JUDICIALREFORMINTHEPHILIPPINES

[SpeechbeforetheCentralLuzonRegionalConvention oftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP),29June2012] JusticeAntonioT.Carpio

President Roan Libarios, Central Luzon Governor Olivia VelascoJacoba, other Governors and Officers of the IBP, fellow members of the IBP, my coworkers in the Judiciary and in Government, friends, a pleasant morningtoyouall. I wish to thank you for inviting me this morning. Your theme in this Convention Promoting Integrity, Transparency and Accountability in the Justice System is timely considering that the Judiciary needs to learn, and implement, the lessons from the recent impeachmentoftheformerChiefJustice.Theselessons pertain to integrity, transparency and accountability in theJudiciary.Ofcourse,theJudiciaryisonlyoneofthe pillars of the broader Justice System that includes the communityaswellasagenciesoftheExecutivebranch. This morning allow me to express my personal thoughts on Judicial Reform, which inevitably touches on integrity, transparency and accountability in the Judiciary.Judicialreformisalwaysaworkinprogress, and the Judiciary must keep on building on past
1

initiatives to address intractable problems as well as emerging ones. I shall discuss case decongestion, integrityandindependenceofjudges,transparencyand accountability in the Judiciary, infrastructure needs of the Judiciary, compensation of judges, court administration,andtrainingandcareerpathforjudges. These are my personal thoughts, as I do not claim to speakfortheentireCourt. I. CASEDECONGESTION 1. The number one problem of the Judiciary is clogged dockets, arising from delays in trial, and delays in deciding cases. Clogged dockets impair social justice, hinder economic development, and erodepublic confidence in the Justice System and ultimatelyintheentireGovernment. Trialsshouldideallytakenotmorethantwo yearsto finish. At present, 21% of trials take 2 to 5 years to finish, and 13% take more than 5 years to finish. On the other hand, casesshouldideallybedecidedasprescribed by the Constitution: not more than 24 months for the Supreme Court, not more than12monthsforallotherappellatecourts, and not more than 3 months for all other
2

lower courts, all counted from the date of submission for resolution of the case. At present, the Judiciary does not fully comply withthesetimelines.Sincepublicofficeisa public trust, the Judiciary must account to thepublicforthecloggeddockets. 2. The solution to clogged dockets is a combination of measures to address case management, performance, procedural, case filtering, personnel, and judgepopulation issues. a. The Judiciary must adopt a computerized case management system (CMS) for all courts, from first level courts to the SupremeCourt.ThetemplateforthisCMS is the twoyear old case management systemoftheCourtofAppeals(CA),which is widely acknowledged worldwide as a success. PJ Andres Reyes of the CA estimates that by the end of this year 2012, the CA will comply with the constitutional directive that CA cases shouldbedecidedwithin12monthsfrom date of submission for resolution. We have to thank our development partner, theUSAID,fortheirsupportindeveloping thesoftwarefortheCMSoftheCA.
3

b. If the CA can do it that is, comply with theconstitutionaldirectivethenallother appellate courts, including the Supreme Court,shouldbeabletodoitalso.ACMS fortrialcourts,similartotheCACMS,will be pilottested in all Quezon City trial courts before the end of this year. If successful, the trial court CMS will be deployednationwide. The CMS will allow the CJ, PJ, the Court Administrator and the Deputy Court Administrators,tomonitoronline,andin realtime,thecaseload,aging,andtherate of disposition of cases of any judge or justice. The public can also find out the statusoftheircasesbysimplygoingtothe websiteofthecourt.Rightnow,alitigant withapendingcaseintheCAcangotothe CA website, type his case number, and instantly he will know if a decision or resolutionhasbeenissued,andifonehas been issued, he can download a copy. A litigantcanalsogototheCAcompoundin Manila where there is a computer kiosk. The litigant can find out the status of his case by simply typing on the touchscreen ofthecomputerkioskthecasenumberor titleofhiscase.
4

c. The Judiciary mustadopt a simplified trial procedureforalltrialcourts.Thepresent trial procedure, which is obsolete, cumbersome and time consuming, is a principalfactorforthecloggeddocketsof the Judiciary. To eliminate clogged dockets, there has to be a sea change in how courts conduct trials. Even if courts can comply with the constitutional timelines in deciding cases submitted for decision, the trial of cases still drags on toolong. The way forward is to adopt a simplified trial procedure patterned after the four existing special rules adopting simplified trial procedures, namely: (1) the Revised Rule on Summary Procedurewhich has been implemented by first level courts in certain cases for over ten years now, (2) the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing IntraCorporate Controversies which have been implemented by second level courts also for over ten years now, (3) the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases adopted two years ago, and (4) the Rules of Procedure forIntellectual Property Rights Cases adopted last year. Sufficient jurisprudence has developed over these existing simplified trial procedures. It is
5

high time to expand these simplified trial procedurestoallcivilcases. Thus, in all civil cases not presently governed by special simplified trial procedures, the direct testimony of witnessesshallbebyaffidavitonly(except for hostile witnesses), subject to cross examination by the adverse party. All affidavits of witnesses shall be submitted beforethestartofthetrial.Thisalonewill cut down trial time by at least onehalf. Objections to questions will merely be noted by the judge, who anyway knows what testimony is admissible or not, unlikejurorsinthejurysystem.Demurrer to evidence, motions to dismiss, motions for bill of particulars,motions for reconsideration, motions for extension of time to file pleadings,and petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against interlocutory orders, shall be prohibited, as they are now prohibited in the four existing special rules adopting simplifiedtrialprocedures.Thejudgeshall take active part in questioning witnesses. After trial, the parties shall submit their respective memoranda of facts and law, whichthejudgemayadopt,inwholeorin part,inwritinghisdecision.
6

 The simplified trial procedure in these four existing special rules can be combined with the Guidelines for Litigation now being pilottested in Quezon City trial courts, which simplify further the trial procedure in the four existing special rules on simplified trial procedures. In criminal cases, the simplified trial procedureintheRevisedRuleonSummary Procedure,whichalreadyappliestocrimes where the imposable penalty is arresto mayor or lower, can be applied to crimes where the imposable penalty is prision correccional. The great majority of pending cases in first and second level courts are criminal cases, constituting 80% of all pending cases.Delaysinthetrialofcriminalcases are largely dueto the absence of prosecutors, the absence of public defenders, or the absence of prosecution witnesses.Whilethesefactorsarebeyond the control of the Judiciary, they contributemosttothecongestionofcourt dockets.TheJudiciarywillhavetowork

closely with the Executive branch to addressthisimportantissue. d. TheJudiciarymuststrengthenandexpand courtannexed mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution (JDR), which filtercasesandensurethatonlycasesthat cannotbeamicablysettledgototrial.This means setting up more mediation units, and training more judges on judicial dispute resolution.The figures are very encouraging:out of 209,165 civil cases mediated as of May 2012, the success ratewas 63.76%; and out of 23,979 civil casesplaced under judicial dispute resolution as of May 2012, the success rate was 39.53%. Judicial dispute resolution is a second layer filtering mechanism as it applies to cases where mediation has failed. In effect, mediation andjudicialdisputeresolution,whichnow applytoalmost80%ofallfirstandsecond level courts, can filter out 78% of all civil cases filed with first and second level courts. Mediation and judicial dispute resolutionarehugesuccessesinthebattle todecongestthedocketsoftrialcourts. e. The Judiciary must work for legislation thatmakesappointmenttotrialcourtsby
8

level of court, not by specific branch. Right now, an MTC judge who wants to transferasanMTCjudgetoaneighboring city or municipality must go through another appointment, as if he is applying for the first time. This means he must again be nominated by the JBC and appointed by the President,just to be an MTC judge again in a neighboring city or town.Everytimeajudgemakesalateral transfer like this, he accumulates political debts,whichweakenhisindependence. In the Executive branch, a bureau or regional director can simply be assigned from one station or region to another by the department head without need of a new appointment from the President. This should also be the case in the Judiciary. Once appointed a first or second level judge by the President, the judge can be assigned by the Supreme Court to a particular branch within the same court level. The Supreme Court should be able to assign and reassign judges within the same court level based onthecaseloadofcourts,andtheneedfor lateraladvancementofjudges.

f. A high vacancy rate in the position of judgesintrialcourtsnaturallycontributes tocloggeddockets.Atpresent,theoverall vacancy rate in first and second level courts is 25.6%. This includes unfunded and unopenedtrial courts. The vacancy rate in funded andopened trial courts, or existing trial courts, is 22.4%. These vacancyratesarequitehigh,exacerbating the already clogged dockets. The vacancy rate in existing trial courts should ideally be less than 5%, to account only for the time needed to fill vacancies arising from normal retirements, promotions and resignations. In the United States, the vacancy rate in existing federal district courts is currently at 10%, and they are already talking of a judicial crisis or emergency. The JBC will have to find ways to reduce the vacancy rates in first andsecondlevelcourts. g. The number of courts in a locality must followajudgetopopulationratio.Manila, with a population of 1,652,171, has 30 first level courts, or a ratio of one first level judge for every 55,072 residents. Makati, with a population of 510,383, has 7 first level courts, or a ratio of one first level judge for every 72,911 residents.
10

Taguig, with a population of 644,473, has only 1 first level court, or a ratio ofone first level judge for 644,473 residents. Thisdisparityisreflectedinthecaseloads offirstlevelcourts:inManila,theaverage caseloadis242casesperfirstleveljudge, inMakati1,167casesperfirstleveljudge, and in Taguig 1,161 cases per first level judge. Clearly, there is a need to re engineer the distribution of courts in relation to population to insure an equitable distribution, and faster disposition,ofcases.Thisreengineering requireslegislation. II. INTEGRITY,INDEPENDENCE&ACCOUNTABILITY 1. Equally important as case decongestion is how to insure and maintain integrity and independence among judges and justices. The Constitution mandates that judges and justices must have integrity (probity) and independence,asidefromcompetence. 2. Thegatekeeperofintegrityandindependence is the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which mustinsurethatnoonewhodoesnotpossess integrity and independence gets into the list
11

of nominees submitted to the President. If the JBC deems it necessary that nominees to the post of Chief Justice should execute bank waivers to verify their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN), and hence determine their integrity or honesty in declaring their assets, then the bank waiver requirement must also apply to all other applicants to the Judiciary. This is not an additional qualification for the office, but merelyatooltodeterminetheintegrityofthe applicant, similar to the requirement to submit police, Ombudsman and court clearances. 3. Decisions of a judge or justice are the best evidence of the competence, integrity and independence of the judge or justice. A decision canreveal whether the judge or justice knows his law, whether a judge or justice has favored a litigant, and whether a judge or justice has a steely or wimpy decisional independence. Practicing lawyers can tell, from a collection of decisions of a judge or justice, whether the judge or justice has competence, integrity and independence. In constitutional cases,decisions or opinions ofajusticecanrevealwhetherthejusticehas decisional independence visvis the ExecutiveorLegislativebranches.YettheJBC
12

has not adequately evaluated decisions of applicants in screening nominees to the Judiciary. The JBC must give greater weight to decisions of applicants who seek promotionintheJudiciary. TheIBPmustmakeitsownevaluationofthe decisionsofajudgeorjusticetoassisttheJBC indeterminingthecompetence,integrityand independence of applicants seeking promotion in the Judiciary. The IBP can submititsownevaluationthruitspermanent representativeintheJBC.Inthisway,theIBP willgivepracticalandtangiblemeaningtothe themeofthisConventionhowIBPcanhelp promote Integrity, Transparency and AccountabilityintheJusticeSystem. Indeed, other groups with acknowledged competence in evaluating decisions of judges and justices, like law school faculties and professors, should submit to the JBC their own evaluation of decisions of applicants seeking promotion in the Judiciary. Law professors also have a permanent JBC representative who can articulate their evaluation. 4. Once a person is appointed judge or justice, the gatekeeper function is passed on to the
13

Supreme Court, which has the constitutional power to discipline judges and justices of lower courts. The Supreme Court can create permanentadministrativetribunalstohandle administrativecomplaints againstjudges and justices, instead of the present ad hoc investigative bodies. This will expedite the resolutionofadministrativecomplaints. 5. The leaders of the Judiciary must lead by example. The successful organizations are those whose leaders lead by example. The leaders of the Judiciary, and I refer to the ChiefJusticeandtheAssociateJusticesofthe Supreme Court, must be the embodiment of integrityandindependencefortherestofthe Judiciarytofollow.Thus,theSupremeCourt Justicesshouldleadincomplyingwiththelaw bydisclosingtheirSALNsasmandatedbythe Constitutionandthelaw.TheSupremeCourt has done this as part of the lessons learned fromtherecentimpeachmenttrial. 6. The Judiciaryshould embrace transparency and accountability in governance by publishing its COA Audited Annual Reports, its collections and disbursements of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the SpecialAllowanceforJudges(SAJ),aswellas allotherfinancialreportsrequiredbylaw.If
14

yougototheSupremeCourtwebsite,youwill seeallthesereportsnowpostedonline.This is part of the new transparency and accountability policy of the Supreme Court. This is really a nobrainer since all these financialreportsarepublicdocuments. III. INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Adequate courthouses are necessary for the administration of justice. All appellate courts have decent and adequate courthouses, but not the first and second levelcourts.TheexistingHallsofJusticecan accommodate only 22% of all existing first level courts, and only 51% of all existing secondlevelcourts.Thisglaringshortageof courthouses nationwide needs to be addressed. The annual GAA must provide a budgetforaprogrammedconstruction,over the next decade, of more courthouses throughoutthecountry. 2. The City of Manila, founded more than 440 years ago, with 104 trial courts, comprising more than of all trial courts in Metro Manila, still does not have a Hall of Justice today. It is really a shame that the capital
15

city of the Republic does not have a Hall of Justice. The judges in the City of Manila continuetoholdofficeandtrialsincramped and dilapidated rooms and courtrooms. The construction of the Manila Hall of Justice mustberevivedassoonaspossible.Thereis already a lot for the Manila HOJ titled in the name of the Supreme Court almost a one hectarelotatthebackoftheManilaCityHall. 3. With funding from the World Bank, the Supreme Court was able to construct two model courthouses. The first model courthouse, located in LapuLapu City, was inaugurated in December2007. The second model courthouse, located in Angeles City, will be inaugurated next week, July 5, 2012. The construction of these two model courthouses is part of the Judicial Reform Support Program initiated by former Chief JusticeHilarioDavidein2001.Thethirdand last model courthouse should be the Manila Hall of Justice, which should be constructed once the funding is secured, hopefully with assistance again from our development partner the World Bank, whom we must thankforthefirsttwomodelcourthouses.All courthousestobeconstructedinthecountry should be patterned after these model courthouses, which incorporate all the
16

designandequipmentneededforanefficient andmoderncourthouse. 4. Internet connection for all courthouses is now a necessity. Access to the Supreme CourtsELibrarywillputatthefingertipsof all judges nationwide all the jurisprudence andlawstheyneedinwritingdecisions.The ELibrary now contains, in full text searchable format, all Supreme Court decisions from 1901 to the present, as well as all laws from 1900 to the present. Supreme Court Circulars and Manuals can also be found in the ELibrary. So are rules and regulations of all government agencies thatarerequiredtobefiledwiththeU.P.Law Center before they can take effect.Decisions oftheSupremeCourtareuploadedtotheE Librarywithindaysfromtheirpromulgation. Everyjudgeandjusticewillbeprovidedwith a USB 3G wireless thumbdrive that, once insertedinhislaptopordesktop,willdirectly connect him to the Supreme Court website where he can access the ELibrary. The trial judge can upload his monthly report of pending cases to the OCA section of the Supreme Court website. When the CMS of trial courts is deployed, the system can automatically upload to the OCA updates on
17

pending cases and other data. The USB thumbdrive cannot be used to go to any website other than the Supreme Court website. The Supreme Court approved two weeks ago the procurement of the USB thumbdrives. We have to thank again the World Bank for its support in setting up the ELibrary and in procuring the USB thumb drives. Incidentally, the ELibrary is a project that I initiatedoneyearafterIjoinedtheSupreme Court. It involved scanning all decisions of theSupremeCourtsince1901,aswellasall laws since 1900. We scanned, whenever available, the original of Supreme Court decisionsandthelawsprintedintheOfficial Gazette. IV. COMPENSATION&BENEFITS 1. There is a saying that to maintain a good judiciary, you must choose your judges well, but above all, you must pay them well. To choose our judges well, we have the JBC. But to pay our judges well, we have the salary standardization law, which does not distinguish between judges and nonjudges.
18

UndertheSSL,judgesandnonjudgeshavethe same pay even if they do not have the same work and responsibility. So how do we resolvethisissueofpayingourjudgeswell? 2. A new law, RA No. 9946, makes the monthly pension of retired judges equivalent to the salary of incumbent judges. So when incumbent judges get a salary increase, the monthly pension of retired judges, which is taxfree,alsogetsthesameincrease.Thereis alsotheSAJunderRANo.9227,whichentitles judges to a monthly allowance equivalent to 100%oftheirbasicmonthlysalary.Whilethe best compensation and benefit packages are thosegiventoofficialsingovernmentfinancial institutions, judges are better compensated compared to government officials in the regular executive departments. Even then, theSupremeCourtmustcontinuetofindways to improve the compensation package of judgesandjustices. 3. LGUs give judges in their areas monthly allowances. This may give rise to a conflict of interest or weakened independence on the part of judgeswhen the LGU or its officials have cases before these judges. In one case, LGU officials withheld the monthly allowance when the LGU lost a case before one of the
19

judges. To remove this conflict of interest issue,oneprovincedecidedtogiveamonthly lumpsumtotheSupremeCourt,fortheCourt toallocatetothejudgesinthatprovince.This should be the template for all financial assistancetobegivenbyLGUstojudgesthe financial assistance should be given direct to theSupremeCourtfortheCourttoallocateto judgesstationedintheparticularLGU. V. ADMINISTRATIONOFTRIALCOURTS 1. First and second level courts nationwide are administered by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which is under the Supreme Court. The OCA is centralized in Manila and there are no decentralized offices in the regions, other than the now defunct pilot Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in Region VII. The Judiciary is probably the only government agency, with extensive operations in all regions nationwide,thathasnotyetregionalized.You can just imagine the problems, in terms of logistics,finance,maintenance,andpersonnel, in administering all trial courts nationwide fromonecentralofficeinManila.
20

2. TheOCAusedtohaveoneDCAforMindanao, and another DCA for the Visayas. Today, the DCAs are assigned to a mix of regions nationwide, which means they travel to regions in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, while holding office in Manila. The OCAshouldgobacktotheoldsetup,withthe difference that instead of holding office in Manila,theDCAswillholdofficerightintheir areas of jurisdiction.In short, we simply station the DCA for Mindanao in Davao City and the DCA for Visayas in Cebu City, along withtheirimmediatestaff.TheDCAscanvisit the trial judges more often and know their problems better. They can also attend to these problems faster. Problems on maintenance of courthouses and the requisition of supplies can be addressed immediatelywithoutbringingtheproblemto Manila. Paperwork, like travel authority, leave of absences of judges, or acceptance of resignations of court employees, need not be approvedinManilaaswhatishappeningnow. 3. Inthefuture,ifthereisaneedtodecentralize further the OCA, RCAOs can be established graduallystartinginfarawayregions.There is no need, however, to regionalize immediately the OCA. We can first simply physicallylocatetheDCAsrightintheirareas
21

ofjurisdiction.ThereisonevacantDCAnow andanotheronewillbevacantbeforetheend oftheyear.Bychangingthejobdescriptionof two DCAs, one to be stationed in Mindanao and another in the Visayas, we can expeditiouslydecentralizetheOCAintothree areasLuzon,VisayasandMindanao. VI. TRAININGANDCAREERPATHFORJUDGES 1. There are many who have passed the very tough PreJudicature Program ofthe Philippine Judicial Academy (Philja). However, they have not been employed in the Judiciary. The JBC rules provide that thosewhopassthePreJudicatureshallenjoy preference in the selection of nominees for vacancies in the lower courts. But many of themarenotappointedasjudgesevenifthey are included in the JBC list submitted to the President.TheSupremeCourtcangivethem preference in the appointment of clerks of courts, which will give them more preparation for appointment later as judges. This can easily be done since the Supreme Courtappointstheclerksofcourts.

22

2. The Philja can expand the PreJudicature Program into a oneyear masteral degree course open even to new lawyers. You do not have to go abroad to get a masteral degree from a prestigious institution. The PreJudicature Program of Philja will be more relevant to practicing lawyers than masteral courses abroad. Those who complete the course can be employed as clerks of courts in first and second level courts. Right now, clerks of courts of first levelcourtsdonothavetobelawyers.With this program, new lawyers can see a clear careerpathintheJudiciarystartingwiththe PreJudicature Program. This will follow the practice in other countries that provide a career path in the judiciary for lawyers as soonastheypassthebar. I said earlier that the Judiciary must learn the lessons from the recent impeachment trial. These lessons touch on integrity, transparency and accountability. But beyond these, the Judiciary must also address other pressing problems besetting the Judiciary, like clogged dockets, inadequate infrastructure and facilities, the need for competitive compensation for judges, over centralizationofcourtadministration,andtheneed toprovidetrainingandcareerpathforjudges.
23

 I am happy to share with you this morning my personal thoughts on Judicial Reform, involving ideas accumulated from more than a decade of serviceintheSupremeCourt,andfromknowledge acquired in implementing, observing or studying JudicialReformprograms,inthePhilippinesandin other countries. I share these thoughts with you becauseJudicialReformistoobigtobeundertaken bytheJudiciaryalone.JudicialReformcanhappen onlywiththecooperationofallstakeholdersinthe Justice System the Judiciary, the Executive and Legislative Branches, the Bar and the public. All stakeholders must work earnestly together becauseawellfunctioningJudiciaryisessentialfor good governance and for the economic development of our country. Judicial Reform is simplytooimportanttofail. Thankyou,andonceagain,agooddaytoall.

24