INTRODUCTION

The phraseology “Justice delayed is Justice denied” is quoted often by lawyers and legal
writers to demand speedy disposition of criminal and civil cases. The Philippine Constitution
embodied this principle in the Bill of Rights Article III Sec 16 which states that “All persons
shall have the right to speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.” Despite the constitutional mandate of speedy trial, judicial delay still
manifests amongst court affecting the judicial processes and justice system of the Philippines.
Congestion of court has always been the major problem faced by the Philippine Judicial Body.

The Philippine Courts have been suffering from long standing problems of clogged court,
slow processing of cases and consequent lack of public’s confidence in the judicial system to
resolve legal disputes in a timely and cost effective fashion1. According to Justice Antonio
Carpio, clogged dockets “impair social justice, hinder economic development and erode public
confidence in the Judicial system and ultimately in the entire government.”2

There are four general causes of case congestion. The first is delay in the adjudication
process, which in turn is due to (a) protracted or piecemeal trials, (b) dilatory tactics of lawyers,
(c) lack of coordination between investigators and prosecutors in criminal cases (which
constitute the bulk of the congestion), and (d) inefficient case buildup.

The second cause is the lack of an efficient case management system compounded by
insufficient management training for judges. This specific cause is being addressed separately by
the “eCourt” program.

The third is the uneven distribution of caseloads. Some trial courts have the ideal load of
300 cases only, but most of them are burdened with thousands. The courts in the National Capital
Region are notorious for their congestion. Extreme examples are the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) Branch 80 in Muntinlupa and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 19 in Cavite
which each have over 3,500 cases. This number is simply impossible to handle.

The fourth is the lack of accountability—that is, the lack of an effective monitoring
system coupled with the lack of incentives for judges to reduce their caseloads. 3 The study
“Judicial Performance in Case Deliberations: The Cases of Two Lower Level Trial Courts in
Quezon City and Pasay City” by Mark Aludino elucidates the determinations regarding
Philippine cultural or societal aspects and judicial speed: “Court culture is a vital factor in

1
Rosemary Hunter, Reconsidering ‘Globalisation’ : Judicial reform in the Philippines, Law text Culture, Vol. 6 Issue
no. 1 Legal Intersections, Article 5, (January 1, 2002)
http//:ro.uow.edu.au/cgu/viewcontent/cgi?article=1084&context=ltc
2
Antonio Carpio, Judicial Reform in the Philippines, Malaya Business Insight, (July 2, 2012 2:00 pm)
http://www.malaya.com.ph.index/php/nation/7537-judicial-reform-in-the-philippines
3
Artemio T. Panganiban, Hustisyeah to decongest the Judiciary, Philippine Inquirer.net, ( May 31, 2013)
https://opinion.inquirer.net/57591/hustisyeah-to-decongest-the-
judiciary/amp?fbclid=IwAR0U9JX3gglFs_HiKA8UnRhRyH7CpHDd5rEzZTZ86iNWbMW5V0FG5OpcbLs
influencing the pace of litigation and the efficiency of the courtroom staff. In terms of courtroom
leadership, the judge maintains the most pivotal role and in the attempt to speed up proceedings,
the judge controls a major part of it, with how they deal with the trial flow, requests from parties,
and the conduct of their staff.”

The trick, however, is that the “judge’s envisioned management style has to be in-sync
and supported by the branch clerk, especially since they are considered as the ‘court managers.’”
But this can only be possible if the “judge is able to appoint his or her own staff members”, for
which they are currently disallowed from doing.

The Study also points out, is “the litigants’ behavior”, is “widely considered as the
biggest determinant of court delay. This is also perhaps the most challenging to control”.

Admittedly, litigants’ behavior may be constrained by economic circumstances but then

outright dilatory tactics (e.g., absenteeism, lack of preparedness, rescheduling — particularly
with regard to the conduct of cross-examinations, and abuse of the registered mail system)
clearly need proscription.

It is because of such, more than any other factor,that “delays become common in courts
and the impact has been extremely detrimental to whatever efforts the court puts in place, as well
as negatively impacting the efforts of the judge and other court actors to hasten litigation.”

Clearly, unlike in the past administration, where the words “rule of law” was employed
merely as a political trope, people are now recognizing that the rule of law’s proper application
has real world beneficial implications.

At the very least, the above-cited studies show that Filipinos must learn to distinguish
between being merely legalistic and actually respecting the rule of law.4

4
Jeremy Gatdula, Judicial delays, cost and causes, Business World, (July 18, 2018) 9:41 pm
https://www.bworldonline.com/judicial-delays-cost-and-causes/?fbclid=IwAR3HpSL6p85AAIzsvorotu70Aa-
lAjZRL2qVZTQpssLzMPezXXwU_hrU5ng