Technical Assistance Consultants' Reports

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 consultants 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 projects 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

III.

IV.

C. Lessons for the Philippines 1. Program Design 2. Governance of Program Implementation 3. Program Finance 4. Performance Monitoring V. A JUSTICE SECTOR STRATEGY FOR THE PHILIPPINES A. Goals and Objectives B. Priority Results 1. The Philippine justice system will have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice 2. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency 3. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system 4. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public C. Special Issues D. Management Structure for Implementation E. Benefits and Costs F. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Indicators G. Conclusions

82 82 82 83 83 87 88 90 91 92 94 95 95 96 98 100 101

FIGURES Figure I.1 Figure II.1 Figure II.2 Figure II.3 Figure V.1 TABLES Table I.1 Table II.1 Table II.2: Table II.3: Table II.4: Table II.5: Table II.6: Table II.7: Table II.8: Table II.9: Table II.10: Table II.11: Table II.12: Table II.13:

Comparative Rankings of Philippines and Five Other Asian Countries on Rule of Law, 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, 2007 National Appropriations for Key Justice Sector Agencies, 2007 Comparison of Budget Structures, Government and Justice System, 2007 Appropriations Annual Judiciary Budget as Percentage of the National Expenditure Program, 2000-2007 Distribution of Judiciary Budget by Expense Class, 2000-2007 Distribution of MOOE Authorized Appropriations for Lower Courts, 2007 Approved Court Personnel Positions, 2007 Vacancies in Judicial Positions as of 31 July 2007 Philippine Judicial Academy Courses and Participation, 2003-2005 Case Inflows by Type of Case, 2004-2006 Caseload, Disposition and Clearance Rates, All Courts, 2004-2006 Caseload, Disposition and Clearance Rates by Court, 2006 Archival Rates, 2006 Authorized Appropriations of Selected Quasi-Judicial Bodies, 2007

4 10 11 14 14 15 15 16 17 20 20 21 21 23
ii

Table II.14 Table II.15 Table II.16: Table II.17: Table II.18: Table II.19: Table II.20: Table II.21: Table II.22: Table II.23: Table II.24: ANNEXES

Caseload, Disposition and Clearance Rates, DARAB, 2000-2006 Caseload, Disposition and Clearance Rates, NLRC, 2000-2006 Statistical Summary of Court-Annexed Mediation, Jan 2002-Mar 2007 Disputes Settled in the Barangay Justice System, 1999-2005 Budgets of Selected National Law Enforcement Agencies, 2007 Distribution of Authorized Appropriations between Central Offices and Police Stations, Regional and Field Offices, PNP, 2007 NPS Appropriations, 2003-2007 Disposition Rates of Regional and Field Prosecutors of NPS, 2000-2005 Caseload and Dispositions, Office of Ombudsman, 2005 National Expenditure, Corrections System, 2006 Passage Rate for Bar Examination, 1999-2006

23 23 25 27 29 30 32 33 34 36 37

1. Terms of Reference 2. Biographic Summaries 3. Bibliography 4. Persons Interviewed 5. Accomplishments under the Action Program for Judicial Reform 6. Illustrative Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Long-Term Justice Sector Strategy 7. Summary Records and Participants from Consultations, December 2007

103 113 115 123 129 165 175

iii

ACRONYMS
ABA ADB ADR AIB ALG AM APJR ARMM BESF BIR BJMP BJS BOI BPP BPTTT BUCOR CA CAB CAM CAMIS CBAA CDDRP CFM CFMO CIDA CJ CLEBM CMIS CMO COA COMELEC CSC CSO CTA DAR DARAB DBM DILG DOF DOJ DSWD ECC ERC e-NGAS FGD GAA GJLOS American Bar Association Asian Development Bank Alternative Dispute Resolution Agricultural Inventions Board Alternative Law Groups Administrative Memorandum Action Program for Judicial Reform Autonomous Regions In Muslim Mindanao Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing Bureau of Internal Revenue Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Barangay Justice System Board of Investments Board of Pardons and Parole Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer Bureau of Corrections Court of Appeals Civil Aeronautics Board Court-Annexed Mediation Case Administration Management Information System Central Board of Assessment Appeals Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Project Caseflow Management Central Financial Management Office Canadian International Development Agency Chief Justice Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters Case Management Information System Court Management Office Commission on Audit Commission on Elections Civil Service Commission Civil Society Organization Court of Tax Appeals Department of Agrarian Reform Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Department of Budget and Management Department of the Interior and Local Government Department of Finance Department of Justice Department of Social Welfare and Development Employees Compensation Commission Energy Regulatory Commission Electronic National Government Accounting System Focus Group Discussion General Appropriations Act Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector Reform Program

iv

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 Peoples 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 Attorneys 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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The rule of law has featured prominently in the governance of the Republic of the Philippines throughout its modern history. The structure of legal and institutional safeguards for the security of person and property received thoughtful and extensive treatment in the present Constitution, adopted in 1987 following the February 1986 revolution that ended the prolonged authoritarian rule of Ferdinand Marcos. The Philippine justice system consists of a network of interlocking institutions. In addition to the Judiciary, with its broad constitutional mandate to render decisions, exercise judicial review, and prescribe binding rules, the network embraces an extensive and diverse array of organizational actors and activities. The Judiciary comprises a Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan (a special anticorruption court), all operating with multiple-judge structures, as well as lower courts. There are some 2,166 lower courts throughout the country, including 56 Sharia courts in the Autonomous Regions of Muslim Mindanao. The network also includes 24 quasi-judicial agencies, alternative dispute resolution systems administered by public and private organizations, and community and indigenous justice systems. The criminal justice system includes law enforcement, prosecution, public defense, corrections and rehabilitation agencies, collectively known as the systems other pillars. A number of nongovernmental organizations, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, universities, and justice-oriented civil society groups also play roles in the administration of justice. The courts are financed primarily from the governments budget. The Constitution provides that Congress cannot reduce the Judiciarys annual budget below the amount appropriated for the previous year. That prohibition is respected in practice. However, available resources are inadequate to meet the demands of the courts workload. More than 80% of the budget goes to salaries and allowances of court personnel, with 12.6% for maintenance and operating expenses and only about 2% for capital outlays. Also, 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 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. These supplemental resources, as presently administered, raise questions of transparency and uncertainty in the financing of basic judicial functions. There are more than 32,000 positions for judicial and non-adjudicative personnel in the Judiciary. Less than 2,300 are for justices and judges, resulting in a ratio of 14 staff per judge. 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. There are more than 450 vacancies in judicial positions, about 20% of the authorized total. Staff vacancies of about 3,500 represent more than 12% of the authorized workforce.

vii

Judges are appointed by the President on the basis of recommendations from a constitutional body, the Judicial and Bar Council. 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. The Philippine Judicial Academy provides judicial education and training. Through its 14 academic departments, each headed by a recognized expert, the Academy conducts a regular program of courses for aspirants to judicial appointment, judicial career enhancement, quasijudicial agency functions, court personnel skills, and a variety of specific themes. The Judiciary has modern codes of conduct for judges and court employees. Enforcement of these codes has been criticized as lacking in transparency and even handedness. The Supreme Court has broad constitutional authority to prescribe rules of procedure and rules of evidence. The Court adopted revised rules of civil procedure in 1997 and revised rules of criminal procedure in 2000. In both civil and criminal cases delays and continuances are common and trials are normally sporadic rather than continuous. More than 70% of the approximately 450,000 cases filed each year in the Philippine courts are criminal prosecutions. About 14% are ordinary civil disputes, and 15% are other kinds of cases. In recent years, the disposition of cases has exceeded inflows. However, backlogs remain high, with annual dispositions clearing only about 40% of total workload. Clearance rates in the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals are less than 30% of total caseload. The courts rely primarily on manual systems for caseflow management. Automated systems for the collection and reporting of statistics are being pilot tested. Traditionally centralized court management is to be replaced with a system of regional administrative offices operating under delegated authority from the Court Administrator. However, an initial pilot test of the new decentralized system has been deferred. Quasi-judicial agencies dispose of thousands of cases each year in a broad range of specialized fields. These agencies operate under common general rules of procedure, supplemented by published agency rules. They are held to a standard that their findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. Most quasi-judicial agencies are administratively attached to executive departments and their decisions are subject to review by the heads of those departments. Once final, decisions of most quasi-judicial agencies can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. Disposition and clearance rates in the principal quasi-judicial agencies are comparable to those in the courts. 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. There is a high rate of success in settling cases that go through the mediation process. However, while coverage is increasing, still only a small percentage of eligible cases are referred and mediated under this voluntary procedure. The Barangay Justice System (BJS) uses conciliation, mediation, and arbitration to resolve disputes between residents of the same municipal unit. Procedures are informal, under the direction of the elected Barangay Chairman. The parties may not be represented by lawyers. The number of cases handled each year under this system approaches the number of cases decided by the Philippine courts. The settlement rate is about 75%. Disputes eligible for consideration under BJS must use that system before

viii

being filed in a court. If the BJS does not resolve a dispute, a party may take it to the court that otherwise would have jurisdiction. Indigenous populations (exceeding 12 million people) may use their own commonly accepted justice systems and institutions, so long as they are compatible with national law and internationally recognized human rights. The operation of customary legal systems is facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. The Commission is authorized to hear appeals from decisions affecting indigenous populations. The low volume of appealed cases indicates that, by and large, satisfactory resolutions are being achieved through customary remedies. Mediation and arbitration are widely used by the public sector. The volume of commercial mediation and arbitration remains quite limited. However, a new alternative dispute resolution law enacted in 2004 promises to invigorate the use of these remedies. Implementing regulations have not yet been adopted to make the new legal regime operational. The principal law enforcement agency is the Philippine National Police (PNP), a force of some 125,000. In addition, the National Bureau of Investigation is the premier investigative body, with about 1,700 investigators and related staff. About 30 other national agencies exercise some law enforcement functions. The centrally managed PNP budget is devoted heavily to personnel costs (87%), with 11% for maintenance and operations and only 2% for capital outlays. The National Police Commission provides oversight for the PNP. However, the agency also needs to be responsive to local governments that have roles in police recruitment and discipline and provide supplemental resources. Also, the PNP is often called on to carry out functions for other law enforcement agencies that have less of a national presence, such as the Philippine Drug Enforcement Administration. Administratively, the PNP is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. Coordination with other law enforcement agencies is carried out through a National Law Enforcement Coordinating Council. Low compensation is an obstacle to attracting highly qualified police candidate. At senior levels, a mandatory retirement age of 56 results in rapid turnover and lack of continuity in leadership positions. An impressive innovation in law enforcement is the Anti-Money Laundering Council, created in 2001. The Council includes the Central Bank Governor (chair), the Commissioner of Insurance, and the Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It has proven effective in protecting against the use of the Philippines as a site for laundering the proceeds of unlawful activity. Prosecution is primarily the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service (NPS). The NPS, which is subject to the direction of the Secretary of Justice, is headed by a Chief State Prosecutor and has a total staff of some 4,000, about one-half of whom are prosecutors. The NPS budget is centrally managed, with 84% consumed by personal services and 12% used for maintenance and operating expenses, leaving only 4% for capital expenditures. As in the case of the courts and the police, local governments often augment national appropriations for prosecutors. New prosecutors are recruited largely from recent law school graduates. Salaries are low. There is no systematized training program. Workloads are heavy and disposition rates are low. A substantial part of the workload is created by the probable cause determinations and related investigations that precede the judicial phase of criminal prosecutions. The NPS lacks adequate
ix

management systems and information technology. The shortage of prosecutors, estimated to be at least 500, has been identified as one of the causes of delay in the criminal courts. 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. The Office of the Ombudsman has exclusive responsibility for prosecuting corruption cases against senior government officials in the Sandiganbayan. It shares with the NPS the function of prosecuting lower ranking officials and others charged with corruption in the regular courts. The Office also conducts administrative proceedings to resolve lesser corruption complaints. The Office of the Ombudsman has a small staff of about 1,100 and a high vacancy rate, which contribute to a low disposition rate for cases and a growing backlog. Public defense is the function of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO). This small office of 1,850 employees represents indigent defendants in criminal proceedings. Administratively, the PAO is within the Department of Justice, but it operates as an autonomous entity. Beyond its responsibilities in the criminal justice system, the PAO is the primary organization providing legal services to the poor. In 2006, the PAO provided assistance to some 4.6 million poor people. A number of public and private organizations and some individual attorneys also provide some legal assistance, including criminal defense, to indigents. Detention, corrections, and rehabilitation functions involve a number of agencies. The total annual budget for the entire corrections system is about PhP 4.6 billion. Arrested persons are most often confined initially in police detention facilities. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in the Department of the Interior and Local Government, with about 7,000 personnel, is responsible for about 1,100 district, city, and municipal jails. Some municipal jails remain under the control of the Philippine National Police. In addition, provincial governors appoint wardens to manage 79 provincial and 25 sub-provincial jails. More than 95% of the 62,000 detainees in BJMP jails have not yet been tried and sentenced. Pretrial detention can continue for years. The Department of Justice oversees the Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR), which operates seven national penitentiaries, a juvenile training center, and a drug treatment and rehabilitation center. An authorized force of 2,400 BUCOR employees manages a prison population of 25,000. The Parole and Probation Administration and the Board of Pardon and Parole, also in the Department of Justice, deal with transitions from prison to society. 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. A review commission recommended a consolidation of corrections functions in 1996, but no action has been taken on that recommendation. Other organizations involved in the administration of justice include the following: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) includes all 40,000 attorneys in the country. The IBP is the primary channel for the discipline of attorneys, plays an active role in legal education, and provides legal assistance to the poor. There are about 100 law schools, a number of which operate legal clinics through which fourth year law students provide supervised assistance to indigent clients. The Supreme Court exercises oversight of legal education through its control over admission to the practice of law. However, 1993 legislation to create a Legal Education Board to accredit

law schools has not been implemented. Most law schools are members of the voluntary Philippine Association of Law Schools. Several organizations are less directly involved in the operation of the justice system, but are important stakeholders in how well the system operates. These include organizations that do research, monitor the operation of the courts and government agencies, take public positions on justice policy issues, provide information to the public, and offer legal services to the poor. 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. While the ultimate objective is broad access and excellent service to the public, improved service depends upon increased efficiency, adherence to ethical values, and competent human resources. Thus, the four objectives combine to provide a framework of efficiency, values, competence and service for sector-wide reform. 1. Strong Institutional Capacity Systems, Procedures, Business Practices, and Facilities A threshold challenge is to build within justice organizations a strong capacity for strategic planning, management of finance, human resources and information, and a culture of managing for results. 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. A major challenge of capacity is overcoming the chronic delay and congestion throughout the justice system. Responding to this challenge requires changes in norms, incentives, practices, and expectations. Improvement of information and case management systems and more adequate facilities and equipment will be important tools for greater efficiency. Organizational challenges include duplication and lack of coherence in agency responsibilities and inadequate coordination between justice organizations. 2. High Standards of Independence, Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency A principal challenge to independence is the inadequate financing of the justice system. Issues include executive branch involvement in judicial budget management, excessive reliance on revenue from fees for basic needs, inadequate transparency in support from local governments, and generally inadequate budgets to permit needed investments in capacity development. Enhancing integrity in the justice system will require a review of existing ethical rules, their dissemination, training programs, public access to clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints, effective disciplinary systems, and public information about the outcomes of complaints of unethical conduct. Increased accountability of the justice system is a challenge shared by the justice agencies with civil society. The reform agenda needs to encourage public interest in the

xi

performance of the justice system and to encourage justice organizations to be responsive to that interest. 3. Capable and Motivated Human Resources Vacancies are a major problem. Low salaries and poor working conditions impede the ability of the public sector to attract the best candidates with high ethical standards. Issues include recruitment, training, institutional incentive systems, physical environment, and career development. 4. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public Challenges begin with the need to coordinate the fragmented efforts of many organizations that provide legal services to the poor. A related challenge is the need to improve popular awareness of the law, the justice system, and the availability of information about issues and channels for obtaining information and assistance. Building capacity at the community level will be important to legal empowerment. Expanded availability of appellate court opinions and increased availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms would also improve service to the public. 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, established the leadership of the Supreme Court, helped to restore the independence of the Judiciary, and initiated a continuing justice reform effort. 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. A third phase was introduced in November 1998 in Chief Justice Hilario Davides policy statement that became known as the Davide Watch. 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). The APJR established a coherent, multi-year plan, with priorities and cost estimates. Its governance system includes an executive committee with broad representation from the justice community, a program management office to facilitate implementation, and a system of coordination among justice organizations and communication with stakeholders. This structure has helped to stimulate reform initiatives in justice organizations outside the Judiciary. In addition to the APJR executive committee, the National Council on the Administration of Justice is focused on criminal justice coordination. These interagency, 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, make up that system. During the past six years a number of specific reforms and improvements to the administration of justice have been directly attributable to the APJR. In addition, a host of long-term projects and activities is underway. The APJR has been sustained by a series of opinion surveys and by support from the international community. On the whole, two decades of reform have restored a sound institutional framework for the administration of justice. Significant achievements include: o The creation and strengthening of courts and other justice organizations;
xii

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 systems 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.

xiii

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.

xiv

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

xv

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 Attorneys 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.

xvi

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 prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute, with a view to reallocating and concentrating prosecutorial resources on the investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects for obtaining conviction. The executive and legislative branches will rationalize the organization of law enforcement and corrections functions in order to reduce duplication, increase efficiency, achieve savings, and assure clear lines of authority and continuity of leadership. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches will decriminalize bouncing check cases and will authorize and put into operation simplified procedures, including mediation, for the expedited consideration of bouncing checks, minor offenses that are essentially private disputes, small claims, and other types of cases that impose inordinate workloads and contribute to delays and congestion. The justice organizations will complete one-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs, reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons, and meet immediate needs for improvements to facilities. 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; 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 A survey of facilities with a view to assuring that property, equipment, and supplies meet minimum standards for secure, efficient, and dignified operations and service to the public.

2. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency. This objective involves many different things: the adequacy of ethical systems, freedom from political interference, public access to information, and civil society monitoring of performance. The overarching issue of justice system financing, which affects all the objectives, is a matter of great concern here. 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, together with adequate measures to assure: o o that employees receive training in the requirements of ethical conduct, that the standards of the ethical code are integrated into the organizations career development and other incentive structures,

xvii

that the public is effectively informed of the codes ethical standards, of statements of assets and income of public officials, and of clear and convenient procedures for complaints of alleged violations, and that effective disciplinary systems are in place, alleged violations are being quickly investigated, and suitable penalties are being imposed where allegations are substantiated.

The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government will establish policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment, 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. Justice organizations that exercise functions requiring independence of judgment will enjoy legal autonomy consistent with the required independence for the performance of their functions. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government will adopt a new legislative and regulatory structure for financing the justice system. This structure will respect the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. It will assure the transparency of, and minimize dependence on, 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. It will require accountable and transparent financial management by all justice organizations. All justice organizations will have in force policies to assure maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system, including active dissemination of information and the facilitation of monitoring by civil society organizations. A policy of transparency should extend from the nomination of judges and other officials to the volume, speed and quality of services performed, to the discipline of justice system personnel. Civil society organizations, including the organized bar, will be systematically monitoring the operation of the justice system, including the nomination of candidates for appointment to judicial and other senior offices. The communications media will be keeping the public informed of the observations of such monitoring. Public perceptions of the justice organizations and their operations will be regularly surveyed and the survey results published. 3. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system. This objective involves issues of selection, training, compensation and benefits, career development, working conditions, and workforce allocation. The role of human resources is so important and so complex that it warrants being treated as an objective in its own right. In this regard, 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

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; Evaluation to measure the performance of personnel against established criteria of efficiency and adherence to standards of conduct; Career development to provide employees who demonstrate good performance and aptitude with opportunities for advancement to increased responsibilities and increased remuneration, including training to develop skills needed for performance at progressively higher levels; and Transparent incentives and disciplinary measures that reward good performance, help employees adapt to change, and punish misconduct and neglect of duties.

The justice organizations will have in operation enhanced education and training programs for their employees to improve skills, increase productivity, elevate professionalism, and encourage inter-institutional collaboration. Programs will emphasize interactive methods, interdisciplinary participation, and complementary materials such as handbooks that will be of continuing value in the performance of duties after training is completed. Elements of the program will include the following: o o Court management training to foster professional administration while reducing management burdens on judges; Police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests, investigations, evidence collection, and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts; Development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation, relations with police, courtroom skills, and case management; 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; Training for representatives of community justice centers in dispute resolution procedures, sources of legal assistance to the poor, and communicating with justice organizations; and For all, incorporation in education and training activities of components on development of leadership skills, commitment to public service, equal treatment of individuals, and sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity and gender.

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. 4. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. 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. It involves perceptions of how well the justice system protects the security of

xix

person and property through formal and informal procedures, in the courts and in alternative dispute resolution systems. It involves public awareness of rights and obligations under the law, how the justice system operates, the services it provides, and how to obtain those services. And, basic to a society committed to the rule of law, it involves services to the poor and disadvantaged to empower them to obtain equal treatment under the law. Priority results to be achieved by 2012 with respect to this objective include the following: There will be a sufficient number of judges, prosecutors and public attorneys assigned to meet the needs for their services at all lower court stations, with vacancy rates below 10%. 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. Mobile justice units will provide services to communities that lack the presence of courts and related facilities, including support for community justice centers. Court-annexed mediation units will be operational and available to serve the needs in all the lower court stations throughout the country. Community policing units will be in operation in cities and municipalities throughout the country. The Public Attorneys Office will be playing a central role in coordinating with other justice organizations and with community organizations and networks in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of legal assistance to the poor and disadvantaged. There will be 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, rights and obligations of citizens, and remedies and procedures available to enforce those rights and obligations under the law. This program will include measures to make available practical resource materials, coordinate the work of service providers, and collaborate with the organized bar, law schools, nongovernmental organizations, and community centers and networks to assure the sustainability of popular education and legal awareness efforts. The Supreme Court will arrange for the timely publication and dissemination of final decisions of all appellate courts so that the public will be informed of the quality and consistency of those decisions and so that the information and legal reasoning they reveal will be readily available to increase legal certainty and discourage frivolous appeals. The alternative dispute resolution regime authorized by legislation in 2004 will be in full force and generating increased use of alternative dispute resolution measures. The organization of work under the strategic plan will need to take into account interests of policy consistency, needs for autonomy and independent action by the numerous organizations within the justice sector, and the varying capacities and needs of these widely diverse organizations. The definition of the justice sector should be a pragmatic and flexible one, reflecting the scope of the issues to be addressed under the strategic plan. The specific

xx

organizations included in the operation of the strategic plan need to be identified at the outset, although the participating organizations could change from time to time. 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, in which organizations with major responsibilities for the administration of justice, oversight agencies, and major stakeholders are represented, could provide overall policy guidance for the development, implementation, and periodic review and update of the justice sector strategic plan. The Council would foster coherence and coordination among organizations in the justice sector, foster consensus on priorities for action and resource allocation, and oversee and support the development and implementation of action plans of organizations and working groups in the justice sector. The Council would review monitoring and evaluation arrangements and assure an ongoing public information program and dialogue with national stakeholders and international development partners. Its essential responsibility would be to sustain vigorous implementation of the strategic plan and broad and harmonized national and international support in order to achieve the goals and objectives of the reform program. Organizations represented in the Policy Leadership Council might include: o o o o o o o o o o o The Judiciary; 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 Council could meet several times a year at the level of the heads of organizations, with more frequent oversight and support provided through a Steering Group made up of officials of those organizations. The Council might choose to carry out some responsibilities through one or more Committees with limited membership from among the member organizations. 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. The Executive Staff would assist efforts to identify, carry out, and document priority actions and related matters of timing, financing, monitoring and evaluation. It would keep the Council and Steering Group informed of progress achieved and issues that arise in the implementation of the strategic plan.

xxi

The essence of a sector-wide strategic plan is its alignment of policies, strategies and actions with resources. 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, taking into account financing from national resources as well as from international development partners for the justice sector. A public investment program to finance the strategic plan would need to cover four categories of investment: Improvements in the resource base of justice organizations basic compensation, maintenance, facilities, and equipment; Systems infrastructure equipment, technology, installation and maintenance of modern administrative, financial, and case management systems; Human resources development strengthening the skills of personnel to make the most effective use of new technology, increase efficiency, manage change, and achieve results; and Program management the operation of the governance structure described above for implementing the strategy. Full implementation of the suggested priorities under the strategy should produce a dramatic improvement in the performance of the Philippine justice system by 2012, and a corresponding dramatic increase in public confidence in the system. 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. The principal source of financing will have to be the government budget, augmented by transparent local government contributions, fees for services, and assistance from international development partners. 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. 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. Over time, improved management should increase productivity and create savings. Fewer pending cases in the courts, fewer prisoners in protracted pretrial detention, consolidation of duplicative functions, automation of information systems, and rationalization of workforces should all reduce the costs and increase the efficiency of operating the justice system. Beyond the immediate benefits of reduced operating costs and improved service, 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, accelerated and broadly based economic and social development, and the security and well being of all who reside in, visit, and do business in the Philippines.

xxii

I.

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. 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. It also incorporates elements of precolonial customary law and the Shari a law of the countrys Muslim population. In the postindependence era these traditions have been enriched by national innovations as well as models from international practice in certain areas of jurisprudence.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.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, foster a culture of lawfulness, and assure the equal protection of rights and the fair and timely resolution of disputes. The Constitution established substantive rights as well as a framework of governance to protect those rights. The Constitution established separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, 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, but also the duty of the courts to review acts of government for possible grave abuses of discretion.3 The Congress, in defining the jurisdiction of the courts, 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.4 Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced below the level of the previous year.5 The Supreme Court has broad power to prescribe rules on the protection of constitutional rights, court procedures, admission to the practice of law, and legal assistance for the poor. The Court can also disapprove rules of procedure by special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.6 The Supreme Court appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary and exercises administrative supervision over the courts and their personnel, including the power to discipline judges and remove them for cause.7 Judicial appointments are made by the President on the basis of recommendations by a Judicial and Bar Council, chaired by the Chief Justice, with representation from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the bar, academia, and private sector.8 Justices and judges hold office in good behavior until age 70 and their salaries may not be decreased.9 Subject to case by case exception, after final pleadings have been filed, decisions must be reached within 24 months for the Supreme Court, 12 months for lower collegiate courts, and three months for other lower courts.10

The Constitutions provisions for the accountability of public officers and the protection of human rights include the creation of offices with broad mandates in these areas, including in particular the Ombudsman and the Commission on Human rights.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, integrity, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and transparency. However, the experience of the past 20 years has shown how difficult it is to achieve and sustain the Constitutions ideals. Throughout this period the justice system has been the subject of numerous studies and reform initiatives to improve the delivery of justice services. This continuing process has attained significant accomplishments. 12 Yet, the Philippine justice system still faces many fundamental challenges that have been impervious to the efforts of reformers. The most comprehensive of the various reforms has been the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), launched by the Supreme Court in 2001. While focused on the Judiciary, APJR recognized that progress in judicial reform required the involvement of other institutions, including prosecutors, public defenders, police, corrections agencies, the business community, the organized bar, universities, and civil society organizations. By encouraging broad participation, it stimulated additional reforms of those other justice sector institutions. All these efforts have benefited from extensive stakeholder consultations and analytical studies that have identified issues and suggested possible areas for corrective action.13 There has been a great deal of inter-institutional communication and coordination in these reform efforts, especially APJR. At the same time, they have tended to proceed in parallel. There has been no overall justice sector policy and no structure (other than normal budget procedures) for setting priorities, organizing work, allocating resources among various reform initiatives, and guiding and monitoring performance on a sector-wide basis. On the whole, 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, identify and analyze needs, and fashion appropriate responses. Important achievements include the adoption of ethical standards for judges, court personnel, attorneys, and police; new educational (including continuing education) programs for judges and lawyers; increased judicial salaries and better working conditions; improved administrative and financial management systems for the courts; and greater access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. On the other hand, responding to the challenge of implementing reforms that require fundamental change is a slow and arduous process. New and reformed organizations have not developed the capacity to implement all the demands imposed upon them by growing workloads and numerous reform initiatives, and they have not built strong internal incentive systems that would help employees adapt to change. There has not been a significant and sustained investment in strengthening their capacity 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 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. As a result, 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. The populations of already overcrowded jails 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 other, 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. All these deficiencies combine to constitute a negative influence on the quality of Philippine democratic, economic, and social development, including the ability of the Philippines to compete in the global economy. 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%.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 (0.25-0.46) of GDP growth annually, or an annual loss amounting to between P7 billion and P13 billion in 1999 alone.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, human rights, control of corruption, and economic competitiveness. Examples include reports by Freedom House, Transparency International, the World Bank and the World Economic Forum. 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, with the country report noting that the rule of law continues to be weak and that the judiciary, while generally independent, is hampered by corruption and inefficiency.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. The Philippines country report in its 2007 Global Corruption Report, which concentrates on judicial corruption, cites political interference, low budgets and salaries, dependence on donors for budgetary support, inconsistent application of procedural rules, lack of monitoring framework, and backlog and delays in resolving cases.17 The World Banks 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, noting that the time to enforce a contract is considerably longer than the average for the East Asia and Pacific region.18 The World Economic Forums Global Competitiveness Report ranked the Philippines at 61 of 80 countries examined in 2002, a slip from the previous year attributed in part to low scores on law and contracts. The Global Competitiveness Report ranking for the Philippines is 75 of 125 countries in 2006 and 71 of 131 in 2007.19 Additional indicators of comparative performance with regard to governance, the rule of law and business climate are contained in the Country Data Report for the Philippines, 1996-2006, in the World Bank report Governance Matters 2007, 20 the Economic Freedom of the World 2007 Annual Report published by the Fraser Institute, 21 the Heritage Foundations 2007 Index of Economic Freedom,22 and Confidence in Asian Judicial Systems, an August 2007 publication

of the Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd. 23 Perceived inadequacies in the administration of justice have also been the subject of individual negative comments from international observers.24 Table I.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.
Table I.1 COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FIVE OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES ON THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, 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, 18, 19, and 22. 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 Banks ranking of the same Asian countries with respect to the rule of law, which is a significant factor in all the reports that under underlie the rankings for the Philippines on the other indices cited above.
Figure I.1 COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FIVE OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES ON THE RULE OF LAW, 2006

The clear implication of these data is that significantly improved performance of the justice system could have important practical benefits for the Philippines. 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. Rather than a judicial reform program that involved other institutions, the objective would be a justice sector
4

program of direct relevance for all aspects of the administration of justice. In response to the Courts request, 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). In December 2006 the ADB awarded a contract to DPK Consulting, a San Francisco-based consulting firm that specializes in the rule of law, working with CPRM Consultants, Inc, a Manilabased consulting firm specializing in public governance. This contract included technical assistance (TA) in for a number of activities relating to the administration of justice. 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; Facilitation of agreement with the Government and other development partners of the reform agenda; Development of short- and long-term strategic funding initiatives and prioritized, costspecific investments; Determination of appropriate timing and sequencing of various actions and clarification of implementing arrangement; and Development of a performance monitoring system that includes benchmarks and indicators to track progress in implementation. The terms of reference for this activity are set out at Annex 1. The DPK/CPRM team for this activity, under the overall leadership of TA team leader Barry Walsh, included James Michel, Vicenta Alinsug, and Carolyn Mercado. Each of the team members brought a distinctive expertise to this task, each of which was complementary to the others. Biographical summaries of team members are set out at Annex 2. 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. Especially in the justice sector, where many organizations have responsibilities for policy and operations, it was seen as essential that a sector-wide approach be developed with broad dialogue, participation and transparency. Accordingly, 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, combined with contemporary efforts to engage justice sector operators, development partners, and other stakeholders. The team worked on an intermittent basis throughout 2007. It reviewed the current structure and operation of the Philippine justice system; it studied the extensive record of studies and reforms over the past 20 years to improve the systems ability to fulfill its role in the Philippine system of democratic governance and to serve the public interest; and it examined the experience of other countries that have instituted justice sector-wide programs. The principal sources for the research are identified in the bibliography at Annex 3. In addition, the team conducted interviews with a wide range of stakeholders and experts in the subject matter, as identified in the list of persons interviewed at Annex 4. As the work proceeded, the team shared ideas with a number of individuals in the justice sector in order to capture a large number of perspectives. On the basis of this research and consultation, the team developed draft recommendations and tested them in public consultation meetings with broad participation from government, the

Judiciary, other justice sector institutions, the private sector, and civil society, as well as international development partners. Summary records of the major public consultations conducted in Manila and Cebu in December 2007 are at Annex 7. This report synthesizes the findings of the teams extensive research. 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. The report combines with the local knowledge of those consulted the teams own familiarity with contemporary international best practice in the organization and management of sector-wide development programs, including with respect to governance structures, performance indicators, and systems of performance monitoring and evaluation. The team has benefited enormously from the information and insights that so many have shared with us. We have tried our best to synthesize, consolidate, 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, Senior Financial Sector Specialist of the Asian Development Bank, and to Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum, Director of the Supreme Court Program Management Office, for their patient and skillful guidance throughout this undertaking. The judgments in this report are entirely our own and we have sole responsibility for any errors of omission or commission herein.

Notes to Chapter I

See Pangalangan, Raul, Editor, The Philippine Judicial System, Institute of Developing Economies, Tokyo, March 2001, pages 1-5, for a brief outline of the history of the Philippine Judicial System, http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Als/pdf/05.pdf. Marcos, elected in 1965, 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, suppressing democratic institutions in the process. Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987, Article VIII, Section 1, www.gov.ph/aboutphil. Ibid, Section 2. Ibid, Section 3. Ibid, Section 5. Ibid, Sections 5, 6, 11. Ibid, Section 8. Ibid, Sections 10, 11. Ibid, Section 15(1). Constitution, note 2, supra, Articles III, XI and XIII. See Sison, Carmelo, and Myrna Feliciano, Philippine Judicial Reforms, 1987-2000, Supreme Court of the Philippines, July 2000, http://www.apjr-sc-phil.org/pub-reports. See also Chapter III and Annex 5 of this report. See the APJR website at http://www.apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph. Sherwood, Robert M., Judicial Performance: Its Economic Impact in Seven Countries, International Society for New Institutional Economics, 2004, http://www.kreative.net/ipbenefits/tucson/isnie2004/ISNIE2004.htm. Sereno, Maria Lourdes, Emmanuel de Dios, and Joseph J. Capuno, Justice and the Cost of Doing Business: The Philippines, University of the Philippines, 2001 (manuscript on file in CPRM). Freedom House, Freedom in the World, 2006 and 2007, www.freedomhouse.org. Freedom House groups countries into three broad categories in this annual survey of political rights and civil liberties: free, partly free, and not free. See also National Integrity Systems, Country Study Report: Philippines, 2006. All these reports of Transparency International are at www.transparency.org. www.doingbusiness.org. See the Makati Business Club commentary on the 2007 World Bank report, Burdensome Business, Improving the Investment Climate, MBC Research Report No. 89, May 2007, http://www.mbc.com.ph/economic_research/mbcrr/no89/default.htm.

3 4 5

7 8 9 10

11

12

13 14

15

16

17

18

19

See statement of Makati Business Club on the 2002 ranking, www.mbc.com.ph/economic_research/survey-gcr. For the 2006 and 2007 Global Competitiveness rankings, see Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, World Economic Forum, 2007, Table 4, Global Competitiveness Index rankings and 2006-2007 comparisons, http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2007/gcr2007_rankings.p df. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007. http://www.freetheworld.com/2007/EFW_Complete_Publication_2007.pdf. Kane, Timothy, Kim R. Holmes, and Mary Anastasia OGrady, 2007 Index of Economic Freedom: The Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity, Heritage Foundation, Washington, 2007. The analysis of the Philippines is at http://www.heritage.org/index/country.cfm?id=Philippines. Asian Intelligence: An Independent Fortnightly Report on Asian Business and Politics, No. 737, 29 August 2007. This report cites weak enforcement of existing laws and impunity of elites as factors that create a difference between theory and reality. 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, in Human Rights Report 2006: The State of Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations, The Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong, December 2006, http://material.ahrchk.net/hrreport/2006/AHRC2006HRReport.pdf. For example, in a statement made while visiting the Philippines in February 2007, the United Nations 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. http://www.inquirer.net/verbatim/philip-alston-statement02222007.pdf. See also the final report of the Special Rapporteur, Alston, Philip, Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, November 2007, http://www.extrajudicialexecutions.org/reports/A_HRC_8_Philippines_Advance_Edited.pdf.

20 21 22

23

24

II.

The Philippine Justice System

The essential functions of any justice system are the resolution of disputes, the protection of rights, and the enforcement of obligations. 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. In a free society, an effective network of such institutions provides an orderly framework conducive to liberty, security, and well being in which accepted rules are fairly and equally applied. If the Philippines is to adopt a justice sector strategy, its implementation will be a dynamic process in which decisions will be needed continually in the interests of policy coherence, management efficiency, and program results. 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. These judgments are ultimately pragmatic ones, reflecting the nature of the organization or activity and the traditions and practices of the society. 1 To be sure, the Philippine Judiciary, with its constitutional mandate to render decisions, exercise judicial review, and prescribe binding regulations and rules of evidence and procedure, plays a central role. However, the network that comprises the justice system necessarily embraces a far more extensive and diverse array of organizational actors and activities. Some activities are multi-sectoral and some organizations perform a range of functions, not all of which could reasonably be considered to be a part of the administration of justice. For example, the legislative branch of government is generally not considered a part of the justice system. But the enactment of legislation creating courts or prescribing the elements of a crime obviously involves the justice system in a very direct way. Likewise, 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. These administrative adjudications are usually regarded as a part of the justice system. The following description of the Philippine justice system examines the courts, quasi-judicial administrative bodies, alternative dispute resolution systems, the entities historically identified as being within the other pillars of criminal justice (prosecution, defense, law enforcement, corrections and rehabilitation), and other organizations with a primary focus on the administration of justice (the organized bar, justice-oriented civil society organizations, university law schools, and legal clinics). For each group of organizations, the description seeks to capture its role, structure, budget, human resources, procedures, workload, and performance. The description of the justice system is followed by a discussion of the challenges that the system faces. A. Description of the Justice System 1. Overview The Philippine Judiciary includes the Supreme Court, three collegiate (with multi-judge panels) higher courts, and some 2,166 lower courts located throughout the country. These include 56 Sharia circuit and district courts in the Autonomous Regions in Muslim Mindanao. In addition, 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, either by appeal or by petition alleging a grave abuse of discretion. 2 Alternative dispute resolution systems

include court-annexed mediation, mediation, conciliation, and arbitration by government agencies, and commercial mediation and arbitration centers. Community justice and indigenous justice systems are integrated into the formal system through the Barangay Justice System3 in each of the countrys approximately 42,000 barangays and through customary procedures, facilitated by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, to resolve disputes relating to ancestral lands, cultural integrity, and the economic life of some 12 million indigenous people and cultural minorities.4 The criminal justice system includes law enforcement, prosecution, public defense, corrections, and rehabilitation agencies, collectively known as the systems other pillars. 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. Prosecutions are the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service, augmented by the Office of the Ombudsman with respect to certain corruption cases. Public defense is primarily the job of the Public Attorneys Office. The corrections system includes both national and local institutions: the Parole and Probation Administration, Board of Pardons and Parole, and the Bureau of Corrections in the Department of Justice; the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology in the Department of the Interior and Local Government; provincial, city, district and municipal jails; and police detention cells. The Department of Social Welfare and Development, in partnership with law enforcement and corrections institutions, maintains ten centers for the rehabilitation of children and youth. The Public Attorneys Office is the primary institution for the provision of legal assistance for the poor. Many other government and private institutions also provide legal services to those in need. The courts provide lawyers to indigent litigants and exempt them from court fees and charges. Several quasi-judicial agencies provide free legal assistance to poor individuals involved in disputes before those agencies. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the University of the Philippines, several other Philippine law schools, and a number of non-governmental organizations also provide free legal services and are involved in legal education, citizen monitoring of judicial appointments, and other aspects of the administration of justice. Public sector justice institutions are financed primarily by the national government, although some of them derive supplemental resources from fees for services and contributions from local governments. The 2007 budget demonstrates that the justice system consumes about 4% of total national government expenditures. Of the aggregate total budget, more than 80% goes to salaries, 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.1).
Table II.1 NATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR KEY JUSTICE SECTOR AGENCIES, 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP)
PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAY Law Enforcement 37,389,473 4,868,058 858,541 43,116,072 Prosecution 2,349,789 284,899 99,952 2,734,640 Courts 7,454,418 1,366,927 534,426 9,355,771 Quasi-judicial Bodies 424,636 162,474 10,050 597,160 Corrections 2,466,267 2,091,650 90,022 4,647,939 Public Defense and Legal Aid 869,697 101,580 11,625 982,902 Other 52,832 79,985 75,000 207,817 Grand Total 51,007,112 8,955,573 1,679,616 61,642,301 % of total 82.75 14.53 2.72 100.00 Source: General Appropriations Act (GAA), 2007 Note: Entries include expenditures related to administration of justice that are identifiable in the GAA. FUNCTION

10

These allocations among personal services, 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.2).
Table II.2 COMPARISON OF 2007 BUDGET STRUCTURES, GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE SYSTEM (Amounts in Millions PhP)
EXPENSE CLASSS Personal Services MOOE Capital Outlay Net Lending Total Source: BESF, 2007 TOTAL GOVERNMENT 356,816.7 652,894.5 107,526.6 9,101.2 1,126,339.0 % OF TOTAL 31.7 57.9 9.5 0.9 100.0 JUSTICE SYSTEM 51,007.1 8,955.5 1,679.6 0 61,642.3 % OF TOTAL 82.8 14.5 2.7 0 100.0

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.5 The Judiciary operates within a constitutional structure of checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, as indicated in Figure II-1 below. 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. 6 Specific grants of jurisdiction to the various courts, consistent with the Constitution, are provided by law.
Figure II.1 SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES

EXECUTIVE
(President)
1. can override presidential veto 2. can impeach and remove the President 1. power of judicial review to rule on presidential actions

LEGISLATIVE
(Congress)
1. power to veto laws 2. party leader 1. appointment of justices and judges 2. power to pardon convicted individuals 3. power to grant amnesty

JUDICIAL
(Courts)

1. power of judicial review to rule on validity of laws

1. can create lower courts 2. can impeach and remove members of the Supreme Court 3. can prescribe statutory qualifications of lower court judges

Source: Program Management Office, Supreme Court of the Philippines

11

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.

12

In addition, five Sharia District Courts and 51 Sharia Circuit Courts deal with family, personal, and property relations among members of the Muslim population. Legislation providing for a Sharia Appellate Court9 has not been implemented. There is a high vacancy rate in the Sharia 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

SANDIGANBAYAN

SHARIA APPELLATE COURT

QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES
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

SHARIA DISTRICT COURT

FIRST LEVEL COURTS

Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC)

SHARIA 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 governments 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

13

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.

14

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) Sharia 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, Sharia) 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

15

regular members representing the organized bar, academia, and the private sector, as well as a retired Supreme Court Justice. The Clerk of the Supreme Court serves as the Commissions Secretary. The Council has prescribed procedures and criteria to guide the recruitment, evaluation and selection of judicial nominees.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 Courts 2004 decisions on decentralization of management in the Judiciary.16 Judges initially appointed to the lower courts can be promoted to fill vacancies in more senior judicial positions. Candidates from outside the Judiciary are normally recruited for the appellate courts. Career development for non-adjudicative personnel is not systematized and court employees are only rarely selected for judicial appointments. Vacancies in judicial positions have been a serious problem. Since December 2004, when the vacancy rate exceeded 30%, vacancies have steadily declined to about 20% in September 2007. However, the total number of judicial vacancies (460 of 2,271 positions) remains substantial and the shortage of judges is especially serious in the ranks of the lowest tier of courts (Table II.7). 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, 17 together with a recruiting effort by the Judicial and Bar Council. Vacancies occur often in localities where there are few candidates for judicial appointment. Under the Constitution, each judicial appointment must be made from a list of at least three nominees.18 Where there are fewer than three candidates the position remains vacant. Approximately 3,900 (12.2%) of non-judicial staff positions were vacant at the end of 2006. This high vacancy rate for staff is attributed primarily to the Supreme Courts adherence to the government policy of leaving non-critical positions vacant when possible in the interest of saving scarce public resources.
Table II.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 Sharia District Courts* Sharia Circuit Courts Total NUMBER OF POSITIONS 15 69 15 6 959 82 212 387 470 5 51 2,271 FILLED 15 65 15 6 807 66 179 329 297 0 32 2,004 VACANT 0 4 0 0 152 16 33 58 173 5 19 460 VACANCY RATE (%) 0.00 5.80 0.00 0.00 15.85 19.51 15.57 14.99 36.81 100.00 37.25 20.26

* Five Regional Trial Court judges currently serve simultaneously as Sharia District Court judges. Source: Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court; Judicial and Bar Council.

Justices and judges hold office during good behavior until age 70 or until incapacitated.19 While members of the Supreme Court can be removed only by impeachment, the Supreme Court has the authority to discipline judges of lower courts, including by removal from office.20 Judicial training is the responsibility of the Philippine Judicial Academy, established in 1996.21 The Academy is headed by a board of trustees chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme

16

Court. The Chancellor is a highly respected retired Supreme Court Justice. The Academy has 14 academic departments in various fields of legal scholarship, each headed by a recognized expert. It conducts a regular program of courses, including a pre-judicature program for aspirants to judicial appointment, judicial career enhancement programs, courses for quasijudicial agencies, and seminars for judges and other court personnel. It also has a rich content of courses on specific themes, has developed a number of electronic learning modules, and produces a number of educational publications.
Table II.8 PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COURSES AND PARTICIPATION, 2003- 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. Appellate Court b. Court-Annexed c. JURIS d. Cagayan de Oro City International Convention of AsiaPacific Judicial Education Forum Special Activities Professorial Competency Program for PHILJA Professors Discussion Session Computer Training for Bulacan Judges and Court Personnel Tele-Video Conference on Psychological Incapacity Seminars for Quasi-Judicial Bodies and Court Attorneys Source: Philippine Judicial Academy TOTAL NUMBERS OF TRAINING (DAYS / HOURS) 2003 2004 2005 41 / 328 20 / 160 43 / 344 33.5 / 268 21 / 168 4 / 32 4 / 32 3 / 24 3 / 24 16 / 128 6 / 48 32 / 256 8 / 64 4 / 32 8 / 64 0.5 / 4 0.4 / 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, 836 97 73 693 3, 751 233 146 66 38 2, 775 191 145 137 600 15 3, 093 2, 278 113 69

1, 804

In addition to Judicial Academy programs, the Supreme Court has distributed benchbooks and manuals to lower court judges and disseminates to judges updates of jurisprudence. Those judges with internet access can use the Supreme Courts on-line e-library; all judges receive periodic CDs with recent decisions and other materials. The Supreme Court adopted a new code of judicial conduct in 2004, based on the widely accepted international standards set out in the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, and, also in 2004, adopted a separate code of conduct for non-adjudicative personnel. 22 The Philippine Judicial Academy provides training on ethics. Rules governing grounds and procedures for administrative complaints against judges are set out in the Rules of Court (Rule 140). The judicial disciplinary system has been criticized, on the one hand, for failing to protect

17

judges from harassment by aggressive lawyers and litigants. On the other hand, it has been criticized for failing to deal firmly and transparently with serious misconduct in the Judiciary. In addition to imposing sanctions for misconduct, the Supreme Court uses positive incentives to improve performance, such as the judicial excellence awards. A number of lower court judges who have received these awards have been selected for promotion. d. Administration The Supreme Court has broad authority for the administration of the courts.23 The Chief Justice is the chief executive officer of the Philippine courts. He is assisted in the performance of his executive duties by a number of Supreme Court committees and by two principal officials, the Clerk of Court and the Court Administrator. The number and breadth of the Courts committees demonstrates the time and energy demanded of Justices for administrative responsibilities in addition to their judicial functions.24 The Clerk of Court provides adjudication support services, such as the maintenance of Court records, as well as internal managerial support for the Supreme Court, such as procurement, human resources management, and budget management services. The Court Administrator assists in the oversight and in the direct implementation of the administrative and financial operations of the lower courts. The Court Administrator oversees a centralized system of procurement, financial management, and human resources for more than 2,000 courts throughout the country and associated administrative offices. 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, in the framework of the Action Program for Judicial Reform, the Supreme Court approved a new system in which core administrative and financial management functions are to be performed by regional court administrative offices. The Court has selected Region 7, which has 146 lower courts, as the site for a pilot test of this new system. The test program was formally inaugurated in December 2007, but has yet to commence operation. 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. 25 Detailed planning and pilot projects toward this end are ongoing. However, progress has been slow in building the necessary implementation capacity. e. 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, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.26 Pursuant to that broad mandate, the Supreme Court approved revised rules of civil procedure in 1997 and revised rules of criminal procedure in 2000.27 The details of court procedure are beyond the scope of this report. However, some basic features of the rules are summarized here. Civil cases are initiated by the filing of a complaint with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction and payment of related fees. The court sheriff then serves on the defendant a summons with the complaint. The defendant is obliged to respond with an answer or motion to dismiss within a set period. Most civil cases are eligible for court-annexed mediation under an innovation of recent years, described below in section A.4.a of this chapter. If the case is not settled in mediation, it proceeds to a pre-trial stage in which the parties may engage in exchanges of

18

information and the court may receive evidence, consider motions for summary disposition, and preside over a pre-trial hearing. Upon the conclusion of these stages, the case proceeds to trial and decision. Normally, the trial is not completed on consecutive days, but involves the scheduling of several sessions to hear testimony and receive other evidence over a period of weeks or months. Postponements are common, contributing to congestion of court dockets and chronic delay in the resolution of civil cases. As provided in the Constitution, once all proceedings are completed the judge must render a decision within 90 days.28 Enforcement requires a writ of execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 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 purpose of the preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution; and to protect an accused person from open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial; and to protect the state from useless and expensive trials. 29 Prosecutors make probable cause determinations as a basis for deciding whether to file charges. In practice, this stage of the criminal procedure is believed to be a source of considerable delay. The administrative process followed is discussed below in the description of the prosecution function. Once probable cause is found to exist and charges are filed in the appropriate court, the judicial process in a criminal case begins with the arraignment and entry of a plea. If the accused pleads not guilty a pretrial phase is initiated. This may include settlement of civil liability, determinations of the admissibility of evidence, stipulations of fact, and schedule for the trial. The Rules of Court provide for the trial, once commenced, to continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated. However, numerous grounds for postponement and continuance exist. The Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. 493) prescribes time limits for pre-trial and trial phases of criminal proceedings that, in total, would require the lower courts to complete the process in less than 12 months. The 12-month period includes an allowance of 180 days for the trial alone. However, 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. Most criminal defendants are unable to post bail, and the vast majority of criminal cases that proceed to trial do not result in conviction. These factors give rise to concern that the criminal justice system includes prolonged detention of individuals who have not been convicted of an offense and probably will not be convicted. This concern is alleviated to some extent in the case of minor offenses by the existence of summary procedures, which are also available for civil cases with minimal amounts in controversy. 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. These brief descriptions of civil and criminal procedure can be found on the Supreme Court website.30 The Supreme Court also prescribes special rules for specific courts such as the Regional Trial Courts designated as family courts. 31 In addition, 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.32

19

f.

Workload and Performance

In recent years, cases have flowed into the Philippine courts at an annual rate of about 450,000. About 71% of cases filed are criminal, with about 14% civil and 15% a variety of other types (Table II.9).
Table II.9 CASE INFLOWS BY TYPE OF CASE, 2004-2006
TYPE OF CASE Criminal Cases Ordinary Civil Cases Other Cases TOTAL 2004 351,489 66,770 70,321 488,580 2005 336,900 62,978 49,855 479,733 2006 299,644 61,242 53,879 414,765 TOTAL 988,033 190,990 174,055 1,383,078 % DISTRIBUTION 71.44 13.81 14.75 100

Source: CAMIS, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court of the Philippines

The timely disposition of cases has been a major challenge for the courts. Until recently, total caseloads were increasing each year as the volume of cases entering the system was higher than the volume of cases leaving the system. That is, the disposition rate was negative. More recently, caseloads have slightly declined because inflows have diminished and the courts are disposing of more cases than are being filed each year. However, the total number of cases disposed of has been declining despite the increase in the number of available judges as vacancies have been filled. The improved disposition rate has not resulted in significant improvement in the clearance rate, the volume of cases disposed of as a percentage of total caseload, and the low clearance rate means that backlogs remain high (Table II.10).
Table II.10 CASELOAD, DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES, ALL COURTS, 2004-2006
PENDING TOTAL INFLOW ON 1 JAN CASELOAD 2004 751,579 478,019 1,229,598 2005 738,325 449,733 1,188,058 2006 709,495 414,765 1,124,260 Source: Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court Note: Excludes Supreme Court YEAR OUTFLOW 491,273 478,563 445,483 PENDING ON 31 DEC 738,325 709,495 678,777 DISPOSITION RATE (%) 102.77 106.41 107.41 CLEARANCE RATE (%) 39.95 40.28 39.62

Too many cases remain undecided for too long. As of 2003, criminal and civil cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court remained in the court system for an average of five years before decision. The Court of Appeals required an average of 2.6 years to decide cases. Cases filed in the Sandiganbayan required on average a remarkable 6.6 years for decision. 33 Knowledgeable observers attribute these delays to a combination of factors, including excessive judicial tolerance for delaying tactics, time consuming procedures, inadequate information management systems, shortages of judicial and non-adjudicative personnel (including prosecutors and public defenders), 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. Time limits prescribed in the Philippine Constitution and in legislation have encouraged the timely movement of cases through the courts.34 Nevertheless, the delays persist. The largest segment of the backlog in the first instance courts is made up of criminal prosecutions for bounced checks, which are handled under essentially the same procedures as more complex criminal cases.35 These cases are the result of 1979 legislation which made a

20

person criminally responsible for debts owing as a consequence of a check that is not paid upon presentation to the bank. This change in the law, intended to assure more effective enforcement of debts, has had a number of unintended negative results by shifting to the state a larger part of the cost of collecting private debts. As the use of checks declines, the impact of this criminal process falls increasingly upon the poor. There is considerable variation in the rate of case disposition and case clearance among the different courts. 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.11).
Table II.11 CASELOAD, DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES BY COURT, 2006
COURT LEVEL PENDING 31/12/05 6,191 22,521 2,085 860 CASE INFLOWS 4,773 11,984 424 292 TOTAL CASELOAD 10,964 34,505 2,509 1,152 CASE OUTFLOWS 4,550 14,347 517 327 187,545 242,226 34 487 450,033 PENDING 31/12/06 6,414 20,158 1,992 825 349,382 306,600 29 308 685,191 DISPOSITION RATE (%) 95.33 119.72 121.93 111.99 96.05 117.46 75.55 89.35 107.27. CLEARANCE RATE (%) 41.50 41.58 20.60 28.39 34.96 44.14 53.96 61.26 39.64

Supreme Court Court of Appeals Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals Regional Trial 341,153 195,257 536,410 Courts First Level Courts 342,608 206,218 548,826 Sharia District 18 45 63 Courts Sharia Circuit 250 545 795 Courts Total/Average 715686 419,538 1,135,224 Source: Office of the Court Administrator, 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 is the disposition of about one-third of the criminal cases filed. This large percentage is explained in part by the inclusion of cases in which the defendant was never apprehended. Another reason is the statistical practice of counting multiple charges against a single defendant as multiple cases, thus tending to inflate the number of cases recorded.
Table II.12 ARCHIVAL RATES, 2006
TOTAL TOTAL ARCHIVAL DISPOSED ARCHIVED RATE (%) Criminal 321,760 114,212 35.50 Ordinary Civil 64,445 4,534 7.04 Other cases 42,861 1,836 4.28 TOTAL/AVERAGE 429,066 120,582 28.10 Source: CAMIS, Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court (Excludes Court of Appeals and Supreme Court) CASE TYPE

Courts rely primarily on manual systems for caseflow management. All courts submit monthly paper reports to the Office of the Court Administrator, where they are integrated into a computer-assisted database. This system can generate a range of statistical reports. 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. Additional pilots are planned for the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Tax Appeals. Also, a number of judges in lower courts have developed stand-alone case information systems as management tools for their own courts. As in the case of administrative and financial management, the transition from manual to automated statistical reporting and from stand-alone to networked systems for case management remains a challenge.

21

3. Quasi-Judicial Agencies a. 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. These include three independent constitutional commissions, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.36 Final decisions of the quasi-judicial agencies are rendered primarily by collective bodies such as commissions, boards or councils. However, most of the quasi-judicial agencies are under the administrative supervision of the President, and are attached to executive departments for policy coordination. For an agency so established, its otherwise final decisions may be reviewed by the head of the department in which the agency is located.37 There are also independent agencies with quasi-judicial powers, such as the constitutionally based Office of the Ombudsman and the statutory National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Once final, decisions of most quasi-judicial agencies can be appealed only to the Court of Appeals. As exceptions, decisions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Administrative Code of 1987 prescribes general rules of procedure for the performance of quasi-judicial functions.38 These include standards for notice and hearing, rules of evidence, powers of subpoena, protection of rights to due process of law, internal appeals within the agency, finality of administrative decisions, and judicial review. As authorized by the Administrative Code, most agencies prescribe supplemental rules to govern their own proceedings. Agency rules must be published, filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center, and maintained in an agency register that is open to public inspection. The courts are obliged to take judicial notice of agency rules that comply with these requirements.39 Quasi-judicial agencies are held to a standard that their findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. They are obliged to allow the parties to present evidence, to reach their decisions on the basis of the evidence presented, and to identify in their decisions the reasons for their conclusions.40 The courts generally treat the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies with respect, accepting their findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence, unless otherwise required by law. Appeals from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies do not appear to be a major part of the caseload of the Court of Appeals. b. Budgets and Human Resources The budgets of the principal quasi-judicial agencies are not substantial, 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. Consistent with the pattern elsewhere in the justice sector, personal services consume the greatest part of the budget in most cases, with very small amounts dedicated to capital investment (Table II.13). The staffs of the quasi-judicial agencies are likewise quite modest. The two most prolific agencies, for example, are the National Labor Relations Commission and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. The former has 15 commissioners and 105 arbitrators deployed in its regional branches. The latter has only 178 authorized positions, many of which are vacant. (Reportedly, there is high turnover by adjudicators, who often leave to seek better paying positions as prosecutors or judges.)

22

Table II.13 AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS OF SELECTED QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES, 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP)
PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAYS -National Conciliation and Mediation Board 52,850 44,551 4,650 102,051 - National Labor Relations Commission 269,085 95,374 5,400 369,859 - Philippine Overseas Welfare Administration 16,798 10,794 0 27,592 - Energy Regulatory Commission 8,990 1,074 0 10,064 - Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board 10,509 3,195 0 13,704 - Civil Service Commission 12,378 518 0 12,896 - Commission on Elections 22,763 1,691 24,454 - Department of Agrarian Reform 14,075 543 0 14,618 TOTAL 407,448 157,740 10,050 575,238 Source: GAA 2007 (includes appropriations for quasi-judicial functions that are identifiable in the GAA) AGENCY

c. Workloads and Performance With their small budgets and workforces the quasi-judicial agencies dispose of a substantial volume of disputes. The disposition and clearance rates of the two most prolific agencies approximate the productivity of the courts. Specifically, 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.14).
Table II.14 CASELOAD, DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, 2000-2006
YEAR PENDING BEGINNING YEAR 13,869 15,533 17,826 18,366 18,352 17,865 16,415 CASE INFLOW 22,998 20,505 16,459 14.016 17,277 13,270 15,388 TOTAL CASELOAD 36,867 36,038 34,285 32,382 35,629 31,135 31,803 CASE OUTFLOW 21,334 18,212 15,919 14,030 17,764 14,720 16,474 PENDING YEAR END 15,533 17,826 18,366 18,352 17,865 16,415 15,329 DISPOSITION RATE (in %) 92.76 88.82 96.72 100.10 102.82 110.93 107.06 99.89 CLEARANCE RATE (in %) 57.87 50.54 46.43 43.33 49.86 47.28 51.80 49.59

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 AVERAGE Source: DARAB Secretariat

During the same period, the National Labor Relations Commission maintained an average disposition rate of almost 87% and an average clearance rate of 27% (Table II.15).
Table II.15 CASELOAD, DISPOSITION AND CLEARANCE RATES NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 2000-2006
YEAR PENDING BEGINNING YEAR 19,306 20,707 22,348 24,077 26,834 28,185 28,995 CASE INFLOW TOTAL CASELOAD CASE OUTFLOW PENDING YEAR END DISPOSITION RATE (in %) CLEARANCE RATE (in %) 31.73 27.50 27.62 24.25 25.79 23.76 26.37 26.72

2000 11,023 30,329 9,622 20,707 87.29 2001 10,113 30,820 8,474 22,348 83.79 2002 10,919 33,267 9,190 24,077 84.16 2003 11,347 35,424 8,590 26,834 75.70 2004 11,146 37,980 9,795 28,185 87.88 2005 9,847 38,032 9,037 28,995 91.77 2006 11,046 40,041 10,558 28,483 95.58 AVERAGE 86.60 Source: Accomplishment Report, 2006, National Labor Relations Commission (includes decisions and orders of the NLRC and all Regional Adjudication Boards

23

4. 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. The Civil Code has long recognized compromise and arbitration as modes of settling disputes. 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.41 The Supreme Court has encouraged alternative dispute resolution as the wave of the future.42 The Executive Branch has long encouraged government agencies to seek to resolve disputes without resort to litigation. 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 2006.43 a. Court-Annexed Mediation In 2001, the Supreme Court established a system of court-annexed mediation.44 The Supreme Court designated its training arm, the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), to manage courtannexed mediation and established the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) within PHILJA to give operational effect to the mediation system. Members of PHILJAs Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee45 provide general management for the PMC. These members, all experts in the field of alternative dispute resolution, are assisted by PHILJA staff members who coordinate with personnel of the PMC units in overseeing mediation operations. The PMC is responsible for setting up mediation centers in courthouses and other convenient locations throughout the country. Currently there are units in all of the countrys judicial regions, serving a total of 731 courts. 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, collecting statistics, and monitoring schedules of mediators. The Supreme Court is developing an administrative order that will outline the structure of the PMC, including its powers, functions, and staffing requirements In 2004, the Supreme Court amended the Rules of Court to authorize the collection of mediation fees from litigants.46 The collected amount forms part of a special Mediation Fund intended to ensure the financial sustainability of court-annexed mediation services. PHILJA uses the Mediation Fund for setting up and operating PMC units; training, seminars, workshops and internships for mediators; payment of fees of mediators and PMC personnel; and advocacy and promotion of mediation and other modes of alternative dispute resolution.47 The Mediation Fund has so far supported the establishment of an additional 20 PMC units. Most civil cases are subject to the court-annexed mediation procedure.48 With the creation of more PMC units providing mediation services, 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.49. 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.16). On the other hand, some judges have been reluctant to refer cases to mediation and some litigants have declined to participate in this voluntary system, thereby diminishing the potential benefits of the mediation procedure. While coverage is expanding, the number of cases referred to mediation by judges is still only a small percentage of the cases that are eligible. And of the cases that were referred to mediation, less than half actually went through the entire mediation process.

24

The 2005/6 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary conducted by the Social Weather Stations50 found that among judges with PMC units in their areas, two out of three were satisfied with courtannexed mediation and the performance of accredited mediators. Significantly, the study revealed that satisfaction was greater among judges with heavier caseloads.
Table II.16 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION, 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 60,992 4,708 4,665 2,085 795 1,960 366 4,946 3,252 592 275 84,636 MEDIATED 29,269 2,245 2,480 940 480 1,235 203 3,206 2,197 178 113 42,546 SETTLED 21,322 1,630 1,480 649 339 657 139 1,828 1,411 117 106 29,678 NOT SETTLED 7,947 615 1,000 291 141 578 64 1,378 786 61 7 12,868

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, the Supreme Court authorized51 and the Philippine Mediation Center launched in August 2005 a program of mediation in the Court of Appeals. Preliminary indications are that few litigants in the Court of Appeals are making use of this procedure. b. Barangay Justice System There is a time honored tradition of amicably settling disputes among family and barangay members at the local level. This tradition received formal recognition in 1978 when Presidential Decree No. 1508 established the Barangay Justice System (BJS). This community justice system was substantially revised by a chapter of the Local Government Code in 1991 known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. 52 It now governs the establishment, administration and operation of dispute resolution in each of some 42,000 barangays throughout the country. The BJS uses conciliation, mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes between residents of the same municipal unit. Certain kinds of cases, however, are specifically exempted from BJS. These include: cases brought by or against the government or an instrumentality thereof and or public officers or employees; offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5,000; disputes involving real property located in different cities unless both parties agree to BJS jurisdiction cases involving the Agrarian Reform Law

25

cases involving labor disputes; and actions to annul judgment on a compromise. In each barangay, the operation of the BJS is headed by the Barangay Chairman, an elected official. He is assisted by a Lupon,53 10-20 persons of known integrity and impartiality that he selects from the community after consultation with the populace. If the Barangay Chairman is unable to resolve a case filed under the BJS through mediation or arbitration, he refers the matter to a Pangkat,54 a three-person conciliation commission selected by the disputants or, if they do not agree, selected by lot from Lupon members. The composition of the Lupon changes every three years with the election of the Barangay Chairman. Thus, the BJS is inextricably woven within the political dynamics in the barangay. The BJS prohibits the participation of lawyers to assist or represent disputants. Minors or incompetents may be assisted or represented by their next of kin who are not lawyers. Legal advice may be provided by the provincial legal officer or prosecutor or municipal legal officer. 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. The implementing rules provide that unless repudiated in court within ten days, 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.55 However, some problems remain in assuring that the courts are able to determine whether or not cases presented to them have, in fact, been previously submitted to the BJS and, if so, whether a settlement was reached. 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, as it may be otherwise applicable in a given case. The Department of Justice issues rules and regulations defining operating policies and processes to guide the BJS. However, local governments are under the administrative supervision of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. The latter Department provides training for BJS operators and receives reports from the barangays on their caseloads. The BJS enjoys broad acceptance because the parties tend to know and respect the Barangay Captain and the persons constituting the Lupon, who live in the same barangay. Also, the process is informal and convenient. A complainant can just drop by the house of the Barangay Captain to submit a complaint. 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. In this informal and consensual system, which operates without cost to the parties, the Barangay Captain is capable of taking on various roles such as a fact-finder, facilitator, mediator, negotiator, broker, and even guidance counselor to the disputants thus facilitating dispute settlement. On the other hand, 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. Based on the records of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the BJS settled more than 4 million cases from 1980 to 2005, an average of about 150,000 cases per year. In recent years the number has grown to about double that historical average (Table II.17). The percentage of mediated cases that were settled has remained consistently high.56 These figures

26

show that the Barangay Justice System has been a significant institution for the resolution of disputes and the timely administration of justice.
Table 11.17 DISPUTES SETTLED IN THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM, 1999-2005
NUMBER OF MEDIATED CASES YEAR CRIMINAL CIVIL OTHERS TOTAL MEDIATED CASES 418, 117 342, 368 394, 657 292, 069 345, 280 353, 121 319, 071 CASES SETTLED 309, 407 259, 029 302, 342 227, 156 285, 856 305, 575 273, 772 SETTLEMENT RATE (%) 74.00 75.66 76.60 77.77 82.78 86.53 85.80

2005 2004 124, 874 132, 547 84, 947 2003 179, 781 154, 605 60, 271 2002 137, 148 114, 855 40, 066 2001 158, 521 129, 847 56, 912 2000 159, 768 135, 905 57, 448 1999 143, 775 124, 298 50, 998 Source: National Statistical Coordination Board, http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/statdev/2006/ruleoflaw/Chapter_Rule_of_Law.asp.

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. 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, but who are in need of justice services. Thus, while the BJS surely disposes of some cases that otherwise would add to workload of the courts, 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. The large number of cases settled through the BJS speaks for itself. c. Indigenous Justice Systems Customary law and justice systems are recognized under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). 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. Indigenous peoples have maintained their parallel justice systems through modern history. 58 The IPRA expressly recognizes that ICCs/IPs have the right to use their own commonly accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building processes, and other customary laws and practices within their communities. 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. The law provides that if a dispute involves ICCs/IPs, customary laws and practices shall be used to resolve the dispute. 59 If parties belong to the same ethno-linguistic group, the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the groups settlement procedure. But if the parties come from different ethno-linguistic groups, the dispute shall be settled in accordance with established procedures governing intertribal disputes; if none exist, the parties may agree on the applicable procedures. On a formal level, IPRA created the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), which was vested with adjudicatory powers. 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, selfgovernance and empowerment, social justice and human rights and cultural integrity. 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, enforcement, and interpretation of the IPRA. NCIP hearing officers can consider these issues only after remedies under customary laws have been

27

exhausted, as certified by the Council of Elders or other leaders. The decision of a hearing officer is subject to review, at the request of a party, by the NCIP en banc. An NCIP final decision, like the decisions of other quasi-judicial agencies, may be appealed to the Court of Appeals. The NCIP has an annual budget of about PhP 460 million and a total staff of 1,500 employees located at its national office in Metro Manila and at 12 regional offices, 46 provincial offices and 108 community centers nationwide. 60 The volume of cases pending in the administrative adjudication process of the Commission is quite small, only a few hundred at the regional level and less than 100 at headquarters. 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. d. Mediation and Arbitration Mediation and arbitration are well established procedures in the public sector. In the mid-1990s, the Department of Agrarian Reform launched the use of mediation in the settlement of agrarian disputes. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources soon followed, joining in a collaborative effort with a private NGO to mediate environmental and natural resources conflicts. 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. 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. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the National Labor Relations Commission have the greatest volume of mediation and arbitration among the quasi-judicial agencies.62 The Departments Adjudication Board received 15,389 requests and disposed of 16,474 in 2006. The Commissions Conciliation and Mediation Center received 6,006 requests and disposed of 5,610 in 2006. The legal basis for private mediation and arbitration is presently in transition. Arbitration is addressed in the 1949 Civil Code, 63 the 1953 Arbitration Act, 64 and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.65 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. 66 This new legislation establishes a comprehensive approach to alternative dispute resolution, including mediation, conciliation, and domestic and international arbitration. Among other things, it adopts the modern UNCITRAL model law for international commercial arbitration, authorizes the establishment of an office in the Department of Justice to assure appropriate standards in the conduct of alternative dispute resolution, and provides clear rules for judicial review. This legislative framework expressly excludes court-annexed mediation and the operation of the Barangay Justice system, discussed above. The statute called for a committee, chaired by the Secretary of Justice, to prescribe rules and regulations for the implementation of this legislation. According to the statute, these rules and regulations were to be submitted to a joint oversight committee of Congress for approval before the law could be implemented. Implementing rules have been drafted. However, the Congressional approval process has not been completed. Pending the entry into force of the 2004 legislation, which provides a modern framework for mediation and arbitration, the older laws continue to apply. 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. In particular, it will be important that the Rules of

28

Court reflect the provisions of the 2004 Act with respect to judicial review of arbitral awards and other resolutions of alternative dispute resolution proceedings. In the meantime, the volume of commercial mediation and arbitration is quite limited. The principal forum is the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, established in 1996 by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Over the decade of its existence it has entertained 33 cases, 14 of which have been settled or decided. Arbitration of construction disputes is conducted under separate legislation 67 by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. From 1989 until 2004 the Commission received 426 cases, resolving 286 of them. Since 2003, when it received 38 cases, the number of cases received has declined to 37 in 2004, 35 in 2005, and 32 in 2006. There is also a commercial on-line dispute resolution service designed for disputes involving small money claims.68 5. Other Pillars of the Criminal Justice System a. Law Enforcement The principal law enforcement agency is the Philippines National Police (PNP), established to fulfill the constitutional mandate for a police force that is national in scope, civilian in character, and administered by a national commission.69 The Philippine National Police has more than 125,000 positions, about 120,000 of which are for uniformed personnel. The other major law enforcement agency is the National Bureau of Investigation. The National Bureau of Investigation has 1,730 positions, primarily for plain-clothes investigators. In addition, more than 30 national agencies and local government units throughout the country perform some law enforcement functions, including several agencies with officers who have power to make arrests, conduct seizures and carry out criminal investigations.70 The possible consolidation of some police organizations has been suggested as a way to increase efficiency and reduce administrative costs. As in other organizations in the justice sector, the overwhelming share of the budget allocated to law enforcement goes to salaries, leaving only limited amounts for maintenance and other operating expenses, and almost nothing for capital investment (Table II.18). The police also receive some resources from local governments.
Table II.18 BUDGETS OF SELECTED NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, 2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP)
PERSONAL CAPITAL MOOE TOTAL SERVICES OUTLAY - Philippine National Police 34,914,538 3,927,501 770,357 39,612,396 - Bureau of Customs 246,465 9,128 0 255,593 - National Bureau of Investigation 400,017 273,005 35,000 708,022 - Dept of Transportation & Communications 64,946 67,809 0 132,755 - Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency 428,146 166,753 39,684 634,583 TOTAL 36,054,132 4,444,196 845,041 41,343,369 Distribution in percent 87.21 11.25 2.04 100.0 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, provincial, municipal, and district offices and police stations. More than 95% of appropriations are centrally managed, including salaries for police in the field. Less than one-fourth of amounts supporting police operations in the field (investigation, intelligence and police relations) are allocated to the field offices. (Table II.19). As in the case of the courts, highly centralized administration is a source of inefficiency. The PNP

29

Integrated Transformation Program addresses this issue through a plan for gradually shifting resource management from national headquarters to the field.
Table II.19 DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN CENTRAL OFFICES AND POLICE STATIONS, REGIONAL AND FIELD OFFICES, PNP, 2007
FUNCTION/ PROGRAM 1. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2. SUPPORT TO OPERATION - Materiel Development - Health Services - Logistical Services Sub-total 3. OPERATIONS - Operations Services - Intelligence Services - Police Relations Services - Investigation Services Sub total GRAND TOTAL Source: GAA, 2007 CENTRAL OFFICES AMOUNT 1,205,185.0 11,075.0 73,285.0 821,219.0 905,579.0 35,129,255.0 327,922.0 130,011.0 153,459.0 35,740,647.0 37,851,411.0 % 90.2 100.0 61.8 45.1 46.4 99.2 76.1 82.7 73.4 98.7 95.8 POLICE STATIONS, FIELD/REGIONAL OFFICES AMOUNT % 131,240.0 9.8 0.0 45,271.0 1,002,013.0 1,047,284.0 285,101.0 103,204.0 27,229.0 55,627.0 471,161.0 1,649,685.0 0.0 38.2 54.9 53.6 0.8 23.9 17.3 26.6 1.3 4.2 TOTAL AMOUNT 1,336,425.0 11,075.0 118,556.0 1,823,232.0 1,952,863.0 35,414,356.0 431,126.0 157,240.0 209,086.0 36,211,808.0 39,501,096.0 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

The national commission to which the PNP reports in accordance with the Constitution is the National Police Commission. 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. The Commission advises the President and the Secretary and monitors performance of the PNP with respect to the entire range of police operations. It also serves as a forum for appeals from disciplinary actions. Administratively, the PNP is within the Department of the Interior and Local Government and, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of that department. In addition to the Commission and the Secretary, the PNP needs to be responsive to local governments, which operate local peace and order councils that address issues such as local police staffing. The PNP is often called on to carry out functions for other law enforcement agencies, such as the Philippine Drug Enforcement Administration, that have more limited presence in the national territory. The Supreme Court has confirmed that, technically, there is no doubt about the direct authority of the National Police Commission over the PNP.72 Also, coordination with other law enforcement agencies is carried out through a National Law Enforcement Coordinating Council. Nevertheless, the risk of confusion of roles among the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the National Police Commission, local government authorities, and other law enforcement agencies is a factor bearing on the efficiency and effectiveness of the PNP. Candidates enter the PNP on the recommendation of local authorities. They advance by promotion from within, based on length of service, completion of training, examination, and a clean record with regard to complaints. Mandatory retirement is at age 56, a limitation that results in rapid turnover and lack of continuity in leadership positions. While police salaries have increased in recent years, to an entry level equivalent to that for elementary school teachers, low compensation remains an obstacle to attracting highly qualified candidates. Recent surveys showed that more than half of police officers live in informal housing or as squatters.73

30

The PNP has a Code of Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards, which provides guidance on individual behavior, organizational effectiveness, and respect for human rights and democratic principles. Additional guidance is contained in a Police Operations Manual. Citizen complaints of police misconduct may be filed with any local Peoples Law Enforcement Board. 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. Public consultations on this report revealed concerns about the multiplicity of channels for brining complaints about police conduct, with resulting citizen uncertainty about how to proceed and police insecurity about vulnerability to criticism. Public opinion polls reveal widespread doubts abut the commitment of the police to combat corruption.74 Education and training are provided by the Philippine Public Safety College, which serves a number of organizations and offers bachelor and master-level degrees, and by the Directorate for Human Resources and Doctrinal Development within the PNP. A National Police Academy provides basic training for all new entrants, who enter the ranks as police cadets. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) operates within the Department of Justice. It maintains 15 regional and 21 district offices. Candidates must be college graduates and senior officers must be members of the bar. The NBI Academy provides an intensive 16-week training program for candidates. NBI agents are generally respected as skilled investigators who can manage major cases and complex issues such as fraud, computer crimes, organized crime, and international offenses. In addition to its investigatory responsibilities, the NBI maintains an extensive criminal records database and performs the function of providing clearances for individuals such as those seeking employment abroad. Created in 1936 and modeled after the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States, NBI has been seen by some to be in need of modernization. Legislation to reorganize and modernize the agency was introduced in the Senate in June 2007.75 The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was created in 2002 under the Office of the President in order to focus on drug-related crimes.76 The Philippine National Police, the National Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies also are involved in combating these offenses, often in collaboration with or in support of the PDEA. The PDEA relies upon contracted agents and also relies on the PNP for some services, such as arrests, seizures, and crime scene investigations. An impressive innovation in law enforcement is the Anti-Money Laundering Council, created in 2001 as a financial intelligence unit.77 The Council protects against the use of the Philippines as a site for laundering the proceeds of unlawful activity. 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. Its secretariat consists of a compliance and investigation staff, a legal evaluation staff, an information management and analysis staff, and an administrative and financial services division. The Commission monitors banking, insurance, and other financial transactions. As appropriate, it applies for judicial orders to freeze assets, refers cases of possible criminal acts for prosecution, and develops educational programs. This unique entity works closely with other Philippine agencies, the private sector, and the international community. It has had a number of successes in its brief period of existence. Its credibility has been demonstrated by the removal of the Philippines from the Financial Action Task Force list of non-cooperating countries and territories.

