Mary Mhelbone P.

Banao
May 09, 2021
INTRODUCTIOIN TO LAW

Thought Paper on the status of the Philippine Legal/Judicial System.

The Supreme Court, consisting of a chief justice and 14 associate justices, was the highest
judicial body of the state under the 1973 constitution, with supervisory power over the lower
courts. In 1981, the entire court system was restructured, with the establishment of new state
courts of trials and appeals. The president appoints justices at all ranks. Without juries,
Philippine courts functioned. Delays were typical in court trials, and detention times in national
security cases were lengthy. During the time of martial law (1972–81), security charges were
heard in military courts. The 1987 constitution returned the regime to its pre-war state. The
national court system currently consists of four levels: state and federal district courts, a national
Court of Appeals split into 17 districts, the 15-member Supreme Court, and an informal local
system for arbitrating or mediating such cases outside of the formal court system. In certain
Mindanao provinces, a Shari'ah (Islamic law) court system exists, with authority over domestic
and contractual ties between Muslim people. On good conduct, Supreme Court justices can serve
until the age of 70.
Subsequently, the judiciary is described as a branch of government in which judicial authority is
delegated to a system of courts of law and the judges who sit in them. Despite having different
court systems and hierarchies, the aim of the judiciary in both Malaysia and the Philippines is to
ensure justice is served, which it does by using the functions of its courts with the assistance of
judges performing their respective duties. The judiciary in general has three major duties: to hear
cases on civil or criminal matters, to read and give effect to the Constitution and laws, and to
perform judicial review functions. In implementing the first position of determining cases
concerning rights issues, both countries use the English law of stare decisis in each case, which
means that judges are obligated to obey the judgment of a higher court in cases with identical
evidence.
The Philippines' judiciary and criminal justice system is under immense strain, from
dysfunctional institutions to overcrowded jails. As a result, major modifications are coming to
accelerate deeper growth. One court for every 50,000 inhabitants. This is a staggering figure that
highlights one of the Philippines' most pressing issues. Simply put, there aren't enough courts to
satisfy societal demand. In the Philippines, there are only 2,000 courts serving a population of
100 million people. As contrasted to developing countries, it is obvious that we have an
understaffed justice system.
As a result, courts are heavily burdened with litigation and lacked the necessary staffing numbers
to process them all. Lower courts have an estimated annual litigation count of more than 1
million, which equates to 4,000 cases per day. This equates to an overwhelming cumulative
workload of 644 cases for a judge.
Court trials can take years to resolve; as a result, crooked elected officials have been acquitted.
Numerous Filipino people are unable to obtain justice due to financial constraints. Income
inequality is still a significant impediment since the bulk of the country is already impoverished
and cannot afford legal care. And if they did have access to the district defender, which is
supposed to represent the worst of the poor, public prosecutors are understaffed and have a
massive list of lawsuits. As a consequence, the vulnerable do not bring lawsuits because they
understand they cannot pay a lawyer and that their lawsuit could require years to settle.
As a consequence, human rights organizations have called for changes to strengthen jail
conditions. Corrupt and inept investigators and lawyers, a justice and legal system overburdened
by too many trials and too few judges to hear them This bureaucratic pathologies lead to unjust
and indefinite detention.”The ailing justice system adds significantly to the overcrowding. Many
people may not have the financial means to post bail. Bail is not available for any of the more
common offences, such as drug abuse. Prisoners can be kept in this condition for years, and
some of them are innocent.
Any aspect of society is affected by the justice system and the enforcement of the law. We
lament how difficult it is to start and run a company in the Philippines. Many of the issues are,
without a doubt, the result of inefficiency in the administration and an overabundance of
competing jurisdictions.
Corruption is a subject that is often discussed. However, the legal and judiciary systems are
meant to be the most critical shield, and the mechanism has collapsed. From top to bottom, the
people have no power over the judiciary. Members of the Judiciary are unelected and are not
open to substantive public feedback.
Mostly on the headlines, "PHL ranking in global rule of law index falls under Duterte," referring
to the World Justice Project's "Rule of Law Index." The Philippines' 2017 Civil Law ranking is
0.47, and its Criminal Law score is 0.31 out of 1.00. However, because politics is more important
than citizens, it was not reported that the Civil Law score was lower in 2014, at 0.40, and the
Criminal Law score was higher, at 0.36. In 2010, both ratings were slightly higher, at 0.48 and
0.53, respectively.
Such “Rule of Law” ratings have undoubtedly declined. However, the evaluation of the
Philippine justice system is still ongoing. No amount of political spin will alter the fact that the
Philippines, as it has for a long time, has a serious problem in the judiciary. The justices and
judges must tidy up after themselves.

Courts that are overcrowded have long been a problem in the Philippine legal system. It can take
years to resolve a lawsuit, and with new lawsuits arriving every year, caseloads have stacked up.
Under the leadership of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno, major changes such as
computerization of rulings, court reports, and continuous trials have been implemented.
There is no question that ulterior motives on the part of the industry and government are
insufficient; judicial reform and anti-corruption efforts are needed to effectively execute the
Duterte administration's 10-point socioeconomic agenda.