1.

According to Article VIII Section 1 of 1987 Philippine Constitution it states that, The judicial
power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law. Their power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government. They are tasked to provide speedy trial and
disposition of judgments as stated in the Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. However, despite these provisions in the
Constitution, judicial department experiences hard time solving the problems regarding the
speedy disposition of the cases which was discussed in the recent opinion column by Neil H.
Cruz published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
The column cited two cases namely: the Maguindanao massacre and the Ozone Disco Club fire
which were the main points of his criticism towards the very slow judicial system. He said that
these cases were only samples or proof why the Philippines now is the slowest in judicial system.
For me, I partially agree with his views in our judicial system because I believe that not all
judges or courts have the same thinking in the disposition of the cases. The negative points that
need improvements are:
The way courts handle their cases which should be in consonant with the provisions of
the law and the Constitution;
Clogged court dockets;
Number of judges;
Conduct of judges:
Manner of granting motion of postponements;
Period of working hours of the judges; and
Corruption in the judicial system.
These enumerated circumstances generally results to the delay in the disposition of cases. The
case of Caballero vs. Alfonso, Jr., laid down the guidelines in determining the applicability of the
speedy disposition formula:
xxx
. . . Speedy disposition of cases is a relative term. Just like the constitutional guarantee
of speedy trial accorded an accused in all criminal proceedings, speedy disposition of
cases is a flexible concept. It is consistent with delays and depends upon the
circumstances. What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive
delays which render rights nugatory.
xxx
As held in Gonzales vs. Sandiganbayan:
xxx
. . . The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed
violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delays; or when unjustified postponements of trial are asked for and secured, or when
without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the
party having his case tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine
whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of
a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are
weighed, and such factors as length of the delay, reason for the delay, reason for the
delay, the defendants assertion or non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the
defendant resulting from the delay, are considered.
xxx
In addition, Section 1 (h), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Procedure states that:

xxx
one of the rights of an accused is to have a speedy, impartial and public trial.
xxx
Due to this problem in the disposition of cases, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is
overhauling the notoriously slow judicial system to speed up the resolution of cases from years
to mere days. To achieve this, Sereno said she would hire more trial court judges, hasten legal
procedures and press authorities to enforce court rulings to clear a backlog that burdens judges
with as many as 4,000 cases at a time. We want people to experience justice in real time, justice
on time, said Sereno, the countrys first female chief justice and youngest to be named to the
post as reported by Manila Bulletin last October 18, 2014. Although the Chief Justice already
have plans to improve the judicial system in the Philippines, these were still not evident in the
judicial department because are still lots of circumstances which leads to the delay in the
disposition of cases. One of this is the conduct of the judges, as in the case of Office of the Court
Administrator v. Hon. Santiago E. Soriano, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1683, September 11, 2013, where
Judge Soriano failed to decide thirty-six (36) cases submitted for decision in MTC and MTCC,
which were all due for decision at the time he compulsorily retired. The Supreme Court held that
Judge Soriano has been remiss in the performance of his judicial duties. Judge Sorianos
unreasonable delay in deciding cases and resolving incidents and motions, and his failure to
decide the remaining cases before his compulsory retirement constitutes gross inefficiency which
cannot be tolerated. Inexcusable failure to decide cases within the reglementary period
constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the imposition of an administrative sanction on the
defaulting judge. Judge Sorianos inefficiency in managing his caseload was compounded by
gross negligence as evinced by the loss of the records of at least four (4) cases which could no
longer be located or reconstituted despite diligent efforts by his successor. Judge Soriano was
responsible for managing his court efficiently to ensure the prompt delivery of court services,
especially the speedy disposition of cases. Thus, Judge Soriano was found guilty of gross
inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law, and fined P40,000 to be taken from the amount
withheld from his retirement benefits.
Thus, the Judicial Department need not only increase the number judges to improve the
disposition of cases in the country as planned by the Chief Justice Sereno but needs a lot of
changes in the judicial system including the manner, conduct and also corruption of judges. If
these problems in the judicial system be given prompt solutions by the government, I believe that
the judicial system in the country will greatly improve towards its goal which is to provide
justice to everyone in need without any delays.