31

b. Prosecution and Public Defense i. Prosecution

The investigation of crimes and the prosecution of alleged offenders are primarily the responsibility of the National Prosecution Service (NPS). The prosecution of certain corruption cases, however, is managed by a separate Office of the Ombudsman, an office provided for in the Constitution for that purpose.78 That office is described separately below. The NPS, as an integral part of the Department of Justice, is subject to the direction of the Secretary of that Department and has no autonomous power of decision. It is headed by a Chief State Prosecutor who is appointed by the President.79 Its authorized workforce of more than 4,000 positions is divided almost equally between prosecutors and support personnel. The authorized total number of prosecutors is les than the number of lower courts. However, the reality is that prosecutors are even scarcer because more than 500 prosecutor positions are vacant, with most of the vacancies in the field offices. The Governments Medium-Term Development Plan observes that many prosecutors are still leaving to become private practitioners or judges and more than 500 prosecutors are needed to expedite the resolution of cases.80 Legislation enacted in 2004 to authorize special allowances for prosecutors from fees collected by the NPS has been insufficient to reduce the high level of vacancies and additional measures have been introduced to increase the compensation and retirement benefits of prosecutors in order to help overcome this problem.81 The NPS budget (PhP 1.572 billion in 2007) comprises 77% of the total Department of Justice budget. Budgeting is centralized within the Department. Neither the NPS headquarters nor the regional offices have financial management capacities or responsibilities. Consistent with the pattern throughout the justice sector, almost all the budget is consumed by personal services. About 12% is available for maintenance and other operating expenses, with only 4% for capital outlays. 82 As in the case of the courts and the police, local governments augment national government appropriations for prosecutors. These contributions may be in cash or in kind, vary in amount from place to place, 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.
Table II.20 NPS APPROPRIATIONS, 2003-2007 (Amounts in Thousands PhP)
EXPENSE CLASSIFICATION 2003/2004 BUDGET REENACTED (RA 9206) 962,305.0 40,461.0 2005/2006 BUDGET REENACTED (RA 9336) 1,076,753.0 40,461.0 2007 (RA 9401)* 1,163,670.0 41,757.0 4,604.0 1,210,031.0 and state counsels under

Personal Service Maintenance and Operating Capital Outlay 0 0 Total 1,002,766.0 1,117,214.0 *excludes PnP 121.5 million lump sum appropriated for special allowances for prosecutors RA 9279)

New prosecutors are recruited largely from recent law school graduates. The entry-level monthly salary is PhP 23,422. There is no systemized training program and new prosecutors learn on the job. There is an ongoing effort to update obsolete manuals for prosecutors. A training site has been made available to the NPS, but remains a vacant building without the staff, program, furniture or equipment necessary to make it a usable training facility.

32

Workloads are heavy and disposition rates are low (Table 11.21). At the end of 2005, NPS had a pending volume of 338,605 cases an average of 164 per prosecutor under investigation or being prosecuted in the courts. Of course, in urban areas actual caseloads are much higher. A conviction rate of less than 20% and an archived case rate of more than 30% suggest a serious problem of effectiveness.
Table II.21 DISPOSITION RATES OF REGIONAL AND FIELD PROSECUTORS OF NPS, 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 91.29 91.16 85.76 86.29 86.17 76.47 81.81 73.22 74.86 91.19 96.54 66.28 27.64 25.88 17.39 15.26 12.98 26.89

A substantial part of the workload is created by the probable cause determinations and related investigations that precede the judicial phase of criminal prosecutions. The NPS is obliged by the Rules of Criminal Procedure to conduct preliminary investigations of complaints.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, accused parties may present evidence, and initial decisions may be subjected to several levels of review, up to and including to the Secretary of Justice. If probable cause is found to exist, the case is filed in court, even though prospects for conviction may be low. 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. Pilot programs in several cities to dispose of such cases through mediation between the accused and the injured party have shown encouraging results. Of 2,749 cases referred to mediation, 1,601 were successfully resolved. If these successful pilot efforts could be institutionalized and scaled up to the national level there would be obvious benefits for all concerned. In particular, victims would receive expedited recourse and accused offenders would have an alternative to imprisonment. At the same time overworked prosecutors, public defenders, and judges would be able to concentrate on more serious crimes. The NPS only recently established a strategic planning office. The organization lacks management systems and information technology to maintain communication with its field offices, monitor performance, and manage caseflow. A case management system is in development. A code of ethics is nearing completion. The Office of the Ombudsman, through its Office of the Special Prosecutor, has exclusive responsibility for prosecuting corruption cases in the Sandiganbayan, that is, those cases brought against senior public officials. The Office of Ombudsman shares with the NPS the function of prosecuting lower ranking officials before the regular courts. The Office also handles administrative complaints against public officials. It has introduced administrative procedures for resolving those cases. The authorized workforce of the Office of Ombudsman is 1,141 positions, of which 274 were vacant at the end of 2006. The Office obtained approval in 2006 to employ an additional 40 prosecutors and 200 investigators. However, it requested an even larger number to keep up

33

with the workload. The combination of vacancies and a low personnel ceiling have contributed to a low disposition rate and growing backlog (Table II.22). It is noteworthy that less than 6% of the cases disposed of in 2005 resulted in the imposition of a penalty.
Table II.22 CASELOAD AND DISPOSITIONS, OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN, 2005
PARTICULARS WORKLOAD - Beginning year pending - Cases received during year - Cases reopened Total Workload DISPOSITION - Prosecuted - Penalty Imposed - Dismissed/Exonerated - Closed/Terminated Total Disposition Year End Pending Disposition Rate Source: OMB Annual Report, 2005 # OF CASES 8,576 536 9,747 18,859 % OF TOTAL 45.47 2.85 51.68 100.1

1,145 454 5,275 853 7,727 11,132

14.82 5.87 68.27 11.04 100.00 40.97

ii. Public Defense The Constitution guarantees to every person under investigation for the commission of an offense the right to competent and independent counsel. This includes the right of a person who cannot afford counsel to be provided with one.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.85 Accordingly, the State has a duty not only to prosecute alleged offenders, but also to defend indigent persons who are accused of committing crimes. In practice, indigent defendants make up the majority of those who are subjected to the criminal justice system. The Public Attorneys 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. The PAO is administratively a part of the Department of Justice. However, it requires a degree of autonomy, 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. That autonomy was granted in legislation enacted in 2007 specifying that the PAO shall be an independent and autonomous office, but attached to the Department of Justicefor purposes of policy and program coordination.86 The Chief Public Attorney is required to have the same qualifications as the Chief State Prosecutor and can be dismissed only for cause. 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.87 At present, the PAO has an authorized staff of 1,850, including about 70 vacant positions. Slightly more than half the staff is made up of attorneys. However, the authorizing legislation provides for increased compensation for PAO attorneys and contemplates an increase in staffing so that there can be a PAO attorney for every court.

34

Beyond its responsibilities within the criminal justice system, the PAO has the largest role among all the many public and private organizations that provide legal services to the poor. In 2006, PAO provided assistance to some 4.6 million poor clients in a range of criminal, civil and administrative cases.88 The PAO represents a large majority of indigent defendants in criminal cases. If a PAO attorney is not available to represent an indigent defendant the trial court may appoint an individual counsel de oficio under Rule 138 of the Rules of the Court. These appointed attorneys do not necessarily have special expertise or experience in the field of criminal justice. In addition, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, law school legal clinics, and nongovernmental organizations provide legal defense for indigent persons accused in criminal cases as well as other kinds of legal assistance to the poor. The broad question of legal services for the poor, an essential element of access to justice, is discussed below in the section of this chapter on challenges to the justice system. c. Detention, Corrections and Rehabilitation The criminal justice system includes the common practices of incarceration of individuals charged with serious offenses, imprisonment of those convicted, and programs for the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into society. Arrested persons are most often confined initially in police detention facilities maintained by various law enforcement agencies. This initial confinement is subject to specific time limits in the law, requiring that police detention not exceed a period of 12 to 36 hours, depending on the gravity of the offense.89 However, in practice, 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, city, municipal or provincial jail. 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 1,100 district, city, and municipal jails. 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. BJMPs 2007 authorized staffing pattern consists of almost 7,000 positions, more than 98% of which are for uniformed personnel, a prisoner/guard ratio of nine prisoners to one guard. The legislation creating the BJMP contemplated the buildup of capacities for humane treatment and rehabilitation of detainees.90 Prior to the Bureaus creation in 1991, the management of these facilities was under the jurisdiction of the Philippine National Police (PNP). However, stagnant budgets and a growing jail population have impeded the transfer of functions to BJMP. Therefore, about 750 municipal jails remain under PNP control. The Local Government Code also authorizes provincial governments to operate jails for detainees awaiting trial and serving sentences of three years or less. 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. The number of detainees in BJMP-managed jails has increased considerably in recent years. From about 35,000 in 2000, the number of detainees grew to exceed 62,000 in 2006. About 10% are women and 2% are minors. It is striking that more than 95% of the jail population has not been sentenced. That is, less than 5% of detainees are serving sentences following conviction in court. It is worth noting that there is no time limit on the length of time a detainee awaiting trial may be kept in jail. A 2003 survey found that more than 15% of individuals

35

incarcerated in provincial jails waited more than five years for the final hearing in their court cases.91 The Bureau of Corrections, an integral part of the Department of Justice, operates seven national penitentiaries for the incarceration of prisoners serving sentences of more than three years. The Bureau also operates a juvenile training center, completed in 2003, and a drug treatment and rehabilitation center created in 2002. As in the case of jails, the population of facilities operated by the Bureau of Corrections is growing. The capacity of the nations prisons is 19,600, but occupancy exceeds 25,000. The Bureau has about 2,400 authorized positions, of which 60% are in custodial roles, a prisoner/guard ratio of 3.64 prisoners to one guard. Thus, detention and correction facilities suffer from extreme congestion. In general, they lack adequate sanitation and health care. Their capacity to foster the rehabilitation of prisoners or to protect their human rights while incarcerated is limited. 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. Transition from jail or prison to society is the task of the Parole and Probation Administration and the Board of Pardon and Parole, both executive agencies under the direction of the Department of Justice. The Board acts on proposals for the release of a prisoner and determines suitability of the individual for reintegration into society. The Board also makes recommendations to the President for the exercise of executive clemency. Once the Board approves probation or parole, the Administration supervises the release of the individual with a view to promoting rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.92
Table II.23 NATIONAL EXPENDITURE, CORRECTIONS SYSTEM, 2006 (Amounts in Thousands PhP)
AGENCY PERSONAL SERVICES 1,806,878 350,186 10,996 298,207 MOOE 2006 APPROPRIATIONS CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,407,737 57,400 640,116 13,850 653 0 43,114 13,772 2,091,620 85,022 TOTAL 3,272,015 1,004,152 11,649 355,123 4,642,939

BJMP BUCOR Pardon and Parole Parole and Probation Administration TOTAL 2,466,267.0 Source: General Appropriations Act, 2007

In addition, the Bureau of Child and Youth Welfare in the Department of Social Welfare and Development operates ten regional rehabilitation centers for youthful offenders. Under Supreme Court rules on juveniles in conflict with the law, adopted in February 2002, and the subsequently enacted Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,93 children can be diverted from detention facilities into non-custodial conditions. A youthful offender may undertake restorative measures such as restitution, community service, counseling, or training in lieu of entering the normal criminal justice process. Diversion programs are supervised by local social welfare development officers. These diversion programs grew out of concerns about the incarceration of an estimated 4,000 children in the Philippines.94 In 1996, a review committee chaired by the Department of Justice, with representation from other concerned agencies and civil society, recommended legislation to integrate jail and prison administration and consolidate the functions of the Bureau of Corrections and the Bureau of Jail

36

Management and Penology into a new Bureau of Correctional Services in the Department of Justice. However, Congress has not acted on this recommendation.95
Figure II.3 AGENCY JURISDICTION FOR CONFINEMENT AND CORRECTION OF OFFENDERS
AGENCY Bureau of Corrections, DOJ FACILITY National penitentiaries, prisons or penal farms District Jails City Jails Municipal Jails Philippine National Police, 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, who: are undergoing trial or awaiting judgment/ sentencing of courts; or are serving sentence of 3 years or less

Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, DILG

6. Other Organizations a. The Organized Bar There are more than 40,000 attorneys enrolled with the Supreme Court. All of them, by virtue of their oath of office as attorneys, are members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Supreme Courts 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, improve the administration of justice, and enable the bar to discharge its public responsibilities more efficiently. 97 The resolution of the Court integrating the Bar was implemented by a Presidential decree in 1973, establishing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as a corporate body with perpetual duration.98 While functioning as a nongovernmental professional organization, the IBP carries out certain activities under its charter and the Rules of Court in furtherance of the purposes of the abovequoted 1971 legislation. In particular, it provides the principal channel for the discipline and disbarment of attorneys. (The Supreme Court has a parallel, but seldom used, process which it may elect to apply on its own initiative.) The IBP has reported that 99 of the 40,000 lawyers admitted to practice in the Philippines were disciplined in 2005, including five disbarments. In addition, the IBP plays an active role in legal education. It recommended the existing program of mandatory continuing legal education for attorneys and participates in the programs governance. 99 It participates in collaborative educational arrangements with the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Department of Education, works with law schools, 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. The IBP is represented on the advisory committee established by the Supreme Court for the Action Program for Judicial Reform.100 The above-mentioned requirement of continuing legal education for members of the bar, adopted in 2000, provides a necessary tool for assuring that reforms adopted in principle are
37

transformed into actual practice by the major users of the justice system. Over the past five years, this system has come to be accepted by the bar. 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. b. Law Schools There are about 100 law schools in the Philippines. Most of them are members of the Philippine Association of Law Schools, an organization formed in 1967 to help raise standards of legal education. The Philippine bar examination is administered by the Supreme Court through a Bar Examination Committee. This is considered the most rigorous of professional examinations and the percentage of those who pass, while improving, has always been low. Admission to the practice of law requires that bar examination applicants show they have completed all prescribed courses at an approved law school.101
Table II.24 PASSAGE RATE FOR BAR EXAMINATION, 1999-2006
YEAR OF EXAMINATION 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: Newspaper reports. NUMBER OF EXAMINEES 3,978 4,698 3,849 4,659 5,349 5249 5,610 6,187 NUMBER WHO PASSED EXAMINATION 660 979 1,266 917 1,108 1,659 1,526 1,893 PERCENTAGE WHO PASSED EXAMINATION 16.59 20.84 32.89 19.68 20.71 31.61 27.20 30.50

The poor performance of law school graduates in passing the bar examination led to the enactment of legislation in 1993 to improve legal education.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, set minimum standards for law school admission, prescribe curricula, establish a law practice internship requirement, and most important set standards of law school accreditation and accredit law schools. Under this law, a law school may not operate unless it is accredited by the Board.103 Unfortunately, the Legal Education Board has never been constituted. The Supreme Court, in prescribing reforms in the bar examination in 2004, referred the question of law school accreditation to the Legal Education Board, presumably on the assumption that the Board would be established, and in 2006 the Court created a task force to facilitate creation of the Board.104 Apparently, there remains hope that this reform, found necessary in 1993, will soon be made operational. In the absence of a functioning Legal Education Board, the Supreme Court remains the principal source of reforms on law school curriculum through its supervision of the bar examination.105 Law schools play an important role in the legal representation of the poor. A number of law schools have internship programs and operate legal clinics, through which fourth year law students may represent indigent clients under the supervision of a licensed attorney. This practice is recognized and encouraged by Supreme Court rule.106

38

c. 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, but are important stakeholders in how well the system operates. These include organizations that do research, monitor the performance of courts and government agencies, take public positions on issues of justice policy, provide information to the public, offer legal advice to the poor, and otherwise take an active interest in the administration of justice. They also provide links to other areas of public policy related to the justice system, such as improving competitiveness and combating corruption. 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. In addition to the above-mentioned Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 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. The Association conducts research, provides legal education under the mandatory continuing legal education program, and provides legal defense to indigents.107 More than 20 Alternative Law Groups around the country provide free legal assistance in poor communities, especially in rural areas. Together, these groups form Alternative Law Groups, Inc., a coalition that advocates policies to advance human rights and social justice, provides legal education, and exercises vigilance over the performance of the justice system.108 In many communities, resident paralegals provide a range of practical services for the benefit of disadvantaged populations, including providing information about the justice system, assisting with government paperwork, and working with lawyers representing indigent clients. Among business groups, the Makati Business Club, composed of more than 800 senior executives of major companies, is known for its active engagement in public policy deliberations on issues affecting business, including judicial efficiency and integrity. Examples of Makati Business Club publications on these issues are cited in Chapter I of this report, notes 17 and 18.109 A significant recent manifestation of civil society activism in relation to the justice system is the organization of a consortium to monitor judicial appointments, with initial emphasis on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Appointments Watch was formed in 2005 by the Transparency and Accountability Network (itself a coalition), the Alternative Law Groups, the Association of Law Students of the Philippines, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Lawyers League for Liberty, and the Philippine Association of Law Schools. The Asia Foundation and USAID supported this initiative. The consortium has taken an active role in monitoring the process of several recent nominations to the Supreme Court. In 2007 it agreed to expand its role and to monitor appointments to other courts, thus becoming the Judicial Appointments Watch.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.

39

B.

Challenges to the Justice System

The Philippine justice system, described above, is highly developed and sophisticated. It includes many admirable features. At the same time, 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, foster a culture of lawfulness, and advance the rule of law. These challenges are summarized below, together with some ideas about addressing them, 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; (ii) high standards of independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency; (iii) capable and motivated human resources; and (iv) broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. It is important to note that none of the four objectives alone provides the basis for improved performance of the justice system. Of course, the ultimate objective is to assure that the system provides broad access and excellent service to the public. Some of the challenges relate directly to these issues of the scope and quality of service. However, improved service also depends upon increased efficiency, adherence to ethical values, and competent human resources. The objectives are closely interrelated. A strong institutional capacity and good systems produce improved access and service only if implemented by capable and motivated people. Efforts to improve access and service through strengthened institutions, and capable people are likely to be counterproductive unless the concerned institutions and people demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency. Thus the four objectives combine to provide a context of efficiency, values, competence, and service for system-wide reform. 1. Strong Institutional Capacity Systems, Procedures, Business Practices, and Facilities As noted above, the budgets of institutions in the justice system are committed primarily to personnel costs, leaving little for investment in modernizing technology and equipment or for maintenance. As a result, management systems and infrastructure tend to be inadequate. Readily available technology is not being put to use. Weak implementation capacity appears to be one reason why well designed reform initiatives have often experienced disappointing results, or why implementation has been delayed. Achieving greater efficiency and productivity will be essential to the success of any future justice reform. A threshold challenge is the need to build within the justice organizations a stronger capacity for strategic planning, financial management, human resources development (discussed separately below), information management, and a culture of results-based performance management. 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, meet objectives, adapt to changing circumstances, monitor performance, and report on results. This will require improved management systems and qualified, trained people to implement those systems. One aspect of this problem is the need to overcome internal resistance to changes that threaten to reallocate work, authority, and resources. This will require special efforts to assure adequate communication, preparation, and alignment of incentive structures with new policies and programs. That is, capacity for change management is needed.

40

A related threshold challenge is the need for adequate budgets throughout the justice sector, including for operating expenses and capital investment. Building institutional capacity involves costs, especially for organizations where budgets have been almost entirely consumed by personnel expenditures, leaving inadequate sums for maintenance and investment. Improved capacity should be able to help increase the productivity of investment and control costs. But there is no evident way in which the needed capacity can be built at current funding levels. The justice system needs to escape from this vicious circle into a pattern of increased productivity, sustained with adequate resources. A major and persistent challenge to the justice system is the slow movement of cases, combined with a steady volume of new cases, leading to chronic congestion and delay. 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. Judges and other officials too often acquiesce in these delaying tactics. Responding to this situation of expectations and deeply ingrained patterns of behavior could include several measures. First, the rules need to diminish opportunities for delaying tactics, reward timeliness, and protect officials who apply the rules. Second, the courts, the bar, 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. Third, the benefits of delay reduction need to be monitored, documented, and publicized in order to reinforce and sustain a new demand for and expectation of timeliness in the administration of justice. A number of specific approaches to delay reduction have been proposed, but never fully implemented. Among these, the following appear to warrant further consideration. The most ambitious change would be continuous trials for both civil and criminal cases, with strict time limits. Truly continuous trials to be conducted in a few days or, at most, a few weeks would not only expedite the specific cases handled under these procedures. 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. The imminence of a trial that will produce an immediate decision has been a powerful stimulus for settlement in other countries. 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.111 However, 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, even when eventually denied, substantially delay proceedings in courts below. 112 Anecdotal evidence confirms that applications for writs under Rule 65 constitute a substantial portion of the caseload of the Court of Appeals, but that few of those applications are ultimately successful. 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. 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, solely for the purpose of depriving a judgment of finality and thus preventing the issuance of a writ of execution. One reason suggested for these endless appeals is that the rate of interest used by the courts is well below commercial market rates. This makes the cost of money retained by delaying payment of a judgment debt much less than if the same

41

amount were borrowed from a bank. This cause of delay would appear to be readily susceptible to corrective action by legislation or amendment to the Rules of Court. 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. One frequently raised example is the large volume of bouncing check cases. 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. These offenses could be decriminalized and handled through civil, administrative, or alternative dispute resolution procedures, freeing valuable time of the courts, prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement agencies to focus on more serious offenses and to reduce the backlog in the criminal docket. 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. 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. This could be alleviated by allowing simplified, rapid determinations of probable cause to guard against obvious cases of arbitrary arrest or other abuse, together with broad discretion to decline prosecution in cases with poor prospects for conviction. This greater flexibility would leave prosecutors with more manageable workloads. It would also relieve the courts of handling a large volume of criminal cases in which there is no active prosecution and which ultimately are archived. Greater prosecutorial discretion would expand the space for use of mediation in cases where there is no strong public interest in prosecution. 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. Beyond the basic question of delay reduction, the strengthening of institutional capacity will undoubtedly be the subject of debate about priorities. However, identified needs for improvement in three general areas have received considerable attention: information, case management, and the procurement and maintenance of equipment, technology and facilities. Information systems are essential to provide timely and accurate assessments of performance regarding service to the public, the management of work, and the implementation of reforms. It is important to distinguish between information management and automation. Computerized systems need to reflect decisions already made on what information should be collected and shared, what data standards are appropriate, and what business processes should be linked among institutions. The example of a single case number usable by law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and correction and rehabilitation agencies illustrates the point. An important aspect is the capacity for communication through compatible systems between headquarters and field offices and between organizations that need to work together. 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). Case management systems are important tools for all justice organizations. Their importance is increased by the large volume of cases (including substantial backlogs) that burden courts, prosecutors, public defenders, police and others. Efficient case management not only helps track individual cases. It improves the efficiency of all the concerned organizations and helps them to rationalize their priorities and the distribution of workload. The recent Judicial Reform

42

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.114 While a pilot program has been launched for the courts and one is under study by the National Prosecution Service, case management has not been developed for other organizations. A broadly based systemic approach would seem to be in order. Inadequacies in facilities and equipment also impede efficient performance throughout the justice system. Infrastructure deficiencies in the lower courts were also singled out for negative comment by the American Bar Association report.115 Interviews of judges and visits to courts confirm the poor working conditions that exist. These conditions are directly relevant to the need for investment in information and case management systems. Courts that lack computers and internet access will have obvious difficulties contributing to information and case management systems. Inadequate storage facilities pose risks that evidence, court files, and other essential information will be lost. The decentralization of financial and administrative management in the courts, approved in 2004 but still not implemented, can help the Judiciary to address this situation. However, comparable and, in some cases, even more pressing needs exist in other justice sector institutions and these also need to be addressed. Many people working in the justice sector lack the most basic tools needed to perform efficiently. 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. Duplication of functions among law enforcement agencies inevitably creates inefficiencies. This is compounded by the reliance on PNP personnel by other law enforcement agencies to provide operational support. In addition, the ability of local government units, the National Police Commission, the Department of the Interior and Local Government, and others to perform oversight and the proliferation of coordination mechanisms (see note 70) diminish clarity in lines of authority and consume resources that might better be used to meet substantial needs for capital investment and maintenance. The potential for confusion is aggravated by the rapid turnover of leadership within the organization. Existing law requires police officers to retire at age 56 (including senior executives), resulting in brief tenure for the Director General and other senior officers of the PNP. Another organizational challenge is posed by the fragmented responsibility for the system of detention, correction, and rehabilitation. At present, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, the Bureau of Corrections and other Department of Justice entities, and the Department of Social Welfare and Development all have partial responsibilities. Conditions in overcrowded jails and prisons warrant early attention as a human rights issue. The difficulties facing these organizations provide an indication how issues cross institutional lines within the justice system. 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). Reform of the procedures followed by the National Prosecution Service and by the courts could substantially reduce the number of detainees. On the other hand, greater efficiency in the investigation, prosecution, and trial of criminal cases could increase the number of convictions, adding to the congestion in the jails and penitentiaries where convicted prisoners are incarcerated. This would not only increase the workload of the BJMP, but also that of the Bureau of Corrections, which operates many of those facilities. 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, as described above in Section A.5.c of this Chapter.

43

2. High Standards of Independence, Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency The challenges addressed in this section all relate to the credibility of the justice system. The administration of justice must be, and must be seen to be, unbiased free of excessive political and financial pressures or criminal influence and guided by ethical values. At the same time, the justice system operates within a system of checks and balances and must be accountable for its performance. A principal challenge to independence is the inadequate financing of the judicial system. Despite the constitutional promise that the Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy and that its appropriations after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released,116 the amounts allocated to the Judiciary, and to the broader justice sector, in national budgets are not keeping pace with growing workloads and increasing costs. The executive branch, which develops the national budget, presents it to Congress, and manages appropriations, is faced with many demands on limited resources and is dissatisfied with the fiscal management of the justice organizations. It justifies its involvement in the judicial budget in terms of accountability. Inadequate budgets for other justice organizations do not present the same constitutional issue. 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. These efforts to look outside the financial constraints and controls of official budgets can jeopardize integrity in pursuit of independence. Justice organizations that have been able to collect and retain fees for services have obtained some relief. But reliance on fees for operating expenses risks distorting the services provided. For example, it is established public policy to encourage the mediation of disputes. If mediation has a strong potential to reduce the volume of litigation, 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, fees reflect services for which the public will pay and are not a practical way to help meet many resource needs. The courts, for example, can collect filing fees from litigants. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, on the other hand, cannot collect fees from prisoners. Also troubling is the supplemental financing through support provided to some justice organizations in cash or in kind by local governments. For the most part, 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. Local support for the justice system needs to be transparent and institutionalized. There is no easy solution to the financial autonomy challenge. It probably requires a mutual effort by the justice organizations, the executive oversight agencies, the Congress, and local authorities to find an accommodation based on gradually increased budgetary resources accompanied by increased transparency and demonstrated improvement in efficient management. Enhancing integrity, and the publics perception of integrity, in the justice system is a serious challenge. 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. 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. However, knowledge of those codes by the workforces and by the general public appears to be uneven. Limited training

44

capacity, especially in a number of executive agencies, limits the effectiveness of existing ethical codes. Also, procedures for public complaints of alleged unethical behavior vary from agency to agency and are not always clear and convenient to follow. The number of disciplinary cases seems small, given the large number of individuals involved in the administration of justice and the continued perception of widespread corruption.118 Responding to this challenge may require a comprehensive review of existing ethical rules, their dissemination, training programs within the justice system, and public access to clear procedures. Public participation in such a review could give high visibility to the important issue of personal and institutional integrity in the justice sector. Accountability for performance is a complicated challenge. In addition to financial accountability and ethical behavior, the justice system is challenged to demonstrate that it is performing its responsibilities honestly and efficiently. This challenge is one that is shared by civil society. 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, observes the performance of official functions, and publicizes what it learns through active and engaged communications media. 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, transparent, and responsive to that public interest. The consolidation of information systems should provide a valuable tool for informing the public on a timely basis about the performance of justice organizations. 3. Capable and Motivated Human Resources The ability of the justice system to attract and retain able and dedicated people is another serious challenge. Vacancies are a major problem in most organizations, although increased salaries for judges appear to have reduced vacancies in the Judiciary. Low salaries and poor working conditions impede the ability of public service to compete for talent with the private sector. It is a constant challenge to attract the best candidates possible, and especially to recruit and retain those with strong values of ethical public service. In part, this relates to the need for investments in systems, equipment, and facilities that will contribute to professional satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment, and reasonable working conditions. Skills enhancement for justice system personnel is a related challenge. Budget constraints will surely continue to impose limits on increases in the number of personnel. The necessary alternative is to increase the productivity of those on the rolls. As efforts proceed to introduce modern systems, processes and infrastructure, it will be necessary that the people who operate the justice system be enabled to make the best use of those improvements. This means they must be able to receive and make good use of training. A disturbing observation by many who have been involved in training judges, prosecutors, police, and other justice system personnel is that, too often, training does not change behavior in the workplace. This is a reminder that institutional incentives need to be aligned with the desired performance if training is to be effective. This is especially important in helping employees adapt to the changes involved in implementing reforms. For example, a judge who is overly tolerant of delaying tactics might be trained in how to control the pace of his or her docket. 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.

45

A particular concern in this regard is the need for collaboration between organizations. 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. It is also said that prosecutors, for their part, do not rely on the police for follow-on investigation. 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. 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. The initiative by the Philippine Judicial Academy to organize a small number of multidisciplinary courses with multi-agency participation is a helpful beginning. But much more is needed. Training suffers from limited resources. For most organizations opportunities are quite limited, often driven more by the availability of donor-financed courses than by systematic institutional training plans. 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. In any event, training needs to be made relevant to the performance of duties. Skills directly related to performance should be given preference in training curricula over more generalized academic instruction. Beyond training is the challenge of allocating work to make the most effective use of valuable human resources and provide greater job satisfaction. It is possible, for example, 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. The consolidation of some support services could increase opportunities for career development and advancement by specialists in various functions. Imaginative career development, providing skilled personnel with opportunities to use their expertise in a variety of institutional settings, could help to retain valuable staff whose skills and experience might otherwise be lost. Greater flexibility in position descriptions and hours of work could also help increase productivity and contribute to more satisfying jobs. Efforts to change behavior and adapt to reforms need incentives, including both rewards and a disciplinary element. 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. Institutional accountability of justice organizations to the citizenry needs to reflect individual accountability of personnel for the good performance of their duties. Academic preparation for work in the justice system is a challenge that needs attention in the reform agenda. With more than 100 law schools and more than 5,000 applicants for admission to the bar each year, high standards for admission to law school, assurances of adequate curricula and instruction, and a system of accreditation seem especially important. It is striking that the need for a Legal Education Board was recognized in 1993 legislation, but that action has not been taken to bring the Board into existence. 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. 4. 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. Ultimately, justice is a public service and, as noted above, providing broad access and excellent service is the ultimate objective.

46

Progress on many of the issues discussed above will have a direct impact on citizens. For example, delay and uncertainty are themselves a denial of access to justice. However, there are specific challenges about the impact of the justice system on the broader population and, especially, on the poor and disadvantaged members of society. One challenge is to coordinate fragmented efforts by the Public Attorneys Office, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, various universities and legal clinics, and others that provide legal assistance and services to the poor. 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. More broadly, the procedures by which citizens can obtain information about and access to the justice system for various purposes are numerous and sometimes overlap. In addition to general information programs, gaining effective access to justice may require community-based systems to assist and empower citizens in navigating the many channels that exist. Institutionalizing programs at the community level might build on a number of impressive pilot efforts. Examples include the European Union-supported Supreme Court program on Access to Justice for the Poor through Information, Education and Communication, the Barangay Human Rights Action Centers supported by the Human Rights Commission, and the Bantay Banay program of Lihok Pilipina Foundation to combat violence against women, including through increased legal literacy, in Cebuano and Visayan communities. The model court design developed with World Bank assistance, which is to be piloted in Manila, Angeles City, and LapuLapu City, could also include a venue for community centers. The existence of paralegals and civil society organizations operating in many communities could facilitate the staffing of such centers with knowledgeable individuals. The challenge of accountability of the justice system to an informed citizenry, discussed above, is particularly acute in the case of the poor and disadvantaged. The poor are likely to lack awareness of their rights and to be deterred by inconvenient locations of justice organizations. The poor can be intimidated by costly and opaque processes, and be discouraged by extended delays that they cannot afford. The concept of an access to justice network at the community level, currently under discussion, appears to have considerable promise. Building capacity at the community level with the involvement of community residents is difficult, but it can be an instrument of legal empowerment and, thus, contribute to broadened participation in economic and social development.119 One other dimension of an informed public is the availability of legal information. An example of a specific issue is whether the publication of decisions by all the appellate courts, not just the Supreme Court, might serve the public by increasing accountability, promoting greater uniformity, and diminishing the number of appeals in situations where a pattern of decisions is clearly established. The evolution of electronic publishing will make it possible to renew the public availability, for example, of Court of Appeals decisions (once published in printed volumes, and now available to judges and others who have access to the Supreme Courts elibrary, but not the general public). Publication of Court of Appeals decisions on that Courts own website is planned to begin in 2008. 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. In this way, publication of more judicial decisions could foster greater consistency, increase legal certainty, and discourage frivolous appeals. In turn, greater legal certainty and predictability would be a positive factor in encouraging investment and other economic activity in the Philippines.

47

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have increased access to justice and, to some extent, have reduced the volume of litigation. Expanding the availability of these mechanisms is still another challenge for increasing access to justice. Current rules for court-annexed mediation result in only a small percentage of eligible cases being submitted to mediation. Also, the modern Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 remains in limbo, pending completion of the process for issuance of the implementing regulations and related modifications of the Rules of Court. The entry into force of this modern legislation could give impetus to further growth of alternative dispute resolution services, expanding access to justice while also diminishing the existing burden on the courts.

48

Notes to Chapter II

The definition of a sector is pragmaticWhatever definition is adopted, it is important not to lose sight of general cross-sectoral issues (e.g., civil service reform) and the specific links between the sector and other parts of he system (e.g., from roads to agriculture). Development Assistance Committee, Guidelines and Reference Series, Sector Wide Approaches, in Harmonizing Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery, Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 40, OECD, www.oecd.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. See also Saldanha, Cedric, and John Whitte, Using the Logical Framework for Sector Analysis and Project Design: A Users Guide, Asian Development Bank, June 1998. See Rules 43, 65, Rules of Court, Supreme Court http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/court%20issuances/rules/index.php. of the Philippines,

Presidential Decree No. 1508 (1978), as amended by Republic Act No. 7160, the 1991 Local Government Code of the Philippines. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, of 1997, Republic Act No. 8371, approved 29 October 1997. 1987 Constitution of the Republic http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/a8.asp. Ibid. A fourth higher court, a Sharia Appellate Court, is authorized by law but has not yet been established. Family Courts Act of 1979, Republic Act No. 8369, approved 28 October 1997. Republic Act No. 6734, approved 1 August 1989, Section 2. See also Supreme Court Administrative Circular A.M. No. 99-4-06-SC, 8 June 1999, which resolves that the Sharia Appellate Court be formally organized effective 1 January 2000. Constitution, note 5, supra, Article VIII, Section 3. Ibid. The Judicial Development Fund was created by Presidential Decree No. 1949, approved 18 July 1984. The Staffing Summary, General Appropriations Act, 2007, and the Office of the Court Administrator use a base figure of 2,271 judicial positions. The Judicial and Bar Council uses a number of 2,258 judicial positions, according to a report on vacancies in the Judiciary released on 19 September 2007. See Panganiban, Artemio, Solving the Judicial Vacancy Problem, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 23 September 2007. Ibid, Section 8. JBC Order 009, effective 1 December 2000, http://jbc.supremecourt.gov.ph/rules/rule9.php. Administrative Matter No. 03-11-16-SC, 27 April 2004. Republic Act 9227, approved 23 October 2003. Constitution, note 5, supra, Article VIII, Section 9. of the Philippines, Article VIII, section 1,

4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

49

19 20 21

Constitution, note 5, supra, Article VIII, Section 11. Ibid. See also Article XI, Section 2. The Academy was originally established by Supreme Court order (Administrative Order No. 35-96, March 12, 1996.) Two years later it received a legislative charter (Republic Act No. 8557, approved February 26, 1998.) Previously, judicial training had been provided by the University of the Philippines Law Center.) The Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Administrative Matter No. 03-05-01 SC) and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (Administrative Matter No. 03-06-13-SC) both became effective on 1 June 2004. See Puno, Reynato, The New Philippine Code of Judicial Conduct, 2005, http://jrn21.supremecourt.gov.ph/forum_icsjr/ICSJR_Philippines%20(R%20Puno).pdf. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, as revised, are at http://www.ajs.org/ethics/pdfs/Bangalore_principles.pdf. Article VIII, section 6, of the Constitution states simply and clearly The Supreme Court shall have the administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Standing committees include: Management Committee and Component Working Committees for the Judicial Reform Support Project; Committee on Public Information; Committee on Computerization and Library; Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary; Committee on Protocol; Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters; Committee on Advanced Syllabi; Committee on Legislative-Executive Relations; Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Committee; Supreme Court Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence Committee; Personnel Development Committee; Bids and Awards Committee for the Action Program on Judicial Reform; Change Management Committee; Executive Committee for Judicial Reform Program; Selection and Promotion Board; Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court and constituent subcommittees; Raffle Committee for En Banc Cases; Committee on Computerization of the Courts; Raffle Committee for Division Cases; Committee on Foreign Travel; Committee on Security; Reorganized Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan Board and constituent subcommittees; Bids and Awards Committee for the Maintenance, Security, and Janitorial Needs of the Halls of Justice; Committee on Disposal of Forfeited Real Property Bonds; and Executive Committee for the Action Program for Judicial Reform. There are also several ad hoc committees. Supreme Court Annual Report, 2005, pages 47-49. Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban identifies 18 existing stand-alone computerized systems within the Judiciary in his 2005 book, Judicial Renaissance, pages 31-34. Constitution, note 5, supra, Article VII, section 5(5). Rules of Court, Part I (civil procedure) and Part http://wwwsupremecourt.gov.ph/court%20issuances/rules/index.php. Constitution, note 5, supra, Article VIII, Section 15. Trocio v. Mata, G.R. No. 34834, November 15, 1982, 118 SCRA 241. http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/news/multimedia/inex.php. See, e.g. Administrative Matter No. 03-02-05 SC, 1 April 2004, establishing a special rule on guardianship of minors distinct from Rule 93 of the Rules of Court. Social Weather Stations, 2005/2006 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary, December 2006. III (criminal procedure),

22

23

24

25

26 27

28 29 30 31

32

50

33

Court delays were analyzed http://codex.bworldonline.com.

in

the

Business

World

Anniversary

Report,

2005,

34 35

Constitution, note 5, supra, Article VIII, Section 15; Speedy Trial Act of 1998, Republic Act No. 8493. Legislation enacted in 1979 criminalized these cases, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes. Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 of 16 September 1997 provides for consolidation of civil and criminal actions in these cases, but does not otherwise modify the applicable criminal procedure. The agencies named in the law include the Office of the Ombudsman, National Labor Relations Commission, National Conciliation and Mediation Board, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, National Water Resources Board, Civil Service Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Office of the President, Civil Aeronautics Board, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Commission, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform, Government Service Insurance System, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Administrative Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 292, 25 July 1987, Book VII, Chapter IV, Section 19. Executive Order No. 292, 25 July 1987, Book VII, Chapter IV, Section 19. Ibid. Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940). The five articles on arbitration in the Civil Code were supplemented in 1953 by Republic Act No. 876, the Arbitration Law. In 1978, Presidential Decree 1508 instituted a system of amicable settlement of disputes at the barangay level without need of judicial recourse. Republic Act 7160, the Local Government Code, amended this system in 1991 to authorize barangay officials to conduct conciliation and mediation proceedings to settle disputes within their territorial jurisdiction. The most recent legislative development, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, is discussed separately below. See LM Power Engineering Corporation v. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc., Third Division, G.R. No. 141833. March 26, 2003. Administrative Code of 1987, Executive Order No. 292, approved 25 July 1987, Book VII, Chapter IV, Section 3; Executive Order No. 523, Instituting the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Executive Department of Government, 7 April 2006. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 01-10-5-SC PHILJA, 16 October 2001. PhilJAs ADR Committee is composed of the following: Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, Justice Justo P. Torres, Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo Ponferrada, Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, Dean Eduardo de los Angeles, Chairman Alfredo F. Tadiar, Dean Pacifico A. Agabin, Dean Eulogia Cueva, and Commissioner Linda L. Hornilla. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 04-02-02-SC, 20 July 2004 (effective 16 August 2004).

36

37

38 39 40 41

42

43

44 45

46

51

47 48

Ibid. See Implementing Rules and Regulations on Mediation in the Trial Courts, Resolution No. 02-04, appended to Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 04-3-15-SC-PHILJA, 24 March 2004. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 02-2002, 2 April 2002. http://www.sws.org.ph. Administrative Matter No. 04-3-15-SC-PHILJA, 24 March 2004. Republic Act No. 7160 incorporated the Barangay Justice System under Book III, Title I, Chapter VII, Sections 399-422 and Section 512. Implementing rules and regulations were issued in February 1992 under an administrative order by the President, Administrative Order No. 270, 88 O.G. No. 12, page 1, 23 March 1992. 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. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo is constituted if the Lupon fails to settle the dispute. The Pangkat is composed of three members of the Lupon picked by the parties to the conflict, or in case they fail to agree, drawing lots shall determine the members (RA 7160, Section 404 [A]). Administrative Order No. 14-93, 15 July 1993. DILG Summary of Cases filed, actions taken, on Katarungang Pambarangay Implementation (From January 1980 to December 2005). Republic Act No. 8371, approved 29 October 1997. For instance, the Tagbanuas of Coron, Palawan have a tribal justice system called panglaw, wherein a person found guilty of violating customary law is given 30 lashes by a council of tribal elders. This occurs after the guilty person has been confined and made to stand for several hours in full view of the public. The Kankanaey of the Cordillera has a system called tongtong, a dialogue held to resolve disputes, with the guilty party paying a penalty. The Tagakaolo in Sarangani Province call their justice system kasfala, which usually requires a peace offering from the offender. In Kitaotao, Bukidnon, the Matigsalog people are using a customary law called gantangan owey palavian to resolve conflicts.58 The kedefawan tribal justice system of the Tedurays of Kidapawan in Cotabato, the matikadong or bagani system of the Mansaka tribe in Davao del Norte, the tabunawai or temuay of the Arumanen Manuvu, among many others have a tribal leader or council of elders resolve a dispute in the community. Section 65 See http://www.ncip.gov.ph/indexmain.php. See note 43, supra, and accompanying text. The Department of Agrarian Reform was created in 1971 under Republic Act 6389 to manage the national land reform program. See the extensive history of laws relating to agrarian reform at http://www.dar.gov.ph/darhistory2.html. The National Labor Relations Commission was created in 1972 under Presidential Decree No. 21 with exclusive jurisdiction on all matters involving employeremployee relations, including all disputes and grievances which may otherwise lead to strikes and lockouts under Republic Act No. 875.

49 50 51 52

53

54

55 56

57

58

59 60 61 62

52

63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Republic Act No. 386, June 18, 1949, Title XIV. Republic Act No. 876, 1953. Republic Act No. 9285, April 2, 2004. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, Republic Act No. 9285, approved 2 April 2004. Executive Order No. 1008 of 4 February 1985, the Construction Industry Arbitration Law. The website of Philippine Online Dispute Resolution is http://www.disputeresolution.ph/about.asp. Constitution, note 5, supra, Article XVI, Section 6. Other national law enforcement agencies that exercise police powers include the Airport Police, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the Bureau of Immigration, the Bureau of Customs, the Optical Media Board, the Philippine Coast Guard, and the Philippine Ports Authority. In addition, there is a host of task forces, councils and coordinating commissions with responsibilities for various aspects of law enforcement. These include the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime, the National AntiKidnapping Task Force, the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission and Task Force, the National Anti-Crime Commission, the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking, the Joint Task Force Against Trafficking in Persons, the Presidential Anti-Illegal Recruiters Task Force, the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force, the National Council for Civil Aviation Security, the Presidential Task Force on Transportation Strikes and/or Mass Actions, the Inter-Agency Council on Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children, the National Drug Law Enforcement and Prevention Coordinating Center, and the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency. Republic Act No. 6975 and No. 8551. Carpio v. Executive Secretary, 206 SCRA 290 (1996). The Philippine Star, 29 May 2007. The 2007 SWS Business Survey on Corruption, Social Weather Stations, July 2007, http://sws.org.ph. An Act Reorganizing and Modernizing the National Bureau of Investigation and Providing Necessary Fund Therefor, and for other purposes, Senate Bill No. 262, 14th Congress, http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=14&q=SBN-262. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic Act No. 9165, 7 June 2002. Republic Act No. 9160, approved 29 September 2001. See also the 2003 amendments to comply with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force, Republic Act No. 9194, approved 7 March 2003. Constitution, note 5, supra, Article XI, Section 5. Presidential Decree No. 1275, 11 April 1978. The Chief State Prosecutor must be a professionally trained member of the legal profession of proven integrity and competence with at least five years experience in the legal profession prior to appointment. Medium Term Development Plan, Chapter 17, Basic Need: Rule http://www.neda.gov.p;h/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010.html. of Law,

71 72 73 74

75

76 77

78 79

80

53

81

Republic Act No. 9279, approved 28 March 2004; Senate Bills No. 212 and No. 213, 14th Congress, First Regular Session, 30 June 2007. See Table II.1, supra. Rules of Court, Rule 112. In cases where an accused person is arrested and detained without a warrant of arrest, a similar procedure, an inquest, is undertaken. 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. It is believed that there are major delays in both preliminary investigations and inquests. Constitution, note 4, supra, Article III, Section 12. Ibid, Section 14. Republic Act No. 9406, approved 23 March 2007, Section 2. Ibid, Section 5. Canlas, PAO Gets a Boost with New PAO Bill, The Manila Times, 09 Apr 2007, www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/apr/09/yehey/metro/20070409met4.html. Revised Penal Code, Article 125, Act No. 3815 (1938). Section 63 of Republic Act 6975, approved 13 December 1990, 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. National Survey of Inmates and Institutional Assessment: Final Report, Supreme Court, UNDP, CPRM, July 2003, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/pubreports/Survey%20of%20Inmates%20Final%20Report.pdf. See UNDP, Final Report, Conduct of Further Study on Operations and Linkages of the 5 Pillars of Justice, March 2006. Republic Act No. 9344, approved 4 May 2006. Implementing regulations of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council entered into force on 11 July 2006. See Save the Children-UK, Breaking Rules: Children in Conflict with the Law and the Juvenile Justice Process The Experience in the Philippines, 2004, http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/publications/violence/summary.pdf. Executive Order No. 324of 12 April 1996 established the review committee that developed the legislative proposal. Constitution, note 5, supra, Article VIII, Section 5(5). Republic Act No. 6397, 17 September 1971. Presidential Decree No. 181, 4 May 1973. See Rule 139A of the Rules of Court; A Brief History of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, www.ibp.org.ph. See Supreme Court Resolution dated 22 August 2000, adopting the rules on mandatory continuing legal education for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Bar Matter No. 850.

82 83

84 85 86 87 88

89 90

91

92

93

94

95

96 97 98

99

54

100 101 102 103 104

http://www.apjr-sc-phil.org/pub-reports. Rules of Court, Rule 138, Attorneys and Admission to the Bar, Section 5. Legal Education Reform Act of 1993, Republic Act No. 7662, 23 December 1993. Ibid, Sections 7 and 8. See Supreme Court Resolutions: on proposed reforms in the bar examinations, Bar Matter 1161, 8 June 2004; and re creation of a task force to facilitate creation of the Legal Education Board, A.M. 061-03-SC, 14 February 2006. Ibid. Section 1 of Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court authorize a fourth-year law student to appear without compensation in any civil, criminal, or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or office to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school. Law schools with legal clinics include the University of the Philippines (which pioneered in this field), Ateneo School of Law, University of Santo Tomas, Arellano University, and Xavier University. http://www.philippinebar.org/index.html. http://www.alternativelawgroups.org/about.asp?sec=index. www.mbc.com.ph. http://www.tan.org.ph/files/proj_scaw.asp. See Supreme Court Resolution dated 20 February 2007 re: procedure in extrajudicial or judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages, Administrative Matter No. 99-10-05-O. Gimeno, Rita Linda, Rule 65: Posing Impediments to a Streamlined Judicial System, 2007, finds that in 133 studied cases from Regional Trial Courts, petitions to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court under Rule 65 involved, on average, 11.2 years for decision. The Asia Foundation, Judicial Independence Overview and Country-Level Studies, Asian Development Bank Judicial Independence Project, October 2003, page 77, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Events/2003/RETA5987/Final_Overview_Report.pdf. American Bar Association, Judicial Reform Index for the Philippines, March 2006, http://www.abanet.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006.pdf. The report states There is no effective case filing and tracking system. A manual system is in place in most courts, which is often inefficient given the number of pending cases, the judicial vacancy rate, the system of non-continuous trials, and other factors that contribute to the lengthy process. Ibid. With respect to facilities: The Supreme Court and appellate-level courtsprovide a highly respectable environment and infrastructure. These statements are not true for trial courts in many locations. A more significant problem is maintenance and equipping of buildings, courtrooms, and offices. Also,: There is insufficient budget allocated to equipment for trial level courts. Constitution, note 5, supra, Article VIII, Section 3. The 2006-2007 SWS Surveys of Enterprises on Corruption, July 2007, www.sws.org.ph. Only the Supreme Court was identified as having good sincerity. The Sandiganbayan was evaluated as having moderate sincerity; the trial courts and Ombudsman were ranked as mediocre; and the

105 106

107 108 109 110 111

112

113

114

115

116 117

55

Department of Justice, Department of the Interior and Local Government, and Philippine National Police were classified as poor in the degree of their sincerity in fighting corruption.
118

For example, the American Bar Associations 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. Recent surveys are available at http://www.abanet.org/cpr/discipline/sold/home.html. See the discussion of legal empowerment, good governance, and poverty reduction in Law and Policy Reform at the Asian Development Bank, 2001, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Others/Law_ADB/lpr_2001.pdf. See also Golub, Stephen, Legal Empowerment: Impact and Implications for the Development Community and the World Bank, The World Bank Legal Review: Law, Equity, and Development, Volume 2, World Bank, 2006, page 167.

119

56

III.

Recent Justice Sector Reforms

The strong emphasis on justice, human rights, and the rule of law in the 1987 Constitution, described in Chapter I of this report, inaugurated an era of reform that has continued to the present time. Many of the reforms of the past two decades have strengthened the architecture of the justice system by establishing new courts, modernizing procedures, and creating or modifying organizational actors, such as law enforcement agencies and the public defender system. Other reforms, including many discussed in Chapter II, have focused on particular issues, such as children in conflict with the law, protection of intellectual property, women and children as victims of crime, or offenses of special concern such as drug trafficking and money laundering. A recurrent theme has been the chronic delay that afflicts the formal justice system. Efforts to deal with this problem have included measures to increase efficiency as well as provisions to divert cases to alternative channels for resolution. Together, 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, including many it still faces as described in Chapter II of this report. This chapter describes the principal reform efforts and assesses their effectiveness with respect to these challenges. A. Summary Description of Reforms 1. Restoring the Foundations of the Justice System During the period following the February 1986 Revolution, the new Constitution provided a sound basis for an effective justice system. A principal focus of the Supreme Court during this period was the reversal of the downgrading of judicial prestigeand the many judicial problems spawned by extended authoritarian rule which effectively eroded judicial independence and self respect.1 The Court issued authoritative guidelines for the nations judges on the administration of justice (1987), issued comprehensive measures on court management to implement the Courts regulatory powers under the new Constitution (1988), adopted a code of professional responsibility for the legal profession and a code of judicial conduct (1988), and initiated a pilot program to increase judicial efficiency through the use of continuous trials (1988 and 1989). In addition, it established a planning, development and implementation office to formulate ways to improve the administration of justice, coordinate with other organizations in the justice sector, and monitor the performance of judges and courts (1989). These bold, early measures established the leadership of the Supreme Court, helped to restore the independence of the Judiciary, and initiated the continuing justice reform process. From the beginning, the judicial dimension of justice reform has emphasized the qualities of independence, moral rectitude, and efficiency.2 During this period, with the support of a Presidential directive, 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, public attorneys, and parole and probation officers.3 In addition, Legislation was enacted to emphasize the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation.4 Simultaneous with the rebuilding of the Judiciary, the reform agenda included the establishment of new justice entities, including those provided for in the Constitution such as the Judicial and Bar Council and the Ombudsman. It also included the creation and restructuring of many organizations responsible for the administration of justice. Among these:

57

The Public Attorneys 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, replacing the Citizens Legal Assistance Office.5 The Philippine National Police was reorganized, its relationships with the National Police Commission and local government units were revised, and it was consolidated with the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, and the Philippine Public Safety College in an expanded Department of the Interior and Local Government.6 The Barangay Justice System was substantially revised, placing greater responsibility on local authorities at the community level.7 More generally, the early years of the post-Constitution era included a focus on integrity and accountability in the entire public service. 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.9 2. 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. Creating that capacity was a principal area of concentration through the 1990s. 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.10 The creation of the Philippine Judicial Academy in 1996 to strengthen the capacity of judges, judicial candidates, court personnel, and others involved in the administration of justice.11 A series of adjustments to the jurisdiction, size, and areas of specialization of courts to enable them to manage their work more effectively, including the designation of family courts throughout the country.12 The restructuring of the Office of the Court Administrator in1991 and 1996 to increase its efficiency in providing oversight of the courts, improving court procedures and administration, addressing causes of congestion and delay, and promoting legal education and court management.13 The establishment in 1997 of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples to facilitate the use by indigenous populations of parallel, customary legal systems.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, improving and reforming it to meet the challenges of the new millennium.15 The enactment of the Speedy Trial Act in 1998 to specify time limits for various stages in criminal trials, with a view to expediting the disposition of criminal cases.16

58

3. 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. 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, effectiveness and efficiency, public trust and confidence, and the legal profession.17 Chief Justice Davides December 1998 policy statement, which came to be known as the Davide Watch, 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. As the previous Chief Justice, Andres Narvasa, had reminded one of the multi-sectoral consultations in this process, It would be well to remember that the task of justice delivery is not the courts alone; it is shared by the executive and legislative branches of the government and the other four pillars of the criminal justice system. 18 Accordingly, the Supreme Court undertook to encourage the participation of other justice sector institutions in the consultations and planning. The outcome of the consultations was the publication in February 2000 of Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary, focused on four areas of reform: independence, integrity and accountability; enhanced knowledge-based adjudication; fairness and efficiency; and accessibility.19 An additional 18 months of deliberations and consultations led to the Supreme Courts adoption of the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) in August 2001. The Davide Watch, the Blueprint of Action and the APJR represent a consolidation of the reform efforts that had gone on before. They reflect a systematic identification of strengths and weaknesses, and of accomplishments and shortcomings, looking at reform in a more systematic way and with more deliberate recognition of the roles of other justice sector organizations outside the Judiciary. 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. Many of these studies were financed by international development partners, such as the Asian Development Bank study of judicial independence and accountability and the World Bankassisted institutional review of the Judiciary. A number of additional studies have been undertaken to support the implementation of the APJR. The principal studies are listed in the bibliography in Annex 3 to this report. The APJR has six components: Judicial systems and procedures, concerned with the jurisdictional structure, rules, procedures and, management systems for the administration of justice; Institutional development, concerned with the capacity of the Judiciary as an independent and accountable branch of government;

59

Human resource management development, concerned with the selection, training, career development, compensation, and discipline of judges and Judiciary staff; Institutional integrity development, concerned with the prevention, detection, and punishment of corruption in the Judiciary and in the legal profession; Access to justice by the poor, concerned with assuring that the justice system includes genuine opportunities for participation by the marginalized and disadvantaged; and Reform support systems, concerned with management systems to assure the success of the reform program, foster public awareness, and assure the sustainability of the reform program. The APJR established a coherent, multi-year plan, 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, coordination, monitoring, communication with stakeholders, and follow-up actions. The cost of APJR implementation was estimated at PhP 4.3 billion in 2001, with the expectation that a little over 50% would be financed from domestic resources, with the balance (some PhP 2 billion) relying on external sources, primarily development assistance.20 During the past six years, a number of reforms and improvements to the administration of justice have been directly attributable to the plan set out for APJR in 2001. Some other reforms that were not included in the original planning of the APJR have moved ahead on their own, as had many of the reforms of previous years described above. In all cases, the structure of the APJR has served as a focal point for coordinating reform efforts. In addition, 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. For example, the UNDP-supported study on Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice21 emerged from a collaborative effort between the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice. 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.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.23 The inauguration of mandatory continuing legal education for attorneys in 2003, to assure that they are updated on legal developments and issues of professional responsibility.24 The increase of judicial salaries by 100% over a four-year period, approved by law in 2003, thus facilitating the recruitment of qualified candidates for judicial appointment and reducing the number of vacancies in the Judiciary.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.26

60

The revival in 2003 of the National Council on the Administration of Justice through a memorandum of agreement among the Justice Secretary, Interior and Local Government Secretary, Court Administrator, and Integrated Bar President, with a focus on improving the criminal justice system.27 Steps toward the modernization of commercial law, including legislation on e-commerce, tariffs and customs, banking, and securitization. 28 (The modernization of commercial laws continues, primarily through the University of the Philippines Commercial Law Study Project, which has developed a broad array of laws on subjects such as maritime law, chattel mortgages, corporate recovery and insolvency, the sale of goods, and credit card fraud.) Updating of rules on family law and related litigation procedures, including with respect to adoption, annulment of marriage, custody of minors, and guardianship.29 The adoption of new codes of conduct for judges, employees in the Judiciary, and notaries public in 2004.30 The enactment of a new legislative charter for alternative dispute resolution in 2004.31 The launch of the Supreme Courts electronic library in 2004, empowering the courts to conduct legal research with more reliably up-to-date and readily available materials. The adoption by the Supreme Court in 2004 of new policies on decentralization of administration, creating opportunities for greater efficiency in the management of the courts and related bodies.32 The issuance by the Supreme Court in 2004 of authoritative guidance for pre-trial procedures and discovery, 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, including diversion of their treatment from the formal judicial system.34 The enactment of legislation in 2007 to increase the autonomy of the Public Attorneys Office and to strengthen its capacity, thereby increasing the availability of high quality legal services for the poor and disadvantaged.35 In addition to these specific measures, a host of long-term projects and activities is underway within the framework of the APJR to improve the administration of justice. 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 use of distance learning, and increased involvement of other organizations in multidisciplinary programs. A more extensive enumeration of achievements under the APJR is at Annex 5 to this report. With respect to other justice sector organizations, a number of reform initiatives have benefited from the momentum of the APJR. Especially noteworthy among these are diagnostic efforts to provide a sound basis for policy decisions in the field of criminal justice, 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, National Bureau of Investigation, Parole and Probation Administration, Board of Pardons and Parole, Public Attorneys Office, and Bureau of Corrections.

61

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, and institutional capacities and responsibilities. Institutional Strengthening the Sharia Justice System (June 2004) examined the background of the Sharia justice system, its legal and institutional foundations, the operation of the courts, and opportunities for reform. Medium-Term Anticorruption Program, Office of the Ombudsman, (November 2004) examined the Offices investigation and prosecution systems and developed a program to strengthen institutional capacities. 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. 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, with action plans for each of the pillars of the criminal justice system. The momentum of the APJR has also been sustained by a series of opinion surveys conducted by the respected Social Weather Stations organization. A baseline 1996 survey that preceded the APJR was entitled Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession. 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); Changes in the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession (2004); A Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary (2006); and Filipino Muslim Survey on Law and Social Justice (2006) As previously noted, the APJR depends upon financial support from the international community. That support has been forthcoming. Multilateral development organizations and bilateral donors have financed a number of the diagnostic studies, provided training and related equipment and materials, and also provided technical assistance. Particular undertakings include the following: An Asian Development Bank technical assistance project, Strengthening the Independence and Efficiency of the Judiciary, involves the operationalizing of fiscal autonomy and capacity for self-governance in the Judiciary, including support for the reorganization of the Judicial and Bar Council and for the distance learning program of the Philippine Judicial Academy. The Asian Development Bank also supports APJR through a technical assistance project entitled Enhancing the Autonomy, Accountability and Efficiency of the Judiciary and Improving the Administration of Justice, which involves decentralization of judicial administration, improving business processes related to electronic caseflow management, linkages between the Barangay Justice System and the courts, capacity development for the National Prosecution Service, and a long-term justice sector strategy. The Bank has been a principal source of support for the creation and development of the Philippine Anti-Money Laundering Council. The World Bank Judicial Reform Support Project includes court reorganization, improvement of court facilities (including the mobile courts), model courts with

62

automated systems, improved court rules and procedures, and training of judges and Judiciary employees. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Enhanced Caseflow Management project supports the development of a caseflow management system for the lower courts that has been field tested and is expected to be rolled out in 2008. USAID has 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. USAID has supported a wide range of reform activities, including court-annexed mediation, improved discovery procedures, judge-to-judge dialogues, seminars on the code of ethics, electronic learning for judges, strengthening of the Sharia courts, and continuous trials in the Sandiganbayan. 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. The CIDA Court Administration Management Information System project supports the automation of statistical data collection and reporting from locations nationwide, providing a valuable tool for case management and decongestion of court dockets. (CIDA, along with USAID and the Asia Foundation, has also supported the current court-annexed mediation system and other administrative dispute resolution mechanisms.) The United Nations Development Programme has supported diagnostic studies such as the Medium-Term Criminal Justice System Development Plan, and has also supported the establishment of model police stations, and repair of selected Halls of Justice in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. 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 Australian Agency for International Development has supported the development of benchbooks for trial court judges and, through the Philippine-Australian Human Resource Development Facility. AusAID also provides training and related activities. Japan supports the Automated Fingerprint Information System project for the development of capacity in the Philippine National Police to use automated fingerprint identification. Japan has also made important contributions to crucial physical infrastructure for the justice system, including the new facility for the Philippine Judicial Academy and the Youth Training Center for the Bureau of Corrections. A particularly noteworthy aspect of the third phase of justice reform has been the reliance on interagency and inter-branch coordinating mechanisms. 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, for discussing problems and issues, and for achieving consensus on the overall direction and strategic level decisions. The committee was composed of representatives from the following organizations: Supreme Court; Agencies performing alternative dispute resolution functions;

63

Agencies responsible for the other pillars of the criminal justice system; Oversight agencies (NEDA, DBM, COA, CSC); Integrated Bar of the Philippines Academe; Civil Society.37 In addition, the National Council on the Administration of Justice, established by a memorandum of agreement to coordinate work on criminal justice issues, included three groups: One group, chaired by the Secretary of Justice, included the Chief State Prosecutor, Chief Public Attorney, National Bureau of Investigation Director, Bureau of Corrections Director, Parole and Probation Administrator, and President of the National Prosecutors League. A second group, chaired by the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, included the Chief of the Philippine National Police, Director of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, President of the League of Governors, and President of the League of Barangays. A third group, chaired by the Court Administrator, included the President of the Philippine Judges Association, President of the Metropolitan and City Judges Association, President of the Trial Judges League, and President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.38 Both these interagency and inter-branch structures are advisory, collaborative, and coordinating in nature. They do not have decision making or other executive responsibilities. Nevertheless, they demonstrate recognition of the multi-faceted character of the justice system, and of the interdependence of the organizations that, together, constitute that system. The experience of these bodies is valuable preparation for the creation of a participatory management structure for a long-term justice sector development strategy. B. Achievements and Shortcomings of Philippine Justice Reforms

Two decades of reform have restored the legitimacy of the nations justice system and achieved an impressive number of changes in law and practice necessary for the systems effective functioning. Over this period, the Supreme Court has created an institutional structure for leading a process of continued reform and improvement. On the other hand, the diagnostic studies listed in Annex 3 to this report, largely carried out in connection with the formulation of the Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary and the APJR, identified major shortcomings in the justice systems performance and proposed measures to overcome them. Yet, many of the most serious shortcomings persist, despite all the excellent work done to put in place the reforms of the past 20 years. Too often, new laws, rules, and plans of action have been adopted, but have not been fully or timely implemented. The most obvious example is the issue of delay. A study of the Philippine criminal justice system in 2000 began with an expression of frustration with the state of the system and, in particular, the delays in the courts:

64

But perhaps, among all these issues which remain unanswered, 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. The justice system, since modern memory can recall, has always been the target of criticism for abetting the retardation of court process.39 Six years later, following a period of extensive studies and reform initiatives, the American Bar Associations Judicial Reform Index expressed concern over inefficiency, frequently resulting in a filing to completion period of five or more years in civil and criminal cases, citing as contributing factors: The reluctance of judges to deny requests for postponement, to demand the timely appearance of witnesses, to refer attorneys to disciplinary authority for unprofessional and frivolous delaying tactics, and otherwise to require parties to abide by prescribed time limits; An inordinate backlog of cases; Absence of a small claims procedure; Sequential rather than continuous trials; Inefficient allocation of court personnel; Weakness of court management systems; and In criminal cases, shortages of prosecutors and public attorneys.40 While the above-quoted reports focus on the judicial process, broader issues were raised in the diagnostic studies. These include: Inadequate support in national budgets for justice institutions, along with other financing issues; Overcrowding and inhumane conditions in jails and prisons and a lack of access by prisoners to legal assistance; Poor condition of facilities, lack of equipment and supplies, and out-of-date information in justice institutions; Personnel shortages, insufficient training, and poor working conditions in justice institutions; Weak capacities for administrative and financial management, compounded by overly centralized and inefficient management systems and inadequate communications between field offices and headquarters; Deficiencies in interagency coordination; and Continued inadequacy of access to justice and legal services by the poor and disadvantaged. These same issues are prominent in the discussion of current challenges to the justice system in Chapter II of this report. This persistence of the challenges that confront the justice system is sobering. However, this reality in no way diminishes the value of what the reform program has accomplished. Nor does it support an inference that reform should be scaled back or abandoned. Rather, it underlines the immediate need to intensify the focus on results, now that
65

the systems foundations have been restored, the soundness of the system rebuilt, and the institutional structure for systematic reform created. The emphasis in the next phase of reform needs to be on improving the systems performance, especially from the standpoint of those who are affected by it. 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. Informed observers attribute the persistence of the above-described performance deficiencies to several factors. The immediate cause is the vicious circle of limited implementation capacities in the justice organizations (including limited capacities to manage change and to manage for results), the inadequate investment in increasing their capacities, and the absence of accountability for failure to implement planned actions in a timely manner. 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. This is the classic challenge faced by reformers in the Philippines and elsewhere: how to stimulate mutually reinforcing popular demand, broad political leadership, and institutional commitment in order to create a compelling dynamic for change. Any future reform program will need to address these impediments so that the necessary investments will be made, the necessary implementation capacities will be attained, the agreed measures will be carried out efficiently, and the substantial benefits of improved performance in the administration of justice and the operation of the rule of law will be realized. There follows a summary of the achievements and shortcomings of past reforms, 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; (ii) high standards of independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency; (iii) capable and motivated human resources; and (iv) broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. 1. Strong Institutional Capacity Systems, Procedures, Business Practices, and Facilities The past 20 years have witnessed a flourishing of new and restructured institutions with responsibilities for the administration of justice: new courts, new executive branch agencies, and reorganizations that have created new responsibilities and new requirements for interinstitutional coordination. However, resource constraints and weak management have combined to impede the institutional development and efficiency of many of these new and restructured organizations. Consistently over the years, budgets especially for investment and maintenance have remained low throughout the justice sector even as workloads have increased. Modest budgetary increases for some organizations in recent years can begin to improve this situation if the additional resources are committed to capacity building. 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, although reliance on fees, as discussed above, raises additional policy questions. The past reforms have not satisfactorily resolved the budget issues. Weak management systems and limited capacity to implement reforms are a legacy of inadequate budgets. Important decisions have been taken to modernize and improve the operation of the justice system: decentralization of court administration, investment in

66

computerized information and case management systems, model police stations, model courts, updated laws and rules of court. The Supreme Court has received more than a dozen reports on different aspects of management to support its strategy for administrative autonomy. But the design of modern systems, the formulation of plans for facility enhancement, and skillfully crafted action plans have often failed to produce the intended results, in part because of inadequate capacity to implement them. It is clear that the reforms have introduced many improved procedures, such as the updated rules of civil and criminal procedure, as well as improved management systems, such as computerized information systems. However, in the absence of greater implementation capacity, the justice sector has been slow in scaling up from pilot programs and making changes operational for general application. Current examples include the creation of model police stations by the Philippine National Police, the implementation of court decongestion measures, and the uniform application of case management systems. One area where past reforms have produced little improvement in systems, procedures, business practices, and facilities is in the overcrowded prisons and jails. Legislation proposed to improve the management structure of the corrections system has not been enacted. 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. 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. Yet, it is difficult for the field of corrections to compete with other priorities for the attention of budget decisionmakers. Periodic decongestion actions to release some prisoners have not changed the basic dynamic of progressively increased overcrowding. 2. High Standards of Independence, Integrity, Accountability, and Transparency The reforms have included codes of ethics for judges, court employees, lawyers, and police, in addition to the generally applicable code of conduct for public employees. Rules for admission to the practice of law require the inclusion of legal ethics in law school curricula. The Philippine National Police have adopted a moral rehabilitation program for police officers who violate established standards. Justice sector organizations have included ethics courses in their training programs, as has the program of mandatory continuing legal education for lawyers. However, where training programs are generally constrained, awareness of ethical responsibilities is only one of the areas where employees lack needed information. Continuing issues of budget procedure raise questions as to the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. 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 Courts proposed Judiciary budget and the release of appropriated funds to the Judiciary. The existing relationship between the Judiciary and the Department of Budget and Management remains controversial, with persistent questions about the adequacy of current arrangements in preserving judicial autonomy and in fostering judicial accountability. Issues of independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency also arise from the combination of low budgets and reliance on fee income and contributions from local government units. These issues have not been addressed in depth in previous reforms.

67

A recent measure to increase autonomy is the 2007 legislation to provide for the autonomy of the Public Attorneys Office within the Department of Justice. A question left unanswered by that action was the lack of comparable status for the National Prosecution Service. The reforms have encouraged greater transparency, with most agencies now maintaining websites that contain information on their activities, budgets, organizational structures, and policies. However, the absence of a freedom of information law leaves individuals seeking to exercise their right to information from public agencies at a disadvantage. Public opinion surveys continue to indicate a widespread perception of corruption in the justice system.41 One apparent cause of this perception is the inability of the justice system to deal effectively with alleged corruption outside the justice system. The Sandiganbayan has, by far, the lowest rate of case clearance of any category of courts in the Philippines (Table II.11). The rate of convictions obtained by the Office of the Ombudsman in the Sandiganbayan is very low. A recent estimate suggested that a public official in the Philippines is 35 times more likely to escape prosecution for an act of corruption than a comparable official in Hong Kong. The 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 credibility of other state institutions is diminished.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. Thus, a shortcoming of the reforms in one area (low rates of disposition and conviction in corruption cases) has negative implications in another area of reform (perceived integrity of the criminal justice system). 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. In some cases, disciplinary actions have been taken against judges, lawyers, and police officers. This helps to give credibility to the system. However, the publicly announced grounds for disciplinary action are often causes other than corruption and, as noted in the preceding paragraph, the number of disciplined officials is low. 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. 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. The recent determination of that civil society group to expand its activity to include other judicial appointments is a positive step toward greater accountability. Beyond this activity, the reforms have increased outreach to the public by the justice organizations. However, they have not otherwise encouraged citizen monitoring of justice system performance. 3. Capable and Motivated Human Resources The reforms have strengthened the judicial selection process by improving the capacity of the Judicial and Bar Council, including improved management as well as training for Council staff. 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. The Supreme Court has commissioned an assessment of training for Judiciary personnel.

68

Training in executive branch agencies remains inadequate. The National Prosecution Service and the Public Attorneys Office can offer only occasional courses, often with international financial support. Newly appointed prosecutors and public defenders enter on duty without an orientation program to train them in their important responsibilities. The National Police Academy provides an introductory course for police cadets. The Philippine Public Safety College, however, is able to provide in-service training only to a small percentage of police officers. Limited training opportunities are related to the lack of career development programs in most agencies. The Supreme Court only now is developing a career development program for court personnel.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. The reforms have not made employment in the justice sector an attractive career opportunity that will attract and retain a highly qualified workforce. Where conditions have improved for one group within the justice system, qualified individuals within the system have an incentive to seek to enter that favored group, to the detriment of other parts of the system. An example is that increased compensation for judges has been accompanied by an increase in the number of prosecutors and Public Attorneys Office staff seeking judicial appointments. Human resource issues have not been dealt with in a comprehensive way in past reforms. There are many issues that remain in need of attention. Among these is the need to assure the recruitment and selection of individuals who have the best qualifications, including commitment to values of honesty and public service. Another is re-engineering of workforces to increase productivity, with possible savings by reducing the number of low-skilled positions and increasing compensation as skills are enhanced and staff more efficiently deployed. 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 lack of implementation of the Legal Education Act has left the nations law schools without the incentives that the Acts accreditation and oversight program would bring for assuring educational quality. This, of course, is just one example of the troubling phenomenon of reforms adopted but not implemented. It is especially troubling in this case because it concerns the qualification of those who will enter the legal profession. 4. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public The Barangay Justice System, restorative justice mechanisms of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and the support by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples for customary justice systems have contributed to increased access to justice at the community level. The expansion of services by the Public Attorneys Office and, the provision of legal services by alternative law groups, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and a number of law schools have improved the availability of legal assistance and representation to poor and marginalized groups. The promised doubling of the staff of the Public Attorneys Office (from about 1,000 lawyers to the 2,000 needed to provide coverage in all courts) under the legislation enacted in 2007 is a positive legacy of previous reforms. Legal services for the needy are often fragmented and the choices available to intended beneficiaries are not always clear. The Supreme Court program on information, education, and communication,44 related efforts to train women and youth, and the work of many organizations

69

through the schools, the media, and training programs in communities are positive steps. These measures need to be greatly expanded. An expansion of services needs to be accompanied by an expansion of popular legal education. There remains a widespread lack of public awareness about the rights and duties of citizens under the law, the operation of the justice system and the availability of legal services. Citizens need to be better informed not only about procedures, but also about their substantive rights and obligations under the law. Rationalization, coordination of efforts, and improved information are needs that have grown even as past reforms have increased the scope of services available. Access to justice by the poor was a principal theme of the APJR, comprising an entire chapter in the programs supplement. However, as shown in Appendix 5 of this report, implementing actions for the most part have involved studies and pilot programs. The challenges, issues and constraints identified in 2001 remain. If equal treatment under the law is to be a goal of justice reform, and if, as suggested above in Chapter II, the ultimate objective is to provide broad access and excellent service, 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.

70

Notes to Chapter III

1 2

Animas v. Minister of National Defense, 146 SCRA 406, 417. 1986. Supreme Court Report, 1988-1989, page 3. See Sison, Carmelo V., and Myrna S. Feliciano, Philippine Judicial Reforms, 1987-2000, Supreme Court of the Philippines, July 2000, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Presidential Administrative Order No. 99 of 1 December 1988, as amended by Presidential Administrative Order No. 11 of 18 September 1992. Republic Act No. 7438, approved 27 April 1992. This legislation confirms in positive law guarantees set forth in Article III, Section 12, of the 1987 Constitution. Administrative Code of 1987, Executive Order No. 292, approved 25 July 1987, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 5, Section 14. Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998, Republic Act 8551, approved February 25, 1998; Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, Republic Act 6975, approved December 14, 1990. Local Government Code of 1991, Republic Act 7160, approved 10 October 1991. Executive Order No. 292, note 3, supra. Republic Act No. 6713, approved 20 February 1989. The Legal Education Reform Act of 1993, Republic Act No. 7662, provides for a Legal Education Board to accredit law schools and oversee their operation and curricula. However, as of August 2007, the Board had not been established. The Philippine Judicial Academy was established by Administrative Order 35-96 on 12 March 1996. It obtained a legislative charter in Republic Act No. 857, approved 26 February 1998. Adjustments included increased jurisdiction for trial courts under Republic Act No. 7691 (1994) and for the Court of Appeals under Republic Act No. 7902 (1995) and Republic Act No. 8246 (1996). The Supreme Court has designated specific courts to hear cases involving specialized subject matter, such as intellectual property rights, commercial disputes, certain complex crimes, and juvenile justice. See, e.g., Administrative Order 51-96 of 3 May 1996, designating courts for kidnapping, robbery, dangerous drugs, carnapping and other heinous crimes under R.A. No. 7659. See also the Family Courts Act of 1997, Republic Act No. 8369, approved 28 October 1997, and Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 99-1-13-SC, designating the Regional Trial Courts to hear cases within the jurisdiction specified in the Family Courts Act. Supreme Court Circular No. 30-91 of 30 September 1991; Circular No. 36-97, 9 June 1997. A further reorganization of the Office of the Court Administrator was effected by Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 98-7-01-SC, 22 February 2005. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, Republic Act No. 8371. Quotation is from a paper by Justice Artemio Panganiban on 30 November http://jrn21.supremecourt.gov.ph/forum_icsjr/ICSJR_Philippines%20(A%20Panganiban).pdf. 2005,

7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14 15

71

16

Republic Act No. 8493, approved 12 February 1998. See also Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98 of 11 August 1998, providing guidance on the implementation of this law. Davide, Hilario, Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession towards the Third Millennium, 11 December 1998, http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/policy.htm. Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary, Supreme Court, February 2000, page 3. Ibid, page 39.

17

18 19

20

Action Program for Judicial Reform, August 2001, page ii, http://www.apjr-sc-phil.org/pubreports.
United Nations Development Programme, Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice, Supreme Court, June 2003, http://www.apjr-scphil.org/article/articleview/7/1/2. Supreme Court Administrative Circular 20-2002, 24 April 2002. Republic Act No. 9160, approved 29 September 2001. See also the 2003 amendments to comply with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force, Republic Act No. 9194, approved 7 March 2003; Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 05-11-04, 15 November 2005, establishing rules of procedure in asset forfeiture and freezing of assets in cases relating to money laundering offenses. Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 113-2003, effective 1 September 2003. The Supreme Court approved the rules for mandatory continuing legal education in Bar Matter No. 850 on 22 August 2000. Republic Act No. 9227, approved 23 October 2003. Republic Act No. 9262, approved 8 March 2004; Republic Act No. 9208, approved 6 May 2003. Department of Justice Press Release dated 31 July 2003, http://www.doj.gov.ph/news_07-31-03.html. Examples include the E-Commerce Act of 2000, Republic Act No. 8792, approved 14 June 2000, which provides recognition and protection of electronic records (see also the Electronic Evidence Rule of the Supreme Court, Administrative Matter No. 01-7-01-SC, 1 August 2001); the Securities Regulation Code of 2000, Republic Act No. 8799, approved 19 July 2000; the 2001 amendments to the Tariff and Customs Code, Republic Act No. 9135, approved 28 April 2001, bringing Philippine standards into greater conformity with World Trade Organization customs valuation standards; the General Banking Law of 2000, Republic Act No. 8791,approved 23 May 2000, providing broader scope for banking transactions; and the Securitization Act of 2004, Republic Act No. 9267, approved 19 March 2004, establishing a legal, tax and regulatory framework for asset securitization. See, e.g. Supreme Court Administrative Matter Nos. 02-11-10 SC, 4 March 2003; 02-11-11 SC, 15 March 2003; and 03-02-05, 1 May 2004. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 03-05-01 SC, 03-06-13-SC and No. 02-8-13, respectively. 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. Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, Republic Act No. 9285, April 2, 2004.

21

22 23

24

25 26 27 28

29

30

31

72

32

For example, the Supreme Court approved greater autonomy in administrative management for Judicial and Bar Council in Administrative Matter No. 03-11-16-SC, 27 April 2004. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 03-1-09-SC, 14 August 2004. The Supreme Court has undertaken a number of follow-up measures to this guidance. See also Administrative Circular No. 399, 15 January 1999. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, Republic Act No. 9344, approved 26 April 2006. Republic Act No. 9406, approved 23 March 2007. http://www.sws.org.ph. Upon request, Social Weather Stations will provide copies of older surveys removed from the website to conserve server space. Action Program for Judicial Reform, note 20, supra, page 118. Department of Justice Press Release, note 27, supra. Feliciano, Myrna, and Alberto T. Muyot, The Philippine Criminal Justice System, Supreme Court, July 2000, http://www.apjr-sc-phil.org/article/articleview/46/1/2/. American Bar Association, Judicial Reform Index for http://www.abanet.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006.pdf. the Philippines, March 2006,

33

34 35 36

37 38 39

40

41

See, e.g. Social Weather Stations, Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, April 2003, The 2007 SWS Business Survey on Corruption, Social Weather Stations, July 2007, http://www.sws.org.ph. Bhargava, Vinay, and Emil Bolongaita, Anticorruption Initiatives in the Philippines: Breakthroughs, Limits, and Challenges, in Challenging Corruption in Asia: Case Studies and a Framework for Action, World Bank, 2004, page 102. Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 06-04-09-SC, Re: Career Development and Management Plan for the Judiciary, 10 October 2006. See Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 05-2-01-SC, Access to Justice for the Poor Project Information, Education, Communication Guidelines for Municipal Court Information Officers, 13 March 2007.

42

43

44

73

IV.

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. 1 Inherent in this view of development has been the recognition that the process has economic, social, political, environmental, and security dimensions, all of which must be heeded.2 In particular, it is now generally accepted that good governance and the rule of law are important factors for achieving sustainable development results.3 A. 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, including increased reliance on the sector-wide approach (SWAP). A SWAP is a program-based approach to development that operates at the level of an entire sector. It seeks to achieve significant development results through three particular qualities: coherence among sectoral policy, strategy, activities and resources; country ownership of and capacity for planning, implementation and monitoring; and coordinated international support of local development efforts. 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, based on analysis of current processes and outcomes; 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; and The establishment of a formalized, government-led process for coordination and dialogue, including detailed work programs, agreed implementation schedules, systems for performance monitoring and reporting, and consultation with development partners and other stakeholders. The OECD Development Assistance Committee has published guidance on harmonized donor support for SWAPs, based on five guiding principles: 1. Support government ownership and leadership. Sector policy should be authored by the government not by donors, should fit clearly into the governments policy and planning system and its national development strategy, and should be endorsed at a high political level. 2. Work with the government to strengthen institutional capacity and accountability. Encourage local capacity, including in management, planning and policy skills. Implementing mechanisms are important, including the role of financial and procurement management. A sector-wide performance monitoring system should be able to show whether sector goals are being achieved, whether the strategies for pursuing those goals are effective, and whether accountability requirements are being met. 3. Set the sector program in context. Be aware of its implications for overall policy coherence and its effects on the role of central and local institutions.

75

4. Take a long-term strategic view. Recognize that sector programs typically involve institutional changes and organizational development over at least ten years, implemented in three- or five-year tranches. The sector strategy and related mediumterm expenditure framework should permit systematic planning of objectives, actions, and resources over a three- to five-year period. At the same time, look for quick wins to sustain momentum. 5. Be pragmatic and flexible. Avoid overly ambitious objectives or unduly complex implementing structures. Define sector in a way that facilitates efficient implementation.4 A number of donors and multilateral development organizations, including the Asian Development Bank and the European Commission, have also published their own policies and guidance regarding SWAPs. In particular, the United Kingdom Department for International Development has issued guidance specifically on the justice sector5 and the World Bank has published a handbook on justice sector assessments.6 Initially, SWAPs were employed in situations where a single line ministry in the developing country had broad authority over policy in the sector for example, the Ministry of Education with respect to the education sector or the Ministry of Health with respect to the health sector. However, despite implementation complications, 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. B. Experience of Other Countries with Justice-Sector Wide Reform Programs

Several countries have undertaken SWAPs in the justice sector, typically using mechanisms such as inter-ministerial and inter-branch committees, broad dialogue and participation, and proactive communication programs. 1. Uganda The Uganda Justice, 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. This experience demonstrated the linkages among the organizations involved in the administration of justice and the benefits of working together. JLOS was introduced into the national development strategy and strategic investment plan in 2001 with the following structure of goal, purpose, and strategic objectives: GOAL: Improve safety of the person, security of property, and access to justice that ensures a strong economic environment to encourage private sector development and benefit poor and vulnerable people. PURPOSE: Promote the rule of law, increase public confidence in the criminal justice system, and enhance the ability of the private sector to make and enforce commercial contracts.

76

Strategic Objective 1 Criminal Justice Reform: A. Accountability, efficiency, and equity of access sustained across the justice system. B. Improved administration of justice. C. Civic and legal education sustained. D. Legal and law reform achieved. Strategic Objective 2 Commercial Justice Reform: A. Commercial court customer service improved. B. Commercial registry reform. C. Commercial law reform. D. Specialized skills for commercial lawyers. Management oversight is provided by a steering committee whose members include the Ministry of Justice, the Judiciary, Prison Service, Police, Directorate of Public Prosecutors, Judicial Services Commission, Law Reform Commission, Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development, and the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. The steering committee operates on many important issues through a leadership committee comprising the Chief Justice, Minister of Justice, and Minister of Internal Affairs. Implementation is managed by a technical-level committee of the participating organizations. The technical committee has established five working groups to deal with various issues. Day-to-day management is handled by a JLOS secretariat, 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. A 2004 evaluation found that the program had achieved significant impacts in increasing communication, reducing criminal case backlogs and time spent in pretrial detention, and in energizing commercial courts and enhancing their accountability.8 2. 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, chaired by the Department of National Planning and Monitoring. As approved in 2001, 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; Improved sectoral coordination to target priorities, efficiency and improved operational performance; and Increased focus on crime prevention and restorative justice and developing the informal system as a complementary part of the law and justice framework.

77

For operational purposes, the policy has been converted into a strategic framework with the following structure of goals and objectives: Goal 1 Improved Policing, Safety and Crime Prevention: A. Rebuild a professional police service that meets all legitimate community expectations. B. Increase support for community-based crime prevention. C. Support select, high priority initiatives (urban safety, highway safety, gun possession and use, family and sexual violence). Goal 2 Improved Access to Justice and Just Results: A. Remove obstacles to just results. B. Strengthen locally based, nonviolent dispute resolution. C. Strongly support robust and independent courts and commissions. Goal 3 Improved Reconciliation, Reintegration and Deterrence: A. Encourage communities to reconcile offenders and victims in a nonviolent manner. B. Provide alternatives to imprisonment for less serious crimes and those awaiting trial. C. Maintain a national corrections system for persons who are a risk to society. Goal 4 Improved Accountability and Reduced Corruption: A. Ensure accountability for corruption and the abuse and misuse of power. B. Encourage civil society oversight of public administration. C. Reduce claims against the State. Goal 5 Improved Ability to Provide Law and Justice Services: A. Strengthen formal agencies to use resources properly. B. Support and build capacity in civil society to contribute to sector development. C. Foster and build enhanced sector cooperation and coordination. D. Integrate HIV/AIDS response into the sector and agencies. 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, Chief Ombudsman, Chief Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Correctional Service, Secretary of Justice and Attorney General, Public Solicitor and Public Prosecutor, and. as chair, the Secretary of the Department of National Planning and Monitoring. This senior body provides oversight and direction and approves the sector budget. Its focus is on substantive policy and overall performance. A law and justice sector working group serves as executive agent for the national coordination mechanism. The working group consists of two representatives from each of the organizations included in the national coordinating mechanism, as well as several other specialized agencies (e.g., a community justice liaison unit).

78

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, coordinates the work of multi-agency action groups, monitors performance, and manages donor resources. With respect to performance management, the secretariat tries to use indicators that have the following qualities: They are meaningful to civil society and government; They enable year-to-year comparison; They rely on transparent, simple methods of data collection; They contribute to a better informed public debate, greater accountability, and increased transparency. As in the case of Uganda, the Law and Justice Sector Program is integrated into the countrys medium-term development program. A significant difference, however, is that international support comes almost entirely from Australia rather than involving a large number of donors. 3. Guyana The Guyana Justice Sector Reform Strategy (JSRS)10 is newer than those of Uganda or Papua New Guinea. It is focused on four outputs to be pursued during the period 2006-2010, with the first two years devoted to putting into place the foundations for implementation, the second two years concentrated on implementing priority reforms, and the final year for consolidating the gains and planning future reforms. 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. Community safety protecting people and property from crime and reduce fear of crime. B. Reporting crime increasing police receptivity to victims. C. Investigations and charging overcoming low conviction rate through enhanced skills. D. Police institutional strengthening enhancing capacity of the police as a service rather than a force. E. Prosecution overcoming technical and legal constraints. F. Prosecution strengthening institutional capacity and clarifying relationship between prosecutors and police. G. Criminal procedure eliminating the backlog of cases. H. Civil procedure disposing of the backlog of cases. I. Court of Appeals eliminating the backlog of cases. J. Execution of judgments increasing efficiency. K. Administrative cases modernizing procedures for judicial review of administrative actions. L. Judiciary improving the control of public expenditures. M. Alternatives to imprisonment increasing the use of non-custodial sentences in appropriate cases.
79

N. Prisons improving conditions, including measures to deal with pre-trial detainees. O. Government legal services improving efficiency. P. 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. OUTPUT 2 Strengthened Linkages between Justice Institutions: A. Planning and resource allocation. B. Sector-wide efficiency savings. C. Criminal justice operational coordination. D. Coordinated approach to juvenile justice. E. New opportunity corps to develop appropriate treatment for young offenders. OUTPUT 3 Activities for Improved Access to Justice, Especially for the Poor and Vulnerable: A. Legal aid. B. Alternative dispute resolution. C. Paralegals and mediation. D. Funding civil litigation. E. Customer service. F. Civil education. OUTPUT 4 Activities to Enhance Citizen Trust in a Justice System Which Respects Their Rights, Upholds Their Responsibilities, and Meets Their Needs: A. Law reporting assuring public access to court decisions. B. Accountability institutional framework strengthening independent bodies for oversight and complaints. C. Ethics developing codes of conduct with clear sanctions for their breach. D. Communications providing the public with clear messages of justice institutions performance and progress of the reform process. Management of the JSRS is under the leadership of a high level steering committee of governmental and judicial officials. Under the policy guidance of the steering committee, change management teams within participating organizations and groups of institutions will bring together committed leaders with a mandate for change. A technical secretariat will support all the institutions and change management teams. 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. Monitoring and evaluation will involve the steering committee, the change management teams and the technical secretariat in developing and monitoring indicators, conducting baseline studies, preparing and disseminating reports, and engaging key stakeholders in the process.

80

Financing needs, intended to come primarily from government and donor sources, are estimated at US$ 10.5 million. Initial priority will be given to reforms that are essentially cost free or can be financed through efficiency savings or revenue enhancement. 4. Other Countries Several other countries have initiated SWAPs in the justice sector, or have plans to do so. Kenyas ambitious Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector Reform Program (GJLOS)11 is focused on seven broad themes: Ethics, integrity and anticorruption; Democracy, human rights and the rule of law; Justice, law and order; Public safety and security; Constitutional development; Quality legal services to government and the general public; and Capacity for effective leadership and management of change. GJLOS has a governance structure similar to those of other countries a cabinet level steering committee, a technical coordinating committee and stakeholders forum, and a technical secretariat oversee seven thematic groups that address the above listed themes. 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, 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.12 Sierra Leone has initiated the design of a justice sector reform program with four goals: Safe communities, aimed at reducing crime and fear of crime; Access to justice, aimed at improving criminal, juvenile, and civil justice and strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms; Strengthened rule of law, aimed at improving human rights outcomes and accountability; Improved justice service delivery, aimed at improving user satisfaction. It is anticipated that management will include a leadership group, a technical working group, and a number of task forces that will report to the technical working group. This program and its management oversight and financing are still in development.13 Ethiopia has conducted a number of studies and launched a justice system reform program. Information about the program is available in secondary sources.14 It appears that the program will seek to enhance the capacity and efficiency of legislative, judicial, executive, educational, and civil society organizations involved in the administration of justice. Management is expected to be led by a steering committee under the leadership of the Ministry of Capacity Building, with a program office to provide coordination, monitoring and evaluation. However, it does not appear that a comprehensive plan and budget are in place.

81

A national task force in Jamaica recently completed an impressive report with recommendations for a comprehensive justice reform.15 Recommended areas of concentration are identified as including reinvestment, modernization and transformation; the framework for change; the foundations of the justice system; structure, jurisdiction and accountability; the public and the justice system; criminal justice reform; civil justice reform; and institutionalizing justice reform. C. Lessons for the Philippines

The sector-wide approach to justice reform is a recent phenomenon. In all the countries studied, the sector-wide justice reform programs have been in place only for a few years, at most, and several are still in development. Nevertheless, these national experiences in the justice sector, together with the general international guidance about sector programs, offer useful guidance. Lessons for the Philippines include the following. 1. Program Design First and foremost, it is important to forge a strong linkage of resources to policies, strategies, action plans, and results. This linkage assures that projected results will not be impeded for lack of resources and creates a powerful incentive for achievement. There are two practical ways in which this linkage has been established. One has been to include budget and planning agencies along with justice system operators in the management structure of the sector program. The other is to create a medium-term expenditure framework for the sector within which priorities are set.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. A focus on a limited number of realistic and well defined objectives, rather than a long and overly ambitious wish list, is more likely to achieve sustainable results. 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. The formulation of plans is easier than their implementation. It is essential that objectives be attainable within the capacity of the implementing organizations. At the same time, efforts to strengthen capacity will be needed to achieve increasingly ambitious results over the life of the program. A particularly important area for capacity strengthening efforts will be enhancing the results-based management skills of those responsible for program implementation.17 2. Governance of Program Implementation It is noteworthy that all the countries studied have established multi-agency, inter-branch management structures for their justice sector programs. This is a reflection of the complexity of the sector and the multiplicity of institutional actors. Several elements of good practice can be seen in the experience of countries seeking to balance the competing needs for inclusion and for decisiveness. In particular, 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. Second, 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.

82

3. 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. In several cases, a lead donor has played a significant role in supporting program development and helping to finance the management system. In the case of the Philippines, with its highly developed justice system, it would appear that domestic resources will be the principal source of financing. It will be necessary to assure agreement on a multi-year program of public investment within the medium-term expenditure framework. Nevertheless, there is significant international support for justice reform in the Philippines. The Philippine government will need to organize that support in a manner that will maximize its contribution to the effectiveness of the sector program. Preliminary consultations with development partners suggest reluctance to contribute to a common fund. On the other hand, there appears to be support for a donor coordination mechanism focused on the justice sector, such as a justice working group within the framework of the Philippine Development Forum. 4. Performance Monitoring Within the strategic frameworks adopted by several countries, the specific action plans of individual agencies and multi-agency working groups have identified key performance indicators. These indicators, together with baseline data, have provided the basis for monitoring and evaluation systems. Several country programs have been the subject of external mid-term program evaluations to assess their impact after two or three years. Published evaluations of progress toward program goals and objectives, using key indicators and baseline data, 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. The vast subject of performance monitoring is beyond the scope of this report. Of course, the formulation of specific indicators for the Philippines will flow from the particular outcomes identified as priority results for the justice sector. Also, as the experts all caution, balanced groups of indicators are more reliable than single measures of progress.18 Nevertheless, it is instructive to be aware of the kinds of things measured in the justice sector programs of other countries. The following illustrative examples are drawn from action plans developed under country programs described above. They are grouped, for convenience, according to the framework of objectives described in Chapters II and III of this report. 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. They are not addressed below because they do not appear to be directly relevant to the Philippines. With these caveats in mind, there follow illustrative examples of indicators from other countries, adapted to the nomenclature of the Philippines justice system. Strong institutional capacity systems, procedures, business practices, and facilities Percentage of cases appealed and percentage of successful appeals from each category of courts. Average time from filing to disposition of: o o Probable cause determinations Court proceedings in criminal cases (normal and expedited)
83

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).

Percentage of operational units within each justice organization that participate fully in case management system. Reduction of case backlogs. Improved case clearance rates. Increase in budgets for maintenance and capital investment. Volume of cases submitted to and resolved by all forms of alternative dispute resolution. High standards of independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency Percentage of each justice sector organizations expenditures covered by government budget, by fees, by local contributions, and by other sources. Timeliness and accessibility of publication of laws, regulations, court decisions, and other legal information. Public awareness of codes of conduct for public officials. Capable and motivated human resources Vacancy rates by occupational group and organization. Training received, by occupational category and organization. Comparison of compensation to private sector counterparts. Broad Access to Justice and Excellent Service to the Public Amount of fees required to pursue most common forms of civil claims. Average time spent in detention pending criminal investigation and judicial proceedings. Number of youth incarcerated with adults, disaggregated by region. Presence by region of police (per 100,000 population), prosecutors and public attorneys (workloads), and centers for dissemination of legal information and services. These examples, adapted from the experience of other countries, 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. The following chapter of this report proposes some concrete ideas in this regard.

84

Notes to Chapter IV

See A Better World for All, IMF, OECD, United Nations, World Bank Group, 2000; Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005; Michel, James, Leading the Emerging Development Agenda: From Consensus to Action, Vol. 6, The DAC Journal, No. 3, page 7, OECD, Paris, 2005. See Lindenberg, Marc, The Human Development Race: Improving the Quality of Life in Developing Countries, International Center for Economic Growth, San Francisco, 1993; Development Partnerships in the New Global Context, Annex to Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation, OECD, Paris, 1996, www.oecd.org/dac. See Asian Development Bank, Governance: Sound Development Management, 2005, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Policies/Governance/default.asp?p=policies#contents. See also the numerous publications cited at www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance. OECD, Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery, Volume 2, Chapter 3, Sector-wide Approaches, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series, OECD, Paris, 2006, http://www.oecd.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. See, e.g., Sector-wide Approaches in The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank (2001-2015), www.adb.org/Documents/Policies/LTSF/long0302.asp; Guidelines for European Commission Support to Sector Programmes, February 2003, http://www.sti.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdfs/swap/swap312b.pdf; Proposal for Sector-Wide Approaches (SWAps), Inter-American Development Bank, August 2004, http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=509733. Especially relevant is Safety, Security and Accessible Justice: Putting Policy into Practice, Department for International Development, London, July 2002, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/safesecureaccjustice.pdf. Reiling, Dory, Linn Hammergren, and Adrian Di Giovanni, Justice Sector Assessments: A Handbook, World Bank, March 2007, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/JSAHandbookWebEdition.pdf. www.jlos.go.ug. www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-prs-gps-uganda-part-2005.pdf http://www.lawandjustice.gov.pg/www/html/7-home-page.asp http://www.gina.gov.gy/justicreform/Guyana%20JSRS%20revised%20June%202006c.pdf. http://www.gjlos.go.ke. http://www.gjlos.go.ke/Completed_Final_Report%20%20MTR_GJLOS_07.pdf. Correspondence with Clare Manuel, international consultant for Sierra Leone program, May 2007. See, e.g., Menberetsehai Tadesse, Approaches to Reform in Ethiopia, in Applying the Sectoral Approach to the Legal and Judicial Domain, Center for International Legal Cooperation, The Hague, November 2005, http://www.cilc.nl/Conference_publication_2005.pdf; Ato Mandefrot Belay, Justice System Reform Program: Preliminary Reform Profile, Program Contents and Objectives, an article

7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14

85

accompanying an October 2003 report on a CIDA court administration program in Ethiopia., http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/108518//kumssa_paper.pdf.
15

The June 2007 report of the task force is at http://www.cba.org/jamaicanjustice/pdf/jjsrtf_report_final.pdf; a summary of the recommendations is at http://www.cba.org/jamaicanjustice/pdf/jjsrtf_report_proposals.pdf. The alignment of resources to plans and results is generally recognized as an important ingredient of effective development. For example, 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. 2006 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration: Review of the Results, Volume 8, OECD Journal on Development, No. 2, 2007, page 52. See Saldanha, Cedric, Promoting Results Based Management in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries, a paper presented by the Asian Development Bank Director for Governance and Regional Cooperation at a roundtable on better measuring, monitoring, and managing for results, 5-6 June 2002, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Periodicals/GB/governancebrief04.pdf. See Vera Institute of Justice, Measuring Progress toward Safety and Justice: A Global Guide to the Design of Performance Indicators across the Justice Sector, November 2003, www.vera.org/publications/publications_5.asp?publication_id=207; United Nations Development Programme, Governance Indicators: A Users Guide, 2d Edition, Oslo, 2007, http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_online_version.pdf.

16

17

18

86

V.

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. They have summarized the history of reforms in the administration of justice since the 1987 Constitution, and the achievements and shortcomings of those reforms. And they have examined the experience of some other countries that have undertaken sector-wide approaches to justice reform. Several observations stand out from this review and analysis: First, an effective justice system is important. It will safeguard rights, foster economic and social development, empower the poor and disadvantaged, and generally contribute to the safety and well being of all who reside in, visit, and do business in the Philippines. Assuring that the country will realize the benefits of such a system is clearly a worthwhile objective of public policy. There is broad support for strengthening the justice system. Second, since 1987, the Philippine justice system has made significant progress, especially in restoring a sound institutional structure for the administration of justice, analyzing needs, and designing measures to improve performance. And yet, the results achieved to date are less than was hoped for. Implementation of reforms has often been impeded by limitations in the capacities of the concerned organizations. At the same time, resource constraints have impeded sustained investment in building the capacities needed for timely and full implementation. In addition, despite increased coordination in recent years, reform efforts have tended to concentrate on specific institutions, rather than the system as a whole. Third, broad general agreement on the desirability of justice reform has not evolved into a consensus that early and substantial results are a national priority. In an environment of limited implementation capacities, inadequate investment in strengthening those capacities, and the absence of a compelling demand, there has not evolved a climate of accountability for achieving results or incentive systems to encourage and facilitate adaptation to change. Fourth, the experience of other countries has demonstrated the value of governance systems for managing justice sector reform programs that reflect the linkages among issues, organizations, and results. Their experience also illustrates the importance of aligning resources with policies, strategies, and actions. Their use of monitoring and evaluation systems to measure progress by reference to established targets and key indicators is especially relevant, given the history of implementation difficulties in the Philippines. 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. It should emphasize results through improved performance. It should invest an adequate level of resources to build implementation capacity and incentive systems so that specific, measurable and timely results can be achieved and sustained.

87

It should involve shared participation in management by the concerned organizations, while also respecting the distinct responsibilities and autonomy of all the participants. It should assure accountability for achieving the desired results. It should foster a broad consensus of political, institutional and popular support for continued progress over the long term. A. Goals and Objectives

Logic suggests that the development of a long-term strategy should begin with the formulation of a goal that indicates an overall purpose. A goal statement is an indication of the general destination, something on which there should be broad agreement at the beginning of a long journey involving many travelers. 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, equally bad, settling for generalities that paper over disagreements and leave unclear the shared vision to which stakeholders aspire. 1 Nevertheless, a general statement of an overall goal can be useful in framing more specific objectives and priority results. A single goal statement for an entire sector is more difficult than one for a single institution. There is some relevant precedent in the Davide Watch, a statement nominally concerned with the Judiciary and the legal profession, but which also declares more broadly: The system for the administration of justice must be geared to achieve the goal of delivering fair, impartial and swift justice. Hence, the core values of the rule of law, equal justice, judicial independence and the pursuit of excellence should be preserved and at all times be predominant.2 The inspiration of the above-quoted statement, which serves as a basis for the APJR, together with the research and consultations undertaken in the course of preparing this report, has given rise to the following suggested goal statement:
Figure V.1 STATEMENT OF STRATEGIC GOAL FOR LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM

This strategic plan is dedicated to the long term goal of achieving and sustaining a justice system for the Philippines that will: Provide universal access to services, equal 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.

88

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, system-wide program focused on achieving specific, measurable results. Success will be measured not by inputs, such as the number of computers purchased, or by outputs, such as the number of judges trained or laws enacted. Rather, success will be determined by measurable results of improved performance by 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, and progress will be monitored by reference to objectives, results, and key indicators of performance. As noted in Chapter II, the research for this report, especially the interviews and consultations with stakeholders, has identified many significant issues of widespread concern that tend to be concentrated in four interrelated themes. Those themes seek to capture in a coherent structure the essence of previous recommendations for reform that remain present concerns, together with new issues. This reports descriptions of challenges to the justice system (Chapter II, Section B) and the achievements and shortcomings of past reforms (Chapter III, Section B) are organized by reference to those four themes. It bears repeating here that these objectives are based on the role of justice as a public service. The ultimate objective, therefore, is to provide broad access and excellent service to the public. However, improved service also depends upon increased efficiency, adherence to ethical values, and competent human resources. The objectives are closely interrelated. They are suggested here as a framework for a holistic sectorwide reform of the Philippine justice system. The first objective is to have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. This objective concentrates on the management systems, rules, procedures, business practices, and facilities that are conducive to efficient and effective operations. Justice institutions 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. A results-oriented reform must include a focus on the capacity of the implementing organizations to achieve the desired results. The second objective is adherence to high standards of independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency in the administration of justice. Progress in all other areas depends upon confidence in the integrity of the justice system. Confidence in the systems integrity, in turn, depends upon confidence in its independence from political or other extraneous influences, its demonstrated transparency, and its accountability. This objective involves many different things: the adequacy of ethical systems (including the dissemination and enforcement of standards), freedom from political interference, public access to information, and civil society monitoring of performance. The overarching issue of justice system financing, which affects all the objectives, is a matter of great concern here. The third objective is to have capable and motivated human resources throughout the justice system. This involves issues of selection, training, compensation and benefits, career development, working conditions, and workforce allocation. It would be possible to regard the human dimension as a subset of the objective of strong institutional capacity. However, the role 89

of human resources is so important, so complex, and so dominant as a percentage of the budget of the justice sector, that it warrants being treated as an objective in its own right. The fourth objective, to which the other three objectives contribute, is broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. 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. It involves perceptions of how well the justice system protects the security of person and property through formal and informal procedures, in the courts and in alternative dispute resolution systems. It involves public awareness of substantive legal rights and obligations, how the justice system operates, the services it provides, and how to obtain those services. And, basic to a society committed to the rule of law, it involves services to the poor and disadvantaged to empower them to obtain equal treatment under the law. B. Priority Results

Within the framework of the foregoing objectives, and taking account of the previously identified challenges to the justice system and the achievements and shortcomings of previous reforms, this section suggests priorities that might be achieved over the course of the next five years. 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. Of course, the abovequoted goal statement requires a continuous process of reform and the goal will not be attained in five years. At some time before 2012 another set of priorities will need to be identified for a subsequent phase of reform. The five-year time frame for the priorities suggested here represents a reasonable horizon for strategic planning. The suggested priority results described below are intended to be achieved within that time frame. Philippine decisionmakers can choose from these suggestions in shaping the specific content of their strategic plan. Common qualities of these suggested priorities are that they are all oriented to results that will improve performance of the justice system and, insofar as possible, they are susceptible to determination of when the desired results have been achieved. They are compatible, therefore, with targets that meet the SMART test of being specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound, with specific actions and accountability for completing those actions specified in annual implementation plans. 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. The hardest design challenge is to devise implementation plans describing how best to achieve the desired results, what actions should be chosen, and what needs to change as part of the effort. 3 These implementation plans for selected priority results should be developed through participatory means by those charged with achieving the intended result.4 Oversight of implementation, including the sequencing of reform actions and the arrangements for participation by the various justice organizations in particular actions, will be carried out through the management structure described in Section D of this chapter. Implementing actions will be linked to a public investment plan and medium-term expenditure framework as described in Section E. Subject to that kind of process, there follow recommendations for specific priority results for the period 2008-2012, keyed to the four objectives described above, for consideration by Philippine decisionmakers.

90

1. The Philippine justice system will have a strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice. 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, with milestones and an implementation schedule. Each plan will include strategic planning, financial management, human resources development, information management, procurement and property management, and results-based performance (including monitoring and evaluation). Each plan will be subject to review by the Steering Group of the Policy Leadership Council (see section D, below) at the time of its formulation and the Steering Group will review the plans implementation. An organizations 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. Delay will be reduced in all justice organizations through: rules that reward timeliness, protect officials who apply the rules, and diminish opportunities for delaying tactics; expansion of the 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 already developed plans for decentralized administrative and financial management, including the Judiciary and the Philippine National Police, 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 an information system that will include information to be shared among justice organizations and other stakeholders, including police, prosecutors, public attorneys, courts, and corrections agencies. The system will include standards for records creation, classification, retrieval, filing, storage, archival, public disclosure, and disposal. Complementary information systems of individual organizations will be compatible with the national system. 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.

91

The Judiciary, National Prosecution Service, Office of the Ombudsman, Public Attorneys 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 (including rights to legal counsel) are protected, that children are diverted from imprisonment with adults to appropriate facilities, and that individuals are released when their pending cases end without conviction or, if convicted, when their sentences are completed. 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 prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute, with a view to reallocating and concentrating prosecutorial resources on the investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects for obtaining conviction. The executive and legislative branches will rationalize the organization of law enforcement and corrections functions, including commissions and task forces for coordination of law enforcement activities, in order to reduce duplication, increase efficiency, achieve savings, and assure clear lines of authority and continuity of leadership. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches will decriminalize bouncing check cases and will authorize and put into operation simplified procedures, including mediation, for the expedited consideration of bouncing checks, minor offenses that are essentially private disputes, small claims, and other types of cases that impose inordinate workloads and contribute to delays and congestion. The justice organizations will complete one-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs, reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons, and meet immediate needs for improvement to facilities. These one-time initiatives will include: A purge of inactive cases to reduce the backlog and free up resources to manage active cases; 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 A survey of facilities with a view to assuring that property, equipment, and supplies meet minimum standards for secure, efficient, and dignified operations and service to the public. 2. The Philippine justice system will demonstrate adherence to high standards of independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency. Each justice organization will have in place a code of ethical conduct, together with adequate measures to assure: that employees receive training in the requirements of ethical conduct, that the standards of the ethical code are integrated into the organizations career development and other incentive structures,

92

that the public is effectively informed of the codes ethical standards, of statements of assets and income of public officials, of clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints of alleged violations, and of the disposition of complaints and disciplinary actions taken, and that effective disciplinary and transparent systems are in place, alleged violations are being quickly investigated, and suitable penalties are being imposed where allegations are substantiated. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government will establish policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment, 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. Justice organizations that exercise functions requiring independence of judgment will enjoy legal autonomy consistent with the required independence for the performance of their functions. (This result is intended to address the lack of equilibrium between the statutory autonomy of the Public Attorneys Office and the lack of comparable status for the National Prosecution Service as well as the existing permissibility of appeals to political officials, such as heads of Departments, from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies.) The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government will adopt a new legislative and regulatory structure for financing the justice system. This structure will respect the constitutional principle of fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary. It will assure the transparency of, and minimize dependence on, fees and local government contributions to meet basic operating expenses of national justice organizations. 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. It will require accountable and transparent financial management by all justice organizations. All justice organizations will have in force policies to assure the maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system, including through active dissemination activities and the facilitation of monitoring by civil society organizations. A general freedom of information law is beyond the scope of this report. However, a policy of public access to information about the operation of the justice system should reflect the spirit of such laws, with a presumption in favor of disclosure and narrow specific standards and procedures for exceptions. A policy of transparency should extend from the nomination of judges and other officials to the volume, speed and quality of services performed, to the discipline of justice system personnel. 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. Civil society organizations, including the organized bar, will be systematically monitoring the operation of the justice system, including the nomination of candidates for appointment to judicial and other senior offices; the communications media will be keeping the public informed of the observations of such monitoring; and public perceptions of the justice organizations and their operations will be regularly surveyed and the survey results published.

