Worcester.html.gov. 2 3 4 5 http://apjr. Simplified Strategic Planning: A No-Nonsense Guide for Busy People Who Want Results Fast!. Section G. John Wiley & Sons. See. and Using Winning KPIs. 2001.” 11 December 1998.supremecourt. Davide. 2000.htm. 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.1.Notes to Chapter V 1 Bradford.mfdr.ph/apjr_pubreports. Hilario. Peter Duncan.
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). accountable. The TA first appeared in ADB Business Opportunities on 30 May 2006. and efficiency.1 In 2001. output. 1 2 3 4 5 Supreme Court. effective. and corrections system)3 to broaden the reform agenda. Republic of the Philippines. effectiveness. ADB. In addition to the four pillars of justice. 2. cost estimates. along with a new TA. the Asian Development Bank (ADB) provided technical assistance (TA) to the Government to meet these same objectives. who will retire at the end of 2006. 4832-PHI: Enhancing the Autonomy. the impact of such reforms depends on the effectiveness of other pillars of justice and other government law enforcement agencies55. The proposed TA focuses only on the first four pillars. With ADB’s support. about 23 national government agencies perform quasi-judicial functions and 34 have law enforcement functions. the Philippines has demonstrated significant leadership in developing and implementing a comprehensive judicial reform agenda under the APJR. and (ii) effective law enforcement. 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. Moreover.PHI).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 fifth pillar of justice is the community. Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001–2006 (with supplement). The Government of the Philippines adopted the 6-year Action Plan for Judicial Reform (APJR) in November 2000 to strengthen judicial independence. capacity and budgetary constraints have slowed the pace of reforms.2 The recommendations under the ADB TA led the Supreme Court (SC) to adopt several key reform initiatives. prosecutors and public defenders. methodology and key activities. and efficient judiciary. was included in the 2005–2007 Philippine country strategy and program (CSP) and confirmed at the 7 March 2006 CSP confirmation meeting. and well-governed justice system is predicated on (i) an independent. The Fact-Finding Mission in April 2006 reached an understanding with the Government on the purpose. Accountability and Efficiency of the Judiciary. 105 . The new program. 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 implementation arrangements for the TA. 2001. Manila (TA 3693. and Improving the Administration of Justice 1. A more trustworthy. and agreed to chair the WG. which in turn depend on strong political will to apply the law consistently. police and law enforcers. 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. During the 2005 Country Strategy and Programming Mission. including actions to improve and decentralize its administrative and financial operations. 2001.4 3. However. Subsequently. the SC oversaw the formation of a new working group (WG) comprising representatives from four of the five pillars of justice (judiciary. The Government also requested an expansion in the scope of the TA to include improvements in the administration of justice.
Region 7 RCAO. and related capacity-building and change management processes must be developed and implemented. However. to enable the vertical integration of the new systems. systems. was developed to systematize LGU contributions and make them nonnegotiable. Delays in the Administration of Justice. 5. In the judiciary. appellate and special courts. To enable the SC to exercise fiscal autonomy. the Philippine Judicial Academy. For example. There are no reliable data on the amount or type of resource contribution of LGUs.4. and CFMO. The project. 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. Pilot implementation will cover a pilot court (Lapu Lapu). 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. for the pilot RCAO to take advantage of synergies with the World Bank Judicial Reform Support Project. 8. The SC has chosen Region 7. and functions developed under the ADB TA and approved by the SC in April 2004 must be implemented.000 lower courts are managed centrally by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The SC would like to set up the new CCAO and CFMO and a pilot RCAO at the same time. and improve accountability and the delivery of services to the courts. Judiciary operations are funded primarily from the national budget6. There is currently no-judiciary-wide resource management perspective. Under the reform program. 7. Philippine courts continue to be saddled by case backlog. provides financing for the implementation of a package of reforms. 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. while the administrative and financial management functions of the more than 2. Fiscal and Administrative Autonomy of the Judiciary. case congestion (backlog) and delay in case processing violates the litigants’ rights to a speedy trial and erodes public confidence in the courts. and the 6 7 The Constitution provides that the judiciary’s budget cannot be reduced in absolute terms. administrative and financial operations will be decentralized to the SC. Under the ADB TA. or pay utility bills must be submitted to and processed by the OCA. a formula. a detailed administrative structure.77 But before the new structure can be established. the release of allotments and cash and the reallocation of budget details are subject to overall national government priorities. Centralized administration is inefficient and promotes further dependence on LGU funding. the new administrative structure. but the judiciary’s share in the national budget has declined from 1. To fill gaps in funding. lower-court requests for funds to make building repairs. and DBM review and approval. A one-line ceiling provided by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) determines the details of the proposed annual budget of the judiciary.2% in 1998 to less than 1% in 2004. which comprises court fees and other revenues collected by the court and contributions from local government units (LGUs). fulfilling this constitutional mandate has been a challenge. The backlog of requests results in long delays in payment and often the suspension of key services. made at the discretion of local executives. funded with a loan from the World Bank. 6. Delays in the administration of justice can be attributed to constraints in the judiciary and other pillars of justice. and staffing and operating procedures must be prepared and operationalized. which has 146 lower courts administratively organized into 89 lowercourt stations. replace equipment. 9. based on local government ability and willingness to contribute. Although the Philippine Constitution mandates fiscal autonomy for the judiciary. The budget of the appellate and special courts continues to be controlled by the DBM. the Judicial and Bar Council. which is setting up a model hall of justice in the region. National budget allocations are augmented by the Judicial Development Fund. spending regulations applied to other government agencies without fiscal autonomy. lower courts are often forced to seek alternative assistance from LGUs. CCAO. assume core administrative and financial management functions. 106 . and the OCA.
or convicted is often not readily available. detained. retrieving. 14.docket clearance rates of judges is only 40–45%. because of the limited funds available for capital outlays. Long-Term Strategy for the Justice Sector. including the Katarungang Pambarangay (Barangay Justice System. In addition. However. 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. The implementation of APJR reforms will be evaluated shortly by the SC. 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. including the management of case documents. resulting in incomplete files. and delays in retrieval. Thus. 12. The National Bureau of Investigation. Core information about persons who have been accused. Judges have no effective way of ensuring that cases filed before them have previously been settled or have undergone settlement proceedings through the BJS. inconsistencies in information collected. was prepared recently. which prepares clearances. Moreover. 11. those who want to check whether a particular person has a criminal record may need to go directly to the courts. Poor coordination and collaboration among the four pillars of justice. Studies made under the APJR revealed that up to 33% of pending cases continue to be delayed and generally remain open after 2 years. or BJS). which is now being evaluated before being implemented nationwide. A related study showed the need for case-load management reforms and a monitoring framework to track judicial efficiency in this area. The results of the evaluation will be used to update priorities and focus and reprogram resources toward the full implementation of the reforms. and e-payment systems. 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. resulting in duplicative collection. Gaps in the accuracy of required information often go undetected. also under the APJR. there is no integrated system with data on arrest warrants and convictions that have been issued by the judiciary. also delays the administration of justice. CFM software. The APJR studies also reviewed the effectiveness of other measures intended to speed up the administration of justice.8 Privacy and security of information are also concerns. 107 . including an electronic library. based on the recommendations of earlier studies. 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. Other prosecutors are trained ad hoc. A proposed road map for integrated justice sector reforms. Not all courts report this information to the bureau. Processes for collecting. Hence. A team of judges. The SC therefore drew up a Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Strategy (2003) under the APJR. 13. 8 For example. only analyzes information that is provided to it. While the SC has taken commendable steps to increase judicial efficiency by introducing information and communication technology (ICT). prosecutors may lack the requisite skills to prepare specific types of cases. and sharing information often differ. new prosecutors working in the NPS are not given regular training and must learn on the job. storing. 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. especially in information sharing. The effectiveness and efficiency of prosecutors were identified by the study as important in this regard. 10. the SC developed a case-flow management system (CFM) in Pasay. Thus. unless they are repudiated in court within 10 days of being handed down. However. 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. most courts still lack Internet access and thus cannot use the e-library or submit reports to the SC electronically. are supporting the SC in enhancing the pilot project.
Fi antennas in courts with adequate information technology infrastructure. Impact and Outcome 15. To this end. the TA will strengthen judicial autonomy. Methodology and Key Activities The TA will focus on three key reform areas: (i) Fiscal and administrative autonomy of the judiciary. (b) developing business processes and systems to integrate the BJS into the judicial process in Region 7. The TA will also support the pilot implementation in Region 7 of the formula standardizing LGU contributions to the judiciary. Administration of justice. The TA will identify the core information needs and develop business processes to facilitate the collection. CFMO. including prosecutors deputized by the OMB to handle cases of corruption. (c) improving communications and connectivity among the courts by providing Wi. (e) determine the appropriate timing and sequencing of various actions and clarify implementation arrangements. (d) develop short. along with related capacity-building and change management support. to start with). and sharing of core information. retrieval. 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. (b) review related initiatives of other development partners. and operating procedures and systems for the new CCAO. B. accountability and efficiency. The TA will promote a more trustworthy.THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE A. Long-term strategy for the justice sector. and (f) develop a performance monitoring system that includes benchmarks and indicators to track progress in implementation. and (b) a new accountability system within the decentralized framework. it will (a) assess strategic long-term frameworks that have been prepared for the sector. The TA will focus on facilitating agreement on a uniform approach to reform in the justice sector in close coordination with other development partners. and a pilot RCAO in Region 7. including an integrity unit within the pilot RCAO. The TA will assist as well in developing a sustainable capacity development strategy for prosecutors. efficient. (c) facilitate agreement with the Government and other development partners on the reform agenda. (d) giving the judiciary and NPS better access to research materials needed to develop cases (Web-based). staffing. including funding options. and improve the administration of justice. Through its outputs. to increase efficiency and accountability (in the work of the judiciary. and (e) developing a case management system to track the status of probable-cause cases assigned to prosecutors. (ii) (iii) 108 . by developing the framework for a national justice information system (NJIS) and the related ICT framework. storage. The TA will help improve the overall management of information coming from all pillars of justice. 16. and well-governed justice system that more effectively upholds the rule of law. It will also assist in (a) implementing the CFM for the judiciary in Region 7.and long-term strategic funding initiatives and prioritize and cost specific investments. while addressing security and privacy concerns.
and synchronize funding agency initiatives and contributions in developing a long-term program for the sector. including the development of approaches to reform. as well as the program structure and its lending and technical assistance components as may be necessary. This expert shall oversee the implementation of component B and be responsible for developing and implementing recommendations to enhance access to research materials. policy matrices. Review the need for access to an Internet service provider that includes the relevant US laws and cases. In close coordination with the PMO and with support from the domestic legal and judicial reform expert. program development. organize workshops to facilitate consensus among key stakeholders. reform initiatives. If recommending access to such a provider. The expert shall also oversee the preparation of inception. and identify gaps in available information. The expert shall have significant experience in justice sector reforms. on the long-term justice sector strategy. quarterly. and formulate the program logical framework. and ADB in obtaining consensus among development partners and the Government on the reform agenda. Supervise the domestic training expert in developing a sustainable capacity development strategy for NPS prosecutors. arrange for access for 1 year. including development partners. during which use of the service can be monitored to clarify whether the service should be continued. International Team Leader and Justice Sector Reform Expert (5 person-months). and coordination among development partners. 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. WG. training. and ongoing development partner initiatives in the justice sector. Review proposals for long-term reforms in the justice sector. and for developing a longterm strategy for the justice sector. review research materials available to the judiciary (with a focus on the Court of Tax Appeals) and the NPS in key priority areas. (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 109 . including indicators and benchmarks to track and review the progress in program implementation. the National Prosecution Service (NPS). the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). and other development partners to ensure close coordination in. In close coordination with the PMO and pillars of justice working group (WG). Also review the possibility of arrangements with Philippine and US law schools for training to address key legal research gaps. the national fiscal and administrative reform expert and coordinator. In coordination with the domestic legal and judicial reform expert. Coordinate with the PMO. develop a draft sector wide program framework. Develop a program monitoring and performance evaluation mechanism. Assist the PMO. and develop short-term and long-term strategic funding initiatives. case management systems and process engineering. He or she shall (i) Supervise the national case management. and draft final and final reports. and related expenditure needs to fund the reform agenda.TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR CONSULTANTS Component B: Improved Administration of Justice and Long-Term Justice Sector Development Strategy 1. including the integration of consultant reports in this component. and poverty reduction experts. define the program focus and priorities. and strong ownership of.
