Speech
of
His Excellency Fidel V. Ramos
President of the Philippines
Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Fourth National Convention of Lawyers

[Delivered at the Manila Hotel, June 14, 1993]

Protecting the integrity
of judicial power

OVER THE past several weeks, the judiciary—from the municipal trial courts all the way up to the highest tribunal—has been the center of a controversy concerning the incidence of corruption in our courts.

This criticism has been severe and has caused much concern and even outrage among our judges and justices and the public at large, including the lawyers working with and within the judicial system.

Despite the frequency and seriousness of these charges, I have no doubt that the vast majority of the members of our judiciary are honest, hard-working and dedicated public servants.

Separation of powers

Indeed, if we must apply the presumption of innocence to the lowliest criminal suspect, then our judges—the very embodiment of our ideals—cannot be less deserving of the protection coming from that hallowed principle. And so we cannot permit the further erosion of public faith in our judiciary.

Thus I have grounded my position on what the ordinary citizens understand to be one of the basic virtues of our Constitution—the separation of powers between and among our three branches of government. Without that separation—and without the mutuality of respect implicit in the arrangement—we risk a fatal reversion to what we fought against at EDSA seven years ago, in February 1986. And that is the perilous wisdom and the capricious justice of dictatorship.

Under the 1987 Constitution, reform in the administration of justice is the primary concern of the Supreme Court, which has supervision and control over local courts.

And so our executives and politicians cannot—and should not—presume to exercise the privilege and the responsibility of the judiciary to cleanse its own ranks of the corrupt and the inefficient.

This is not to put our judges beyond the pale of the law. Given the exaltedness and exemplarity of that position, erring judges deserve full and exemplary punishment for their misdeeds. But this must be a judgment of, and by, one’s own peers, thus making it all the more credible and final.

Beyond personal ethics

I believe an ombudsman or an ombudsman type of collegial body for the Supreme Court can ably represent—and have the moral authority of—the judicial peerage I spoke of. Such an ombudsman must be aware that he or it (if it is a body) will bear the burden of public faith in the Constitution and in government. He or it will be the last recourse of the oppressed, the final guarantor of fairness in our judicial system. His or its conscience must be the country’s conscience: his or its only true friends and masters, the people themselves.

Let me be emphatic about this: Those who do evil in the temples of public faith—be they executives, generals, justices, judges, politicians, policemen or tax collectors—deserve nothing less than our severest punishment. For they make not only a mockery of our laws but also a terrible waste of the blood of our heroes, and cynics of our youth, our leaders of the future.

The problem of corruption in the halls of justice goes beyond personal ethics. It implicates our entire society and the things we value as a people.

We expect the best and the brightest of our legal minds to serve nobly on the bench, and to forgo the more lucrative and glamorous options for the rigors and privations of public service. We give them no special treatment, brook them no special favors but for the ceremonial honor of their high positions.

In a sense, we, the citizens, are all culpable for their failings. I took note, for example, of a recent remark of one of your colleagues in the Foundation for Judicial Excellence, who said, “Behind every corrupt judge is a corrupt practicing lawyer.” It was a she. And I guess she has the courage to do it because she is a she. She merely put, in relevant context, what we have long known: that corruption is a two-way street.

Reforming the judiciary

Poverty is no excuse for crime; and penury, for a civil servant, can never be an excuse for corruption. We, the people, do have a right to expect men and women of the law to be larger and taller in our esteem—and to be nobler and purer in their conduct—than most of us.

In 1988 Government issued Administrative Order 75, which created a task force to improve the administration of justice. This task force focused on five areas of concern—procedural processes, democratizing access to justice, human resources development, alternatives to litigation, and other areas of reform.

Even earlier, in 1980, Batas Pambansa 129 was passed to allow for the reorganization of our courts and to make them more efficient.

And at any given time, in legal journals, in your own publications, professional meetings, and in our law schools, judicial reform is being discussed in its many aspects. Thus there is no dearth of insights, perspectives and reform programs in this regard.

What seems to me crucial at this point is to consider the problem of delays in case disposition, which, beyond being merely embarrassing and intolerable, denies our people one of their most basic necessities.

The judiciary’s problems are ultimately reducible to this one factor—the overly clogged dockets of our courts. Several measures have been adopted through the years to ease the backlog, without any great success. The problem with those measures lies not in the soundness and merit of the mechanisms, but in their improper and ineffective implementation.

Clearing the backlog

The clogging of the courts’ dockets naturally causes delays in the resolution of cases. Litigants complain every day of delays in the adjudication of their claims, and this has resulted in dissatisfaction among a great number of our people. These disgruntled litigants are in turn forced to resort to extrajudicial means to obtain the speedy disposition of their cases. It is here that graft and corruption become rampant.

And it is doubtful whether the courts will ever catch up. Statistics show that as of today, in the regional trial courts alone, there are over 360,000 undecided cases. While cases are being resolved at the rate of 20,000 a month, new cases are also being riled at the monthly rate of 32,000.

And even in the wake of Batas Pambansa 129, it was found that 35 percent of all complaints against judges had to do with delays in case disposition. And so instead of blaming our judges for the backlog—which they are already, legally, obliged to act upon within specified deadlines—we would do better to find practical ways of helping them along.

I am aware, for example, of the numerous vacancies in the branches of our courts all over the country. As a first step, these vacancies should be immediately filled with qualified persons. I hope some of you who are practicing lawyers will apply, because I have acted expeditiously on all recommendations of the Judicial and Bar Council brought to my attention.

I am also told that the reorganization and organization of the courts, which were carried out with the passage of Batas Pambansa 129, have not been completed to this day. Indeed, courts specified in that Act still have to be created and organized. This delay exacerbates the shortage of courts to hear and resolve new cases being filed every day.

It is said that while Metro Manila judges invariably have backlogs of cases, some judges in the provinces have considerably lighter case loads. In this situation we can certainly avail ourselves of the constitutional power of the Supreme Court to assign lower-court judges temporarily to other stations or regions, where they can help reduce the backlog of their fellow judges.

The Constitution also requires that the consent of the judge must first be obtained if the transfer shall exceed six months. I have received word from members of the National Judges Association that many among them are willing to give their consent to such temporary assignments.

Deputizing committees of three

The Supreme Court has the Judicial Planning and Development Implementation Office, and this body, composed of retired members of the judiciary, sees to it that undecided cases in vacant salas and the “inherited cases” from branches are attended to by judges whose case loads are relatively light.

In addition, you might consider, for example, the possibility of deputizing groups of senior law practitioners—in committees of three from this body—to help regional trial court judges with crowded dockets to clear their backlogs.

Here’s how it will work: The senior practitioners take leave from their offices for three months to start with. They then take over cases ready for decision—cases where hearings have already been completed—read all the pertinent papers and then draft, not write, the decisions.

Critics may denounce this proposal as a violation of the rule that judges should write their decisions. I am not proposing, however, the writing of the decisions by these committees. That will be done by the judges, by the presiding judge of the branch where the case is assigned. If he finds it satisfactory, he can sign it as his own. If he finds the decision and the reasoning to be inconsistent with his conviction, then he rejects it.

In this event, the committee’s draft decision, with the summary of the facts and records of the case, serves as a recommendatory report to the judge on how the case should be resolved. In this respect, the committee’s function is similar to that of a court researcher who summarizes facts of cases and drafts decisions for the court’s approval.

With this proposed scheme, it is hoped that the backlog of cases in our courts will be substantially reduced.

If the Integrated Bar of the Philippines accepts this idea, it could raise between 250 and 500 three-man or three-woman or three mixed committees. Working over three months, each committee should be able to write 60 decisions—which could declog the dockets by 15,000 to 30,000 cases over the emergency or “emergency period” of the legal profession.

If the idea succeeds, there is no reason it cannot be continued—until the backlog of cases becomes more manageable.

I therefore call upon you, the members of the bar, to ponder this proposal; if it is meritorious, support it and endorse its implementation by the Supreme Court.

Providing the protection of the law

The important thing is that in all of these measures and proposals to improve the delivery of justice to our people, you—the members of the Integrated Bar—must be actively involved.

Within and without the confines of the courts, our people rely on you for legal protection. In a stratified society such as ours, you lend substance to this noblest of democratic ideals—which is the protection of the unprotected.

As Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos once said. “The power of the judiciary rests upon the faith of the people and the integrity of the courts. Take this faith away and the moral influence of the courts is gone and popular respect impaired.”

Indeed, if we cannot protect the integrity of the courts, how can we expect to protect our citizens against injustice?

This will be something for you to deliberate upon in your sessions, and something for you to help achieve after this convention.

It is a tremendous responsibility. And I offer you my congratulations and support for your initiatives, and I wish you the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job and the grace of God.