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

Angeles RTC 59 records ‘fastest’ decision on human trafficking

ANGELES CITY—“Justice delayed is justice denied.” So goes the legal maxim as the wheels of justice most often grind exceedingly slow.

But not at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) 59 here which recently made history for being able to render a decision on a human-trafficking case, a conviction, nine months after it was filed.

RTC 59 Presiding Judge Maria Angelica Paras-Quiambao found the two accused, identified as Esmeraldo “Jay” Amurao and Marlyn “Lyn” Valencia, guilty of peddling five minors and a woman to local and foreign customers.

The two felons were arrested on February 25,2013, in front of Nathalia Hotel along Fields Avenue in Barangay Balibago here. They were convicted on November 8, 2013, with the sentence promulgated on November 15, 2013, with five counts of human trafficking on violation of RA 9208 and child abuse or violation of RA 7610.

They were sentenced to life imprisonment.

“Typical human trafficking cases in the Philippines take four years before being decided. I expedited the process because the international standard is less than a year,” Quiambao said.

Prior to this, RTC 59 convicted a woman last September for pushing her 16-year-old niece into prostitution. 

source:  Business Mirror

Drilon laments Sandigan’s slow disposition of cases

MANILA, Philippines - Senate President Franklin Drilon lamented on Thursday that it takes the Sandiganbayan an average of seven years to dispose of a case, from the filing of the information to the promulgation of judgment.

“This dismal rate of disposition reflects the heavily clogged dockets of the court, given that the cases filed before it has multiplied over the years. Such a drawn-out process of litigation is injustice in itself,” Drilon said.

In an effort to help speed up the disposition of cases, the Senate is now taking up a bill that would amend Republic Act 1606 or the law creating the Sandiganbayan.

Senate Bill 2138, which was endorsed by the committee on justice and human rights chaired by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III, was filed in substitution of two bills filed by Drilon and Sen. Teofisto Guingona III.

In his co-sponsorship speech, Drilon said that the inability to swiftly achieve the objective for which the Sandiganbayan was created could be attributed to its systemic limitations.

R.A. 2138 was enacted in 1978 and Drilon said that it is about time this is amended.

 

“As a result, this public accountability weapon, which used to be tagged as a frontrunner in defeating corruption, now occupies the last spot in the race toward good governance,” Drilon said.

“If we are to outrun graft and corruption, it is imperative that we resuscitate and recondition our existing prosecutorial and adjudicatory institutions against this opponent,” he said.

Drilon said that three innovations would be introduced in the Sandiganbayan Law that would help bring about a faster disposition of cases.

The first innovation under the measure is what was described as the “justice-designate” system, which would involve the amendment of Section 5 of the Sandiganbayan Charter that currently requires the presence of all three members of a division before a case could be heard.

Drilon said the individual members of a division would be allowed to hear and receive evidence, and resolve incidents arising during such session for the day, in behalf of the division to which he or she belongs.

To further expedite the proceedings, the measure likewise allows session to be held upon the attendance of two members of a division, instead of all three, as presently required.

“Nevertheless, consistent with the principle of collegiality, all three members of the division shall be required to deliberate and decide the case, after all pieces of evidence have been presented. This new concept is expected to accelerate the pace of case disposition, with minimal cost to the government,” Drilon said.

Another provision introduced in the bill involves the streamlining of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, which would enable the court to concentrate its resources in resolving the most significant cases filed against public officials.

An amendment to Section 4 of the law was introduced that would lead to the transferring of jurisdiction over cases that are classified as “minor” to the regional trial courts, which Drilon said “have the sufficient capability and competence to handle these cases.”

Minor cases pertain to those that do not allege any damage or bribe arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts not exceeding P1 million.

Drilon said around 60 percent of cases filed before the Sandiganbayan constitute minor cases.

source:  Philippine Star