Tight SC voting seen on Jinggoy's freedom

With the high stakes involved, Court insiders say 'intense lobbying' has commenced

MANILA, Philippines – The possibility of Senator Jinggoy Estrada spending Christmas outside the Philippine National Police detention cell could rest on the vote of one Supreme Court justice.

After weeks of postponement, the 15-man High Tribunal on Tuesday, November 11, could vote on the violation of due process case filed by Estrada against the Ombudsman. This is in connection with the filing of plunder and graft charges against Estrada over the pork barrel scam. (READ: Jinggoy Estrada asks SC to stop pork barrel scam probe)

Initial information gathered by Rappler showed the voting could be a close call, with the justices still split down the middle as of last week.

In May 2014, Estrada filed a petition assailing the Ombudsman's March 2014 ruling that denied his request to be furnished copies of counter-affidavits of other respondents, new witnesses, and other filings. He argued that by denying his request the Ombudsman violated his constitutional right to due process.

The SC en banc vote will have far-reaching consequences for the other accused in the pork barrel controversy, particularly Senators Ramon Revilla Jr and Juan Ponce Enrile. Revilla and Enrile are also contesting before the SC the Ombudsman’s process of filing plunder and graft charges before the Sandiganbayan. (READ: SC en banc to take up Revilla plea to suspend PDAF probe)

The cases against the 3 senators and their co-accused stem from the Philippines' biggest corruption scandal in recent history, which exposed its alleged mastermind, Janet Lim Napoles, and prompted the SC to declare the lawmakers' Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) as unconstitutional.

Estrada was jailed at the Camp Crame detention center on June 23, 2014, three days after his friend Senator Revilla was also brought to the same camp. Enrile, on the other hand, is under hospital arrest in the same camp.

Evenly divided

With the high stakes involved, Supreme Court insiders say there’s “intense lobbying” for a ruling that will be favorable to Estrada.

One of the justices, former Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, has reportedly inhibited from the voting because of his previous post. The Office of the Solicitor General is representing the Office of the Ombudsman in the pork barrel-related cases filed against the graft agency before the SC.

In separate interviews, two sources privy to the deliberations said the justices’ sentiments are evenly divided at 7-7.

In case of such stalemate, Section 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court states that “where the court is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall again be deliberated on…” Simply put, a deadlock means the Court has not reached any decision.

However, if the deadlock persists after the second deliberation, court rules state that the petition is deemed dismissed without any jurisprudential value.

To secure an outright court victory, Estrada will need to secure 8 votes at the very least.

Due process

The senator has asked the SC to nullify the Ombudsman's preliminary investigation which became basis for the filing of the plunder and graft charges against him before the anti-graft court.

Estrada argued that his right to due process was violated when the Ombudsman failed to provide him copies of the affidavits of the other accused in the pork barrel case. He pointed out that the Ombudsman violated its own Rule of Procedure which states that the respondent “shall have access to the evidence on record.”

The Ombudsman also disregarded the Rules of Court which mandates that the complaint shall “be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainants and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause,” Estrada said.

Specifically, Estrada was referring to the affidavit of Ruby Tuason, which implicates Estrada in the pork barrel scam. Tuason, former appointments secretary of ex-president Joseph Estrada, said she delivered Estrada’s share of the loot in the lawmaker’s PDAF. Napoles, the alleged brains behind the scam, is also a friend of the Estradas.

Estrada also filed a separate petition before the SC, citing the equal protection clause under the Constitution. (READ: Jinggoy to SC: selective prosecution against the law)

The Ombudsman maintained that the rules do not require that the respondents be provided with the counter-affidavits of the other respondents. The anti-graft agency also countered that Estrada’s petition was rendered moot and academic when Estrada was eventually furnished copies of the counter-affidavits.

Court insiders say Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr, who was initially the ponente (writer) for the case, argued for the voiding of the information charge against Estrada. However, his position proved to be unpopular even for other justices who are inclined to side with Estrada.

One major problem behind Velasco’s position is its far-reaching implication on the conduct of preliminary investigations in court cases. “If his argument was followed, it would impact on all other criminal cases pending before the courts. This will wreak havoc in the judicial process,” one of the sources said.

Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, in his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, concurred with the observation. A ruling following Velasco’s line “would cascade to many other pending criminal cases, because the conduct of the PI (preliminary investigation) would be modified radically,” he said.

Brion's middle ground

Velasco’s argument however could be Estrada’s express road to freedom.

One of the sources warned that the voiding of the information filed against Estrada would lead to his complete exoneration from the pork barrel anomaly. “If the Ombudman’s preliminary investigation is voided, you can no longer charge Estrada with plunder and graft charges since they’ve been arraigned already for such charges. The rule on double jeopardy will now apply to him,” the source familiar with the case said.

Double jeopardy refers to a constitutional right of the accused against being tried for the same offense from the same facts.

With the justices queasy about rocking the boat, Velasco’s position reportedly lost steam. However, a middle ground is said to have surfaced, courtesy of Justice Arturo Brion.

Instead of outright voiding the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation, Brion is reportedly pushing to remand the case against Estrada back to the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation. Since the preliminary investigation is not voided, the rule on double jeopardy does not apply. It will also mean Estrada stays in jail.

At best, it will only allow Estrada temporary freedom pending the Ombudsman’s reinvestigation. “The Ombudsman can just sustain its initial finding,” one of the sources explained. “However, this will embarrass the Ombudsman.” The current Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio-Morales, is a former member of the SC and an appointee of President Benigno Aquino III.

Swing vote

Based on initial feedback, Estrada has the solid backing of 7 justices who are all appointees of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

On the other hand, 4 appointees of President Aquino, including Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, and 2 other justices, are supposedly voting in favor of the Ombudsman.

For the tie, a 7th justice has reportedly committed to vote in favor of the Ombudsman “but could change at the last minute.”

The sources said there has been “intense lobbying” and the outcome of the voting will reflect that. – Rappler.com

Shifting to issue-based court trials

IT IS WELL-KNOWN that Philippine court dockets are heavily congested. The National Statistical Coordination Board has reported that lower courts have to handle more than one million cases in a year or an average of around 4,221 cases per working day. While the total inflow of cases in the lower courts has declined, the total outflow of cases has likewise been on a downtrend. The Supreme Court’s records revealed that 21% of cases take two to five years to end and 13% were only resolved after five years. This delay has resulted in the general distrust and lack of confidence in our court system.

To unclog the court dockets, the Supreme Court announced the piloting of a new system for speedy court trials, the product of the National Conference for the Revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure headed by retired Justice Roberto A. Abad.

The Supreme Court has directed the pilot testing of Rules 22 and 24 of the draft Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Revised Rules) in select lower courts in Quezon City, Makati City, Angeles City, Iloilo City, Davao City and Cebu City beginning Feb. 23, 2015.

More than cosmetic changes, the Revised Rules introduce a major shift in procedural philosophy -- from the adversarial system to an inquisitorial system where trial court judges have a more active role in the investigation and prosecution of cases.

Instead of the pre-trial brief required to be filed under the 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure, drafts of the Terms of Reference (TOR) are required under the Revised Rules. The TOR, which control the scope of trial, contain a summary of admitted and established facts; a statement of the factual issues that the conflicting evidence of the parties present; a list of witnesses from either side who are competent to testify on each of the factual issues in the case; and a statement of the legal issues that the case presents. Only relevant and significant issues, which will help decide the case on its merits, will be tried.

The court will set the preliminary conference only after the court’s preparation of the TOR, during which the court, in consultation with the parties and their counsels, whose presence are required, will determine if there is a need to make changes in the contents or wordings of the TOR. If so, the court will enter the changes on the document.

An Order of Trial will be issued toward the end of the preliminary conference fixing the order in which the issues are to be tried; identifying the witnesses who need to be present to testify on each of the issues; setting the specific dates for reception of evidence; determining whether the circumstances warrant an alternate or face-to-face trial and, in the latter case, whether it shall be simple or regular and who among the witnesses are exempt from face-to-face examination; and determining the need to refer certain issues to trial by commissioners.

Departing from the traditional mode of trial where the complainant first adduces evidence in support of his complaint before allowing the defendant to adduce evidence in his defense, Rule 24 on Trial of Issues allows the judge to hear all the evidence from both sides on a disputed issue, or two or more closely related issues, before moving on to the next issue.

During the Trial of Issues, the court may try issues in the TOR either by alternate or face-to-face trial. The parties may also agree to have an alternate trial instead of face-to-face trial.