93

3. The Philippine justice system will rely on capable and motivated human resources throughout the system. 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; Periodic evaluation to measure the performance of personnel against established criteria of efficiency and adherence to standards of conduct; Career development to provide employees who demonstrate good performance and aptitude with opportunities for advancement to increased responsibility and increased remuneration, including training to develop skills needed for performance at progressively higher levels; and Transparent incentives and disciplinary measures that reward good performance, help employees adapt to change, and punish misconduct and neglect of duties. The justice organizations will have in operation enhanced education and training programs for their employees, designed to improve skills, increase productivity, elevate professionalism, and encourage inter-institutional collaboration. Education and training will emphasize interactive methods, interdisciplinary participation, and complementary materials such as handbooks that will be of continuing value in the performance of duties after training is completed. 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); Police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests, investigations, evidence collection, and collaborative relations with prosecutors in developing cases for presentation to the courts; Development training for prosecutors and public attorneys in case preparation, relations with police, courtroom skills, and case management; 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; 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, sources of legal assistance to the poor, and communicating with justice organizations; and For all, incorporation in education and training activities of components on the development of leadership skills, commitment to public service, equal treatment of individuals, and sensitivity to ethnic and cultural diversity and gender. 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.

94

4. The Philippine justice system will provide broad access to justice and excellent service to the public. There will be a sufficient number of judges, prosecutors and public attorneys assigned to meet the needs for their services at all lower court stations. Toward this end, vacancies in the Judiciary, National Prosecution Service, and Public Attorneys Office will remain below 10%. There will be conveniently located centers in communities where citizens can bring complaints and requests for information and assistance regarding the administration of justice. 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, sources of legal assistance to the poor, and procedures for communicating with justice organizations. Mobile justice units will provide services to communities that lack the presence of courts and related facilities, including support for community justice centers. Court-annexed mediation units will be operational and available to serve the needs in all the lower court stations throughout the country. Community policing units will be in operation in cities and municipalities throughout the country. The Public Attorneys Office will be playing a central role in coordinating with other justice organizations and with community organizations and networks in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of legal assistance to the poor and disadvantaged. There will be 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, rights and obligations of citizens, and remedies and procedures available to enforce those rights and obligations under the law. This program will include measures to consolidate and expand the gains of previous legal information programs, make available practical resource materials, coordinate the work of service providers, and collaborate with the organized bar, law schools, nongovernment organizations, and community centers and networks to assure the sustainability of popular education and legal awareness efforts. The Supreme Court will arrange for the timely publication and dissemination of final decisions of all appellate courts so that the public will be informed of the quality and consistency of those decisions and so that the information and legal reasoning they reveal will be readily available to increase legal certainty and discourage frivolous appeals. The alternative dispute resolution regime authorized by legislation in 2004 will be in full force and generating increased use of alternative dispute resolution measures. C. Special Issues

In the five-year period of this strategic plan, new priorities are sure to arise. Some of these will fit well within the framework described above. Others may require adaptation of the framework. One foreseeable example of a special issue is the need for increased attention to legal conflicts concerning the environmental implications of all forms of economic activity. Access to clean air and water, preservation of natural resources, 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. Another example is 95

the growing internationalization of the economy. The Philippines is seeking to be a welcome site for productive investment and job creation. Its justice systems ability to deal with the complexities of international commerce will be an even more important factor than previously. 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, fostering a culture of lawfulness, and advancing the rule of law. Implementation plans will need to be flexible so that these additional priorities can be accommodated with minimal disruption. D. Management Structure for Implementation

In the Philippines, as in other countries that have undertaken a sector-wide approach to justice reform, the management structure for implementation must address several needs. As discussed in Chapter IV, these include the needs: To reinforce strong linkage of resources to policies, strategies, and results; To establish and maintain discipline in the setting of realistic, well defined objectives and the formulation of implementing strategies and action plans; To align program objectives with implementation capacities, including capacities to manage change and manage for results; To balance participation in the decision making process with the need for timely decisions, and the need to balance the participation of senior leaders who have many responsibilities with the participation of technical experts; To identify key performance indicators and monitor and evaluate performance across the sector so as to provide incentives, inform decisions on future priorities, and facilitate accurate and timely reporting to stakeholders; 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, accommodates their widely diverse needs and capacities, and facilitates productive collaboration among them. Other countries have found it necessary to create multi-agency, 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. The Philippines is hardly a stranger to this idea. In particular, the Action Program for Judicial Reform provided for an interagency committee on judicial reform.5 The difference, however, is that APJR program management, being focused on the Judiciary, was under the direction of the Supreme Court and the interagency committee was only an advisory body. With a sector-wide reform, no single organization can reasonably be expected to have authority over all the others in the sector. Therefore, the multi-agency governance structure needs to have executive authority with respect to the reform. At the same time, that authority needs to respect the separation of powers and cannot impair the independence of the courts or other involved organizations. Consideration must be given to the most appropriate way to establish such a governance structure, including the possibility of a compact between the executive and judicial branches of government. A flexible, multi-tiered governance structure would seem best suited to meet the many and sometimes competing policy interests and operational needs described above. An

96

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, a Policy Leadership Council could provide overall policy guidance for the development, implementation, financing, and periodic review and updating of an overall justice sector strategy. 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. It would meet four times a year (and in additional special sessions if necessary) to review progress, address major policy issues, and foster consensus and coherence among the participating organizations. Taking into account previous national experience with inter-branch and interagency coordination in the justice sector, the practice of other countries that have undertaken justice sector-wide reform programs, and views expressed in the consultations on this report, 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, of course, has the constitutional duty to decide disputes and protect rights. The Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior and Local Government are the principal executive agencies responsible for prosecution, public defense, law enforcement, and incarceration and rehabilitation of offenders. The Department of Social Welfare and Development exercises important responsibilities in the system of juvenile justice and services to the poor. The Office of the Ombudsman is the lead agency for the enforcement of institutional and individual integrity in the public service. The National Economic and Development Authority and the Department of Budget and Management are the principal oversight agencies for the organizations in the justice sector. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Alternative Law Groups, and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry all represent the perspectives of constituencies that represent citizens before the justice system, monitor the systems performance, provide legal services to those with limited means of access to justice, and operate alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that are integral to the administration of justice. Some countries have found it useful to designate an executive committee from among policy leaders, empowered to resolve important and urgent matters that may arise between meetings of the full group. For example, the Chief Justice and the heads of the appropriate executive

97

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. Below the most senior level, a Steering Group of mid-level experts from the same organizations that are represented in the Policy Leadership Council will work with individual justice organizations and with groups of such organizations to support and oversee the development of annual action plans to carry out the overall strategy. The Steering Group will also review arrangements for monitoring and evaluation and assure an ongoing communication effort to inform the public, engage national stakeholders, and maintain a dialogue with international development partners. Organizations within Departments with multiple functions could participate in the Steering Group. For example, the National Prosecution Service, the Public Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Corrections, the Philippine National Police, and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology might all participate directly. 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. 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, primarily through their annual action plans, to identify, carry out, and document priority actions. The Executive Staff will address related matters of inter-institutional coordination, timing, financing, monitoring and evaluation. 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, obstacles encountered, and issues confronted in the implementation of the strategic plan. As discussed above in Chapter IV, the essence of a sector-wide strategy is its alignment of resources with policies, implementing strategies and actions. The logic is that adequate financing and staffing will enable activities to further the goals and objectives of the sector reform. Additional resources are accompanied by increased monitoring of performance and increased accountability for results. There are two ways in which this logic should be reinforced. First, if the Department of Budget and Management were to develop a medium-term expenditure framework for the implementation of the justice sector reform program, 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. A second measure would be to encourage the Philippines Development Forum, the principal venue for dialogue with international development partners, to establish a justice sector committee or, alternatively, a justice sector subcommittee of its existing governance committee. That would provide a further incentive for organizations within the justice sector to demonstrate their ability to make good use of resources and, by demonstrating opportunities for additional progress, improve prospects for additional resources. E. 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, and a corresponding dramatic increase in public confidence in the system. Results should include greatly reduced backlogs and congestion in courts and other adjudicatory bodies, equilibrium in the volume of new cases and completed cases in all justice organizations, more manageable workloads for judges, prosecutors, public attorneys, and other justice system operators, substantial reduction 98

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, increased juridical security for investment in economic opportunities, greatly improved service to the public, and legal empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged. Specific targets for these benefits will need to be established in implementation plans, using indicators such as the examples in Chapter IV of this report. Implementation will require a public investment program reflecting anticipated costs for achieving the selected priorities, with a specific annual breakdown over next five years and including indications of expenditures, proposed sources of financing, and timing of funds availability. 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, amounts for maintenance and other operating expenses, and adequate facilities and equipment; Systems infrastructure, including the one-time costs of a national information system for the justice sector and other administrative, financial, and case management systems, together with continuing operating and maintenance costs associated with those systems; Human resource development, including costs to enable personnel throughout the justice sector to implement new systems and adapt to the entire range of contemplated reforms; and Program management, including costs for the operation of the management structure described in Section D of this chapter for oversight guidance, and monitoring of the entire process of reform implementation. The public investment program is an important first step towards the development of a justice sector medium-term expenditure framework. As discussed in Chapter IV of this report, such a framework is essential to link resources with policies, strategies, and implementation plans. The framework will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and approved by the government. It will establish the overall and annual expenditure aggregates in personal services, 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, maintain established capacities in justice organizations, and ensure that the performance of the justice system continues to improve on a sustainable basis. 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. 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. The principal source of financing will have to be the government budget. Government appropriations should be augmented by local government contributions, fees charged for services by justice organizations, and assistance from international development partners. (The Action Program for Judicial Reform anticipated that 53.4% of planned investment would be financed with domestic funds and 46.55% from external financing primarily official development assistance.) As previously suggested, international support might best be organized by establishing a justice working group within the Philippine Development Forum.

99

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. 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. This will involve an evaluation of costs and benefits in comparison with other sectors making claims on the limited fiscal space for increased funding within the budget. The 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 governments current medium-term expenditure framework. A good justification needs to be presented before decisions are made that would foreclose consideration of a new initiative. One aspect of financing is that initial investments in improved management should over time increase productivity and thereby create savings. For example, greater efficiency in the criminal justice system should reduce the number of detainees awaiting trial at public expense. Consolidation of some law enforcement and corrections functions should eliminate some duplicative expenses. Rationalization of the support staff in the Judiciary, where there are 14 employees for every judge, should result in a smaller, but better compensated and more efficient workforce. F. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Indicators

A monitoring and evaluation system for the justice sector strategy will be necessary to enable the government, national stakeholders, and development partners to measure progress, anticipate problems, apply corrective measures, and gain lessons for continuing improvement of program implementation. The monitoring system should be based upon and compatible with the existing system that the government uses to measure the resources, outputs, outcomes, and development impacts of other programs. Among other things, this means that program elements should be summarized in a logical framework that sets out intended outputs and outcomes, performance targets and indicators, means of verification, and assumptions about risks that bear on performance. Within that framework, the priority results suggested above are outcomes intended to achieve the four objectives. Progress toward these outcomes needs to be measured by reference to targets and key performance indicators included in annual action plans. 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. For example, 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, prosecutors and public attorneys to meet the needs of each court station. 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). There would have to be a budget corresponding to the steps to be accomplished. It would also be necessary to see if more judges, prosecutors and public attorneys make a difference in performance with respect to issues, such as average time for disposition of cases (an indicator). The setting of practical targets, the development of budgets for actions to achieve those targets, and the identification of appropriate indicators, as suggested above, will require

100

the participation of the individuals who know the system best and will be accountable for implementation of the reform. An illustrative logical framework for a monitoring and evaluation plan is at Annex 6 of this report. The consultations on this report confirmed many of the targets and indicators set out in the logical framework. Examples of suggestions made for indicators in the consultations included the number of vacancies in justice organizations, the speed of decisions (including in disciplinary proceedings), the volume of petitions for certiorari, publication of decisions (including in disciplinary proceedings), percentage of final decisions appealed, and percentage of the jail population in pretrial detention. Additional examples from the experience of other countries are set out at the end of Chapter IV of this report. G. Conclusions

This report has documented the long tradition of support for the rule of law in the Philippines, the continuing efforts over the past two decades to restore the institutions of the justice system, and the current state of the administration of justice. From this review, 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. It is necessary to concentrate on measures that will demonstrably improve the performance of the entire justice system and the quality, scope of access, and timeliness of the public services it provides. On the basis of extensive research and stakeholder consultations, 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 four objectives are directed at efficiency (institutional capacity), values (independence, integrity, accountability, and transparency), competence (capable and motivated human resources), and service (broad access to justice and excellent service to the public). The overarching theme of this reform framework is improved performance and measurable results. 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, and that this will require a significant financial investment in capacity building and increased accountability for timely implementation of planned actions. In turn, the effort to improve capacities for managing improved performance and increasing accountability and the commitment of resources this will require are likely to be sustained only if there is a political consensus that the benefits of improved justice system performance outweigh the costs and risks. Chapter I of this report identifies a number of comparative indices of democratic governance, human rights, control of corruption, and economic competitiveness in which the relatively low ranking of the Philippines is related to weak performance by the justice system. The true significance of these indices is not how the Philippines compares with other countries. It is the correlation of improved performance on these issues with economic and social progress, the security and well being of people, and respect for democratic values and human dignity. These considerations can help provide a foundation for building the necessary consensus. 101

Our task as consultants has been to identify technical issues and technical responses. We cannot, of course, 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. We can, however, assert with a high degree of confidence that justice reform that will produce substantial benefits is attainable. 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.

102

Notes to Chapter V

Bradford, Robert W., and J. Peter Duncan, Simplified Strategic Planning: A No-Nonsense Guide for Busy People Who Want Results Fast!, Chandler House Press, Worcester, 2000, pages 165-188. Davide, Hilario, Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession towards the Third Millennium, 11 December 1998, http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/policy.htm. See Principles of Managing for Development Results at http://www.mfdr.org/1About.html. 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. See, e.g. Parmeter, David, Key Performance Indicators: Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning KPIs, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 2007. Action Program for Judicial Reform, Section G.1, page 118, Supreme Court, 2001,

3 4

http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html.

103

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. 4832-PHI: Enhancing the Autonomy, Accountability and Efficiency of the Judiciary, and Improving the Administration of Justice 1. The Government of the Philippines adopted the 6-year Action Plan for Judicial Reform (APJR) in November 2000 to strengthen judicial independence, effectiveness, and efficiency.1 In 2001, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) provided technical assistance (TA) to the Government to meet these same objectives.2 The recommendations under the ADB TA led the Supreme Court (SC) to adopt several key reform initiatives, including actions to improve and decentralize its administrative and financial operations. Subsequently, in response to the Governments concerns that the judicial reforms would not be as effective if the other pillars of justice were not improved as well, the SC oversaw the formation of a new working group (WG) comprising representatives from four of the five pillars of justice (judiciary, police and law enforcers, prosecutors and public defenders, and corrections system)3 to broaden the reform agenda, and agreed to chair the WG. 2. During the 2005 Country Strategy and Programming Mission, 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. The new program, along with a new TA, was included in the 20052007 Philippine country strategy and program (CSP) and confirmed at the 7 March 2006 CSP confirmation meeting. The Government requested the prompt processing of the new TA to allow the SC to begin implementing reforms in the judiciarys fiscal and administrative operations during the term of the current chief justice of the SC, who will retire at the end of 2006. The Government also requested an expansion in the scope of the TA to include improvements in the administration of justice. The Fact-Finding Mission in April 2006 reached an understanding with the Government on the purpose, output, methodology and key activities, cost estimates, and implementation arrangements for the TA.4 3. A more trustworthy, effective, and well-governed justice system is predicated on (i) an independent, accountable, and efficient judiciary; and (ii) effective law enforcement. With ADBs support, the Philippines has demonstrated significant leadership in developing and implementing a comprehensive judicial reform agenda under the APJR. However, capacity and budgetary constraints have slowed the pace of reforms. Moreover, the impact of such reforms depends on the effectiveness of other pillars of justice and other government law enforcement agencies55, which in turn depend on strong political will to apply the law consistently.

1 2 3 4 5

Supreme Court. Republic of the Philippines. 2001. Action Program for Judicial Reform 20012006 (with supplement). ADB. 2001. 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). Manila (TA 3693- PHI). The fifth pillar of justice is the community. The proposed TA focuses only on the first four pillars. The TA first appeared in ADB Business Opportunities on 30 May 2006. In addition to the four pillars of justice, about 23 national government agencies perform quasi-judicial functions and 34 have law enforcement functions.

105

4. Fiscal and Administrative Autonomy of the Judiciary. Although the Philippine Constitution mandates fiscal autonomy for the judiciary, fulfilling this constitutional mandate has been a challenge. Judiciary operations are funded primarily from the national budget6. A one-line ceiling provided by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) determines the details of the proposed annual budget of the judiciary. However, the release of allotments and cash and the reallocation of budget details are subject to overall national government priorities, spending regulations applied to other government agencies without fiscal autonomy, and DBM review and approval. 5. National budget allocations are augmented by the Judicial Development Fund, which comprises court fees and other revenues collected by the court and contributions from local government units (LGUs), made at the discretion of local executives. There are no reliable data on the amount or type of resource contribution of LGUs. Under the ADB TA, a formula, based on local government ability and willingness to contribute, was developed to systematize LGU contributions and make them nonnegotiable. 6. There is currently no-judiciary-wide resource management perspective. The budget of the appellate and special courts continues to be controlled by the DBM, while the administrative and financial management functions of the more than 2,000 lower courts are managed centrally by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Centralized administration is inefficient and promotes further dependence on LGU funding. For example, lower-court requests for funds to make building repairs, replace equipment, or pay utility bills must be submitted to and processed by the OCA. The backlog of requests results in long delays in payment and often the suspension of key services. To fill gaps in funding, lower courts are often forced to seek alternative assistance from LGUs. 7. To enable the SC to exercise fiscal autonomy, assume core administrative and financial management functions, and improve accountability and the delivery of services to the courts, the new administrative structure, systems, and functions developed under the ADB TA and approved by the SC in April 2004 must be implemented. Under the reform program, administrative and financial operations will be decentralized to the SC, appellate and special courts, the Philippine Judicial Academy, the Judicial and Bar Council, and the OCA. 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. 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. 8. The SC would like to set up the new CCAO and CFMO and a pilot RCAO at the same time. The SC has chosen Region 7, which has 146 lower courts administratively organized into 89 lowercourt stations, for the pilot RCAO to take advantage of synergies with the World Bank Judicial Reform Support Project, which is setting up a model hall of justice in the region.77 But before the new structure can be established, a detailed administrative structure, and staffing and operating procedures must be prepared and operationalized, and related capacity-building and change management processes must be developed and implemented. 9. Delays in the Administration of Justice. Delays in the administration of justice can be attributed to constraints in the judiciary and other pillars of justice. In 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. Philippine courts continue to be saddled by case backlog, and the
6 7

The Constitution provides that the judiciarys budget cannot be reduced in absolute terms, but the judiciarys share in the national budget has declined from 1.2% in 1998 to less than 1% in 2004. The project, funded with a loan from the World Bank, provides financing for the implementation of a package of reforms, 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), Region 7 RCAO, CCAO, and CFMO, to enable the vertical integration of the new systems.

106

docket clearance rates of judges is only 4045%. Studies made under the APJR revealed that up to 33% of pending cases continue to be delayed and generally remain open after 2 years. The SC therefore drew up a Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Strategy (2003) under the APJR. A related study showed the need for case-load management reforms and a monitoring framework to track judicial efficiency in this area. Hence, also under the APJR, the SC developed a case-flow management system (CFM) in Pasay, which is now being evaluated before being implemented nationwide. A team of judges, who have successfully developed similar systems in their own courts, are supporting the SC in enhancing the pilot project. 10. The APJR studies also reviewed the effectiveness of other measures intended to speed up the administration of justice, including the Katarungang Pambarangay (Barangay Justice System, or BJS). 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, unless they are repudiated in court within 10 days of being handed down. However, settlements reached through the BJS are often not enforced and the issues discussed in the settlement are brought once again before the courts. Judges have no effective way of ensuring that cases filed before them have previously been settled or have undergone settlement proceedings through the BJS. 11. 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 effectiveness and efficiency of prosecutors were identified by the study as important in this regard. However, without systematic case management, including the management of case documents, 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. In addition, limited access to research materials undermines the ability of the NPS and the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) to prepare and try cases. Moreover, new prosecutors working in the NPS are not given regular training and must learn on the job. Other prosecutors are trained ad hoc. Thus, prosecutors may lack the requisite skills to prepare specific types of cases. 12. While the SC has taken commendable steps to increase judicial efficiency by introducing information and communication technology (ICT), including an electronic library, CFM software, and e-payment systems, because of the limited funds available for capital outlays, most courts still lack Internet access and thus cannot use the e-library or submit reports to the SC electronically. 13. Poor coordination and collaboration among the four pillars of justice, especially in information sharing, also delays the administration of justice. Core information about persons who have been accused, detained, or convicted is often not readily available. Gaps in the accuracy of required information often go undetected, resulting in incomplete files. Processes for collecting, storing, retrieving, and sharing information often differ, resulting in duplicative collection, inconsistencies in information collected, and delays in retrieval.8 Privacy and security of information are also concerns. 14. Long-Term Strategy for the Justice Sector. The implementation of APJR reforms will be evaluated shortly by the SC. The results of the evaluation will be used to update priorities and focus and reprogram resources toward the full implementation of the reforms. A proposed road map for integrated justice sector reforms, based on the recommendations of earlier studies, was prepared recently. 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.
8

For example, there is no integrated system with data on arrest warrants and convictions that have been issued by the judiciary. The National Bureau of Investigation, which prepares clearances, only analyzes information that is provided to it. Not all courts report this information to the bureau. Thus, those who want to check whether a particular person has a criminal record may need to go directly to the courts.

107

THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

A. Impact and Outcome

15. The TA will promote a more trustworthy, efficient, and well-governed justice system that more effectively upholds the rule of law. Through its outputs, the TA will strengthen judicial autonomy, accountability and efficiency, and improve the administration of justice. B. 16. Methodology and Key Activities The TA will focus on three key reform areas: (i) Fiscal and administrative autonomy of the judiciary. The TA will support the implementation of the judiciarys new administrative and fiscal structure by assisting in developing and implementing (a) the detailed structure, staffing, and operating procedures and systems for the new CCAO, CFMO, and a pilot RCAO in Region 7, along with related capacity-building and change management support; and (b) a new accountability system within the decentralized framework, including an integrity unit within the pilot RCAO. 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 help improve the overall management of information coming from all pillars of justice, to increase efficiency and accountability (in the work of the judiciary, to start with), by developing the framework for a national justice information system (NJIS) and the related ICT framework. The TA will identify the core information needs and develop business processes to facilitate the collection, storage, retrieval, and sharing of core information, while addressing security and privacy concerns. It will also assist in (a) implementing the CFM for the judiciary in Region 7, (b) developing business processes and systems to integrate the BJS into the judicial process in Region 7, (c) improving communications and connectivity among the courts by providing Wi- Fi antennas in courts with adequate information technology infrastructure, (d) giving the judiciary and NPS better access to research materials needed to develop cases (Web-based), and (e) developing a case management system to track the status of probable-cause cases assigned to prosecutors, including prosecutors deputized by the OMB to handle cases of corruption. The TA will assist as well in developing a sustainable capacity development strategy for prosecutors, including funding options. Long-term strategy for the justice 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. To this end, it will (a) assess strategic long-term frameworks that have been prepared for the sector, (b) review related initiatives of other development partners, (c) facilitate agreement with the Government and other development partners on the reform agenda, (d) develop short- and long-term strategic funding initiatives and prioritize and cost specific investments, (e) determine the appropriate timing and sequencing of various actions and clarify implementation arrangements, and (f) develop a performance monitoring system that includes benchmarks and indicators to track progress in implementation.

(ii)

(iii)

108

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR CONSULTANTS

Component B: Improved Administration of Justice and Long-Term Justice Sector Development Strategy 1. International Team Leader and Justice Sector Reform Expert (5 person-months). This expert shall oversee the implementation of component B and be responsible for developing and implementing recommendations to enhance access to research materials, and for developing a longterm strategy for the justice sector. The expert shall have significant experience in justice sector reforms, including the development of approaches to reform, program development, and coordination among development partners. He or she shall (i) Supervise the national case management, case management systems and process engineering, training, and poverty reduction experts. 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. The expert shall also oversee the preparation of inception, quarterly, and draft final and final reports, including the integration of consultant reports in this component. Coordinate with the PMO, the National Prosecution Service (NPS), the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), the national fiscal and administrative reform expert and coordinator, and other development partners to ensure close coordination in, and strong ownership of, reform initiatives. Review proposals for long-term reforms in the justice sector, the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), and ongoing development partner initiatives in the justice sector, and synchronize funding agency initiatives and contributions in developing a long-term program for the sector. In close coordination with the PMO and pillars of justice working group (WG), develop a draft sector wide program framework, define the program focus and priorities, and formulate the program logical framework, policy matrices, and related expenditure needs to fund the reform agenda. Develop a program monitoring and performance evaluation mechanism, including indicators and benchmarks to track and review the progress in program implementation. Assist the PMO, WG, and ADB in obtaining consensus among development partners and the Government on the reform agenda, and develop short-term and long-term strategic funding initiatives, as well as the program structure and its lending and technical assistance components as may be necessary. In close coordination with the PMO and with support from the domestic legal and judicial reform expert, organize workshops to facilitate consensus among key stakeholders, including development partners, on the long-term justice sector strategy. In coordination with the domestic legal and judicial reform expert, review research materials available to the judiciary (with a focus on the Court of Tax Appeals) and the NPS in key priority areas, and identify gaps in available information. Review the need for access to an Internet service provider that includes the relevant US laws and cases. If recommending access to such a provider, arrange for access for 1 year, during which use of the service can be monitored to clarify whether the service should be continued. Also review the possibility of arrangements with Philippine and US law schools for training to address key legal research gaps. Supervise the domestic training expert in developing a sustainable capacity development strategy for NPS prosecutors.

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

109

2. International Case Management Expert (2 person-months). This expert shall assist the judiciary and other pillars of justice in developing and implementing case-load management processes and systems. 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. This expert shall have the following tasks: (i) Case-load management reforms. In coordination with the team leader, (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, case management experts) and oversee the implementation of their work plans, (b) supervise the case management experts in the implementation of business processes and procedures to support the judiciarys case-flow management system (CFM) in Region 7 courts, 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. Barangay Justice System in Region 7. To more effectively integrate the Barangay Justice System (BJS) in Region 7 into the judicial process, (a) supervise domestic case management experts and the domestic legal and judicial reform expert in the preparation, implementation, 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, and local disputes that were filed in the courts but were dismissed for failure to seek mediation through the BJS); 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. Case management system for NPS and OMB. In coordination with the domestic legal and judicial reform expert and the case management experts, develop case management processes and procedures for probable-cause cases handled by prosecutors, to enable the NPS and OMB to track the status of cases, including their resolution. Submit progress reports to the team leader on the status of implementation of the work plans.

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

3. 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). He or she shall have relevant experience in the development and implementation of justice information systems in developed markets, business process reengineering, information systems (IS) functional and user requirements definition, ICT procurement planning, and ICT project management. 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, IT experts) and supervise the implementation of their work plans. 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. The assessment shall also focus on the core information needs of each pillar. Review the assessment and recommend ways of addressing perceived gaps. The recommendations should reflect relevant international

(ii)

110

experience and best practices in the development and implementation of justice information systems. (iii) With the support of the IT experts, (a) develop the NJIS framework, identifying key information systems and their functionalities, strategic databases, and data-sharing functions across the pillars and the ICT infrastructure framework; and (b) assess change management requirements and develop an implementation scheme, as well as a change management framework for the NJIS, considering the absorptive capacity of the implementing institutions. Supervise the IT experts in defining the institutional capacities and specific organizational arrangements (functions, structures, competencies, staffing, linkages) needed to implement, manage, and maintain the NJIS. With the support of the IT experts, prepare a report detailing the proposed NJIS, including the change management requirements, implementation plan, and change management framework, policies, and standards for the successful implementation and maintenance of the NJIS; present the proposal to the pillars of justice working group (WG); obtain feedback; and make the appropriate revisions. With the support of the PMO, organize workshops to develop related capacity and facilitate consensus on the NJIS. Submit progress reports to the team leader on the status of work plan implementation.

(iv) (v)

4. Domestic Case Management Expert (3 person-months) and Domestic Case Management Systems and Process Reengineering Expert (5 person-months). These experts shall each have at least 5 years experience in business reengineering and ICT development and be familiar with justice sector operations. These experts will work closely together (i) in the rollout of caseload management reforms in Region 7; (ii) preparation of a survey on the use of the BJS in Region 7, and implementation and analysis of survey results; (ii) development of new related business processes and procedures; (iv) development of a new case management system for the NPS and OMB; and (iii) assistance to the international case management expert in organizing related workshops. A more detailed work plan and terms of reference will be developed by the international case management expert. 5. Justice Information and Communications Technology Expert (5 person months) and Domestic Information Systems Expert (2 person-months). These experts shall each have at least 5 years of relevant experience in the development of enterprise information systems, business process reengineering, and ICT planning and design. They shall work under the supervision of the international justice information system expert and shall assist in the design of the NJIS system architecture. 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. They will review and, if not available, develop the information system architecture of the relevant agencies of the pillars of justice. They will also define the scope of the NJIS and the functionalities of its information systems. The international justice information systems expert shall provide more detailed terms of reference for these experts. 6. Domestic Legal and Judicial Reform Expert (8 person-months). This expert shall be a lawyer with at least 5 years experience and be familiar with the operations of the Philippine justice sector, as a result of having worked on related reform initiatives. 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. In coordination with other international experts, the international justice sector expert will develop more detailed terms of reference for this expert.

111

7. Domestic Training Expert (2 person-months). This expert shall have at least 5 years of relevant experience in the design and implementation of capacity-building strategies and programs, particularly in the justice sector, and related experience in training, teaching, capacity building. He or she should have a background in law and capacity building and be experienced in criminal litigation. This expert shall assess the capacities of prosecutors in the NPS, identify gaps in capacity, and propose a training strategy to fill those gaps, including funding options, and implement several shortterm training modules. He or she will work under the supervision of the international team leader and the justice sector reform expert. 8. Domestic Poverty Reduction Expert (2 person-months). This expert shall have at least 5 years experience in assessing the impact of public sector programs on poverty. He or she shall analyze the impact of the APJR on the poor and the expected impact of proposed TA interventions. Using the ADB Handbook as a guide, this expert shall develop methodologies and tools and provide capacity development to SC in the conduct of poverty impact assessment on justice sector reforms. This expert shall work in close coordination with the team leader and the domestic legal and judicial reform expert.

112

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, a San Francisco firm that specializes in international cooperation in support of good governance and the rule of law. He has performed consulting assignments for the United States Government, other governments, and international organizations, as well as for DPK Consulting and other private consulting organizations. He previously served as Principal Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, and in other senior management positions in the United States Government, including as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (1983-1987), U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala (19871989), USAID Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean (1990-1992), and Acting Deputy Administrator and Acting Administrator of USAID (1992-1993). From 1994 until 1999, he was Chair of the Development Assistant Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, where he presided over the principal international forum for donor policy coordination. He returned to USAID in 1999 as Counselor to the Agency and left public service at the end of 2000. He received his J.D., cum laude, from Saint Louis University. Vicenta Alinsug is the President of CPRM Consultants Inc. She has been involved in the Philippine justice sector reform since 1999, playing lead consulting roles in the development, coordination, review and integration of studies and reform programs, including the formulation of administrative reforms for the Judiciary, the Action Program for Judicial Reform, Judiciary-Wide Automated Case Management Information System, Case Decongestion Strategy, operationalization of court-annexed mediation, and diagnostic studies and reform programs for the Department of Justice, Philippine National Police, and the Office of the Ombudsman. She was coteam leader of an Asian Development Bank program on strengthening the independence and accountability of the Judiciary. 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. She earned her bachelors Degree in Business Administration from the University of San Carlos, and completed post graduate studies in plan implementation and development financing from the Institute of Economic Development Studies in Italy, and graduate diploma in Urban and Regional Planning (with distinction) from Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Carolyn A. Mercado manages the Law and Human Rights program of The Asia Foundation in the Philippines. She assists in other selected activities within the Foundation's Law and Governance program and handles mediation and conflict management, and other forms of dispute resolution. 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. Prior to joining the Foundation, Ms. Mercado was an intern with the Center of International Environmental Law in Washington. Previously, she served consultancies in Manila for the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the International Maritime Organization, NOVIB, and the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources. She has served as lecturer on environmental law at Ateneo de Manila University, San Sebastian College of Law, and the Development Academy of the Philippines. She also previously served as executive director of the Developmental Legal Assistance Center, corporate secretary of the Alternative Law Groups, and as a legal aide to a member of the Philippine Senate. Ms. Mercado received a B.A. in political science from the University of the Philippines; LL.B. from the University of the Philippines College of Law. She was also a Hubert Humphrey Fellow in international environmental law, University of Washington and a European Union Scholar in environmental resource management, Maastricht School of Business in the Netherlands.
113

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ANNEX 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Information on the Philippines Asian Development Bank, Philippines Country Strategy and Program, 2005-2007, http://www.adb.org/Documents/CSPs/PHI/2005/default.asp. Asian Human Rights Commission, Philippines: The Human Rights Situation in 2006 Getting Away with Murder Widespread extrajudicial killings combine with a defective system to ensure impunity and injustice, in Human Rights Report 2006: The State of Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations, Hong Kong, December 2006, http://material.ahrchk.net/hrreport/2006/AHRC2006HRReport.pdf Campos, J. Edgardo and Jose Luis Syquia, Managing the Politics of Reform: Overhauling the Legal Infrastructure of Public Procurement in the Philippines, World Bank, Washington, 2007. Freedom House, Freedom in the World-Philippines, 2006, 20007, http://www.freedomhouse.org. National Statistics Office, The Philippines in Figures, 2007, http://www.census.gov.ph. Quimson, Gabriella, National Integrity Systems Transparency International Country Study Report of the Philippines, Transparency International, 2006,
http://chapterzone.transparency.org/index.php/content/download/15149/162858.

Santos-Ong, Milagros, Philippine Legal Research, New York University, May 2006, www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Philippines1.htm. World Bank, Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of the Philippines, April 2005, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPHILIPPINES/Resoureces/PHILCASMain.pdf Country Data Report for Philippines, 1996-2006, Governance Matters 2007, http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/c175.pdf.

Philippine Justice Reform Initiatives Supreme Court, Republic of the Philippines, Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001-2006 (with Supplement), August 2001, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary, 1999.

Alternative Law Groups, Inc., From the Grassroots: The Justice Reform Agenda of the Poor and Marginalized, February 2004. National Economic and Development Authority, National Medium Term Development Plan, 2004-2010, Chapters 16 and 17, Basic Need: Peace and Order and Basic Need: Rule of Law, http://www.neda.gov.ph/ads/mtpdp/MTPDP2004-2010/PDF/MTPDP2004-2010.html.

115

Philippine National Police Integrated Transformation Program, 2005, http://www.pnp.gov.ph/index.html. National College of Public Administration and Governance, Center for Policy and Executive Development, University of the Philippines, Medium-Term Development Plan for the Criminal Justice System (2007-2010), UNDP, Supreme Court of the Philippines, December 2006, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Philippine Justice System Studies Alinsug, Vicenta, Investing in Justice: Expenditure Review of the Philippine Judiciary, CPRM Consultants, Inc., 2006. Alston, Philip, Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, November 2007, http://www.extrajudicialexecutions.org/reports/A_HRC_8_Philippines_Advance_Edited.pdf. American Bar Association, Judicial Reform Index for the Philippines, March 2006, http://www.abanet.org/rol/publications/philippines_jri_2006.pdf. ASEAN Law Association, Legal System in Philippines, 2005, www.aseanlawassociation.org/legal.html. Asian Development Bank, Country Governance Assessment: Philippines, Chapter VII, The Legal and Judicial System, March 2005, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/CGA/phi.asp. Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication, Final Report: Change Management for the Judiciary, October 2003, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. On Balance: Judicial Reforms in the Philippines, 2005. Enhancing Communication between the Judiciary and the Citizenry, Supreme Court, 2000.

Asian Legal Resource Center, The Criminal Justice System of the Philippines Is Rotten, Vol. 6, Article 2, No. 1, February 2007. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, CPRM Consultants, Inc, National Center for State Courts, The Asia Foundation, Final Report Capsule: Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary, November 2005. Bhargava, Vinay, and Emil Bolongaita, Anticorruption Initiatives in the Philippines: Breakthroughs, Limits, and Challenges, in Challenging Corruption in Asia: Case Studies and a Framework for Action, World Bank, 2004, page 102. CPRM Consultants Inc, Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice, UNDP, Supreme Court, Department of Justice, June 2003, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html.
116

Final Report: Formulation of Administrative Reforms, Supreme Court, July 2000. Revised Final Report: Medium-Term Anticorruption Plan and Public Investment Program, Office of the Ombudsman, UNDP, November 2004. Final Report: Conduct of Further Study on Operations and Linkages of the 5 Pillars of Justice, Supreme Court, UNDP, March 2006, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Final Report: Transforming the Philippine National Police (PNP) to a More Capable, Effective and Credible Police Force (Phase 2), Philippine National Police, Supreme Court of the Philippines, UNDP, June 2005, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Organizational and Financial Study of the Philippine Mediation Center and its Units, Revised Design Report, 2005; Review of Organizational Options, January 2007. National Survey of Inmates and Institutional Assessment, Supreme Court, UNDP, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, 2003, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Final Report: Institutional Strengthening of the Sharia Justice System (Phase 1), June 2004, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Organizational and Financial Study of the Philippine Mediation Center and its Units, January 2007. Preliminary Report: Judiciary-Wide Automated Case Management Information System, Supreme Court, World Bank, 2004.

