Philippines Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Project Professor Rosemary Hunter Griffith University.

Philippines Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Project

Professor Rosemary Hunter

Griffith University

Case Types: Supreme Court

74% civilFrom Court of Appeals Individual/corporation vs individual/court

26% criminalFrom RTCs Individual vs People of the Philippines

Court of Appeals

From RTCs, NLRC, other quasi-judicial agencies

46% question of fact only

68% civilReal property, collect sum of money,

damages, certiorari Individual vs individual

32% criminalHomicide, estafa Individual vs People of the Philippines

Court of Tax Appeals

From BIR

Corporations vs government

Sandiganbayan

Public prosecutors

Individual defendants

86% on bail

RTCs

59% civil Marriage and marital relations, adoption (Family

Courts), collect sum of money Individuals vs individuals

41% criminal Heinous Crimes: homicide, rape Dangerous Drugs: drugs Family Courts: theft Ordinary RTCs: various Prosecution by public prosecutor

MeTCs

8% civil Collect sum of money, damages, forcible entry

and unlawful detainer 62% plaintiffs = corporations 92% respondents = individuals

89% criminal Bouncing checks (BP22), breach city ordinance,

theft, variety of other criminal matters Prosecution by public prosecutor

MTCCs

10% civilCollect sum of money, forcible entry63% Ps and 98% Rs = individuals

86% criminalGambling, theft, firearms/weapons +

variety of other criminal mattersFew bouncing checksProsecution by public prosecutor

MTCs

11% civil Collect sum of money Ps = individual/corporations Rs = individuals

86% criminal Bouncing checks, physical injuries, theft + variety

of other criminal matters Prosecution mostly by public prosecutor, 22% by

police/peace officer

MCTCs

14% civil Collect sum of money Ps = individuals/corporations Rs = individuals

77% criminal Physical injuries, gambling, theft + variety of other

criminal matters Not bouncing checks 53% of prosecutions by police/peace officer

(shorter duration)

Case Durations

Sandiganbayan had longest cases

Superior court cases also lengthy

Then some first level courts

Most medians and all 90th percentiles far exceed international benchmarks

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Median Duration (years) 90th Percentile (years)

Court Median Duration (years) 90th Percentile (years)Supreme - decided 3.2 7.7Supreme - resolved 0.5 1.4CA 2.6 7.4CTA 2.6 4.5Sandiganbayan 6.6 9.2RTC civil 1.1 3.6RTC criminal 0.75 3.3MetC civil 0.66 2.6MetC criminal 1 5.5MTCC civil 1.3 4.6MTCC criminal 0.4 2.3MTC civil 0.67 2.6MTC criminal 1.1 3.5MCTC civil 0.95 6.5MCTC criminal 0.5 4

Longest Phase of Case

Criminal cases – trials

Civil cases – filing to pre-trial

Longest phase in criminal cases longer than longest phase in civil cases

Court Longest Phase Median DurationCTA Hearing 1.4 yearsSandiganbayan Trial 2.4 yearsRTC civil Filing to Pre-trial 3.5 monthsRTC criminal Trial 8.5 monthsMeTC civil Up to trial 3.5 months

(no data on trial times)MeTC criminal Filing to Arraignment 3 months

(no data on trial times)MTCC civil Up to trial 4.5 months

(no data on trial times, but only 11 trials)MTCC criminal Trial 1 yearMTC civil Filing to Pre-trial 7 monthsMTC criminal Trial 4 monthsMCTC civil Filing to Pre-trial 3.7 monthsMCTC criminal Trial 13.6 months

Court Median Decision Time Constitutional limit Over LimitSupreme Court 4.5 months 24 months 12%Court of Appeal 22.8 months 24 months 47%CTA 6 monthsSandiganbayan 8 monthsRTC civil 2 months 3 months 28%RTC criminal 42 days 3 months 24%MeTC civil 40 days 3 months 25%MeTC criminal 78 days (n=15) 3 months 33% n=5MTCC civil 15 days 3 months 8%MTCC criminal 31 days (n=10) 3 months 10% n=1MTC civil 54 days (n=17) 3 months 29% n=5MTC criminal 28 days (n=13) 3 months 38% n=5MCTC civil 25 days 3 months 20%MCTC criminal 58 days (n=16) 3 months 25% n=4

Hearing Dates and Postponements

Average no. of hearing dates < 5 in most courts23%-51% of scheduled hearing dates postponedLow trial rates in first level courts outside NCRRelationship between trial rate, no. hearing dates and case duration?

Court Trial rate Mean no. Mean no. Proportion Medianhearing dates postponements postponed duration

CTA 100% 12.37 3.65 29% 2.6 yearsSandiganbayan 100% 21 5 24% 6.6 yearsRTC civil 67% 6.29 2.13 34% 13 monthsRTC criminal 42% 10.16 4.48 44% 9 monthsMeTC civil 51% 2.98 0.68 23% 8 monthsMeTC criminal 61% 6.34 2.26 36% 12 monthsMTCC civil 10% 4.37 2.01 46% 15.3 monthsMTCC criminal 11% 3.44 1.21 35% 4.5 monthsMTC civil 12% 2.19 1.01 46% 8 monthsMTC criminal 10% 4.44 2.25 51% 13 monthsMCTC civil 35% 4.72 1.78 38% 11.5 monthsMCTC criminal 14% 4.97 2.34 47% 6 months

Postponements

Shortage of prosecutorsnon-appearance of prosecution major

reason for postponements inRTCAll first level courts (in MTC and MCTC

includes police/peace officers)

Shortage of public attorneys

non-appearance of public attorney a major reason for postponements only inCTAMCTC criminal cases

Shortage of lawyers

non-appearance of counsel a major reason for postponements inCTASandiganbayan, RTC, MCTC criminal

cases (includes counsel de oficio)MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC civil cases

Lawyers appearing unprepared

Counsel unable to proceed a major reason for postponements only inCTASandiganbayan

Witnesses don’t appear

Non-appearance of witnesses a major cause of postponements in CTASandiganbayanRTC criminal cases

Private complainants unwilling to proceed

non-appearance of private complainant a major reason for postponements only inMeTC criminal cases

+ Almost never a reason for archiving

Suggested reasons for delay that did not cause many postponements

Non-service of warrants

Notice to appear not received in time

Unavailability of police witnesses

Shortage of forensic/medical experts

Additional causes of postponements

Unavailability of judgeRTC, MCTC, MeTC criminal cases

Non-appearance of partySandiganbayan, MeTC, MCTC, RTC civil

cases

Other causes of delay

BP22 cases30% of MeTC criminal cases, 14% of MTC criminal cases, otherwise not prominentWhere testable, BP22 cases involved more cases per file, larger amounts in issue, more arrest warrants, more hearing dates, more postponements, and more motions than other criminal cases, and were more likely to involve a pre-trial hearing, a trial, and to be withdrawn

Jurisdictional distribution in RTCs

Cases in Heinous Crime Courts took longest to finalise

Civil cases in ordinary RTCs and Dangerous Drug courts also lengthy

33% defendants in Family Court criminal cases were juveniles

Outcomes – Civil Cases

No settlement in highest courts

Settlement rate highest (32-40%) in first level courts outside NCR

Plaintiffs successful in approx 75% of decided cases in almost all courts

Court Settled Decided For P/Appellant For R/Appellee DismissedSupreme Court 0% 100% 11% 89% 0%Court of Appeals 0% 99% 78% 16% 0%CTA 0% 100% 73% 16% 0%RTC 12% 82% 73% 12% 11%MeTC 21% 71% 72% 19% 9%MTCC 36% 57% 77% 16% 7%MTC 40% 55% 87% 4% 9%MCTC 32% 65% 74% 24% 0%

Outcomes – Criminal Cases

Highest rate of guilty pleas = 40% in RTCs and MTCCs; only 1% guilty pleas in Sandiganbayan

Very few conviction decisions in first level courts: 3-16%

Highest overall conviction rate (including guilty pleas) = 56% in RTCs; lowest = 9% in MTCs; Sandiganbayan = 22%

Court Guilty Plea Withdrawn Decided Convicted/ Acquitted/ Dismissed Overall OverallAppeal Appeal Conviction FruitlessDismissed Upheld Rate Prosecutions

Supreme Court 100% 50% 50%Court of Appeals 100% 14% 86%Sandiganbayan 1% 99% 21% 77% 1% 22%RTC 39% 14% 46% 37% 31% 32% 56% 29%MeTC 13% 33% 54% 4% 12% 84% 15% 78%MTCC 40% 36% 24% 16% 10% 74% 44% 54%MTC 8% 46% 36% 3% 22% 75% 9% 73%MCTC 31% 40% 29% 16% 18% 64% 36% 59%

1/3 or more cases in first level courts withdrawn64-84% of decided cases in first level courts dismissedTotal rate of fruitless prosecutions in first level courts = 54-78%Not accounted for by preliminary investigations