including their resolution. IT experts) and supervise the implementation of their work plans. (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. 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. business process reengineering. The assessment shall also focus on the core information needs of each pillar. International Justice Information Systems Expert (3 person-months). This consultant will be responsible for developing the framework for a new National Justice Information System (NJIS). 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. Barangay Justice System in Region 7. Review the assessment and recommend ways of addressing perceived gaps.2. and ICT project management. In coordination with the team leader. 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. case management experts) and oversee the implementation of their work plans. 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. (a) supervise domestic case management experts and the domestic legal and judicial reform expert in the preparation. 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. This expert shall assist the judiciary and other pillars of justice in developing and implementing case-load management processes and systems. The recommendations should reflect relevant international (ii) 110 . to enable the NPS and OMB to track the status of cases. Submit progress reports to the team leader on the status of implementation of the work plans. To more effectively integrate the Barangay Justice System (BJS) in Region 7 into the judicial process. develop case management processes and procedures for probable-cause cases handled by prosecutors. Case management system for NPS and OMB. and local disputes that were filed in the courts but were dismissed for failure to seek mediation through the BJS). 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. implementation. This expert shall have the following tasks: (i) Case-load management reforms. ICT procurement planning. (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. (ii) (iii) (iv) 3. International Case Management Expert (2 person-months). He or she shall have relevant experience in the development and implementation of justice information systems in developed markets. information systems (IS) functional and user requirements definition. In coordination with the domestic legal and judicial reform expert and the case management experts.
considering the absorptive capacity of the implementing institutions. (iv) (v) 4. (a) develop the NJIS framework. implementation plan. and maintain the NJIS. staffing. 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. business process reengineering. obtain feedback. 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. present the proposal to the pillars of justice working group (WG). Domestic Case Management Expert (3 person-months) and Domestic Case Management Systems and Process Reengineering Expert (5 person-months). and (iii) assistance to the international case management expert in organizing related workshops. Submit progress reports to the team leader on the status of work plan implementation. With the support of the PMO. Supervise the IT experts in defining the institutional capacities and specific organizational arrangements (functions. 6. identifying key information systems and their functionalities. With the support of the IT experts. organize workshops to develop related capacity and facilitate consensus on the NJIS. and ICT planning and design. policies. competencies. These experts shall each have at least 5 years of relevant experience in the development of enterprise information systems. and make the appropriate revisions. if not available. (ii) preparation of a survey on the use of the BJS in Region 7. 5.experience and best practices in the development and implementation of justice information systems. (ii) development of new related business processes and procedures. prepare a report detailing the proposed NJIS. and standards for the successful implementation and maintenance of the NJIS. strategic databases. linkages) needed to implement. and data-sharing functions across the pillars and the ICT infrastructure framework. These experts shall each have at least 5 years’ experience in business reengineering and ICT development and be familiar with justice sector operations. including the change management requirements. (iv) development of a new case management system for the NPS and OMB. as a result of having worked on related reform initiatives. the international justice sector expert will develop more detailed terms of reference for this expert. They shall work under the supervision of the international justice information system expert and shall assist in the design of the NJIS system architecture. 111 . (iii) With the support of the IT experts. structures. develop the information system architecture of the relevant agencies of the pillars of justice. They will review and. Domestic Legal and Judicial Reform Expert (8 person-months). These experts will work closely together (i) in the rollout of caseload management reforms in Region 7. Justice Information and Communications Technology Expert (5 person months) and Domestic Information Systems Expert (2 person-months). and (b) assess change management requirements and develop an implementation scheme. and implementation and analysis of survey results. A more detailed work plan and terms of reference will be developed by the international case management expert. This expert shall be a lawyer with at least 5 years’ experience and be familiar with the operations of the Philippine justice sector. In coordination with other international experts. The international justice information systems expert shall provide more detailed terms of reference for these experts. manage. and change management framework. They will also define the scope of the NJIS and the functionalities of its information systems. as well as a change management framework for the NJIS.
Using the ADB Handbook as a guide. Domestic Training Expert (2 person-months). He or she will work under the supervision of the international team leader and the justice sector reform expert. Domestic Poverty Reduction Expert (2 person-months). particularly in the justice sector. and propose a training strategy to fill those gaps. 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. 8. He or she should have a background in law and capacity building and be experienced in criminal litigation. This expert shall have at least 5 years of relevant experience in the design and implementation of capacity-building strategies and programs. He or she shall analyze the impact of the APJR on the poor and the expected impact of proposed TA interventions.7. including funding options. identify gaps in capacity. and implement several shortterm training modules. and related experience in training. This expert shall have at least 5 years’ experience in assessing the impact of public sector programs on poverty. 112 . This expert shall work in close coordination with the team leader and the domestic legal and judicial reform expert. capacity building. teaching.
and as a legal aide to a member of the Philippine Senate. in political science from the University of the Philippines. Prior to joining the Foundation. the United Nations Development Programme. USAID Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean (1990-1992).S. and the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Ambassador to Guatemala (1987–1989). Judiciary-Wide Automated Case Management Information System. and in other senior management positions in the United States Government. Previously. she served consultancies in Manila for the World Bank. from the University of the Philippines College of Law. including as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (1983-1987). and other forms of dispute resolution. he was Chair of the Development Assistant Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. other governments. as well as for DPK Consulting and other private consulting organizations.B. US Department of State. 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. coordination.A. Philippine National Police. the International Maritime Organization. cum laude. Ms. review and integration of studies and reform programs. Mercado manages the Law and Human Rights program of The Asia Foundation in the Philippines. the Action Program for Judicial Reform. She has served as lecturer on environmental law at Ateneo de Manila University. She assists in other selected activities within the Foundation's Law and Governance program and handles mediation and conflict management. and international organizations. U. He previously served as Principal Deputy Legal Adviser. where he presided over the principal international forum for donor policy coordination. From 1994 until 1999. and Acting Deputy Administrator and Acting Administrator of USAID (1992-1993). playing lead consulting roles in the development. She earned her bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from the University of San Carlos. from Saint Louis University. Mercado received a B. Mercado was an intern with the Center of International Environmental Law in Washington. She also previously served as executive director of the Developmental Legal Assistance Center. and graduate diploma in Urban and Regional Planning (with distinction) from Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Case Decongestion Strategy. a San Francisco firm that specializes in international cooperation in support of good governance and the rule of law. and diagnostic studies and reform programs for the Department of Justice.. Carolyn A. In government she headed the Systems and Procedures Bureau of the Department of Budget and Management and led governance and public sector reform programs and projects until 1997. and completed post graduate studies in plan implementation and development financing from the Institute of Economic Development Studies in Italy. including the formulation of administrative reforms for the Judiciary. She has been involved in the Philippine justice sector reform since 1999.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 2 BIOGRAPHIC SUMMARIES OF CONSULTANTS James Michel is an independent consultant in development cooperation and Senior Counsel to DPK Consulting. Maastricht School of Business in the Netherlands. LL. corporate secretary of the Alternative Law Groups. operationalization of court-annexed mediation. NOVIB. She was also a Hubert Humphrey Fellow in international environmental law. He received his J. and the Office of the Ombudsman. He returned to USAID in 1999 as Counselor to the Agency and left public service at the end of 2000.D. Ms. and the Development Academy of the Philippines. University of Washington and a European Union Scholar in environmental resource management. San Sebastian College of Law. 113 . He has performed consulting assignments for the United States Government. Vicenta Alinsug is the President of CPRM Consultants Inc. She was coteam leader of an Asian Development Bank program on strengthening the independence and accountability of the Judiciary.
http://material. “Philippines: The Human Rights Situation in 2006 – Getting Away with Murder – Widespread extrajudicial killings combine with a defective system to ensure impunity and injustice. “Basic Need: Peace and Order” and “Basic Need: Rule of Law. Inc.html. Philippine Justice Reform Initiatives Supreme Court. http://siteresources.org/index. www.org. Transparency International. Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001-2006 (with Supplement).gov. Santos-Ong. Philippines Country Strategy and Program.pdf. From the Grassroots: The Justice Reform Agenda of the Poor and Marginalized. Edgardo and Jose Luis Syquia. http://www.pdf “Country Data Report for Philippines.adb. Freedom in the World-Philippines. http://www.htm. 1999. National Statistics Office.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/c175. National Economic and Development Authority. http://chapterzone. Managing the Politics of Reform: Overhauling the Legal Infrastructure of Public Procurement in the Philippines.org/INTPHILIPPINES/Resoureces/PHILCASMain.org/Documents/CSPs/PHI/2005/default. 2006. Washington. April 2005. The Philippines in Figures.ph/apjr_pubreports. May 2006.php/content/download/15149/162858. 2005-2007.asp. National Medium Term Development Plan.gov.ph.html. Milagros. Chapters 16 and 17. Alternative Law Groups. 2007. World Bank. December 2006. J. New York University.worldbank. National Integrity Systems Transparency International Country Study Report of the Philippines. 20007. Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of the Philippines.ahrchk..freedomhouse. Gabriella. http://info. http://www.census. 2004-2010. Asian Human Rights Commission.gov. Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary. 2006. Republic of the Philippines. 2007. Philippine Legal Research.supremecourt. Quimson. Hong Kong.transparency. February 2004.neda. World Bank.org/globalex/Philippines1.pdf Campos. 1996-2006.nyulawglobal. Freedom House.” http://www. Governance Matters 2007. August 2001. http://apjr.net/hrreport/2006/AHRC2006HRReport.worldbank.” in Human Rights Report – 2006: The State of Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations.ph/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY Information on the Philippines Asian Development Bank. 115 .
www. http://apjr.html.supremecourt. October 2003. Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial.ph/index.html.” March 2005. http://apjr.supremecourt. 2005. http://apjr.gov. Department of Justice. 2005. http://www. National Center for State Courts. Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights. American Bar Association. Medium-Term Development Plan for the Criminal Justice System (2007-2010).gov. Article 2. 2006. Judicial Reform Index for the Philippines. page 102. “Anticorruption Initiatives in the Philippines: Breakthroughs. 2004. Supreme Court of the Philippines.gov. Supreme Court.org/Documents/Reports/CGA/phi. Political.supremecourt.ph/apjr_pubreports. Vicenta. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.org/reports/A_HRC_8_Philippines_Advance_Edited. 2005. Center for Policy and Executive Development. Supreme Court.pdf.pdf. Bhargava. Final Report Capsule: Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary.pnp. http://www. Alston.html.ph/apjr_pubreports. World Bank.. Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication. On Balance: Judicial Reforms in the Philippines. Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice. Vinay. http://www. Economic. “The Criminal Justice System of the Philippines Is Rotten. Legal System in Philippines. March 2006. Civil. Philip. Asian Development Bank. UNDP. and Emil Bolongaita.” Vol.html.aseanlawassociation. Investing in Justice: Expenditure Review of the Philippine Judiciary. November 2007. Limits. National College of Public Administration and Governance.gov. University of the Philippines.ph/apjr_pubreports. 2000. June 2003.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006. http://www. Chapter VII.abanet. The Asia Foundation. Social and Cultural Rights. Summary. and Challenges. CPRM Consultants. December 2006. 116 . Enhancing Communication between the Judiciary and the Citizenry. 1. No. Inc. ASEAN Law Association. February 2007. Asian Legal Resource Center.extrajudicialexecutions. CPRM Consultants.adb. CPRM Consultants Inc. November 2005. Philippine Justice System Studies Alinsug. UNDP. “The Legal and Judicial System.asp.html. Inc.Philippine National Police Integrated Transformation Program. Final Report: Change Management for the Judiciary. Country Governance Assessment: Philippines.” in Challenging Corruption in Asia: Case Studies and a Framework for Action. 6. or Arbitrary Executions.org/legal.
Office of the Ombudsman. UNDP.supremecourt. Center for Public Resource management.org. Gerry Roxas Foundation. 2005. Manila.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports. June 2005.supremecourt.gov. The Asia Foundation.html.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.supremecourt.ph/apjr_pubreports. 2000. Myrna and Alberto T.supremecourt. Supreme Court of the Philippines. January 2007. http://apjr. Supreme Court. http://apjr. Revised Final Report: Medium-Term Anticorruption Plan and Public Investment Program. 2007.html. Organizational and Financial Study of the Philippine Mediation Center and its Units. Supreme Court. Rosemary. Feliciano. USAID. pages 258-262..html. A Study on the Efficacy and Efficiency of the Barangay Justice System (Katarungang Pambarangay). The Barangay Justice System Review. Muyot.gov. 2004.supremecourt. http://apjr. - - - Español.ph/apjr_pubreports.transparency. Hunter. National Survey of Inmates and Institutional Assessment. June 2004. March 2000.ph/apjr_pubreports. The Philippine Criminal Justice System. Final Report.gov.gov. Revised Design Report. December 2003.html. http://apjr. November 2004. Gerry Roxas Foundation. Preliminary Report: Judiciary-Wide Automated Case Management Information System. Final Report: Conduct of Further Study on Operations and Linkages of the 5 Pillars of Justice. July 2000.gov. Final Report: Transforming the Philippine National Police (PNP) to a More Capable. http://apjr. Supreme Court of the Philippines. www. Review of Organizational Options.supremecourt. Dolores. Supreme Court. UNDP. UNDP. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.” in Transparency International.- Final Report: Formulation of Administrative Reforms.ph/apjr_pubreports. Global Corruption Report 2007. World Bank.ph/apjr_pubreports. Effective and Credible Police Force (Phase 2). http://apjr. Organizational and Financial Study of the Philippine Mediation Center and its Units.html. 117 .supremecourt.gov. Supreme Court of the Philippines. UNDP.html. Philippine National Police.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Supreme Court. “The Philippines: Towards significant judicial reform.supremecourt. July 2000 http://apjr. World Bank. January 2007. Inc. Final Report: Institutional Strengthening of the Shari’a Justice System (Phase 1). Chapter 7. Final Report: Philippines Formulation of Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Strategy Project. 2003. Supreme Court of the Philippines.html. http://apjr. March 2006.
UNDP. 2003.html.ph/apjr_pubreports.ph/apjr_pubreports.pdf.supremecourt. Supreme Court. July 2000. United Nations Development Programme. Libertas. Final Report: Infrastructure Program Requirements for the Judiciary. Inc. “Philippine Judicial Reforms. 1987-2000. USAID. Quezon City.pdf. Supreme Court. July 2003. page 73.” Supreme Court of the Philippines. Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession. Pangalangan. http://apjr.go.org/Documents/Events/2003/RETA5987/Final_Overview_Report.gov. Sison. 1996. 1990.Hudes. http://www. 2004. Report on the Effects of the Continuous Trial System on Litigation Time and Output in the National Capital Region. 2005/2006 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary. Judicial Sector Study of the Philippines. Institute of Judicial Administration. 2004. Urban Integrated Consultants.ph/apjr_pubreports.adb. Freedom and Death Inside the Jail: A Look Into the Conditions of Quezon City Jail. La Salle Institute of Governance. Changes in the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession in the Philippines.” in Judicial Independence Overview and Country-Level Summaries. The Asia Foundation. Supreme Court. http://apjr. Addressing Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice by the Poor and Disadvantaged. 2003.jp/English/Publish/Als/pdf/05. March 2001. Social Weather Station.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSiteP K=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P066076 118 . h http://apjr. Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice.html.gov. 1998.ph/apjr_pubreports. Narag. Institute of Developing Economies.supremecourt. Asian Development Bank. http://www.worldbank. Carmelo.. Project Appraisal Document for Philippines Judicial Reform Project Support. 2000.html. Assessment of the Public Attorney’s Office. Raul. and Myrna Feliciano. World Bank. Raymond. University of the Philippines Law Center. http://web. July 2007.html. World Bank. The Philippine Judicial System.gov. “Philippines. October 2003. June 2003. http://apjr. Management Study of the Judiciary. December 2006.ide.supremecourt. October 2003. Survey of Enterprises on Corruption.gov. Karen.supremecourt.
and Using Winning KPIs.org/publicsector/legal/legaltoolkit. Measuring & Managing Results: Lessons for Development Cooperation.pdf.org/Sourcebook/2-2ndEdition.“Key Functions of Legal Systems with Suggested Performance Measures.ajs. Comparative International Study of Court Performance Indicators: A Descriptive and Analytical Account. World Bank. as revised by the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices. Kusek. Parmeter. John Wiley & Sons.org. Derek.” Policy Research Working Paper. OECD. World Bank. . and Indicators Albers. 1997.utrechtlawreview. page 112. Issue 1.” Vol. “Evaluating Judicial Systems: A Balance between Variety and Generalization.org. United Nations Development Programme. 2006. Implementing. World Bank. June 2007. Council of Europe. http://www. David.. Messick. Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System.Results-Based Management.” World Bank.” ADB Governance Brief No. http://www. Improving Caseflow Management: A Brief Guide. “Judicial accountability in the US state courts: Measuring court performance. European Judicial Systems. “Promoting Results Based Management in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries. Cedric.pdf. National Center for State Courts. World Bank. Hoboken.html. 1999. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. Richard and Luba Beardsley.pdf. November 2002. Rist.worldbank. 2006. Council of Europe. Utrecht Law Review.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/PimAlbers. Inc.org/ethics/pdfs/Bangalore_principles.worldbank. www. Performance Standards.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/wps4370. Jody Zall and Ray C. David C.adb. “Governance Indicators: Where Are We. Key Performance Indicators: Developing. Daniel and Aart Kraay. Co-Coordinators. Implications. http://siteresources. and Applications. 3. Where Should We Be Going?.adb. 119 . The Hague.worldbank. http://www1. Readings on Performance Indicators for the Judiciary. Strasbourg. An Introduction to Results Management: Principles. Edgardo and Maria Dakolias. 2001. May 2003. 2007. Buscaglia. http://www. Schauffler. Williamsburg.mfdr. Emerging Good Practice in Managing for Development Results: Sourcebook – Second Edition.pdf. 2004. 2002. http://www. 2007. Asian Development Bank. Steelman.” European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. March 2004.org/Documents/Periodicals/GB/governancebrief04. October 2007. 4. Poate. 2004. Richard. http://siteresources. Pim. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice.pdf. Kaufmann. Saldanha..
Brookings Institution Press. 26 Michigan Journal of International Law. Golub.com/asjcl/vol2/iss1/art4. 2004. Oslo. Dam. http://www. 2007. http://www. Asian Journal of Comparative Law. The Political Economy of Rule of Law Reform in Developing Countries. “Judicial Performance: Its Economic Impact in Seven Countries.” February 2007. Gerardo.pdf. Ghani. Ronald and Michael Trebilcock. page 167. 2004. April 2005. http://www.pdf. Equity. “Economic Development. editors.. Sicat. “Developing an Index of the Rule of Law: Sharing the Experience of Hong Kong. and the Rule of Law: Lessons from East Asia – Successes and Failures.econ.” Volume 2.upd.adb. United Nations Development Programme. Kenneth W.org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_online_version. Measuring Progress toward Safety and Justice: A Global Guide to the Design of Performance Indicators across the Justice Sector. Asian Development Bank.org/oslocentre/docs05/cross/Justice%20Indicators%20Background%20 Paper.undp.asp?publication_id=207. Vera Institute of Justice. 120 .” Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor. http://www.bepress.” The World Bank Legal Review: Law. World Bank. 2006.undp. Rule of Law and Development Asian Development Bank. Caroline and Christine Lao. Oslo. Legal Identity for Inclusive Development. Sherwood.edu. http://www. Washington. No.org/legalempowerment/pdf/economic_poverty_rule_of_law. “Legal and Constitutional Disputes and the Philippine Economy.” International Society for New Institutional Economics.vera. 2d Edition. “Legal Empowerment: Impact and Implications for the Development Community and the World Bank. January 2006. Governance Indicators: A Users’ Guide.ph/respub/dp/pdf/DP2007-03.kreative. Poverty Reduction.pdf. November 2003.net/ipbenefits/tucson/isnie2004/ISNIE2004. and Development. “Justice Indicators.org/publications/publications_5. 2006. www. 2007. Vandenabeele.htm. 2007. 2001.pdf. Volume 2.” Paper prepared for the UNDP Governance Indicators Project. Ashraf.org/Documents/Others/Law_ADB/lpr_2001. Law and Policy Reform at the Asian Development Bank. http://www.Tai. Daniels. Stephen.undp. Benny. 1. Manila. http://www. The Law-Growth Nexus: The Rule of Law and Economic Development. Robert.pdf. 99.
org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/JSAHandbookWebEdition . Judiciary-Led Reforms in Singapore: Framework. 121 . http://siteresources.acdicida. OECD. 2006-2010.Sector –Wide Approach Asian Development Bank.ca/INET/IMAGES.worldbank. 2007. Réal.. and Anneli Alba. Dory. Law and Order: The Uganda Experience.org/kenya-justice-sector-conference.gsdrc.lawandjustice.pg.uk/pubs/files/safesecureaccjustice. Strategies. http://www.org/go/topicguides/justice/justice-overview. 2006.htm. Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery. Reiling. London. http://www. Guyana Justice Reform Strategy.pdf. Endroma. The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank (2001-2015). www. Proceedings of Conference on Justice Sector Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic Framework and Practical Lessons.adb. Volume 2.za/alraesa/conferences/papers/ent_s2_edroma.asp. CIDA Primer on Program-Based Approaches.NSF/vLUImages/CapacityDevelopment2/$file/Program%20Based %20Approaches-E. Governance and Social Development Resource Centre. Justice Sector Assessments: A Handbook.gov. Chapter 3. http://www. March 2007.pdf. World Bank. Waleed Haider. Law and Justice Sector Reform Website. Linn Hammergren.gina. http://www. http://www.pdf. 2006. Security and Accessible Justice: Putting Policy into Practice.” October 2006. Evelyn B.” http://www.sti.htm. “Justice.pdf. “Sectorwide Approaches.. July 2002.oecd.org/jaaicanjustice/index.gov. Papua New Guinea Government.org/dac/harmonisingpractices.doj.britishcouncil. British Council.gov.” 2005.org/media/printer. World Bank.” DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. Brussels.gov. November 21-22.pdf Jamaican Justice System Reform Project. European Commission. “Lessons Learned from Judicial Reform: The ADB Experience.org/Documents/Policies/LTSF/long0302. and Lessons.adb. February 2003. OECD.gc. and Adrian Di Giovanni. “Sector Wide Approach in Justice. Safety.asp?articleID=10829. http://www.pdf. Guidance for European Commission Support to Sector Programmes.gy/justicreform/Guyana%20JSRS%20revised%20June%202006c.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdfs/swap/swap312a. Lavergne. Fischer.dfid. http://www.cba. http://www. Department for International Development. http://www. Eveline N. Washington. Canadian International Development Agency. Paris. Malik. http://www.
go. Law and Justice Institutions Website. Law and Order Sector Reform Website. 122 . http://www. Law and Order Sector Reform Website. Justice.go. Republic of Uganda. Justice.worldbank.ke.Republic of Kenya. Governance. http://go.ug.org/OESX5Q35R0. http://www. World Bank.gjlos.jlos.