Espaol, Dolores, The Philippines: Towards significant judicial reform, in Transparency International, Global Corruption Report 2007, Chapter 7, pages 258-262, 2007, www.transparency.org. Feliciano, Myrna and Alberto T. Muyot, The Philippine Criminal Justice System, Supreme Court of the Philippines, July 2000 http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Gerry Roxas Foundation, Final Report, A Study on the Efficacy and Efficiency of the Barangay Justice System (Katarungang Pambarangay), March 2000, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Gerry Roxas Foundation, The Asia Foundation, Supreme Court of the Philippines, USAID, The Barangay Justice System Review, 2000, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Hunter, Rosemary, Final Report: Philippines Formulation of Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Strategy Project, Center for Public Resource management, Inc., Supreme Court of the Philippines, World Bank, Manila, December 2003, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html.

117

Hudes, Karen, Judicial Sector Study of the Philippines, World Bank, 2000. Institute of Judicial Administration, University of the Philippines Law Center, Report on the Effects of the Continuous Trial System on Litigation Time and Output in the National Capital Region, Quezon City, 1990. La Salle Institute of Governance, Assessment of the Public Attorneys Office, 2003. Libertas, Addressing Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice by the Poor and Disadvantaged, USAID, 2003. Narag, Raymond, Freedom and Death Inside the Jail: A Look Into the Conditions of Quezon City Jail, UNDP, 2004, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Pangalangan, Raul, The Philippine Judicial System, Institute of Developing Economies, March 2001, http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Als/pdf/05.pdf. Sison, Carmelo, and Myrna Feliciano, Philippine Judicial Reforms, 1987-2000, Supreme Court of the Philippines, July 2000, h http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Social Weather Station, 2005/2006 Diagnostic Study of the Judiciary, December 2006. Survey of Enterprises on Corruption, July 2007. Changes in the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession in the Philippines, 2004. Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, 1996.

The Asia Foundation, Philippines, in Judicial Independence Overview and Country-Level Summaries, Asian Development Bank, October 2003, page 73, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Events/2003/RETA5987/Final_Overview_Report.pdf. Urban Integrated Consultants, Inc., Final Report: Infrastructure Program Requirements for the Judiciary, Supreme Court, October 2003, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. United Nations Development Programme, Diagnostic Report: Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through Reforms in the Department of Justice, Supreme Court, June 2003, http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/apjr_pubreports.html. Management Study of the Judiciary, Supreme Court, 1998.

World Bank, Project Appraisal Document for Philippines Judicial Reform Project Support, July 2003, http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64283627&piPK=73230&theSiteP K=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P066076

118

Results-Based Management, Performance Standards, and Indicators Albers, Pim, Evaluating Judicial Systems: A Balance between Variety and Generalization, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, May 2003, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/PimAlbers.pdf. Asian Development Bank, An Introduction to Results Management: Principles, Implications, and Applications, 2006, www.adb.org. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, as revised by the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices, The Hague, November 2002, http://www.ajs.org/ethics/pdfs/Bangalore_principles.pdf. Buscaglia, Edgardo and Maria Dakolias, Comparative International Study of Court Performance Indicators: A Descriptive and Analytical Account, World Bank, 1999. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, European Judicial Systems, Council of Europe, 2006. Kaufmann, Daniel and Aart Kraay, Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going?, Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank, October 2007, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/wps4370.pdf. Kusek, Jody Zall and Ray C. Rist, Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System, World Bank, 2004. Messick, Richard and Luba Beardsley, Co-Coordinators, Readings on Performance Indicators for the Judiciary, World Bank, March 2004. - Key Functions of Legal Systems with Suggested Performance Measures, World Bank, 2001, http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/legal/legaltoolkit.pdf. OECD, Emerging Good Practice in Managing for Development Results: Sourcebook Second Edition, 2007, http://www.mfdr.org/Sourcebook/2-2ndEdition.html. Parmeter, David, Key Performance Indicators: Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning KPIs, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 2007. Poate, Derek, Measuring & Managing Results: Lessons for Development Cooperation, United Nations Development Programme, 1997. Saldanha, Cedric, Promoting Results Based Management in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries, ADB Governance Brief No. 4, 2002, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Periodicals/GB/governancebrief04.pdf. Schauffler, Richard, Judicial accountability in the US state courts: Measuring court performance, Vol. 3, Utrecht Law Review, Issue 1, page 112, June 2007, http://www.utrechtlawreview.org. Steelman, David C., Improving Caseflow Management: A Brief Guide, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, 2004.
119

Tai, Benny, Developing an Index of the Rule of Law: Sharing the Experience of Hong Kong, Volume 2, Asian Journal of Comparative Law, No. 1, 2007, http://www.bepress.com/asjcl/vol2/iss1/art4. United Nations Development Programme, Governance Indicators: A Users Guide, 2d Edition, Oslo, 2007, http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_online_version.pdf. Vera Institute of Justice, Measuring Progress toward Safety and Justice: A Global Guide to the Design of Performance Indicators across the Justice Sector, November 2003, www.vera.org/publications/publications_5.asp?publication_id=207. Justice Indicators, Paper prepared for the UNDP Governance Indicators Project, Oslo, April 2005, http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs05/cross/Justice%20Indicators%20Background%20 Paper.pdf.

Rule of Law and Development Asian Development Bank, Law and Policy Reform at the Asian Development Bank, 2001, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Others/Law_ADB/lpr_2001.pdf. Dam, Kenneth W., The Law-Growth Nexus: The Rule of Law and Economic Development, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, 2006. Daniels, Ronald and Michael Trebilcock, The Political Economy of Rule of Law Reform in Developing Countries, 26 Michigan Journal of International Law, 99, 2004. Ghani, Ashraf, Economic Development, Poverty Reduction, and the Rule of Law: Lessons from East Asia Successes and Failures, Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, January 2006, http://www.undp.org/legalempowerment/pdf/economic_poverty_rule_of_law.pdf. Golub, Stephen, Legal Empowerment: Impact and Implications for the Development Community and the World Bank, The World Bank Legal Review: Law, Equity, and Development, Volume 2, World Bank, 2006, page 167. Sherwood, Robert, Judicial Performance: Its Economic Impact in Seven Countries, International Society for New Institutional Economics, 2004, http://www.kreative.net/ipbenefits/tucson/isnie2004/ISNIE2004.htm. Sicat, Gerardo, Legal and Constitutional Disputes and the Philippine Economy, February 2007, http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/respub/dp/pdf/DP2007-03.pdf. Vandenabeele, Caroline and Christine Lao, editors, Legal Identity for Inclusive Development, Asian Development Bank, Manila, 2007.

120

Sector Wide Approach Asian Development Bank, The Long-Term Strategic Framework of the Asian Development Bank (2001-2015), www.adb.org/Documents/Policies/LTSF/long0302.asp. British Council, Proceedings of Conference on Justice Sector Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic Framework and Practical Lessons, November 21-22, 2006, http://www.britishcouncil.org/kenya-justice-sector-conference.htm. Department for International Development, Safety, Security and Accessible Justice: Putting Policy into Practice, London, July 2002, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/safesecureaccjustice.pdf. Endroma, Evelyn B., Sector Wide Approach in Justice, Law and Order: The Uganda Experience, 2005, http://www.doj.gov.za/alraesa/conferences/papers/ent_s2_edroma.pdf. European Commission, Guidance for European Commission Support to Sector Programmes, Brussels, February 2003, http://www.sti.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdfs/swap/swap312a.pdf. Fischer, Eveline N., Lessons Learned from Judicial Reform: The ADB Experience, October 2006, http://www.adb.org/media/printer.asp?articleID=10829. Governance and Social Development Resource Centre, Justice, http://www.gsdrc.org/go/topicguides/justice/justice-overview. Guyana Justice Reform Strategy, 2006-2010, http://www.gina.gov.gy/justicreform/Guyana%20JSRS%20revised%20June%202006c.pdf Jamaican Justice System Reform Project, http://www.cba.org/jaaicanjustice/index.htm. Lavergne, Ral, and Anneli Alba, CIDA Primer on Program-Based Approaches, Canadian International Development Agency, http://www.acdicida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/CapacityDevelopment2/$file/Program%20Based %20Approaches-E.pdf. Malik, Waleed Haider, Judiciary-Led Reforms in Singapore: Framework, Strategies, and Lessons, World Bank, Washington, 2007. OECD, Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery, Volume 2, Chapter 3, Sectorwide Approaches, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series, OECD, Paris, 2006, http://www.oecd.org/dac/harmonisingpractices. Papua New Guinea Government, Law and Justice Sector Reform Website, http://www.lawandjustice.gov.pg. Reiling, Dory, Linn Hammergren, and Adrian Di Giovanni, Justice Sector Assessments: A Handbook, World Bank, March 2007, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLAWJUSTINST/Resources/JSAHandbookWebEdition .pdf.

121

Republic of Kenya, Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector Reform Website, http://www.gjlos.go.ke. Republic of Uganda, Justice, Law and Order Sector Reform Website, http://www.jlos.go.ug. World Bank, Law and Justice Institutions Website, http://go.worldbank.org/OESX5Q35R0.

122

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ANNEX 4

PERSONS INTERVIEWED
Philippine Government and Judiciary Edgardo Acuna, Director for Human Resources Development, Philippine National Police Lourdes Aniceto, Chief of Planning and Research Services, National Police Commission Sally Aquino, Senior Prosecutor, Department of Justice Rogelio Asignado, Vice President, Philippine Public Safety College Rosalina Bistoyong, Executive Director, National Commission on Indigenous Persons Anthony Carpio, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Marius Corpus, Undersecretary for Public Order and Safety, Department of Interior and Local Government Baby Catherine Cruz, Economic Development Specialist, Management Staff, National Economic and Development Authority Jose Miguel Dela Rosa, Consultant, Office of the Solicitor General Eduardo De Los Angeles, Dean, Philippine Judicial Academy Agnes Devanadera, Acting Secretary of Justice Evelyn Toledo-Dumdum, Director, Program Management Office, Supreme Court Gillian Dunuan, Attorney, National Commission on Indigenous Persons Zenaida Necesito-Elepao, Senior Deputy Court Administrator, Supreme Court Richard D. Fadullon, Assistant Chief State Prosecutor, Department of Justice Antonio Fernandez, Director, Management Staff, National Economic and Development Authority Susan Gavino, Program Management Office, Supreme Court Merceditas Gutierrez, Ombudsman Arthur K. Hernan, Clerk of the National Commission on Indigenous Persons Justice Ameurfina Herrera, Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy Mina Importante, Chief, Center for Public Safety Service, Philippine Public Safety College

123

General Clarito Jover, Director, Bureau of Jails and Municipal Prisons, Department of Interior and Local Government Aida Layug, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila Linda Malenab-Hornilla, Vice Chair, National Police Commission Macapancat Mama, Deputy Chief Public Attorney, Public Attorneys Office Jose Midas Marquez, Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court Myrna Medina, Director of Crime Prevention, National Police Commission Romulo Neri, Secretary of Socioeconomic Planning, National Economic and Development Authority Monica Pagunsan, Director Management Services Office, Department of Justice Austere Panadearo, Undersecretary for Local Government, Department of Interior and Local Government Laura Pascua, Undersecretary for Policy, Department of Budget and Management Manuel Pontanal, Chief of Legal Affairs, National Police Commission Reynato Puno, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Purificacion Quisumbing, Chair, Commission on Human Rights Avelino Razon, Director General, Philippine National Police Mario Relampagos, Undersecretary, Department of Budget and Management Persida Rueda-Acosta, Chief Public Attorney, Department of Justice Rowena San Pedro, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City Celia Sanidad-Leones, Commissioner, National Police Commission Dennis Siervo, Project Manager, Program Management Office, Philippine National Police Isidro Siriban, Director of Personnel and Administrative Services, National Police Commission Alfredo F. Tadiar, Chair, Alternative Dispute Resolution Department, Philippine Judicial Academy Roberto Tan, Undersecretary, Department of Finance Rolando G. Tungpalan, Deputy Director General, National Economic and Development Authority

124

Martin Villarama, Associate Justice, Court of Appeals Basilio Wandag, Director, Legal Affairs, National Commission on Indigenous Persons Jovencito Zuo, Chief State Prosecutor, Department of Justice International Development Partners Jaseem Ahmed, Director, Governance, Finance and Trade Division, Southeast Asia Department, Asian Development Bank John Alkpala, Program Manager, Development Cooperation, Australian Embassy Emmanuel Buendia, UNDP Jose Edgardo Campos, Lead Public Sector Specialist, World Bank Keith Crawford, Deputy Chief, Rule of Law Division, Democracy and Governance Office, USAID Steven Edminster, Governance Officer, USAID Eveline Fischer, Deputy General Counsel, Asian Development Bank Kunihiko Higashi, Second Secretary, Embassy of Japan Debra Kertzman, Senior Financial Sector Specialist, Asian Development Bank Jon Lindborg, Mission Director, USAID Maria Longi, Director, Threshold Program, Millennium Challenge Corporation Jose Mendoza, Legal/Judicial Reform Adviser, Philippines-Canada Cooperation Office Richard Messick, Co-Director, Law and Justice Thematic Group, World Bank Arthur Mitchell, General Counsel, Asian Development Bank Bradley Parks, Development Policy Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation Eva Pastrana Gutierrez, Program Officer, European Commission Klaus Preschle, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Gerardo Porta, Civic Participation Specialist, USAID Akira Sugiyama, Minister of Economic Affairs, Embassy of Japan Jeffrey Thomas, Assistant Director, International Criminal Investigative Training and Assistance Program (ICITAP), US Department of Justice

125

Anthony Toft, Chief Counsel, East Asia and Pacific, Legal Department, World Bank Narcisa Umali, Senior Program Officer, CIDA Felipe Ureta Redshaw, Team Leader, European Commission Access to Justice Project Cecilia Vales, Lead Procurement Specialist, World Bank Sam Zappia, Counsellor, Development Cooperation, Australian Embassy Civil Society and Subject Matter Experts Carina Agarao, Executive Director, Center for Community Advancement Benjamin Allen, Chief of Party, MCA Threshold Program, Management Systems International Gregorio Batiller, Attorney Andres Bautista, Dean, Institute of Law, Far Eastern University Florangel Braid, Asian Institute for Journalism and Communication Roberto Cadiz, Trustee, Libertas Teresa Cannady, Country Director, Philippines, American Bar Association George Carmona, Chief of Party, USAID ROLE Program, Management Systems International Scott Ciment, Country Director, Philippines, American Bar Association Phyllis Cox, Chief of Party, MCA Threshold Program, Management Systems International Roger Dallas, Chairman, American Chamber of Commerce John Dinsdale, Advisor, Papua New Guinea-Australia Law and Justice Sector Program John Forbes, Treasurer, American Chamber of Commerce Crisanto Frianeza, Secretary General, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Rita Linda Gimeno, Attorney, Team Leader, CTA Closed Case Study, ROLE Edwin Glindro, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Glenda Gloria, Newsbreak Louie Tito Guia, President, Libertas Judge Evelyn Lance, Judicial Reform Specialist

126

Renato Lopez, Attorney, American Bar Association Mariano Magsalin, Dean, Arellano University Law School Clare Manuel, Director, Law and Development Partnership Marlon Manuel, Project Director, Justice Reform Initiatives, Alternative Law Groups, Inc. Jack Miranda, Attorney, American Bar Association Marites Naguilan Vitug, Newsbreak Claro Parlade, Attorney Custodio Parlade, Attorney Carol Pascual Sanchez, Corruption Prevention Specialist, MCA Threshold Program, MSI Ricardo Romulo, Attorney, Romulo, Masanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De Los Angeles Steven Rood, Country Representative, The Asia Foundation Robert Sears, Executive Director, American Chamber of Commerce Jose Vicente Salazar, President, Integrated Bar of the Philippines D. Brooks Smith, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Carolyn Sobritchea, Team Leader, European Union Access to Justice Project Ramon Tuazon, Asian Institute for Journalism and Communication Cesar Villanueva, Dean, Ateneo Law School

127

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. Court Management Systems Caseload Survey and Development of Case Decongestion Plan Case Decongestion and Reduction of Delay Strategy Project. 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; b) design a case decongestion and delay reduction strategy; and c) design a sustainable mechanism for improving the Judiciarys capacity in caseload and court performance management. 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). So far, five model courts have been established in Pampanga, Bacolod, Baguio/Benguet, La Union, and Cagayan de Oro City. JDR hassuccessfully settled around 41% of cases that have undergone JDR, eliminating some 641 cases from the court dockets. 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. A study on Access to Justice and Effectiveness of ADR approaches was likewise completed. Study Completed. Recommendation to conduct a one-time case decongestion project is still unimplemented. However, docket cleansing (similar to the concept of the onetime case decongestion project is going to be initiated in the Court of Appeals. 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, Prospects and Recommendations

The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005, 2006), Supreme Court Administrative Circulars, and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5, 2006).

129

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

TO DO Re-engineering and standardization of case management procedures in all courts

COMMENTS

ADB TA 4832 Component B, 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. In particular services are provided to develop and implement business processes and procedures to support the Judiciarys case-flow management system (CFM) in region 7 courts and develop related court performance indictors to track progress in case decongestion and delay reduction. 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, 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. (CAMIS). Phase I involved the automation of data collection and processing of the CMOOCA. The Supreme Court through Memorandum Order No. 46 2006 created the CAMIS Rollout Implementation Team. 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.net software. A total of 189 personnel from 45 RTCs and 13 MeTCs were trained to use the CAMIS software.

CAMIS Rollout Implementation The CAMIS Rollout Implementation Team was created to plan, synchronize coordinate, manage and monitor the undertaking that is the rollout of CAMIS to lower courts. The following activities were scheduled to be conducted in RTCs and MeTCs in the Cities of Pasig, Marikina, Mandaluyong, and the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, and San Juan: 1) CAMIS change management orientation; 2) Data clean up; 3) Assessment of the availability of hardware and Internet facilities; 4) Users training; 5) System installation and hand holding. These activities concerning 55 trial courts and 528 court personnel were scheduled to end on September 2006.

The Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library decided to temporarily postpone the Rollout of CAMIS.Net due to financial considerations and the development of the Case Flow Management System Phase II, as the latter is envisioned to be rolled out with the CAMIS.net software

The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005, 2006), Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars, and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5, 2006).

130

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

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. Expected roll-out will be in March 2008. 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.g. Management and Information System Department) to manage the CMIS. Trainings on records management, control, and archiving techniques for key divisions and court personnel have also been conducted. Current work is being done for the integration of CMIS with other IT systems of the Supreme Court, public information on CMIS, improve case and caseflow management in the Court of Appeals, including automation. The initial work with the Court of Tax Appeals has also started. Technical assistance in change management to support the sustainable and continuous implementation of the Case Management Information System (CMIS) introduced in each court. 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, which will be implemented under the Judicial Reform Support Project

131

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO Completed.

COMMENTS Case Flow Management Assessment conducted in May 2006. The pilot project was assessed in April 2006 by a team of judges and court personnel. The assessors underscored the need to enhance the CFM system and software to include more case tracking features and generation of data for the Court Administration Management Information System (CAMIS) of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), among others. Pursuant to said recommendations, 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.

Case Flow Management (CFM) Pilot Project in Pasay City Courts October 2002- July 2004 USAID/EGTA The Supreme Court implemented a pilot project on case flow management (CFM) in 2002. 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. It uses previously determined track assignments under the Differentiated Case Management process. It entails the elimination of unnecessary time intervals or case events, and the addition of necessary case events so that the case is moved reasonably swiftly and disposition time shortened. The CFMs main feature is the case tracking system upon which a software was developed. The CFM software was pilot-tested in the Regional Trial Courts and Metropolitan Trial Courts in Pasay City from October 2003 to June 2005.

Development and Pilot Implementation of an Enhanced Case flow Management (CFM) System for First and Second Level Courts The Project involves the design, development, testing, pilot implementation, 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. The software development phase was completed on November 30, 2006 and was pilot-tested in Pasay City on December 2006.

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- out delayed due to change in leadership in the Supreme Court Committee on Computerization and Library.

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. Procurement of more CAT machines held in abeyance as the SC OCA is looking into cheaper alternatives (using ordinary keyboard and foot pedals)

132

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)

TO DO Amendment to the Rule is being studied by the SC Rules Committee.

COMMENTS Sandiganbayan has adopted new internal rules of procedures in line with the adoption of CMIS.

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. The broad scope of Rule 65 allows a party to question any act by any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, by alleging simply that such act was performed with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Some legal practitioners Others: - Strengthening the Rules in Civil Forfeiture and Money Laundering - Consultation with the Bar and Bench on the Four Studies (Memoranda, Recognizance, Summary Procedure, and Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice) - Study on the Possible Expansion of the Scope of Recognizance - Study on the Scope of the Rules of Procedures for Criminal 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, with respect to matters 3 filed of first instance for trial, 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, 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. It also supported the nationwide consultation- dialogues on the videos. Review of Civil Procedure Rules Moreover, 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.) 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, and to promote international arbitration as well as enforcement of foreign judgments. The results of the assessment were published in January 2007 as part of the ABA Legal Assessment Series.

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.

Nationwide consultations were done to inform judges about the revised procedures and to solicit comments.

Assessment report given to the Supreme Court Committee on Rules but no action yet. The suggested roundtable discussion has not materialized.

Republic Act No. 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. The law likewise provides that the entire trial period shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

133

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

TO DO Establish internal institutional capacities for the continuing review and improvement of the rules of court - institutional capacity requirements, and operating systems and procedures defined and incorporated in the design of the Judicial Research Institute - implementation of continuing research and evaluation of the Rules of Court, including operationalization of systems and procedures and specific work flows that will generate information and enable continuing assessment by year 2 of reform implementation - comprehensive report on the overall assessment and recommendations on the Rules of Court Improve capability of the Committee on the Revision of Rules Consider issues surrounding its temporary status as an ad hoc committee

COMMENTS

Committee on the Revision of Rules The Committee was reorganized by then Chief Justice Hilario Davide. The Committee is convened by an Associate Justice of the SC, and its members consist of private practitioners, selected magistrates, and heads of pertinent agencies. The members serve on an ad hoc basis taking into consideration the specific subject matter for consideration. The Committee has no institutionalized mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Rules on actual practice

Rules of Court compatible with eCommerce laws

Analysis of the Rules of Evidence and the Electronic Rules of Evidence for the republic of the Philippines An Analysis of the Rules of Evidence and the Electronic Rules of Evidence for the republic of the Philippines was also undertaken by ABA. A roundtable discussion/workshop is being planned with the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court to discuss proposed revisions of the Rules of Evidence.

Study compatibility of the Rules of Court with eCommerce laws Awaiting decision of the SC Rules Committee as regards the recommended changes. Roundtable discussion is yet to happen. 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, Visayas, and Mindanao. 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, interview rooms, survivor-sensitive facilities, court-annexed mediation services, public access to judicial records archives, space for training and meetings with media, lawyers, etc.

134

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

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, continuing assessment and reform formulation and policy recommendation on judicial concerns, 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. The SC Library Services distributes e-Library CDs quarterly, the digitization of SC decisions has started, open book scanners have been procured and the elibrary is now functional (WB) Digitization of Sandiganbayans 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, tracking, access, material development procedures and operating systems Full system operation and stabilization

135

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT 2. Court Jurisdictional Structure Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

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, promote access, ensure balanced distribution of caseload, simplification of case processing procedures and standards, etc. A study on Reengineering of the Court Jurisdictional Structure has been completed in January 2007. - Results of the study presented to internal and external stakeholders in February 2007. Final report submitted in May 2007.

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, decide, 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. Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ADR) Comprehensive Diagnostic Study of the ADR Mechanism Establishment of CourtAnnexed Mediation System ADR comprehensive diagnostic reform report Installed courtannexed ADR

Institute the capacity in the Supreme Court to review the efficiency, access, 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. 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.) Institutionalization of ADR Court Annexed Mediation On decongesting court dockets, there are concrete gains towards the institutionalization Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) in trial courts. From 2002March 2007, CAM resolved a total of 29,678 cases at 70% success rate, contributing to a steady decline in the overall caseload of Philippine courts. This was achieved with only 113 mediation centers covering 731 out of the existing 2,258 courts in the country. Ensure sustainability of courtannexed mediation Final Guidelines on Mediators 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.

The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005, 2006), Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars, and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5, 2006).

136

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO

COMMENTS

The Philippine Judicial Academy, has trained more than 500 mediators in three pilot areas (Metro Manila, Cebu, and Davao; and later on in the expansion areas in Cagayn de Oro, Tacloban, General Santos, etc.). Development and implementation of a Communication Plan for Court-Annexed Mediation; the financial and administrative study of the PMC Units; the integration of the ADR curriculum; ADR orientation for family court judges; and a national conference that provided a venue for the discussion of concerns regarding the implementation of court-annexed mediation. Pilottesting of appellate mediation (called Court of Appeals Mediation) Establishment of an ADR Institute Installed an ADR Institute Establishment of the U.P. Law Center Institute on Dispute Resolution (IDR) and Other Related Projects July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 The University of the Philippines Law Center established the Institute on Dispute Resolution (IDR). The Institute is envisioned as a vehicle for improving the theory and practice of all forms of dispute resolution. It intends to encourage new thinking in negotiation theory and ADR, provide a forum for discussion of ADR ideas and practices, increase public awareness of various modes of ADR, and provide ADR services to the general public. The Institute further aims to establish a national network of ADR academics and practitioners which can guide the development of ADR in the country. 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. It targets the legal community starting from law students, practitioners, law professors, lecturers, and researchers. Installing Supreme Court Capacity for Continuing Monitoring and Assessment of ADR Institutions Other ADR Initiatives Passage of an ADR Legislation In 2004, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law was passed.

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.

137

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

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; establish Legal Information Desks in 1080 barangays to function in coordination with MCIOs; development of information, education, and communication strategies for various stakeholders. The Supreme Court has already produced gender-sensitive, child-friendly, and rights-based IEC materials. ADB TA 4832 Component B, Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy BJS- 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.

Continue installation of strengthening measures for the Barangay Justice System (including training, institutional, 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. 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.

Presentation of the results of the comprehensive review of the Barangay Justice System (performance, institutions, resources, services, systems & procedures) and proposed reengineering of the governance, institutional setup and operation of the system, and overall capacity build-up

4. Judicial Performance management System Development of Judicial Management System Training Needs Assessments have been conducted, including documentation of HRD Best Practices, and the HRD Training Framework (5-Year HRD Capability-Building Plan.) 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

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO Personnel. 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, civil society and community contributions in monitoring the conduct, operations, and performance of judges, court personnel, and the overall court system.

COMMENTS

Others

Improving Judicial Performance in the ARMM These judicial reform initiatives in the ARMM seek to enhance judicial governance in the area. It seeks to promote just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases. 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, actual and/or potential. Its goals include the following: (1) (2) build on, strengthen and consolidate the desire of the courts, the judges and their personnel to further improve their court processes, provide the courts, as well as the various other stakeholders, opportunities to discuss court processes, identify systemic and operational challenges, and enable them to propose and adopt responsive solutions consistent with national standards yet responsive to local needs, and provide the courts and their personnel opportunities to develop their core competencies.

Ongoing To achieve these, simple judicial action documents form-template library for use by the courts have been developed as an intermediate step toward the development of an automated management information system.

(3)

Judge to Judge Dialogues Docket Management and Corporate Principles in Judicial Administration, and Case Delay: Problems and Solutions

Dialogues have been completed.

139

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT 1. Fiscal Autonomy and Financial Resources Generation Design of Financial Management Autonomy Strategy

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO

COMMENTS

INSTITUTIONS DEVELOPMENT

Fiscal Autonomy Strategy

SC AM No. 06-11-09-SC (Feb. 27, 2007) ADBTA4832:Enhancing the Autonomy, Accountability, 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, and providing for the Initiation of Budgetary Operations for Pilot Projects. 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, 2006 budget and recently submitted budget proposal, JDF collections & disbursements, current process for budget planning, preparation, authorization and execution.

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.

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- Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Budgeting) The reform design report involves designing the core policies, systems, and procedures in fiscal management, 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, and within which annual expenditure programs are formulated Establish the mechanisms that will enable the Judiciary to determine and decide on the level, composition, and prioritization of its annual expenditure program Install the policies, systems, and procedures for improving the efficiency, responsiveness, and speed of budget operations and services to courts within a decentralized institutional framework; Strengthen the participation of the operating units in budget policy decision making processes; and Provide mechanisms to strengthen the accountability and capacity for continuing improvement in budgeting ADB TA 3693- 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; 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). Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005, 2006), Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars, and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5, 2006).

140

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

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.

2)

Design of Revenue Generation Strategy

Revenue Generation Strategy

ADB TA 3693- 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; to improve the predictability of resources within which a sound judiciary strategic plan, and a medium-term expenditure program as well as an annual expenditure program can be formulated and implemented; and to strengthen internal and external transparency in the revenue management operations at all levels in the organization. The first design report presented several strategic reform measures on revenue management and other systems relating to it. This further underwent extensive consultations. The revised final technical report prescribes a reengineered revenue management system for the Judiciary, and presents the proposed technical design of the revenue management system organized by major sources of revenues, and the design of the management process. 6) National Government Support 7) Local Government Contribution 8) Judicial Fees and Charges

ADB TA 3693- 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

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS 9)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS Revenue Management Process

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, planning, and forecasting, revenue monitoring, and accountability Install treasury operations functions and operating systems to ensure proper safekeeping, overall monitoring, and reporting of funds inflows and outflows a Judiciary Trust Fund which will house all revenue collections and from which all expenditures will be drawn will be established

COMMENTS

3)

4)

5)

2. Administrative Structure and Operations Design of Administrative Independence Strategy Administrative Management Autonomy Strategy Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary (ADB TA 3693 PHI) December 2001 June 2006 The TA aims to contribute to the improvement of the Philippine judiciary by supporting its independence, accountability, impartiality, and competence. Under the TA, (1) a framework for the judiciarys fiscal and administrative autonomy will be designed; (2) the appointment process and the accountability and incentive system under which the judges and justices function will be improved; and (3) the capability of PhilJA to deliver judicial training will be strengthened. SC AM No. 04-3-17 SC Resolution Re: Final Report on Administrative Structure of the Judiciary The following reports were submitted by the SC PMO to the SC En Banc: Study has been completed As a result of these studies, 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. The project draws on the recommendations of the earlier ADB technical assistance grant to the Supreme Court on decentralization

142

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

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, 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, region 7 judges and personnel and other stakeholders on-going and will continue throughout the implementation period. Installation and operationalization plan and instruments ready. ADB TA 3693- Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Administrative Structure) The proposed administrative structure will entail the movement, abolition, transfer and modification of the structure, functions, and locations of several existing organization units within the judiciary. It will involve changes in the functional relationships among units and offices. 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.

ADB TA 4832 Component A. Enhancing the Autonomy, 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. It involves the creation of a pilot regional court administration office in Region 7, the detailing and installation of the budgeting, revenue management, cash management, financial accounting, physical assets management and components of the human resources development and a review and modification of the relevant operating policies. Implementation will involve intensive user training and handholding through the change process. A replication plan will be developed including its financing requirements and change management process. ADB TA 3693- 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, operating systems, formal structure, and staffing of the judiciary, This was subsequently revised after several consultations, validations workshops, and eventually review by the Supreme Court. 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; (b) defines the overall administrative and financial management functions that the judiciary will perform as a self-governing organization; (c) draws up the high-level and detailed administrative structure and internal functional configuration that reflect the vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of functions, accountability as well as control of resources.

Reengineering of the Formal Administrative Structure

143

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO As of date of the final report, ADB and PMO had agreed to postpone the detailed assessment of the implications of the latest revision on the details of the structure, functional configuration, operating systems, and staffing and redesigning of these until all the installation starts will provide the required time within which such consciousness can evolve. Manage resistance to reforms through an appropriate change management strategy

COMMENTS

SC AM No. 98-7-01-SC (February 22, 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. 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, 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

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. Information Systems Capacity Improvement Formulation of Information Systems Strategic Plan

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO

COMMENTS

Design of the formal administrative structure and staffing completed Formulation and Institutionalization of Judicial Research Group

ADB TA 4832 Component B, 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. It will identify key information systems and their functionalities, strategic databases and data sharing functions, the implementation scheme, financing requirements and change management strategy. 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. 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 Courts primary business processes. JRSP Subcomponent A.7: Lot A: Judiciary Data Center and ICT Network Infrastructure Development Project/JRSP: Management and Consultancy Services for the Development of the Judiciarys ICT Capacity Information and communications technology development to manage the overall information and communications needs of the judiciary. 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, Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and Sandiganbayan through a Wide Area Network Connection. 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. EPayment is meant to avoid situations involving extended custody of money, thus, this project will allow docket fees to be paid online. The software has been accepted by users in pilot courts in Manila, Makati City, and Calamba, Laguna

Currently being done.

145

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

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.

Others

SC AM No. 05-3-08 SC Re: Computer Guidelines and Policies (March 15, 2005) SC En Banc approved the Computer Guidelines and Policies submitted by the Computerization Committee. The guidelines were issued to guide authorized users to an efficient, effective, and secured use of the computer system of the Supreme Court (SC) as part of the Information and Communication Technology Program of the SC. The guidelines were initiated by the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) and approved by the SC Committee in Computerization.

4. 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, Davao City, Cagayan de Oro City, Lapu-Lapu City, Angeles City, and Imus, Cavite Acquisition of first budgetary release for Halls of Justice

Ongoing construction of 2 halls of justice

Pursue systematic expansion consistent with the infrastructure master plan (Halls of Justice) Upgrading of Printing Press Facilities

Upgrading of Printing Press Facilities 1. Judicial Appointments and Career Development Formulation of the Reorganization Plan of the Judicial and Bar Council

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

ADB TA 3693- Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) The report contains specific reform design recommendations in the following areas: judicial appointments, judicial career development, and functions, administrative structure, and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies, rules, and procedures in judicial discipline.

ADB TA 3693- Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) In the final report, some changes were made to the approved organization and function of the JBC. The

146

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO revisions imply that the current fragmentation of human resources development functions will be maintained. The SC views certain aspects of human resources development as purely within the internal administrative authority of the Supreme Court. For these reasons, 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. Adoption of additional mechanisms for further insulating the judicial appointment system from potential undue politicization and for enhancing the transparency, appropriateness, efficiency, 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; 2) establishing the enabling environment that will provide continuing capacity to implement, sustain, and continuously improve the judicial appointment systems. Reforms in this area include providing the core organizational infrastructure, and in particular, the reengineering of internal functions, structure, staffing, and key operating mechanisms of the JBC; 3) Improvements in policies and policy implementation as well as in pertinent and specific procedures; d) enhancement of resources which may include financial, human, and technological resources According to the report, 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. 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, administrative 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, and providing mechanisms to insulate the process from undue politicization. The JBC reorganization has been implemented along with key procedural reforms.

Completed

147

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT Reengineering of the Judicial Appointment Process

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO ADB TA 3693- 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, appropriateness, efficiency, and gendersensitivity of JBC procedures for judicial nominations Dialogues completed.

COMMENTS Sufficient ratio of equipment Regular monitoring, evaluation, and feedback of training to help update and improve training programs Synchronize projects with trainings Strengthen HR Association

ADB TA 3693- Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) The report contains specific reform design recommendations in the following areas: judicial appointments, judicial career development, and functions, administrative structure, and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies, rules, 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. Best international standards of transparency and accountability will be applied to produce a reengineered, politically buffered process that will produce judges who attract the confidence of the community. The judicial appointment process will consist of the following stages: 1) Assessment of Current Situation and Recruitment; 2) Screening Process; and 3) Selection and Nomination Process JBC Dialogues The Judicial and Bar Council, the body constitutionally-mandated to search, screen, and select nominees for judges to be appointed by the President, conducted dialogues with various sectors during the selection process. The dialogues proved to be effective in disseminating information and clarifying issues regarding the Councils processes and in inviting more applicants to judicial posts. Court vacancy rates have significantly decreased in the areas where the dialogues were held. 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. Their work pushed the Judicial and Bar Council, the constitutional body tasked to search, screen and nominate candidates to judicial posts, to conduct public interviews. The consortiums 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.

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, including the use of a point system for evaluating nominees

Formulation of Judicial Career Development Plan

ADB TA 3693- Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council) The report contains specific reform design recommendations in the following areas: judicial appointments, judicial career development, and functions, administrative structure, and staffing of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The report also contains specific reform recommendations on improving the institutional framework and capacity for formulating and implementing policies, rules, and procedures in judicial discipline.

ADB TA 3693- 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. The system will provide opportunities for vertical promotion and horizontal

148

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO upgrading based on the level of competence/seniority. 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 Judiciarys 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, court administration, judicial career development, and judicial education SC AM No. 05-01-19-SC (January 25, 2005) Human Resource Development SC En Banc approved the award of contract for the Human Resource Development consultancy services to Orient Integrated Development Consultant. Deliverables include the assessment report on the Judiciarys training program, policies and practices, Training Framework, Training Needs Analysis, Documentation of Best Practices and Lessons, Human Resource Development and Capability Building plan for all official and personnel of the judiciary, Training Management Manual, and Computerized Training Management System.

Assessment of Training Needs completed

2. 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 situational analysis was initially conducted to lay the groundwork for the subsequent steps in the TNA process. A task analysis and knowledge, skill and ability (KSA) analysis thereafter followed to determine the KSA required of personnel in order to perform each task properly. Strategic Human Resource Model More recently, to help eliminate incompetence within the judiciary,though the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF), the Supreme Court obtained Aus $496,000 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, OCA, CA, Sandiganbayan, CTA, and other attached agencies and offices; Management Development Course for Court Administrators for presiding and executive judges of first and second level courts and Court Administrators of pilot RCAO, CTA, Sandiganbayan, CA, and SC; and Performance Monitoring and Evaluation of the APJR. A training needs assessment of judicial personnel was also conducted. Under the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility (PAHRDF), 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

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

TO DO ADB TA 3693- 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, staffing, and personnel matters, 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, 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. 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; and 2) detailed vertical and horizontal compartmentalization of workflows and decision making authority particularly in the areas of planning and budgeting, career development and training, personnel performance evaluation, and personnel administration including recruitment, salary administration, and personnel discipline ADB TA 3693- Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Judicial and Bar Council)

150

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT 3. Judicial Education Reengineering of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJA)

OUTPUTS Strengthened PhilJA

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO Study completed

COMMENTS

Re-engineering PhilJA CPRM conducted a study which stressed the need to strengthen PhilJAs institutional structure and to establish it as a unique institution within the Judiciary, which required that PhilJA be given wider administrative decisionmaking authority, actual possession, control and accountability of its resources, and financial latitude. Impact of Judicial Education and Directions for Change Further, a second study was conducted which looked into the Impact of Judicial Education. The study evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of PhilJAs educational programs. Results of the study revealed that judges are satisfied with the usefulness and relevance of PhilJAs programs. (WB) ADB TA 3693- 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; 2) areas of judicial education andgoals; 3) enhancing curriculum development; and 4) distance education. Re-engineering of the PhilJA Training Strategy including redesign of the training curricula

Comprehensive Survey Report on the Assessment of Judicial Education Reengineered PhilJA training strategy

Study completed

Study completed

JURIS Judicial Education Development and Redesigning of the of the Philippine Judicial Academy Training Programs

This activity aims to strengthen the capacity of PhiLJA to plan, design, and deliver effective, gender sensitive, and socially responsive education and training for judges and court personnel, mediators, and lawyers. ADB TA 3693- 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; 2) areas of judicial education andgoals; 3) enhancing curriculum development; 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, the following judicial education reform initiatives were undertaken by PhilJA: 1) E-Learning Modules PhilJA developed electronic learning for judges. To date, six elearning modules (including remedial and civil law, ecommerce, etc.) have been developed. (TAF) 2) Development of a Uniform Manual of Style on Judicial Writing for the Supreme Court.

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

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. 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

TO DO Ongoing.

COMMENTS

Presentation of the Architectural Design of the PhilJA Development Center in Tagaytay City September 11, 2007

Production of Benchbooks to be used by Judges

Conduct Review and Application of International Trends and Best Practice Design of remuneration system ADB TA 3693- Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Remuneration) The report presents the detailed technical design of the new judicial remuneration model. 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, motivate judges to perform and continuously upgrade their competencies. 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, if not provided, might impede performance Design and implementation for the adoption of an independent remuneration policy ADB TA 3693- Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary(Final Report on Remuneration) Study completed. 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

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT 5. Legal Education Assessment of the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Program Assessment of the Formal Legal Education System Development of Curriculum and Institutional Standards on Legal Education

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

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 Others

OUTPUTS Bar Reforms

ACCOMPLISHMENTS Bar Matter 1161 Re: Proposed Reforms in the Bar Examinations June 8, 2004

TO DO The Supreme Court resolved to adopt the following reforms. Adoption of objective multiple-choice questions for 30% to 40% of the total number of questions; Formulation of essay test questions and "model answers" as part of the calibration of test papers; Introduction of performance testing by way of revising and improving the essay examination;1awphil.net Designation of two(2) examiners per subject depending on the number of examinees ; Appointment of a tenured Board of Examiners with an incumbent Supreme Court Justice as Chairperson; 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; and Adoption of the calibration method in the corrections of essay questions to correct variations in the level of test standards

COMMENTS

1. The Supreme Court en banc created a "Special Study Group on Bar Examination Reforms" to conduct studies on steps to further safeguard the integrity of the Bar Examinations and to make them effective tools in measuring the adequacy of the law curriculum and the quality of the instruction given by law schools. The Special Study Group, with Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chancellor Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera as a chairperson and retired Justice Jose Y. Feria and retired Justice Camilo D. Quiason as members, submitted to the Supreme Court its Final Report, dated 18 September 2000, containing its findings and recommendations; The Supreme Court en banc referred, for further study, report and recommendation, the Final Report of the Special Study Group to the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters. A paper was produced by the Committee, entitled "Toward Meaningful Reforms in the Bar Examination" with a Primer, proposing structural and administrative reforms, changes in the design and construction of questions, and the methodological reforms concerning the marking anf grading of the essay questions in the bar examination. Proposals and comments were likewise received from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Association of Law Schools, the Philippine Association of Law Professors, the Commission on Higher Education, the University of the Philippines College of Law, Arellano Law Foundation, the Philippine Lawyers Association, the Philippine Bar Association and other prominent personalities from the Bench and the Bar.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Bar Reform In terms of bar reform, there was support for the conduct of studies, dialogues, lectures, roundtable discussions and workshops throughout the country for capability building in bar reform initiatives. Members of the academe and the legal profession were gathered to share their insights, comments, inputs and observations on PhiLJAs proposed bar examination reforms.

154

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

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), including legal experts and other stakeholders to discuss additional changes to the bar exam in 2007. INTEGRITY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT 1. Improvement of the Code of Ethics of the Judiciary Review and improvement of the Code of Ethics for Justices, judges, lawyers, and court personnel Comprehensive Manual on the Code of Ethics To further address the issue of corruption within the judiciary, the World Bank supported the Supreme Court in coming up with this manual explaining the code of ethics to members of the judiciary. 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), annotation to the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary was developed published. The annotated edition was launched in February 2007. 2. 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. From May 2004 to December 2005, 90 orientation seminars on the New Code of Judicial Conduct among justices and judges were conducted. In November 2004, 40 law professors and judges participated in a judicial ethics symposium in Manila. The symposium included an overview of the Bangalore Principles and training on interactive methods of teaching judicial ethics. In partnership with the Philippine Judicial Academy, over 4,000 court personnel, including all court staff in Metro Manila, were trained on the new Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. As a follow-through activity to the trainings, posters with scenes depicting ethical situations covered by the code were developed. The posters, which utilized cartoon pictures to ease language issues, are displayed in public areas of courthouses throughout the country. These posters are expected to reinforce the code provisions to court personnel and inform the public about the new rules. Supreme Court Employees Manual has also been completed Continuing training Continuing trainings on the Code of Ethics & the Code of Judicial Conduct

155

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

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, in-country dialogues among justices and judges. This is meant to provide members of the judiciary with information and insight on the role and functions of judiciaries in democratic states. Resource persons from other jurisdictions, usually a justice or judge and participation in the dialogues is exclusive to members of the Philippine Judiciary. Some of the topics of the dialogues include: The Role of the Judiciary as the Third Branch of Government; The Role of Trial Court Judges in Pre-Trial and Courtroom Management; The Role of the Judiciary in a Global Economy; The Role of Judges in the Reform Process, Docket Management and Corporate Principles in Judicial Administration, and Case Delay: Problems and Solutions 3. 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. 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

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT 1. 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

TO DO

COMMENTS

ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY THE POOR

Expanded Caseload Survey July 2002-June 2003 To develop a tool, utilizing relevant indicators and milestones, for the monitoring and evaluation of long-term improvement of access to justice in the country.

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- 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. It focused, among others, on level of knowledge and understanding of the accused of the legal protections and status of his/her case, availability of adequate aid, particularly between arrest and arraignment, number of overstaying detainees and number of juveniles in detention not separated from adults Development of policy options for addressing affordability constraints to access to the court system by the poor Mobile Courts Strengthening access to justice via mobile courts in sites with large land areas, dispersed population and limited transport facilities. Known as The Justice on Wheels Project, this aims to literally bring the courts to the people via an airconditioned bus. The bus houses a small courtroom and offices of the first or second level court judge assigned via a rotation scheme, and is staffed by court personnel and a mediator. As of August 2005, the implementation of the project has resulted in the successful hearing of 754 cases and the release of 300 detainees in Metro Manila. The project has been expanded through the acquisition of two additional vehicles for deployment in the Visayas and Mindanao, with the further acquisition of another vehicle being contemplated for deployment in Luzon.

Study Completed

Study completed. Mobile Court functioned in Metro Manila for sometime.

The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005, 2006), Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars, and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5, 2006).

157

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

TO DO Continue collaborating with other pillars of justice for improved access by the poor

COMMENTS

ADB TA 4832 Component B, 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. The strategy will include funding options, 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 Attorneys Office December 2002- June 2003 The project aimed to generate data on the state of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), paint an accurate picture of the problems, issues, challenges, threats, weaknesses, as well as strengths and opportunities of the Office. Transforming the Philippine National Police to a More Capable, Effective, and Credible Police Force (Phase I) November 2003- January 2004 The project aimed to conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) to identify issues, concerns, weaknesses, constraints, as well as opportunities affecting the PNP. Tranforming the Philippine National Police to a More Capable, Effective, and Credible Police Force (Phase II) June 2004- December 2004 The project aimed to 1) consolidate, review, and analyze the results of the four FGDs conducted; 2) conduct institutional assessment of the PNP structure, mandate, functions, programs, and new challenges; 3) formulate reform agenda for the PNP; and 4) prepare a pilot project implementation plan Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice Through Reforms in the Department of Justice January 2003- June 2003 The project aimed to undertake diagnostic studies, area specific reviews and baseline data development that will enable a thorough assessment of the DOJ and its functions, programs, and overall capacities and performance, as well as its performance in specific areas.

Completed Study Completed

Study Completed. Reform recommendations for implementation

Need for resources to implement the reforms

Study Completed. Reform recommendations for implementation.

Need for resources to implement the reforms

Diagnostics completed

158

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

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, assessment, and experiences of private legal practitioners belonging to the IBP and ALGs on judicial legal remedies available to the poor "Justice Link: Institutionalizing Citizen's Feedback Mechanism on the Judiciary". The Alternative Law Groups Inc. and its resource groups, along with Supreme Court justices, initially collaborated on a project entitled Justice Link. The dialogue between the Supreme Court and the basic sectors, intended to tackle the following: access to justice by the poor and marginalized groups and communities, building peace in Mindanao, and administration of justice as embodied in APJR. Among others, 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, effective, and efficient judiciary; 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. This involves networking and collaboration between the Judiciary and civil society for undertaking cooperative reform advocacy in order to improve the quality of judicial services and access to justice, and empower the poor and marginalized groups to make use of judicial and quasi-judicial services. The primary vehicle for this component is the Alternative Law Groups (ALGs.) In this regard, the ALGs published a book called From the Grassroots: The Justice Reform Agenda of the Poor and the Marginalized. 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, the Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Bill has been signed into law.

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.

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.

Others

Institutional Strengthening of the Sharia Justice System Project April 2004-June 2004 The project focuses on the comprehensive review of the Sharia court systems and its institutional strengthening. Programme for Rehabilitating Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) December 2004- December 2005

Completed

The matrix is based on Action Plan for Judicial Reform (2001-2006). Inputs are taken from Annual Reports of the Supreme Court Project Management Office (2005, 2006), Supreme Court Admininistrative Circulars, and the Documentation Report for APJR Technical Implementation Review and Workshop (October 4-5, 2006).

159

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

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. From 1999-July 2007, a total of 7,682 inmates, including children, have been released. This was made possible through the sincere commitment of lawyers from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and human rights organizations. Apart from providing free legal representation, 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, Education, and Communication It covers 36 first-level courts in the provinces of Oriental Mindoro, Camarines Sur, Capiz, Lanao del Norte, and Sultan Kudarat. 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. It seeks to create an enabling and supportive environment through the judiciary and law enforcement institutions as well as an amended overall legal framework, which will ensure that the rights of the poor, especially that of women and children, are upheld. Initially, the Supreme Court was supposed to be the implementing agency, but due to possible constitutional issues involving project provisions that vested the Supreme Court with administrative control or supervision over other government agencies, the executing agency for this project is the Department of Social Welfare and Development. This project has four components, namely: (1) institutionalization of the decentralized information function of the judiciary; (2) community development and empowerment of women and children; (3) institutional development of law enforcement and the judiciary; and (4) legal reform. As regards component 1, the EC will expand the information, education, 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. MCIOs will disseminate information to facilitate access to justice for the poor especially women and children, in 8 accordance with IEC Guidelines. Recently, the Office of the Clerk of Court has 9 designated a total of 17 clerks of court as MCIOs. Moreover, legal information desks will be established in cooperation with the Barangay Council and Barangay Captain in the project areas. Capacity building will be pursued, including training to enhance the sensitivity of law enforcers specifically on how they deal with the poor. Training of Municipal Court Judges and court personnel on the Barangay Justice System is also being pursued under this component. At least 70% of the judges in the five selected provinces have already been trained. Most recently, 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. Copies of these materials will be distributed to courts, offices of the different pillars of justice and other public places nationwide. Medium Term Development Plan for the Criminal Justice System

Ongoing with modifications

8 9

A.M. No. 05-2-01-SC, Access to Justice for the Poor Project Information, Education, Communication (IEC) Guidelines for Municipal Court Information Officers, March 13, 2007. OCA Circular No. 16-2007, Designating Clerks of Court of Concerned First Level Courts as Municipal Information Officer, February 21, 2007.

160

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT

OUTPUTS

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO Speed up procurement process

COMMENTS

REFORM SUPPORT SYSTEMS 1. 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, which aims to enhance the public understanding of the fundamental principles that govern the operation of the judiciary, is a joint project of the Supreme Courts Program Management Office (SC-PMO), the Department of Education (DepEd), and Libertas. PERLAS is in supportof the Supreme Courts Action Program for Judicial Reform which started in 2001. The aim of PERLAS is to educate and inform the general public, specifically students from public schools, 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. As such, PERLAS will enrich the existing curricula of the Department of Education for public schools, and at the same time, broaden the community support base for the ongoing judicial reforms through the use of said educational materials. The following prototype exemplars (or lesson plans) and student handbooks were developed: Teaching Exemplars for Classroom Use for Elementary Students; Teaching Exemplars for Classroom Use for High School Students; 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, 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. Final outputs included materials such as a Glossary of Legal Terms for Journalists, Guidebook for Journalists Covering the Courts and Reader on Judiciary-Media Relations.

161

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

APJR COMPONENT Others

OUTPUTS Judicial Organization Culture - dialogues and orientation seminars - court identity manual - awards system on performance Public Awareness and Opinion - Disclosure policy - Skills/seminars /cross visits - Production of information materials in various formats - Communicatio n plan - Mass-media judiciary manual - Study feedback mechanisms - Court-wide public information, education, and communication system - Survey of awareness and opinion - Media coverage on judicial reform efforts

ACCOMPLISHMENTS Conduct of dialogues and seminars

TO DO Development and adoption of a Court Identity Manual

COMMENTS

Strengthening Judiciary-Media Relations TAF supported the Supreme Court in a project called Strengthening JudiciaryMedia Relations which consisted of a series of nationwide dialogues between the Court and the media sector. Final outputs included materials such as a Glossary of Legal Terms for Journalists, Guidebook for Journalists Covering the Courts and Reader on Judiciary-Media Relations. Chamber to Chamber Dialogues In partnership with the Supreme Court, Chamber to Chamber project was also undertaken wherein the highest court conducted a series of nationwide dialogues with the different foreign and domestic chambers of commerce. The result of the 2-year dialogues was the improvement in the trust rating of the Supreme Court in the annual enterprise survey. 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

OUTPUTS Networking and Collaboration

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

TO DO Establishment of working linkages with target sectors Conduct of multi-sectoral conference on critical judicial issues Creation of watchdog organizations, multi-sectoral support groups and interagency bodies

COMMENTS

2. Collaboration with Civil Society Development of Feedback Research Facility Development and Implementation of Internal and External Communication Strategy 3. Advocacy and Collaboration for Reforms in the Other Pillars of Justice Long-term justice sector strategy adopted by justice system stakeholders ADB TA 4832 Component B, Improved Administration of Justice and LongTerm Justice Sector Strategy 6) Long-term justice sector strategy The TA will assist justice sector stakeholders in the development and adoption of a long-term strategy for the strengthening and/or reform of the justice sector. The strategy will be agreed upon and will be implemented by a Policy Leadership Council which will be assisted by an executive committee and a steering group, along with a full-time executive staff. The Management Structure will provide the framework which will facilitate the translation of the strategy into action plans of justice institutions and stakeholder organizations, the corresponding financial and administrative oversight policies of the government as well as the management of the strategys implementation over a multi-year time frame. Development of Feedback Research Facility Development and Implementation of Internal and External Communication Strategy

163

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, equal treatment for the protection of rights, and fair and timely resolution of disputes b) foster a culture of lawfulness, based on independence, integrity, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and transparency in the administration of justice c) advance the rule of law as the foundation of a just, prosperous, and democratic society 2 2.1 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). 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. Reform leadership and sufficient implementation and implementation management will be required in each concerned institution Inter-branch and multi-department policy leadership committee and its executive steering committee will play strong role in providing coordination, achieving consensus on issues and measures and facilitative processes and in providing capacity development assistance Percent improvement in court user opinion on the speed of dispute resolution in the courts Percent improvement in perception of the poor of accessibility of justice institutions Percent improvement in pubic perception of fair and impartial justice Percent improvement in business community opinion of the fairness and efficiency of dispute resolution Percent improvement in investor confidence in the Philippines Public opinion survey Ratings of international survey institutions (such as global competitiveness reports) Strong and sustained leadership and cooperation among the three branches of government Demonstrated and sustained commitment and support by the government through oversight agencies (DBM, NEDA, DOF, DILG) Financing plan is agreed upon and faithfully implemented throughout the program implementation period Strong support, 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, RISKS AND MEASURES

165

DESIGN SUMMARY

TARGETS/INDICATORS Percent increase in clearance rates in the courts, NPS, 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, 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

2.2

Adherence to high standards of independence, integrity, accountability, 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. Timeliness and public accessibility of publication of laws, regulations, court decisions, and other legal information. LGU contributions to justice agencies accounted for, 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, 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

DESIGN SUMMARY 2.3 Capable and motivated human resources throughout the justice system

TARGETS/INDICATORS Vacancy rates by occupational group and organization. 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, RISKS AND MEASURES Improvement in resource support by DBM is needed and should be sustainable. 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, 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, professionalism and ethical conduct of policemen, judges and prosecutors Percent reduction in the no. 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. 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. Number of youth incarcerated with adults, disaggregated by region.

Public perception survey

Focus group discussions with justices in SC and CA

Public awareness survey Public awareness survey Key informant interviews (with business leaders) Key informant Interviews (with a selected sample of pauper litigants) Review of case records of detained personnel Direct observations Review of agency reports Review of NGO reports Strong civil society participation in advocacy for results. Leadership effective in implementing actions needed. Sufficient resources are provide at the right time and level to implement access to justice reforms.

Percent reduction in jail congestion rate

Direct observations Review of agency records and reports

167

DESIGN SUMMARY 3 3.1 OUTPUTS (by outcome) Strong institutional capacity for efficient and effective administration of justice Rules that reward timeliness, protect officials who apply the rules, and diminish opportunities for delaying tactics; 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, 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 Prosecutors 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, rigorously applied, to severely limit the use of interlocutory writs and appeals Improved procedures for prompt and inexpensive enforcement of judgments, arbitral awards, and outcomes of other forms of alternative dispute resolution Reinforcement through monitoring, documenting and publicizing results in order to sustain new expectations of timeliness in the administration of justice Implementation of existing decentralization plans in judiciary, PNP, 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

- decided case surveys

Public reporting system on execution of judgment operational Percent increase in no. of lawyers and court users satisfied with accessibility of court decisions Decentralized administrative and financial management structures, functions and operations in the Judiciary, PNP, NPS, BJMP, NBI, and PAO in place and operational

System survey Perception survey

System survey Implementation issuances and reports

168

DESIGN SUMMARY 3.1.3 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, NPS, PAO, OMB, 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, with prosecutorial discretion to decline prosecution One-time initiatives to redress accumulated backlogs, reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons and meet immediate needs for improvement in facilities completed, 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, property, equipment and supplies to assure minimum standards for secure, efficient and dignified operations and services are met

TARGETS/INDICATORS

MEANS OF VERIFICATION/SOURCES OF DATA

ASSUMPTIONS, RISKS AND MEASURES

Justice agencies sharing information through NJIS

System survey Implementation issuances and reports

PNP, Judiciary, NPS, OMB performing case management with the aid of automated case management information systems No. of jails with operational prisoner information systems No. of prosecutors using simplified system Percent increase in resources allocated to investigation and prosecution of cases with reasonable prospects of obtaining conviction % reduction in the median litigation time for small claims, 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. of police stations equipped to minimum facility standards No. of courts equipped to minimum court facility standards No. of prosecutor offices equipped to minimum facility standards No. of local jails equipped to minimum jail facility standards Enabling law operational Duplication reduced, efficiency and savings generated, 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, including commissions and task forces for coordination of law enforcement activities implemented

Enacted laws Implementation reports Systems and operations survey

169

DESIGN SUMMARY Legal structure for decriminalization of bouncing checks, and authorization and operation of simplified procedures for expedited handling of bounced checks and small claims, minor offenses that are essentially private disputes, and other types of cases that cause inordinate caseloads operational 3.2 3.2.1 Adherence to high standards of independence, integrity, 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, RISKS AND MEASURES

Effective policies and operational procedures for ensuring legal independence of prosecutors in place Effective policies and operational procedures for ensuring the legal independence of quasi-judicial agencies in place Effective policies and operational procedures for ensuring the legal independence of policemen in case investigations in place

Executive orders

Administrative issuances

Opinion survey of prosecutors and members of quasi-judicial bodies, and policemen System survey Key informant interviews Mini surveys

3.2.2

Each justice organization has in place a code of ethical conduct, together with adequate measures to assure employee training in the requirements of ethical conduct; integrate the standards in the code into the organizations career development and other incentive structures and into an effective and efficient disciplinary system; and ensure that the public is effectively informed on the codes ethical standards, of statements of assets and income of public officials, and of clear and convenient procedures for filing complaints, disposition of complaints and actions taken. Executive, legislative and judicial branches complete establish and operationalize policies and procedures to assure that decisions on the appointment, 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.

No. of compliant justice agencies No. of employees trained Percent of citizens aware of codes ethical standards Percent of public satisfied with discipline systems Percent of meritorious complaints with appropriate penalties imposed

3.2.3

Operational policies and procedures issued and operational Percent increase in perception of justice sector employees of adherence of decisions to policies and procedures.

System survey Key informant interviews Mini user survey

170

DESIGN SUMMARY 3.24 Operational legislative and regulatory structure for justice system finance, with respect for fiscal autonomy of judiciary, minimal dependence on and maximum transparency of fees and local government contributions, a mediumterm expenditure framework to assure continuity of resources, 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, NPS and PNP including accounting and financial reporting policies and processes No. 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, RISKS AND MEASURES

DILG reports System survey, budget reports Key informant interviews

3.25

Policies to assure the maximum public disclosure of information about the operation of the justice system, in force in all justice organization

No. of justice agencies with clear and operational public disclosure policies and procedures. 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

3.26

Public monitoring and evaluation of justice system operational

Civil society organizations systematically monitoring justice system operations Media keeping public informed of observations of civil society monitoring Regular surveys and publication of survey results conducted

Media programs Published survey materials

3.3 3.3.1

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

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, help employees adapt to change, and punish misconduct and neglect of duties 3.3.3 Justice organizations have in operation enhanced education and training program for their employees to improve skills, increase productivity, elevate professionalism and encourage interinstitutional collaboration; emphasizing interactive methods, interdisciplinary participation, and complementary materials, including handbooks. Elements of the program include the following: a) court management, to foster professional administration while reducing the management burdens of judges b) police training to foster compliance with legal requirements in arrests, investigations, evidence collection, 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, courtroom skills, 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, RISKS AND MEASURES

Alternative career paths for judges, prosecutors, public attorneys and policemen linked with pay operational Performance evaluation, 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, NPS, OMB, PNP and other public sector justice agencies

Program documentation Implementation issuances Accomplishment reports

No. 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

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.

TARGETS/INDICATORS

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

f)

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

3.4.2

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

3.4.3

Implementation reports

3.4.4

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

3.4.5

System survey Implementation reports Mini community surveys Court websites

3.4.6

System for the timely publication and dissemination of final decisions of all

Time duration between promulgation of decision and its publication/dissemination

173

DESIGN SUMMARY appellate courts in place and operational

TARGETS/INDICATORS

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

Mini survey

Court statistics Opinion survey of poor population Mini survey

No. of cities and municipalities with PAO synchronized legal services for the poor

System survey

Percent increase in the number of executive departments, private organization networks, with operational ADR services Percent of cases settled

System survey

Accomplishment reports

174

IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LONG-TERM JUSTICE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ANNEX 7

SUMMARY RECORD AND PARTICIPANTS FROM PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS, DECEMBER 2007 I. I.1
A.

STAKEHOLDER INPUTS Manila

EFFICIENCY
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

175

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)

Priority

Urgent

Indicators

B. VALUES
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

Indicators

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

176

C.

COMPETENCE
Needs/Issues Action Plan/ Recommendations to Address the Problem Priority Urgent Indicators

Fill-up and Speed-up the appointment of vacancies Make positions more attractive to young lawyers Politicizing selection of judges Accountability of judges for period of decisions increases w/ regionalization Promotion must be based on merit system Inventory as also indicator of delays/reversals Management Auditors for Judges and Prosecutors IBP to participate in monitoring of judges Alternatively an inspectorate system Demand-driven MCLE Training more urgent among/for quasi-judicial bodies Issue of independence of prosecutors Automation of case management Develop Centers of Excellence among law schools Rationalization Issue Continuing education of Shariah Lawyers Formal orientation of prosecution Update of Prosecution Manual Implementation of E-Courts Speedy resolution of cases Provide incentives

177

D.

SERVICE
Needs/Issues Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem Reduce no. of cases requiring the services of a lawyer e.g. correction of entries in the birth certificate (administrative proceedings) Establishment of small claims court (e.g. support) Expanding the definition of indigent clients Establishment of a system of accrediting paralegals Priority Urgent Indicators

Reduction of Cost of Litigation e.g. 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.g. decriminalize minor offenses) Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms n/a n/a n/a

Insufficient no. of lawyers in certain areas

Supreme Court to require lawyers/law firms to render free legal services to the poor/indigent as a means of earning MCLE credits Community service (free legal service) as sanction for erring lawyers

n/a

n/a

n/a

178

Needs/Issues

Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem Law schools to train and require students to render legal aid services LGUs to provide lawyers for legal aid

Priority

Urgent

Indicators

Gender Responsiveness of lawyers, prosecutors and judges Improving condition of inmates / detainees

Training/seminars on gender equality and gender sensitivity Regulated privatization of jails/prisons Provide inmates/prisoners access to court and government records Education and livelihood opportunities for inmates/prisoners Provide psycho-social interventions for the inmates/prisoners Strengthening of community based correction systems Encourage private sector to provide technical and financial support to prison facilities as part of their corporate social responsibility Adopt prisoner data base system to track status of prisoners and their sentences Providing prisoners/inmates access to free legal services of lawyers, paralegals and law students Establish separate youth homes for minors

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

179

Needs/Issues

Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem LGUs to establish and maintain jails and provide subsistence allowance to inmates/prisoners Community service as an alternative penalty to minor offenses

Priority

Urgent

Indicators

Length of time in resolving cases

Review of certain provisions of the Rules of Court that cause delay Fine the lawyers who misuse court procedures Revisit the rules on reparation taking into consideration the opportunity lost and income of those acquitted in criminal cases Revisit and update antiquated provisions of the Revised Penal Code and other penal laws (e.g. decriminalize minor offenses) Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms n/a n/a n/a

Insufficient no. of lawyers in certain areas

Supreme Court to require lawyers/law firms to render free legal services to the poor/indigent as a means of earning MCLE credits Community service (free legal service) as sanction for erring lawyers Law schools to train and require students to render legal aid services LGUs to provide lawyers for legal aid

n/a

n/a

n/a

180

I.2
A.

Cebu
EFFICIENCY
Institutional Capacity Constraints Desired Results Priority Urgent Specific Actions

Lack of sufficient funds to equip (communication facilities and office equipment) court staff to make them efficient Poor/inadequate court technologies and/or facilities Lack of computers for records management Lack service vehicles to serve summons and notices (especially criminal cases) Overcrowded prisons Leniency in the enforcement of provisions of the rules that can expedite the disposition of cases Poor knowledge on how to access Justice System Competence of judges are not considered in relation to an assignment Inadequate data management system (Database of cases) Procedures on designating Special Courts One data base (linked) for all pillars Case information management system installed in all pillars Need to Steam line of procedures Absence of system for procurement and maintenance of property and supplies Discretion in Court Room Management (too much) Congestion of cases in courts Time and motion study of cases from enforcement pillar to post disposition to determine realistic timeframe for case disposition Decentralized Procurement system Each court has at least 3 computers for Info. management system

181

Institutional Capacity Constraints Poor knowledge on how to access Justice especially the poor

Desired Results Academe, IBP, 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.

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

Results

Priority

Urgent

Indicators/ Recommendations Improve qualification standards (QS)

High

Speedy disposition of cases Enhanced value formation

Low

Apply the fast-track mode in the disposition of cases Apply caseflow management Value formation for all sectors/levels

High

C.
1)

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)

183

2)

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 peoples perception of judiciary

3)

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

184

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)

4)

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

185

(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--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

D.

SERVICE
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 peoples 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

Unresponsive Policies/Laws

Lack of awareness & assertion of rights by the Public

Restrictive Litigation Costs

186

Needs/Issues

Action Plan/Recommendations to Address the Problem DOJ to collect fees, SC circular re filing fees

Priority

Urgent

Indicators

Insensitivity to the Disadvantaged (particularly Women, Children, Elderly and the Handicapped) Lack of Competence among the Members of the Lupon

Training for Gender Sensitivity and Vulnerability Improvement of facilities e.g. investigation rooms for rape victims, etc. 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. Political INterventions in operations and choice in appointing heads of office B. law enforcers accountable to a number of bodies/agencies Insufficient no. of public lawyers, prosecutors, 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, prosecutors, judges and personnel among the pillars of justice system Additional allowance/hazard pay for public lawyers, prosecutors going to far flung areas Review of the appointment process of judges. Appointment should be based on Merit. Law Student be encouraged to provide paralegal service

187

II.
II.1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
MANILA ROMMEL ALIM ABITRIA Officer-in-charge, Humanitarian Legal Assistance Foundation ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Justice, Court of Tax Appeals ATTY. HOWARD B. AREZA Head Executive Assistant, Public Attorneys Office PACIFICO AGABIN Dean, College of Law, Lyceum College ALICIA R. BALA Undersecretary, Department of Social Welfare & Development FE E. BARIN Chairperson, Securities and Exchange Commission SHERIELYN BONIFACIO Project Officer, National Judicial Institute (JURIS Project) MA. RUBY BITHAO-CAMARISTA Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court Judges Association of the Philippines MA. VICTORIA V. CARDONA Executive Director, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council CLAIRE M. CLEMENTIR Director, Adhikain Para sa Karapatang Pambata ATTY. ANNA LUZ B. CRYSTAL Director, Gender Justice Network Inc. BABY CATHERINE B. CRUZ Economic Development Specialist 1, National Economic Development Authority ATTY. DAMCELLE TORRES-CORTES Program Officer, The Asia Foundation JOSE MIGUEL R. DELA ROSA Consultant, Office of the Solicitor General

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

188

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

VIRGILIO DE LOS REYES President, Govida Studies Inc. MARIA SOCORRO I. DIOKNO Secretary General, Free Legal Assistance Group ZENAIDA ELEPANO Court Administrator, Supreme Court of the Philippines ATTY. VOLTAIRE ENRIQUEZ Asst. Treasurer for Operations, City Treasurer Office, Quezon City Government ANTONIO EUGENIO JR. Presiding Judge, RTC Manila President-Philippine Judges Association ROLANDO B. FALLER Senior State Solicitor and Chief of Staff, Office of the Solicitor General JUN FERNANDEZ Director IV, Management Staff, National Economic and Development Authority ATTY. ROWENA V. GUANZON Member steering Committee, Asia Cause Lawyers Network MIGUEL F. GUIDO, JR. Assistant Chief State Prosecutor, Office of the State Prosecutor Department of Justice RONALDO GUTIERREZ Executive Director, Upholding Life and Nature (ULAN) ISMAEL J. HERRADURA Administrator, Parole & Probation Administration RITA LINDA V. JIMENO Past President, Philippine Bar Association VICTORIA V. LOANZON Vice-President, IBP-QC Chapter ATTY. RENATO LOPEZ, JR. Consultant Attorney, American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative

20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

189

29. 30 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

ALBERTO A. LIM Executive Director, Makati Business Club ATTY. GIRLIE F. YULORES- MACASPAC Chief Parole Officer, Board of Pardons and Parole ATTY. MARLON MANUEL Lawyer, Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal KARL B. MIRANDA Assistant Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General ATTY. ELIZABETH R NADROW Executive Vice-President Pederacion International De Abogadas (PIDA) Inc. HON. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines GERARDO C. NOGRALES Chairman, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ATTY. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR. City Administrator, Office of the City Administrator. Quezon City Government MA. MONICA P. PAGUNSAN Director III, Management Services Office Department of Justice SENATOR FRANCIS PANGILINAN Chairperson, Committee on Justice, Senate of the Philippines DR. PURIFICACION C. VALERA-QUISUMBING Chairperson Commission on Human Rights ATTY. ELMER M. REJANO Legal Officer III Bureau of Corrections Atty. Rosario Setias-Reyes National Director, IBP-National Committee on Legal Aid ARIES C. RUFO Senior Writer. Newsbreak ATTY. ELPIDIO G. SORIANO III President IBP Quezon City

190

44. 45 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51 52. 53 54.

THEODORE O. TE Director, Office of 4the Legal Aid (UPOLA), University of the Philippines, Diliman ATTY. NANCY VILLANUEVA TEYLAN Acting City Atty. (Rep. Of Mayor Fernando), City Government of Marikina ATTY. ENRILE BONG L. TEODOROM Executive Director Arellano Law Foundation RYAN C. THOMAS Chief Planning Officer Department of Justice CHRISTIAN B. VALENCIA City Legal Officer, Quezon City MARIO E. VALDERRAMA President Philippine Institute of Arbitrators Inc. (PIANG) PDDG JESUS A. VERSOZA The Deputy Chief PNP for Administration (IDCA) Philippine National Police Conrado M. Vasquez, JR. Presiding Justice Court of Appeals Atty. Gregorio Tanaka Viterbo, Jr. Member, Flag Metro Manila Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) MARITES VITUG Editor in Chief, Newsbreak JUAN DE ZUNIGA JR. Assistant Governor & General Counsel Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas CEBU JEANNE IVY ABRINA Commission on Human Rights Region VII Office NOEL R ADLAWAN President, IBP Cebu Chapter JOSELITO M. ALO Director, IBP-Cebu Chapter,IBP-Cebu Chapter PELAGIO APOSTOL Head, Office of the Ombudsman Region VII

II.2. 1. 2, 3. 4.

191

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. 18. 19.

CALICANO M. ARRIESCADO, JR. Auditor, IBP-Cebu Chapter ATTY. GREGORIO AUSTRAL Dean, University Bohol College of Law LLENA G. IPONG-AVILA OIC, Regional State Prosecutor, Region VII, Department of Justice JSUPT CESAR F. BALDERAS Assistant Regional Director, BJMP VII ATTY. RAUL P. BARBARONA Executive Director, Environmental Legal Assistance Center (ELAC) ATTY. SOCORRO BELARMINO Vice-President, Federacion Internacional De Abogadas Cebu Chapter ATTY. BRICCIO JOSEPH C. BOHOLST President, IBP, CEBU CITY EFREN C. CARREON Assistant Regional Director, NEDA VII MS. ANNABELLE CENIZA-CHAVEZ Director IV, Dept. of Budget & Mgt. RO VII LUDIVICO VISTAL CUTARAN Chief, Regional Legal Service, Police Regional Office VII PNP ATTY. MICHAEL DIGNOS Assistant City Attorney, Lapu-lapu City Government FR. CARMELO DIOLA Dilaab Foundation, Inc. ENRIQUE Y. DIOLASA Dilaab Foundation, Inc. LORETO M. DURANO, L.I.M Dean-USP & Coll. Law of Cebu, PALS, IBP GERALDONE FAITH ECONG Judge, Regional Trial Court, Lapulapu City, Cebu

192

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

ATTY. ELIAS L. ESPINOSA PRO, IBP-Cebu Chapter BALDOMERO C. ESTENZO Dean, University of Cebu MR. DARYLL CHRISTIAN ESTRADA Program Steward, DILAAB FOUNDATION INC. PSS ARTURO MENDEZ EVANGELISTA Chief Regional Investigation & Detective Mgt. Division, PNP Regional Office VII TERESA FERNANDEZ Lihok Filipina Foundation, Inc. VICTORIA HERMOSISIMA Secretary Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission SJ02 ARNEL A. JAYME JMP Regional Investigator / Bureau Prosecutor, BJMP VII ELENA O. LEIOLA Dilaab Foundation, Inc. ROLANDO M. LIM Director, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Cebu City JINSP Jenesis U. Mongcopa Regional Hearing Officer, BJMP VII ATTY. JOSELYN OESGUERA Consultant, Congressman Benhur L. Salinbangon, House of Representatives ATTY. MARIA LUISA ONG Department of the Interior & Local Government ATTY. J. VICENTE R.M. OPINION Dean, College of Law, Eastern Samar State University HON. AUSTERE PANADERO Undersecretary, Department of the Interior & Local Government ATTY. JOSEFINA I. PAREDES Chairman, FREE LAVA

193

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

HON. ARTURO RADAHZA, Mayor, Lapu-Lapu City Govt HON. MARIO RELAMPAGOS Undersecretary, Department of Budget & Management HON. EDILBERTO SANDOVAL Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan JOAN DYMPHNA G. SANIEL Executive Director, Children Legal Bureau DR. GLORIA ZOSA SENO Resource Activities FRANCISCO A. SEVILLE, JR. . Vice President for Visayas, Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines ATTY. EUGENE M. SUMAMPONG TIDS, Department of Trade & Industry, Cebu NENGLEY TABUCANON VILLANUEVA Treasurer, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu Chapter

.41. 42.

194