JUDICIAL DELAYS

I. 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

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
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 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.

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
 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

II. DISCUSSION

III. PROBLEM AREAS

IV. PROPOSAL TO THE PROBLEM

V. CONCLUSION
It is clear from the discussion that the most effective way of solving the pervasive
problems of judicial delay is through instituting reforms under the Rules of Court. Even Supreme
Court Circulars have not been as effective as the Rules of Court. Procedural reforms through

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
statutes such as the Arbitration Law and the Katarungang Pambarangay Law have not been very
effective.

The approach to solve the problem of delay is multi-faceted. It needs the participation of
all stakeholders in the system. The judiciary cannot do it alone,certainly. Everyone in the justice
system has to do their part. For what is the use of all these rules if at the end, no one is willing to
follow them. For them to function as efficiently as intended, competent professional personnel
like able researchers, writers shall be hired to complement them. In addition, modern and reliable
equipment have to be acquired. At the end of the day, everyone benefits from a more efficient
system. The hope still remains that the saying “justice delayed is justice denied”will be but an
anachronistic nightmare.