EDITORIAL - Delaying justice?

There should be no rush to state executions, especially in a country where the criminal justice system is deeply flawed. But this should also not mean slowing down further the administration of justice. This concern has been raised after the Supreme Court required all judgments by lower courts on capital offenses to be reviewed first by the Court of Appeals before the cases are elevated to the high tribunal for final decision.

The order is a reprieve of sorts for those on death row who are unlikely to have their sentences overturned. Protests are expected from proponents of capital punishment, but the Supreme Court has spoken. On the other hand, for those whose guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, their main worry is whether it will take the appellate court so much longer than the high tribunal to establish innocence.

Convictions overturned by the appellate court can no longer be elevated to the high tribunal. This lightens the load of the Supreme Court, which noted that about 70 percent of the death sentences it had reviewed since the reimposition of capital punishment in 1993 were either overturned or modified. But the order naturally adds to the caseload of the Court of Appeals. And this is where there could be a problem.

Like most of the courts in this country, the appellate court is hardly known for speedy resolution of cases. If the Supreme Court does not want to be accused of adding another layer of bureaucracy to the administration of justice, it should send a clear message to the appellate court that it must act expeditiously on cases involving life and death. The high tribunal may want to draw up a timetable for the Court of Appeals to follow in reviewing death sentences. It has been said often enough that justice delayed is justice denied. The Supreme Court order should not aggravate the already glacial pace of the administration of justice.