"x x x.
3. Efficiency in the Justice Sector
Justice Delayed.
A major challenge to the justice system is the persistent perception of delay in the delivery of justice.
The courts handle a caseload of about 1,100,000 cases per year yet are able to dispose of only about 450,000 cases per year, resulting in an additional 650,000 pending cases each year.
Despite the decrease in the total caseloads in recent years (Figure 7), the decline of case backlog has not been significant.
In fact, the clearance rate (volume of cases disposed of as a percentage of total caseload) remained low (about 39%) in the past 3 years, indicating that case backlog remains high.
However, the disposition rate (number of cases disposed of as a percentage of case inflow) has been increasing, indicating that the courts have shown gains in efficiency (Appendix 4, sector analysis).
Improvements in the disposition rate correlate with a number of reforms initiated under the APJR to increase court efficiency, including the pilot use of an electronic caseflow management system in Pasay City courts, court-annexed mediation (discussed in para. 50), and judicial dispute resolution at any stage of litigation. In addition, improvements in the disposition rate also correlate with a decreasing vacancy in judicial positions, which was a development brought about by increasing judges total compensation by about 100% (discussed in para. 36).
Additional reforms to increase judicial efficiency include the establishment of case management information systems in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan (the court that adjudicates graft and corruption charges against high-level government officials), and Court of Tax Appeals.
One reason that the backlog in the disposition of criminal cases remains high, even in the midst of ongoing justice sector reforms, is that judicial performance is also affected by the performance of other justice sector agencies.
Delays in criminal court proceedings have reportedly been caused in part by the nonappearance of witnesses, absence of prosecutors and public defenders, and delays by law enforcement officers’ in turning over evidence to the courts.
With regard to noncriminal cases, the judiciary has recognized alternative dispute resolution as a means of encouraging speedy justice and reducing case backlog.
The judiciary has established the Philippine Mediation Center, which conducts court-annexed mediation, and provided rules for the referral of a wide scope of cases that may be referred to court-annexed mediation at any time during litigation.
A more effective alternative dispute resolution and mediation process at the barangay (village) level, the barangay justice system, has also proven to contribute to reducing case backlog.
The barangay justice system settled more than 4 million cases between 1980 and 2005, with an average of about 150,000 cases per year.
This number has grown to about 300,000 cases per year recently and the percentage of mediated cases that were settled has remained consistently high.
In spite of these initiatives, the perception that the delivery of justice is regularly delayed still prevails.
The interrelated nature of justice sector agencies’ operations requires that delays be prevented or reduced at all stages—investigation, dispute resolution, and enforcement.
Although the Constitution and laws impose time limits on the judiciary with respect to deciding cases, there are generally no similar provisions for other justice sector agencies involved, particularly when the likelihood of a delay occurring is high, such as the enforcement of judgments.
As a result, even if it were assumed that the courts were keeping within the time limits imposed by the Constitution and the law, the perception of delays in the delivery of justice would continue to exist if accused individuals were detained for long periods in police facilities or in district prisons while waiting for a complaint to be filed in court.
For criminal cases, other
justice sector agencies play a prominent role in bringing cases to the courts: DOF and BIR in
the investigation of criminal tax evasion cases, PNP in the processing of crime scenes, and DOJ
in case preparation and prosecution.
justice sector agencies play a prominent role in bringing cases to the courts: DOF and BIR in
the investigation of criminal tax evasion cases, PNP in the processing of crime scenes, and DOJ
in case preparation and prosecution.
Consequently, the effective delivery of services by these
institutions will ultimately contribute to the quality of the cases entering the court and help in the
speedy disposition and resolution of court cases.
institutions will ultimately contribute to the quality of the cases entering the court and help in the
speedy disposition and resolution of court cases.
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment