Mabini Hall - Access to Justice

What is this initiative again calling for the creation of special courts as a solution to the political killings? I have said it before and will it repeat it till kingdom come: creating special courts by itself will not do much to help address the basic problem of crime. It is a band-aid at best and a placebo at worst. With all due respect to the Supreme Court’s Administrative Order No. 25-2007 effective March 1, 2007, designating about 100 courts all over the country to specially and preferentially hear, try and decide cases involving killings of political activists and members of the media, is a temporary solution.

The first collective thing to do is to acknowledge that people are getting killed for a variety of reasons, from the most mundane personal spat or professional jealousy to outright elimination of rivals to serve the public or for control over the reins of power. There is no singular cause. What is being given much emphasis is that persons dying for their political beliefs - no matter how wrongly or violently they are held. Although the term ‘political killings’ remains to be elusive to define, at least the Supreme Court has laid down some factors how to so determine: the political affiliation of the victim, method of attach and reports that state agents are involved in the commission of the crime or acquiesced in them.

A special court is not so special really. Aside from the designation of certain branches of the Regional Trial Court throughout the country, the mandatory continuous trial is required to be terminated within sixty (60) days from commencement. We have done this with kidnapping for ransom (KFR) cases, drug courts and in general, the heinous crimes court. The latter has been scrapped after the judges manning them were targeted and some killed. The KFR cases resulted in a few major convictions but with a few big setbacks. The drug courts I do not have any comment on.

Within the special courts, the cumbersome procedures are the same. The slow court personnel, the run down equipment and bad facilities do not differ. Nay, even the lawyers employ the same means and tactics. What makes it special, understandable only as being different, is the priority given to the assigned cases. Naturalmente, if a court only decides on some cases, the pace will arguably be faster which translates automatically to ‘better’ courts.

For some special cases, the courts have responded timely. Note the one year period for the full trial of Nicole even faced with a battery of lawyers. It can be done. Elsewhere, however, the length of time for trial of rape cases are counted like extensions of bases agreements. For constitutionalists, is this not an unequal protection of the law? Why should one person or one class of cases merit more attention and more importance in terms of the administration and dispensation of justice? A basic principle is that he who first filed should be given first priority. Special courts jump the queue so to speak.

Truly, the propaganda, the media hype and the consequent widespread fallout are sufficient to give it due regard? The Administrative Order cites the preservation of the Rule of Law as resting upon the judiciary, takes cognizance of the Melo Report and acts upon the request of President Arroyo for the special courts. All these actions are of course justified and laudable. Alas, the true measure of a responsive court system and a relevant governance structure is the observance and fidelity to every person’s rights – every person who has suffered injustice must be given redress without fear or favor, with or without public attention. That lady justice is blindfolded does mean exactly this: political killings or not, the courts must move speedily.

Ideal it is, I know. The only way to fix the problem is to approach it systemically. The justice system is aptly called a system. For it to work and to function, all parts must be in place. For each part that is corrupted or is failing, the whole chain breaks down. And carabao justice continues its drudging and grudging step into the dark side.

For example, the judiciary has been asking for an annual budget that is pegged to the total budget at two percent (2%) per year. Right now it is hovering near one percent (1%). The Constitution mandates fiscal autonomy and a credible judiciary must be financially independent. Congress must see to it instead of trying to use its power over the purse to influence judges and justices.

Significantly, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno has taken an active and direct hand in investigating the infamous temporary restraining orders (TROs) for sale in the Court of Appeals. Reforms must be forceful and strategically focused. Other stakeholders must get involved and not put up with the tremendous backlog of cases which bogs down the delivery of justice and frustrates the ordinary Filipino and forces to take a more radical approach. This no doubt contributes to the spate of extrajudicial killings.

That is the key issue that we are faced with: the functioning criminal justice system. There is no short cut to it by the creation of special courts. It will only lull our citizens to passivity and our leaders to complacency that something is being done about it. There may be a few good cases here and there; the sound and fury of those waylaid would have died down in the distant future but the remnants of those who choose to agonize through slow pace of rule of law will serve as the stark reminder that those who choose to take matters into their own hands, no matter how misplaced their beliefs, are dispensing justice as they see fit, even if they err in their methods, as an alternative to our not-so-special courts.