Page 1
1
Opening Remarks delivered by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno during the 5th Plenary Assembly of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Corps of Professors on May 20, 2016 at the CA Auditorium, Court of Appeals, Manila
Friends, thank you very much. Please take your seats.
I want to continue the conversation we had in 2014, I think, (PHILJA
Chancellor) Justice Adolfo [S. Azcuna], when I delivered a thought piece, and
which is the start of [this] conversation. This conversation about judicial
education and training is being carried on not only between the Chief Justice
and the members of the Supreme Court but also with the rest of the judiciary
at its different levels. And I’m very honored by the presence of (Court of
Appeals Presiding Justice) PJ [Andres B.] Reyes[,Jr.] and (Court of Tax
Appeals) PJ Roman [G.] Del Rosario. I am very honored of course with the
[presence of] retired justices of the Supreme Court, Justices Azcuna and
(PHILJA Vice-Chancellor) [Romeo J.] Callejo,[Sr.] and retired and incumbent
justices of the Court of Appeals, some of whom are very active here. Court
Administrator [Jose] Midas [P.] Marquez, Fr. [Ranhilio] “Rannie” [C. Aquino],
Dean [Sedfrey M.] Candelaria, my friend from way back in Ateneo, Dr.
[Cheselden George V.] Carmona, (Regional Trial Court Branch 158, Pasig City)
Judge [Maria Rowena M.] San Pedro, (CA) Justice [Filomena “Monette” D.]
Page 2
2
Singh, Judge [Thelma A.] Ponferrada. I thank all of you, judges, retired and
incumbent, friends, court attorneys, PHILJA personnel, and others, thank you
very much for being here with me this morning and for agreeing to spend
much of your time in further propagation of the ideas of judicial reform.
Thank you, Justice Azcuna for bringing to everybody’s mind the thought piece
that I delivered.
You know, I was in the original batch or in the earlier batches of PHILJA
Corps of Professors, and I was given an innocuous part called Law and
Economics. But after having thought about judicial reform more intensely—
my friends from the academe are also here—can I see the hands of the law
professors who are here? Dean Candelaria (of Ateneo Law School), okay, very
good, thank you very much; Justice [Hilarion L.] Aquino (of Ateneo Law School
and San Beda Graduate School of Law), Justice [Oswaldo D.] Agcaoili (of
University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law), of course, they are now in a
dual capacity.
I thought many of our law schools are already doing their jobs well.
PHILJA doesn’t have to replicate what they are doing. And I saw the great gap
between what a great judge should do in the courtroom and what we are
Page 3
3
equipping the judge for. And perhaps, I thought, a rethinking was timely. And
in my first forays and my first visits to the courts, I was so enlightened by the
presence of so many reformist judges at all levels. And it has largely been
because of their inspired work that I thought that a professional educator like
Dean Candelaria and I in my past life should rethink the whole concept of
education and training for judges. And I looked at the statutory mandate of
PHILJA. I looked at what PHILJA had been producing and doing all these years,
and I thought PHILJA can do more.
So please allow me first to congratulate, to commend the Philippine
Judicial Academy under the leadership of Chancellor Justice Adolfo Azcuna for
organizing this timely gathering as we collectively formalize concrete steps
towards the enhancement of the curriculum and capacity-building
[capabilities] of the Academy.
In 2014, after 18 years of PHILJA’s existence, I indicated as Chairperson
of the Board of Trustees of PHILJA that it was high time for a reassessment of
PHILJA’s role vis-à-vis its mandate under its charter. As the training arm of the
Supreme Court, PHILJA should be the Supreme Court’s co-advocate and co-
implementer of reform. It was not enough for the Chief Justice and the rest of
Page 4
4
the members of the Court to initiate reform. Change in PHILJA must come
from within. PHILJA’s mandate places it at the frontline in reform, occupying a
unique place as the Supreme Court’s purveyor of judicial education and
because of its research capability also, it is in a unique place to act as the
Supreme Court’s think tank.
But what our judges and court personnel need is not old school
classroom-style education. Rather, what we need is education that is
transformative in equipping our judges for leadership in the courtroom. The
traditional brand of education in law schools has already prepared all of us to
become lawyers and the jurists that some of us are. PHILJA’s brand of
education should prepare our judges to become able and independent jurists.
With these in mind, we must pose the following questions: Is PHILJA
formulating training programs that prepare our judges and court personnel
for what await them in the courtrooms? Has PHILJA’s training curriculum
improved the competence, efficiency, and ethical awareness of judicial officers
and their staff complement? Are PHILJA’s performance standards at par and in
step with international standards?
Page 5
5
To answer these queries, a sub-committee was formed not just to
review PHILJA’s curriculum but even more importantly to reevaluate PHILJA’s
Corps’ direction. The result of the sub-committee has been presented to the
Board of Trustees of the PHILJA. And I can assure you that the Board of
Trustees reacted positively to the presentation made by Dean Candelaria at
the last meeting of the Board of Trustees. And with further instructions by the
Board, it is now being presented to the Corps of Professors.
It will be noted that you will see a very marked difference in both
content and methodology between the current and the revised curricular
offerings. Ladderized education, as I had suggested, is proposed to be adopted.
And specialized education is not only going to be encouraged, but PHILJA will
promote guided and assisted specialization. That is how I understood the
presentation of Dean Candelaria to be. Dean, feel free to interject later on the
impressions that I have formed from your short but very substantive
presentation.
Let me now give my thoughts on some of the ideas that had been
presented by Dean Candelaria to the Board of Trustees of PHILJA. After the
passage of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 or BP (Batas Pambansa
Page 6
6
Blg.) 129, specialization has been institutionalized through subsequent
legislation. The judiciary has had to cope not only with the demands of
implementing rules and guidelines, but more importantly, the need to reorient
and train our generalist judges to be able to act as specialists. PHILJA has
therefore provided training to our specially designated commercial courts,
family courts, drug courts, environmental or green courts, and during election
season, to our designated election courts. Capsulized, the PHILJA programs
provide the attendees with the needed special knowledge to handle cases
peculiar to their assigned spheres.
Today, however, and I bring good news: we need to do more. Doing
more is actually always good news. We need PHILJA first to formulate more
proactive training programs for the courts for judges, court personnel, and
court users alike. What do I mean by proactive? As the Supreme Court pushes
its reform agenda forward, the PHILJA must conceptualize programs that
embody and incorporate these reforms. And towards this end, PHILJA must
always be in the loop on what is going on in the thinking of the Supreme Court
En Banc, the key members of the Court who are thinking of reform measures,
as well as the key committees that are heading the reform programs of the
Court.
Page 7
7
This is one way of ensuring the institutionalization of reforms and of
training court people and its users to uniformly and consistently implement
and abide by these reforms. One risk for any reform measure that the
Supreme Court will implement is if our people are not sufficiently trained to
implement these reforms, and these reforms might prove to be failures not
because the ideas were not good but because our users—our court
personnel— were not sufficiently trained to implement them. Allow me to cite
a concrete example. And this is by way of warning you about the pace by
which reforms continue to be discussed week-in and week-out by the
Supreme Court.
Congress passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act, and I think we have one
of our PHILJA Professors here in whose honor the decision is named. With the
finality of our decision upholding its constitutionality, save for certain
provisions, some members of the Court, especially those who just came from
Bangkok together with PJ Andres Reyes, are already advancing the idea of
cybercrime courts in the very near future. Actually, I have commissioned
Justice [Apolinario] “Pol” [D.] Bruselas, [Jr.] two years ago to give me a
template for the establishment of cybercrime courts. Except for the fact that I
had been stymied because of my very, very heavy workload in all areas of the
Page 8
8
role that I am discharging, I had been wanting to push the agenda of
designating cybercourts ASAP [as soon as possible]. But we all know that to
equip us for these cybercrime courts, our judges must know how cybercrimes
first of all are done. Because we do not engage in criminal acts in the
cyberworld, we need a lot of exposure in this regard.
Once we make that decision to push for the designation of cybercrime
courts, PHILJA must do cluster training for all the designated courts. And it
will require a lot of conceptualization and even knowledge on the part of
PHILJA’s people on what are the requirements for a cybercrime court to fully
function. But cluster training should not be limited to the judges.
The rule of law is not dependent completely on the judiciary. We have
the pillars of justice, our co-actors in the justice sector. And we cannot be so
advanced in our knowledge and skills but deal with people who are not as
well-equipped. So we should adopt what is a multi-sectoral and
interdisciplinary approach to delivering real-time justice to the public. This is
in keeping with the Justice Sector Coordinating Council mandate that I had.
For those of you who might not yet know, the Supreme Court
conformed to allowing the Chief Justice, the Secretary of Justice, and the
Page 9
9
Secretary of Interior and Local Government to form a coordinative group
called the Justice Sector Coordinating Council. For a number of years, it wasn’t
able to progress much. But we achieved a breakthrough when in 2015—was it
in 2015, Justice Monette, that we adopted the Justice Zone concept?—that the
judiciary with the leadership of Justice Singh and some of the other judges was
able to draw a justice map. And the justice map talks about the start of a
criminal case from the moment a complaint is filed in the barangay all the way
up to the conviction and rehabilitation of a convicted offender, and it already
pointed out 84 activities or sets of activities that must be done. And many of
these activities have to be done in a coordinated fashion. Otherwise, justice
will fail.
In other words, my philosophy and that being implemented right now in
the Justice Sector Coordinating Council—and many of you judges here are
involved in this—is that we stop operating in silos. It is time that we judges
understand what prosecutors are thinking. PAO (Public Attorney’s Office)
lawyers must know how judges think. And the police must understand what is
required of due process so that they can discharge their role as genuine law
enforcement agencies who, when they are called upon for example to witness
in court, understand the responsibility that they are facing.
Page 10
10
If you had been keeping abreast of announcements that we had made,
Quezon City is our first Justice Zone. And in Quezon City, we have already
identified that it has already coordinative work or the metrics that are
required for all the justice actors in Quezon City to really do coordinative
work but respecting their independence. And it has worked. It has worked so
very well that the decision is to propagate the concept of creating more Justice
Zones all over the country. And eight (8) of these will be promoted through the
use of European Union aid money until 2019.
Now, in keeping with this concept, it is therefore not enough that our
judges are very, very well-trained judges. They cannot be very good judges
unless their prosecutors are also good, unless the public defenders are also
good, unless everyone involved in the justice sector are also good. So I suggest
that when we talk about cybercrime courts for example, it should be thus
multi-perspective. In other words, the court, every judge must understand
what the NBI [National Bureau of Investigation] and the intelligence agencies
do in order to track or find out the basis for filing a request for surveillance or
a search warrant before a cybercrime court.
Page 11
11
But before we can do that—Justice [Mariano] “Mar” [C. del Castillo] is
here, thank you very much Justice Mar—but before we can do that, they also
need to find out what are the standards that judges believe, that the court has
laid down in the case of Disini vs. Executive Secretary.
So we have to draft a training module that will prepare not just our
judges and their personnel but also the other stakeholders who will a play
role in the adjudication and the resolution of cybercrime cases like the
prosecutors, the public attorneys, the law enforcement agencies, and yes, even
the lawyers within the bounds of preserving our independence as a judiciary.
These trainings should be done in partnership with the concerned
agencies, and the ideal we are aiming for is that with the learnings imparted to
each cluster, there will be less occasion for conflicting interpretations of the
law, rules, or jurisprudence, . . . less questioned or [less] questionable
procedural commissions or digressions, more consistency in case processing
and resolution. The ultimate result would be consistent application of the law,
court decisions and practices, with the corresponding improvement in
disposition schedules, disposition rates, reduction in appeals, and reduction in
challenges to the regional court’s proceedings and outcomes. This speaks of
overall court and case decongestion and avoidance of delay.
Page 12
12
A precursor of this clustered training—just to show you how effective it
can be—is already being done for regular courts that are designated as Family
Courts through the competency enhancement training program for which we
acknowledge the efforts of Associate Justice Teresita De Castro, Chairperson
of the Supreme Court Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns.
These programs bring together and train the judges, court personnel, social
workers, prosecutors, public attorneys and police officers. We should add the
barangay officials as well to complete the network of stakeholders whose
roles in the handling of family cases involving minors, intertwine and
complement each other; then this training program is supplemented by a
training manual. The Family Court CEP (Career Enhancement Program)
program is thus an ideal template for the envisioned cluster training.
We must also design programs addressed to the different levels of the
judiciary. In other words, for appellate courts, for the tertiary level courts, we
need to consult very closely with PJ Andres Reyes and his colleagues in the
Court of Appeals, with PJ Roman Del Rosario and his colleagues in the CTA,
and with PJ “Ampi” Tang and her colleagues in the Sandiganbayan. This is
something that we need to move forward as we keep on identifying areas
where efficiencies can still be pushed in the different tertiary level courts. But
Page 13
13
these changes can only be achieved if the Academic Council and the different
departments [of PHILJA] are revitalized.
As PHILJA is shifting away from the traditional approach to education
and becoming more sensitive to adult education for professionals, which
combine many teaching techniques, it cannot be therefore run and operated
like a traditional law academic institution. Its departments should conform to
the future that we are envisioning. An example could be the Federal Judicial
Center (FJC), which is the education and research arm of the United States
Supreme Court. In the FJC’s education division, which is similar to PHILJA,
some of their departments for example are the Management and Professional
Development Education Division; the Judicial and Legal Education Division;
Executive Education Division; Probation and Pre-trial Services, Education, and
Media Operations Division. I do not ask you to copy it, but the concept is let us
consider governance according to the kind of program we are designing to
ultimately provide the kind of judges and court personnel we need. Clearly, at
least in the mind of the US Supreme Court, the FJC’s structure is reflective of
the needs of its constituency. Its divisions address the spectrum of training
needs of its target clientele.
Page 14
14
On the other hand, I see so much potential in the lawyers of PHILJA. I
have been meeting many of them, and I’m so impressed by their intelligence
and their dedication to work. I believe that they are underutilized, and I
believe that PHILJA should push for the creation of judicial education
specialists starting with these lawyers who will be equipped as the experts on
adult education, especially judicial adult education, who will continue to
research and experiment on the best teaching techniques for judges. For
example, our judges are already suffering from the fact that they sit in their
courtrooms too much. An inordinate amount of their time is in a sedentary
position. What kind of technique or methodology do you employ so that these
judges can really take a break and maximize the effective use of their training
time when they are being conducted by PHILJA?
I also envision that the judicial education specialists will not only be
experts in adult education for the justice sector, but eventually, can be experts
in substantive areas of law themselves. We have the highest respect for the
present composition of the different academic departments of PHILJA, but
allow me to say that they are academic departments that are reflective of a
law school. PHILJA however, is not a traditional school; that is why it has a
special charter. Its trainees require highly specialized trainings, more
Page 15
15
importantly its trainees already come from some of the best law schools in the
country. So perhaps, it is maybe even a disservice to these law schools who
have already spent so much effort training them that we are repeating what
they have done in this course.
What PHILJA must do is to respect the work of these law schools by
recognizing that these trainees already come with baseline knowledge, and
direct these already well-formed, very competent adult professionals, redirect
the formation of that person to become an outstanding judge. This I think is
the more respectful approach to the law schools. Therefore, PHILJA must try
to develop in the judges and inculcate in them a comprehensive skill set that
will make them good presiders of trials, good docket management people,
even good at handling court personnel.
We must prepare them for the challenges in a Philippine court setting,
and if we had gone through all the courtrooms in the country as Justice del
Castillo has had, you will be confronted with the fact that you may have very
sophisticated courtrooms in some areas, as well as courtrooms with the most,
even some very, deficient facilities. And our judges must be prepared for any
such contingency.
Page 16
16
So how do we prepare them then for that future? As we implement
more judicial reform programs, we see the need for PHILJA to come up with
relevant training programs that will be in sync with the objectives of these
reform programs. For instance, more programs on enhanced skills
development in expedited hearings, effective mediation and continuous trial;
integrating also and recognizing the best practices that we can already see
being implemented by the judges themselves. In other words, the idea is it is
not a top down design system but we absorb the best that is happening in the
field guided by the direction that the Supreme Court has been setting.
And remember in the various discussions and conversations I have had
with you and with the rest of the public, what is the future? The future is the
electronic court, the future is continuous trial, the future is one year
termination from start to finish, perhaps two years for the lower courts. The
future is counting in terms of months, the future is no snail mail, the future is
orders immediately being given to the litigants right before you. The future is
updating of case status through the internet, the future is less cost of judicial
disputes. The future is effective alternative dispute resolution methods. The
future is a public that believes that we operate a transparent, honest, and
Page 17
17
trustworthy judiciary. The future is that the judiciary is going to set the
standard for public service, and the standard is it must be the gold standard.
Currencies brought about by changes in political administrations may
rise and fall, but the judiciary will, and must remain the gold standard for
public service. That is why for example in Quezon City, and I wish to include
other courts in NCR (National Capital Region) and eventually the entire
country, forensics training is already being exposed to our judges. The judges
are now going to the central crime laboratory of the Philippine National
Police, and for the first time they are hearing how DNA evidence, how bullet
examination is actually being conducted. So judges no longer just hear it for
the first time when they are confronted with testimonies about how these
things are being done, but they already are understanding the industry’s best
practices, and in their minds they are already formulating the kinds of
questions that should be answered when these kinds of evidence are being
presented. And the fact that the judges of Quezon City have given me such a
positive response and even to the concept of scientific and professional
evidence management means that the future for a multi-sectoral integrated
approach is bright.
Page 18
18
Hence, I believe that the best kind of leadership in the various
leadership positions in PHILJA should be through working active chairpersons
or leaders because it is the only way for the clusters or departments or
groups, whatever you will call it, will work. Those who have and are involved
because they have a personal stake in ensuring that the courts for example,
that they are leading are effective.
Allow me to give you examples. One example is the Committee on
Commercial Courts chaired by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe.
Because the Supreme Court has given her the mandate to try to figure out how
to make our commercial courts really effective, she is not only involved with a
revision, the finalization, and further revision and enhancement of the rules,
we have [also] given her the mandate to oversee the effectivity of commercial
courts. And I have requested her to look at the best practices worldwide to
find out how our commercial courts can capture the trust of the investor
community. My request is for her to find out in what way the best can join
these courts, be trained for these courts and have strict performance
standards imposed on them. So, please note that when you get appointed to
one of these so-called courts in which we are going to invest heavily in, that
Page 19
19
also means that performance standards—strict ones—will be imposed on you.
So it cuts both ways. It’s a fair deal, I think.
The Committee of Justice Bernabe has just come up with the 2015
Financial Liquidation of Suspension of Payments Rules, and have been doing
consistent training for our commercial courts. Because she’s an active chair,
and an active working chairperson, when she gives talk before the business
community, they find her discussion with them highly credible because they
know that she is the frontliner in the reform of the commercial court system.
Again, another is the Speedy Justice Committee headed by Justice
[Diosdado M.] Peralta, which has been responsible for the continuous trial
program. It has also been reviewing the small claims work and its chair has
been active in also being a trainor in PHILJA’s program.
Another outstanding reform success, of course, is the EJOW (Enhanced
Justice on Wheels) Program headed by Justice Mariano del Castillo, and he is, of
course, our expert on these systems of expediting hearings and case
disposition through alternative means. That is where you, Corps of Professors,
those of you who have served over the past two decades, will fit in. Advisory
committees that are multi-disciplinary, and taking [into] account all the
Page 20
20
specific needs of each type of court, providing substantive law updates, skills
in handling specific types of cases—I think this is the way forward. No longer
are we just going to rely on specialization on substantive law. But the key
objective is to produce a judge who will be not only highly trained in the
substantive law area but more importantly in managing a case of the kind that
is being given to him or to her.
In short, if the PHILJA is to play its role effectively as the Supreme
Court’s partner in reform, its departments—all administrative as well as
academic departments—must work together and in sync towards the same
objective.
Please note that in my judicial reform program, which will run through
until 2030, I have integrated metrics to measure success outcomes for each
area of judicial reform. And if the metrics are going to be integrated into how
we do our work, then we must be open to all ideas that will bring us closer to
achieving our desired outcomes.
PHILJA must also fully realize its research functions. And in this,
because of this, I encourage the research department of PHILJA to go to the
field and talk to the judges. I would like research that is based on data on the
Page 21
21
field, experiential data, anecdotal data, survey data, court record data, and
whatever kind of statistical indicators we can look at in pursuing reform.
For example, when the Hustisyeah! Program, the first major intervention
that I pushed for case decongestion was launched, the Decongestion Team
was able to inventory 33,000 cases. Thirty-three thousand! Can you just
imagine the size of that data? Each data inventory, each case inventory, needs
the team of congestion people to fill out fields—very, very long fields—which
will measure and identify the causes of delay, what dates, how was it
disposed, with the ultimate objective of coming up with a disposition or
decongestion program for the judge concerned. Now, some Quezon City
judges are here with us, and they can already attest to the fact that after 14
months, the decongestion program resulted in a 30 percent reduction in the
docket of Quezon City.
Of course, their problem now is the prosecutors of Quezon City are also
very active in filing more cases. But that’s another problem and we address
that later.
My point is, and I have been lamenting this since last year, if you have
33,000 cases files that are there, where is the researcher who will look at
Page 22
22
those 33,000 cases and tell us where are the major points of delay and how do
we bring the [case] forward and avoid delay?
I need to find out what are the oldest cases. Maybe there are cases that
are pending for more than 40 years, and why have they been pending for 40
years? Perhaps it is a land case. Perhaps it is because land cases are so
complicated and perhaps it is because substantive law has been conflicting
with each other. Maybe it is because the Rules are not clear enough or have
not been formulated for these highly problematic cases. Because you have so
many land regimes. You have the Agrarian Reform [Law]; you have the Public
Land Act. You have so many land regimes.
Can we already assume that our judges, upon their appointment, are
already fully equipped to understand the contradictions in these laws and
how to handle these? Or are we in a continuing state where we are ignoring
major parts of the problems or some of the problems besetting our courts?
The key is looking at the data that we have already unearthed. The data
is already there. It is waiting for law schools to analyze. It is waiting for
Sedfrey and his research team to analyze.
Page 23
23
I have been quite straightforward that if money is required to revitalize
PHILJA, I have never consciously attempted to withhold financial support if it
is needed. But the point is every expenditure of PHILJA must be objective-
focused.
So, if our objective is to identify the major problems there besetting,
then what we need to do is research. That is why with all of my discussions
with the Philippine Association of Law Schools, I have kept on telling them,
perhaps it’s been three years now, “Where is the research that will push the
Supreme Court to change the Bar examination and confine it only to four
major areas?” Where is the research? So, that is one major reform area that
PHILJA can focus on. And I do not mean again, traditional research which is
focused, for example, on a theoretical academic subject.
I want research—and we will give good money for research to be
done—on what problems really assail the justice system with special
emphasis on the judiciary.
For example, in all my forays, in all my discussions with the judges, they
keep on saying, “Our prosecutors are insufficient in numbers, they are not well
trained.” So that is a problem area, and how do we put it forward with the
Page 24
24
Department of Justice without sounding unprofessional about the problem?
What I had been asking our judges and the PHILJA to do is to give me a
document that will say one major reasons for the delay in our prosecution is
our lack of prosecutors. I can only give that because that is the only way I can
act professionally as Chief Justice.
So the function of the research arm of PHILJA must go hand in hand with
the curriculum review of PHILJA. And I thank Dean Candelaria because when I
asked him if he can set aside more time for PHILJA, as he leads the question of
how to equip the education specialist that we have been discussing, he said
yes, he will take whatever necessary time he needs to from his already very
busy schedule.
So allow me to just summarize that I believe that the two spheres of
PHILJA, the left arm and the right arm. The left arm being the research
department and the right arm being the academic department should go hand
in hand to strengthen each other.
It is also actually a smart move if PHILJA’s research department takes
the occasion that the judges are there and cannot escape from their training
Page 25
25
program to conduct interviews with them for the purpose of feeding data to
its research program.
Another would be the need to harmonize conflicting decisions of the
Supreme Court. I have never been one to shy away from the fact that we still
might have problems with respect to conflicting decisions of the Supreme
Court. As Chief Justice, I try to institute a system where I personally and my
lawyers would vet and go over the decisions of the three different Divisions to
find out whether there are contradictions. Justice Roman has always told me
about this. PJ Reyes hints at this. And even conflicts within the different levels
of the tertiary courts is actually also a problem.
While I try to do this, it was really too much for my office to handle. And
that is why I thank Justice Azcuna and Justice Callejo for helping me think
about this problem, and I hope more effort can be given by PHILJA to help the
Supreme Court avoid conflicting decisions. So we must all look at it as a
collective problem. Which means that ultimately, what we aim for is really
stability of jurisprudence.
Now, with metrics. Please be informed that the Civil Service Commission
will not authorize the promotion of court personnel unless the judiciary has
Page 26
26
already implemented the Strategic Performance Measurement System. And I
would like PHILJA to help educate our judges in implementing this
Measurement System. It’s a long form. It’s a discussion where there is a review
between the judge and the court personnel where they come up with
assessment.
Recently, I received so many complaints from lower court personnel
asking why the midyear bonus under EO 201 has not yet been distributed to
lower courts. I found out that many lower courts, (Makati RTC Executive
Judge) EJ [Selma P.] Alaras, I don’t know whether you are aware of this, I
found out that many lower courts have not been submitting the measurement
forms. I, for one, am going to push for a design of an incentive program that is
separate from whatever is being implemented nationally. In other words, not
only will our budget be dependent on measured outcomes because that is
already the thrust of the national government, even the bonuses of court
personnel will now be dependent on satisfaction of measurement tools.
So this kind of culture whereby we subject ourselves to strict standards
of accountability must be the culture of the entire judiciary—our entire
30,000 workforce. And it must be PHILJA who in their training programs,
must inform the sheriffs, the interpreters, clerks of court, and even the judges
Page 27
27
that “You know, everything has to be accounted for not only with respect to
your satisfaction on the constitutional and statutory deadlines for disposing of
cases, not only in the fidelity with which you handle court documents but also
in the kind of service orientation that [you] are providing our public.” The
lower courts are our frontline delivery personnel. The satisfaction must be
better than biting into the best hamburger. The high of encountering a fair
court proceeding must be as good as the kick provided by a Starbucks latte.
(audience laughter)
So this is the kind of service orientation that we must re-engineer all our
efforts towards. No longer should we consider ourselves as entitled to
prestige and honor. Rather, our prestige and honor must come from the fact
that we are authentic individuals doing our very best to serve our country in
the area that we have been trained for, which is the administration of justice.
On the other hand, not only will these performance measurements
impact the giving of financial incentives, it will also fit in the appointment and
promotion of the members of the judiciary as well as in the appointment and
promotion of the non-judge personnel.
Page 28
28
In my very first speech before the Philippine Judges Association, I have
already given this commitment that we are moving towards a merit-based
promotion system. Of course, you understand that as head of the JBC (Judicial
and Bar Council), I still have to deal with political issues, many of which are
not within my control.
But for the 7,400 applications that the JBC processed last year, from a
low of 1, 200 in 2012—just imagine we are now processing 7,400—I can tell
you that higher and higher standards are being imposed, more scientific
improvements are being deployed. We still lack so many things.
We are going for a full disclosure form for these next few years, when
even the possibilities [of] conflicts of interest must be candidly discussed by
the applicant, disclosing his financial and social interests so that at the very
beginning the judge already knows it is her positive duty already to avoid any
conflict of interest. And that means that this is also the culture that PHILJA
must also embrace—accountability—because we are entering a special
profession: the profession of the judiciary, and the highest performance
standards and the strongest scrutiny of our lives cannot be avoided.
Page 29
29
And therefore, revising the curriculum that you are doing now is such a
formidable task. May I warn you therefore if you can set aside for a brief
moment your emotions or your connectedness to a baby you may have
nurtured all this time and for this brief spell, when we are putting our
collective thoughts together, [we must] open ourselves to the possibility of
change because we want to serve our countrymen in a way that they can
genuinely feel and in a way that can be scientifically measured. This is our
future: that we are transforming ourselves [from being] a passive branch into
becoming the most active branch in the sense of wanting genuine change to
happen and change that will last beyond my term. And therefore, it is with
deep gratitude that I convey to you the thanks of the Court, especially to
Justice Azcuna, for his unflagging devotion to the leadership of the Academy,
Justice Callejo, (PHILJA Chief of Office for Academic Affairs) Justice [Delilah
Vidallon-]Magtolis, (PHILJA Executive Secretary) Justice [Marina L.] Buzon,
and to all of you, esteemed members of the Corps of Professors, friends, and
stakeholders, we have nothing but your highest good and the enhancement of
your professional potential in mind.
Whatever support is necessary from the Court En Banc and from the
Chief Justice will be generously given. But the only thing we ask from you is
Page 30
30
the passion to be open to change, the passion for the continued work of
excellence. And it is with this knowledge that you are untiring in your love of
country and in your devotion to the Rule of Law, that I thank you and I bid you
goodbye.