Ric Saludo’s CenSEI colleague Atty. John Carlo Gil M. Sadian contributed this column

When Malacañang appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Aranal-Sereno as Chief Justice last August, supporters saw it as a bold move sending a strong message about the Aquino administration’s commitment to much-needed judicial reform.

In December, Sereno came under fire over her Administrative Order 175-2012, which senior magistrates contested for misrepresenting en banc discussions. It purported to designate a head for a “Judiciary Decentralized Office (JDO) in the Seventh Judicial Region,” but actually reopened the Regional Court Administration Office Region 7 (RCAO-7), pilot-tested and shut down in 2008. The order sought to devolve the powers of the Manila-based Court Administrator to the JDO in Cebu.

This kind of controversy at the highest level of the judiciary reflects the situation that has hounded our judicial system for decades. Journalist Marites Dañguilan Vitug, who has written books criticizing the justice system, connects the controversial Sereno order to the larger picture of what she called “resistance” of old-timers to reforms.

The internal politics among the magistrates is indeed a major issue when it comes to instituting judicial reforms. As they often say, change must come from within. In the decentralization issue involving RCAO-7, Vitug thinks that “politics and patronage got in the way of a larger good,” considering that a decentralized administration of local courts would mean lost clout for the powerful Office of the Court Administrator.

According to Vitug, despite technological advancements, the judiciary still suffers the problems of decades past when it comes to simple matters such as sending notices to parties-in-litigation for the ultimate reason that “the judiciary bucks the trend and continues to concentrate power in Manila.” This leads to “tedious administrative work for the chief justice who spends a lot of time signing voluminous papers, ending up as the decider of minutiae.”

The Sereno administrative order may be seen as an honest effort to decentralize the Manila-based administration of lower courts for a more efficient and effective judicial system. But decentralization may involve not just political will for reform. As noted by De Castro, constitutional issues might arise, not to mention the simple matter of reflecting en banc discussions and collegial decisions.

As for the actual reforms needed, most people dealing with the courts would agree that delays in the resolution of cases are the primary problem. This reflects not only upon the performance of our courts, but also upon the overall administration of justice. Official data show that lower courts receive more cases than they can dispose of. In 2011, out of the total filings of 995,178 cases, only 384,296 were decided, for a resolution rate of only 39 percent.

Higher courts are even slower. The Court of Appeals disposed of 13,054 out of 33,320 cases in 2011, or 37 percent; the Court of Tax Appeals, 358 out of 1,183 cases (30 percent), netting the government P12 billion in taxes and duties. The Sandiganbayan resolved 430 out of 2,658 cases — a mere 16 percent accomplishment rate, which was already an improvement from the 247 cases disposed of in 2010.

At the Supreme Court itself, the figures are a bit better. Of the 23,509 cases brought before the high tribunal, 11,020 were judicial cases while 4,393 were administrative cases. Of these, 4,676 judicial cases (42 percent) and 2,028 administrative cases (46 percent) were disposed of. But at that rate, even the High Court will see its dockets bursting in no time.

Delays are due not just to the decision-making process, but also to protracted trial procedures dragging on for years. Congress tried to solve the problem with the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, setting maximum of 180 days for trials. But the law excluded all kinds of motions and actions in computing the trial time. Such “excusable delays” defeated the purpose of the law, allowing all kinds of lawyerly tactics to extend proceedings.

How can this problem be solved? Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, speaking last June as acting Chief Justice, urged “a combination of measures to address case management, performance, procedural, case filtering, personnel, and judge-population issues.” That includes computerization.

Carpio cited the two-year-old computerized case management system of the Court of Appeals (CA). The justice explained: “Right now, a litigant with a pending case in the CA can go to the CA website, type his case number, and instantly he will know if a decision or resolution has been issued, and if one has been issued, he can download a copy.”

If the Supreme Court can introduce this system in lower courts, especially in faraway provinces, then Vitug’s concern about judicial power being “concentrated in Manila” can be partly addressed. The computerized case-management system is due to be pilot-tested in Quezon City courts this month, after trials in 21 courts in Lapu-Lapu City and Pasay City. Also significant is the 2010 implementation of the E-Payment System, which consolidates the payment of court fees in a single receipt, compared to the previous seven.

Beyond improving infrastructure and systems, however, the most important judicial reform involves the very people who decide cases. And the Supreme Court has made progress in its quest to ensure independence, integrity, and accountability in the judiciary. The good news is, actions and policies since 2007, including disciplinary measures against judges, have made decent, if slow progress.

(Excerpt from The CenSEI Report on judicial reform. For the full report with online research, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .)