Hinanay, Grace Anne Nicole R.

11687835
Special Proceedings G03

ADR Forum Insights

The forum educated me about Public Dispute Resolution (PDR) in the United
States that became the foundation for ADR in our country. The speaker discussed the
sources of public dispute such as disagreement over facts, incompatible interests, clash
of values and identities, negative relationships and process factors. As a result, PDR
seeks representation of all affected stakeholders, to build a shared understanding of each
other’s underlying interests and of the issue at stake, to jointly develop options that could
address the issues and generate mutual gains, to negotiate package agreements that
satisfy everyone’s primary interests and meet broader public goals and to seek
institutionalized collaboration. The challenge to PDR today is political polarization,
unequal opportunity and influence and structural economic and social challenges. The
role of lawyers in PDR is to act as a legal counsel to government, business and NGOs
involved in PDR, to act as leaders and staff by using legal background to inform PDR
goals, strategy and process. To be mediators/facilitators by developing process skills that
build on and go beyond contract and settlement negotiations, or judicial arbitration.

The PDR process can be summarized by first, assessing the potential. Second,
choosing the design and to decide on the process. Third, clarifying facts and opinions,
Fourth, seek mutual gains. Fifth, reach an agreement between the parties. Sixth, to
implement, adapt and learn. The speaker presented implications for public dispute
resolution. First, to use co-conveners to increase credibility. Second, get more diverse
stakeholders to the table. Representation and participation must go beyond traditional
leaders, groups and forums. Third, put more time and effort into dialogue to build mutual
understanding and trust before negotiating. Fourth, to assume that everyone’s an expert
by joint fact finding and analysis. Fifth, offer very high transparency and active two-way
communication. Sixth, disclose potential agreements earlier so that “backroom deals” can
be avoided.

I also learned about Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in our country as a way
of resolving disputes. Before, I confined my knowledge of resolving disputes only through
litigation. I only thought of ADR as a way of resolving disputes only in selected cases and
that it is not a common recourse when it comes to disputes. The forum serves as an eye
opener about ADR as an option that is a speedy and impartial way to resolve disputes
and to unclog our court dockets at the same time. It is an option where in parties resolve
their disputes by making their own arrangements. I learned that ADR is a process in which
a neural third party participates to assist in the resolution of issues. ADR may be done in
several ways. These ways include arbitration, mediation, conciliation, early neutral
evaluation, mini-trial or any combination.
 Mediation is a way is a voluntary process in which a mediator is selected by the
disputing parties. Mediation facilitates communication and negotiation and the end goal
is to assist the parties in reaching voluntary agreement. The advantages of mediation are
its confidentiality, prompt, economical dispute resolution and the decisions making
authority rest upon the parties. The nature of mediation is that it is confidential and
privileged. Meaning, it is not intended to be disclosed. As a result, a party, a mediator or
a nonparty participant may refuse to disclose and may prevent any other person from
disclosing a mediation communication. Confidential information is not subject to discovery
and it is inadmissible in adversarial proceedings. However, this may be waived. An
agreement to submit the dispute to mediation by any institution shall include an
agreement to be bound by the internal mediation and administrative policies of such
institution.

In ADR, the lawyer shall view his role in the mediation as that of a collaborator with
the other lawyer in working together toward the common goal of helping their clients
resolve their differences. The lawyer should encourage and assist his client to actively
participate in the discussions and to cooperate in resolving the dispute. It is also the task
of the lawyer to assist his client to comprehend and appreciate the mediation process and
the benefits. The lawyer should discuss to his client that mediation is a process of
negotiation, the possible options for settlement and the need to be open minded about
other possibilities. This is similar to the lawyers role in PDR.

The forum also gave me an insight on the advantages of ADR. First, parties have
the autonomy to resolve their disputes and to make their own arrangements. In my
opinion, this is an amicable way if it will be compared to litigation for parties can come up
with a solution that is beneficial for both unlike in litigation where there is a winner and a
loser. It is be taken note that in ADR, the lawyer of both parties works with each other to
resolve the differences of their clients. Second, ADR can be the mean to achieve speedy
and impartial justice and to unclog our courts. Since the cases can be brought before a
neutral third person who do not have any interest, resolving the matter can be quicker
unlike in litigation where there is a process to be followed which can take a long time.
Third, there is confidentiality in mediation process. The mediation proceeding is held in
private where the parties, their representatives and mediator can only attend. Hence, the
dispute can be kept between the parties and the mediator and they cannot be compelled
to disclose information. Unlike in litigation where in anyone can enter the courtroom and
listen to the case.

In conclusion, ADR should be promoted as a means of resolving disputes. The use

of ADR should be expanded in the private and public sectors before the parties resort to
litigation for ADR is a way to resolve disputes quickly, with impartial justice and as a result,
it unclogs the docket of our courts.