ECIJA, NORMAN JOYE A

Reaction Paper
JDR As An Innovative Mode of Dispute Resolution

This article talks about Judicial Dispute Resolution. The three-year JDR experiment
has resulted very positively. Although certain modifications should still be made, the idea of
judge-facilitated settlement appears to have been accepted by all sectors despite initial
apprehensions. Judicial Dispute Resolution emphasizes value creation, joint problem solving,
option generation and improvement of parties’ relationships. The article also shows the
current status of JDR including program observations and recommendations. In the
Philippines, JDR is yet to flourish as an alternative dispute resolution. Through training,
monitoring, program support and management, the mediators and judges will be able to fully
control and grasp the techniques and methods for an effective JDR.

A research was made to evaluate the current state of JDR program. JDR is proven
effective in first level courts but not so much in second level courts. I believe that the solution
for this problem is that judges who handles JDR should be more capable and more
competent. This may be achieved through training and more exposure to seminars and bench
marking of rules from other nations practicing the same. The research found that there’s a
limited amount of judicial resources for training of judges. Here lies the problem. JDR has
already been institutionalized but it lacks financial support to implement its program
effectively. Since judges assume a very important role in JDR, they must be given intensive
training and seminars. Aside from the recommendation that they should create a specialized
JDR court which will allow the use financial resources for training, the government should also
allot some funds, to support all alternative dispute resolutions institutionalized by the court.

One of the recommendations is the possibility of expanding the coverage of JDR.

Before implementing it, I strongly suggest that there must be an intensive study of the
expansion before it may be implemented. Currently, JDR still needs many more modifications.
There are many more aspects that needs to be changed and needs to be improved. Before
expanding its coverage, the current issues should first be resolved before adding other things.
The suggestion merits some study because expansion of coverage will likely increase JDR
case disposals, but attention must be devoted to determining what type of cases will the
public be better served by allowing submission to JDR.

The research shows that the stakeholders which are the judges, lawyers and litigants,
are very satisfied with the implementation of JDR. Although, in some pilot areas like Baguio,
litigants expressed their dissatisfaction because of their mistrust with the courts, unfavorable
decisions and rights based expectations. This proves that JDR is affected by the officers of
the court. One of the major contributors of success or failure of the JDR is the court officers
such as judges or other officers authorized for mediation. As a suggestion, JDR judges should
be those who are of probity and candor. The qualifications of a JDR judge should focus on the
character of the judge and not just on his competence.

As a conclusion, the progress of JDR to the next level will depend upon the
stakeholder’s participation and on how they may be able create solution every time problems
arise from the exercise of JDR. Whether these achievements can be sustained and reinforced
as the program moves on to its next phase is the challenge that confronts all those involved.