Philippine Public Safety College 123 . Department of Interior and Local Government Baby Catherine Cruz. Supreme Court Merceditas Gutierrez. National Police Commission Sally Aquino. Fadullon. Supreme Court Richard D. National Commission on Indigenous Persons Anthony Carpio. Ombudsman Arthur K. Economic Development Specialist. Philippine National Police Lourdes Aniceto. Chief. Acting Secretary of Justice Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum. Undersecretary for Public Order and Safety. Office of the Solicitor General Eduardo De Los Angeles. National Economic and Development Authority Susan Gavino. Senior Deputy Court Administrator. Program Management Office. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Marius Corpus. Chancellor. Program Management Office. Philippine Judicial Academy Agnes Devanadera. Management Staff. Management Staff.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNEX 4 PERSONS INTERVIEWED Philippine Government and Judiciary Edgardo Acuna. Hernan. Department of Justice Antonio Fernandez. Director for Human Resources Development. Chief of Planning and Research Services. Philippine Judicial Academy Mina Importante. Dean. Director. National Economic and Development Authority Jose Miguel Dela Rosa. Center for Public Safety Service. Senior Prosecutor. Supreme Court Gillian Dunuan. Vice President. National Commission on Indigenous Persons Zenaida Necesito-Elepaño. Clerk of the National Commission on Indigenous Persons Justice Ameurfina Herrera. Executive Director. Director. Department of Justice Rogelio Asignado. Consultant. Attorney. Philippine Public Safety College Rosalina Bistoyong. Assistant Chief State Prosecutor.
Director. Judge. Tadiar. Director of Personnel and Administrative Services. Vice Chair. Department of Justice Austere Panadearo. Undersecretary for Policy. Philippine National Police Isidro Siriban. Director General. Program Management Office. Undersecretary. Tungpalan. Commission on Human Rights Avelino Razon. Project Manager. Public Attorney’s Office Jose Midas Marquez. Deputy Chief Public Attorney. Chair. Department of Finance Rolando G. Chair. Department of Budget and Management Manuel Pontanal. National Economic and Development Authority Monica Pagunsan. Department of Budget and Management Persida Rueda-Acosta. Commissioner. Deputy Director General. National Police Commission Alfredo F. Regional Trial Court. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Purificacion Quisumbing. Director Management Services Office. Department of Interior and Local Government Aida Layug. National Police Commission Macapancat Mama. Supreme Court Myrna Medina. Regional Trial Court. National Police Commission Reynato Puno. Judge. Philippine Judicial Academy Roberto Tan. Philippine National Police Mario Relampagos. National Police Commission Romulo Neri. Director of Crime Prevention. Office of the Chief Justice. Department of Justice Rowena San Pedro. Undersecretary for Local Government. Bureau of Jails and Municipal Prisons. National Economic and Development Authority 124 . Chief of Legal Affairs. National Police Commission Dennis Siervo. Chief Public Attorney. Manila Linda Malenab-Hornilla.General Clarito Jover. Pasig City Celia Sanidad-Leones. Chief of Staff. Secretary of Socioeconomic Planning. Alternative Dispute Resolution Department. Undersecretary. Department of Interior and Local Government Laura Pascua.
Governance Officer. US Department of Justice 125 . Court of Appeals Basilio Wandag. Director. Finance and Trade Division. European Commission Klaus Preschle.Martin Villarama. General Counsel. Asian Development Bank Jon Lindborg. Program Officer. Millennium Challenge Corporation Eva Pastrana Gutierrez. Assistant Director. National Commission on Indigenous Persons Jovencito Zuño. Director. Development Policy Officer. Governance. USAID Steven Edminster. Embassy of Japan Debra Kertzman. Chief State Prosecutor. World Bank Keith Crawford. Senior Financial Sector Specialist. Minister of Economic Affairs. Democracy and Governance Office. USAID Maria Longi. UNDP Jose Edgardo Campos. International Criminal Investigative Training and Assistance Program (ICITAP). Associate Justice. Australian Embassy Emmanuel Buendia. Southeast Asia Department. Embassy of Japan Jeffrey Thomas. Department of Justice International Development Partners Jaseem Ahmed. Director. USAID Akira Sugiyama. Co-Director. Deputy Chief. Asian Development Bank John Alkpala. Law and Justice Thematic Group. Legal Affairs. Threshold Program. Mission Director. Asian Development Bank Kunihiko Higashi. Development Cooperation. Deputy General Counsel. Civic Participation Specialist. Program Manager. Millennium Challenge Corporation Jose Mendoza. Philippines-Canada Cooperation Office Richard Messick. Asian Development Bank Bradley Parks. Rule of Law Division. USAID Eveline Fischer. Legal/Judicial Reform Adviser. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Second Secretary. World Bank Arthur Mitchell. Gerardo Porta. Lead Public Sector Specialist.
Chief of Party. Asian Institute for Journalism and Communication Roberto Cadiz. Chief of Party. USAID ROLE Program. ROLE Edwin Glindro. Management Systems International Gregorio Batiller. Senior Program Officer. President. Dean. Australian Embassy Civil Society and Subject Matter Experts Carina Agarao. Libertas Teresa Cannady. MCA Threshold Program. Judicial Reform Specialist 126 . Management Systems International Scott Ciment. Newsbreak Louie Tito Guia. American Chamber of Commerce John Dinsdale. Management Systems International Roger Dallas. East Asia and Pacific. World Bank Narcisa Umali. Counsellor. Far Eastern University Florangel Braid. Attorney Andres Bautista. Secretary General. Legal Department. American Chamber of Commerce Crisanto Frianeza. Country Director. Development Cooperation. MCA Threshold Program. Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Rita Linda Gimeno. Chief of Party. World Bank Sam Zappia. CTA Closed Case Study. CIDA Felipe Ureta Redshaw. Executive Director. Country Director. Team Leader. Philippines. Advisor.Anthony Toft. Attorney. Treasurer. Papua New Guinea-Australia Law and Justice Sector Program John Forbes. Center for Community Advancement Benjamin Allen. Lead Procurement Specialist. Chairman. Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Glenda Gloria. Philippines. European Commission Access to Justice Project Cecilia Vales. Institute of Law. American Bar Association George Carmona. Chief Counsel. Trustee. Team Leader. Libertas Judge Evelyn Lance. American Bar Association Phyllis Cox.
Alternative Law Groups. Dean. Attorney. American Bar Association Mariano Magsalin. Asian Institute for Journalism and Communication Cesar Villanueva. Circuit Judge. Buenaventura. Justice Reform Initiatives. Newsbreak Claro Parlade. Attorney Custodio Parlade. Attorney. Country Representative. Attorney Carol Pascual Sanchez. American Bar Association Marites Nañguilan Vitug.Renato Lopez. Masanta. The Asia Foundation Robert Sears. Sayoc & De Los Angeles Steven Rood. President. Director. Ateneo Law School 127 . Romulo. US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Carolyn Sobritchea. Brooks Smith. Executive Director. Arellano University Law School Clare Manuel. Dean. Inc. Jack Miranda. Project Director. MSI Ricardo Romulo. MCA Threshold Program. Attorney. Corruption Prevention Specialist. Team Leader. European Union Access to Justice Project Ramon Tuazon. Integrated Bar of the Philippines D. Law and Development Partnership Marlon Manuel. American Chamber of Commerce Jose Vicente Salazar.
A study on Access to Justice and Effectiveness of ADR approaches was likewise completed. Bacolod. five model courts have been established in Pampanga. Study Completed. 2006). docket cleansing (similar to the concept of the “onetime case decongestion project ” is going to be initiated in the Court of Appeals. Prospects and Recommendations The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006).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. 1 129 . 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. La Union. JDR hassuccessfully settled around 41% of cases that have undergone JDR. However. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. 2006). Recommendation to conduct a one-time case decongestion project is still unimplemented. Baguio/Benguet. Court Management Systems Caseload Survey and Development of Case Decongestion Plan Case Decongestion and Reduction of Delay Strategy Project. So far. and c) design a sustainable mechanism for improving the Judiciary’s capacity in caseload and court performance management. Supreme Court Administrative Circulars. 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). 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. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. b) design a case decongestion and delay reduction strategy. and Cagayan de Oro City. eliminating some 641 cases from the court dockets. 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.
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. Pateros. and San Juan: 1) CAMIS change management orientation. Marikina. as the latter is envisioned to be rolled out with the CAMIS. These activities concerning 55 trial courts and 528 court personnel were scheduled to end on September 2006.net software The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006).net software. 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. The following activities were scheduled to be conducted in RTCs and MeTCs in the Cities of Pasig. manage and monitor the undertaking that is the rollout of CAMIS to lower courts.Net due to financial considerations and the development of the Case Flow Management System Phase II. 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. synchronize coordinate. 2006). 46 2006 created the CAMIS Rollout Implementation Team. 2 130 . 3) Assessment of the availability of hardware and Internet facilities. 2) Data clean up. A total of 189 personnel from 45 RTCs and 13 MeTCs were trained to use the CAMIS software. 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. 5) System installation and hand holding. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. 2006). Mandaluyong. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. CAMIS Rollout Implementation The CAMIS Rollout Implementation Team was created to plan. 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. and the Municipalities of Taguig. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. (CAMIS). 4) Users training. The Supreme Court through Memorandum Order No. The Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library decided to temporarily postpone the Rollout of CAMIS. Phase I involved the automation of data collection and processing of the CMOOCA.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.
Trainings on records management. Management and Information System Department) to manage the CMIS. including automation. Technical assistance in change management to support the sustainable and continuous implementation of the Case Management Information System (“CMIS”) introduced in each court. Expected roll-out will be in March 2008. The initial work with the Court of Tax Appeals has also started. and archiving techniques for key divisions and court personnel have also been conducted. improve case and caseflow management in the Court of Appeals. control.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.g. which will be implemented under the Judicial Reform Support Project 131 . Current work is being done for the integration of CMIS with other IT systems of the Supreme Court. public information on CMIS. This includes the review and development of employee performance indicators and milestones within the context of ongoing automation Development of the Functional Specifications and System Concept for a Judiciary-wide Automated Case Management System (Expanded CDDRP) The project will provide the functional specifications and system concept/definition for a judiciary-wide automated case management system. 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. 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.
The CFM software was pilot-tested in the Regional Trial Courts and Metropolitan Trial Courts in Pasay City from October 2003 to June 2005.out delayed due to change in leadership in the Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library.July 2004 USAID/EGTA The Supreme Court implemented a pilot project on case flow management (CFM) in 2002. Case Flow Management (CFM) Pilot Project in Pasay City Courts October 2002. 2006 and was pilot-tested in Pasay City on December 2006. The software development phase was completed on November 30. The pilot project was assessed in April 2006 by a team of judges and court personnel. and the addition of necessary case events so that the case is moved reasonably swiftly and disposition time shortened. 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. pilot implementation. COMMENTS Case Flow Management Assessment conducted in May 2006. the Supreme Court of the Philippines will undertake a project that seeks to improve the CFM for a more expeditious disposition of cases and more efficient management of dockets of all first and second level courts. development. testing. Pursuant to said recommendations. 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. among others. Development and Pilot Implementation of an Enhanced Case flow Management (CFM) System for First and Second Level Courts The Project involves the design. 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). 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. 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. Procurement of more CAT machines held in abeyance as the SC OCA is looking into cheaper alternatives (using ordinary keyboard and foot pedals) 132 . It uses previously determined track assignments under the Differentiated Case Management process.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2 TO DO Completed. The CFM’s main feature is the case tracking system upon which a software was developed. It entails the elimination of unnecessary time intervals or case events.
Assessment report given to the Supreme Court Committee on Rules but no action yet. or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. 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. Recognizance.Study on the Possible Expansion of the Scope of Recognizance . Some legal practitioners Others: . The suggested roundtable discussion has not materialized. 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.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. The broad scope of Rule 65 allows a party to question any act by any tribunal. Summary Procedure. and to promote international arbitration as well as enforcement of foreign judgments. and Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice) .dialogues on the videos. It also supported the nationwide consultation.Study on the Scope of the Rules of Procedures for Criminal Cases . except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. with respect to matters 3 filed of first instance for trial. board.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. 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. 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.Strengthening the Rules in Civil Forfeiture and Money Laundering . 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.) 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. Review of Civil Procedure Rules Moreover. The law likewise provides that the entire trial period shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial. 3 133 . COMMENTS Sandiganbayan has adopted new internal rules of procedures in line with the adoption of CMIS. Republic Act No. The results of the assessment were published in January 2007 as part of the ABA Legal Assessment Series. 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. Nationwide consultations were done to inform judges about the revised procedures and to solicit comments.Consultation with the Bar and Bench on the Four Studies (Memoranda. by alleging simply that such act was performed with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
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 . survivor-sensitive facilities. court-annexed mediation services. and heads of pertinent agencies. Visayas. etc. The members serve on an ad hoc basis taking into consideration the specific subject matter for consideration. 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. and Mindanao.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. including operationalization of systems and procedures and specific work flows that will generate information and enable continuing assessment by year 2 of reform implementation . Roundtable discussion is yet to happen. public access to judicial records archives.institutional capacity requirements. 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. lawyers. selected magistrates. 134 . and its members consist of private practitioners.implementation of continuing research and evaluation of the Rules of Court. space for training and meetings with media. 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. interview rooms. Study compatibility of the Rules of Court with eCommerce laws Awaiting decision of the SC Rules Committee as regards the recommended changes. The Committee is convened by an Associate Justice of the SC. and operating systems and procedures defined and incorporated in the design of the Judicial Research Institute . A roundtable discussion/workshop is being planned with the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court to discuss proposed revisions of the Rules of Evidence.
The SC Library Services distributes e-Library CDs quarterly.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. the digitization of SC decisions has started. 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. tracking. continuing assessment and reform formulation and policy recommendation on judicial concerns. 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. material development procedures and operating systems Full system operation and stabilization 135 . access.
and other implications of laws affecting the jurisdictional structure of the courts. The study looked into the different quasi-judicial agencies providing Alternative Dispute Resolution. Court Jurisdictional Structure Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4 TO DO COMMENTS Reorganized court jurisdictional structure Study on the Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure Reorganization of the court jurisdictional structure to have a clear delineation of jurisdiction among courts to prevent misfiling. 4 136 . . 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. 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. 2006). contributing to a steady decline in the overall caseload of Philippine courts.258 courts in the country. there are concrete gains towards the institutionalization Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) in trial courts.) Institutionalization of ADR – Court Annexed Mediation On decongesting court dockets. A study on “Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure” has been completed in January 2007. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. 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.Results of the study presented to internal and external stakeholders in February 2007. Final report submitted in May 2007. etc. From 2002March 2007. The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). CAM resolved a total of 29. 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 2.678 cases at 70% success rate. 2006). promote access. decide. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. ensure balanced distribution of caseload. simplification of case processing procedures and standards. This was achieved with only 113 mediation centers covering 731 out of the existing 2. 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. 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. access.
provide a forum for discussion of ADR ideas and practices. lecturers. 2005 to June 30. Cebu. law professors. General Santos. 2006 The University of the Philippines Law Center established the Institute on Dispute Resolution (IDR). Pilot–testing of appellate mediation (called Court of Appeals Mediation) Establishment of an ADR Institute Installed an ADR Institute Establishment of the U. 137 . the integration of the ADR curriculum. and later on in the expansion areas in Cagayn de Oro. 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. and a national conference that provided a venue for the discussion of concerns regarding the implementation of court-annexed mediation. etc. The Institute further aims to establish a national network of ADR academics and practitioners which can guide the development of ADR in the country. increase public awareness of various modes of ADR. the financial and administrative study of the PMC Units. Tacloban. ADR orientation for family court judges. and researchers. Development and implementation of a Communication Plan for Court-Annexed Mediation. Installing Supreme Court Capacity for Continuing Monitoring and Assessment of ADR Institutions Other ADR Initiatives Passage of an ADR Legislation In 2004.).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. It intends to encourage new thinking in negotiation theory and ADR. It targets the legal community starting from law students. the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law was passed. has trained more than 500 mediators in three pilot areas (Metro Manila.P. The Institute is envisioned as a vehicle for improving the theory and practice of all forms of dispute resolution. Law Center Institute on Dispute Resolution (IDR) and Other Related Projects July 1. practitioners. and Davao. and provide ADR services to the general public. 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.
and overall capacity build-up 4. institutions. education. institutional setup and operation of the system. resources. Judicial Performance management System Development of Judicial Management System Training Needs Assessments have been conducted. establish Legal Information Desks in 1080 barangays to function in coordination with MCIOs. including documentation of HRD Best Practices. 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. Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy BJS. Continue installation of strengthening measures for the Barangay Justice System (including training. ADB TA 4832 Component B.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. institutional. development of information. and communication strategies for various stakeholders. child-friendly. 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. The Supreme Court has already produced gender-sensitive. and rights-based IEC materials. Presentation of the results of the comprehensive review of the Barangay Justice System (performance. and the HRD Training Framework (5-Year HRD Capability-Building Plan. services. systems & procedures) and proposed reengineering of the governance.) Professional development for excellence which includes strengthening the overall capacities of the Philippine Judicial Academy and the formulation and implementation of a gendersensitive Human Resources and Development Master Plan for Non-Judicial These are components of WB project that still need to be implemented 138 .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.
and performance of judges. and provide the courts and their personnel opportunities to develop their core competencies. It seeks to promote just. (3) Judge to Judge Dialogues Docket Management and Corporate Principles in Judicial Administration. and Case Delay: Problems and Solutions Dialogues have been completed. identify systemic and operational challenges. and the overall court system. 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.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 4 TO DO Personnel. as well as the various other stakeholders. 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. actual and/or potential. civil society and community contributions in monitoring the conduct. and enable them to propose and adopt responsive solutions consistent with national standards yet responsive to local needs. 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. the judges and their personnel to further improve their court processes. strengthen and consolidate the desire of the courts. Ongoing To achieve these. speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases. opportunities to discuss court processes. provide the courts. Its goals include the following: (1) (2) build on. court personnel. operations. COMMENTS • Others Improving Judicial Performance in the ARMM These judicial reform initiatives in the ARMM seek to enhance judicial governance in the area. 139 .
JDF collections & disbursements. Strengthen the participation of the operating units in budget policy decision making processes. 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. Accountability. 5 140 . Decentralized financial management systems to be piloted in Region 7 in conjunction with the Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in late 2007 Pilot testing still to be implemented. SC also approved request of TA consultants in securing the data needed for the drafting of the proposed systems and procedures for the installation of the reformed budgetary system for the pilot project in decentralization including: budget data. 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. 27. and providing for the Initiation of Budgetary Operations for Pilot Projects”.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. 2006 budget and recently submitted budget proposal. current process for budget planning.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 1. and Provide mechanisms to strengthen the accountability and capacity for continuing improvement in budgeting ADB TA 3693. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. and prioritization of its annual expenditure program Install the policies. systems. 2006). and within which annual expenditure programs are formulated Establish the mechanisms that will enable the Judiciary to determine and decide on the level. as well as in expenditure planning and management that will be installed within a decentralized administrative structure. 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. 2007) ADBTA4832:Enhancing the Autonomy. systems. composition. 06-11-09-SC (Feb. responsiveness. and procedures for improving the efficiency.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Budgeting) The reform design report involves designing the core policies. preparation. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. 2006). 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). 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. and procedures in fiscal management. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. and speed of budget operations and services to courts within a decentralized institutional framework.
2) Design of Revenue Generation Strategy Revenue Generation Strategy ADB TA 3693. 6) National Government Support 7) Local Government Contribution 8) Judicial Fees and Charges ADB TA 3693. to improve the predictability of resources within which a sound judiciary strategic plan. The revised final technical report prescribes a reengineered revenue management system for the Judiciary. and a medium-term expenditure program as well as an annual expenditure program can be formulated and implemented.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. 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.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 .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. The first design report presented several strategic reform measures on revenue management and other systems relating to it. and to strengthen internal and external transparency in the revenue management operations at all levels in the organization. and the design of the management process. This further underwent extensive consultations. and presents the proposed technical design of the revenue management system organized by major sources of revenues.
and accountability Install treasury operations functions and operating systems to ensure proper safekeeping. 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. planning. 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. and competence. (1) a framework for the judiciary’s fiscal and administrative autonomy will be designed. The project draws on the recommendations of the earlier ADB technical assistance grant to the Supreme Court on decentralization 142 . impartiality. and (3) the capability of PhilJA to deliver judicial training will be strengthened. overall 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. accountability. (2) the appointment process and the accountability and incentive system under which the judges and justices function will be improved. Under the TA. and forecasting.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. revenue monitoring. SC AM No. 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.
operating systems. revenue management. financial accounting. 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. (b) defines the overall administrative and financial management functions that the judiciary will perform as a self-governing organization.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Administrative Structure) The proposed administrative structure will entail the movement. region 7 judges and personnel and other stakeholders on-going and will continue throughout the implementation period. 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. (c) draws up the high-level and detailed administrative structure and internal functional configuration that reflect the vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of functions. and locations of several existing organization units within the judiciary. functions. the detailing and installation of the budgeting. accountability as well as control of resources. This was subsequently revised after several consultations. transfer and modification of the structure. validations workshops.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. Enhancing the Autonomy. and eventually review by the Supreme Court. and staffing of the judiciary. ADB TA 3693. cash 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. abolition. ADB TA 3693. A replication plan will be developed including its financing requirements and change management process. 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. ADB TA 4832 Component A. It involves the creation of a pilot regional court administration office in Region 7. 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. Reengineering of the Formal Administrative Structure 143 . Implementation will involve intensive user training and handholding through the change process. formal structure. Installation and operationalization plan and instruments ready. It will involve changes in the functional relationships among units and offices. physical assets management and components of the human resources development and a review and modification of the relevant operating policies.
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. operating systems. and staffing and redesigning of these until all the installation starts will provide the required time within which such consciousness can evolve. 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. recruitment of core RCAO personnel undertaken Reengineering of the Administrative Operating Systems SC AM No. Manage resistance to reforms through an appropriate change management strategy COMMENTS SC AM No. 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. 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. functional configuration. 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 .
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. Court of Appeals. JRSP Subcomponent A. thus. 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. It will allow interaction of Court offices such as the Supreme Court. and Sandiganbayan through a Wide Area Network Connection. financing requirements and change management strategy. this project will allow docket fees to be paid online. It will identify key information systems and their functionalities. 145 . Laguna Currently being done. strategic databases and data sharing functions.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. Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy National Justice Information System (NJIS) NJIS framework Identified IS and strategic data bases Define data sharing functions Financing and Implementation plan Change management strategy The NJIS provides an information systems and technology framework for a justice sector –wide information system. The software has been accepted by users in pilot courts in Manila. 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. Makati City.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. 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. EPayment is meant to avoid situations involving extended custody of money. The JRSP has supported the procurement of IT-related goods and services for pilot courts and the development of the MISO Data Center and the development of the software.for the e-Payment Project. the implementation scheme. Court of Tax Appeals.
Angeles City. and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The guidelines were initiated by the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) and approved by the SC Committee in Computerization. 4. judicial career development. The 146 . Others SC AM No.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 secured use of the computer system of the Supreme Court (SC) as part of the Information and Communication Technology Program of the SC. and Imus. Davao City. Lapu-Lapu City.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) In the final report. effective. The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies. 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. 2005) SC En Banc approved the Computer Guidelines and Policies submitted by the Computerization Committee. Judicial Appointments and Career Development Formulation of the Reorganization Plan of the Judicial and Bar Council - - HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ADB TA 3693. some changes were made to the approved organization and function of the JBC. rules. 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. ADB TA 3693. and functions. administrative structure. The guidelines were issued to guide authorized users to an efficient. and procedures in judicial discipline.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. 05-3-08 SC Re: Computer Guidelines and Policies (March 15. Cagayan de Oro City.
and providing mechanisms to insulate the process from undue politicization. Adoption of additional mechanisms for further insulating the judicial appointment system from potential undue politicization and for enhancing the transparency. administrative structure. appropriateness. human. and continuously improve the judicial appointment systems. Completed 147 . For these reasons.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 key operating mechanisms of the JBC. the reengineering of internal functions. The SC views certain aspects of human resources development as purely within the internal administrative authority of the Supreme Court. the SC has decided that the current scope of functions of the JBC should be maintained. 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. staffing. and in particular. structure. and staffing of the JBC and identified reforms in the judicial selection and nomination process towards weeding out the unfit from entering the courts. The JBC reorganization has been implemented along with key procedural reforms. 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. d) enhancement of resources which may include financial. sustain. 2) establishing the enabling environment that will provide continuing capacity to implement. 3) Improvements in policies and policy implementation as well as in pertinent and specific procedures. 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. Reforms in this area include providing the core organizational infrastructure. 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. and technological resources According to the report. efficiency.
and procedures in judicial discipline. The report proposed that a three-stage appointment process be examined from two aspects – methodology and criteria used at each stage. and feedback of training to help update and improve training programs Synchronize projects with trainings Strengthen HR Association ADB TA 3693. The system will provide opportunities for vertical promotion and horizontal 148 . administrative structure. ADB TA 3693. and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). screen. COMMENTS Sufficient ratio of equipment Regular monitoring. judicial career development. 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. and functions. 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. 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.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. to conduct public interviews. and select nominees for judges to be appointed by the President. efficiency.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. and gendersensitivity of JBC procedures for judicial nominations Dialogues completed. and procedures in judicial discipline. rules. The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies. 2) Screening Process. administrative structure. judicial career development. 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. conducted dialogues with various sectors during the selection process. Best international standards of transparency and accountability will be applied to produce a reengineered. and functions. rules. politically buffered process that will produce judges who attract the confidence of the community. 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. evaluation.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. including the use of a point system for evaluating nominees Formulation of Judicial Career Development Plan ADB TA 3693. the body constitutionally-mandated to search. screen and nominate candidates to judicial posts. The judicial appointment process will consist of the following stages: 1) Assessment of Current Situation and Recruitment. 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. Their work pushed the Judicial and Bar Council. 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 report contains specific reform design recommendations in the following areas: judicial appointments. and 3) Selection and Nomination Process JBC Dialogues The Judicial and Bar Council.
