Legal Davids amidst modern-day Goliaths

Legal Davids amidst modern-day Goliaths

By Terence Eyre Belangoy

            The Supreme Court of the Philippines, under the leadership of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., could be best described as a proactive Supreme Court. The Court has taken upon itself not only to adapt to dynamic changes, and combat undesirable yet endemic practices taking place around it--- in the realm of technology and communications, industrialization and globalization, societal changes, cultural transformations, political uncertainty, graft and corruption, among others--- but to tackle them head on. The Supreme Court’s proactivity is clearly evident with its adoption of the Action Program for Judicial Reforms (APJR).

            The Supreme Court is akin to a collegial body of “legal Davids” taking on present-day “Goliaths.” Of course, it is common knowledge how it all ended. 

David, Davide and Legal Davids 

            This analogy to the Biblical story in the Book of David is not at all incidental.  The Chief Justice himself insinuated of his “kinship” with the Biblical character. The only difference between Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and the Biblical David is the letter e.[1]

            The above account is definitely facetious, but it has a ring of truth to it. With all the transformations--- not all salutary--- happening in many sectors of society, nationally and internationally, these changes may as well be intimidating, juggernaut Goliaths while our Supreme Court Chief Justice and Justices, together with the rest of the Judiciary’s personnel, are fearless, highly-skilled modern-day Davids. (Incidentally, a very recent Reuters report tells of a discovery by archeologists of a shard of pottery which carried a Semitic inscription of the name of Goliath in Ramat Gan, Israel, lending strong credibility to the Biblical story; but this altogether another topic.)  

Big Brother

            One such “Goliath” looming in the periphery of the judicial horizon is incidentally and figuratively called Big Brother--- rapid advancement in technology, and its various cousins (information technology, communications, life technologies, etc.) which are continuously making their effects felt in Philippine society in general, Philippine Judiciary in particular, and definitely affecting the dispensation of justice and the rule of law.

            The Supreme Court, consistent with its proactive stance, through the APJR, is embracing technological trends with open arms.

            In fact, the First component of the APJR is the “Judicial Systems and Procedure” which concerns itself with the administration of cases and courts. Initiatives in Alternative Dispute Resolution, computerized case management system, streamlined court rules and similar activities are also programmed under this component. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in one of the lectures in the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series, delivered on October 19, 2005 at the Far Eastern University Auditorium has subclassified this component under the general heading of “Improvement of Judicial Facilities and Tools.”

            The APJR, through the Committee on computerization, has embarked on a total computerization of the entire judiciary. Consistent with this computerization program, the Supreme Court has, during the past five years, provided every courtroom in the country with at least one computer.[2]

            The Court has also launched its fully electronic library (e-library), the first of its kind in Asia.

            The Benchbook for Trial Court Judges is another easy-to-reach tool which enables magistrates to decide points of law quickly as they arise in the course of the trial; this comes in digital and paper versions.

            New Rules of Procedure were also promulgated to enable the members of the bench to rule immediately on legal issues connected with the new sciences and technologies.  The new rules cover, among others, admission of electronic evidence, infringement of intellectual property rights, corporate rehabilitation, and intra-corporate controversies, among others.

            In the controversial nascent field of biotechnology, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that ethical issues would unavoidably arise.

“The Courts, as defenders of the rule of law, must make an informed stand as they adjudge among conflicting interests, and the judges in these cases would have to be conversant in genetics, microbiology and biotechnology as to be able to scientifically assess the evidence presented to them by any number of experts.

            Judges are expected to keep abreast with these scientists, if not be ahead of them in some respects.

            While these scientific issues have not yet found their way into our jurisdiction, they are nevertheless knocking upon our doors. With the aid of developments in Information Technology, they will soon be breaking down these doors. By then our courts may be deluged with novel cases.

            The Philippines, for its part, will participate actively in this exchange, more to anticipate than to react to technological trends consistent with the PROACTIVE stance that the Supreme Court has taken in most other issues.”[3]

High-Technology Yet “High-Touch” Judiciary

            Despite the Judiciary’s gung-ho efforts, as initiated by the Supreme Court, to modernize and keep apace with the technological breakthroughs for a more efficient administration of justice, it makes it a point to always touch base with the very people it is supposed to serve---especially the marginalized--- and the various publics affected by its various activities.

In the highly-influential book “Megatrends,” foremost social forecaster John Naisbitt wrote: “Whenever new technology is introduced, there must be a counterbalancing human response--- that is, “high touch”--- or the technology is rejected. Whenever INSTITUTIONS introduce new technology, they should build in a high-touch component; if they don’t, people will try to create their own or reject the new technology. We must learn to balance the material wonders of technology with the spiritual demands of our human nature.”

            Indeed, people want to be with people; and the more technology is pumped into an institution, or into society, the more people would want to be (or be in proximity) with people.

            The principle of high-technology/ “high touch” is a modern version of the ancient Greek ideal of balance. The principle symbolizes the need for balance between physical (the need for advancement, in this case technological advancement) and metaphysical/spiritual (the desire of people to be an integral component of the justice system) reality. Luckily, the Davide Court is not remiss in this regard.

            “Technology holds a promise, not a threat. I see a future where legal practitioners will still enjoy intimate professional relationships with their clients. In the first place, people look for more than just legal advice and assistance from counsel. In every case, the fiduciary character of the service is sealed by a determination of trust and reliability, which can only be cultivated or confirmed through face-to face- encounters. Secondly, and especially in a developing nation such as the Philippines, fundamental change in the traditional practice of law will surely proceed at a manageable pace without displacing those who are presently unfamiliar with the required technologies. Lastly, at some point in the evolution of legal servicing, the old ways will inevitably co-exist with the new paradigms, as we achieve a balance between technological advances and due process as traditionally understood.[4]

More importantly, the Fifth component, “Access to Justice by the Poor”, ensures that the marginalized, disadvantaged, dispossessed and other valuable sectors will always have affordable and effective means of attaining justice.

            This ability of the Supreme Court NOT to be viewed as an institution smugly ensconced atop an ivory tower far beyond the reach of the hoi polloi or ordinary mortals is very important. This would endear it more to the people and the varying publics (including the very important “donor community”) thus ensuring a continued support for the Supreme Court and for its reform programs.

            The responsiveness of the Supreme Court in this regard is incorporated in the Sixth component of the APJR.

            The Sixth (the last) component, “Reform Support Systems”, installs mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of the reform efforts. The focus here is public education, information and communication, on the assumption that public awareness of the functions and achievements of the judiciary would encourage people to support the courts.

            Support for the Supreme Court itself and for its various programs involves both internal support and external support.

            With the myriad reforms the Supreme Court is undertaking or will undertake for the Judiciary, there is bound to be resistance. This resistance could stem from the Judiciary itself, specifically its various personnel who would be affected by the changes.

            One of the “Policies and Strategies” of the “Reform Support Systems” of the APJR involves “Judicial Organization Culture.”

            This resistance could be reduced through communication with employees to help them see the logic of change. It is difficult for individuals to resist change in which they participated. Greater involvement in the decision-making process reduces resistance, obtains commitment and increase quality of the change decision.[5]

            Externally, the Judiciary has to contend with the various publics: the other pillars of the criminal justice system which would surely be affected by the changes within the Judiciary, the “donor community” from which the Judiciary sources some of its funds, the other branches of Government, and the public at large.

            The Supreme Court itself, as the final arbiter of all legal controversies, has to make sure that all its decisions would not only be followed but would have the faith and confidence of the people. Instances are rife when the public sometimes see Supreme Court decisions as partial, especially those highly-contentious cases such as the impeachment, the legitimacy of a government swept into power by people power movements viewed by some sectors as “mob rule,” allegations of infringement into the prerogatives of the other co-equal branches of the government, and the like.

            To meet the above challenges, the APJR has included a “Public Awareness Strategies” by (a) Institutionalizing the Court’s public information, education and communication system (b) Improve quality and quantity venues for information exchange on judicial functions, reform agenda and achievement (c) Enhance judicial-mass media relations. For these purposes, a Public Information Office (PIO) was created. It primary purpose is to bring the courts closer to the people. 

            This interface between the Supreme Court as an institution together with its various personnel on the one hand, and the public, on the other hand, is raised to a more esteemed level as the Davide Court is also imbued with a passion for excellence and public service. 

            The Vision Statement of the Davide Watch encapsulates the above thrust. The Davide Watch Vision Statement boldly exclaims: “A Judiciary that is independent, effective and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence; and a legal profession that provide quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal service to our people and is willing and able to answer the call to public service.” This must also be correlated with the Third component of the APJR, “Human Resources Management Development”, which covers the selection, hiring, education, promotion and remuneration of justices, judges and other officials and employees.

            “The speedy and impartial dispensation of justice will ultimately depend upon the judge. While electronic research facilities, computerized facilities and stately courtrooms--- all of which money can buy---are desirable components of judicial reform, in the end, justice is delivered by a human being who must be upright, credible and competent--- qualities that money cannot buy.”[6]

Feminine Grace and the High Court

            That the Supreme Court is not only concerned with efficiency, excellence, and service is also apparent in the way it exists with the various cultural and societal transformations unfurling around it.

            One such positive social change is the increasing role of women in society. Throughout the years, the women’s liberation movement has been gaining ground. Although none of these feminine inroads have been mentioned in either the APJR or in the “Davide Watch: Leading the Philippine Judiciary and the Legal Profession Toward the Third Millennium,” the current Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Davide has been an unwitting yet willing witness to this cultural transformation.

            A record five lady Justices (Justice Consuelo Yñares-Santiago, Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez, Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, and Justice Minita Chico-Nazario) now sit in the Supreme Court--- all career jurists who have dedicated their lives to public service and the law.

            The first woman to be admitted to the Bar, in 1911, was Maria V. Francisco. Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma made history as the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

            Today, there are still more male justices and judges in our courts, but this is changing. This change, and the Supreme Court’s (and other institutions for that matter) concurrence to it is laudable.

            “Social Science affirms that a woman’s place in society marks the level of civilization,” said Elizabeth Stanton, champion of women’s suffrage.

Hands Off the Cookie Jar

On the not-so-positive side, a “culture” which is said to be endemic in most government offices is the “culture” of graft and corruption. The Davide Watch, and the APJR through its Fourth component, seeks to curb graft and corruption in the Judiciary. The Fourth component, “Institutional Integrity Development”, addresses concerns in graft and corruption and puts in place mechanisms to detect and punish corrupt practices of some judges and lawyers.

            To implement the call for integrity in the Judiciary, the entire Court has agreed to adopt a more stringent and timely measures to discipline the judiciary and to rid it of the corrupt, the unethical, and the misfit. Specifically it has hastened the adjudication of administrative cases. In the pursuit of transparency, the Court, at the suggestion of the Chief Justice, has created a Committee on Public Information (CPI). To assist the Committee, a Public Information Office (PIO) has also been created. The CPI and PIO were created to lend more transparency to the Court’s work and thereby increase public understanding of its role and work in society.[7]

            Legal and Judicial education is intended to enhance not only the intellectual ability of lawyers and magistrates, but also their ethical standards. During the last six years, the Supreme Court has fined, warned, censured, admonished, reprimanded, ordered arrested, suspended or disbarred lawyers for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[8]

            Magistrates decide litigations only on the basis of the rational relationship between the law and the facts, free from any extraneous influence. They should not allow the “ships” that plague public service--- kinship, relationship, friendship and fellowships---to interfere in their judgments.[9] 

  

Judicial Independence

            All of the of the above reforms--- and the enthusiasm of all judicial personnel, our legal Davids, in facing present challenges, the modern-day Goliaths--- would all be for naught without the Second component, perhaps the most important of all the components, of the APJR. The Second component “Institutions Development” seeks to establish mechanisms to strengthen the Judiciary as an institution independent from other branches of government. Included in this component are the systems to implement the constitutionally-mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary, to improve judicial accountability, and to devise personnel and financial policy that will give the judiciary the flexibility needed to address the many demands upon it.

            Judicial Independence under the Davide Watch means two things: (a) Fiscal Independence and (b) Independence from Partisan Politics.

            Fiscal Independence means the freedom of the Judiciary to determine its own fiscal affairs. The Judicial branch is not assured of an automatic budgetary increase to cope with inflation. Judicial salaries are still pegged to the Salary Standardization Law, which in sum spells low compensation. As a result, very few brilliant and ethical lawyers join the Judiciary.

            Independence from partisan politics requires the involvement of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) in filling up of vacant positions in the Judiciary in accordance with the periods mandated by law.

Leadership By Example

Amidst all of these reforms, nothing transcends the fact that the very person at the helm of this wave of transformation, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. himself, leads by example, thereby positively influencing all within the Judiciary. He has adopted an inside-out approach, focusing on his circle of influence rather than on his circle of concerns; it was his own metanoia which has also become the metanoia of the entire Judiciary, so to speak.

            “As Chief Justice, I pledge that I shall spare no effort in leading the Judiciary by example. For those who know me, you know that I don’t take this pledge lightly,” announced Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his very first public appearance at a Kilosbayan forum.

            With all of the above reforms taking place in the Judiciary, and with a Chief Justice like Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. who initiated it all, the Judiciary would remain an exemplary, steadfast bastion of justice despite whatever unpredictable changes that would occur in this millennium and even in the next millennium to come.

            Hail to the Chief! Hail to the men and women of the Judiciary!

southernchronicles.blogspot.com/Of Davide and Judicial Goliaths (On the occasion of Former CJ Davide's visit to Dipolog City, Zambo. Norte, March 28, 2012)

This same essay at Scribd: Of-Davide-and-Goliaths 
Quick questions for the senate as jury by Fr. Joaquin Bernas 

---

[1] Taken from the Closing Remarks of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. delivered at the 5^th Centenary lecture, “Protecting Civil Liberties in a State of Continuing Emergency,” by Madame Justice Dorit Beinisch.

[2] “The Totality of Reforms for A Transformed Judiciary,” lecture delivered by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban during the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series on October 19, 2005, at the Far Eastern University (FEU) Auditorium.

[3] A portion of the Closing Remarks delivered by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide at the Fourth Centenary Lecture, “Life Technologies and the Rule of Law,” by Dr. Franklin M. Zweig of the Einstein Institute for the Science, Health and the Courts (EINSHAC).

[4] A portion of the Closing Remarks delivered by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide at the 12^th Centenary Lecture, “The Paperless Court: Technology and the Courts in the Region”, by Justice Robert D. Nicholson.  

[5] Chapter 5: “Reform Support Systems”, Action Program for Judicial Reforms 2001-2006, August 2001.

[6] “Judging the Judges” by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, Address delivered during the 5^th Anniversary celebration of Bantay Katarungan.  

[7]  Chapter 5: Setting the Standards of the book “Leadership by Example” by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban

[8] pp. 17-18, “The Totality of Reforms for A Transformed Judiciary,” lecture delivered by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban during the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Lecture Series on October 19, 2005, at the Far Eastern University (FEU) Auditorium.

 

[9] “Judging the Judges”, address delivered by Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, during the 5^th anniversary celebration of Bantay Katarungan.

  

[ This was written and submitted to the Supreme Court under then CJ Davide during a Commemoration/Celebration titled Davide Watch: Action Program for Judicial Reforms before his retirement. I was then Associate Editor of the FEU Law Journal and represented FEU Law for that celebration.]