1. Improving Government Transparency and Accountability 2. Upscaling Judicial Performance: The Action Program For

Judicial Reform (APJR) Experience 3. No Sub-title 4. Dennis Russell D. Baldago 5. Student

Doctorate in Public Administration National College of Public Administration and Governance University of the Philippines Chief Judicial Staff Officer Program Management Office Supreme Court of the Philippines

6. Postal Address: Unit i 2, RSG 1 Townhomes, Calbayog St., Mandaluyong City, Philippines 1552 Email: dbaldago@yahoo.com, drbaldago@gmail.com Contact Numbers: (632) 5529584 / (632) 552 9586 / (632) 917 8266769 /

2

UPSCALING JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE: THE ACTION PROGRAM FOR JUDICIAL REFORM (APJR) EXPERIENCE

The Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) is the Supreme Court’s first comprehensive

approach to implement reforms in the judiciary. It was founded on the vision of a “Judiciary

that is independent, effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence; and a

legal profession that provides quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal service to our

people and is willing and able to answer the call to public service.” The overall objective of the

APJR is to strengthen the delivery of justice system in the country, one that has earned public

trust and confidence that will lead to a stable and predictable socio-economic environment

suitable for growth. Since its implementation in 2001, under the leadership of three Chief

Justices, this paper seeks to analyze the systems and processes undertaken by the Supreme Court

that its objectives are successfully met. It also seeks to identify best practices in judicial reform.

And finally, it makes several recommendations on how to sustain the gains of the reform

process through good governance.

3

UPSCALING JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE: THE ACTION PROGRAM FOR JUDICIAL REFORM (APJR)

EXPERIENCE

BACKGROUND

System of Government and the Judicial Branch

The system of government in the country is based on a framework of a presidential,

representative, and democratic republic, where the President is both the head of the state as well

as the head of the government within a multi-party system. This system revolves around three

separate, co-equal and interdependent branches of government: the executive, the legislative and

the judicial branch.

The executive branch, under the leadership of the President, is the action part of government by

implementing the laws passed by the legislative branch. Legislative power is vested in the two

chambers of congress - the Senate (the upper chamber) and the House of Representatives (the

lower chamber). In addition to formulating the laws of the land, Congress also wields the

“power of the purse” which it exercises during deliberation and passage of the national budget.

The judiciary for its part interprets the laws, determine if there is grave abuse of authority by the

other two branches, and maintain the rule of law. As the late Chief Justice John Marshall wrote

in one of the landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court, “it is emphatically the province and

duty of the judicial department to say what the law is (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).” Judicial

power is vested in the courts with the Supreme Court as the highest judicial body in the country.

Hierarchy and Jurisdiction of Courts

The Philippine judiciary is a hierarchal institution consisting of the following courts at various

levels (Figure 1):

4

First level courts. Composed of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) which are created in

each metropolitan area established by law; the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC) which

are created in every city which does not form part of the metropolitan area, the Municipal Trial

Courts (MTC) which are created in each of the other cities or municipalities, and the Municipal

Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) which are created in each circuit comprising such cities and/or

municipalities as grouped by law. At the same level are the Shari’a Circuit Courts (SCC) which

has been established in Islamic regions and provinces to interpret and apply the Code of Muslim

Personal Laws (Presidential Decree No. 1083).

Second level courts. Consists of Regional Trial Courts (RTC) which are established in each of

the thirteen regions in the Philippines. Regional Trial Courts serves as trial courts and may

receive evidence from the parties of the case. Each RTC is composed of several branches and

also exercise appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs, and MTCCs in

their respective territorial jurisdictions.

HIERARCHY OF COURTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

CA / CTA / SB

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTSMUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTSMUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS

APPELLATE COURTS

TRIAL COURTS

1stlevel

2ndlevel

3rdlevel

4thlevel

Figure 1. Hierarchy of Courts in the Philippines

Source: Supreme Court – Program Management Office

5

The compositions of first and second level courts are divided into thirteen (13) judicial regions.

By the end of 2007, the numbers of first and second level courts are as follows:

Table 1. Composition of First and Second Level Courts

First Level Courts No. Second Level Courts No. • Metropolitan Trial Courts • Municipal Trial Courts in Cities • Municipal Trial Courts • Municipal Circuit Trial Courts • Shari’a Circuit Courts

8218338947051

• Regional Trial Courts • Shari’a District Courts

9505

Total 1175 Total 955Source: Supreme Court – Office of the Court Administrator

Third level court. At the third level is the Court of Appeals (CA), Court of Tax Appeals

(CTA), and the Sandiganbayan. The Court of Appeals is tasked to review cases elevated to it

from the RTCs as well as quasi-judicial agencies such as the Civil Service Commission (CSC),

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),

and the Land Registration Authority (LRA). It also reviews death penalty cases as well as

decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. The CA is a

collegiate court and may sit en banc only for purpose of exercising administrative, ceremonial or

other non-adjudicatory functions. The CA exercises its powers, functions, and duties through

23 divisions of 3 members each. The CA’s 18th, 19th and 20th divisions comprise the CA Visayas,

located in Cebu City; while the 21st, 22nd and 23rd Divisions make up CA Mindanao, situated in

Cagayan De Oro City.

The Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions in cases

involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees, or other charges,

penalties in relation, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC)

or Tariff and Customs Code (TCC). It also exercises original jurisdiction over all criminal

offenses arising from violations of the Tax or Tariff Codes and other laws administered by the

Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) or the Bureau of Customs. It is composed of a Presiding

6

Justice and 5 Associate Justices, and may sit en banc or in 2 divisions of 3 Justices each. R.A.

9282 which took effect on March 30, 2004, has elevated the status of the CTA to that of the CA.

The Sandiganbayan is an anti-graft court that tries public officers, including their co-accused

private persons, charged with criminal cases involving graft and corrupt practices as well as

corresponding civil cases for the recovery of civil liability. The Sandiganbayan is composed of a

Presiding Justice and 14 Associate Justices who sit in 5 divisions of 3 Justices each. Like the CA,

its decisions are appealable to the Supreme Court.

Fourth level court. The highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, is the only constitutional

court created by the Constitution. It is considered the “court of last resort” since no more

appeals can be made from a judgment or decision on the merits rendered by this court.

All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law,

shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court

are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or

operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other

regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually

took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. Cases or matters

heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the

members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon,

and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such members. When the required

number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc, provided that no doctrine or principle

of law laid down by the Supreme Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be

modified or reversed except by the Supreme Court sitting en banc.

A decision of a Supreme Court division is considered a decision of the entire Court. Decisions

of the Supreme Court are considered as part of the law of the land. It is composed of a Chief

Justice and 14 Associate Justices who sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of 3, 5 or 7

members. The Supreme Court en banc is currently sitting in divisions of 3.

The Chief Justice is required to personally certify every decision that is rendered by the Court.

He carries only 1 vote out of 15 in the Court, and is generally regarded, vis-a-vis the other

7

Justices, as the primus inter pares rather than as the administrative superior of the other members

of the Court.

Qualifications and Appointments of Justices and judges

Based on the 1987 constitution, members of the Supreme Court and lower courts shall have the

following qualifications:

Table 2. Qualifications of Justices and Judges

Qualifications

Article 8. Section 7 (1) (2)

1st level MetC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC

2nd level Regional Trial

Court

3rd level CA, CTA,

Sandiganbayan

4th level Supreme

Court Natural Born

Filipino citizen - - X X

Filipino Citizen X X - -

Age (at least) 30 35 40 40

Judge or practicing lawyer for at least 5 10 15 15

A member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence (Article 8. Section 7 (3)).

Likewise, all members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts will be appointed by

the President after choosing from the list of nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council

(JBC). These appointments shall be made in accordance with the civil service law and need no

confirmation from the Commission on Appointments. All justices and judges shall hold office

during “good behavior” until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to

discharge the duties of their office.

In contrast, members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America are nominated by

the President and confirmed with “advise and consent” by the Senate. They shall also hold

office during “good behavior.” The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that the

Justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although this is not compulsory as they may

resign or retire voluntarily, or they maybe removed from office through impeachment.

8

One of the innovations of the 1987 Constitution to strengthen judicial independence was the

creation of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). Its principal and most important function is to

recommend to the President qualified appointees for the positions in the Judiciary, namely the

Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts. Appointment to the judiciary is no

longer subject to the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments to minimize

unnecessary political interference.

The JBC is under the supervision of the Supreme Court. It is composed of the Chief Justice as

ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio

Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the

Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector. The regular members of the Council

shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission

on Appointments.

THE JUDICIAL REFORM PROGRAM

A Need for Judicial Reforms

For sometime now, the judiciary has been facing the following major issues, namely: (1) case

congestion and delay, (2) budget deficiencies, (3) politicized system of judicial appointments, (4)

lack of judicial autonomy, (5) administrative structure and operating systems accompanied by (6)

deficient court technologies and facilities, and (7) the need to improve public information and

collaboration with civil society.

The current state of the Judiciary is beset with various problems that feed public perception of

graft and corruption, which creates social instability. The implementation of judicial reforms is

expected to lead to a well-functioning judicial system which is efficient and fair, accessible and

transparent, and independent and autonomous -- all of which are expected to restore public trust

and confidence in the system. This, in turn, will lead to a socio-economic environment that is

stable and predictable -- which are the basic requisites for investors, both domestic and foreign,

to invest in the country.

9

The Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR)

Since 2001, the Supreme Court has taken concrete steps to establish a strong foundation for the

long term development of the judicial branch. One of these steps is the preparation of the

Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), a wide-ranging yet comprehensive set of reform

projects and activities aimed at enhancing judicial conditions and performance for the improved

delivery of judicial services. The APJR is founded on the vision of a “Judiciary that is independent,

effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence; a legal profession that provides quality, ethical,

accessible and cost-effective legal service to our people and is willing and able to answer the call to public service.”