Under the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF). Human Resource Development and Capability Building plan for all official and personnel of the judiciary. Strategic Human Resource Model More recently. 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. and other attached agencies and offices. OCA. 05-01-19-SC (January 25. CA. A situational analysis was initially conducted to lay the groundwork for the subsequent steps in the TNA process. policies and practices. the Supreme Court obtained Aus $496. 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. court administration. Deliverables include the assessment report on the Judiciary’s training program. judicial career development. 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. A training needs assessment of judicial personnel was also conducted. Training Needs Analysis. CA. Sandiganbayan. skill and ability (KSA) analysis thereafter followed to determine the KSA required of personnel in order to perform each task properly. Assessment of Training Needs completed 2. to help eliminate incompetence within the judiciary. 2005) Human Resource Development SC En Banc approved the award of contract for the Human Resource Development consultancy services to Orient Integrated Development Consultant. Sandiganbayan.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.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. CTA. Training Management Manual. A task analysis and knowledge. and Computerized Training Management System. Documentation of Best Practices and Lessons. and SC.though the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF). Training Framework. and Performance Monitoring and Evaluation of the APJR. the following long term HR activities are being endorsed: 1) Court Management Development Course 2) 3) 4) Strategic Human Resource Management Capability Building in Management of Court Operations Capability Building in ELaw 149 . CTA.
and personnel administration including recruitment. personnel performance evaluation. and personnel discipline ADB TA 3693. staffing.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. salary administration.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) 150 . and 2) detailed vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of workflows and decision making authority particularly in the areas of planning and budgeting. 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. career development and training.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.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Human Resources Developmentl) The detailed technical design report prescribes a holistic and integrated Judiciary human resources development system for non-judicial personnel. and perform the appropriate human resources development functions of a self-governing organization Establishment of an Organization and Human Resources Development Office within the Central Court Administration Office which will perform oversight functions in human resources development for the entire Judiciary Adoption by the Judiciary of a more flexible compensation structure that widens opportunities for upgrading the compensation of employees Adoption of an appropriate vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of human resources development functions. and personnel matters.
and financial latitude.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. design.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 3. 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 . a second study was conducted which looked into the “Impact of Judicial Education. six elearning modules (including remedial and civil law. (TAF) 2) Development of a Uniform Manual of Style on Judicial Writing for the Supreme Court. and 4) distance education. Results of the study revealed that judges are satisfied with the usefulness and relevance of PhilJA’s programs. and 4) distance education Ongoing. Completion of technical basis for distance education & full implementation of the program by PhilJA Based on the results of the study. actual possession. ADB TA 3693. and socially responsive education and training for judges and court personnel. mediators. Impact of Judicial Education and Directions for Change Further. which required that PhilJA be given wider administrative decisionmaking authority. To date. gender sensitive. 3) enhancing curriculum development. ecommerce. 3) enhancing curriculum development. 2) areas of judicial education andgoals. the following judicial education reform initiatives were undertaken by PhilJA: 1) E-Learning Modules PhilJA developed electronic learning for judges. 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. 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. 2) areas of judicial education andgoals.) have been developed. and lawyers.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. etc. and deliver effective. (WB) ADB TA 3693.” The study evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of PhilJA’s educational programs.
This report builds on the First Design Report which dealt with the analysis of judicial remuneration and highlighted issues that impact on the judges independence and on the ability of the judiciary to attract talented lawyers to join the bench. It also included recommendations on judicial salary structure as well as improved benefits that will free judges and justices from worrying about necessary life support and amenities which. might impede performance Design and implementation for the adoption of an independent remuneration policy ADB TA 3693. COMMENTS “Presentation of the Architectural Design of the PhilJA Development Center in Tagaytay City” September 11.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 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. 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 . 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. motivate judges to perform and continuously upgrade their competencies. if not provided. Remuneration Systems Reengineering Review and Application of International Trends and Best Practice Formulation of an Independent Remuneration Policy Strategy and Remuneration Systems Reengineering OUTPUTS PHILJA Complex ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO Ongoing.Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Remuneration) Study completed.
Legal Education Assessment of the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Program Assessment of the Formal Legal Education System Development of Curriculum and Institutional Standards on Legal Education OUTPUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 TO DO COMMENTS Survey and Seminars on the MCLE Survey of the legal community on the effectiveness of the providers of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) – (ABA) _ Conduct an Assessment of the Formal Legal Education System Design of legal education and continuing legal education curriculum and program delivery standards. Conduct of continuing studies on comparative and best practices as inputs to continuing learning and improvement of judicial education from year 1 through 6 of the reform implementation _ Executive Interchange On International Experience and Best Practice _ _ 153 .IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 5.
comments. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y. roundtable discussions and workshops throughout the country for capability building in bar reform initiatives. 3. the Commission on Higher Education. the Philippine Bar Association and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar. report and recommendation. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40% of the total number of questions. 4. the Final Report of the Special Study Group to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters. lectures. Quiason as members. Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson. dialogues. 6. 7. 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. 2004 5 TO DO The Supreme Court resolved to adopt the following reforms.1awphil. there was support for the conduct of studies. A paper was produced by the Committee.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. Arellano Law Foundation. the Philippine Association of Law Professors. inputs and observations on PhiLJA’s proposed bar examination reforms. 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. changes in the design and construction of questions. the University of the Philippines College of Law. the Philippine Association of Law Schools.net Designation of two(2) examiners per subject depending on the number of examinees . Formulation of essay test questions and "model answers" as part of the calibration of test papers. for further study. the Philippine Lawyers Association. entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer. 5. Bar Reform In terms of bar reform. 2. submitted to the Supreme Court its Final Report. Members of the academe and the legal profession were gathered to share their insights. 154 . The Special Study Group. Proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. proposing structural and administrative reforms. with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. The Supreme Court en banc referred. and the methodological reforms concerning the marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar examination. and Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections of essay questions to correct variations in the level of test standards COMMENTS 1. Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and improving the essay examination. dated 18 September 2000. containing its findings and recommendations.
which utilized cartoon pictures to ease language issues.000 court personnel. In partnership with the Philippine Judicial Academy. 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).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. Another workshop is being planned for members of the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters (CLEBM). The symposium included an overview of the Bangalore Principles and training on interactive methods of teaching judicial ethics. including all court staff in Metro Manila. are displayed in public areas of courthouses throughout the country. The posters. over 4. The annotated edition was launched in February 2007. 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. Supreme Court Employees Manual has also been completed Continuing training Continuing trainings on the Code of Ethics & the Code of Judicial Conduct 155 . lawyers. were trained on the new Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. 90 orientation seminars on the New Code of Judicial Conduct among justices and judges were conducted. 40 law professors and judges participated in a judicial ethics symposium in Manila. 2. annotation to the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary was developed published. the World Bank supported the Supreme Court in coming up with this manual explaining the code of ethics to members of the judiciary. As a follow-through activity to the trainings. INTEGRITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 1. These posters are expected to reinforce the code provisions to court personnel and inform the public about the new rules. From May 2004 to December 2005. In November 2004. Improvement of the Code of Ethics of the Judiciary Review and improvement of the Code of Ethics for Justices. judges. including legal experts and other stakeholders to discuss additional changes to the bar exam in 2007. posters with scenes depicting ethical situations covered by the code were developed. and court personnel Comprehensive Manual on the Code of Ethics To further address the issue of corruption within the judiciary.
and Case Delay: Problems and Solutions 3. Resource persons from other jurisdictions. The Role of Judges in the Reform Process. Some of the topics of the dialogues include: The Role of the Judiciary as the Third Branch of Government. 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 . Docket Management and Corporate Principles in Judicial Administration. The Role of Trial Court Judges in Pre-Trial and Courtroom Management.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. in-country dialogues among justices and judges. 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. usually a justice or judge and participation in the dialogues is exclusive to members of the Philippine Judiciary. This is meant to provide members of the judiciary with information and insight on the role and functions of judiciaries in democratic states.
Mobile Court functioned in Metro Manila for sometime.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. with the further acquisition of another vehicle being contemplated for deployment in Luzon. 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. Study Completed Study completed. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars. this aims to literally bring the courts to the people via an airconditioned bus. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). 2006). 2006). dispersed population and limited transport facilities. The project has been expanded through the acquisition of two additional vehicles for deployment in the Visayas and Mindanao. 6 157 . availability of adequate aid. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. on level of knowledge and understanding of the accused of the legal protections and status of his/her case. for the monitoring and evaluation of long-term improvement of access to justice in the country. Known as The Justice on Wheels Project. utilizing relevant indicators and milestones. The bus houses a small courtroom and offices of the first or second level court judge assigned via a rotation scheme. particularly between arrest and arraignment.IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT 1. 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. among others. the implementation of the project has resulted in the successful hearing of 754 cases and the release of 300 detainees in Metro Manila. It focused. and is staffed by court personnel and a mediator. As of August 2005. 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.
and analyze the results of the four FGDs conducted. Transforming the Philippine National Police to a More Capable. Reform recommendations for implementation Need for resources to implement the reforms Study Completed.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 Credible Police Force (Phase I) November 2003. as well as its performance in specific areas. programs. The strategy will include funding options. Effective. and overall capacities and performance. 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. concerns. as well as opportunities affecting the PNP. weaknesses. Tranforming the Philippine National Police to a More Capable. as well as strengths and opportunities of the Office. and new challenges. paint an accurate picture of the problems. 2) conduct institutional assessment of the PNP structure.January 2004 The project aimed to conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) to identify issues. Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy Capacity assessment and capacity development program for NPS and OMB Implemented short-term training modules NPS Capacity Building An assessment of the capacity of NPS prosecutors will be undertaken and will provide the basis for the development of a training strategy that will fill capacity gaps. challenges. weaknesses. programs. 3) formulate reform agenda for the PNP.June 2003 The project aimed to generate data on the state of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). and Credible Police Force (Phase II) June 2004. and 4) prepare a pilot project implementation plan Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice Through Reforms in the Department of Justice January 2003.December 2004 The project aimed to 1) consolidate. Completed Study Completed Study Completed.June 2003 The project aimed to undertake diagnostic studies. Need for resources to implement the reforms Diagnostics completed 158 . Effective. mandate. issues. area specific reviews and baseline data development that will enable a thorough assessment of the DOJ and its functions. review. functions. threats. Reform recommendations for implementation. constraints.
Among others. Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005. assessment. 7 159 . The Alternative Law Groups Inc.) In this regard. and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5. the ALGs published a book called “From the Grassroots: The Justice Reform Agenda of the Poor and the Marginalized. 2006). 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. raise the level of public awareness about the judiciary and its role in good governance. and formulate institutional mechanism for an effective judiciary-civil society/community collaboration in improving the administration of justice to the poor. initially collaborated on a project entitled Justice Link. the dialogue aimed to provide venues for the Supreme Court and members of grassroots organizations and communities to focus on the need for an independent. and its resource groups. 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. 2006). effective. and administration of justice as embodied in APJR. The dialogue between the Supreme Court and the basic sectors. The primary vehicle for this component is the Alternative Law Groups (ALGs.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.December 2005 Completed The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). 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. Programme for Rehabilitating Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) December 2004. and efficient judiciary. 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. building peace in Mindanao. the Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Bill has been signed into law. intended to tackle the following: access to justice by the poor and marginalized groups and communities.. and experiences of private legal practitioners belonging to the IBP and ALGs on judicial legal remedies available to the poor "Justice Link: Institutionalizing Citizen's Feedback Mechanism on the Judiciary". along with Supreme Court justices.” The ALGs also conducted a survey of various law school curriculum to explore the possibility of introducing human rights courses. Six priority bills have been pushed – one of which. and empower the poor and marginalized groups to make use of judicial and quasi-judicial services. Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars.
Apart from providing free legal representation. in 8 accordance with IEC Guidelines. and (4) legal reform. offices of the different pillars of justice and other public places nationwide.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. 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. including children. the executing agency for this project is the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Lanao del Norte. No. Access to Justice for the Poor Project Information. Copies of these materials will be distributed to courts. Capiz. At least 70% of the judges in the five selected provinces have already been trained. legal information desks will be established in cooperation with the Barangay Council and Barangay Captain in the project areas. (3) institutional development of law enforcement and the judiciary. and Communication It covers 36 first-level courts in the provinces of Oriental Mindoro. Training of Municipal Court Judges and court personnel on the Barangay Justice System is also being pursued under this component. 16-2007. 2007.682 inmates. Camarines Sur. 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. Initially. February 21. This project has four components. From 1999-July 2007. Communication (IEC) Guidelines for Municipal Court Information Officers. the EC will expand the information. the Supreme Court was supposed to be the implementing agency. OCA Circular No. Education.M. 2007. This was made possible through the sincere commitment of lawyers from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and human rights organizations. education. 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. which will ensure that the rights of the poor. Moreover. Education. have been released. It seeks to create an enabling and supportive environment through the judiciary and law enforcement institutions as well as an amended overall legal framework. but due to possible constitutional issues involving project provisions that vested the Supreme Court with administrative control or supervision over other government agencies. the Office of the Clerk of Court has 9 designated a total of 17 clerks of court as MCIOs. 160 . MCIOs will disseminate information to facilitate access to justice for the poor especially women and children. 05-2-01-SC. Recently. Medium Term Development Plan for the Criminal Justice System Ongoing with modifications 8 9 A. Capacity building will be pursued. As regards component 1. March 13. (2) community development and empowerment of women and children. namely: (1) institutionalization of the decentralized information function of the judiciary. especially that of women and children. Most recently. and Sultan Kudarat. Designating Clerks of Court of Concerned First Level Courts as Municipal Information Officer. are upheld. including training to enhance the sensitivity of law enforcers specifically on how they deal with the poor. 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. a total of 7.
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 aim of PERLAS is to educate and inform the general public. both elementary and high schools. on the judiciary and the rule of law through the use of teaching and learning materials appropriate to their learning competencies. which aims to enhance the public understanding of the fundamental principles that govern the operation of the judiciary. PERLAS is in supportof the Supreme Court’s Action Program for Judicial Reform which started in 2001. and Libertas. and Student Handbook for High School Students. 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. Final outputs included materials such as a “Glossary of Legal Terms for Journalists”. The following prototype exemplars (or lesson plans) and student handbooks were developed: Teaching Exemplars for Classroom Use for Elementary Students.” 161 . “Guidebook for Journalists Covering the Courts” and “Reader on Judiciary-Media Relations. and at the same time. specifically students from public schools. As such. broaden the community support base for the ongoing judicial reforms through the use of said educational materials. is a joint project of the Supreme Court’s Program Management Office (SC-PMO).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. PERLAS will enrich the existing curricula of the Department of Education for public schools. the Department of Education (DepEd). 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. Teaching Exemplars for Classroom Use for High School Students.
Mass-media judiciary manual .Communicatio n plan . “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.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.awards system on performance Public Awareness and Opinion .Study feedback mechanisms .Disclosure policy .Skills/seminars /cross visits .” Chamber to Chamber Dialogues In partnership with the Supreme Court. “Guidebook for Journalists Covering the Courts” and “Reader on Judiciary-Media Relations. The result of the 2-year dialogues was the improvement in the trust rating of the Supreme Court in the annual enterprise survey.Production of information materials in various formats .court identity manual .dialogues and orientation seminars .Survey of awareness and opinion . National Survey on the Users’ Experience and Perception of the Judiciary 162 .IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES APJR COMPONENT Others OUTPUTS Judicial Organization Culture . education.Court-wide public information. and communication system . Final outputs included materials such as a “Glossary of Legal Terms for Journalists”.
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. Development of Feedback Research Facility Development and Implementation of Internal and External Communication Strategy - 163 .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. 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. The Management Structure will provide the framework which will facilitate the translation of the strategy into action plans of justice institutions and stakeholder organizations. Collaboration with Civil Society Development of Feedback Research Facility Development and Implementation of Internal and External Communication Strategy 3. along with a full-time executive staff. multi-sectoral support groups and interagency bodies COMMENTS 2.
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. 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. 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. prosperous.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. DILG) Financing plan is agreed upon and faithfully implemented throughout the program implementation period Strong support. NEDA. RISKS AND MEASURES 165 . 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. DOF. and fair and timely resolution of disputes b) foster a culture of lawfulness.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). efficiency. based on independence. and democratic society 2 2. accountability. integrity. equal treatment for the protection of rights. effectiveness.
DESIGN SUMMARY TARGETS/INDICATORS Percent increase in clearance rates in the courts. Timeliness and public accessibility of publication of laws. LGU contributions to justice agencies accounted for. accountability. 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 . 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. regulations. integrity. NPS. incorporated in agencies’ books of accounts and financial reports Judiciary annually submitting to Congress a Judiciary Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing Percent improvement in public perception of the integrity of justice institutions and personnel Public perception survey Review of agency websites. PAO and OMB Percent increase in the number of court cases settled through mediation Percent Increase in conviction rate in criminal cases Percent reduction in jail congestion rate Judge: population ratio by region Police: population ratio by region MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA ASSUMPTIONS. and other legal information. court decisions.2 Adherence to high standards of independence. 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.
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. of decisions on appeal reversed by higher court due to deficiencies in the application of law or in decision-writing 2.4 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.3 Capable and motivated human resources throughout the justice system TARGETS/INDICATORS Vacancy rates by occupational group and organization. disaggregated by region.DESIGN SUMMARY 2. Percent of disciplinary cases due to incompetence and ignorance of duties Attrition rate in justice positions Percent of criminal cases dismissed due to poor case preparation Percent of criminal cases archived due to non apprehension of suspect Reduction in the average number of extensions granted by lower court judges MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA Review of Plantilla ASSUMPTIONS. judges and prosecutors Percent reduction in the no. Leadership effective in implementing actions needed. 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 reduction in jail congestion rate Direct observations Review of agency records and reports 167 . 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. professionalism and ethical conduct of policemen. 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. Sufficient resources are provide at the right time and level to implement access to justice reforms. RISKS AND MEASURES Improvement in resource support by DBM is needed and should be sustainable.
and PAO in place and operational System survey Perception survey System survey Implementation issuances and reports 168 .1 OUTPUTS (by outcome) Strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice Rules that reward timeliness. and diminish opportunities for delaying tactics. rigorously applied. documenting and publicizing results in order to sustain new expectations of timeliness in the administration of justice Implementation of existing decentralization plans in judiciary. NBI. BJMP. and outcomes of other forms of alternative dispute resolution Reinforcement through monitoring. NPS. 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 .DESIGN SUMMARY 3 3. PNP.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. protect officials who apply the rules. arbitral awards. of lawyers and court users satisfied with accessibility of court decisions Decentralized administrative and financial management structures. PNP. functions and operations in the Judiciary. to severely limit the use of interlocutory writs and appeals Improved procedures for prompt and inexpensive enforcement of judgments. 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.
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. NPS and PAO Reduction in number of personnel overstaying in jails No. efficient and dignified operations and services are met TARGETS/INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA ASSUMPTIONS. of prosecutor offices equipped to minimum facility standards No. of prosecutors using simplified system Percent increase in resources allocated to investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects of obtaining conviction % reduction in the median litigation time for small claims. PAO.DESIGN SUMMARY 3. equipment and supplies to assure minimum standards for secure. OMB performing case management with the aid of automated case management information systems No. efficiency and savings generated. reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons and meet immediate needs for improvement in facilities completed. of jails with operational prisoner information systems No. OMB. of local jails equipped to minimum jail facility standards Enabling law operational Duplication reduced. 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. RISKS AND MEASURES Justice agencies sharing information through NJIS System survey Implementation issuances and reports PNP. 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.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. NPS. with prosecutorial discretion to decline prosecution One-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs.1. 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. NPS. Judiciary. including commissions and task forces for coordination of law enforcement activities implemented Enacted laws Implementation reports Systems and operations survey 169 . of courts equipped to minimum court facility standards No. of police stations equipped to minimum facility standards No.
and other types of cases that cause inordinate caseloads operational 3. of statements of assets and income of public officials. and policemen System survey Key informant interviews Mini surveys 3. No. 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. integrity. 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. 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. legislative and judicial branches complete establish and operationalize policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment. 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.2 Each justice organization has in place a code of ethical conduct. and of clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints. disposition of complaints and actions taken. integrate the standards in the code into the organizations’ career development and other incentive structures and into an effective and efficient disciplinary system. and authorization and operation of simplified procedures for expedited handling of bounced checks and small claims. minor offenses that are essentially private disputes. together with adequate measures to assure employee training in the requirements of ethical conduct. and ensure that the public is effectively informed on the code’s ethical standards.2.DESIGN SUMMARY Legal structure for decriminalization of bouncing checks.1 Adherence to high standards of independence. of compliant justice agencies No.3 Operational policies and procedures issued and operational Percent increase in perception of justice sector employees of adherence of decisions to policies and procedures.2 3. Executive.2. System survey Key informant interviews Mini user survey 170 .2.
with respect for fiscal autonomy of judiciary. a mediumterm expenditure framework to assure continuity of resources. minimal dependence on and maximum transparency of fees and local government contributions.25 Policies to assure the maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system.DESIGN SUMMARY 3.24 Operational legislative and regulatory structure for justice system finance. NPS and PNP including accounting and financial reporting policies and processes No. 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. of justice agencies with clear and operational public disclosure policies and procedures.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. of LGUs adopting the objective LGU contribution schemes Medium-term expenditure framework in place in key justice institutions DBM recognizes and establishes annual budgets within the medium-term expenditure frameworks of justice institutions MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA Enabling law Memorandum of Agreements and implementing guidelines ASSUMPTIONS.3 3. budget reports Key informant interviews 3. 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. in force in all justice organization 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. 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 .3. RISKS AND MEASURES DILG reports System survey.
to foster professional administration while reducing the management burdens of judges b) police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests. and punish misconduct and neglect of duties 3. and complementary materials. public attorneys and policemen linked with pay operational Performance evaluation. evidence collection. 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 . interdisciplinary participation. including handbooks.3. emphasizing interactive methods. help employees adapt to change. increase productivity. NPS. Elements of the program include the following: a) court management. 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. courtroom skills.3 Justice organizations have in operation enhanced education and training program for their employees to improve skills. 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. OMB. PNP and other public sector justice agencies Program documentation Implementation issuances Accomplishment reports No. prosecutors. RISKS AND MEASURES Alternative career paths for judges. investigations.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. and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts c) development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation. relations with police.
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.
