Background and Theoretical Framework of the Study

Justice delayed is justice denied! It is not only in the Philippines where it is vastly used, but
also in other states that demand the speedy disposition of cases.
Indeed, Section 16, Art. III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which is the supreme law of the
land, gives importance to the rights of the people to a speedy disposition of cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
It is also in the Constitution, Sec. 14 (2), Art. III that guarantees a speedy, impartial, and public
trial in favor of the accused in criminal cases.
And in order to carry out the principles of the Constitution, the Congress with the approval of the
President of Philippines created the Republic Act No.8493 or the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 in
order to ensure a speedy trial of all criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court.
Furthermore, the Republic Act No.10389 or the Recognizance Law of 2012 was created for the
purpose of securing the release of any person in custody or detention for the commission of an
offense who is unable to post bail due to abject poverty. Recognizance then allows the accused to
secure temporary liberty, thereby limiting the effects of delay in his case and to his liberty.
A review of different criminal justice systems in the world would reveal that all systems have
their different misgivings and errors. This is recognition that no justice system is error-free. In
the Philippines, despite the constitutional mandate and statutory limits, individuals still
experience delays in the hearing and disposition of their cases. The morbid effects of delay are
very evident in criminal cases.
In criminal cases, every moment a case is postponed whether for a legitimate reason or not,
means that an accused will be detained a moment more in crowded holding jails. In order to
strengthen the constitutional mandate, both Congress and the Supreme Court have instituted
certain mechanisms in order to give life to the rights of the accused.
And that is why in the AM No. 12-8-8-SC or the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) which took effect
on January 1, 2013, it emphasizes in the whereas clause the case congestion and delays plague

most courts in cities, the 40% of criminal cases that are dismissed annually owing to the fact that
complainants simply give up coming to court after repeated postponements, a few foreign
businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines because its courts are unable to
provide ample and speedy protection to their investments, keeping its people poor.
This is made in order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in
cases under litigation that quickly resulted in reducing by about two-thirds the time used for
presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing and adjudication of cases.
These laws and principles are made to ensure that the accused is granted the right to a speedy
trial and to a speedy disposition of the case against him. Each and every law is designed with the
main goal of preventing the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended
over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of justice by
mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases.
Table 1 presents the variable and indicator of the study.
Table 1. Variable and Indicator
Variable
Percentage of criminal cases
Speedy Disposition

Indicator
achieving Speedy Disposition of Criminal cases in
compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule

Percentage of criminal cases failing to Delayed Criminal cases due to nonachieve the Speedy Disposition within the compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule
reglementary period or otherwise provide.
Statement of the Problem
This study aimed to determine the Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in the Speedy
Disposition of Cases.
Specifically, this study aimed to:
1. To ascertain the Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in the Speedy Disposition of
Cases
2. Preventing Delays in the Administration of Justice by Utilizing the Judicial Affidavit
Rule

3. To Determine the Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in Compliance with the

Rules on Evidence
4. Identify Whether an Alteration or Improvement is Necessary to Make the Judicial
Affidavit Rule Effective
5. The Pros and Cons of Judicial Affidavit in the Speedy Disposition of Cases
Significance of the Study
The results of the study may be beneficial to the following:
The Judiciary. This study may be beneficial to the Judiciary for them to be aware of the
Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule to avoid case congestion which will lessen the huge
volumes of cases that they handle each year.
The Legislative. This study may be beneficial to the Legislative for them to determine the
Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in Compliance with the Rules on Evidence and to know,
as a Rule Making Body, Whether an Alteration or Improvement is Necessary to Make the
Judicial Affidavit Rule More Effective in the Speedy Disposition of Cases.
The Complainants. This study may be beneficial to the Complainants for them to be aware of
the Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in the Speedy Disposition of Cases to foster them
obtain justice by not dismissing the case due to repeated postponements.
The Witnesses. This study may be beneficial to the Witnesses for them to be aware of the
Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in the Speedy Disposition of Cases and to ensure
reduced time needed for completing their testimonies as witnesses in cases under litigation.
The Accused. This study may be beneficial to the Accused for them to be aware of the
Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in the Speedy Disposition of Cases and to ensure that

their rights of a speedy, impartial, and public trial in favor of the accused under the 1987
Constitution are guaranteed.
The Philippine Government. This study may be beneficial to the Philippine Government for it
to be aware of the Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in the Speedy Disposition of Cases
and to promote more investors not just locally, but also internationally.
Foreign Businessmen. This study may be beneficial to Foreign Businessmen to be aware of the
Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in the Speedy Disposition of Cases and for them to make
long term investments in the Philippines, since the country already provides ample and speedy
protection to their investments, creating more employment for the Filipino people.
Lastly, this study may also be advantageous to the future researchers as a basis for future
studies related to the Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in the Speedy Disposition of Cases:
Implication to Rules on Evidence.

Definition of Terms
For the purpose of clarity and understanding, the following terms were defined
conceptually and operationally:
Effectiveness
According to The Law Dictionary, it is the closeness of actual results achieved to meeting
expectations.
In this study, it refers to the Effectiveness of Judicial Affidavit Rule in the Speedy
Disposition of Cases: Implication to Rules on Evidence

Judicial Affidavit Rule

According to UberDigests, the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
promulgated on September 4, 2012 and made effective on January 1, 2013, is a procedural
innovation which has the ultimate goal of decongesting court dockets by replacing the direct
testimony of parties and witnesses in court with sworn affidavits submitted to the court and
furnished to the opposing party not later than 5 days before the pre-trial, preliminary conference,
or the scheduled hearing with respect to motions and incidents.
In this study, the same definition is applied.
Speedy Disposition of Cases
According to Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, all persons shall have the
right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies.
In this study, the same definition is applied.
Rules on Evidence
According to the free dictionary, it is a rule of law whereby any alleged matter of fact that
is submitted for investigation at a judicial trial is established or disproved.
In this study, it is found in the Rules 128 to Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court of the
Philippines.

5. From the View point of the Supreme Court, it is derived that:

The earliest rulings of the Court on speedy trial were rendered in Conde v. Judge of First
Instance, Conde v. Rivera, et al., and People v. Castaneda. These cases held that accused persons
are guaranteed a speedy trial by the Bill of Rights and that such right is denied when an accused
person, through the vacillation and procrastination of prosecuting officers, is forced to wait many
months for trial.
Specifically in Castaneda, the Court called on courts to be the last to set an example of delay and
oppression in the administration of justice and it is the moral and legal obligation of the courts to
see to it that the criminal proceedings against the accused come to an end and that they be
immediately discharged from the custody of the law.
In Angcangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, the Court found the delay of six years by the Ombudsman in
resolving the criminal complaints to be violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to a
speedy disposition of cases.
Similarly, in Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court ruled that the delay of almost six
years disregarded the Ombudsmans duty to act promptly on complaints before him.

In Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan, it was held that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion
in not quashing the Information filed six years after the initiatory complaint, thereby depriving
petitioner of his right to a speedy disposition of the case.
6. However, from the point of view of judges, it can be noted that:
The Prosecutors League of the Philippines said that, The prosecutors in the regional, provincial
and city prosecution offices have limited time to prepare judicial affidavits because they are
already saddled with heavy workloads, such as trial, including criminal and special proceedings
cases; preliminary investigation, inquest proceedings and summary investigation (direct filing)
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said while she lauds the high court's intention to speed up trials,
she admitted that prosecutors were caught off guard I very much recognize the wisdom behind
the rule and I know the underlying reason or the objective of the Supreme Court there is to really
expedite proceedings in court particularly in criminal proceedings and we appreciate it," De
Lima said.