On the Regularization of Family Courts and providing Appropriation for the same: An Executive Summary

The true measure of a good and well-balanced society can be seen in the way the justice system is carried out. When the judicial system fails because its integrity and efficiency is called into question, the people are left without any recourse but to take the law into their own hands.

Brief History and Overview : In 1925, the first comprehensive court for children and families was set up in the Philippines that became the forerunner of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts (JDRCs) under the Child and Youth Welfare Act. With the passage of BP 129 (otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) as well as the enactment of the Family Code in 1988, there was a need to modify the existing structure of the courts to address cases involving children and families. On October 28 1997, the President of the Republic signed into law an Act that establishes Family Courts in the Philippines. Republic Act 8369, otherwise known as the Family Courts Act seeks to create in every province and city in the Country a specialized court that shall have the exclusive authority to hear and decide cases involving child and family cases. Its goal is in keeping with the State Policy of protecting the rights and promoting the welfare of children in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution and the precepts of international instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory. It likewise is in keeping with the state policy of protecting and strengthening the family as a basic autonomous institution. The law enumerates the various types of cases that fall under the exclusive authority of this specialized court. Considering the specific cases to be handled by these courts, the law also mandates the training of these family court judges who must be equipped with the proper skills to competently handle child and family law cases. In concept, the law is indeed a step closer towards improving the judiciary as it would create an innovative judicial system and shall serve to strengthen the capability of courts, thereby making them more efficient, flexible, and effective. It would ultimately pave the way for institutional reforms in the judiciary by improving access to justice for the poor and the oppressed. Once fully implemented, the law shall inevitably improve public trust and confidence in the justice system. Concerns Relating to the Inadequacy of the present condition Fourteen years following the passage of this law, only the transitory provisions have been implemented. Instead of creating Family Courts and appointing trained Family Court

Page

judges, regular trial court judges are temporarily designated to act as Family Courts. Until such time that adequate appropriation is afforded to the Judiciary to create these courts, this unsatisfactory set up shall remain in place. As of the 2000 CEDAW-Watch report1, there are 71 designated regional trial court judges acting as Family Courts all over the Philippines. In Metro Manila, there are 16 designated Family Courts scattered all over the various cities2. It is interesting to note that there are some cities in Metro Manila which do not have a designated Family Court. Interesting still, are the number of child/ family law cases pending before these designated Family Courts on top of their regular case load. A news article posted in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last January 22, 20113 cites as an example the case of the two designated Family Courts in Las Pinas, that have almost 800 cases pending in their court dockets, while regular courts have an average of 60 to 80 cases. The same pattern appears to be true for other cities which have designated Family Courts their caseloads are relatively heavier compared to that of regular courts. It seems highly unfair for litigants, who file their cases in these family courts, to suffer the pitfalls of the poor implementation of this existing law. The lack of appropriation in order that RA 8369 can be fully implemented serves as the linchpin that accounts for all these following problematic areas: a. Clogged court dockets in designated family courts that result in the delayed resolution and disposition of cases. This results in the frustration and hopelessness felt by litigants that tragically ends with these individuals either desisting from or losing interest in the case and referring to the judiciary as an incompetent and inefficient branch of government or worse, they take the matter into their own hands and resort to extra-legal means to effect justice on their own terms. b. Improperly trained judges and court officers that do not possess the necessary skill in handling family court cases. This often results in browbeating child witnesses, exposing children to violence and incarceration with hardened criminals, victimblaming women complainants in criminal cases such as rape and other acts of violence. When a scenario such as this exists, it only contributes to litigants losing interest in pursuing their case. c. lack of facilities needed in the effective disposition of family court cases. This often results to an inefficient manner of conducting trials. A perfect example would be the case of a child witness who is forced to sit next to an accused in a criminal case of rape simply because the courts have no facilities to house the accused in a separate room or chamber. The deplorable state of the halls of justice in the Philippines lends credence to the assertion that there is indeed a sore lack of facilities needed in the effective disposition of family court cases.
1 2

www.cedaw_watch.org. www.lawphil.net/courts/mrtc/familycrt.html. 3 www.inquirer.net. First posted: 03:28:00 01/22/2011

Page

On July 4, 2011 at the regular meeting of the National Advocacy Commission of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines comprising 1,252 member schools, the clamor for the regularization of the Family Courts as provided for under Republic Act 8369 and providing for its corresponding legislative appropriation was brought to the attention of the Commission through a Resolution dated 13 June 20114 prepared by the Transformative Justice Institute, the Womynet Network Group, Men Opposed to Violence Everywhere, the City Social Services and Development Division as well as the Integrated Gender and Development Division of the local government unit of Davao City. On July 8, 2011, the CEAP Board unanimously moved to approve the resolution that the CEAP shall support the same. Strengths of the Law Section 4, paragraph (b) of the RA 8369 provides for training of Family Court Judges. The law states that the Presiding Judge, as well as the court personnel of the Family Courts, shall undergo training and must have the experience and demonstrated ability in dealing with child and family cases. The law also mandates the Supreme Court to provide a continuing education program on child and family laws, procedure and other related disciplines to judges and personnel of such courts. If this provision is implemented, it would address the myriad of problems raised by people who access the court system. For one, the issue of designation of judges who are gender-inensitive that usually lead to disposition of cases in a biased manner, to the prejudice of the rights of aggrieved women, would be competently addressed. It would also enable courts to see the logical connection between dysfunctional families, usually on account of repetitive inflictions of domestic violence, and that of children in conflict with the law. A realization of this integral component through training would allow for more appropriate pro-active responses on the part of judges in the disposition of family/child cases. Another crucial provision in RA 8369 addresses the issue of Children in Conflict with the law. Section 8 of RA 8369 provides that the judge of the Family Court shall have direct control and supervision of the youth detention home which the local government unit shall establish to separate the youth offenders from adult criminals. This is meant to assert the responsibility of family court judges in seeing to it that CICLs, under the theory of rehabilitative and restorative justice, are given a better chance at re-integrating into society if they are not placed in the same category as that of hardened criminals. To assist in carrying out these provisions, RA 8369 also provides that all Family Courts shall be allowed the use of ten per cent (10%) of their income derived from filing and other court fees. However, this amount is still to be shared with other courts of justice. This appears to be an empty provision though, as it identifies a source of operational funds
4

A copy of this Resolution is attached as Annex B

Page

but the same is still to be shared with other courts. Inevitably, there is still a sore lack of funding to fully implement the provisions of the Family Courts Act.

Other related concerns that affect the implementation of RA 8369 a. Fiscal Concerns While this concern does not affect RA 8369 directly, it does show the lack of due regard given to the judiciary as an institution in the appropriation of funds thereby resulting in the giving of sub-standard services to those seeking access to the courts. This truly is unfortunate considering that as the third co-equal branch of Government, the Judiciary must be accorded the necessary resources as would ensure the effective administration of justice. Unfortunately, lobbying for an increase in their budget has not been made a priority. The Supreme Court cannot, by itself, actively lobby for an increase in their budget considering that the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct clearly emphasize the need for a Judiciary that is independent, that is free from political influences and interference. If they were to go to Congress and lobby, it would undermine the people s faith in the Judiciary as it would create an image of justices dependent on Congress for its funds. Thus, the Judiciary s budget is left to the discretion of lawmakers who might not have a sense of the needs of the Supreme Court and its personnel. In an interview with SC Spokesperson Midas Marquez5, he notes :
Notwithstanding the enactment in 2003 of RA 9227 which provides for an equivalent of 100% allowances, equivalent to their basic monthly salary, for all judges and justices to be implemented over four years, it still left much to be desired. Towards middle or 3rd quarter of 2007, an executive order was issued which provided for a 10% increase in salary for all government workers including judges but which resulted in the judges getting their 10% salary increase from the] 100% allowance. So the 100% allowance that they just received was lowered to 90%. So 10% was thrown as increase in salary.
5

http://philippinesgraphic.com/?p=554 Posted on 20 Sep 2010 at 2:47pm Page

Come 2008, another executive order was issued, again providing for a 10% increase in salaries, again [this was taken from the allowance. Another 10%, so your allowance of 100% would now be just 80%. Yes, your salaries increased 20% but your allowances were reduced to 80%. But the judges were put in a worse situation because the 100% allowances were tax-free. Now the 20% transferred to their salaries is taxable. Come 2009, another executive order, this time to implement a joint resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate for rationalization, standardization of salaries, which effectively means another round of increases for government workers. Again this was not funded. In 2010, just this June, again implementation of joint resolution of Congress. Another EO was issued. Effectively the increase for judges and justices is P10,000 a month, in salaries. Again, it was not funded. For 2011, the judiciary is proposing P1.7 billion for the construction of the Manila Hall of Justice and the renovation of our Supreme Court library, which is antiquated. In explaining the necessity of this budget allocation, SC Spokesperson Marquez even goes on to describe the sad state of courts in Manila. Our courts in Manila are scattered in city hall, in the old dilapidated building of the Ombudsman, and in the antiquated condemned building of GSIS (Government Service Insurance System). More than five years already, we ve been asking for a Manila Hall of Justice, not just because we re here in Manila, not because we favor Mayor Lim or the city of Manila but, only because Manila is the capital city of the Philippines. What we want is to showcase a model courthouse with internet facilities, because that s what we really lack up to now. Up to now we have caseloads of 3,500 to 4,000. There is one court with a caseload of 4,000. I checked how many computers they had and found they only had two and both are already old. How can you expect decisions and orders to come out from the court when that court only has two old computers? b. The issue of Corruption

Inasmuch as the courts designated as family courts are simply issued appointments and not one where the judge has personally applied for, more often than not, judges who sit as Family Court judges are still those who have been appointed to the bench on account of who they know and not on what they know. This often results to judgments/decisions issued based on political accommodations, bribe money, influence-peddling and not a judgment based on the merits of the case.

Page

There are exceptions to this rule, and those judges are to be commended for their best practices one which the Supreme Court monitors thru their Focal Persons6. But these are exceptions to the general rule. If the provisions of the Family Court, however, are fully implemented, we would be guaranteed that the judges who sit in these family courts are truly those who possess the competency, orientation and skill needed to effectively dispose of family/child related cases.

This is the reason why there must be active participation in advocating reforms in the judiciary, specifically, there must be a proper implementation of the Family Courts Act push the call for the regularization of the same, and provide appropriation for its effective implementation. To understand the timeliness and necessity in supporting such an advocacy, this executive summary is hereby submitted.

http://sc.judiciary .gov.ph/publications/benchmark/2006/09/090607.php

Page

Annex A REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8369 AN ACT ESTABLISHING FAMILY COURTS, GRANTING THEM EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CHILD AND FAMILY CASES, AMENDING BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 129,AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ACT OF 1980, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997". Sec. 2. Statement of National Policies. - The State shall protect the rights and promote the welfare of children in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution and the precepts of the United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child. The State shall provide a system of adjudication for youthful offenders which takes into account their peculiar circumstances. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. The courts shall preserve the solidarity of the family, provide procedures for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of family controversy. Sec. 3. Establishment of Family Courts. - There shall be established a Family Court in every province and city in the country. In case where the city is the capital of the province, the Family Court shall be established in the municipality which has the highest population. Sec. 4. Qualification and Training of Family Court Judges. - Sec. 15 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Sec. 15. (a) Qualification. - No person shall be appointed Regional Trial Judge or Presiding Judge of the Family Court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least thirty-five (35) years of age, and, for at least ten (10) years, has been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held a public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as indispensable requisite. "(b) Training of Family Court Judges. - The Presiding Judge, as well as the court personnel of the Family Courts, shall undergo training and must have the experience and demonstrated ability in dealing with child and family cases. "The Supreme Court shall provide a continuing education program on child and family laws, procedure and other related disciplines to judges and personnel of such courts."
Page

Sec. 5. Jurisdiction offamily Courts. - The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:

a) Criminal cases where one or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age but not less than nine (9) years of age or where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application pursuant to Ptesidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code"; b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter; c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof; d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating to marital status and property relations of husband and wife or those living together under different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains; e) Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment; f) Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines"; g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned, dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of children; the suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws; h) Petitions for the constitution of the family home; i) Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended; j) Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as amended by Republic Act No. 7658; and k) Cases of domestic violence against: 1) Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion

Page

which violate a woman's personhood, integrity and freedom movement; and 2) Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development. If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal proceedings and the corresponding penalties. If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court. Sec. 6. Use of Income. - All Family Courts shall be allowed the use of ten per cent (10%) of their income derived from filing and other court fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court for research and other operating expenses including capital outlay: Provided, That this benefit shall likewise be enjoyed by all courts of justice. The Supreme Court shall promulgate the necessary guidelines to effectively implement the provisions of this Sec. Sec. 7. Special Provisional Remedies. - In cases of violence among immediate family members living in the same domicile or household, the Family Court may issue a restraining order against the accused of defendant upon verified application by the complainant or the victim for relief from abuse. The court may order the temporary custody of children in all civil actions for their custody. The court may also order support pendente lite, including deduction from the salary and use of conjugal home and other properties in all civil actions for support. Sec. 8. Supervision of Youth Detention Homes. - The judge of the Family Court shall have direct control and supervision of the youth detention home which the local government unit shall establish to separate the youth offenders from adult criminals: Provided, however, That alternatives to detention and institutional care shall be made available to the accused including counseling, recognizance, bail, community continuum, or diversions from the justice system: Provided, further, That the human rights of the accused are fully respected in a manner appropriate to their well-being. Sec. 9. Social Services and Counseling Division. - Under the guidance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), a Social Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) shall be established in each judicial region as the Supreme Court shall deem necessary based on the number of juvenile and family cases existing in such jurisdiction. It shall provide appropriate social services to all juvenile and family cases filed with the court and recommend the proper social action. It shall also develop programs, formulate uniform policies and procedures, and provide technical supervision and monitoring of all SSCD in coordination with the judge.

Page

Sec. 10. Social Services and Counseling Division Staff. - The SSCD shall have a staff composed of qualified social workers and other personnel with academic preparation in behavioral sciences to carry out the duties'of conducting intake assessment, social case studies, casework and counseling, and othersocial services that may be needed in connection with cases filed with the court: Provided, however, That in adoption cases and in petitions for declaration of abandonment, the case studies may be prepared by social workers of duly licensed child caring or child placement agencies, or the DSWD. When warranted, the division shall recommend that the court avail itself of consultative services of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other qualified specialists presently employed in other departments of the government in connection with its cases. The position of Social Work Adviser shall be created under the Office of the Court Administrator, who shall monitor and supervise the SSCD ofthe Regional Trial Court. Sec. 11. Alternative Social Services. - In accordance with Sec. 17 of this Act, in areas where no Family Court has been established or no Regional Trial Court was designated by the Supreme Court due to the limited number of cases, the DSWD shall designate and assign qualified, trained, and DSWD accredited social workers of the local government units to handle juvenile and family cases filed in the designated Regional Trial Court of the place. Sec. 12. Privacy and Confidentiality of Proceedings. - All hearings and conciliation of the child and family cases shall be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's and the family's dignity and worth, and shall respect their privacy at all stages of the proceedings. Records of the cases shall be dealt with utmost confidentiality and the identity of parties shall not be divulged unless necessary and with authority of the judge. Sec. 13. Special Rules of Procedure. - The Supreme Court shall promulgate special rules of procedure for the transfer of cases to the new courts during the transition period and for the disposition of family cases with the best interests of the child and the protection of the family as primary consideration taking into account the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Sec. 14. Appeals. - Decisions and orders of the court shall be appealed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as appeals from the ordinary Regional Trial Courts. Sec. 15. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be included in the General Appropriations Act of the year following in its enactment into law and thereafter. Sec. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Supreme Court, in coordination with the DSWD, shall formulate the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the social aspects of this Act. Sec. 17. Transitory Provisions. - Pending the establishment of such Family Courts, the Supreme Court shall designate from among the branches ofthe Regional Trial Court at least one Family Court in each of the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Makati, Pasig,

Page

10

Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Laoag, Baguio, Santiago, Dagupan, Olongapo, Cabanatuan, San Jose, Angeles, Cavite, Batangas, Lucena, Naga, Iriga, Legazpi, Roxas, Iloilo, Bacolod, Dumaguete, Tacloban, Cebu, Mandaue, Tagbilaran, Surigao, Butuan, Cagayan de Oro, Davao, General Santos, Oroquieta, Ozamis, Dipolog, Zamboanga, Pagadian, Iligan, and in such other places as the Supreme Court may deem necessary. Additional cases other than those provided in Sec. 5 may be assigned to the Family Courts when their dockets permit: Provided, That such additional cases shall not be heard on the same day family cases are heard. In areas where there are no Family Courts, the cases referred to in Sec. 5 of this Act shall be adjudicated by the Regional Trial Court. Sec. 18. Separability Clause. - In case any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional, the other provisions shall remain in effect. Sec. 19. Repealing Clause. - All other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules or regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly. Sec. 20. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. Approved October 28, 1997.

Page

11

Annex B
RESOLUTION URGING THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT PARTICULARLY THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THE NECESSARY BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR THE PROPER IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE OF REPUBLIC ACT 8369, THE FAMILY COURTS ACT OF 1997 WHEREAS, It has been noted by many advocates for the rights of women, children and family that many of the laws which are designed to maintain peace and harmony in the homes are not being properly applied in the Philippines because of the prevailing culture and patriarchal mindset, in many workers of the various pillars of justice in the Philippines which includes many Family Court judges; That victim blaming is still rampant and appropriate provisions such as those under Sections 40 and 41 of Republic Act 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, which states: Sec. 40. Mandatory Programs and Services for Victims. The DSWD, and LGU's shall provide the victims temporary shelters, provide counseling, psycho-social services and/or, recovery, rehabilitation programs and livelihood assistance. The DOH shall provide medical assistance to victims; and, Sec. 41. Counseling and Treatment of Offenders. The DSWD shall provide rehabilitative counseling and treatment to perpetrators towards learning constructive ways of coping with anger and emotional outbursts and reforming their ways. When necessary, the offender shall be ordered by the Court to submit to psychiatric treatment or confinement are not properly applied, for lack of appropriate orders or directives from the courts; That incidents of family dysfunctions are tremendously on the rise and many children are placed at risk. Some of them have turned out to be children in conflict with laws (CICL), who are involved in community violence; That Restorative Justice under Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 is not taking place despite the fact that the law has taken effect more than five years ago. Its purpose to save the children from committing serious offenses or criminal acts and for them to become law abiding citizens are not realized because many of them continue to be exposed to violence in their homes and in the community. Many CICL are now involved in cases of rape and killings. Many of them appear insensitive to what they have done because of their having experienced abuse and violence in their lives; That as early as fourteen (14) years ago, the Philippine government already recognized the need for Regular Family Court. Thus, Republic Act 8369 was passed and approved and Section 2 thereof states: State and National Policies. - The State shall protect the rights and promote the welfare of children in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution and the precepts of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The State shall provide a system of adjudication for youthful offenders which takes into account their peculiar circumstances.

Page

12

The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. The courts shall preserve the solidarity of the family, provide procedures for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of family controversy; That on October 28, 1997 RA 8369 was approved. Yet, the same has not been fully implemented except for the Transitory Provisions under Section 17 which states: Pending the establishment of such Family Courts, the Supreme Court shall designate from among the branches of the Regional Trial Court at least one Family Court in each of the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Makati, Pasig, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Laoag, Baguio, Santiago, Dagupan, Olongapo, Cabanatuan, San Jose,

Page 1 of ____ Angeles, Cavite, Batangas, Lucena, Naga, Iriga, Legazpi, Roxas, Iloilo, Bacolod, Dumaguete, Tacloban, Cebu, Mandaue, Tagbilaran, Surigao, Butuan, Cagayan de Oro, Davao, General Santos, Oroquieta, Ozamis, Dipolog, Zamboanga, Pagadian, Iligan, and in such other places as the Supreme Court may deem necessary; That many of the present Family Courts in the Philippines are unable to function as envisioned by Republic Act 8369 since the present set of judges were merely designated by the Supreme Court without taking into consideration whether those judges are interested to function as Family Court judges or not; That in the informal talks and interviews, many of the present Family Court judges express that they do not like being such Family Court judges and would rather be assigned in regular courts; That it has been noted that many Family Court judges lack the appropriate gender sensitivity and responsiveness which are key factors for them to be able to handle the cases on women, children and family in accordance with the spirit of the various laws now existing; That important provisions of Republic Act 8369 if properly implemented can result in changing mindsets of Family Court Judges and personnel; to wit: Section 4 (b) Training of Family Court Judges. -The Presiding Judge, as well as the court personnel of the Family Courts, shall undergo training and must have the experience and demonstrated ability in dealing with child family cases." The Supreme Court shall provide a continuing education program on child and family laws, procedure and other related disciplines to judges and personnel of such courts; That the other vital provisions of Republic Act 8369 that need immediate compliance and implementation to find solutions to the problems cited are, to wit: Section 8. Supervision of Youth Detention Homes.- The judge of the Family Court shall have direct control and supervision of the youth detention home which the local government unit shall establish to separate the youth offenders from the adult criminals. Provided, however, That alternatives to detention and institutional care shall be made available to the accused

Page

13

including counselling, recognizance, bail, community continuum, or diversions from the justice system: Provided, further, That the human rights of the accused are fully respected in a manner appropriate to their well-being. Section 9. Social Services and Counselling Division. - Under the guidance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), a Social Services and Counselling Division (SSCD) shall be established in each judicial region as the Supreme Court shall deem necessary based in the number of juvenile and family cases existing in such jurisdiction. It shall also develop programs, formulate uniform policies and procedures, and provide technical supervision and monitoring of all SSCD in coordination with the judge. Section 10. Social Services and Counselling Division Staff. -The SSCD shall have a staff composed of qualified social workers and other personnel with academic preparation in behavioral sciences to carry out the duties of conducting intake assessment, social case studies, casework and counselling, and other social services that may be needed in connection with cases filed with the court: Provided, however, That in adoption cases and in petitions for declaration of abandonment, the case studies may be prepared by social workers of duly licensed child caring or child placement agencies, or the DSWD. When warranted, the division shall recommend that the court avail itself of consultative services of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other qualified specialists presently employed in other departments of the government in connection with its cases. Page 2 of ____ The position of Social Work Adviser shall be created under the Office of the Court Administrator, who shall monitor and supervise the SSCD of the Regional Trial Court. Section 11. Alternative Social Services.- In accordance with Section 17 of this Act, in areas where no Family Court has been established or no Regional Trial Court was designated by the Supreme Court due to the limited number of cases, the DSWD shall designate and assign, qualified, trained, and DSWD accredited social workers of the local government units to handle juvenile and family cases filed in the designated Regional Trial Court of the place. WHEREFORE, In order to reverse the problematic situations in many families and communities in the Philippines, where domestic and family violence as well as situations of children in conflict with laws (CICL) are on the rise, the Philippine government particularly the Executive and Legislative branches of government are urged to immediately act in implementing Republic Act 8369. In this regard, Section 15 of Republic Act 8369 which reads: Appropriations. - The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be included in the General Appropriations Act of the year following in its enactment into law and thereafter, be implemented so that Regular Family Courts shall be created by the Judiciary as soon as possible. In this regard, the various pillars of the justice system composing the Transformative Justice Institute appeal to non-government organizations, the academe particularly the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), church-based organizations, government agencies and the other sectors of the Philippine society with concerns on justice and peace to support this call. Let them be furnished with copies of this resolution.

Page

14

Let copies of this resolution be furnished His Excellency President Benigno C. Aquino, III, PNOY, the Honorable Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, and the Honorable Speaker of the House Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr. for their information and immediate action. Likewise, let copies of this resolution be furnished the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Honorable Court Administrator as well as the Honorable Chairperson of the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW), the Honorable Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the Honorable Secretary of the Department of Health (DOH) for their information and support. Signed this 13th day of June 2011 during the 44th TJI Dialogue at the AACCTS Center - 16 Jade Street, Doa Luisa Phase I, Matina, Davao City.

Page

15