By Virgil Vallecera, Romeo Limatoc Jr., Dennis Libetario
ABSTRACT
Justice is a necessity of living. Without it, life is a misery. In the
In some points, Justice on Wheels did not serve well. It is impractical. It is an additional burden to the taxpayers, considering its cost of P8-11 million per bus. Our jails need not to have Justice on Wheels but a court, a usual court. In terms of comparative advantage, it is not that beneficial, considering that our courts could hear above or below 100 cases a week, and given the fact that in one day only 71 cases were heard, and that JOW does not have Judges on Wheels, which means our judges are going to leave their branches if there is a case subjected to their sala.
In solving congestion, we need not to have Justice on Wheels, but good governance and equal distribution of wealth. Another is to have at least one court in our jailhouse. We need not to spend too much because it would only cause another injustice to our people.
chapter 1
the problem and its scope
RATIONALE
Accessibility to justice by the poor and the disadvantaged remains a worldwide problem despite the diverse approaches and strategies formulated and employed to address it.
In the Philippine setting, this problem causes another problem, which is the congestion in our municipal and city jails. Some prisoners rot in jail for more than the maximum penalty for their cases. Some want to plead guilty, some want to be diverted or released on recognizance.
The Supreme Court takes a step to solve this. It is by implementing the “Justice on Wheels” project—a bus set up as a courtroom where prisoners’ cases are heard for speedy resolution.
The JOW project operated first in
This research aims to know more about this P8,000,000.00 bus and how it would solve
As what Regional Trial Court in
OBJECTIVES
This study seeks to meet the following objectives:
- To determine the effectiveness of Justice on Wheels in terms of speedy trial in
- To determine the impact of Justice on Wheels to Human Rights, especially the poor people in
- To evaluate the disadvantages and advantages of Justice on Wheels as it operates in
- To determine what ways maybe taken to maintain or improve the Justice on Wheels project.
Theoretical background
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
This time-honored tradition of speedy justice is indeed an old dictum. This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because it is unfair for the injured party to have to sustain the injury with little hope for resolution. The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues either because the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favor.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution includes this principle of speedy justice in Article III Bill of Rights as a response to the common charge against the perennial delays in the administration of justice that in the past and even until now has beset our judicial system. Section 14 guarantees the right to speedy trial in criminal cases. Section 16 covers all phases of any case before judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies from its filing to its disposition.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to…have a speedy, impartial, and public trial …” (Section 14, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
“All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.” (Section 16, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
One need not stress the fact that a long delay in the disposition of cases creates mistrust of the government itself and this may pave the way to one’s taking the law in his own hands to the great detriment of society (de Leon, 2005:117)
Accessibility to justice by the poor and disadvantaged remains a worldwide problem despite diverse approaches and strategies that have been formulated and employed to address it. (Azcuna, 2005)
In 1998, Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. vowed in his “Davide Watch” to make an open access to justice by the poor a major thrust of the Court. Through his initiative, an Action Program for Judicial Reform was developed, and in the area of accessibility to justice, one of the recommendations proposed was the creation of special courts for the poor and disadvantaged. But it did not end there.
On an official visit to
On his return to the Philippines, the Chief Justice and the World Bank arranged for and made possible two study and observation trips in January and May 2004 by officials of the Philippine Supreme Court to Guatemala, to look into the possibility of establishing a mobile court system in the Philippines as a means to bring justice closer to the poor, by providing a fast and free resolution of conflicts through conciliation, mediation or adjudication.
In May 2004, a concept paper on the feasibility of establishing mobile courts in the
The following are the justifications of the Supreme Court in launching the Justice on Wheels Project:
“…WHEREAS, in view of the many vacancies in court in the Philippines, especially in municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts, delays in the resolution of cases pending threat are inevitable. Delayed justice creates a negative impact on the justice system, undermines social, economic, and even political stability, and impedes national progress.
“WHEREAS, due to various constraints, foremost of which is the lack of interest on the part of lawyers to apply for appointment to vacant judicial posts in courts of the first level, it is not possible to fill up the vacancies within the near future;
“WHEREAS, the urgent need to dispose of the pending cases in vacant courts of the first level and to ensure efficient and effective administration of justice to the people in places within the jurisdiction of the vacant courts may be properly attended to through what maybe known as Justices on Wheels Project, akin to Guatemala’s mobile courts;…” (A.M. NO. 04-6-02-SC Resolution dated June 8, 2004)
The Court then directed the Committee headed by Justice Azcuna to prepare a design of the vehicle that shall serve as the Justice on Wheels, and to formulate rules governing the implementation of the Project. Later on August, the Court approved the proposed Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Justice on Wheels Project. The Committee then organized three technical working groups for the preparation of the design and purchase of the mobile court vehicle, the court jurisdictional structure, and the operational details, respectively.
On December 20, 2004, barely six months after the passing of the SC resolution, the Court decided to implement the Justice on Wheels Project: The first
The Justice on Wheels Project aims to literally bring the courts to the people via an air-conditioned bus that houses a small courtroom and offices of the first- or second-level court judge assigned via a rotation scheme, and are staffed by court personnel and a mediator. The
The mobile court is provided with the following personnel complement: a presiding judge, a clerk of court, a prosecutor, a public attorney, a court stenographer, a docket clerk, a process server, a driver, and a security guard.
The judges were assigned to the mobile court on a rotation basis. The judge on duty brings with him the branch clerk of court, stenographer, docket clerk, process server and the prosecutor and public attorney assigned to his sala. A mobile court calendar is prepared for each hearing day for each assigned presiding judge.
As part of the pilot implementation of the Justice on Wheels Project, the mobile court was initially assigned to hear cases involving juveniles in conflict with the law. The main purpose was to hear cases involving juveniles who wanted to plea guilty, or who wanted to be diverted or released on recognizance. More importantly, the mobile court prioritized the hearing of cases of those who have been in detention for more than the maximum penalty for their particular cases.
This strategy was intended to help decongest the various youth reception and detention centers within the Metro Manila area, which were holding up to five times their designed capacities. This was also aimed at decongesting the heavy caseloads of the designated Family Courts in Metro Manila.
In its 66 days of operation within the period December 20, 2004 to November 11, 2005, the Justice on Wheels was able to visit several youth reception centers, juvenile detention facilities and jails in eight (8) municipalities and cities in Metro Manila. Within the same period, the Justice on Wheels was able to hear a total of 1,126 cases and secure the release of 391 detainees, or around 35 percent of the total number of cases heard. (Azcuna, 2005)
A second mobile court was deployed in
In view of the unprecedented accomplishments and impact of the pilot implementation of the Justice on Wheels project, the Supreme Court has decided to procure two more buses to be used as mobile courts. These buses are deployed in the major island groups in the country, one each in Luzon, Visayas, and
The Committee of the project, now headed by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, decided it was time to focus on court-annexed mediation. Hence, the JOW mobile court is now being used as a Mobile Philippine Mediation Center for court-annexed mediation or mediation for cases referred by courts. The project is dubbed as “Court-Annex Mediation on Wheels” (CAMOW), which was conceptualized with the cooperation of the Philippine Judicial Academy. The CAMOW is consistent with the Supreme Court’s initiative under the Judicial Reform Support Project (JRSP) to bring the courts closer to the poor and to provide a fast and free resolution of conflicts through conciliation, mediation, and adjudication.
Under the definition of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law (ADR Law), court-annexed mediation is “any mediation process conducted under the auspices of the court, after such court has acquired jurisdiction of the dispute. It is mandatory, being part of pre-trial.” It is therefore a component of the Philippine court system.
Cases covered by court-annexed mediation are all civil cases, settlement of estates, and cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, except those, which by law, may not be compromised; cases cognizable by the Lupong Tagapamayapa under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law; the civil aspect of quasi-offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code; the civil aspect of estafa and libel cases where damages are sought (Sec. 9, Rule 11, AM No. 04-2-04 SC effective 16 August 2004); the civil aspect of BP 22 cases; and “mediatable” cases under the Family Code, such as support, custody/habeas corpus in relation to custody, legal separation, property relations, separation of property, and guardianship.
Under the Supreme Court Judicial Reforms Program, cases filed in court that are classified as “mediatable” are referred to the Philippine Mediation Center, which are composed of trained mediators from the Philippine Judicial Academy. The mediators are given 30-60 days to facilitate resolution of regular cases and 120 days for
family cases. Should the parties refuse or fail to come to a settlement, the case goes back to the judge for a full-blown trial.
This is a very good program of the Supreme Court because most provinces, cities, and municipalities in the country lacked mediation centers and facilities. The Committee uses the following criteria in deploying the buses for court-annexed mediation: caseload base, presence of Supreme Court-accredited mediators, and the absence of mediation units in the area.
The JOW/CAMOW program strives to maintain the excellent record it achieved. The slogan of the Committee on Justice on Wheels this year 2008 is: “Our Courts Are Driven to Serve You Better.” Access to justice, especially for the poor and the marginalized, and decongestion of court dockets are the main goals. Thus, after serving Bulacan and Rizal, the first and third mobile courts were brought to other provinces, cities, or municipalities that are in need of assistance.
In the Visayas, the JOW bus was first deployed in
ACA Vilches says while the CAMOW program is enjoying a successful run in its first quarter of operations, she believes that the Committee must set a boundary system for its future undertakings. She stresses, “We will function as long as we are needed; and while we are here to address the immediate needs of the people, we must be careful not to send a wrong signal to the judges. They must continue to hear and decide cases conscientiously and expeditiously and must not wait on the mediators to take over their cases. Our main task is to efficiently redirect the transfer of mediatable cases which have already been filed in court and clog the dockets.”
Considering the number of municipalities without regular courts and the number of detention facilities that are overcrowded, the Justice on Wheels has indeed demonstrated its usefulness in addressing, at least partly, these problems.
CHAPTER II
DATA AND RESULTS
This chapter dwells the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of gathered data. This research attended to qualitative approaches in research to effectively meet the objectives.
The primary sources of this section are the interviews with Regional Trial Court-7 Former Executive Judge Fortunato M. de Gracia; Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 4 Presiding Judge Rosabella M. Tormis; and Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center Jail Warden Efren Nemeño. Pertinent documents from the Office of MTCC Executive Judge Oscar D. Tormis are also presented here.
Secondary sources stipulated in this section are from the Supreme Court’s official website, http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph; and from news clippings of Sun.Star Cebu and Cebu Daily News.
JOW Project: The
According to documents available at the Supreme Court’s official website, http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph, a record of 71 detention prisoners from two jailhouses in
The jails are Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center (CPDRC) with 1,604 inmates and the Cebu City Jail with more than 2,000 detainees.
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, who led Supreme Court officials in bringing the JOW mobile court in its first time in Cebu, said the JOW is intended to supplement the regular courts in
Speedy and Fair Justice
"You have here a big bus but that [the JOW mobile court] is more than a bus. That bus was constructed as a complete courtroom that can try with speed and fairness cases involving especially the poor," Chief Justice Puno told
The JOW mobile court initially aimed to address the twin problems of clogged court dockets and jail congestion.
The Chief Justice further said, "When you consider the realities on ground, the poor and the marginalized oftentimes play in an uneven legal field. So the JOW program is predicated on that rationale: bringing social justice to the disadvantaged sectors of our society as a living reality."
Executive Judge Fortunato M. de Gracia Jr. of the Regional Trial Court Cebu; Executive Judge Oscar D. Andrino of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Cebu; Presiding Judge Sylva A. Paderanga of RTC Branch 16, and Presiding Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, MTCC of Branch 4 presided over the JOW hearings.
Medical Attention
"This JOW has an important component. The medical services which are given to inmates in coordination with doctors and dentists of local government units, in our experience, show that because of the congestion problem, a lot of inmates suffer lots of diseases," the Chief Justice added.
"Even as we pay attention to their legal needs, we should not overlook their medical needs."
Mediation
Chief Justice Puno said the JOW mobile courts are also now being used to strengthen the mediation program of the court. Mediation is a mode of alternative dispute resolution wherein a neutral third party helps facilitate the resolution of cases of contending parties.
In September 2007, the JOW mobile court was brought to Taytay, Rizal to serve as a mediation court. At least 90 percent of the cases referred to mediation were resolved.
Puno said they would be bringing JOW mobile courts to
Education Program
The Chief Justice said the JOW is also being used to strengthen the education program of the High Court.
"We will be bringing this JOW to our indigenous peoples, fishermen, farmers, and we will have experts, legal lecturers" who will educate them on their rights and privileges under our laws, rules and regulations and the manner on how these rights can be effectuated in our tribunals, he added.
The Cebu leg’s number of 71 released detainees adds to the 164 other inmates from three congested jailhouses in Metro Manila, and eight (8) minors from the Manila Youth Reception Center released on separate dates in July and August.
Speedy Disposition
Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches, for her part, said the JOW mobile court hearings give litigants an additional one hearing day of their cases, thereby contributing to speedy disposition of cases.
The jail decongestion activity in the Cebu jails was done in coordination with the
The jail decongestion activity through the Supreme Court's JOW Project, in conjunction with the Court's Increasing Access to Justice by the Poor Program, is part of the Court's efforts to respond to the difficulty under the justice system that limits the poor from seeking redress from the courts. The program follows the successful holding of the Court's Forum on “Increasing Access to Justice: Bridging Gaps and Removing Roadblocks” last June 30 and July 1, 2008.
Litigation Cost of Travel
The JOW project, literally, orders judges, clerks, and prosecutors to pack into large buses and go to far-flung barangays all over the country to hear cases.
The High Tribunal is serious about the mobile court project and has created a committee to carry it out.
The committee is composed of Justice Adolfo Azcuna, Deputy Court Administrators Zenaida Elepaño, and Christopher Lock, lawyers Ismael Khan Jr. and Thelma Bahia, together with Evelyn Dumdum and Edilberto Davis.
Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna described the mobile court as “custom-built to efficiently serve its functions.”
“Litigants from distant provinces need not travel far to attend court hearings as there will soon be a fleet of mobile courts,” the SC public information office said.
“The many vacancies in courts nationwide have inevitably resulted in the delay of the resolution of cases,” the High Tribunal said.
Through the program, the SC said, people living far away will no longer have to travel to court and wait for the cases to be called because it is now the court that will go to them.
“The mobile court will move about in places where there are no judges to hear cases involving labor, domestic relations and others. It also conducts mediation, also known as alternative dispute resolution,” the SC said in its statement.
To note, the JOW mobile court visited Kalibo, Aklan to hear cases following the destruction of the Kalibo Hall of Justice in July.
“Delayed justice creates a negative impact on the justice system as it undermines social, economic, and even political stability and impedes national progress,” the SC said.
Asked for his opinion, a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge who asked not to be named expressed fears that the project, because it breaks years of tradition, may devalue the court as an institution.
“The court is an institution. It cannot be reduced to a judge sitting on a table hearing a case. The court is more than that. The ceremony and the tradition have a purpose,” he said in a July 12, 2004 Sun.Star Cebu article titled “‘Justice on wheels’ rolls to save parties involved in litigation cost of travel.”
Born by virtue of Administrative Order 04-7-02, the Justice on Wheels Project was created to ensure “accessible and immediate justice to the people.”
With the mobile courts, not only will the problem of disposal of pending cases in vacant courts be addressed, it also “ensures efficient and effective administration of justice to the people in places within the jurisdiction of the vacant courts.”
Landmark Case
Among those released through the JOW project last August 16, 2008 were brothers Maximo and Corcodio Laputan, who were accused of raping and killing Maximo's daughter, Mylene, in Carcar City in 2005.
The real suspect, their nephew, Ronnie Tabora, implicated them to save himself.
Although the Laputan brothers were cleared of the rape with homicide case in 2006, they remained in jail because of another case for direct assault filed against them by a member of the Carcar City Police Station.
They were earlier convicted by the
Presiding Judge Slyvia Paderanga of RTC Branch 16, however, reversed their conviction last Saturday and ordered their release.
The Laputan brothers are only two among the 235 prisoners nationwide who benefited from the JOW program.
Easier Access
In a Sun.Star Cebu article “Special SC bus sets justice in motion for over 50 inmates" last August 17, 2008 RTC Judge Paderanga said the JOW mobile court gave the poor easier access to their cases.
As she wrapped up her hearings on the day the mobile courts came on August 16, she had a schedule of five (5) cases, but only two (2) were heard. Both cases were dismissed and the suspects released. Paderanga said she was in session for less than 30 minutes.
“The advantage is easier access to justice. The inmates just stay in jail and more cases can be heard. The judges also get a chance to directly interview the inmates,” Judge Paderanga said of the JOW program.
No major difference, however
Former Executive Judge Fortunato de Gracia of RTC-7 sees no difference with the mobile court. “We have courts everywhere, it is just the same with our courts, and the only difference is that it is on wheels.”
Just the same with ordinary courts, the mobile court hears all types of cases and the hearings last 30 minutes to one hour per case from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 nn and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
“Even prior to the existence of the Justice on Wheels, access to justice was enhanced, at least this time in a new system,” he said.
Judges not to blame on congestion
Judge de Gracia said judges could not be blamed for the country’s packed prisons, however.
Many factors contribute to the congestion, among them poverty, which drives people to commit crimes just to survive, he said.
The number of criminals is increasing, De Gracia said, while the country still has a limited number of judges and public lawyers.
“Few judges, many criminals. That’s a lethal combination,” De Gracia said in an August 1, 2008 Cebu Daily News article titled “’Justice on Wheels’ to visit
He said the RTC-7 in particular has many vacancies. But there are no takers because the job of a judge is complicated, De Gracia said.
“Judges sit in hot courtrooms, wearing black robes, solving problems that are not theirs,” he said. “Even now, two of our judges are in hospitals because of their work.”
The executive judge lashed out at criticisms that blame judges for delayed justice. “The judge is not the judicial system. It is also composed of the PAO (Public Attorney’s Office) lawyer, the prosecution, the defense counsel, and the witnesses. Everyone should be there and everyone should be ready. One little quirk and there is no trial, there is delay.”
According to Rosemarie Pe, statistician of RTC-7, the RTC in
Much ado about nothing
Presiding Judge Rosabella M. Tormis of MTCC Branch 4 is pessimistic about the project. For her, the JOW project stalled the cases she could handle. “I handled four cases, and to think that in my branch, I could hear 100 cases a week.”
She said a day before August 16, 2008, the people involved in the four cases she handled were ready to be released, but the hearings were suspended for a day to pave the launching of the
Financial loss; corruption
Judge Tormis is skeptic that the project would only take its toll from the people, that instead of giving due advantage, the people gained financial losses with the acquisition of the buses. “Considering the P8,000,000.00 cost per bus, excluding the expenses for its maintenance and transportation, who will pay for this? The payment would be another slice of the people’s taxes, the people’s money.”
More so, she suggested that the cost be allotted for the detainee’s daily food consumption for them to have a decent chance of living at least. “Gipanghatag pa lang na nila sa atong mga prisuhan ang kwarta para pagkaon sa atong mga piniriso. (They should’ve given the budget to our jailhouses for our detainees’ rations.)”
She said the courts are responsible to have access to justice. The problem is not about congested jailhouses and court dockets nor rising crime rates, but corruption. “Dili magsige og gasto, dili magsige og utang, dili magsige og pangurakot, mogamay ang crime. (If only they stop spending, asking money, corrupting a lot, only then will crime decline.)”