The APJR builds on previous reform efforts of the Supreme Court, such as the Technical

Assistance to the Philippine Judiciary on Justice and Development Project which produced the

Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary, and the following diagnostic studies: Assessment of Past

Judicial Reform Efforts, Formulation of Administrative Reforms, Review of the Criminal Justice

System, Review of the Alternative Dispute Mechanism, Review of the Barangay Justice System,

Assessment of the Impact of Judicial Education and Directions for Change and Development,

and Formulation of a Medium-Term Public Investment Program for the Judiciary.

It is guided by the fundamental principles of: (1) impartiality, access to and speed of judicial

system; (2) judicial autonomy and self-governance; (3) streamlined institutional structure and

operations; (4) decentralization; (5) information systems-based operations, planning,

performance management and decision-making; (6) competitive and equitable remuneration; (7)

continuing capability improvement; (8) transparency and accountability in appointments to the

Bench; and (9) consensus-building and collaboration with civil society. Based on these

principles, a six-pronged sectoral program of reforms on (1) judicial systems and procedures, (2)

institutions development, (3) human resource development, (4) integrity infrastructure

development, (5) access to justice by the poor and (6) reform support systems was developed.

Funding resources for the reforms is being provided by the following development partners:

Asian Development Bank (ADB), Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID),

American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI), British Council, Canadian

International Development Agency (CIDA), Rule of Law Effectiveness (ROLE), European

10

Commission, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank.

Counterpart funds are provided by the government.

Managing the Judicial Reform Process

Guided by the APJR and supported by the development partners, the Supreme Court began

crafting systems, procedures, capacities, and physical infrastructure innovative of providing

access to justice, decongesting dockets, improving case flow management, rationalizing the

criminal justice system, automating data collection, attempting pilot decentralized court

administration, expanding judicial reform support, and cultivating education on the rule of law.

The following selected initiatives visualize the Supreme Court’s execution, proficiency, and

commitment to shape a judiciary worthy of public trust and confidence.

A. Access to Justice for the Poor Project

The project aims to enhance the ability of the poor and vulnerable groups, especially women and

children, by increasing their knowledge about basic rights and the justice system, likewise,

strengthening the justice system to make it more accessible to the poor. The project was

implemented in selected 36 municipalities circuitized into 17 First Level Courts. The project has

four components, namely: (a) Institutionalization of the decentralized information function of

the judiciary and training of municipal judges and court personnel, (b) Community development

and empowerment of poor and vulnerable groups, especially women and children, (c)

Institutional development of law enforcement and DOJ personnel, and (d) Legal reform.

The project is undertaken through a multi-agency collaboration between the Supreme Court,

Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG),

Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALG), and the Department of Social Welfare and Development

(DSWD), as the Implementing Agency.

By end of 2007, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted nationwide. The IEC Skills

Training Module and Sensitization Seminar-Workshop Module were also completed and

11

corresponding trainings were conducted. Agreements were also reached to translate the

brochures on the Stages of Criminal and Civil Actions into the local language.

B. Court Administration Management Information System (CAMIS)

CAMIS Phase I successfully developed the software for receiving, logging, and monitoring

statistical reports on caseload and caseflow information. The collection of information is stored

in a reporting database covering trial court activities. The system enabled the pilot courts to

enter data directly into the system database through the web-based application called CAMIS.net

as well as online submission of monthly reports of cases. The system is able to generate

statistical information that measures backlog, case delay, judicial performance, caseload trends,

and disposition rates. It can also generate gender-related data such as sex ratio of judges handling

certain type of cases and tracking the number of cases on violence against women. The system

is currently running on pilot basis in several courts.

C. Enhanced Case Flow Management (eCFM)

In 2002, a pilot project on case flow management (CFM) was implemented. It established a

computerized system of managing cases that will eventually result in expeditious resolution

through effective monitoring and strict observance of time limits in the conduct of case events

from filing to disposition. Unnecessary time intervals or case events are eliminated facilitating

swift case movement en route for shortened disposition. The CFM’s features a case tracking

system pilot-tested in selected Regional Trial Courts and Metropolitan Trial Courts from

October 2003 to June 2005.

To sustain the initial steps in the development and modernization of the courts, there is a need

to enhance the system to include more case tracking features and data generation. Hence, an

offshoot project called Enhanced CFM or eCFM aims to establish a judiciary-wide ICT systems

development for increasing efficiency in the management of dockets of all first and second level

courts. The project involves the design, development, testing, pilot implementation, and process

and system documentation of the eCFM system that is integrated with the existing CAMIS, e-

Payment, and other application systems that may be developed later. By the end of 2007, the

12

project was able to develop the core functionalities, set-up servers, and integrate major

applications like calendar, reporting modules, and transaction modules. The prototype is further

undergoing testing cognizant with the orientation of target users.

D. Human Resource Development

The success of any reform initiative depends on the people who will manage it. Thus it is

essential that the judiciary’s human resources are well capacitated to address the demands of

implementing the APJR. Human Resource Development is, thus, at the core of judicial reform,

both as an end and as a means of attaining other reform objectives. Human Resource (HR)

function in the Supreme Court is primarily lodged in the Supreme Court - Office of

Administrative Services (OAS) while the lower courts are covered by the Office of the Court

Administrator (OCA) – Office of Administrative Services (OAS).

As far as training is concerned, which is one of the components of HR, the Philippine Judicial

Academy (PHILJA) was created through Administrative Order No. 35-96 issued last March

1996 and Republic Act No. 8557 enacted last February 1998, to serve as the educational arm of

the Supreme Court tasked with the formulation and implementation of a continuing program of

judicial education for Justices, judges, court personnel and lawyers.

Likewise, the Personnel Development Committee (PDC) was created by the Supreme Court

through Administrative Circular No. 9-2001 pursuant to its En banc resolution issued on

November 2000 (A.M. No. 00-10-08-SC) and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum

Circular No. 34, s. 1994. The PDC is responsible for the formulation of policies and procedures

in recommending Supreme Court personnel for local and foreign-assisted scholarship programs

and other priority training and development programs. To ensure that will be no duplication

between the training functions of PHILJA, OAS, and other offices of the Supreme Court, it

issued Administrative Circular No. 57 – 2003 which delineates the role of these offices.

Among its many initiatives to support the HR, the Supreme Court was able to access needed

resources from Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) in 2005 to support

its efforts to promote sustainable and equitable development through planned institutional

13

capacity building programs for key government and private sector institutions. The Supreme

Court “graduated” from AusAID support in 2007. By “graduation,” it means that by AusAID’s

standards, the Supreme Court is already capable to address its HR needs given interventions

provided during the implementation of the Partnering Agreement.

E. Judicial Reform Support Project (JRSP)

The project is designed to support selected policy and institutional reforms, together with

associated infrastructure improvements, set out in the APJR. The detailed components of the

project complement the initiatives supported by grant financing from other sources and ensure

that the Supreme Court’s overall judicial reform program is comprehensive and adequately

resourced.

Overall, the project is national in coverage except for ICT, court infrastructure and

decentralization investments which are targeted to the higher courts and three pilot model courts

to showcase reforms and build momentum.

The project is composed of four major components, namely: (a) Improving Case Adjudication

and Access to Justice; (b) Enhancing Institutional Integrity; (c) Strengthening the Institutional

Capacity of the Judiciary; and (d) Ensuring Stakeholder Support for Reform and Strengthening

the Program Management Office. The following are the highlights of activities under the

Project:

Judiciary Data Center and ICT Network Infrastructure Development Project

The Judiciary Data Center and ICT Network Infrastructure development Project involves the

Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan. The project

aims to establish a networking of computers at identified sites for use in the judiciary-wide ICT

systems development and integration framework. The project is interfaced with upcoming

subsequent projects like email service, integrated website, information security, connectivity

transport and managed services, and IP telephony. The Data Center served as the basic

infrastructure. The Judiciary Data Center was made operational by the end of June 2007.

14

Migration of all current systems and applications to the new LAN was completed in November

2007.

Study on Re-Engineering the Courts’ Jurisdictional Structure

The study aims to improve case adjudication and access to justice. The objective is to propose a

design for the courts’ jurisdictional structure that conforms to the requirements stipulated under

the loan agreement.

The Final Report, which was submitted to the Court last September 2007, revealed that case

inflow for the trial courts per sala is higher than that of the appellate courts. Case inflow per sala

is highest for criminal cases. Further, the study found that criminal cases make up 80 percent of

total case inflows at the first-level courts and about 70 percent at the second-level courts. Child

and family cases constitute the bulk of case inflow while drugs cases were the bulk of caseload.

The study recommended the following: (a) the specialization of courts in order to more

effectively and efficiently hear, decide, and dispose of cases; and (b) reorganization of the

existing courts by adding and/or removing certain salas per judicial region based on case inflow

and caseload. Further, there was also a recommendation for the “circuitization” of some first-

level courts. As for the appellate courts, the regionalization of the Court of Appeals is generally

accepted and it also stated as feasible the regionalization of the Sandiganbayan.

Justice on Wheels

The “Justice on Wheels” Project aims to literally bring the courts to the people via an air-

conditioned bus that houses a small courtroom and office of the 1st or 2nd level court judge

assigned via a rotation scheme, and staffed by court personnel and a mediator.

The first Mobile Court has been operational since December 2004. The second Mobile Court

was deployed to Tagbilaran City, Bohol in a turn-over ceremony last October 2006. The third

Mobile Court was deployed in the province of Bulacan for case mediation in December 2007. It

was originally intended to be deployed in Agusan del Sur in the CARAGA Region.

15

The first Mobile Court concentrates on children in conflict with the law, particularly those who

are staying in Bicutan. The guidelines for the deployment, jurisdictional structure and

administrative support to the operations of the new mobile courts were already issued by the

Court in Administrative Circular No. 72-2006. It was redeployed on September 2007 in the

province of Rizal for case mediation. A total of 358 cases were referred for mediation out of

which 219 cases were successfully mediated and 94 cases were returned to the Court. The Court

is studying the possibility of redeploying the second Mobile Court in Mindanao as originally

intended.

Code of Ethics

Seminars on the “New Code of Judicial Conduct for Justices and Lawyers” and the “Code of

Conduct for Court Personnel” continued in 2007. By the end of the year, 66.69% of the

Judiciary personnel were oriented since it was promulgated by the Court in April 2004. This

activity was undertaken in coordination with the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) with

funding support from the ABA-ROLI and The World Bank.

F. Knowledge Sharing and Regional Cooperation

Under the auspices of the Committee on Knowledge Sharing and Regional Cooperation created

in 2005, initially as an Ad Hoc Committee and institutionalized in 2006, the Supreme Court

hosted two successive international conferences in 2005 and 2006 under the leadership of two

Chief Justices. The International Conference and Showcase on Judicial Reforms (ICSJR) was

held on November 2005, while the Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity (GFLP) was held

on October 2006.

Both conferences were held to initiate the organization of a network that will facilitate

knowledge-sharing among the Justices, judges, and legal practitioners in the Asia-Pacific Region,

whose respective countries have also launched their judicial reform initiatives to address basic

issues, such as judicial independence, fiscal autonomy, judicial efficiency and effectiveness, and

access to justice, among others. Both conferences were held to showcase these countries reform

16

initiatives and learn from each others experience. By the end of the ICSJR, which was attended

by 127 Justices and judges from 45 countries, three significant outputs were made. The first one

was the signing of a “Manila Declaration” were the signatories re-affirms the core judicial

independence and accountability principles enshrined in the universal declaration of human

rights, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Beijing Declaration on

Independence of the Judiciary, and recommit ourselves to their speedy and effective

implementation. The second output was the establishment of the Asia Pacific Judicial Reform

Forum (APJRF) which will serve as the vehicle in the Asia Pacific Region for knowledge sharing

and exchange on areas of mutual concerns such as judicial independence, fiscal autonomy,

appointment and nomination, and judicial education. The third and final output by the

conclusion of the ICSJR was the launching of the Judicial Reform Network (JRN21) website

(www.jrn21.supremecourt.gov.ph).

As offshoot activities of the conferences, two APJRF Round Table Discussions (RTDs) were

sponsored by the High Court of Australia in March 2006 and by the Supreme Court of Malaysia

in May 2007. One of the projects identified during these RTDs was the development of a

Judicial Reform Handbook, which will serve as the “How To” guide for countries implementing

judicial reform projects. The project was approved for funding the United Nations Democracy

Fund (UNDF) in September 2006 and is expected to be completed before the end of 2008. The

justice of the Supreme Court was invited by the High Court of Australia to serve as Chair of the

Judicial Reform Handbook Project Board, while another justice was involved in the drafting of

the APJRF constitution during the 2nd RTD. In 2006, Cooperation Agreements were also signed

with the Supreme Court of Spain and Egypt. The Supreme Court also continues to receive a

number of requests to host study tours from various jurisdictions, including Afghanistan, China

and Vietnam, to learn from our judicial reform experience.

G. Piloting a Decentralized Administrative Structure for the Judiciary in Region 7 and

Improving the Administration of Justice

In the continuing support for the Action Program for Judicial Reform and to assist the judiciary

implement reform measures approved by the Supreme Court under ADBTA 3693-PHI, the

17

Asian Development Bank provided the judiciary with the ADB Technical Assistance 4832-PHI

Project on Enhancing the Fiscal Autonomy, Accountability, and Efficiency of the Judiciary, and

Improving the Administration of Justice. The Supreme Court En Banc approved the

implementation of the Project through resolution A.M. No. 06-11-09-SC in November 2006.

Component A of this project aims to support the implementation of the judiciary’s new

administrative and fiscal structure through developing and implementing:

(a) detailed structure, staffing and operating procedures and systems for the new Central Court

Administration Office (CCAO), Central Financial Management Office (CFMO) and a pilot

Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in Region 7, along with related capacity

building and change management mechanisms; and

(b) a new accountability system within the decentralized framework, including an integrity unit

within the pilot RCAO.

Component B, on the other hand, aims to assist in improving the overall management of

information coming from all pillars of justice, to increase efficiency and accountability, by

developing the framework for a national justice information system (NJIS) and the related ICT

framework. The component intends to assist in:

(a) implementing the Case Flow Management System in Region 7;

(b) developing business processes and systems to integrate the Barangay Justice System into the

judicial process in Region 7;

(c) improving communications and connectivity among the courts by providing wi-fi antennas

in courts with adequate IT infrastructure;

(d) giving the judiciary and the National Prosecution Service better access to research materials

needed to develop cases; and

(e) developing a case management system to track the status of probable cause cases assigned to

prosecutors handling cases of corruption.

