PHILIPPINES

 JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES

 Judicial Branch in the Philippines
 Supreme Court of the Philippines
 Problems with the Philippine Justice System
 Corruption and Philippine Judges
 Supreme Court Justice’s Effort to Reform the Philippine Legal System
 Life of Reformist Philippines Supreme Court Justice
 Death Penalty in the Philippines
 Philippines Stops Death Penalty in 2006
 History of the Death Penalty in the Philippines
 Aquino Rejects Bid to Revive Death Penalty
 Rape and Rape Laws in the Philippines
 Incest: A Death Penalty Crime in the Philippines

JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES

The justice system in the Philippines is mixed legal system of civil, common,
Islamic, and customary law. The formal system of trials, appeals, and prisons is
similar to that of the United States. Civil code procedures on family and property
and the absence of jury trial were attributable to Spanish influences, but most
important statutes governing trade and commerce, labor relations, taxation,
banking and currency, and governmental operations were of United States
derivation, introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century. Most of the
laws, official notices and court decisions, including those by the Supreme Court,
are in English. Even the Constitution is published more often in English than
Tagalog. The bar exams are in English.

The basis of the legal code is primarily Spanish and Anglo-American law. Islamic
law applies among Muslims in portions of the southern Philippines. According to
the constitution, those accused of crimes have the right to be informed of the
charges against them, to be represented by counsel, and to have a speedy and
fair public trial. Defendants also enjoy the presumption of innocence and have
the right to confront witnesses, present evidence, and appeal convictions.
However, the judiciary is said to suffer from corruption and inefficiency, which at
times undermine the provision of due process and equal justice. As a result, the
Supreme Court has undertaken a five-year program to speed up the judicial
process and crack down on corruption. [Source: Library of Congress, 2006]
Judicial institutions in the Philippines are regarded as weak and corrupt and
notoriously slow. Skilled lawyers can get their clients off of most charges by
bogging down the system with a flood of documents, motions and counter
motions and then files for dismissal because their client has been denied the
right to a speedy trial. Philippine law calls for compassion for people over 70.

For poor people the justice system operates quite differently than it does for the
wealthy and elite. They are most often represented by overworked public
defenders who advise their clients to plead guilty to hasten the process and
hopefully get off with a light sentence. In many places a system of patronage
exists in which justice is defined as having enough money to buy yourself out of
any fix.

Judicial Branch in the Philippines

Judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. The highest court:Supreme Court (consists of a chief justice
and 14 associate justices). Judge selection and term of office: justices are
appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial and Bar
Council, a constitutionally-created, 6-member body that recommends Supreme
Court nominees; justices serve until age 70. Subordinate courts: Court of
Appeals; Sandiganbayan (special court for corruption cases of government
officials); Court of Tax Appeals; regional, metropolitan, and municipal trial
courts; sharia courts. [Source: CIA World Factbook]

The Philippines has an independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the
highest court of appeal. The Supreme Court also is empowered to review the
constitutionality of presidential decrees. The Supreme Court consists of a chief
justice and 14 associate justices. It is not necessary for the entire court to
convene in all cases. Justices are appointed by the president on the
recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council and serve until 70 years of age.
Lower-level courts include a national Court of Appeals divided into 17 divisions,
local and regional trial courts, and an informal local system to settle certain
disputes outside the formal court system. In 1985 a separate court system
founded on Islamic law (sharia) was established in the southern Philippines with
jurisdiction over family and contractual relations among Muslims. Three district
magistrates and six circuit judges oversee the Islamic law system. A special
court—the Sandiganbayan or anti-graft court—focuses exclusively on
investigating charges of judicial corruption. [Source: Library of Congress, 2006]

The 1981 Judicial Reorganization Act provides for four main levels of courts and
several special courts. At the local level are metropolitan trial courts, municipal
trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts. The next level consists of regional
trial courts, one for each of the nation's thirteen political regions, including
Manila. Courts at the local level have original jurisdiction over less serious
criminal cases while more serious offenses are heard by the regional level
courts, which also have appellate jurisdiction. At the national level is the
Intermediate Appellate Court, also called the court of appeals. Special courts
include Muslim circuit and district courts in Moro (Muslim Filipino) areas, the
court of tax appeals, and the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan tries
government officers and employees charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. [Source: Library of Congress, 1991 *]

The armed forces maintain an autonomous military justice system. Military

courts are under the authority of the judge advocate general of the armed forces,
who is also responsible for the prosecutorial function in the military courts.
Military courts operate under their own procedures but are required to accord
the accused the same constitutional safeguards received by civilians. Military
tribunals have jurisdiction over all activeduty members of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines. *

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Supreme Court has been set up along the American model. It consists of a chief
justice and 14 associate justices. Judge selection and term of office: justices
are appointed by the president on the recommendation of the Judicial and Bar
Council, a constitutionally-created, 6-member body that recommends Supreme
Court nominees. Justices serve until age 70.

The Supreme Court, at the apex of the judicial system, consists of a chief justice
and fourteen associate justices. It has original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and over petitions for
injunctions and writs of habeas corpus; it has appellate jurisdiction over all
cases in which the constitutionality of any treaty, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, or regulation is questioned. The Supreme Court also may
hear appeals in criminal cases involving a sentence of life in prison. Article 3 of
the Constitution forbids the death penalty "unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it." [Source:
Library of Congress, 1991 *]

The Supreme Court also regulates the practice of law in the Philippines,
promulgates rules on admission to the bar, and disciplines lawyers. To be
admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, candidates must pass an
examination that is administered once annually. Professional standards are
similar to those of the United States; the Integrated Bar Association's code
borrows heavily from the American Bar Association's rules. Some 30,000
attorneys practiced law in the Philippines in the mid1980s , more than one-third
of them in Manila. Counsel for the indigent, while not always available, is
provided by government legal aid offices and various private organizations. Many
of the private groups are active in representing "social justice" causes and are
staffed by volunteers. *

Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts are appointed by the
president from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Council for every vacancy. The Judicial and Bar Council consists of a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a law professor, a retired member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. Presidential
appointments do not require confirmation. Supreme Court justices must be at
least forty years of age when appointed and must retire at age seventy.
According to Article 11 of the constitution, members of the Supreme Court "may
be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation
of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or
betrayal of public trust." The House has exclusive power to initiate cases of
impeachment. The Senate tries such cases, and two-thirds of the Senate must
concur to convict someone. The judiciary is guaranteed fiscal autonomy. *

Problems with the Philippine Justice System

The traditional independence of the courts had been heavily compromised in the
Marcos era. Because the 1973 constitution allowed Marcos to fire members of
the judiciary, including members of the Supreme Court, at any time, anyone
inclined to oppose him was intimidated into either complying or resigning. None
of his acts or decrees was declared unconstitutional. The thirteen Marcos-
appointed Supreme Court justices resigned after he fled, and Aquino immediately
appointed ten new justices. [Source: Library of Congress, 1991 *]

The Philippines has always been a highly litigious society, and the courts often
were used to carry on personal vendettas and family feuds. There was
widespread public perception that at least some judges could be bought. Public
confidence in the judicial system was dealt a particular blow in 1988 when a
special prosecutor alleged that six Supreme Court justices had pressured him to
"go easy" on their friends. The offended justices threatened to cite the
prosecutor for contempt. Aquino did not take sides in this dispute. The net effect
was to confirm many Filipinos' cynicism about the impartiality of justice. *

Justice was endlessly delayed in the late 1980s. Court calendars were jammed.
Most lower courts lacked stenographers. A former judge reported in 1988 that
judges routinely scheduled as many as twenty hearings at the same time in the
knowledge that lawyers would show up only to ask for a postponement. One tax
case heard in 1988 had been filed 50 years before, and a study of the tax court
showed that even if the judges were to work 50 percent faster, it would take
them 476 years to catch up. Even in the spectacular case of the 1983 murder of
Senator Benigno Aquino, the judicial system did not function speedily or reliably.
It took five years to convict some middle-ranking officers, and although the
verdict obliquely hinted at then-Chief of Staff General Fabian Ver's ultimate
responsibility, the court never directly addressed that question. *

The indictment of former Minister of Defense Enrile on the charge of "rebellion

with murder" shows that the courts can be independent of the president, but
also that powerful people are handled gently. Enrile was arrested on February
27, 1990, for his alleged role in the December 1989 coup attempt in which more
than 100 people died. Because Enrile was powerful, he was given an air-
conditioned suite in jail, a telephone, and a computer, and a week later he was
released on 100,000 pesos bail. In June 1990, the Supreme Court invalidated the
charges against him. A further test of the court system was expected in the
1990s when criminal and civil charges were to be brought against Imelda
Marcos. In 1991 Aquino agreed to allow the former first lady, who could not leave
New York City without the permission of the United States Department of
Justice, to return to the Philippines to face charges of graft and corruption.
Swiss banking authorities agreed to return approximately US$350 million to the
Philippine government only if Marcos were tried and convicted. Marcos did not
seem to be reluctant to face the Philippine courts. *

Corruption and Philippine Judges

There was a drive to impeach Chief Justice Hilario Davide, the Supreme Court
justice who swore in President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and played a role in the
ouster of President Joseph Estrada in 2001. The impeachment was based on
allegations that the judge misused public funds to refurbish court offices. The
move was largely seen as pay back for the move against Estrada. Congress
voted to impeach him but the Supreme Court voted the impeachment was
unconstitutional.

In May 2012, an Arroyo-appointed Supreme Court chief justice was fired by the
Philippines Senate in an impeachment trial for failing to declare $2.4 million in
bank accounts. Hrvoje Hranjski of Associated Press wrote: “Chief Justice Renato
Corona has called the effort to oust him a threat to democracy. He said his
omission was not an impeachable offense and that a 1974 bank privacy law
protects foreign deposits from disclosure, while prosecutors argued the
constitution mandates a full declaration of assets for someone in his position.
[Source: Hrvoje Hranjski, Associated Press, May 29, 2012 /*]

“Corona is considered fired and barred from public office after senators voted 20
to 3 to convict him on charges of betraying public trust and violating the
constitution. Corona testified that it wasn't only him who is on trial and
challenged all 188 lawmakers who impeached him to disclose their dollar
accounts — but there were few takers. Reacting to his conviction, Corona said
that he was innocent and that "bad politics' prevailed in his trial. But he
suggested he was ready to accept his fate. "I have not committed any wrong,"
he said, but added that "if this will be for the country's good, I am accepting the
difficulties we're going through." /*\

“The nationally televised, five-month-long proceedings gripped the nation like a

soap opera, with emotional testimony, political grandstanding and a sideshow
family drama. Prosecutors, most of whom are Aquino's allies from the lower
House of Representatives, argued that Corona concealed his wealth and offered
"lame excuses" to avoid public accountability. Corona said he had accumulated
his wealth from foreign exchange when he was still a student. Rep. Rodolfo
Farinas, one of the prosecutors, ridiculed the 63-year-old justice, saying he
"wants us to believe that when he was in the fourth grade in 1959 he was such a
visionary that he already started buying dollars." "It is clear that these were
excuses and lies made before the Senate and the entire world," Farinas said in
Monday's closing arguments, adding that Corona had declared in his statement
of assets, liabilities and net worth less than 2 percent of what he actually
owned. /*\

“The prosecution asked if Corona was so rich, why did he need a loan for a car,
and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile quizzed that if Corona had nothing to
hide, why the failure to declare all his assets, as mandated by the constitution.
Corona's lawyer Serafin Cuevas cited a threat of kidnapping and extortion.
Farinas said the big lesson in Corona's conviction was that even the high and
mighty in government could fall if they commit any wrongdoing. "This is a victory
for justice," he said. /*\

“Aquino’s immediate target in his promise to fight corruption after being elected
president in 2010 was former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her inner
circle that includes Corona, who was appointed by Arroyo shortly before she
stepped down. "This is not about vendetta," said Budget Secretary Florencio
Abad, a close adviser to Aquino. "This is about strengthening the institutions of
democracy, the institutions of check and balance." He said the conviction
"shows that this country can dispense justice. This encourages people to avail of
a judicial process that works even if the accused is a big fish." /*\

Corona has already questioned the legality of the charges against him, but the
Supreme Court did not rule on it. This is the first impeachment process to be
completed in Philippine history. The trial of former President Joseph Estrada on
corruption charges in 2001 was cut short when prosecutors walked out and
triggered the country's second "people power" revolt, toppling him. /*\