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
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
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
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
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
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.
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:
(The Philippine Star) | Updated March 17, 2014
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:
(The Philippine Star) | Updated March 17, 2014
Sunday, March 2, 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.
“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
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Petition to DOJ
Dear PAO,
I filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Resolution of the fiscal recommending the filing of serious physical injuries against me. Do I still have a remedy if my motion is not granted? Does your office give assistance to this kind of problem?
ML
Dear ML,
Resolutions of the prosecutors on the preliminary investigation of criminal complaint filed before them may be appealed to the Secretary of Justice. If your Motion for Reconsideration is denied, you may appeal the same by filing a verified petition for review before the Office of the Secretary of Justice and furnishing copies thereof to the adverse party and the Prosecutor’s Office which issued the resolution (Section 4, NPS Rule on Appeal). Your petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the resolution denying your motion for reconsideration (Section 3, NPS Rule on Appeal).
The petition shall contain or state the following: (a) the names and addresses of the parties; (b) the investigation slip number (I.S. No.) and criminal case number, if any, and title of the case, including the offense charged in the complaint; (c) the venue of the preliminary investigation; (d) the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (e) a clear and concise statement of the facts, the assignment of errors, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; and (f) proof of service of a copy of the petition to the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned. The petition shall be accompanied by legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the resolution appealed from together with legible true copies of the complaint, affidavits/sworn statements and other evidence submitted by the parties during the preliminary investigation/ reinvestigation. If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, a copy of the Motion to Defer proceedings filed in court must also accompany the petition (Section 5, NPS Rule on Appeal).
As to your second question, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) gives assistance to qualified clients in civil, criminal, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases. To be qualified, the prospective client shall pass both the merit and indigency tests. A case shall be considered meritorious, if an assessment of the law and evidence on hand, discloses that the legal services of the office will assist, or be in aid of, or in the furtherance of justice, taking into consideration the interests of the party and those of society. In criminal cases, the accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence until the contrary is proven, hence, cases of defendants in criminal actions are considered meritorious (Section 2, PAO Operations Manual). On the other hand, the following are considered indigent persons: 1) If residing in Metro Manila, whose net income does not exceed P14,000.00 a month; 2) If residing in other cities, whose net income does not exceed P13,000.00 a month; and 3) If residing in all other places, whose net income does not exceed P12,000.00 a month (Section 3, PAO Operations Manual).
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty Persida Acosta
I filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Resolution of the fiscal recommending the filing of serious physical injuries against me. Do I still have a remedy if my motion is not granted? Does your office give assistance to this kind of problem?
ML
Dear ML,
Resolutions of the prosecutors on the preliminary investigation of criminal complaint filed before them may be appealed to the Secretary of Justice. If your Motion for Reconsideration is denied, you may appeal the same by filing a verified petition for review before the Office of the Secretary of Justice and furnishing copies thereof to the adverse party and the Prosecutor’s Office which issued the resolution (Section 4, NPS Rule on Appeal). Your petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the resolution denying your motion for reconsideration (Section 3, NPS Rule on Appeal).
The petition shall contain or state the following: (a) the names and addresses of the parties; (b) the investigation slip number (I.S. No.) and criminal case number, if any, and title of the case, including the offense charged in the complaint; (c) the venue of the preliminary investigation; (d) the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (e) a clear and concise statement of the facts, the assignment of errors, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; and (f) proof of service of a copy of the petition to the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned. The petition shall be accompanied by legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the resolution appealed from together with legible true copies of the complaint, affidavits/sworn statements and other evidence submitted by the parties during the preliminary investigation/ reinvestigation. If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, a copy of the Motion to Defer proceedings filed in court must also accompany the petition (Section 5, NPS Rule on Appeal).
As to your second question, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) gives assistance to qualified clients in civil, criminal, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases. To be qualified, the prospective client shall pass both the merit and indigency tests. A case shall be considered meritorious, if an assessment of the law and evidence on hand, discloses that the legal services of the office will assist, or be in aid of, or in the furtherance of justice, taking into consideration the interests of the party and those of society. In criminal cases, the accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence until the contrary is proven, hence, cases of defendants in criminal actions are considered meritorious (Section 2, PAO Operations Manual). On the other hand, the following are considered indigent persons: 1) If residing in Metro Manila, whose net income does not exceed P14,000.00 a month; 2) If residing in other cities, whose net income does not exceed P13,000.00 a month; and 3) If residing in all other places, whose net income does not exceed P12,000.00 a month (Section 3, PAO Operations Manual).
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty Persida Acosta
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Towards a paperless judiciary
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS in digital and
communications technology and the emergence of the information
superhighway have paved the way for the proliferation of paperless
transactions and activities undertaken in the virtual environment. The
enactment of Republic Act No. 8792, or the Electronic Commerce Act of
2000, provided a framework which sought to address legal concerns with
respect to electronic documents and transactions. For the judiciary’s
part, which is generally perceived as the more “conservative” or
“traditional” branch of government, the Philippine Supreme Court was
quick to embrace the challenges posed by the information superhighway
and promulgated, in August 2001, the Rules of Electronic Evidence. At
that time, the Philippines was considered by several reputable
international study groups and analysts as one of the more e-ready
countries in terms of providing secure legal framework for electronic or
paperless transactions.
To date, our Supreme Court continues to actively seek and institute reforms in the judiciary, particularly in the practice of law, not only to cope with our fast-paced borderless world but to address other broader contemporary issues. On Nov. 13, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc signed A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, otherwise known as the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (“EUPR”). The said rule took effect on Jan. 1, 2013. As stated in the Whereas clauses of the EUPR, the primary intention of the Supreme Court in promulgating this rule is to reinforce the rule of the judiciary to save the environment by minimizing the “judicial system’s use of excessive quantities of costly paper, save our forests, avoid landslides, and mitigate the worsening effects of climate change.” It is very rare that we see the foregoing words in a procedural rule promulgated by none other that the country’s highest judicial body actively advocating an environmental cause. This notwithstanding, the underlying intent is to provide more efficient services, as the EUPR is seen to contribute to a more speedy judicial process.
The scope of application of the EUPR covers all courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. Essentially, the EUPR prescribes the format, style, and number of copies of pleadings/documents to be filed with the courts and tribunals, as well as all documents issued by the latter (including their reports and transcript of stenographic notes or TSNs). Now, all pleadings/documents filed with the courts must be single-spaced, with spacing of 1 space in between paragraphs, use a font size of 14, and written on a long bond white paper (8.5” by 13”). The foregoing format is also prescribed for all documents prepared and issued by the courts. The EUPR also prescribes that the margins for court-bound documents must be 1.5” on the side, 1.2” on the upper side, and 1.0” on both the right and lower portions. With respect to the number of copies to be filed, the rule provides the following:
(a) Supreme Court En Banc one original copy (properly marked as such) and 10 additional copies, with two sets of annexes (one attached to the original copy and the other as extra copy);
(b) Supreme Court Division -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and four additional copies, with two sets of annexes (one attached to the original copy and the other as extra copy);
(c) Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and two additional copies with annexes;
(d) Court of Tax Appeals -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and two additional copies with annexes. If filed with the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc, one has to submit six more additional copies with annexes on top of the foregoing requirement;
(e) Other courts -- one original copy (properly marked as such) with stated annexes attached to it.
The foregoing requirement on the number of copies significantly reduces the volume of paper documents submitted. In addition to this and recognizing the increasing role technology plays in streamlining procedures and providing for more efficient means of doing things, the EUPR requires that for respect to pleadings/documents filed with the Supreme Court, parties must file soft copies of the pleading or motion and their annexes (annexes required under the EUPR to be in a PDF format) either by e-mail or CD. This additional submission requirement is on a voluntary basis until 01 October 2013. After Oct. 1, 2013, it will be compulsory.
For copies of pleadings/documents served by one party to an adverse party, the serving party need not attach copies of annexes to the pleadings which, based on the records of the court, the adverse party already has in his possession. However, should the adverse party request a set of annexes actually filed with the court, the party who filed the paper should comply with the request within five days from receipt thereof.
It is expected that the EUPR will change the landscape of legal practice in the Philippines. It somehow paves the way towards a paperless system of filing and serving court documents and pleadings in the judiciary. Currently, there are initiatives in the Supreme Court to establish a framework that will allow the electronic filing and service of pleadings and other documents, similar to the current system in other sophisticated jurisdictions such as Singapore. Moreover, there are efforts to promulgate rules on electronic notarization to further facilitate commercial and non-commercial transactions that utilize paperless or electronic documents. Various committees and technical working groups have been put in place to, among others, study the feasibility and implementation of these projects, as well as crafting procedures and rules that are responsive to the requirements of various judicial institutions and stakeholders.
(The author is a partner of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices. He can be contacted at 830-8000 or through jmgaba@accralaw.com. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion).
source: Businessworld
To date, our Supreme Court continues to actively seek and institute reforms in the judiciary, particularly in the practice of law, not only to cope with our fast-paced borderless world but to address other broader contemporary issues. On Nov. 13, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc signed A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, otherwise known as the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (“EUPR”). The said rule took effect on Jan. 1, 2013. As stated in the Whereas clauses of the EUPR, the primary intention of the Supreme Court in promulgating this rule is to reinforce the rule of the judiciary to save the environment by minimizing the “judicial system’s use of excessive quantities of costly paper, save our forests, avoid landslides, and mitigate the worsening effects of climate change.” It is very rare that we see the foregoing words in a procedural rule promulgated by none other that the country’s highest judicial body actively advocating an environmental cause. This notwithstanding, the underlying intent is to provide more efficient services, as the EUPR is seen to contribute to a more speedy judicial process.
The scope of application of the EUPR covers all courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. Essentially, the EUPR prescribes the format, style, and number of copies of pleadings/documents to be filed with the courts and tribunals, as well as all documents issued by the latter (including their reports and transcript of stenographic notes or TSNs). Now, all pleadings/documents filed with the courts must be single-spaced, with spacing of 1 space in between paragraphs, use a font size of 14, and written on a long bond white paper (8.5” by 13”). The foregoing format is also prescribed for all documents prepared and issued by the courts. The EUPR also prescribes that the margins for court-bound documents must be 1.5” on the side, 1.2” on the upper side, and 1.0” on both the right and lower portions. With respect to the number of copies to be filed, the rule provides the following:
(a) Supreme Court En Banc one original copy (properly marked as such) and 10 additional copies, with two sets of annexes (one attached to the original copy and the other as extra copy);
(b) Supreme Court Division -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and four additional copies, with two sets of annexes (one attached to the original copy and the other as extra copy);
(c) Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and two additional copies with annexes;
(d) Court of Tax Appeals -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and two additional copies with annexes. If filed with the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc, one has to submit six more additional copies with annexes on top of the foregoing requirement;
(e) Other courts -- one original copy (properly marked as such) with stated annexes attached to it.
The foregoing requirement on the number of copies significantly reduces the volume of paper documents submitted. In addition to this and recognizing the increasing role technology plays in streamlining procedures and providing for more efficient means of doing things, the EUPR requires that for respect to pleadings/documents filed with the Supreme Court, parties must file soft copies of the pleading or motion and their annexes (annexes required under the EUPR to be in a PDF format) either by e-mail or CD. This additional submission requirement is on a voluntary basis until 01 October 2013. After Oct. 1, 2013, it will be compulsory.
For copies of pleadings/documents served by one party to an adverse party, the serving party need not attach copies of annexes to the pleadings which, based on the records of the court, the adverse party already has in his possession. However, should the adverse party request a set of annexes actually filed with the court, the party who filed the paper should comply with the request within five days from receipt thereof.
It is expected that the EUPR will change the landscape of legal practice in the Philippines. It somehow paves the way towards a paperless system of filing and serving court documents and pleadings in the judiciary. Currently, there are initiatives in the Supreme Court to establish a framework that will allow the electronic filing and service of pleadings and other documents, similar to the current system in other sophisticated jurisdictions such as Singapore. Moreover, there are efforts to promulgate rules on electronic notarization to further facilitate commercial and non-commercial transactions that utilize paperless or electronic documents. Various committees and technical working groups have been put in place to, among others, study the feasibility and implementation of these projects, as well as crafting procedures and rules that are responsive to the requirements of various judicial institutions and stakeholders.
(The author is a partner of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices. He can be contacted at 830-8000 or through jmgaba@accralaw.com. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion).
source: Businessworld
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)