In an alternate trial, the parties take turns in presenting their witnesses with respect to each factual issue as stated in the Order of Trial. In a face-to-face trial, witnesses from the contending sides appear together before the court, sit face-to-face around a table in a non-adversarial environment, and answer questions first from the court and thereafter from the parties’ counsels with respect to the factual issue under consideration. Where the issues are complex or numerous and the evidence from both sides consists of testimonies of several witnesses or involve numerous pieces of evidence, the court will hold a regular face-to-face trial with hearings spread over a period. Where the issues are simple and few, however, the court will conduct a simple one-time face-to-face trial with an oral argument rendered at the end of such trial.

Finally, in order to ensure that the new issue-based approach will not be punctuated with delays, the Revised Rules provide that the dates set for trials shall not be transferable except on the ground of a fortuitous event or serious illness of a counsel or witness.

With all the foregoing, the objective of empowering the judge to take a direct role in examining the witnesses during the trial and to maximize the court’s time and shorten the trial, without sacrificing the quality of hearing and adjudication, will hopefully be achieved.

Dyan Danika G. Lim is a senior associate of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).

dglim@accralaw.com

source:  Businessworld

Rules of Court: 3 Modes of Appeal

Petitioners availed of the wrong mode of appeal

          Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides the three modes of appeal, which are as follows:

Section 2.  Modes of appeal. —

(a)     Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.  No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require.  In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

(b)     Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.

(c)     Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.

The first mode of appeal, the ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, and resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. 

The second mode of appeal, the petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, acting in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. 

The third mode of appeal, the appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the Supreme Court and resolves only questions of law.

Where a litigant files an appeal that raises only questions of law with the CA, Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court expressly mandates that the CA should dismiss the appeal outright as the appeal is not reviewable by that court.

There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[13] On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.

source: G.R. No. 175291 (July 27, 2011)

SC orders Pasig RTC to proceed with trial of Lee’s Globe Asiatique, Filmal Realty Corp.

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) to continue with the proceedings against Delfin Lee’s Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation and Filmal Realty Corporation in connection with a loan worth more than Php 1 billion with the Philippine National Bank (PNB).

In a decision written by Associate Justice Martin Villarama, the SC granted the petition filed by Aida Padilla as it ordered the Pasig City RTC to proceed with the presentation of evidence in support of the compulsory counterclaim of the petitioner.

“The Orders dated November 12, 2012 and May 8, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 155 in [the Civil Case] are hereby reversed and set aside…” the SC ruling said.

Concurring with the ruling were Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. Aranal Sereno and Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin, Bienvenido Reyes and Jose Catral Mendoza.

Records of the case showed that from 2005 to 2008, the PNB entered into several Contracts to Sell (CTS) Facility Agreements with respondents Globe Asiatique and Filmal represented by Delfin S. Lee and Dexter L. Lee, president and vice president, respectively, of the two corporations.

The PNB agreed to make available to Globe Asiatique and Filmal CTS Facility in the amount not exceeding Php 200 million to finance the purchase of certain Accounts Receivables or the in-house installment receivables of the respondents stemming from the sale of subdivision houses in their real estate/housing projects as evidenced by contracts to sell.

These availments were later increased to a total amount of Php 1.2 billion.

Pursuant to and as a condition for the CTS Facility availments, the respondents executed in favor of PNB several Deeds of Assignment covering accounts receivables in the aggregate amount of Php 1,195,926,390.72.

In the instruments, the respondents acknowledged the total amount of Php 1,395,665,564.69 released to them by the PNB in consideration of the accounts receivables.

In the first quarter of 2010, the respondents defaulted in the payment of their outstanding balance and delivery to the PNB of transfer certificates of title corresponding to the assigned accounts receivables, for which the PNB declared them in default under the CTS Facility Agreements.

Subsequently, the respondents made partial payments and made proposals for paying in full its obligation to the PNB as shown in the exchange of correspondence between the respondents and the PNB.

On Aug. 5, 2010, the PNB made a formal and final demand upon the respondents to pay the total amount of Php 974,377,159.10 representing their outstanding obligation.

In the course of credit monitoring and verification, the PNB claimed it discovered 231 out of 240 Contracts to Sell to have either inexistent addresses of buyers or the names of the buyers are non-existent or both.

The case eventually reached the RTC.

In their complaint against Judge Pedro De Leon Gutierrez and Padilla, the respondents claimed that Globe Asiatique and Filmal are well-known and successful real estate developers whose projects were “being continuously supported by various banks and other financial institutions prior to the malicious and devastating unfounded civil action” filed by Padilla which wrought havoc to their businesses and lives.

The respondents alleged that these were already novated by the parties who agreed upon a term loan starting May 31, 2010 and to expire on April 30, 2012.

