"NOTHING LESS THAN HISTORIC," was how a social media blogger excitedly described the two-part IBP public
forum on the search for the next Supreme Court Chief Justice. For the first time ever in the history of CJ selection, the public saw the nominees up close and listened to their judicial philosophies and reform agenda. The Bar Tribune is pleased to publish the full text of the presentations of the nine qualified CJ nominees who participated in the July 20 IBP public forum.
21
August 2012
tims of crimes find no speedy justice in our to endure beginning-to-end testimonies. ties and (2) the factual and legal issues He knows from the pleadings the facts that he needs to resolve. At the prelimicourts. The consequences of delays in civil that are admitted, and the facts that re- nary conference, the judge and the parties will finalize the case summary, agree actions are dire. Few foreign business- main in issue. We tinkered with the possibility of on the order in which the factual issues men make long-term investments in our country because our courts cannot pro- adopting a one-time face-to-face hearing will be heard, and identify the needed witof cases that tribunals in other countries nesses. vide protection to their investments. All the facts that the parties allege in Result: we do not attain economic are employing to solve problems of delay. But before recommending the proposal to their pleadings and affidavits, when not growth; our people remain poor. What causes these terrible delays in the Supreme Court, we opted to bring it to put in issue, shall be deemed admitted or our justice system? There are many caus- those that would be affected for consulta- regarded as irrelevant. es. Our courts are few. Prosecutors and tions. Thus, we presented the proposed ONE FACE TO FACE HEARING public attorneys are few. Our system for change to the Integrated Bar of the Philiphearing and deciding cases is slow and pine (IBP). One-time, face-to-face hearing??? The court will then set the case for cumbersome. We could do nothing about our shortage in number of courts, and the they asked. But after a study, the IBP of- one, face-to-face hearing. Actually, with few prosecutors and public attorneys we fered to hold nationwide discussions re- the direct testimonies of witnesses emhave. But are we earnest in examining our garding it. The IBP sponsored dialogues bodied in affidavits, together with the docsystem for hearing and deciding cases to at regional and chapter levels with judges, uments, the substance of the evidence for see if we can increase the capacity of our prosecutors, public attorneys, and private both sides are already before the judge. practitioners of all kinds. Thanks to the At the face-to-face hearing, the judge judges for disposing of their cases? In 2009, upset with the mess of de- IBP we met them in IBP Chapter centers will have all the witnesses sworn in simultaneously. She may then question the witlays in the hearing and adjudication of or campus halls. nesses present regarding the first factual cases, I asked the Chief Justice to create CONSENSUS issue. Counsels for the parties may also a Committee to Address Case Congestion examine the witnesses. Then the court in the lower courts and offered to head it. Those who took part in the dialogues will move on to the next factual issue. The conventional thinking was to streamUnder the new procedure, the examiline the system and pound hard on judges agree based on experience that piecemeal trials have escalated to crisis propor- nation of the witnesses by the judge and to speed up the disposition of cases. But Albert Einstein once said that it is tions over the years. As a result, the judge the lawyers will generally be free-flowing, madness to do the same thing the same is unable to hear every item of fact in the shifting from one witness to another, thus way when it is no longer working. How old context of the whole case. He is forced to promoting spontaneity in answers and is our system for hearing and deciding rely more on the transcript than on his per- vivid contrast between opposing versions. This gives the judge the opportunity to cases? The Americans gave it to us over sonal recollection of what the witness said a hundred years ago. It is a system unique and how he said it. The judge often finds observe the demeanors of the witnesses to their history and culture. Yet we adopted no real value in paying attention to what and their reactions to each other. Nothing face-to-face confrontait in this country and we were We are preparing to shift from a purely adversarial system to a beats tion in sensing what is true. taught in our law schools the idea that there is no way to combined adversarial and inquisitorial system patterned after Conversation, says the Bible, hear and decide cases fairly successful European models. It consists of a preliminary confer- is the test of a man. Sirach except the American way. ence and one face-to-face hearing with a decision at the end of 27:5 NAB In a way, our highly successful small -claims The American system is the hearing. court is a forerunner of the adversarial and heavy in certhe witness says at the time he testifies. proposed face-to-face hearing. emonials. The plaintiff and the defendant match Why should he when he would be decidTestimonies will be taken in the verskills in presenting evidence before a ing the case 3 or 5 years later. In contrast, nacular. No longer will they be interpreted judge set high on a pedestal but, ironical- the traditional European system for try- into English. They will be electronically ly, doomed to sit back and listen to what ing cases is inquisitorial. When a crime recorded. Testimonies will be quoted in is reported, the judge summons the wit- pleadings in their original version with the the parties want him to hear. We also adopted a system designed nesses, queries them, and makes his find- English translation in parenthesis providfor both a jury trial and a Bench trial. Re- ings. He takes a direct and proactive role ed by the party, subject to counter translasult: we have a shadow jury sitting in our in searching for evidence. A subsequent tion by opposing side. trial is largely confirmatory of the findings Trial will no longer be treated as a courtroom. Our judge pre-screens the questions of the investigating judge. field of combat where the opposing lawWe are preparing to shift from a purely yers stand as champions of their clients. to prevent a supposedly unlearned jury from hearing inadmissible answers. But adversarial system to a combined adver- But rather, as an occasion for the judge this is pointless since the judge is himself sarial and inquisitorial system patterned and the parties to collectively search for the jury and, with his legal training, can after successful European models. It con- truth. As a rule, the judge will hear disregard inadmissible answers even if he sists of a preliminary conference and one every case in one sitting. One continuous face-to-face hearing with a decision at the hearing will enable him to see every item hears them. Another thing, since the jurors sup- end of the hearing. of fact in the context of the whole. In conposedly know nothing about the facts of trast, the piecemeal trials we have today PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE the case, witnesses must tell their storun for years. The poor judge would hardries from beginning to end through direct ly remember what he heard two or three examination required under section 4 of Under the proposed rules, the judge years ago considering the volume of his Rule 132. This means bearing with series will hold a preliminary conference and a cases. of preliminary questions because, in direct one-time, face to face hearing. The parties examination, counsel has to elicit new will submit the affidavits of witnesses and PIECEMEAL TRIAL IS FARCE ! facts based on previously testified facts, documents already marked as exhibits. IMMEDIATE DECISION like placing one stone on top of another. The judge will then prepare a summary of: But our judge does not actually need (1) the conflicting factual claims of the parSince the rules require the judge to
22
23