Supreme Court En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 06-11-09-SC states the policy and objectives of the

pilot project, establishes the organizational infrastructure to support the pilot implementation,

18

establishes the Judiciary Autonomy Fund, adopts the staffing pattern of pilot offices, designates

the Court Administrator as the Implementation Head of the Pilot Project, defines the Court

Administrator’s authority and responsibility, and defines the relationship between the pilot

project operations and the regular functions of the Office of the Court Administrator. The

Court has also approved the creation of the Judiciary Autonomy Fund for the pilot

decentralization project.

The RCAO was launched in Lapulapu City on December 2007 and the screening of applicants

for designation to RCAO positions was undertaken by OCA. The e-register was installed in

Lapulapu City HOJ to facilitate case data management and for data back capturing in

preparation for eCFM rollout. The court branches were assisted in migrating their databases into

e-register.

H. Public Education on the Rule of Law Advancement and Support (PERLAS)

The project aims to educate and inform the public, especially the students in public elementary

and high schools, about the judiciary and the rule of law using teaching and learning methods

that are appropriate and relevant to their respective learning competencies.

The first phase of the PERLAS project focused on the creation of the teaching exemplars on the

rule of law for elementary and high school levels and on the student handbook for high school

students. After twelve (12) months, the first phase of PERLAS was completed. A total of 100

exemplars or 10 exemplars per grade level were created by writers from the Department of

Education and the private sector. The student handbook discusses subjects on the rule of law,

ranging from the legal structures in the Philippines and the components of the justice system to

the application of legal concepts. The handbook is intended for use as a reference material for

students in the high school level.

19

I. Strategic Gender and Development (GAD) Mainstreaming Plan for the Philippine

Judicial System

Completed in 2005, the Strategic Gender and Development (GAD) Mainstreaming Plan for the

Judicial System serves as the blueprint of the Supreme Court in implementing its GAD

initiatives which is being implemented through the Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the

Judiciary.

The Committee through the support of the Court En Banc was able to secure the approval of

significant Court Issuances that promote gender-responsiveness in the Judiciary. Other activities

of the CGRJ include: (a) CEDAW, Gender Sensitivity and the Court training for Judges, (b)

Business forums, (c) Pilot GST and Anti-Sexual Harassment Training for Supreme Court

Employees, (d) Development of a Training Manual for CEDAW, Gender Sensitivity and the

Court, and (e) Conduct of Research on the Training Manual for CODI members. Coordination

and networking with other GAD advocates was strengthened with the continuous participation

of the Supreme Court in the Overseas Development Assistance-Gender and Development

(ODA-GAD) Network and in the activities of the NCRFW.

J. Technical Assistance to the Sandiganbayan

Last March 2006, the Sandiganbayan Case Management Information System (CMIS) was

launched. This system was designed especially for the Sandiganbayan to facilitate case

processing in that court. The system shall capture case information and case-related documents.

Authorized Sandiganbayan personnel have access to the electronic case record. It also has the

facility to schedule and monitor case events. Likewise, preparation of case-related documents

such as orders and resolutions can be done using the templates available in the system. Apart

from managing said cases, the program also includes the digitization of its records, forms and

other related documents.

20

IMPACT OF THE REFORM PROCESS

With all these initiatives, the total pending cases of the judiciary has been slowly but steadily

declining over the last six years, from approximately 800,000 in 2001 to 700,000 by the end of

2007.

In addition, of the total 2,287 positions of justices and judges in the country, 1,832 have been

filled up with 455 positions or approximately 20% remaining vacant. In 2001, the vacancy rate

was 33%. The vacancies are mostly located in the conflict zones of the southern region where

safety and security of judges is a major concern.

Likewise, from 1986 to April 2008, a total of 1,509 first and second level judges were either

admonished, benefits forfeited, censured, dismissed from service, fined, reprimanded or

suspended by Supreme Court as a result of the administrative complaints filed against them.

Based on the second quarter 2008 Social Weather Station Report on public satisfaction of top

government institutions conducted on June 28 – 30, 2008 the Supreme Court was given with a

+6 net satisfaction rating. The highest satisfaction rating of the Supreme Court since 1986 was

during the term of President Aquino and President Estrada with a +38 and +41 rating,

respectively.

In terms of public satisfaction of Chief Justices from October 1986 to June 2008, the following

are their ratings when they reached their retirement month based on the same survey by SWS. It

is important to note that while the Chief Justice carries only 1 vote out of 15 in the Court, and is

generally regarded, vis-a-vis the other justices, as the primus inter pares rather than as the

administrative superior of the other members of the Court. Nevertheless, the influence of the

Chief Justice within the judiciary and on the national government as a whole cannot be

underestimated. In the public eye, the Supreme Court is widely identified with the incumbent

Chief Justice, thus appellations such as ‘The Concepcion Court,’ ‘The Davide Court,’ ‘The

Panganiban Court’ or ‘The Puno Court.’ This is mainly because the Chief Justice retains high

public visibility, unlike the associate justices who tend to labor in relative anonymity, with some

exceptions such as Associate Justice Jose B.L. Reyes in the 1950s to 1970s.

21

Table 3: Net Satisfaction Rating of Supreme Court Chief Justices from 1986 to June 2008

Chief Justice Retirement

Month Rating

Claudio Teehankee Oct. 86 +52 Marcelo Fernan Nov. 91 +31 Andres Narvasa Nov. 98 +36 Hilario Davide, Jr. Dec. 05 +10 Artemio Panganiban Dec. 06 +4

Source: Second Quarter 2008 Social Weather Station Report

Within the Asian region, the judicial system of the Philippines was ranked number 6 overall in

performance in a survey conducted by Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) Ltd. in

the 2nd quarter of 2008. Hongkong was ranked number 1 with a score of 1.45 while Vietnam

was ranked last with a score of 8.10.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The implementation of the APJR is the first comprehensive and collective undertaking of the

judiciary with the Supreme Court taking the lead in addressing the gaps of delivering a speedy,

effective and efficient justice system. At the helm of the Supreme Court is the Chief Justice,

whose judicial powers are clearly defined, but his administrative powers not formally prescribed

in any of the Philippine Constitutions from 1899 to 1987.

The generality and broadness of this administrative power has proven advantageous to the

Judiciary in pursuing its reform programs. The Chief Justices wielded this power extensively in

pushing for judicial reforms, albeit with consent from the Supreme Court en banc. It allowed

them to allocate the needed physical, human, technical and financial resources of the Judiciary in

implementing the reform process, championing its cause and rallying the support, not only of

the Associate Justices but also of its other internal and external stakeholders. In fact, it can be

assumed that the success or failure of the judicial reform process is deeply anchored on the able

stewardship of the Chief Justice, who is after all, its chief administrator.

22

The realization of the objectives of the judicial reform program will take more time than what

has been originally projected. It will also endure the terms of several Chief Justices and many

other stakeholders who will toil in anonymity pushing for the reforms. It is thus wise for the

Supreme Court to ensure that there is institutional memory of all the activities, including the

lessons learned, undertaken under the judicial reform program, to ensure that the gains are

sustained and duplication of efforts are avoided. It should sustain its current efforts on

knowledge sharing and exchanges not only locally but also with other jurisdictions, particularly

in the Asia Pacific Region.

In addition, considering the magnitude of the APJR and limited resources of the Judiciary, focus

is recommended in areas where maximum impact can be felt by those who really need an

efficient and effective delivery of justice system.

The Supreme Court’s effort to decentralize its administrative functions over the lower courts

through the pilot testing of the Regional Court Administrator’s Office (RCAO) in Region 7 is a

strategic move. Given the country’s geographic condition and state of infrastructure, the

Supreme Court’s administrative supervision through the OCA of the 2,154 lower courts spread

out in thirteen judicial regions has proven to be a challenging task. However, the lessons learned

from the Executive branch on decentralization following the enactment of the Local

Government Code should be strongly taken into consideration making sure that the mistakes

made during its implementation are prevented, if not minimized.

Within the Supreme Court, the creation of standing and ad hoc committees have also proven to

be a useful exercise of decentralization. However, periodic review of these Committees is

recommended to ensure that it does not outlive the purpose to which it was created. Efforts

should be made to institutionalize its function to concerned Supreme Court offices whenever

possible.

One of the foundations of a successful reform program is the ability of the institution to

generate the needed resource requirements. Through the PMO, the Supreme Court was able to

raise most of the resources to fund the implementation of the APJR from various donor

agencies. In addition, it was able to limit the number of loan to only one, which was availed by

23

the National Government from the World Bank for the Supreme Court. The rest of the

resources provided by other donor agencies were either in grant or in kind. It will be a challenge

for the Judiciary to ensure that the necessary funding is made available in the annual national

budget to sustain the operating expenses of the reform programs once donor agencies have

ended their funding commitment, where it continues to receive less than 1% of the annual

national budget.

The Supreme Court, in the process of crafting the APJR, conducted extensive consultations with

all stakeholders not only to ensure that their interests are best serve, but also to quell even a hint

of doubt as to the objectives of the reform process and the nature of technical assistance being

offered by these donor agencies. The consultations were done with Justices of the Supreme

Court and appellate courts, judges of lower courts, members of the executive and legislative

branch, academe, business sector, media, and civil society. Likewise, by practice, the Chief

Justice submits to the Supreme Court en banc for review and approval of all contracts,

cooperation agreements, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Understanding (MOU) with

donor agencies concerning the implementation of the APJR.

Instead of being donor driven, the APJR has proven to be a robust program with donor agencies

using it as their main reference in providing technical assistance to the Judiciary. Donors

meeting, held regularly by the PMO, serves as an opportunity for all funding agencies to be

apprised of the status of the APJR and to discuss other areas where further assistance could be

provided. These meetings, not only fostered collaboration between the Supreme Court and the

donor agencies but also among the donor agencies themselves in ensuring the successful

implementation of the APJR by avoiding duplications.

24

REFERENCES Abueva, Jose V. and Roman, Emerlinda R.

1998 The Post-Edsa Vice Presidency, Congress and the Judiciary (1986 – 1992). University of the Philippines

Almase, Ananda Devi Domingo 2004 Public Administration and Political Determination: A Review of Theoretical and Rhetorical

Notions in “Healing the Nation.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration. Vol. XLVIII, No. 3, July 2004. pp. 260-277.

Asian Development Bank 2007

Enhancing the Autonomy, Accountability, Efficiency of the Judiciary, and Improving the Administration of Justice (ADB TA 4832 – PHI)

Bacuñgan, Froilan M. 1983

The Powers of the Philippine President. Philippines: U.P. Law Center.

Burns, John P. and Bowornwathan, Bidhya 2001

Civil Service Systems in Asia

Carpio, Antonio T. 2008

A Reminder to Justices. Speech delivered on January 22, 2008 at the Far Eastern University during the launching of the book, A Test of Courage by Ms Evelyn Miranda and former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga. Retrieved from http:// www.newsbreak.com.ph / index.php?option=com_content&task = view&id = 4112 & Itemid =88889094.

Chan Robles Law Firm 1987 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from

http://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htm.

1986 1986 Provisional ‘Freedom” Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.chanrobles.com / 1943 constitution of the philippines.html.

1973 1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htm.

1943 1943 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.chanrobles.com/1943constitutionofthephilippines.html.

1935 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.chanrobles.com/1935constitutionofthephilippines.htm.

1899 1899 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.chanrobles.com/1899constitutionofthephilippines.htm.

Cose, Ellis 2008 To Dream a Little Dream of Us. Newsweek. Vol. CLII, No. 10, September 8,

2008. p. 21.

25

Fesler, James W.

1982 American Public Administration: Patterns of the Past. American Society for Public Administration

Marshall, John 1803

William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of the State of the United States. Supreme Court of the United States. 5 U.S. 137. February, 1803 Term. Retrieved from http: // www.law.umkc.edu /faculty/projects/ ftrials/conlaw/ marbury.html

Meier, Kenneth J. 2008 The Scientific Study of Public Administration: A Short Essay on the State of the Field.

International Review of Public Administration. Vol. 13. No. 1. pp. 1-10. Korean Association for Public Administration.

Osborne, David and Gaebler, Ted 1992

Reinventing Government. New York, Penguin. Introduction: An American Perestroika, pp. 1-24; and Chapter 1, Catalytic Government: Steering Rather Than Rowing, pp. 25-48.

Panganiban, Artemio V. 2002

2005

Reforming the Judiciary Judicial Renaissance

Puymbroeck, Rudolf V. Van 2001

Comprehensive Legal and Judicial Development. Washington, DC. The World Bank

Quiason, Camilo D. 2001 Supreme Court Decisions as History: Philippine Supreme Court Centenary Reader, 1901 –

2001. Philippine Judiciary Foundation, Inc.

Rosenbloom, David H. and Kravchuk, Robert S. 2005 Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector.

(6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 1, The Practice and Discipline of Public Administration. pp. 2-41.

Reyes, Danilo 1993

1995

Bureaucracy and Transition: Some Reflections on Redemocratization and Politics-Administration Dichotomy, in Bautista, et.al. (eds.). Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader (1st ed.). Quezon City. U.P. – National College of Public Administration. pp. 76-102. Life Begins at Forty: An Inquiry on Administrative Theory in the Philippines and the Structure of Scientific Revelations, in Proserpina D. Tapales, Nestor N. Pilar and Leonora D. Romblon (eds.). Public Administration by the Year 2000: Looking Back into the Future. Quezon City. U.P. – College of Public Administration.

Sarmiento, Abraham F. 2001 Supreme Court Decisions as Philosophy; The Philippine Supreme Court Centenary Reader,

1901 – 2001. Philippine Judiciary Foundation, Inc.

26

Sison, Carmelo V. and Jose, Roshan T. 1990 Constitutional and Legal Systems of Asean Countries. Academy of Asean Law and

Jurisprudence, University of the Philippines

Supreme Court of the Philippines 1999

2000

2001

2005

2006

Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary The Impact of Judicial Education and Directions for Change Action Program for Judicial Reform (2001 – 2006). Manila: Supreme Court Printing Press Supreme Court Annual Report 2005. Manila: Supreme Court Printing Press Supreme Court Annual Report 2006. Manila: Supreme Court Printing Press

Wilson, Woodrow 1887

The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly. Volume 2, June 1887, as reprinted in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde (eds.). 1997. Classics of Public Administration. 4th ed. Fort Worth, Texas. Hardcourt Brace and Co. pp. 14-26.

Yuson, Alfred A., Abad, Gemno H., and Albert, Asuncion, M. 2001 Supreme Court Decisions as Literature: Philippine Supreme Court Centenary Reader, 1901

– 2001. Philippine Judiciary Foundation, Inc.