By Terence Eyre Belangoy
[ Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. visits Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte, MARCH 28, 2O12. In honor of that occasion, this essay recounts his contributions to the Judiciary during his tenure.]
Under
the leadership of then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the Supreme Court
of the Philippines
could be best described as a proactive Supreme Court. The Court has taken upon
itself not only to adapt to dynamic changes, and combat undesirable yet endemic
practices taking place around it--- in the realm of technology and
communications, industrialization and globalization, societal changes, cultural
transformations, political uncertainty, graft and corruption, among others---
but to tackle them head on. The Supreme Court’s proactivity is clearly evident with its adoption of the Action Program
for Judicial Reforms (APJR), with then Chief Justice Davide as its staunchest
advocate.
The
Supreme Court is akin to a collegial body of “legal Davids” taking on
present-day “Goliaths.” Of course, it is common knowledge how it all
ended.
David, Davide and Legal Davids
This
analogy to the Biblical story in the Book of David is not at all
incidental. The Chief Justice himself
insinuated of his “kinship” with the Biblical character. The only difference
between Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and the Biblical David is the
letter e.
The
above account is definitely facetious, but it has a ring of truth to it. With
all the transformations--- not all salutary--- happening in many sectors of
society, nationally and internationally, these changes may as well be
intimidating, juggernaut Goliaths while our Supreme Court Chief Justice and
Justices, together with the rest of the Judiciary’s personnel, are fearless,
highly-skilled modern-day Davids. (A very interesting side story: a recent Reuters report tells of a discovery by
archeologists of a shard of pottery which carried a Semitic inscription of the
name of Goliath in Ramat Gan,
Israel, lending
strong credibility to the Biblical story; but this is altogether another
topic.)
Big
Brother
One
such “Goliath” looming in the periphery of the judicial horizon is incidentally
and figuratively called Big Brother--- rapid advancement in technology, and its
various cousins (information technology, communications, life technologies,
etc.) which are continuously making their effects felt in Philippine society in
general, Philippine Judiciary in particular, and definitely affecting the
dispensation of justice and the rule of law.
The
Supreme Court, consistent with its proactive stance, through the APJR, is embracing
technological trends with open arms.
In
fact, the First component of the APJR is the “Judicial Systems and Procedure” which concerns itself with the
administration of cases and courts. Initiatives in Alternative Dispute
Resolution, computerized case management system, streamlined court rules and
similar activities are also programmed under this component. Justice Artemio V.
Panganiban in one of the lectures in the Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series, delivered on October 19, 2005 at
the Far Eastern University Auditorium has subclassified this component under
the general heading of “Improvement of Judicial Facilities and Tools.”
The
APJR, through the Committee on computerization, has embarked on a total
computerization of the entire judiciary. Consistent with this computerization
program, the Supreme Court has, during the past five years, provided every
courtroom in the country with at least one computer.
The
Court has also launched its fully electronic library (e-library), the first of
its kind in Asia.
The
Benchbook for Trial Court Judges is another easy-to-reach tool which enables
magistrates to decide points of law quickly as they arise in the course of the
trial; this comes in digital and paper versions.
New
Rules of Procedure were also promulgated to enable the members of the bench to
rule immediately on legal issues connected with the new sciences and
technologies. The new rules cover, among
others, admission of electronic evidence, infringement of intellectual property
rights, corporate rehabilitation, and intra-corporate controversies, among
others.
In the
controversial nascent field of biotechnology, the Supreme Court has
acknowledged that ethical issues would unavoidably arise.
“The Courts, as defenders of the rule of law, must
make an informed stand as they adjudge among conflicting interests, and the
judges in these cases would have to be conversant in genetics, microbiology and
biotechnology as to be able to scientifically assess the evidence presented to
them by any number of experts.
Judges
are expected to keep abreast with these scientists, if not be ahead of them in
some respects.
While
these scientific issues have not yet found their way into our jurisdiction,
they are nevertheless knocking upon our doors. With the aid of developments in
Information Technology, they will soon be breaking down these doors. By then
our courts may be deluged with novel cases.
The Philippines,
for its part, will participate actively in this exchange, more to anticipate
than to react to technological trends consistent with the PROACTIVE stance that
the Supreme Court has taken in most other issues.”
High-Technology
Yet “High-Touch” Judiciary
Despite the Judiciary’s gung-ho efforts, as initiated by the Supreme
Court, to modernize and keep apace with the technological breakthroughs for a
more efficient administration of justice, it makes it a point to always touch
base with the very people it is supposed to serve---especially the
marginalized--- and the various publics affected by its various activities.
In the highly-influential book “Megatrends,” foremost social forecaster
John Naisbitt wrote: “Whenever new technology is introduced, there must be a
counterbalancing human response--- that is, “high touch”--- or the technology
is rejected. Whenever INSTITUTIONS introduce new technology, they should build
in a high-touch component; if they don’t, people will try to create their own
or reject the new technology. We must learn to balance the material wonders of
technology with the spiritual demands of our human nature.”
Indeed,
people want to be with people; and the more technology is pumped into an
institution, or into society, the more people would want to be (or be in
proximity) with people.
The
principle of high-technology/ “high touch” is a modern version of the ancient
Greek ideal of balance. The principle symbolizes the need for balance between
physical (the need for advancement, in this case technological advancement) and
metaphysical/spiritual (the desire of people to be an integral component of the
justice system) reality. Luckily, the Davide
Court is not remiss in this regard.
“Technology
holds a promise, not a threat. I see a future where legal practitioners will
still enjoy intimate professional relationships with their clients. In the
first place, people look for more than just legal advice and assistance from
counsel. In every case, the fiduciary character of the service is sealed by a
determination of trust and reliability, which can only be cultivated or
confirmed through face-to face- encounters. Secondly, and especially in a
developing nation such as the Philippines, fundamental change in the
traditional practice of law will surely proceed at a manageable pace without
displacing those who are presently unfamiliar with the required technologies.
Lastly, at some point in the evolution of legal servicing, the old ways will
inevitably co-exist with the new paradigms, as we achieve a balance between
technological advances and due process as traditionally understood.
More importantly, the Fifth component, “Access to Justice by the Poor”,
ensures that the marginalized, disadvantaged, dispossessed and other valuable
sectors will always have affordable and effective means of attaining justice.
This
ability of the Supreme Court NOT to be viewed as an institution smugly
ensconced atop an ivory tower far beyond the reach of the hoi polloi or ordinary mortals is very important. This would endear
it more to the people and the varying publics (including the very important
“donor community”) thus ensuring a continued support for the Supreme Court and
for its reform programs.
The
responsiveness of the Supreme Court in this regard is incorporated in the Sixth
component of the APJR.
The
Sixth (the last) component, “Reform
Support Systems”, installs mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of the
reform efforts. The focus here is public education, information and
communication, on the assumption that public awareness of the functions and
achievements of the judiciary would encourage people to support the courts.
Support
for the Supreme Court itself and for its various programs involves both
internal support and external support.
With
the myriad reforms the Supreme Court is undertaking or will undertake for the
Judiciary, there is bound to be resistance. This resistance could stem from the
Judiciary itself, specifically its various personnel who would be affected by
the changes.
One of
the “Policies and Strategies” of the “Reform
Support Systems” of the APJR involves “Judicial Organization Culture.”
This
resistance could be reduced through communication with employees to help them
see the logic of change. It is difficult for individuals to resist change in
which they participated. Greater involvement in the decision-making process reduces
resistance, obtains commitment and increase quality of the change decision.
Externally,
the Judiciary has to contend with the various publics: the other pillars of the
criminal justice system which would surely be affected by the changes within the
Judiciary, the “donor community” from which the Judiciary sources some of its
funds, the other branches of Government, and the public at large.
The
Supreme Court itself, as the final arbiter of all legal controversies, has to
make sure that all its decisions would not only be followed but would have the
faith and confidence of the people. Instances are rife when the public
sometimes see Supreme Court decisions as partial, especially those
highly-contentious cases such as the impeachment, the legitimacy of a
government swept into power by people power movements viewed by some sectors as
“mob rule,” allegations of infringement into the prerogatives of the other
co-equal branches of the government, and the like.
To
meet the above challenges, the APJR has included a “Public Awareness
Strategies” by (a) Institutionalizing the Court’s public information, education
and communication system (b) Improve quality and quantity venues for
information exchange on judicial functions, reform agenda and achievement (c)
Enhance judicial-mass media relations. For these purposes, a Public Information
Office (PIO) was created. It primary purpose is to bring the courts closer to
the people.
This
interface between the Supreme Court as an institution together with its various
personnel on the one hand, and the public, on the other hand, is raised to a
more esteemed level as the Davide Court is also imbued with a passion for
excellence and public service.
The
Vision Statement of the Davide Watch encapsulates the above thrust. The Davide
Watch Vision Statement boldly exclaims: “A Judiciary that is independent,
effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence; and a legal
profession that provide quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal
service to our people and is willing and able to answer the call to public
service.” This must also be correlated with the Third component of the APJR, “Human Resources Management Development”,
which covers the selection, hiring, education, promotion and remuneration of
justices, judges and other officials and employees.
“The
speedy and impartial dispensation of justice will ultimately depend upon the
judge. While electronic research facilities, computerized facilities and
stately courtrooms--- all of which money can buy---are desirable components of
judicial reform, in the end, justice is delivered by a human being who must be
upright, credible and competent--- qualities that money cannot buy.”
Feminine
Grace and the High Court
That
the Supreme Court is not only concerned with efficiency, excellence, and
service is also apparent in the way it exists with the various cultural and
societal transformations unfurling around it.
One
such positive social change is the increasing role of women in society.
Throughout the years, the women’s liberation movement has been gaining ground.
Although none of these feminine inroads have been mentioned in either the APJR
or in the “Davide Watch: Leading the
Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession Toward the Third Millennium,”
the current Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Davide has been
an unwitting yet willing witness to this cultural transformation.
A
record five lady Justices (Justice Consuelo Yñares-Santiago, Justice Angelina
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez, Justice Conchita
Carpio-Morales, and Justice Minita Chico-Nazario) now sit in the Supreme
Court--- all career jurists who have dedicated their lives to public service
and the law.
The
first woman to be admitted to the Bar, in 1911, was Maria V. Francisco. Justice
Cecilia Muñoz-Palma made history as the first woman to be appointed to the
Supreme Court.
Today,
there are still more male justices and judges in our courts, but this is
changing. This change, and the Supreme Court’s (and other institutions for that
matter) concurrence to it is laudable.
“Social
Science affirms that a woman’s place in society marks the level of
civilization,” said Elizabeth Stanton, champion of women’s suffrage.
Hands Off the
Cookie Jar
On the not-so-positive side, a “culture” which is
said to be endemic in most government offices is the “culture” of graft and
corruption. The Davide Watch, and the APJR through its Fourth component, seeks
to curb graft and corruption in the Judiciary. The Fourth component, “Institutional Integrity Development”,
addresses concerns in graft and corruption and puts in place mechanisms to
detect and punish corrupt practices of some judges and lawyers.
To
implement the call for integrity in the Judiciary, the entire Court has agreed
to adopt a more stringent and timely measures to discipline the judiciary and
to rid it of the corrupt, the unethical, and the misfit. Specifically it has
hastened the adjudication of administrative cases. In the pursuit of
transparency, the Court, at the suggestion of the Chief Justice, has created a
Committee on Public Information (CPI). To assist the Committee, a Public
Information Office (PIO) has also been created. The CPI and PIO were created to
lend more transparency to the Court’s work and thereby increase public
understanding of its role and work in society.
Legal
and Judicial education is intended to enhance not only the intellectual ability
of lawyers and magistrates, but also their ethical standards. During the last
six years, the Supreme Court has fined, warned, censured, admonished,
reprimanded, ordered arrested, suspended or disbarred lawyers for violations of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Magistrates
decide litigations only on the basis of the rational relationship between the
law and the facts, free from any extraneous influence. They should not allow
the “ships” that plague public service--- kinship, relationship, friendship and
fellowships---to interfere in their judgments.
Judicial Independence
All of the of the above reforms--- and the enthusiasm of all judicial
personnel, our legal Davids, in facing present challenges, the modern-day
Goliaths--- would all be for naught without the Second component, perhaps the
most important of all the components, of the APJR. The Second component “Institutions Development” seeks to
establish mechanisms to strengthen the Judiciary as an institution independent
from other branches of government. Included in this component are the systems
to implement the constitutionally-mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary, to
improve judicial accountability, and to devise personnel and financial policy
that will give the judiciary the flexibility needed to address the many demands
upon it.
Judicial
Independence under the Davide Watch means two
things: (a) Fiscal Independence and (b) Independence
from Partisan Politics.
Fiscal
Independence
means the freedom of the Judiciary to determine its own fiscal affairs. The
Judicial branch is not assured of an automatic budgetary increase to cope with
inflation. Judicial salaries are still pegged to the Salary Standardization
Law, which in sum spells low compensation. As a result, very few brilliant and
ethical lawyers join the Judiciary.
Independence from
partisan politics requires the involvement of the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC) in filling up of vacant positions in the Judiciary in accordance with the
periods mandated by law.
Leadership
By Example
Amidst all of these reforms, nothing transcends the
fact that the very person at the helm of this wave of transformation, Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. himself, leads by example, thereby positively
influencing all within the Judiciary. He has adopted an inside-out approach,
focusing on his circle of influence rather than on his circle of concerns; it
was his own metanoia which has also
become the metanoia of the entire
Judiciary, so to speak.
“As
Chief Justice, I pledge that I shall spare no effort in leading the Judiciary
by example. For those who know me, you know that I don’t take this pledge
lightly,” announced Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his very first
public appearance at a Kilosbayan
forum.
With
all of the above reforms taking place in the Judiciary, and with a Chief
Justice like Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. who initiated it all, the
Judiciary would remain an exemplary, steadfast bastion of justice despite
whatever unpredictable changes that would occur in this millennium and even in
the next millennium to come.
Hail
to (former) Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.! Hail to the men and women of the
Judiciary!
[This essay, originally titled “Legal Davids amidst
modern-day Goliaths,” was written and submitted by the author to the Supreme
Court under then CJ Davide during a Commemoration titled Davide Watch: Action
Program for Judicial Reforms prior to his retirement. The author was then
Associate Editor of the FEU Law Journal and represented his alma mater, the Far
Eastern University-Institute of Law. For other articles of this author, check out his blog JUSTIFIED at http://justifiedmaster.blogspot.com/]
› View larger
