HISTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Conflict is inherent in human society so much so that much effort has been expended in
devising ways of resolving it. With the progress of civilization, physical fighting has been
ruled out and instead, more pacific means have been evolved.

History dating back to the Golden Age of Rome reveals that the early judges called upon
to solve private conflicts were primarily the arbiters, persons not specially trained but in
whose morality, probity and good sense the parties in conflict reposed full trust. Thus, in
Republican Rome, arbiter and judge (judex) were synonymous. The magistrate or
praetor, after noting down the conflicting claims of litigants, and clarifying the issues,
referred them for decision to a private person designated by the parties, by common
agreement, or selected by them from an apposite listing (the album judicium) or else by
having the arbiter chosen by lot.

In the Philippines, alternative dispute resolutions have come about to address the
perennial problem of court delays.

As far back as in 1967, a survey disclosed the problem of judicial delay in the Philippines
as due to such factors as the misuse of the due process and the abuse of legal
technicalities; the intervention of political pressure in court cases; the sheer weight of
court litigations arising from development and growth; the dilatory tactics of lawyers; and
neglect and laxity on the part of judges.

We add to the list the matter of court vacancies which Associate Justice Artemio
Panganiban of the Supreme Court acknowledged in a speech delivered during the 2005
anniversary celebration of Bantay Katarungan to be the major cause of court delay. There
are no less than 739 vacancies out of 2,153 judicial positions in the Philippines. This
means that more than one third of the judicial courts are vacant, or a vacancy rate of
34.3%.

To remedy the sad state of long-drawn-out court litigations, the 1987 Constitution
mandates the Supreme Court to promulgate rules that shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. Pursuant to the constitutional
provision, the Supreme Court issued S.C. Circulars, Memoranda and Administrative
Orders of 2001 making mediation as mandatory in certain types of civil cases. The 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure requires the courts to consider the possibility of an amicable
settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of resolution.

On 19 July 1953, the Philippine Congress enacted RA 876 otherwise known as the
Arbitration Law which authorized the making of arbitration and submission agreements
and provided for the appointment of arbitrators and the procedure for the arbitration in
civil controversies.

On 2 April 2004, Congress enacted RA 9285 or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act
(ADR Law) of 2004 which declares that it is a policy of the State to encourage and actively
promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution systems as an important means to
achieve speedy and impartial justice and declog court dockets.