As the Philippine judiciary continues to battle with hundreds of thousands of cases pending before it, the Supreme Court of the Philippines through the Justice Reform Initiatives Support (JURIS) Project promotes the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms to help de-clog the court dockets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Latest figures show that while there are 702,147 pending cases in the country, excluding those at the Supreme Court level, there are only 1,453 judges who can review and act on them. A Philippine judge therefore handles an average of almost 500 cases, the number of which continues to increase with about 50,000 new cases filed each year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153These challenges only further strengthen the need to look for alternative resolutions in handling disputes\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, Atty. Hector Soliman, JURIS Project Director told reporters during a recent press briefing. Funded by the Canadian International Development Agency and Chaired by the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Reynato Puno, the JURIS Project revolutionized court case settlement across the country through ADR mechanisms such as Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CAM is an enhanced pre-trial procedure that involves settling cases with the assistance of mediator, an authorized officer of the court who helps parties identify issues and develop a proposal to resolve disputes. If a settlement cannot be reached through CAM, the case is brought back to the court for JDR process which requires a judge to become a mediator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Atty. Soliman shared that since the inception of the JURIS Project in 2003, it has helped eased the burden of 5 pilot trial courts by resolving almost 7,000 cases using ADR mechanisms. This meant affording the judges more time to hear other complicated cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The success of the mechanism employed by JURIS in its pilot sites has created a demand for ADR services in adjacent areas. Late last year, Judicial Dispute Resolution has also been introduced in the trial courts in Makati City.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What’s also interesting is that the project has contributed to efforts to change the mindset of the poor and marginalized groups, who often avoid legal matters due to sky-high cost of litigation and their perception that the law favors the rich and educated. Seeing the success rate of ADR, marginalized sectors have gained hope that they too can have access to justice,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d shared Atty. Soliman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Based on a study, 76% affirmed that ADR contributed to the ordinary citizen’s and the marginalized sector’s access to justice. Sixty-nine percent (69%) thinks that there is fairness and justice in the mediation process, while 59% says there is fairness and justice in the mediation outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Aside from the ADR mechanisms, the JURIS Project has two other components, namely: (1) Judicial Education and (2) Reform Advocacy Support which seeks to empower the poor to make use of judicial and quasi-judicial services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The implementing agencies of the JURIS Project are the Supreme Court of the Philippines Program Management Office (SC-PMO); Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA); Office of the Court Administrator (OCA); and Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALG).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The JURIS Project<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The JURIS Project is a capacity building and technical assistance project that aims to contribute to the efforts of the Philippine judiciary to improve the quality of judicial services and access to justice, particularly by the poor and marginalized groups. The components of the JURIS project are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Covering both Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), this component targets mediation as a vehicle for de-clogging the courts, while providing effective and inexpensive ways for dispute resolutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The settlement rates of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) for pilot sites from July 2004 to December 2007 are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pilot Site<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> Referred<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> Accepted<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> Settled<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> Settlement Rate<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> City of <\/span>San Fernando<\/span> and Pampanga<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 5,053<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 3,616<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 2,204<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 60.95%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> Bacolod<\/span> and <\/span>Negros<\/span> Occidental<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 3,862<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 3,060<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 1,695<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 55.39%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> Baguio<\/span> and Benguet (data from October 2006 only) 2,795<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 1,782<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 959<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 53.81%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> GRAND TOTAL<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 11,710<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 8,458<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 4,858<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 57.43%<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, the settlement rates for JURIS sites for the period from October 2006 to December 2007 are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n JURIS Site<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> Referred Cases<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> Underwent JDR<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> Settled Cases<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> Settlement Rate<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> City of San Fernando and Pampanga<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 1,419<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 1,343<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 391<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 29.1%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> Bacolod City and Negros Occidental <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 1,703<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 1,297<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 822<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 63.4%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> Baguio City and Benguet <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 2,121<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 1,197<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 329<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 27.5%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> San Fernando City and La Union <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 387<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 306<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 113<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 36.9%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> Cagayan de Oro City and Misamis Oriental <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 1,861<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 839<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 309<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 36.8%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr> GRAND TOTAL <\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 7,488<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 4,982<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 1,964<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td> 39.42%<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n An independent study by Reginaldo Guillen shows 76% affirms that ADR contributed to the ordinary citizen\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s and the marginalized sector\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s access to justice. Sixty-nine percent (69%) thinks that there is fairness and justice in the mediation process, while 59% says there is fairness and justice in the mediation outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. Judicial Education<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Aims to strengthen the capacity of PHILJA to plan, design and deliver effective, gender sensitive, and socially responsive education and training for judges and court personnel, mediators, and lawyers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. Reform Advocacy Support<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Networking and collaboration between the judiciary and civil society to improve the quality of judicial services and access to justice, and to empower the poor and marginalized groups to make use of judicial and quasi-judicial services. Primary vehicle for the component is ALG, Inc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The JURIS Project, with a duration from January 2003 to September 2008, is funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Project cost is Cdn$6.5 Million. The Canadian executing agency is the National Judicial Institute (NJI) based in Ottawa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (This release was issued during the media briefing of the JURIS Project Team on 2 July 2008 at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Makati City.)<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As the Philippine judiciary continues to battle with hundreds of thousands of cases pending before it, the Supreme Court of the Philippines through the Justice Reform Initiatives Support (JURIS) Project promotes the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms to help de-clog the court dockets.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,8],"tags":[451,450,444,23],"class_list":["post-446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-litigation-category","category-obiter-news","tag-adr","tag-alternative-dispute-resolution","tag-legal-procedure","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=446"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8482,"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/446\/revisions\/8482"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pnl-law.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n