D.g. of cases requiring the services of a lawyer e.g.g. support) Expanding the definition of indigent clients Establishment of a system of accrediting paralegals Priority Urgent Indicators • Reduction of Cost of Litigation e. SERVICE Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem Reduce no. decriminalize minor offenses) Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms n/a n/a n/a • Insufficient no. Fees/TSN costs (who are pauper litigants?) n/a n/a n/a • Length of time in resolving cases Review of certain provisions of the Rules of Court that cause delay Fine the lawyers who misuse court procedures Revisit the rules on reparation taking into consideration the opportunity lost and income of those acquitted in criminal cases Revisit and update antiquated provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other penal laws (e. of lawyers in certain areas Supreme Court to require lawyers/law firms to render free legal services to the poor/indigent as a means of earning MCLE credits Community service (free legal service) as sanction for erring lawyers n/a n/a n/a 178 .g. correction of entries in the birth certificate (administrative proceedings) Establishment of small claims court (e.
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. paralegals and law students Establish separate youth homes for minors n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 179 .
g.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. 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 . decriminalize minor offenses) Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms n/a n/a n/a • Insufficient no.
I. Cebu EFFICIENCY Institutional Capacity Constraints Desired Results Priority Urgent Specific Actions Lack of sufficient funds to equip (communication facilities and office equipment) court staff to make them efficient Poor/inadequate court technologies and/or facilities Lack of computers for records management Lack service vehicles to serve summons and notices (especially criminal cases) Overcrowded prisons Leniency in the enforcement of provisions of the rules that can expedite the disposition of cases Poor knowledge on how to access Justice System Competence of judges are not considered in relation to an assignment Inadequate data management system (Database of cases) Procedures on designating Special Courts One data base (linked) for all pillars Case information management system installed in all pillars Need to Steam line of procedures Absence of system for procurement and maintenance of property and supplies “Discretion” in Court Room Management (too much) Congestion of cases in courts Time and motion study of cases from enforcement pillar to post disposition to determine realistic timeframe for case disposition Decentralized Procurement system Each court has at least 3 computers for Info.2 A. management system 181 .
NGOs/Pos Take active part in Disseminating basic legal information Law enacted authorizing Supreme Court to rationalize court assignments Expeditious resolution of admin cases against judges Priority Urgent Specific Actions Lack of courts compared to cases filed Perceived Corruption in Justice Sector Agencies Understaffing Work attitude of justice sector employees B. IBP.Institutional Capacity Constraints Poor knowledge on how to access Justice especially the poor Desired Results Academe. 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 .
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
law enforcers accountable to a number of bodies/agencies Insufficient no. of public lawyers. Appointment should be based on Merit.g. prosecutors. SC circular re filing fees Priority Urgent Indicators Insensitivity to the Disadvantaged (particularly Women.Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem DOJ to collect fees. investigation rooms for rape victims. Political INterventions in operations and choice in appointing heads of office B. Children. prosecutors. judges and personnel among the pillars of justice system Additional allowance/hazard pay for public lawyers. etc. prosecutors going to far flung areas Review of the appointment process of judges. 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. of public lawyers. Elderly and the Handicapped) Lack of Competence among the Members of the Lupon Training for Gender Sensitivity and Vulnerability Improvement of facilities e. 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. Law Student be encouraged to provide paralegal service 187 .
The Asia Foundation JOSE MIGUEL R. II. HOWARD B. AREZA Head Executive Assistant. Metropolitan Trial Court Judges Association of the Philippines MA. 6. National Economic Development Authority ATTY. 1. 12. College of Law. RUBY BITHAO-CAMARISTA Presiding Judge. 11. 3. CARDONA Executive Director. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council CLAIRE M. 188 . Court of Tax Appeals ATTY.1. Lyceum College ALICIA R. 10. CRUZ Economic Development Specialist 1. ACOSTA Presiding Justice. Office of the Solicitor General 9. Adhikain Para sa Karapatang Pambata ATTY. DELA ROSA Consultant. 4. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS MANILA ROMMEL ALIM ABITRIA Officer-in-charge. 2. ANNA LUZ B. BABY CATHERINE B. 13. BALA Undersecretary. 8. BARIN Chairperson. Gender Justice Network Inc. Department of Social Welfare & Development FE E.II. 14. VICTORIA V. National Judicial Institute (JURIS Project) MA. DAMCELLE TORRES-CORTES Program Officer. CLEMENTIR Director. Public Attorney’s Office PACIFICO AGABIN Dean. Humanitarian Legal Assistance Foundation ERNESTO D. 7. Securities and Exchange Commission SHERIELYN BONIFACIO Project Officer. 5. CRYSTAL Director.
22. RTC Manila President-Philippine Judges Association ROLANDO B. IBP-QC Chapter ATTY. 25. 17. DIOKNO Secretary General. Govida Studies Inc. 28. City Treasurer Office. 16. GUIDO. JR. Treasurer for Operations. 19. Quezon City Government ANTONIO EUGENIO JR. FALLER Senior State Solicitor and Chief of Staff. 23. 189 . ROWENA V. 18. Asia Cause Lawyers Network MIGUEL F. American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative 20. Free Legal Assistance Group ZENAIDA ELEPANO Court Administrator. Philippine Bar Association VICTORIA V. JR. JIMENO Past President. Office of the State Prosecutor Department of Justice RONALDO GUTIERREZ Executive Director. Consultant Attorney. MARIA SOCORRO I. GUANZON Member steering Committee. VIRGILIO DE LOS REYES President. Office of the Solicitor General JUN FERNANDEZ Director IV. LOANZON Vice-President. 26. 24. RENATO LOPEZ. 21. National Economic and Development Authority ATTY. 27. Supreme Court of the Philippines ATTY. Upholding Life and Nature (ULAN) ISMAEL J. Presiding Judge. Management Staff. VOLTAIRE ENRIQUEZ Asst.15. Parole & Probation Administration RITA LINDA V. HERRADURA Administrator. Assistant Chief State Prosecutor.
PAQUITO OCHOA. Rosario Setias-Reyes National Director. City Administrator. Management Services Office Department of Justice SENATOR FRANCIS PANGILINAN Chairperson. ALBERTO A. MINITA V. JR. Makati Business Club ATTY. REJANO Legal Officer III Bureau of Corrections Atty. LIM Executive Director. Supreme Court of the Philippines GERARDO C. ELPIDIO G. Newsbreak ATTY. NOGRALES Chairman. RUFO Senior Writer. 34. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice. YULORES. SORIANO III President IBP Quezon City 190 . 37.MACASPAC Chief Parole Officer. Quezon City Government MA. IBP-National Committee on Legal Aid ARIES C. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ATTY. 30 31. MIRANDA Assistant Solicitor General. GIRLIE F. MARLON MANUEL Lawyer. Office of the City Administrator. 32. Committee on Justice. ELIZABETH R NADROW Executive Vice-President Pederacion International De Abogadas (PIDA) Inc. 35. 38. 40. MONICA P. VALERA-QUISUMBING Chairperson Commission on Human Rights ATTY. Office of the Solicitor General ATTY. Senate of the Philippines DR.29. 39. 33. 36. Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal KARL B. ELMER M. HON. 42. PURIFICACION C. Board of Pardons and Parole ATTY. 41. PAGUNSAN Director III. 43.
Assistant Governor & General Counsel Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas CEBU JEANNE IVY ABRINA Commission on Human Rights Region VII Office NOEL R ADLAWAN President. THEODORE O.IBP-Cebu Chapter PELAGIO APOSTOL Head. City Government of Marikina ATTY. Office of the Ombudsman Region VII II. (PIANG) PDDG JESUS A. 50. THOMAS Chief Planning Officer Department of Justice CHRISTIAN B. 48. Quezon City MARIO E. JR. Vasquez.44. 1. ENRILE “BONG” L. Of Mayor Fernando). 51 52. Presiding Justice Court of Appeals Atty. 49. Diliman ATTY. IBP Cebu Chapter JOSELITO M. NANCY VILLANUEVA TEYLAN Acting City Atty. 53 54. 4. (Rep. VALENCIA City Legal Officer. VALDERRAMA President Philippine Institute of Arbitrators Inc. University of the Philippines. 3. 191 . Flag Metro Manila Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) MARITES VITUG Editor in Chief. IBP-Cebu Chapter. Jr. 45 46. TEODOROM Executive Director Arellano Law Foundation RYAN C. Newsbreak JUAN DE ZUNIGA JR. Member. 2. TE Director. VERSOZA The Deputy Chief PNP for Administration (IDCA) Philippine National Police Conrado M. 47. Office of 4the Legal Aid (UPOLA).2. ALO Director. Gregorio Tanaka Viterbo.
BRICCIO JOSEPH C.5. 7. Inc. 10. 13. PALS. Police Regional Office VII PNP ATTY. 9. MICHAEL DIGNOS Assistant City Attorney. 14. 19. Dept. BOHOLST President. 6. IBP-Cebu Chapter ATTY. L. IPONG-AVILA OIC. NEDA VII MS. Inc. Lapulapu City. 18. 11. Law of Cebu. Department of Justice JSUPT CESAR F. CALICANO M. Regional State Prosecutor.I. BARBARONA Executive Director. BALDERAS Assistant Regional Director. IBP GERALDONE FAITH ECONG Judge. SOCORRO BELARMINO Vice-President. Auditor. CARMELO DIOLA Dilaab Foundation. University Bohol College of Law LLENA G. ANNABELLE CENIZA-CHAVEZ Director IV. CARREON Assistant Regional Director. 8. Regional Trial Court. Lapu-lapu City Government FR. of Budget & Mgt. IBP. Environmental Legal Assistance Center (ELAC) ATTY. ENRIQUE Y. 17.M Dean-USP & Coll. GREGORIO AUSTRAL Dean. Region VII. Regional Legal Service. RAUL P. CEBU CITY EFREN C. 15 16. RO VII LUDIVICO VISTAL CUTARAN Chief. BJMP VII ATTY. DURANO. Cebu 192 . ARRIESCADO. Federacion Internacional De Abogadas Cebu Chapter ATTY. 12. DIOLASA Dilaab Foundation. LORETO M. JR.
University of Cebu MR. House of Representatives ATTY. 26. LIM Director. Inc. Division. 25. PAREDES Chairman. 29 30.M. DILAAB FOUNDATION INC. J. BJMP VII ELENA O.20. Eastern Samar State University HON. 28. 31. 32. 33. Securities and Exchange Commission SJ02 ARNEL A. ELIAS L. ATTY. 27. Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 22. JAYME JMP Regional Investigator / Bureau Prosecutor. PNP Regional Office VII TERESA FERNANDEZ Lihok Filipina Foundation. Salinbangon. 23. Department of the Interior & Local Government ATTY. DARYLL CHRISTIAN ESTRADA Program Steward. Congressman Benhur L. FREE LAVA 193 . ESPINOSA PRO. JOSEFINA I. 34. 24. ROLANDO M. OPINION Dean. JOSELYN OESGUERA Consultant. Mongcopa Regional Hearing Officer. Cebu City JINSP Jenesis U. Inc. College of Law. IBP-Cebu Chapter BALDOMERO C. BJMP VII ATTY. AUSTERE PANADERO Undersecretary. MARIA LUISA ONG Department of the Interior & Local Government ATTY. VICENTE R. ESTENZO Dean. LEIOLA Dilaab Foundation. 21. VICTORIA HERMOSISIMA Secretary Counsel. PSS ARTURO MENDEZ EVANGELISTA Chief Regional Investigation & Detective Mgt.
38. SANIEL Executive Director. GLORIA ZOSA SENO Resource Activities FRANCISCO A. Sandiganbayan JOAN DYMPHNA G. Department of Budget & Management HON. 40. ARTURO RADAHZA. 37. SUMAMPONG TIDS. Cebu NENGLEY TABUCANON VILLANUEVA Treasurer. Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu Chapter . Vice President for Visayas. Lapu-Lapu City Gov’t HON. 42. EDILBERTO SANDOVAL Presiding Justice. JR. SEVILLE. 36.35. EUGENE M. MARIO RELAMPAGOS Undersecretary. 194 . Mayor. . 39. Department of Trade & Industry. HON. Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines ATTY. Children Legal Bureau DR.41.