Comments on Judicial Affidavit Rule

7/28/2019 Comments on Judicial Affidavit Rule

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-judicial-affidavit-rule 1/4

Earlier this year the Supreme Court implemented the Judicial Affidavit Rule. Instead of making a witness sit on the stand, a judiciaaffidavit will be submitted which will take the place of the witness' testimony in open court. How does a judicial affidavit look like? Asidefrom the novel additions, a judicial affidavit is, in a nutshell, in the form of questions and answers. These questions and answers wilSERVE as the direct testimony of the witness. All that needs to be done once the JA is submitted is for the witness to identify his JAand cross examination will now commence.

The Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) seeks to shorten the time of judicial proceedings, however, five months into its full implementation incivil cases, I have made the following observations, especially on the subject matter of what will be testified to by the witness:

Too much time is wasted in drafting questions and transcribing answers especially when such questions and answers pertain to matterswhich will be admitted or stipulated during Pre-Trial.

Portions of a witness' testimony which are admitted / stipulated during Pre-Trial would have to be marked as admitted or stricken.

Possible solution:

I humbly submit that a witness' judicial affidavit should be submitted after receipt of the pre-trial order or at least a few days beforehe/she is will be presented to give his/her testimony in court.

While the JAR may streamline the job of the courts in hearing witness' testimonies, it will bog down the work of a solo practitioner handling hundreds of cases. Imagine, you have to submit the JA at least five (5) days before pretrial. That may be for the advantage ofthe plaintiff, but what about the defendant? After submitting his answer, a lawyer will have to scramble to secure witnesses and get theitestimonies. What if the testimony is technical, say for example, something that would call for accounting, or the testimony of an expert?The transcriptionist (most likely the attorney taking the JA) will have to make sure that what he is transcribing is accurate.

For the solo practitioner, it is another burden, and time management is key, but with so many cases, I foresee that Motions to VacatePre-Trial (for want of a JA) will be prevalent, or the lawyer will have to risk paying the penalty for a late submission of the JA.

Furthermore, there is a rather troubling matter that this JA introduced and that is the inclusion of the Lawyer's attestation which isherein-below reproduced:

Sec. 4. Sworn attestation of the lawyer. - (a) The judicial affidavit

shall contain a sworn attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer who

conducted or supervised the examination of the ·witness, to the effect

that:

(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the

questions he asked and the corresponding answers that the

witness gave; and

(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or assisting

him coached the witness regarding the latter's answers.



Some of you will ask, "Atorni! ngano disturbing man na?". Regarding the lawyer's attestation, I don't think there is any lawyer worth hissalt who hasn't briefed (let's face it, COACHED) his witness in eliciting a favorable response/testimony. Only the extremely gullible ornaive will believe the lawyer's attestation at the bottom of the judicial affidavit.

CONCLUSION:

Five months into its implementation, the JAR has several impractical sections. It must be amended in the interest of substantial justiceand fairplay (not just to lawyers, but to the courts as well).

Supreme Court asked to drop ruling on judicial affidavits

Written by Benjamin B. Pulta Saturday, 25 May 2013 08:00 font size Print Be the first to comment!

Government lawyers have formally asked the Supreme Court (SC) to take back its new rule requiring submission of judicial affidavits.

In a letter to Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Prosecutor General Claro Arellano said they believe the judicial affidavit rule (JAR)would not solve case congestion and delays as foreseen by the high court.

“The implementation of the JAR is not the solution to these problems. On the contrary, the JAR will only add to these concerns. Notonly will it unjustly burden the prosecutors, defense lawyers and private practitioners but criminal cases will be resolved not on the basisof the evidence brought forth by the parties but rather due to mere technicalities,” Arellano said.

Arellano pointed out that prosecutors have limited time to prepare judicial affidavit since they are already burdened with heavy workloadand cited Department of Justice’s insufficiency of fiscals, support staff and supplies, adding that complying with the JAR would takemore time than conducting direct examinations.

“JAR will result in numerous dismissals of cases due to technicalities. Judges also cannot observe the demeanor/credibility owitnesses,” the DoJ official added.

The SC’s JAR requirements was set to be implemented last January 2 but was suspended following an objection from the ProsecutorsLeague of the Philippines.

The suspension order came after the magistrates decided to first tackle a proposal of Associate Justice Roberto Abad “for thedeferment of the application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule for one year from 1 January 2013 to 1 January 2014 under certain conditions.”

The new rule, which was approved by the high court unanimously in September last year, provides that “when a party (whether plaintifor defendant) questions his own witness, he no longer needs to place the witness on the witness stand.” As a substitute, the party or hislawyer merely submits the written sworn statement of his witness in a question-and-answer format. It also requires each party to thecase to attach all his documentary evidence to the judicial affidavit which, in turn, must be submitted at least five days before the “pre-trial” or “preliminary conference” in the case.

The JAR was said to be effective in reducing the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses by about two-thirds after a pilotprogram was in the Quezon City courts.

MANILA, Philippines - Government prosecutors have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to revoke a new rule allowing affidavits in place ofdirect testimony of witnesses in criminal cases.

In a letter to Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Prosecutor General Claro Arellano said the judicial affidavit rule (JAR) will not solve thecongestion and delays in courts.

“The implementation of the JAR is not the solution to these problems,” read the letter.

“On the contrary, the JAR will only add to these concerns. Not only will it unjustly burden the prosecutors, defense lawyers and privatepractitioners but criminal cases will be resolved not on the basis of the evidence brought forth by the parties but rather due to meretechnicalities.”



Arellano said the JAR has not yet conclusively shown positive results in pilot courts in Quezon City since April last year.

The ad hoc committee sought last month for six more months to complete their report on the success of the guidelines, he added.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

It would still be necessary to test the JAR’s efficacy in a nationwide scale even if successfully tested in Quezon City courts, he added.

Arellano said the prosecutors, a major stakeholder in implementing JAR, were not consulted on the issue.

The JAR has several repercussions in the performance of prosecutors of their duties, he added.

Arellano said prosecutors have limited time to prepare affidavits since they are already burdened with heavy workload.

“JAR will result in numerous dismissals of cases due to technicalities,” he said. “Judges also cannot observe the demeanor/credibility owitnesses.”

Under Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC, the JAR was set to be implemented last Jan. 2.

Implementation was suspended at the last minute following an objection from the Prosecutors League of the Philippines (PLP).

The suspension order came after the justices decided to first tackle a proposal of Associate Justice Roberto Abad “for the deferment ofthe application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule for one year from 1 January 2013 to 1 January 2014 under certain conditions.”

It was learned that Abad, together with Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin, met with PLP officers last Dec. 21and agreed to defer implementation of the new rule pending action of the full court on the proposed one-year suspension.

The PLP only wanted a revision of the JAR.

It provides: “When a party (whether plaintiff or defendant) questions his own witness, he no longer needs to place the witness on thewitness stand.”

As a substitute, the party or his lawyer merely submits the written sworn statement of his witness in a question-and-answer format.

It also requires each party to attach all his documentary evidence to the affidavit, which must be submitted at least five days before thepre-trial or preliminary conference of the case.



Documents

Comments on Judicial Affidavit Rule