Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
“Cast all your anxiety on him because he
cares for you”
1 Peter 5:7
PART 17
FREE ACCESS TO THE COURTS
SECTION 11. Free access to the courts
and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to
any person by reason of poverty.
WHAT DOES THIS SECTION
GUARANTEE?
● All persons shall have free access
to courts and quasi-judicial bodies
and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty
DOES FREE ACCESS TO COURT MEAN
THAT ANY PERSON CAN GO TO COURT
WITHOUT PAYING ANYTHING?
● No. Free access to court is only a
guarantee of availability of legal
remedies with the consequent
obligation on the part of the
parties to pay reasonable fees
● In deference to the constitutional
guarantee that the state shall
guarantee adequate legal
assistance to the people without
regard to their financial status, the
Rules of Court, particularly Sec. 21
of Rule 3 and Sec. 19 of Rule 141,
allows indigent to litigate as
pauper.
IN RE: QUERY OF MR. ROGER
PRIORESCHI
FACTS: The Philippine Supreme Court did
not exempt the Good Shepherd
Foundation, Inc. from legal and filing fees
despite its recognized mission of working
for indigent and underprivileged Filipinos.
It held that the “free access” clause of the
1987 Philippine Constitution, as
implemented by Rule 3 and Rule 141 of the
Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines
(re: indigent litigants), applies only to
natural persons who suffer from
economic poverty.
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s)
To encourage and promote the
growth of charity work in the Philippines,
I think it is high time for the Court to
amend Rule 3 and Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court to accommodate the needs of
accredited and reputable non-profit and
non-stock juridical persons whose
missions are to serve and save the
poorest of the poor in Philippine society.
A few years back, the Court risked
the ire of the Filipino people, especially
the poor litigants, and the Philippine Bar
for partnering with Congress for the
passage of a special law (R.A. No. 9227)
commanding the imposition of radical
increases in court docket and filing fees
and other legal costs just to double the
special allowances of judges and justices
(which excluded ordinary court
personnel, at that). The issue irked the
top leaders of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) on constitutional
grounds. They filed a well-publicized
petition before the Court seeking its
nullification. They held protest rallies in
front of Congress. But the petition died of
a natural death on technical grounds
when a majority of the IBP leaders, for
unknown and mysterious reasons (and
without explaining the matter to its
national membership), withdrew their
signatures in the petition.
And now, the Court has the gall to
refuse the simple request of a reputable
corporate charitable institution for
exemption from huge court docket and
filing fees and other legal costs involving a
litigation which affects the said
institution. The reason? The charitable
institution is “not a poor natural person”.
Somehow, I cannot hold my insulting
smile founded on disbelief, anger, and
shock. Here is a digest of the said case.
In his letter dated May 22, 2009
addressed to the Chief Justice, Mr. Roger
C. Prioreschi, administrator of the Good
Shepherd Foundation, Inc., questioned
OCA Circular No. 42-2005 and Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court of the Philippines that
reserve the privilege of exemption from
docket and filing fees to “indigent
persons”. He questioned why the rules
excluded foundations or associations that
work with and for the most Indigent
persons, as in the case of the Good
1 of 2
 Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
Shepherd Foundation, Inc. which had
been reaching out since 1985 “to the
poorest among the poor, the newly born
and abandoned babies, children who
never saw the smile of their mother, old
people who cannot afford a few pesos to
pay for common prescriptions, broken
families who returned to a normal life”,
whom the Philippine Government and the
Filipino society could not reach or had
rejected or abandoned.
To answer the query of Mr.
Prioreschi, the Supreme Court held that it
could not grant to foundations like the
Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the same
exemption from payment of legal fees
granted to indigent litigants even if the
foundations are working for indigent and
underprivileged people. The basis for the
exemption from legal and filing fees is the
free access clause, embodied in Sec. 11,
Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides that “free access to the courts
and quasi judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty”.
In implementation of the right of
free access under the Constitution, the
Supreme Court promulgated rules,
specifically, Sec. 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court,
and Sec. 19, Rule 141, Rules of Court.
HELD: The Court held that the clear
intent and precise language of the
aforequoted provisions of the Rules of
Court indicated that only a natural party
litigant may be regarded as an indigent
litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation,
Inc., being a corporation invested by the
State with a juridical personality separate
and distinct from that of its members, is a
juridical person. Among others, it has the
power to acquire and possess property of
all kinds as well as incur obligations and
bring civil or criminal actions, in
conformity with the laws and regulations
of their organization. As a juridical
person, it cannot be accorded the
exemption from legal and filing fees
granted to indigent litigants.
The Court stated that the free
access clause of the Constitution applies
only to a natural person who suffers from
poverty. It added that extending the
exemption to a juridical person on the
A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s)
ground that it works for indigent and
underprivileged people may be prone to
abuse (even with the imposition of rigid
documentation requirements),
particularly by corporations and entities
bent on circumventing the rule on
payment of the fees and that the scrutiny
of compliance with the documentation
requirements may prove too
time-consuming and wasteful for the
courts.
IN THE CASE OF IN RE: QUERY OF MR.
PRIORESCHI, HE SAID THAT GOOD
SHEPHERD FOUNDATION IS A
NON-STOCK NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION WHICH CATERS TO THE
NEED OF THE FATHERLESS, HOMELESS
AND THE POOR. ACCORDING TO HIM,
GOOD SHEPHERD FOUNDATION
SHOULD BE ALLOWED LITIGATE AS
PAUPER. HE IS ALSO INVOKING SEC. 11
OF ART. 3. DID THE SC AGREE?
● No. Sec. 11 of Art. 3 is available only
to natural persons.
● The word ‘poverty’ under Sec. 11
only limits the application of this
constitutional guarantee to natural
persons and not to juridical
persons because only natural
persons can suffer the condition of
poverty. While corporations can be
insolvent, that is not equivalent to
poverty. Similarly, the Rules of
Court particularly Rule 141 took
into consideration the minimum
wage and basic necessities to be
considered as pauper litigant.
Definitely, corporations are not
covered by the minimum wage law
and do not have basic necessities.
2 of 2