Chief Judicial Staff Officer Program Management Office Supreme Court of the Philippines

Transcription

1 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 dbaldago@yahoo.com, drbaldago@gmail.com Contact Numbers: (632) / (632) / (632) /

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. 2

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): 3

4 Figure 1. Hierarchy of Courts in the Philippines HIERARCHY OF COURTS IN THE PHILIPPINES APPELLATE COURTS TRIAL COURTS SUPREME COURT CA / CTA / SB REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS SHARI A CIRCUIT COURTS 4th level 3rd level 2nd level 1st level Source: Supreme Court Program Management Office 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. 4

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 Regional Trial Courts Shari a District Courts Total 1175 Total 955 Source: 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 18 th, 19 th and 20 th divisions comprise the CA Visayas, located in Cebu City; while the 21 st, 22 nd and 23 rd 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 5

6 Justice and 5 Associate Justices, and may sit en banc or in 2 divisions of 3 Justices each. R.A 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 6

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) Natural Born Filipino citizen Filipino Citizen Age (at least) Judge or practicing lawyer for at least 1 st level MetC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC 2 nd level Regional Trial Court 3 rd level CA, CTA, Sandiganbayan 4 th level Supreme Court - - X X X X 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. 7

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. 8

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 9

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 10

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 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 11

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 issued last March 1996 and Republic Act No 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 pursuant to its En banc resolution issued on November 2000 (A.M. No SC) and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 34, s 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 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 12

13 capacity building programs for key government and private sector institutions. The Supreme Court graduated from AusAID support in 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 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

14 Migration of all current systems and applications to the new LAN was completed in November 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 firstlevel 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 airconditioned bus that houses a small courtroom and office of the 1 st or 2 nd 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 The second Mobile Court was deployed to Tagbilaran City, Bohol in a turn-over ceremony last October The third Mobile Court was deployed in the province of Bulacan for case mediation in December It was originally intended to be deployed in Agusan del Sur in the CARAGA Region. 14

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 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 By the end of the year, 66.69% of the Judiciary personnel were oriented since it was promulgated by the Court in April 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 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 15

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 ( 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 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 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 2 nd 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 16

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 SC in November 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 SC states the policy and objectives of the pilot project, establishes the organizational infrastructure to support the pilot implementation, 17

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. 18

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. 19

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 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. 20

21 Table 3: Net Satisfaction Rating of Supreme Court Chief Justices from 1986 to June 2008 Chief Justice Retirement Rating Month Claudio Teehankee Oct Marcelo Fernan Nov Andres Narvasa Nov Hilario Davide, Jr. Dec Artemio Panganiban Dec 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 Hongkong was ranked number 1 with a score of 1.45 while Vietnam was ranked last with a score of 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 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. 21

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 22

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. 23

24 REFERENCES Abueva, Jose V. and Roman, Emerlinda R The Post-Edsa Vice Presidency, Congress and the Judiciary ( ). 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 pp 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 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 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 / index.php?option=com_content&task = view&id = 4112 & Itemid = Chan Robles Law Firm Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from Provisional Freedom Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from / 1943 constitution of the philippines.html Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved from Cose, Ellis 2008 To Dream a Little Dream of Us. Newsweek. Vol. CLII, No. 10, September 8, p

25 Fesler, James W 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 February, 1803 Term. Retrieved from http: // /faculty/projects/ ftrials/conlaw/ marbury.html Meier, Kenneth J 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 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 Panganiban, Artemio V Reforming the Judiciary 2005 Judicial Renaissance Puymbroeck, Rudolf V. Van 2001 Comprehensive Legal and Judicial Development. Washington, DC. The World Bank Quiason, Camilo D Supreme Court Decisions as History: Philippine Supreme Court Centenary Reader, Philippine Judiciary Foundation, Inc. Rosenbloom, David H. and Kravchuk, Robert S Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector. (6 th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 1, The Practice and Discipline of Public Administration. pp Reyes, Danilo 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 (1 st ed.). Quezon City. U.P. National College of Public Administration. pp 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 Supreme Court Decisions as Philosophy; The Philippine Supreme Court Centenary Reader, Philippine Judiciary Foundation, Inc. 25

26 Sison, Carmelo V. and Jose, Roshan T Constitutional and Legal Systems of Asean Countries. Academy of Asean Law and Jurisprudence, University of the Philippines Supreme Court of the Philippines 1999 Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary The Impact of Judicial Education and Directions for Change Action Program for Judicial Reform ( ). Manila: Supreme Court Printing Press Supreme Court Annual Report Manila: Supreme Court Printing Press Supreme Court Annual Report 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.) Classics of Public Administration. 4 th ed. Fort Worth, Texas. Hardcourt Brace and Co. pp Yuson, Alfred A., Abad, Gemno H., and Albert, Asuncion, M Supreme Court Decisions as Literature: Philippine Supreme Court Centenary Reader, Philippine Judiciary Foundation, Inc. 26