JAR jars Justice? Last October(?

) 2012 the IBP Cagayan Chapter hosted a seminar about the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), an innovation introduced into our judicial system, which was unanimously approved by the Supreme Court (SC) justices on September 4, 2012. The forums guest speaker is no less than Justice Roberto A. Abad, one of the justices of the high court, who explained the raison detre and expounded the intricacies of the new law. The rule provides that when a party (whether plaintiff or defendant) questions his own witness, he no longer needs to place the witness on the witness stand. The judicial affidavit, written in question and answer format and prepared by the lawyer, takes the place of the direct examination of the witness. The court and the adverse party is given a copy of this affidavit together with all the pertinent documentary evidence attached thereto. During trial the court no longer has to listen to the direct examination of the witnesses but proceeds immedaitely to the cross-examination and re-direct examination and so on. It is said that cases tried under this new scheme is finished half the time earlier than those tried in the old traditional way since direct examination of witnesses usually consumes 50% of the trial time. The JAR is projected to drastically cut the trial time of cases. Cases have an average of six years before it is finally resolved! For a poor and powerless litigant that is simply too long, enough to take much of thier time and resources. No wonder many still cry justice delayed is justice denied. This is actually one of the principal reasons for the rules inception to de-clog our courts overclogged case dockets for a more effiecient administration of justice. The Justices of the Supreme Court are in good faith in uninimously approving the JAR. They see the rule as an effective tool in their overall campaign to reduce trial times and increase judicial efficiency and access to justice. Having witnessed the many problems (deficiencies) in our present judicial system they have foreseen this brave move as their lasting legacy in building a better judicial system. Despite this grand vision, some, however, see JAR not as a solution to the problem but one compunding it further. The Prosecutors League of the Philippines (PLP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), people wjo themsleves are very much involved in the administration of justice, are not totally amenable to this new rule. Prosecutor General Claro Arellano said the JAR will not solve the congestion and delays in courts. Not only will it unjustly burden the prosecutors, defense lawyers and private practitioners but criminal cases will be resolved not on the basis of the evidence brought forth by the parties but rather due to mere technicalities and will result in numerous dismissals of cases due to technicalities. He points further that Judges also cannot observe the demeanor/credibility of witnesses. Under Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC, the JAR was set to be implemented last January 2, 2012. But beacuse of these pertinent objections raised by PLP and DOJ the application of the Judicail Affidavit Rule was deferred for one year: from January 2013 to January @014. Given these opposing views regarding the suitability JAR in the light of the forseable benefits and damage it may cause, will the SC simply continue to postpone its implementation or will it drop its ruling altogether? If the SC upholds its former unanimity, continuing to warrant for the JAR as a crucial tool in bringing about substantial change in our ailing judicial system, then our prosecutors and lawyers will have no other option but to comply. (The last time I checked the SCs decision still hold supremacy over all other courts of the land, whether judicail or quasi-judicial). If, however, the SC chooses to declare JAR as ineffective and incompatible measure, as alluded by the prosecutors and the department of justice, then we have to think of other effective ways to improve the speedy adminsitration of justice in our judicial system. The implementation of the JAR should never be a case of securing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. We cannot denigrade the lofty standards of Justice to the utilitarian scales of Bentham and Mill. We cannot speed up the trial of cases with a view of being able to finish more cases, thus serving justice with much effiency, at the expense of sacrificing the integrity and relaibility of the due process in court trials. To do so is to make the JAR a self-defeating mechanism. It is like burning down the whole hut just to cook your favorite pancit (noodles). (Jo, pasensya na... di ko alam kung tama ginawa ko. Edit mo na lang.)