Anda di halaman 1dari 2

EFFECTIVITY AND PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

The Judicial Affidavit Rule requires that direct examination of a witness, which is the examination-in-chief of a witness
by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue, shall be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject to the
usual mode of cross-examination.

When is the Rule effective?

The Rule took effect on 1 January 2013. However, in criminal cases without private prosecutors, the Supreme Court
allowed public prosecutors in first- and second-level courts until the end of 2013 to utilize the affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses prepared and submitted in connection with the investigation and filing of the
Information in court. Public prosecutors are required to fully comply with the Rule by 1 January 2014.

During the one-year period when the concession is in effect, the attending public prosecutor, upon presenting the
witness, shall require the witness to affirm what the sworn statement contains and may only ask the witness
additional direct examination questions that have not been amply covered by the sworn statement.

The concession does not apply in criminal cases where the private complainant is represented by a duly empowered
private prosecutor, who has the obligation to comply with the Rule.

The reasons for the issuance of the Rule

Case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each year and the
slow and cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has in place. About 40% of criminal cases are dismissed
annually owing to the fact that complainants simply give up coming to court after repeated postponements. Few
foreign businessmen make long-term investments in the Philippines because its courts are unable to provide ample
and speedy protection to their investments, keeping its people poor.

In order to reduce the time needed for completing the testimonies of witnesses in cases under litigation, on 21
February 2012 the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial
affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses. It is reported that such piloting has quickly resulted in
reducing by about two-thirds the time used for presenting the testimonies of witnesses, thus speeding up the hearing
and adjudication of cases. The adoption of the Rule hopes to replicate nationwide the success of the Quezon City
experience in the use of judicial affidavits.

These reasons for the issuance of the Judicial Affidavit Rule are contained in the whereas clauses of A.M. No. 12-8-
8-SC.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

A.M. No. 99-2-04-SC November 21, 2000

IN RE: DISPENSING WITH REJOINDER

Gentleman:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated

IN RE: DISPENSING WITH REJOINDER

Henceforth, upon the filing of a Reply (when required), no REJOINDER shall be required by the Court. Instead, the
Court shall resolve either to (a) give due course to the petition and either consider the case submitted for decision
based on the pleadings or require the parties to submit their respective memoranda; or (b) deny or dismiss the
petition, as the case may be.

The Memoranda of the parties when required shall contain the following:

(a) A "Statement of the Case," which is clear and nature of the action; a summary of the proceedings; the
challenged decision, resolution, or order of the court below; the nature of the judgment; and any other
matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the controversy;

(b) A "Statement of the Facts," which is clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the established
facts;

(c) A "Statement of the Issues," which is clear and concise statement of the issues submitted to the Court for
resolution;

(d) The "Argument," which is a clear and concise presentation of the argument in support of each issue; and

(e) The "Relief," which is a specification of the order or judgment which the party seeks to obtain.

No new issues may be raised by a party in the Memorandum. Issues raised in previous pleadings but not included in
the Memorandum shall be deemed waived or abandoned. Being a summation of the parties' previous pleadings, the
Memoranda alone may be considered by the Court in deciding or resolving the petition.

This resolution shall take effect on 15 March 1999 and shall be published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation
in the Philippines.

Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, and the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Romeo, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima,
Pardo, Buena and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ.