Barangay Justice System (Katarungang Pambarangay)
An alternative, community-based mechanism in the Philippines
Overview
The barangays are the smallest political subdivisions in the Philippines. The
Katarungang Pambarangay (KP) or Barangay Justice System (BJS) is an
alternative, community-based mechanism for dispute resolution of conflicts
between members of the same community.
The BJS provides a venue for disputing parties to search for a mutually acceptable
solution. Other members of the communities act as intermediaries, facilitating the
discussion of possible solutions.
The BJS formalized the Filipino tradition to seek help of community elders or tribe
leaders in resolving disputes between members of the same community, and uses
the Punong Barangay (highest elected official in a barangay) and the Lupon
members (committee of respected community members).
It is only when the BJS has failed to resolve the dispute that the parties are allowed
to bring their case to court.
Who can access it?
Individual residents of Barangay can file a complaint to their Punong Barangay. If
the parties are from different barangays, the dispute will be settled in the barangay
at the choice of the complainant. Cooperatives or people’s organizations can go
directly to court without mediation or conciliation.
How does it work?
Mediation
A complaint is filed in the Lupon (committee) at a minimal filing fee. The Punong
Barangay facilitates the mediation process and explains the process, objectives
and rules of the mediation. Each party is given time to explain their point of view. If
no settlement is reached following the mediation, the parties can try to resolve their
dispute through conciliation.
Conciliation
The conciliators (Pangkat Tagapagkasundo) are known and respected by both
parties in the dispute, and are constituted by the Punong Barangay from the
Lupon. The three members of the Pangkat are chosen by the parties. The Pangkat
shall hear both parties and explore the possibilities for amicable settlement. The
amicable settlement reached in conciliation has the force and effect of a final
judgment of a court and can be enforced within 6 months from the date of
settlement by filing a motion in court.
If no settlement is reached, the parties can use a certification to file action for filing
a case in court.
Arbitration
Arbitration can take place at any stage of the proceedings, as long as both parties
agree in writing to abide by the arbitration award of the Lupon or Pangkat.
Enforcement
If a settlement is reached through either mediation, conciliation or arbitration, and
the party has not complied with the settlement or arbitration award, the Punong
Barangay executes the settlement by taking possession of sufficient personal
property of the party obliged, which can be sold and the proceeds applied to the
amount.
Appeal
An amicable settlement has force and effect of a final judgment of a court after ten
days from the date of the settlement, unless a protest or repudiation of the
settlement is made. Only when the BJS has failed to resolve the dispute, can the
parties bring their case to court.
Katarungang Pambarangay
Katarungang Pambarangay, or the Barangay Justice System is a local justice
system in the Philippines. It is operated by the smallest of the local government
units, the barangay, and is overseen by the barangay captain, the highest elected
official of the barangay and its executive.[1] The barangay captain sits on
the Lupon Tagapamayapa along with other barangay residents, which is the
committee that decides disputes and other matters. They do not constitute a court
as they do not have judicial powers.[2]
The system exists to help decongest the regular courts and works mostly as
"alternative, community-based mechanism for dispute resolution of
conflicts,"[1] also described as a "compulsory mediation process at the village
level."[3]
Throughout the Philippines the Barangay Justice Systems handles thousands of
cases a year.[4] Since officials have more flexibility in decision-making, including
from complex evidence rules, and receive some resources from government, the
courts are more numerous and accessible than other courts and therefore the
courts are able to hear more cases and to respond more immediately.[4]
The Katarungang Pambarangay share characteristics with similar traditional, hybrid
courts in other countries such as the Solomon Islands, Papua New
Guinea, Nigeria and South Africa, among others.[5] Such courts emerged during
colonial periods as Western imperial powers introduced western legal
systems.[5] The Western legal systems were usually applied to westerners while
the local dispute resolution systems were integrated into the Western system in a
variety of ways including incorporation of local decision makers into the
government in some way.[5] After independence, many states faced the same
problems as their former rulers, especially "limited geographical reach of state
institutions, Western-modeled institutions often divorced from community structures
and expectations, and resource constraints in the justice sector." [5] Hybrid courts
became a "middle ground for supporting community decision-making while
simultaneously expanding the authority and reach of the state." [5]
Besides "hybrid courts", other authors have described the system as a "Non-State
Justice System".[6]
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-93.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 14-93
TO: ALL REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES ON THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
CONCILIATION PROCEDURE TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OF THE
REVISED KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW [SECTIONS 399-422,
CHAPTER VII, TITLE I, BOOK III, R. A. 7160, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991].
The Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law under R. A. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991, effective on January 1,
1992 and which repealed P. D. 1508, introduced substantial changes not
only in the authority granted to the Lupong Tagapamayapa but also in the
procedure to be observed in the settlement of disputes within the authority
of the Lupon.cralaw
In order that the laudable purpose of the law may not be subverted and its
effectiveness undermined by indiscriminate, improper and/or premature
issuance of certifications to file actions in court by the Lupon or Pangkat
Secretaries, attested by the Lupon/Pangkat Chairmen, respectively, the
following guidelines are hereby issued for the information of trial court
judges in cases brought before them coming from the
Barangays:chanrobles virtual law library
I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law [formerly P. D. 1508, repealed and now
replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515,
Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991], and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a
complaint in court or any government offices, except in the following
disputes:chanrobles virtual law library
[1] Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof;
[2] Where one party is a public officer or employee and the dispute relates
to the performance of his official functions;
[3] Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and
municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to
amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
[4] Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical
entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation
proceedings either as complainants or respondents [Sec. 1, Rule VI,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules];
[5] Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different
cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each
other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
[6] Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of
imprisonment exceeding one [1] year or a fine of over five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00);
[7] Offenses where there is no private offended party;
[8] Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice
from being committed or further continued, specifically the
following:chanrobles virtual law library
[a] Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention
[See Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law];
[b] Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful
custody over another or a person illegally deprived of or on acting in his
behalf;
[c] Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary
injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during
the pendency of the action; and cralaw
[d] Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
[9] Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest
of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
[10] Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL) [Secs. 46 & 47, R. A. 6657];
[11] Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee
relations [Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor
Code, as amended, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over
conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain
offices of the Department of Labor and Employment];
[12] Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed
directly in court [See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459].cralaw
II. Under the provisions of R. A. 7160 on Katarungang Pambarangay
conciliation, as implemented by the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and
Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Justice, the certification for
filing a complaint in court or any government office shall be issued by
Barangay authorities only upon compliance with the following
requirements:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1] Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the Lupon Chairman
(Punong Barangay), certifying that a confrontation of the parties has taken
place and that a conciliation settlement has been reached, but the same
has been subsequently repudiated (Sec. 412, Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law; Sec. 2[h], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
[2] Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the Pangkat
Chairman certifying that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[a] a confrontation of the parties took place but no conciliation/settlement
has been reached (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
or
[b] that no personal confrontation took place before the Pangkat through
no fault of the complainant (Sec. 4[f], Rule III, Katarungang pambarangay
Rules).
pre-condition to judicial action, particularly whether the certification to file action
attached to the records of the case comply with the requirements hereinabove
enumerated in Par. II;
IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior Barangay conciliation which
is a pre-condition for formal adjudication (Sec. 412 [a] of the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law) may be dismissed upon motion of defendant/s, not for lack of
jurisdiction of the court but for failure to state a cause of action or prematurity
(Royales vs. IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs. CA, 151 SCRA 289), or the court
may suspend proceedings upon petition of any party under Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the
Rules of Court; and refer the case motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay
authority applying by analogy Sec. 408 [g], 2nd par., of the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law which reads as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
"The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the Lupon
under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio refer case to
the Lupon concerned for amicable settlement.
Strict observance of these guidelines is enjoined. This Administrative Circular shall
be effective immediately.
Manila, Philippines; July 15, 1993.

[3] Issued by the Punong Barangay as requested by the proper party on the ground
of failure of settlement where the dispute involves members of the same
indigenous cultural community, which shall be settled in accordance with the [Sgd.] ANDRES R. NARVASA
customs and traditions of that particular cultural community, or where one or more Chief Justice
of the parties to the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority and the parties
mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous system of amicable
settlement, and there has been no settlement as certified by the datu or tribal
leader or elder to the Punong Barangay of place of settlement (Secs. 1,4 & 5, Rule
IX, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); and
[4] If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved
unsuccessful, there having been no agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 410 [b], Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 1, c. (1), Rule III, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules), or where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation
proceeding before the Punong Barangay (3rd par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules), the Punong Barangay shall not cause the issuance at this
stage of a certification to file action, because it is now mandatory for him to
constitute the Pangkat before whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration
proceedings shall be held.cralaw

III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to your sala/branch of the
Regional Trial Court shall be carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there
has been compliance with prior Barangay conciliation procedure under the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations as a