For justice to take flight

By Atty. Farah G. Decano

 

“You need a pair of wings to take flight.”

WITH the effectivity of the Amended Rules of Civil Procedure and the Amended Rules on Evidence, Court of Appeals Associate Justice Monette Singh is persuaded that the disposition of cases will not just be on wheels but on wings.

This writer, however, believes that fixing the procedure, no matter how brilliantly crafted, is only half the pair of those wings.   Fast tracking case adjudication with only the use of procedures is similar to fixing the traffic in Metro Manila only with the use of rules without increasing road network; regulating purchases of vehicles; providing for alternative public transport system; and instilling proper participation and discipline among the stakeholders.

Here are her two cents for justice to take flight:

Increase number of courts with proper facilities.  We have heard of courts with more than 1,000 cases in their dockets. How will the judge possibly hear all these cases in a year? The Supreme Court assigned court decongestion officers (CDO) in courts with severely loaded dockets.  However, even the presence and assistance of CDOs cannot make much dent on the volumes of cases that these judges are confronted with.  This is because the judge cannot delegate to the CDOs actual hearing of cases and will still have write the judgments and decisions themselves.  We need to unburden the present judges of their massive caseloads by having more courts that can accommodate the influx of new cases.  That the courts must be properly furnished needs no explanation. We do not expect the judges and lawyers sitting on floors or sweating it out on a hot April afternoon hearing. Not that lawyers and judges are being finicky; it is just that our duties demand and tasks require these basic and decent facilities for officers of the court.

A law is needed for creation of courts.  The judiciary, therefore, must supply information as to how many more courts and in which jurisdictions they are needed in order to persuade Congress to create new stations.

Speed up appointment of judges and staff.  We have heard of courts with no judges for years because no one is appointed yet to the position.  While it is true that an acting presiding judge (APJ) is designated to provisionally perform the functions of the yet-to-be-appointed presiding judge, such practice, however, entails sacrificing the cases pending before the original station of the of APJ. Worse, there are judges who are presiding as APJ in two salas on top of their own station.  As a consequence, the cases in both or all of these courts presided over by the same judge suffer delay in their disposition.

For the appointment of judges, the executive must be informed of the urgency of releasing its new appointees.

Synchronized seminars for judges, court personnel, prosecutors, and public defender.  This writer does not question the judges and court personnel’s need for legal updates through seminars.  She only suggests that these judicial trainings be made simultaneously or close to each other. One can just imagine the dismay of a pauper-litigant in a criminal case when s/he arrives in court only to find out that the hearing is reset because the judge is required – on a last-minute notice – to attend a seminar. When s/he returns the succeeding month, the case is again postponed because, this time, the public prosecutor or the public defender is the one attending a training.

In order that this suggestion may come to fruition, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and the Public Attorney’s Office should be able to sit down and agree on synchronized scheduling of their capability enhancement programs.

With the new amended procedures and additional courts, more judges, lesser caseload, and fewer causes for absences and postponements, then justice will, definitely, take flight.

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments