It’s about time: Clogged dockets and judicial delay (Part III)

As a popular saying goes, “better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.” In two previous columns, I endeavored to provide a macro perspective on the “dragon of delay our Courts have yet to slay” with loose analogies made between our Courts and the business sector. Let us now take a quick survey of remedies and solutions currently in place, as well as other options for our judicial authorities to consider.

Let’s begin by stating the obvious: people should refrain from filing trivial suits. Some Filipinos seeking redress for grievances go to courts directly — as the place of “initial settlement,” rather than the “ultimate place of dispute resolution” that they are. Because of this, our courts are teeming with frivolous matters awaiting resolution that, in the meantime, contribute to the overall clogging of our judicial dockets. (This is what I meant last week when I said that the issue of judicial delay involves a “social responsibility” component.) Every case filed in court affects the entire system, as other people will invariably have to wait longer for their cases to be decided. As such, it becomes a social duty to consider the importance of one’s claim vis-a-vis those of others (as well as the possibility of an out of court settlement). Truly, courts should be a last resort — that is, “only” an option, and not the seemingly only option.

* * * *

The Supreme Court has, over the years, made several attempts to address the problem of delay. One of the more noteworthy efforts is the Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM). At present, there are more than 100 CAM centers throughout the country that operate to provide a speedier remedy, i.e. out-of-court settlement of cases. Under this system, civil disputes may be first referred to the nearest Philippine Mediation Center (the center which implements CAM) for resolution by way of voluntary settlement with the aid of a trained mediator. As a result of these efforts, between 2002 and 2009, CAM has already obtained an impressive 67 percent success rate. The catch and caveat? It is speculated that if the number of successfully mediated cases hits 20,000 per year, then it would take another 30 years to de-clog our court dockets.

Other court innovations to deal with court backlogs include the “enhanced justice on wheels” (“EJOW”) program and “small claims” courts. EJOW currently employs eight buses (which drive to jails around the country), serving as mobile courts. The EJOW program is geared to aid prisoners who, while awaiting trial, have been detained for longer than what they would have been sentenced to serve had they been formally convicted.

Then, there are the “small claims courts” that tackle disputes involving purely money claims not exceeding P100,000. This project was initiated to address an observation that 70 percent of the caseload of first-level courts in Metro Manila consist of cases involving small claims. To facilitate this process, user-friendly forms are provided, and the small claims Judge serves as the legal representative of both parties — since no attorneys are allowed to appear during the hearings. Finally, since the decision of a small claims court is final and unappealable, the higher courts are freed from deciding relatively petty peso issues.

* * * *

Congress, too, has attempted, through RA 8493 or the “Speedy Trial Act,” to limit delay by fixing, among others, the time allotted for trial to a maximum period of 180 days. By controlling the periods in each individual segment of the process, Congress hoped to actualize the speedy trial guarantees under the 1987 Constitution. (The Supreme Court later implemented this Act through SC Circular No. 38-98 which has since been incorporated into the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.) However, a holistic reading reveals that the instances that the Act excuses from the total trial period tends to defeat the laudable purpose of the law; thus, in reality, trials invariably exceed 180 days (after discounting the “excusable” delays).

Some of the other more “refreshing” suggestions come from Associate Justice Roberto Abad. First, he recommends that a 20-page cap be imposed for all briefs, pleadings, and memoranda filed in court. Those who breach the cap would need to pay a larger filing fee, as lengthier pleadings and papers would arguably take up more of the court’s precious time. This cap would disincentivize litigants from writing long-winded legal novellas and encourage them to cut straight to the issue. (Of course, it also will save clients money as it forces the “paid by the page” pleading-writing lawyers to be more conscientious in billing their clients.) In a similar vein, perhaps a cap should also be imposed on members of the Judiciary on the length of their decisions.

Second, Justice Abad points out that we still use the outdated adversarial system of litigation (while most countries use the inquisitorial approach). The basic difference between the two is that in the latter, the Judge takes an active role in investigating witnesses; while in the adversarial approach, the Judge distances himself as an impartial referee before two advocates who represent their parties’ positions. Technically we follow a mixed system but, undoubtedly, our courts lean in favor of the adversarial approach. Justice Abad’s position is that this approach adds to court delay: instead of being able to proactively jump in during critical moments of trial, the Judge is constrained to sit back and listen through tedious hearings. (This is, of course, not to say that some of our judges do not already do so. They are, after all, expected to be, at all times, in full control of the proceedings in their respective salas.)

These are but some of the ideas regarding this complicated issue. Next week, let me provide a few more and wrap up the series. –Dean Andy Bautista (The Philippine Star)