|
In a recent forum to dissect the problem of jail congestion in the
Philippines, statistics presented showed the gruesome overcrowding
in our penal institutions.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno said
that most Metro Manila jails exceed their capacity by as high as 132
to 295 percent. The Quezon City jail, designed to accommodate only
236 prisoners, houses 3,200 inmates, well below the international
standard of at least three square meters of space per inmate.
Putting 3,200 human beings in space meant for 236 amounts to human
rights abuse.
The main cause of congestion is traced to the
lack of courts and judges. The records of the Office of the Court
Administrator show that there are 2,182 courts in the country. Only
1,470 of these have judges and more than 30 percent of the courts
have not been functioning for lack of a judge.
Protracted trials contribute further to jail
overcrowding.
Our deficient penal system has impeded
government efforts to improve law and order. The key characteristic
of our penal system is inadequate food and elbow room for prisoners
and lack of prison personnel.
The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP)
has a complement of only 7,000 men. It needs 30,000 more guards.
The slow grind of justice in the country is also
attributed to poor judicial efficiency, which has helped tip the
scales in favor of rich litigants against the poor who cannot afford
to hire good lawyers to assert their right to speedy justice. In
other words, not only are almost one-third of all courts virtually
closed, many of those that are open are not functioning well.
Like the Philippines, India also suffers from
lack of judges, and this is also largely blamed for the jail
congestion there. A World Bank study showed the ratio of 2.7 judges
per 100,000 people in India some years ago. In 30 other countries,
the ratio is 6.8 to 100,000.
Hiring more judges will not solve the
jail-congestion problem entirely. The adjudication system must also
be reformed by giving judges and prosecutors a deadline to complete
their cases.
According to a study by the Office of the
Ombudsman, the resolution of cases in 2003, on average, took six
years and 10 months. Some cases involving high government officials
took more than 10 years to decide.
When he was the Ombudsman, Simeon Marcelo said
that in order to make significant progress against graft and
corruption, “the speedy resolution of high-profile cases involving
higher government officials and bigger amounts of money should be
made a priority in the trial schedule our courts.”
The effectiveness of the country’s justice
system is measured by its ability to expedite hearings and trials.
The systematic and swift adjudication of cases on the basis of law
and the Constitution indicates that a country is civilized and that
its judicial progress is fair and just.
Last year, President Arroyo vowed to our
citizenry—and her friends abroad—that she would thenceforth make
hers a human rights based governance.
Every inmate of our jails, deserves to enjoy the
basic dignity of a human being made by God. The Palace must be as
zealous as Chief Justice Reynato Puno in pursuing that ideal to
reform of our criminal justice system.
|
