The Philippine Courts are undoubtedly clogged
with innumerable pending cases before it which leads to the adage that justice
delayed is justice denied. Indeed the Supreme Court acknowledges that about seventy
seven (77%) of all cases pending before the Philippine Courts are criminal
cases, thus in its Resolution A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC issued on June 30, 2015, it approved
the recommendation of the Chairman of the Special Committee on Speedy Trial on
the Proposed Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases in different
pilot courts that took effect on August 17, 2015.
The
designated pilot courts include Metropolitan trial courts, Regional trial
courts, Drug courts and Family courts of Makati City, Manila City, Quezon City,
and Marikina City; Metropolitan trial courts, Regional trial courts, and Drug
courts of Pasig City; Metropolitan trial courts and Regional trial courts of
Pasay City; Metropolitan trial courts of Paranaque City; and the Regional trial
courts and Family courts of Muntinlupa City.
The
main principle of the Continuous Trial is to help declog the court dockets and
to expedite the resolution of criminal cases. After the successful pilot
testing of Continuous Trial on the above-mentioned first and second level
courts within Metro Manila, the continuous trial system will soon be
implemented sometime in September 2017 across all Philippine courts nationwide.
The new rule on speedy trial shall apply to the newly filed criminal cases
which likewise cover special laws and rules in the first and second level
courts, the Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan.
Among
the pertinent goals on the implementation of the Continuous Trial System are
the termination of drug related cases within 60 days from the start of the
trial with stringent prohibition on motion for postponement except on
reasonable grounds and to trim down the length of trial duration in criminal
cases that usually drag on for many years. It also requires the promulgation of
judgment within 90 days. Hearing on motions, pre-trial, arraignment and the
promulgation of judgments shall be made every Friday morning. Trial hearings
are to be held every Monday to Thursday that should begin exactly at 8:30 in the
morning and 2:00 in the afternoon.
It
can be noted that this initiative in the justice system in the Philippines is
in response to the findings of the American Bar Association Rule of Law
Initiative on its project testing analysis conducted in 2015 providing that
special procedural and case management reforms have a significant impact in
reducing the processing time and resolution of cases. The Asia Foundation
affirmed said findings in its report in 2016 showing that there is a
significant improvement on the reduction in the duration of criminal
proceedings with improvements in the compliance of trial courts on the timeline
and periods set in the Rules of Court and laws.
It
is one of Chief Justice Sereno’s advocacies to speed up the course of criminal
proceedings in all Philippine courts and to support the efficient
implementation of Justice on Wheels project. The Continuous Trials is just one
among the several revolutionary initiatives introduced in the Philippine
justice system to expedite trial proceedings which include the implementation
of the Judicial Affidavit Rule in 2012 and the electronic court or eCourt
program in 2013 that improved the case management and docket disposition among
designated eCourts. The Hustisyeah project was also launched in 2013 with pilot
courts in Quezon City which is a court decongestion program that deploys case
decongestion officers nationwide to help reduce the dockets among 460
beneficiary courts.
Considering
the noble purpose of the Continuous Trial to give life to the spirit of the Constitutional
rights of an accused for a speedy trial, this soon to be implemented system on
speedy justice provides a comforting welcome among the members of the judiciary
and all its stakeholders. However, there are challenges that the justice system
needs to address for the efficient implementation of the Continuous Trial
system which includes filling up vacant position of judges in different courts and
the subjective appreciation of judges on what is reasonable in ruling on motion
for postponements as among many others.