‘Judges on Wheels’
Borrowing Shakespeare’s line, Judge Tormis said the Justice on Wheels was merely a poor justification on the budget handed over by the World Bank; hence, “it was much ado about nothing.”
“It is not adoptable in
Bus only a symbol
At the Cebu City Jail, Supt. Efren Nemeño, the warden, said that with the JOW visit last August 16, jail decongestion, speedy disposition of cases, and inmates’ justice were served.
However, it would have been better if instead of a mobile court, a court in every prison be installed since a bus is only a symbol.
“The program was a noble undertaking considering that the problem of congestion is addressed, at least,” he said.
Supt. Nemeño said minor cases like theft of prisoners 70 years and older were prioritized in the mobile court.
CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter wraps up the important features of the Justice on Wheels Project. It also gives the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations of the researchers about the JOW project.
Analysis
Based on the data gathered and collated, the following are what the researchers have observed. The researchers used a structuralist perspective in analyzing the data. In such a way, the researchers preferred to look into some moral, social, and economic variables to come up with further recommendations about the research subject.
1. The JOW project, which started conducting hearings on July 9, 2004, aims to reduce the number of court cases in order to ease the congestion in crowded jails, by conducting hearings in buses. Buses have been converted into mobile courtrooms where judges hear cases.
2. While the program, which began four years ago, deserves appreciation as it publicly acknowledges that court delays not only adds to the congestion in detention centers, it also acknowledges the deprivation of detainees' rights to speedy disposition of their cases. This endemic problem of court delays likewise has long deprived an unthinkable number of detainees of their freedom, who have since forced to endure prolonged detention, even before being convicted.
3. The JOW program has, in fact, brought to light the sad realities in the administration of justice. While our court system makes every effort to become efficient—which is eventually helpful to detainees—the actions they have taken underlines the incapability of the judges and the regular courts to perform speedy hearing of cases. Had these regular courts been functioning effectively, there would have no need at all for mobile courts. This is because, that while most of the judiciary intend to carry out their duties effectively, they are confronted with practical problems; for instance, the lack of competent judges, legal aid lawyers and court staff; overloading of cases; lack of resources; among others.
According to a Press Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission tagged AHRC-STM-190-2008 last July 14, 2008, the program, which, since 2004, still has four mobile courtrooms throughout the country, is barely scratching the surface of what needs to be done.
“Even if the JOW project may have been able to resolve cases and decongest the detention centers promptly, it can neither be an alternative nor replacement to what should have been an effective, competent, and independent judiciary. Therefore, increasing the capabilities and efficiency should likewise be addressed to solving the practical problem in the administration of justice. In doing so, not only is it the duty of the judiciary, but that of the Government that has the utmost obligation to ensure an effective administration of justice.” (Press Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission tagged AHRC-STM-190-2008 last July 14, 2008)
4. The violations of human rights of the poor and their difficulties in accessing the courts must be addressed. However, there are also economy-wide effects of macroeconomic policies that violate these rights. The following are among the most relevant that cut across all the basic sectors of Philippine society that comprises the majority of the population.
According to a Paper submitted by IBON Foundation to the Supreme Court Forum on “Increasing Access to Justice: Bridging Gaps, Removing Roadblocks” last June 30-July 1, 2008, the
“Family incomes are not even keeping up with inflation and the results of the latest Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of 2006 shows real average family income dropping from P145,000 in 2000 to P125,000 (at constant 200 prices) in 2006. In particular, the poorest four-fifths of Filipino families – or some 13.9 million families – saw their real incomes fall between five and almost 13 percent.
“The FIES 2006 in particular found that poverty – using a low poverty threshold of P41.25 per day (or US$0.80 at then prevailing exchange rates) – worsened from 30.0% of the population in 2003 to 32.9% in 2006. This already means 27.6 million poor Filipinos in 2006 or a 3.8 million increase from 2003. The top 20% of families also account for over half (52.8%) of total income while the bottom 80% of families divide less than half (47.2%) between them.” (IBON Foundation Position Paper for the Supreme Court Forum on “Increasing Access to Justice: Bridging Gaps, Removing Roadblocks” last June 30-July 1, 2008)
The situation is becoming even worse today with high and rising inflation rates that reflect the punishing and rapid increases in the prices of food and oil products. The poor are thus being violated on an even wider scale.
5. The people, who have already lost faith in courts, are themselves unwilling or discouraged in seeking legal remedies, especially as some of the security forces and other persons are already taking the laws into their hands, thereby rendering the courts useless—for instance, extrajudicial executions of crime suspects. The delay in the prosecution of cases has, in fact, prevented victims or complainants of crimes to file case in court.
It is indeed disturbing that the failure of the state's justice institutions to function has been allowed to continue. Also, curing a deeply wounded system of justice requires not just treatment; but the finding of solutions to improve the system that caused the delays and people's loss of faith in the first place.
CONCLUSIONS
From the analysis of data, the researchers have come up with the following conclusions:
1. The Justice on Wheels Project was not effective in addressing jail congestion and overloaded court dockets. Though given the noble purpose of having speedy disposition of cases, it is sad to note that from the data gathered it slowed the whole process.
For instance, in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 4 alone, there are about 100 cases heard and resolved every week, which translates to a 20 caseloads a day. But when the JOW dropped by here in
- The project has been favorable to those poor Cebuanos who have been detained for quite a long time for minor crimes. It is specifically beneficial to those who have been released on August 16, 2008. However, given the 71 cases heard and resolved on the mobile court, there is no correlation or assurance that much of its function benefits the poor. There is still the need to mobilize a few buses to reach its full potential. But if that happens, it only adds fuel to the fire as the financial burden goes to the taxpayers.
The project still has a long way to address speedy and impartial justice. However, given the financial dilemma, the project is either way too shallow a solution to adopt. It only attends to short-term concerns of the poor.
3. Considering the data gathered and analyzed in this study, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
The program is barely scratching the surface of what needs to be done (Asian Human Rights Commission, 2008). A weak judicial institution prompted up by absolute poverty is where reforms should begin. The JOW project only undermines insufficient and inefficient administration of justice.
Indeed, true to the words of MTCC Judge Tormis, the whole JOW project is simply “much ado about nothing.”
4. Given its stint here in
Recommendations
With the apparent ineffectiveness of the JOW project, the researchers recommend the following:
1. The budget of the project should be diverted to solve the much important and apparent aspects of the bigger problem: The weak administration of justice. The Supreme Court and its judicial branches should have concerted effort not in purchasing millions worth of buses, but in staffing our courts with efficient and sufficient staff to man over the administration of justice.
2. Furthermore, a chunk of the budget should be allotted for the establishment of courts in prison. In such a way, there would be efficient and hassle-free access to justice especially to those detained in prisons or jailhouse. If the noble intention of the Supreme Court’s Increasing Access to Justice by the Poor program is zeroed in for the speedy and impartial hearings and resolution of cases, then having the courts come in to prisons or jailhouse is one of the best ways to do that.
REFERENCES
INTERVIEWS
Regional Trial Court-7 Former Executive Judge Fortunato M. de Gracia
Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 4 Presiding Judge Rosabella M. Tormis
DOCUMENTS
Status of Cases Calendared on August 16, 2008 at Cebu City Jail courtesy of the Office of MTCC Executive Judge Oscar D. Tormis
INTERNET
Supreme Court’s official website, http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph
NEWS CLIPPINGS
“‘Justice on wheels’ rolls to save parties involved in litigation cost of travel,” July 12, 2004, Sun.Star Cebu
“Special SC bus sets justice in motion for over 50 inmates," August 17, 2008, Sun.Star Cebu
“’Justice on Wheels’ to visit Cebu prisons,” August 1, 2008, Cebu Daily News
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment