Wanted: more judges
Wanted: more judges
Posted 11:35pm (Mla time) Mar 13, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 14, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
IT WAS Joseph Estrada, then vice president of the Republic, who popularized the term "hoodlums in robes," referring to corrupt judges and an unreliable judicial process. It was also Estrada, in his inaugural address as the country's 13th President, who asserted that most of the major crimes were committed by "hoodlums in uniforms," who were then and all too often protected by corrupt lawyers, or "hoodlums in barong Tagalog."
Estrada, now on trial for plunder, was wrong about one detail. By volume, uniformed officials may be responsible for most crimes of corruption; but the really big crimes are committed by public officials who don't even wear any uniform, or by successful businessmen who may not need to wear a suit at all. But without a doubt, on the issue of corruption in the judiciary, Estrada nailed it on the head.
This is not to say that, having so clearly pinpointed a major problem in governance, Estrada set out to solve it. In the long term, his main contribution to the administration of justice may well turn out to be his becoming a defendant himself-thus proving that no man is truly above the law.
And to be sure, the Supreme Court has sometimes taken decisive action, especially in the last few years. As Sen. Francis Pangilinan, the Senate's representative in the Judicial and Bar Council, reminded Inquirer editors and reporters last week, the high court punished 56 judges for various infractions last year, and has shown no signs of stopping.
But to this day, some of the bigger regional trial courts continue to be known for their for-a-fee decisions. Many lawyers continue to complain privately about specific judges-for-rent. And much of the necessary paperwork that is coursed through the courts continues to suffer from that peculiar form of bureaucratic inertia: A document does not move until money is in close proximity.
There is no shortage of reformers among judges, and as we have noted the Supreme Court has been particularly strict in the last few years. But much more needs to be done to remove the corrupt from the judiciary.
Now here comes Pangilinan pointing out another-perhaps, even more fatal-problem. The judiciary is woefully short of judges. Out of 2,153 positions, only two-thirds, or some 1,461, are occupied. That means that one out of every three courtrooms is vacant.
On the first level of the judiciary (the metropolitan and municipal trial courts), the ratio is downright apocalyptic. Nine out of every 10 courts are vacant, Pangilinan said. As a result, "judges are made to man three to four courts."
The lack of judges adds to the problem of delay, which is perhaps, over time, the main factor that erodes public confidence in the effectiveness of the justice system. Justice delayed, we know from bitter experience, is justice denied.
But the lack also adds to the problem of corruption, which gravely undermines the people's faith in the judiciary. Money doesn't even have to be involved. A crafty lawyer knows the easiest way to "help" an overworked judge is to write his decision or, more precisely, to write a brief that, with a minimum of editing, can be released in his name. A savvy lawyer can propose a schedule that places the judge's interest ahead of the client's. In other words, a judge can be hostage to his overloaded docket, and it is helpful lawyers who pay the ransom.
Why do we lack so many judges?
For one thing, serving as a judge who calls it straight can be risky; as recent history shows, assassination is a very real threat.
For another, the judiciary takes a very long time-as much as eight months-to fill a judicial vacancy.
For a third, judges are not paid as much as their position deserves. A new law will increase their pay by as much as a hundred percent, but full implementation won't be until three years from now.
Not least, very few study law in order to become a judge. Law students and beginning lawyers are absorbed into a culture which recognizes brilliance in successfully pursuing one side of a case, rather than appreciating both sides. They learn, very early, that the aggressiveness of paid champions is much more prized over the tact and neutrality of a lowly-paid judge. Is it any wonder they keep clear of the bench?
Posted 11:35pm (Mla time) Mar 13, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 14, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
IT WAS Joseph Estrada, then vice president of the Republic, who popularized the term "hoodlums in robes," referring to corrupt judges and an unreliable judicial process. It was also Estrada, in his inaugural address as the country's 13th President, who asserted that most of the major crimes were committed by "hoodlums in uniforms," who were then and all too often protected by corrupt lawyers, or "hoodlums in barong Tagalog."
Estrada, now on trial for plunder, was wrong about one detail. By volume, uniformed officials may be responsible for most crimes of corruption; but the really big crimes are committed by public officials who don't even wear any uniform, or by successful businessmen who may not need to wear a suit at all. But without a doubt, on the issue of corruption in the judiciary, Estrada nailed it on the head.
This is not to say that, having so clearly pinpointed a major problem in governance, Estrada set out to solve it. In the long term, his main contribution to the administration of justice may well turn out to be his becoming a defendant himself-thus proving that no man is truly above the law.
And to be sure, the Supreme Court has sometimes taken decisive action, especially in the last few years. As Sen. Francis Pangilinan, the Senate's representative in the Judicial and Bar Council, reminded Inquirer editors and reporters last week, the high court punished 56 judges for various infractions last year, and has shown no signs of stopping.
But to this day, some of the bigger regional trial courts continue to be known for their for-a-fee decisions. Many lawyers continue to complain privately about specific judges-for-rent. And much of the necessary paperwork that is coursed through the courts continues to suffer from that peculiar form of bureaucratic inertia: A document does not move until money is in close proximity.
There is no shortage of reformers among judges, and as we have noted the Supreme Court has been particularly strict in the last few years. But much more needs to be done to remove the corrupt from the judiciary.
Now here comes Pangilinan pointing out another-perhaps, even more fatal-problem. The judiciary is woefully short of judges. Out of 2,153 positions, only two-thirds, or some 1,461, are occupied. That means that one out of every three courtrooms is vacant.
On the first level of the judiciary (the metropolitan and municipal trial courts), the ratio is downright apocalyptic. Nine out of every 10 courts are vacant, Pangilinan said. As a result, "judges are made to man three to four courts."
The lack of judges adds to the problem of delay, which is perhaps, over time, the main factor that erodes public confidence in the effectiveness of the justice system. Justice delayed, we know from bitter experience, is justice denied.
But the lack also adds to the problem of corruption, which gravely undermines the people's faith in the judiciary. Money doesn't even have to be involved. A crafty lawyer knows the easiest way to "help" an overworked judge is to write his decision or, more precisely, to write a brief that, with a minimum of editing, can be released in his name. A savvy lawyer can propose a schedule that places the judge's interest ahead of the client's. In other words, a judge can be hostage to his overloaded docket, and it is helpful lawyers who pay the ransom.
Why do we lack so many judges?
For one thing, serving as a judge who calls it straight can be risky; as recent history shows, assassination is a very real threat.
For another, the judiciary takes a very long time-as much as eight months-to fill a judicial vacancy.
For a third, judges are not paid as much as their position deserves. A new law will increase their pay by as much as a hundred percent, but full implementation won't be until three years from now.
Not least, very few study law in order to become a judge. Law students and beginning lawyers are absorbed into a culture which recognizes brilliance in successfully pursuing one side of a case, rather than appreciating both sides. They learn, very early, that the aggressiveness of paid champions is much more prized over the tact and neutrality of a lowly-paid judge. Is it any wonder they keep clear of the bench?
posted by Dante at 12:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home