Our Supreme Court (SC), as the court of last resort, has been generally perceived to be high up in an ivory tower that can be reached only after a tortuous legal war fought on a battlefield full of technical mines and unethical booby traps. Usually it does not act unless all the facts have been gathered and sifted by the courts on the ground and at the frontline. This is how it ordinarily exercises judicial power to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable and enforceable rights. In the justice system its role is said to be predominantly more passive.
But for the past several years especially after the adoption of a new Constitution in 1987, this conventional image of the Supreme Court has been undergoing a most welcome change because it has chosen to get out of its ivory tower and go down to the ground to assume a more active role particularly in providing access to justice. Such a stance is due mainly to the Court’s exercise of another power granted by the Constitution — the power to promulgate rules not only concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law and the Integrated Bar, but also and more importantly, the rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights and legal assistance to the underprivileged (Article VIII Section 5 [5]).
Thus through this rule making power, the Court started to look not only within but also outside the judiciary as it embarked on getting the facts from external sources especially in promulgating rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.
It started last year with the convening of a national consultative summit at the instance of SC Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to look into violations of the people’s civil and political rights occasioned by the alarming rise in the number of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. Such a summit resulted not only in the revision of the Rules of Court on the foremost writ of liberty known as the writ of habeas corpus but also in the introduction of new rules on the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data mainly designed for the protection and enforcement of the other basic civil and political rights of citizens.
Then last June 30 — July 1, 2008, the SC sponsored another forum on “Increasing Access to Justice: Bridging Gaps, Removing Roadblocks”. Apparently, the forum recognizes the severe poverty gripping the nation due to continuing violations of the people’s economic, social and cultural rights that is exacerbated by difficulty in or lack of access to justice. Hence, according to Chief Justice Puno, the forum aims “to identify and validate the issues and concerns of the marginalized sectors regarding the justice system, and to provide inputs as to, among others, how the Court under its constitutional rule-making power can enhance existing rules or promulgate new ones to increase their access to justice through the courts, and thus uphold our people’s socio-economic rights described as second generation rights”.
Thus the forum drew the attendance of the invited representatives from the poor, vulnerable and marginalized particularly farmers, fisherfolks, indigenous peoples, women, migrant workers, urban poor, Moro communities, formal labor sector, informal sector workers like vendors, jeepney drivers and home based employees, children, senior citizens and even groups working on the environment, as primary participants who presented their concerns about our justice system and proposed holistic remedies to bridge the gap and remove the roadblocks in increasing their access to justice. Also joining the forum were members of Congress, the Executive Department, Local Government, the bench, the bar and the business sector.
The two-day gathering divided into small workshop groups identified the problems being encountered in the barangay level, before the law enforcers, the prosecutors/lawyers, the quasi judicial bodies and the courts. It also pinpointed the essential gaps and roadblocks on access to justice, speedy resolution of cases and integrity infrastructure development that are easily deducible from its suggested solutions. There were roughly 22 suggested remedies but the more significant are the following: (1) recognize indigenous systems of dispute settlement and create tribal courts similar to Sharia courts; (2) maximize the use of the katarungang pambarangay or alternative dispute resolution in cases involving the poor; (3) review laws and SC decisions with big impact on marginalized groups and resolve conflicts in jurisdiction and in provisions of various laws affecting the poor; (5) implement information campaign on the rights of the poor and laws covering them; (6) provide training and accreditation to paralegals and allow their participation in administrative and trial court proceedings; (7) require private lawyers to render pro bono services to the poor in lieu of MCLE units; (8) enhance the education programs for judges and other administrators of justice on the issues and laws affecting the poor and on the gender and cultural sensitivity of judges; (9) designate special courts that will prioritize resolution of cases involving the poor and marginalized; (10) reduce the amount of court fees and the number of copies of required pleadings or exempt specific sectoral groups from payment of certain court fees and bonds; (11) address the language barrier in court proceedings with the use of local languages; (12) relax the rules of proceedings in cases involving the poor and ensure compliance with periods for resolution of judicial and quasi-judicial cases; (15) create a multi-sectoral body to receive charges against members of the judiciary in the region and ensure the speedy resolution of cases against erring judges and administrators of justice; (16) keep politics out of judicial appointments and institutionalize participation of the poor and marginalized groups in the formulation of judicial rules, selection of judicial officials and court employees.
Obviously the recommendations look formidable and challenging but overall, the forum is a big step towards bringing justice within the reach of the poor and marginalized as it likewise recommended a continuing dialogue between them and the judiciary and the creation of a special committee to oversee the implementation of the proposed remedies.