The judiciary’s decade-long ICT modernization effort has contributed little to improving efficiency at the chokepoints: the courts of first instance and municipal/regional trial courts. The impact of ‘boutique’ stand-alone efforts mainly addressed to appellate courts and the Supreme Court has been limited, and has come at the cost of modernizing ICT applications for lower courts. And MISO’s ICT implementation approach has delayed the streamlining of business processes for key front-end (e.g. electronic case processing) and back-end (e.g. payroll, pensions, budgeting and procurement) functions. Serious mindset and capacity issues underlie such persistent implementation failures, and point to the necessity of a radically different approach (e.g. outsourcing implementation) for successful ICT modernization.
The judiciary’s “enhanced-Justice on Wheels” (E-JOW) program has improved access to justice. The E-JOW operates through mobile courts to reduce backlogs (especially those involving poor litigants who do not have the means to engage attorneys and post bail) and de-clog prisons. The program operates through eight buses deployed in regions and cities. The results are impressive: by end-2009 more than 2,500 cases were dismissed/inmates released, 6,883 inmates provided medical/dental assistance, 5,361 cases settled, and over 1,100 poor people provided free legal aid. E-JOW has also spread legal literacy: over 11,900 Barangay officials participated in discussions on, for example, rights of vulnerable populations.0
The Supreme Court has also pursued “soft actions” to strengthen access to justice. It has commissioned studies to improve outreach of justice with the support of the UNDP0, implemented the Access to Justice for the Poor Project supported by the EC, and taken important steps to ensure environmental justice. These efforts have created an “access to justice” network for coordinating women and child empowerment, training of court officials, and sensitization of the police force to respect for human rights. The designation of 117 courts as “Green Courts” by the Supreme Court could significantly improve compliance with environmental regulations.
Restoration of public trust and credibility remains a priority for the judiciary. Initiatives include: (a) implementing the “Strengthening the Integrity of Judiciary” (SIJ) project to eliminate opportunities for corruption within the judiciary, (b) the adoption of Codes of Judicial Conduct and Court Personnel Conduct, and (c) focus group discussions on whistle-blowing, reporting, and investigation of corrupt and fraudulent practices.
A critical gap is the lack of a forum where the executive, judicial and legislative leadership can reach consensus on justice reform priorities and policies. The existing forum is the Judicial-Executive-Legislative Advisory and Consultative Council (JELACC). The JELACC comprises nine members0. It would be desirable for the JELACC to focus on ‘big picture issues’ without impinging on judicial independence or being sidetracked by technical issues. It would also be helpful to ensure that eliminating inefficient, wasteful and duplicative expenditures, and reducing opportunities for corruption, are accorded equal priority to allocating resources. JELACC leadership on time-bound adoption of appropriate performance indicators by and for the courts, prosecution and jails would be a most welcome initiative.
B. Where the Philippines Could Be: A “5x5” Matrix of Policy Priorities and Actions Table 1: A Menu of Possible Policy Priorities and Actions
Policy Area 1: Reduce Delays in the Delivery of Justice
Action 1.1 Decongest jails: expedite release of children, juveniles and elderly (Action: DILG, DOJ, SC)
Action 1.2 Reduce judiciary case backlog volume by 50 percent in five years (Action: Supreme Court)
Action 1.3 Fast-track procedures/ basic equipment for Small Claims Courts & prosecutors (Action: SC, DOJ)
Policy Area 1: Overcoming Delays in the Delivery of Justice Action 1.1 Decongest jails by expediting the release of eligible prisoners and detainees
The success of the e-JOW mobile courts in expediting release of eligible prisoners and detainees could be considerably ramped up through a well-coordinated effort among the Supreme Court, the DOJ and the DILG where such mobile courts, with magistrates, prosecutors and lawyers could be deployed as part of a special program to decongest jails.
Action 1.2 Reduce judiciary case backlog volume by 50 percent in five years
Sharp reductions in case backlogs, perhaps the most effective signal of efficiency and resolve in improving justice, could be achieved through concerted efforts. Not all the challenges relate to lack of equipment or finances, but some do relate to more efficient personnel deployment, and much to leadership. Some courts have seen impressive progress in backlog reduction – the presiding judges could serve as role models. Another option could be to create a faster track for deciding petty cases, which form the bulk of the total caseload.0 The Supreme Court could also consider publishing, at quarterly intervals, data from lower courts on case backlogs and case disposition rates. Lastly, suitable adaptation of appropriate international good practices could accelerate backlog reduction. Some examples to consider include:(i) developing adjournment protocols,0(ii) transferring cases from over-burdened courts, (iii) encouraging on-line money claims as in the United Kingdom, and (iv) observing settlement weeks in courts.0
Action 1.3 Equip Small Claims Courts and prosecutors with fast-track procedures and basic equipment to deliver speedier justice
Adoption of summary processes and encouraging prosecutors, judges and lawyers to adopt plea bargaining for petty cases (a sizeable proportion of the criminal caseload) could lead to reduced case processing times and backlogs. The Supreme Court is considering faster rollout of SCCs to reduce civil case backlogs, and trying to rapidly address SCC basic equipment needs.
Action 1.4 Monitor the resolution of 5-10 long-pending prosecutions and court cases on anti-corruption, plunder and recovery of stolen assets
It would be desirable for the DOJ and the Sandiganbayan to monitor and ensure the resolution of 5-10 key prosecutions and court cases. Specialized training and technical support for prosecutors and investigators on recovery of stolen assets could also be considered.
Action 1.5 Launch a multi-year training program for Barangay officials to improve the effectiveness of the BJS
It would be desirable for the DILG, in collaboration with the judiciary, to launch a multi-year training program at the Barangay level to improve the knowledge and understanding of the BJS among Barangay and other LGU officials. An outreach campaign in LGUs where uptake of BJS cases is low could be considered. And improving enforcement procedures at the Barangay level for settlements under the BJS could avoid spillover of cases to the regular court system.
Policy Area 2: Improving the Efficiency of the Judicial System Action 2.1 Complete implementation of the EISP and MRDP within five years
It would be desirable for the Supreme Court to act decisively to implement its EISP, the key instrument to harness ICT’s efficiency-inducing and corruption-reducing capacity. However, given the judiciary’s ICT implementation track record over the last decade and MISO’s severe capacity constraints, the only realistic possibility of implementing the EISP and MRDP is to outsource implementation. While doing so, care should be taken to ensure that four high-visibility and high-impact EISP elements are implemented on a priority basis: (a) an e-JCMS (Judiciary Case Management System) pilot to reduce lower court case processing times, (b) an automated pension processing module which, within three years, should generate pension payment orders on an employee’s date of retirement (and eliminate graft in such processing), (c) a technical and functional upgrade for the E-Library, and (d) ICT support to first-level courts.
Action 2.2 Improve prosecutors’ conviction rates: install an electronic prosecution case tracking system within three years
The prosecution could benefit from the installation of an electronic case tracking system which can (a) help individual prosecutors manage their caseloads more efficiently, and (b) enable management to oversee the organizational caseload and monitor its progress. The data generated would provide DOJ leadership with a reliable instrument to supervise the functioning of the prosecution system, periodic publication of the statistics could improve public accountability and reduce corruption, and over time, prosecution conviction rates could be expected to improve. It would be possible to acquire and install such a system within three years through focused procurement efforts overseen by the DOJ leadership.
Action 2.3 Implement an electronic corrections information system within three years
The corrections system could also immensely benefit from the acquisition and installation of an electronic information system which, besides providing readily accessible data on inmates, is also connected with other elements of information systems in the criminal justice system. Some middle-income countries (e.g. Croatia) are establishing such systems, and their experience could be useful for the Philippines.
Action 2.4 Adopt monitorable performance indicators for courts, prosecutors and jails and publish statistics quarterly
It would be desirable for the Supreme Court, the DILG and the DOJ to adopt, within two years, appropriate performance indicators. It would be desirable for such indicators to be outcome-based, for baseline values to be published as rapidly as possible, and updates every quarter. Such periodic results reporting would instill greater accountability and transparency0. As part of this effort, it would be immensely helpful to periodically publish data on the results from the programs for free legal aid and mobile courts (e-JOW) (see Actions 3.1 to 3.5 below).
Action 2.5 Conduct a justice sector Spending and Results Review as the basis for a Medium-term Justice Sector Expenditure and Results Strategy, which could be adopted by the JELACC in 2012
Significant budget resources have been spent by justice sector entities in the last five years. However, it is unclear: (i) to what extent resources were allocated in line with stated policy priorities, (ii) what results were achieved, and (iii) what needs to change. An independent review of justice sector spending and results is now essential. More efficient and transparent resource use and management will underpin increased operational efficiency in a constrained fiscal environment. A rapid review of justice sector expenditures, results and institutional arrangements could provide actionable recommendations for the Supreme Court, DOJ, DILG and DBM. It would inform a costed and prioritized Medium Term Public Investment Program (MTPIP) for the justice sector (i.e. the judiciary, DOJ and DILG), which would produce: (i) a three- to five-year rolling capital investment/facility improvement plan, (ii) stronger links between resource allocation and performance, and (iii) arguments to augment resources through a contestable budgetary exercise. Completing such a review by mid-2012 could provide the JELACC with the information to prioritize reforms and resource allocation.
Policy Area 3: Reducing Barriers in Access to Justice for the Poor and Vulnerable Action 3.1 Increase the number of mobile courts, deploy them more efficiently
Improving access to justice for the poor, marginalized and vulnerable implies rapidly scaling up the e-JOW program. A sizeable population still does not have adequate access to justice. Rapid scaling-up of the e-JOW could reach out to this under-served population without the high fixed costs implied by new physical facilities. Funding from the World Bank’s Judicial Reform Support Project has been available to the Supreme Court should it desire to rapidly acquire and deploy several more mobile courts. However, offers of donations of mobile courts from NGOs or private parties should be dealt with cautiously to avoid any perception that parties which have, or may have, litigation pending are donating such equipment.
Action 3.2 Augment the budget for the Public Attorney’s Office
There may be a need to increase the budget allocation for the Public Attorney’s Office to ensure that higher numbers of eligible poor and disadvantaged persons are able to access the free legal aid program. Any increase in budget allocations could be made conditional on simultaneous implementation of measures to decrease the administrative costs of such legal aid programs, and periodic public reporting of the number of persons assisted as well as the measures taken to reduce administrative costs.
Action 3.3 Implement rule on mandatory legal aid services
The rule on mandatory legal aid services by practicing lawyers requires immediate implementation through appropriate consultation with the bar. The Supreme Court and executive entities could also explore the feasibility of mandatorily requiring law students to work in Public Attorney’s offices, as part of their professional apprenticeship or training, to increase the availability of free legal aid.
Action 3.4 Establish legal aid committees to expand the reach of legal aid
The Supreme Court could consider establishing district legal aid committees0 to better leverage resources and wider involvement of all sections of the society. Such committees could be chaired by the head of the first instance court, with representatives from the LGU, NGAs, the bar association and NGOs.
Action 3.5 Improve access of vulnerable populations to ‘green courts’
The Supreme Court’s initiatives to support environmental preservation have struck a significant chord across the country. Access of vulnerable groups to environmental justice could be expedited by funding civil society entities to raise awareness and provide legal aid to eligible persons to avail the protection available from the courts.
Policy Area 4: Strengthening Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System Action 4.1 Eliminate LGU influence on judicial independence: stop payment by LGUs of lower court judges’ allowances and lower courts’ operating expenses
The result of LGU funding of lower courts is that justice is seen to be compromised, and expenditures on courts from LGU budgets is difficult to estimate. It is now time to review this historical anomaly, and provide for all court-related funding – Personal Services (PS), Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures (MOOE) and Capital Outlays (CO) - to flow through the judiciary’s allocation from the national budget. Given the political economy implications of this exercise, it would be appropriate for JELACC to put this issue on its agenda.
Action 4.2 Implement ICT-based applications and information kiosks in lower courts, prosecution offices and Public Attorney Offices to (i) improve service provider-user interface, and (ii) publish statistics and user survey data
Greater transparency in justice entities’ interface with citizens could reduce corruption and improve public trust and confidence. This could be done, for example, through ICT and web-based applications which support online publication of decisions, web posting of case allocations, online case filing, and online public access to judicial decisions.
Action 4.3 Verify users’ actual experience with justice entities through quick surveys in prosecution offices and lower courts, publish results quarterly
In line with good practice in several countries, and in view of the low public trust and confidence, it would be desirable for the Supreme Court and the DOJ to conduct continuous, short user surveys in courts, prosecution offices and Public Attorney Offices. These could be administered online in the offices/courts to clients and users when they come to transact business, the results automatically aggregated at the entity level, and published quarterly on the Supreme Court and DOJ websites and on the websites of respective courts/offices. Such surveys are relatively inexpensive to standardize and administer.
Action 4.4 Commission an independent evaluation of the APJR and publish the findings
The APJR has provided a framework for reforms for a decade. An independent and objective evaluation of the APJR being commissioned by the Supreme Court is expected to draw lessons and provide inputs to the judicial leadership to define the next stage of judicial reforms. The evaluation is expected to involve extensive consultations with APJR stakeholders.
Action 4.5 Improve employee morale and trust through sustained outreach
The spurt in reform initiatives implied by the executive and judicial leadership will require sustained efforts from all personnel categories in the courts, DOJ and DILG. It would be desirable for the respective leaderships to implement a sustained outreach effort targeted to employees, to address work-related constraints and improve employee morale and trust.
Policy Area 5: Improving Internal Governance in Justice Sector Entities Action 5.1 Streamline pension processing: within three years any judiciary/DOJ/DILG retiree should receive the first pension payment on the day of retirement
It can take years for a judge’s pension to be approved and payments to begin. In some cases, bribes are reportedly demanded to expedite processing. Some retired judges/employees have fallen ill or even died before they received their pension. It would be inspiring if the Supreme Court, DOJ and DILG leadership publicly committed to streamline/automate their employees’ pension processing such that within three years, a retiree could receive the pension payment order on the day of retirement. This would also cast the judiciary and DOJ ICT modernization in concrete motivational terms, with employees having a stake in such reforms.
Action 5.2 Ensure compliance of submission of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) by judges and prosecutors
It would be desirable for the leadership of the Supreme Court and the DOJ to ensure compliance of submission, by judges and prosecutors, of SALNs.
Action 5.3 Fast-track enactment and implementation of legislation on the National Prosecutors’ Service and Public Attorneys
It would be desirable for the DOJ to fast-track enactment and implementation of proposed legislation on the National Prosecutors’ Service and the Public Attorneys. To ensure that implementation is funded, a regulatory impact assessment of the legislation is recommended.
Action 5.4 Adopt a time-bound Action Plan to fill vacancies in the lower courts and the prosecution service
Three measures could significantly improve the utilization of human resources: (a) filling the large number of judges’ vacancies through a time-bound action plan, including expediting the lengthy JBC process,0 (b) improving recruitment and placement practices for court personnel by amending job classifications and skill requirements, and (c) suitably redefining job classifications and job descriptions of court staff in anticipation of business process automation.
