Justice delayed

It cannot be denied that delay in the administration of justice is one of the chronic problems in our country and, for that matter, in any democratic republic. This problem seems to be part and parcel of any country under a democratic system of government where every citizen has the right to “due process of law” which oftentimes is so slow as to be the very cause of delayed justice. And since “Justice delayed is Justice denied,” it is quite obvious that our country is not yet as peaceful as we want it to be, because without justice there can indeed be no real peace.

Of course “justice’ here means “the constant and perpetual disposition to render to everyman his due”; the “conformity of our actions and our will to the law” (Bouviere’s Law Dictionary) which is usually rendered by our courts. Studies show that there are a huge number of cases now pending in courts especially in the urban centers where 75 million of the population is concentrated. Many courts in these cities have 1,000 or more cases in their dockets. And through the years, they keep on piling up higher and higher instead of dwindling down.

If we drop by any of these courts in the urban centers and look at their daily calendar, we will indeed shake our heads in disbelief upon seeing that there are from 30 to 60 cases scheduled for hearing in a day. Just calling the cases in the calendar already takes about one and a half hours. So even if the courts are punctual enough to start the hearing at 8:30 a.m., only two hours remain for trying the “ready” cases and hearing the testimonies of the witnesses. If there are more cases ready to be heard, the less time can be devoted to each of them. So oftentimes the judge is constrained to give the parties in each case a mere ten minutes which is definitely not enough to present and finish the testimony of even just one witness. With this “piecemeal” style of hearing cases, trials last from three to almost eight or ten years or even longer which are clear instances indeed of delayed justice now prevailing here.

Aside from clogged dockets, the other obvious cause of delayed justice here is undoubtedly the lack of courts and/or the many existing vacancies in our courts not only in far flung areas but also in urban centers. Apparently, the job of a judge in our country is no “walk in the park” especially in the lower courts with clogged dockets. The strain and stress of the job somehow discourage the most qualified, sincere and dedicated individuals to become judges even if the compensation is adequate enough. So, many of our courts remain vacant or they do not usually attract the best, the brightest and most diligent lawyers. Somehow this also contributes to the delays in litigating cases because judges appointed take longer time in deciding the case despite the time limitation of three months fixed by the Constitution for them to decide.

But perhaps the main reason for the delayed justice in this jurisdiction is the adversarial nature of our proceedings. Actually this system of hearing and deciding cases was adopted from the Americans who resolve disputes in court through a panel of jurors. Under this system, the opposing parties are pitted against each other as they “build and defend their positions while destroying that of the other party apart, with the judge sitting back to watch the ongoing contest before announcing the winner.”

In the Philippines this adversarial proceedings have definitely contributed to delays in the litigation. Based on the studies made in this regard, this system gives rise to the following problems; (1) it results in needless testimonies and redundancies in evidence because lawyers determine which evidence to present. So any attempt to limit the evidence to the relevant ones will be denounced as a denial of due process of law; (2) litigations are prolonged because lawyers have a tendency to withhold evidence and surprise their opponent at the last minute, or they are reluctant to stipulate on facts for fear of weakening their positions; (3) it is tedious and painfully time consuming for the judge who is required to examine every piece of documentary evidence and voluminous documents such as invoices, checks etc; (4) trials are greatly slowed down because lawyers are allowed to object to questions asked, and since they view this system as a “fight to the finish” they indiscriminately object to questions as a means of blocking the other party’s evidence.

Fortunately, our Supreme Court (SC) has decided to focus its attention on this delay especially in the trials of civil cases. So last November 2012, it has called for a National Conference for the Revision of the Rules on Civil Procedure by forming a Core Committee to give “true justice in all kinds of civil actions.” This committee is tasked to ensure that:

1. Parties to the case are placed on equal footing;

2. Costs of litigation are reduced;

3. Court’s time and resources are wisely distributed among the cases in proportion to the (a) amount involved; (b) complexity of issues; and (c) public interests in their resolution;

4. Cases are speedily heard and decided; and

5. Impartiality of courts are enhanced and safeguarded.

As of now, the Core Committee has already come up with a draft of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure with the assistance of several Topical Working Groups composed of thirty remedial law experts. Public consultations and stake-holders dialogue on the draft rules have already been conducted in the Visayas (Cebu) Mindanao (Davao) and Luzon (Makati City) last May 28, 31 and June 3 respectively. The National Conference to discuss the proposed draft on June 27-30 2013. Then in the first two weeks of July, proof reading and finalization of the second draft will be made by the Core Committee until its approval and final publication by July 15-19, 2013.

In the subsequent column some of the salient features of the new rules will be discussed.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]