Despite her knowledge of such novation and that the obligation was not yet due and demandable, Padilla with malice and evident bad faith still executed a “perjured” affidavit in support of the application for writ of preliminary attachment before the Pasay City RTC.

This prompted Padilla to file her counterclaims, saying that her answer before the Pasig City RTC is compulsory, alleging suffering and injury caused to her as a consequence of the unwarranted filing of the baseless complaint by the respondents.

The RTC dismissed her counterclaim upon the same ground of lack of jurisdiction as its resolution supposedly would entail passing upon the validity of orders and processes still pending before the Pasay City RTC.

Padilla elevated the case to the SC.

She argued that the SC has jurisdictional competence and authority to resolve her counterclaims notwithstanding the dismissal of the complaint dated Aug. 10, 2011 for violation of the principle of judicial stability.

The SC said “the RTC of Pasig City should have allowed petitioner’s counterclaim to proceed notwithstanding the dismissal of respondents’ complaint, the same being compulsory in nature and with its cause not eliminated by such dismissal.”

“It bears stressing that petitioner was hailed to a separate court (Pasig City RTC) even while the dispute between PNB and respondents was still being litigated, and she already incurred expenses defending herself, having been sued by respondents in her personal capacity,” the SC said.

“The accusations hurled against her were serious (perjury and misrepresentation in executing the affidavit in support of the application for writ of attachment before the Pasay City RTC)—with hints at possible criminal prosecution apart from that criminal complaint already lodged in the Pasig City Prosecutor’s Office,” it added.

“The Pasig City RTC clearly erred in refusing to hear the counterclaims upon the same ground for dismissal of the complaint, i.e., lack of jurisdiction in strict observance of the policy against interference with the proceedings of a co-equal court,” the SC said.

“Ironically, while it is the respondents who erroneously and maliciously asked the Pasig City RTC to pass upon these issues still pending in a co-equal court, for which reason the said court dismissed their complaint, petitioner was not allowed to prove her counterclaim by reason of the unfounded suit in the same case as purportedly it will entail verifying respondents’ claim that they were prejudiced by the orders and processes in the Pasay City RTC. This situation exemplifies the rationale in Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. on requiring the petitioner to make the counterclaim in the present action, under threat of losing such right to claim the same ever again any other court, yet make such right of the petitioner totally dependent on the fate of the respondents’ complaint,” it added. PNA

source:  Manila Times

Continue to site

SC eyes continuous trial system to speed up cases

THE SUPREME COURT (SC) is eyeing to implement a “continuous trial system” for commercial courts this year, Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno said, in a move to speed up investor-related disputes in the country.

The system, Ms. Sereno said, aims to set a new norm for commercial cases whereby litigation time for commercial cases will be reduced to two years.

“Hopefully, if the lawyers will cooperate with the discipline that the judges are going to impose on the progress of the trial, two to three years completion time will be the new norm for commercial court cases,” Ms. Sereno said in her remarks before participants of the World Economic Forum on East Asia last week.

“There are several other measures, specific to commercial courts, that we are currently studying, and at the appropriate time, we will be announcing,” she added.

Commercial courts are special tribunals appointed by the SC to handle intellectual property disputes and corporate cases formerly handled by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Ms. Sereno also cited existing “reform measures” to address judicial delays for investor-related contracts: the use of judicial affidavit and new rules on financial rehabilitation.

Judicial affidavits, set in place in December 2012, replaced the direct examination of witnesses and is currently enforced in civil cases, but suspended in criminal cases upon the request of government prosecutors.

“This means that witnesses, including the investors can just execute affidavits and will then just have to be present when it is time for them to be cross-examined,” Ms. Sereno said.

The rules on financial rehabilitation, on the other hand, “are intended to expedite the decision on whether an enterprise is to be rehabilitated or liquidated, and giving time-bound allowances for the enterprise’s second life,” Ms. Sereno said.

The Chief Justice said other reform measures for commercial courts will be announced later on.

“Sustained reforms on the general aspects of court litigation is expected to lead to an increase in trust in our courts,” Ms. Sereno said.

“If this upward trend continues, we hope to see significant strides in rule of law indicators in country competitiveness studies,” she added. -- Mikhail Franz E. Flores
 
source:  Businessworld

Courts to use e-subpoena to make sure cops attend hearings

When cops who are called as witnesses in cases don't appear at hearings, courts dismiss thousands of cases, most of them drug-related

UPGRADE. Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno and Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas witness the signing of a memorandum of agreement for the new e-subpoena system. Photo by Bea Cupin/Rappler

MANILA, Philippines – The justice system of the social media capital of world finally gets an upgrade it badly needs.

The Justice Sector Coordinating Council – composed of the top brass of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the Supreme Court – launched on Wednesday, April 30, theElectronic Subpoena Service and Management Project of the "e-Subpoena System."

With one click, court administrators can now serve subpoenas to police officers named as witnesses in criminal cases. The new system is being tested in Quezon City before it is eventually rolled out to the rest of the National Capital Region.

Here's how it works: court administrators enter details of the subpoena in the PNP's data base using the e-subpoena form. Once it's sent, the PNP unit's court process officer (CPO) acknowledges receipt and is in charge of informing the police officer being summoned.

Within 3 days of receiving the subpoena, the CPO and the station's police chief, through the PNP's Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management (DIDM), will then inform the court of the availability or non-availability of the police officer being summoned.

Police chiefs ultimately are responsible for making sure police officers show up in court. Non-appearance without a valid reason can lead to the filing of an administrative or criminal case against a police officer.

Police no-shows

Speaking at the launch of the e-subpoena at Camp Crame, Chief Justice Lourdes Serreno said suspects were being detained for longer than necessary. Hearings were being postponed repeatedly due to the absence of policemen who were summoned to testify.

"Sinasabi nila na hindi naman po nila kayang hindi i-postpone ang hearing kung ang mga testigo ay wala.... Tinanong ko: sa mga testigo pong iyon, sino po karamihan nagkakaroon ng problema sa pagsipot sa hearing? Sinasabi nila sa akin, mga pulis daw po, lalong lalo na sa mga drug cases," said Sereno.

(The judges said they didn't have a choice but to postpone the hearings because there were no witnesses. I asked them: among those witnesses, who usually fail to show up? They said the policemen, especially when it comes to drug cases.)

According to the DIDM, PNP units all over the country received over 100,000 subpoenas in 2013. Of those, 7,000 were not complied – meaning police officers failed to show up during the hearing for one reason or another. As a result of non-compliance, over 1,000 cases were dismissed in 2013.

 TEST RUN. The e-subpoena system is still being tested in Quezon City, but will soon be rolled out to NCR and key cities in the Philippines. Photo by Rappler

The PNP said, in some cases, police officers were being bought out or threatened by principals of the suspects. But in some cases, Sereno said, police officers did not show up because they didn't receive the court's summon at all.

"'Pag nagpadala sila ng subpoena na ayon sa traditional na pamamaaraan, higit dalawang buwan bago makarating," said Sereno. (If they send the subpoenas the traditional way, it takes almost two months for it to reach the police.)

With the e-subpoena, courts are required to serve the subpoenas at least 5 days before the scheduled hearing or within one day from the "order of the court for the service of subpoena duces tecum or subpoena ad testificandum."

"Halimbawa po na ang judge ay masipag, may mga bagay po na wala sa kanyang control ngunit nagko-cause ng delay. Bawat delay ay isang malaking kawalan sa sistema ng hustisya," added Sereno.

(Even if the judge is hardworking, there are causes of delays that are beyond his control. Each delay is a huge loss to our justice system.)

From 'just tiis' to justice

The e-subpoena is the brainchild of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council's July 2013 meeting attended by Sereno, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, and Interior and Local Government Secretary Manuel Roxas II.

Sereno called it a "major breakthrough" in the Philippine justice system.

During the launch, Roxas said the new subpoena system marked the change from "just tiisto justice."

"Masakit para sa amin sa DILG at PNP na madinig na ang isang kaso ay pinirdir by virtue of non-compliance," said Roxas. (It pains us at the DILG and the PNP to hear when a case is dismissed or lost by virtue of non-compliance.)

Roxas, who is also chairman of the National Police Commission, said an upgrade in the system of serving subpoenas will also allow police to serve better. In Quezon City alone, police stations receive over 900 subpoenas daily.

"Malaking tulong din ito sa PNP na kung saan mapaplano at malalaman sino bang nasa korte, sino'ng libre nang sa ganon patuloy pa rin ang presensya sa mga kalye at sa field at hindi lang na ang buong PNP ay nag-aantay sa court rooms para sa kanilang appearance," he added.

(It's a huge help to the PNP because they can plan ahead – who will appear before the courts, who's free, so they don't lose their presence in the streets and the field, and we don't find the entire PNP spending their time waiting at court rooms for their appearance.)

Connectivity issues

But the transition from snail mail to email won't be that easy. For the e-subpoena to work, police stations should have a computer units and reliable Internet connection, aside from user accounts in the database.

"Internet-capable naman at hindi naman malaking file ito, so kahit mabagal ang Internet connection sa kanila, kahit nga cellphone lang ang gagamiting signal kakayanin ito dahil papel lang ito.... Maliit na file ito kaya kahit ang bandwidth ay hindi masyadong robust, lulusot pa rin ito," said Roxas.

(The files aren't that big, so even if their Internet connection is slow, even if it is only equivalent to cellphone signals, the system can handle it. The files are small so even if the bandwidth isn't robust, it will still work.)

According to PNP PIO head Chief Superintendent Theodore Sindac, around 10% of the country's police stations still have connectivity issues. For police stations in far-flung areas, Sindac said the e-subpoenas would be the responsibility of regional offices.

Sindac said testing in Quezon City would run for around a month to iron out kinks. The new system will then be rolled out in the National Capital Region and, eventually, in key cities in the Philippines before the year ends. – Rappler.com

Speedy trial

“Better civil justice systems can boost investment, competition, innovation and growth,” according to a study last year prepared by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). “Well-functioning judicial systems play a crucial role in determining economic performance.”
Predictable justice means fewer appeals, which can ease the caseload of judges.

What can be done? The OECD study, which deals with civil justice but can also cover criminal proceedings, noted factors that may result in shorter trials. Apart from “active management” of the progress of cases and better compensation to hire more judges, the study cited investments in court computerization.

This “informatization” (a term used by the OECD) of court proceedings includes setting up websites where the progress of cases can be tracked, and making available electronic forms and registers for litigation.

The executive can do its part by giving the judiciary the necessary funding. Computerization, more judges and courtrooms will surely be welcomed by judiciary personnel. Those mountains of documents eat up limited space in courthouses and are fire hazards.
Court computerization was initiated several years ago but its scope has been limited by budget constraints.

Those responsible for supervising the judiciary must also do more to discourage dilatory tactics that benefit only the lawyers and guilty defendants who want to put off punishment. Surely it’s not an impossible task. It can be done in Hong Kong, where one of our congressmen, Ronald Singson, was arrested for drug trafficking in July 2010, convicted in February 2011 after he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, sent to prison and then freed in January 2012. That’s record time in the Philippines.
Now Singson’s got his life back, and he’s even regained his congressional seat.
In contrast, consider how the Maguindanao massacre trial is crawling along, more than four years after it happened.

The Supreme Court, instead of setting the example in holding speedy trials, is doing the opposite, sitting on the Reproductive Health law and issuing temporary restraining orders that can last more than a year.

Frustration over snail-paced justice has to be one of the reasons why there seems to be little public sympathy for those detained without bail on charges of large-scale corruption who invoke illness in seeking their liberty. People fear that the detention while on trial might be the only punishment that will ever be imposed on the accused.

*      *      *

Corruption and ill-gotten wealth cases can now be helped along by instruments for international cooperation that were set up under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which is a legally binding pact that the Philippines and over 130 other states have signed and ratified.
Under the framework of UNCAC, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has partnered with the World Bank Group for the Stolen Assets Recovery or StAR Initiative. StAR assists states in building capacity for the recovery of hidden wealth.

UNODC is also working with the Austrian government to set up an International Anti-Corruption Academy.

Both the UN and World Bank have given priority to the fight against corruption, considering it a threat to democracy and a hindrance to economic development and poverty alleviation. Corruption deters foreign direct investment. At the same time, local small businesses, according to the UNODC, “often find it impossible to overcome the ‘start-up costs’ required because of corruption.”
“Corruption attacks the foundation of democratic institutions by distorting electoral processes, perverting the rule of law and creating bureaucratic quagmires whose only reason for existing is the soliciting of bribes,” the UNODC declares.

Does this sound depressingly familiar?

You can access the UNODC’s anti-corruption portal called TRACK, or Tools and Resources for Anti-Corruption Knowledge, for the legal library of UNCAC.

Among the thrusts of this global effort is to fight judicial corruption. According to the UNODC, “an ethically compromised judiciary means that the legal and institutional mechanism designed to curb corruption, however well-targeted, efficient or honest, remains crippled.”

For Pinoys, a clean, efficient judicial system does not have to be an impossible dream.

source:
SKETCHES By Ana Marie Pamintuan (The Philippine Star) | Updated March 17, 2014