THE SUGBOSPEAKS

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE CEBU HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
USC COLLEGE OF LAW, CEBU

CASE CONCERNING HOUSE BILL NO. 855:

AN ACT TO CREATE AND IMPLEMENT A JURY SYSTEM IN THE RTC OF
THE PHILIPPINES AND OTHER MATTERS

HUWIS, INC.
(Petitioner)
vs.
MANLALABAN, INC.
(Respondent)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

SECOND SEMESTER 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

THE PARTIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

STATEMENT OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I.FIRST ARGUMENT

A. SUB-ARGUMENT

II. SECOND ARGUMENT

A. SUB-ARGUMENT

B. SUB-ARGUMENT

11

C. SUB-ARGUMENT

III.THIRD ARGUMENT

13
13

IV. FOURTH ARGUMENT

15

A. SUB-ARGUMENT

15

B. SUB-ARGUMENT

16

C. SUB-ARGUMENT
V. FIFTH ARGUMENT

17
18

A. SUB-ARGUMENT

18

B. SUB-ARGUMENT
CONCLUSION

19
20

PRAYER

20

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

HB

House Bill

R.A.

Republic Act

RTC

Regional Trial Courts

SCRA

Supreme Court Reports Annotated

Sec.

Section

U.S.

United States

v.

Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LAWS, CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Sec 1 Art 2, 1987 Constitution

Sec 16 Art 3, 1987 Constitution
Sec 15 Art 8, 1987 Constitution
Sec 19 (3) Art 7, 1987 Constitution
Sec 17 Art 9-A, 1987 Constitution
Sec. 7 Art. 14, 1987 Constitution
Secs 1-6, Rule 129, 1940 Rules of Court
Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court
Rule 2.9(A)(3), ABA Draft Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2006)
Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct, October 20, 1989
Canon 1, Rule 1.03, Code of Judicial Conduct, October 20, 1989
Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Code of Judicial Conduct, October 20, 1989
Canon 2, Rule 2.04, Code of Judicial Conduct, October 20, 1989
Canon 5, Rule 5.02, Code of Judicial Conduct, October 20, 1989
Canon 13, Adm. Order No. 162 Canons of Judicial Ethics. August 1, 1946
Canon 12, Adm. Order No. 162 Canons of Judicial Ethics. August 1, 1946
Canon 25 (1), Adm. Order No. 162 Canons of Judicial Ethics. August 1, 1946
Canon 30, Adm. Order No. 162 Canons of Judicial Ethics. August 1, 1946
Canon 1, ABA Annotated Model Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 3, Rule 3.02, Code of Judicial Conduct, October 20, 1989
SUPREME COURT, CIRCULARS, ORDERS, RESOLUTION, 147 (2001).
R.A. No. 296. Judiciary Act of 1948. June 17, 1948.
R.A. No. 3019. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. August 17, 1960
Art 204, Revised Penal Code Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment

CASES

Ramirez vs. Corpuz-Macandog, A. M. No. R-351-RTJ, September 26, 1986, 144

SCRA 462
Libarios vs. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991, 199 SCRA 48
In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2003)
Go vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992, 206 SCRA 165
In re Kelly, 757 A.2d 456 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2000)
Sabitsana Jr. vs. Villamor, A.M. No. 90-474, October 4, 1991, 202 SCRA 445
The Court Administrator vs. Hermoso, et al., A.M. No. R-97-RTJ, May 28, 1987
In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 832 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2002)
In re Cornelius, 436 S.E.2d 836 (N.C. 1993)
Hurtado vs. Judalena, G.R. No. L-40603, July 13, 1978, 84 SCRA 41
Rivera vs. Barro, A.M. No. 2003- CTJ, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 338
Bagatsing vs. Herrera, L-34952, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 434
Suspension of Clerk of Court Jacobo, A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC, August 12,
1998
Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 5-3675, B22 P.2d 1333 (Alaska 1991)
Tan vs. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563, September 8, 2004

In re Seitz, 495 N.W.2d 599 (Mich. 1993)

US v. Dorr, 2 Phil 269,284 (1903)

BOOKS

Cruz, Isagani. Philippine Political Law, Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc.,
2005.
Bernas, Joaquin G. The 1987 Constitution: A Reviewer, 4th edition, Rex
Bookstore, Inc., 2002.
Pineda, E. , Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1994 ed., p. 392
Johnson, Vincent R. The Ethical Foundation of American Independence, 29
Fordham Urb. L.J. 1007, 2002.

ARTICLES

Alconga, Hazel L. For Whom The Gavel Falls: A Comparison and Analysis of
the Philippine and U.S.Justice System, Vol. XLIX, UST Law Review, JanuaryDecember 2005.
Is the Philippine Judicial System Effective in Fighting Corruption? A
preliminary report of the Center for People Empowerment in
Governance (CenPEG) in partnership with Transparency International
(TI) Philippines. Dec. 8, 2006
Justice Reynato S. Puno. The New Philippine Code of Conduct, paper
delivered before the International Conference and Showcase on Judicial
Reforms, November 28-30, 2006.

INTERNET

Administration of the Jury System and Selection of a Jury, by Judge Roger G.

Strand (D. Arizona), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpGFWcsguWM,
Posted date: November 16, 2009
Republic of the Philippines. National Statistics Office (October 2009)
"Quickstat" (pdf). Author. Retrieved 2009-12-11.
E. M. Alip, PHILIPPINE CIVILIZATION: BEFORE THE SPANISH CONQUEST (1936)
http://ustlawreview.com/pdf/vol.XLIX/Articles/For_Whom_the_Gavel_Falls.pdf
English Legal System Page
<http:// www.kwteacher.net/ELS/Lay%20People/Juries%202.htm>
C. E. Person, The Judicial Process in the US
http://www.andersonkill.com/titanic/process.htm
How the Independence of Jurors is Preserved
http://philippinegovantigraft.hoestead.com/SolutionBasics2.htm
http://www.rahulmehta.com/theory/rn_why.htm
English Legal System Page <http:// www.kwteacher.net/ELS/Lay
%20People/Juries%202.htm>

THE PARTIES
Petitioner, HUWIS, INC. is an association of lawyers who support the
streamlining and improvement of the judicial system in the Philippines and strongly
opposes House Bill No. 855 on the ground that it violates the Constitution, Rules of
Court and seriously undermines the Judicial System by allowing inexperienced and
ordinary citizens to decide matters of law.
Respondent, MANLALABAN, INC. is a party-list organization composed of
lawyers providing legal aid to thousands of Filipinos unable to afford legal services
and filed House Bill No. 855 in the House of Representatives through its
Congressman to address this issue.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent, Manlalaban, Inc., a party-list organization, opposing to the
advocacy of the petitioner herein submits to the jurisdiction of the Cebu High Court
of Justice in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the case for the resolution of the
issues raised hereto.
The interpretation and determination of the validity of the instrument (House
Bill 855) fall on under and within the original judicial authority of this Honorable
Court. On the ground that the issues raised by the petitioner are imbued with public
interest, the respondent respectfully honor this Honorable Courts decision to
exercise its jurisdiction and hear the issues for resolution.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The following are the issues to which the respondent sought resolution from this
Honorable Court:

I.

Whether or not there is an actual case or controversy involved on the

issue of creating and implementing a Jury system in the Regional Trial
Courts of the Philippines, premised on the fact that the petitioners did
present issues involving conflicts of legal rights

II.

Whether or not House Bill No. 855 is constitutional and in harmony with
the Rules of Court

III.

Whether or not the proposal is violative of the rights already conferred in

the Judicial system by placing faith in ordinary citizens to carry out justice

IV.

Whether or not provisions in House Bill No. 855 present a viable solution
to achieve speedy resolution of pending cases crowding the courts'
dockets and the rumors of graft and corruption

V.

Whether or not U.S. Jury System will be feasible in the Philippine courts

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Thousands of cases are pending before first level courts, all over the country.
Due to the sheer volume of cases crowding the courts' dockets, resolutions of cases
usually take a year or more, on average.
Incensed by the delay in the resolution of pending cases and dissatisfied with
many of the decisions handed down by some judges about whom rumors of graft
and corruption abound, Manlalaban, Inc - a party list organization composed of
lawyers providing legal aid to thousands of Filipinos unable to afford legal services filed a bill in the house of representatives through its Manlalaban congressman, to
address this issue.
Manlalaban, Inc's House Bill No. 855 entitled An act to create and implement
a jury system in the Regional Trial Courts (RTC) of the Philippines, and other
matters" has garnered great support in the house of representatives and from
various civic organizations all over the country. The bill mandates the Judiciary to
adopt a Jury system wherein Filipino citizens of legal age would be allowed to
participate in jury duty and in the resolution of pending cases before the RTC.
Essentially, its model is the jury system of the U.S.

On the other hand, Huwis, Inc. - an association of lawyers who support the
streamlining and improvement of the judicial system in the Philippines - strongly
opposes the House Bill No. 855 on the ground that it violates the constitution, the
rules of

court

and

seriously undermines

the

Judicial

system

by

allowing

inexperienced and ordinary citizens to decide matters of law.

In order to resolve the issues presented by the foregoing bill and to prevent
its passage in both houses of the Congress, Huwis, Inc. has presented a petition
before the Cebu High Courts of Justice to restrain the passage of House Bill No. 855.
Considering that the issue raised by Huwis, Inc. is imbued with public interest
and involves a constitutional question, the Cebu High Court of Justice has decided to
exercise its jurisdiction and hear the issue for resolution, with Huwis, Inc.as
petitioner and Manlalaban, Inc as respondent.

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
Claim 1: The issue presented to this honorable court does not present any actual
case or controversy for the House Bill No.855 has not yet been enacted by the
Congress, thereby making it not ripe for judicial adjudication.
Claim 2: That proposed House Bill No. 855 does not violate the Constitution and the
Rules of Court, but on the contrary enforces the said laws.
a) On the jurisdiction of courts, the proposed House Bill No. 855 does not violate
the Constitution, for it does not change the said courts jurisdiction; and that
Article 8 Section 2 of the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion jurisdiction of the various courts, but may
not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
section 5.
b) Sec. 6, Article VIII of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court maintains
administrative supervision over all courts; proposed House Bill No. 855 does
not deny the courts administrative supervision of the courts;

c) That proposed House Bill No. 855 enforces the constitutional mandate of due
process, for it assures that the case was impartially evaluated by the people
in their sovereign capacity.
Claim 3: That proposed House Bill No.855 which creates a jury system is feasible
and is needed by the Philippine courts in order to gain the trust of the people back,
and will be beneficial to the Filipino citizens in terms of increasing civic awareness
and participation --which is part of the duty of each and every Filipino citizen.
a) That trial by many is a more effective way to achieve justice than trial by one.
b) That the creation of jury is an answer to curtail administration of justice
through bribery in the courts.
c) That proposed House Bill No. 855 increases the civic awareness of the
citizens thereby making it beneficial.

BODY OF THE MEMORIAL

I. HISTORICAL BASIS
* American Military Government
When the Philippines came under the control and administration of the US in
1898, then US President William McKinley appointed the Schurman Commission to
visit the Philippines and make recommendations on what can be done in order to
ameliorate the conditions of the people and improve public order. When the
Schurman Commission made its recommendations as to the steps that should be
taken to improve the administration of justice in the Philippines, it did in fact
recommend that trial by jury be instituted in "due time." However, this
recommendation was never implemented.1
The reasons for the initial rejection of the jury system as recommended by
the Schurman Commission included the following:
1

George W Pugh, Aspects of the Administration of Justice in the Philippines, 40 Phil. L.J. (1965).

10

1. Filipinos had no experience with juries;

2. General educational level was low; and
3. There was no single common language which could be understood by
witnesses and jurors throughout the country.
The non-availability of jury trial, even for American citizens in the Philippines,
was upheld by the US Supreme Court.2
A

civil

government

was established

by President

William

McKinley's

Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission on April 7, 1900. The Commission,

pursuant to these instructions enacted on June 11, 1901, Act 136, otherwise known
as the Judiciary Law. Under its provisions, the judicial power of the Government of
the Philippines was vested in the Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance, Justice of
Peace courts and such other courts as may thereafter be established by law. Later,
the US Congress enacted the Philippine Bill of 1902, which ratified the jurisdiction
previously exercised by the courts under Act 136. 3
Although headed by a Filipino, since its organization was under the American
rule, the high court had a predominant American membership until the advent of
the Commonwealth. From 1901-1925, only 11 Filipino Justices were appointed as
against 20 Americans. This is not to denigrate the Americans as eight American
Presidents from Pres. William McKinley to Pres. Franklin Roosevelt saw to it that only
career American lawyers and jurists were sent to the Philippine Supreme Court. 4

Contemporary Philippines
The Philippines adoption of the jury system was rejected by the American
government because of certain factors. 5 However, the reasons given no longer hold
true in the present time.
For one, the general education level in the country has greatly improved over
the years. Now, we are among those who have the highest literacy rate in Asia.

US v. Dorr, 2 Phil 269,284 (1903)

Alconga, Hazel L. For Whom The Gavel Falls: A Comparison and Analysis of the Philippine and U.S.Justice
System, Vol. XLIX, UST Law Review, January-December 2005.
Id.

3
4
5

Id.

11

The National Statistics Office reports a simple literacy rate of 93.4% and a functional
literacy rate of 84.1% for 2003.6
Second, as provided in Sec. 7 Art. XIV of the 1987 Constitution, we now have
two official languagesEnglish and Filipino. Thus, the language barrier has been
overcome.
Third, the inexperience of Filipinos regarding the jury system is no longer
true today. At the time the American government granted independence to the
Filipinos, trial by assessors which is considered a species of a jury trial was already
incorporated in several laws. Even up to now, in certain instances, trial by assessors
is still employed.7

II. ISSUES
A. Judicial Independence
An independent judiciary has been described as one free of inappropriate
outside influences.

Judges frequently experience pressures in the exercise of

their judicial functions. Common sources of pressure upon a judge include

political patrons, family members, friends and associates, colleagues on the
bench, media, civil society, militant groups, criminals and criminal syndicates,
and rebel groups. For instance, it is not unusual for political leaders who helped a
judge get appointed or promoted to ask for favors regarding a pending case. It is
also not uncommon for family members, friends or even close associates to seek
assistance in getting provisional remedies, bail grants or even favorable verdicts.
Canon 1 requires that judges reject pressure from any source by maintaining
independence in the pursuit of their duties.

Influence of Government Officials

6
7
8

Republic of the Philippines. National Statistics Office (October 2009) "Quickstat" (pdf). Author.
Retrieved
2009-12-11.
E. M. ALIP, PHILIPPINE CIVILIZATION: BEFORE THE SPANISH CONQUEST (1936)
http://ustlawreview.com/pdf/vol.XLIX/Articles/For_Whom_the_Gavel_Falls.pdf
ABA Annotated Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, Commentary; See also Vincent R. Johnson. The Ethical
Foundation of American Independence, 29 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1007 (2002).

12

In Ramirez vs. Corpuz-Macandog,9 a judge acted improperly when she

rendered rulings based on directives she received from a government official. In
her defense, the respondent judge claimed that at that time, the country was
then under a revolutionary government, and to promote peace she made certain
rulings acting on the pressure of the government official.

Public Opinion
In Libarios vs. Dabalos,10 the Supreme Court imposed disciplinary action
against a judge who issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the bail of the accused
without first conducting a hearing. The judge acted under the pressure of a rally
staged by the complainant and sympathizers. The High Court ruled that the
pressure of a rally demanding the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the
accused is not a sufficient excuse for the unjustified haste in respondent judge's
act of fixing a bail without a hearing. In admonishing the respondent judge, the
Court stated that,
[i]n every case, a judge should endeavor diligently to ascertain the
facts and applicable law unswayed by partisan or personal interests,
public opinion or fear of criticism. 11 Respondent judge should not have
allowed himself to be swayed into issuing an order fixing bail for the
temporary release of the accused charged with murder, without a
hearing, which is contrary to established principles of law. 12
In the Philippines, the media is one of the more prevalent forces that exert
pressure on the judiciary. By promoting public opinion for or against one party,
the media attempts to improperly influences the outcome of judicial decisions. In
the performance of their judicial duties, judges must ignore public opinion,
specifically disregarding editorials, columns or TV or radio commentaries on
cases pending before them.13
In one sensational murder case,14 the media depicted the accused as guilty
even though proceedings in the case were ongoing. This media influence led to
9
10
11
12
13
14

A. M. No. R-351-RTJ, September 26, 1986, 144 SCRA 462

A.M. No. RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991, 199 SCRA 48
Citing Canon 3, Rule 3.02 of the 1989 Code
Libarios vs. Dabalos, A.M. No. RTJ-89-286, July 11, 1991, 199 SCRA 48
In re Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2003) (during election campaign, judge violated canon by stating in an
interview that it was a judges responsibility to be absolutely a reflection of what the community wants.
Go vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992, 206 SCRA 165

13

widespread public belief in the suspects guilt, despite the fact that he had not
yet been subjected to a preliminary investigation. The Supreme Court ordered
the suspension of the trial and directed the conduct of a preliminary
investigation. In separate concurring opinions, two magistrates of the High Court
recorded their observations on the manner by which the trial judge dispensed
with his judicial functions and the judicial response to pressures wielded by the
media. According to the Honorable Justice Isagani L. Cruz,
It appears that the trial court has been moved by a desire to cater
to public opinion to the detriment of the impartial administration of
justice. The petitioner as portrayed by the media is not exactly a
popular person. Nevertheless, the trial court should not have been
influenced by this irrelevant consideration, remembering instead that
its only guide was the mandate of the law.
The highest degree of independence is required of judges. Once a judge gives
in to pressures from whatever source, that judge is deemed to have lost his
independence and is considered unworthy of the position. More than just a
breach of the rudiments laid down in the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges who
succumb to pressure and, as a result, knowingly ignore proven facts or misapply
the law in rendering a decision commit corruption. Judges who commit
corruption face both administrative and criminal prosecution, and if found guilty,
may be punished with imprisonment, suspension or removal from office, and
even forfeiture of license.15 In certain instances, the Supreme Court also orders
the forfeiture of benefits of the erring judge. 16

Compadre System
Judges working in the same building or justices of collegiate courts develop
what is often referred to as compaerismo, a kind of camaraderie bound by
respect and personal friendship resulting from sharing a common profession.
This camaraderie often leads judges to seek accommodations from fellow judges
ranging from the allowance of provisional remedies to the issuance of favorable
decisions. The judge requesting the accommodation may be prompted either by
15

16

A judge who commits corruption faces administrative and/or criminal liability under Republic Act No. 3019
(1960) [as amended], otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019); and Article 204
of the Revised Penal Code Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment.
In Ramirez vs. Corpuz-Macandog (supra, at note 6), the Supreme Court ordered Judge Antonia CorpuzMacandogs dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits.

14

personal or familial interests, or by a desire to benefit a friend. Many such

accommodations are exchanged for little more consideration than a free dinner
or similar token.17 While seemingly innocuous, this kind of unethical conduct
frequently gives rise to a quid-pro-quo situation, whereby the judge who
requested the accommodation is later asked to return the favor. This is
especially true in the Philippines where utang-na-loob18 is a sacrosanct cultural
value. Once a judge engages in this kind of favoritism, the circle of mutual
accommodation will continue to widen, involving increasingly larger segments of
the judiciary.
Any attempt, whether successful or not, to influence the decision-making
process of another judge, especially one who is of lower rank and over which he
exercises supervisory authority, is serious misconduct. In Sabitsana Jr. vs.
Villamor,19 the respondent judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) wrote a letter
to a lower court judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) judge seeking to
influence him to hear a case and even intimating that he issue an order of
acquittal. The High Court ruled that a judge who tries to influence the outcome
of a litigation pending before another court not only subverts the independence
of the judiciary but also undermines the people's faith in its integrity and
impartiality. The interference in the decision-making process of another judge is
a breach of conduct so serious as to justify dismissal from service based only on
a preponderance of evidence.20
Sections 2 and 3 intend to curb practices or prevent situations whereby a
judge influences the decision in a case not pending before him, or whereby a
judge hearing a case allows himself to be influenced by another judge. However,
if the consultation is purely on an academic or hypothetical basis, and the judge
does not surrender his or her independent decision making, there can be no
breach of Sections 2 and 3 of the Code. 21

17

In re Kelly, 757 A.2d 456 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 2000) (judge reprimanded for holding ex parte communications with a
fellow district court judge in an attempt to influence the outcome of a traffic court proceeding for the benefit of a
close associate. The court said that a ticket fix may not be cloaked as a favor or a break, for even the least
perversion of the process of lawful disposition of traffic offenses befouls the justice system.)
18
The term is literally translated as debt of gratitude.
19
A.M. No. 90-474, October 4, 1991, 202 SCRA 445
20
Citing The Court Administrator vs. Hermoso, et al., A.M. No. R-97-RTJ, May 28, 1987, 150 SCRA 269
21

Rule 2.9(A)(3), ABA Draft Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2006) ("A judge may consult with court staff and court
officials ... or with other judges, provided the judge ...does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the
matter.").

15

Family, Social or other Relationships

Culturally, Filipinos hold the interests of family to be of paramount
importance. Parents are protective and supportive of their children and
grandchildren. Children are expected to be respectful and obedient to their
parents. Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the term family is extended
beyond that of nuclear members to include those related by blood or marriage
up to the sixth civil degree, as well as those who belong to the judges employ
and are living in his household. 22 These familial ties may not influence a judge in
his or her discharge of judicial duties. 23
Friendships are also held in high regard and most often are raised to the level
of familial relationships. To a degree lesser only to that of the family, Filipinos
develop close relationships with their associates in business, fraternity brothers
or sorority sisters, or fellow members of any civil, religious or even political
organization. Filipinos highly value smooth interpersonal relations, commonly
called pakikisama. The maintenance of friendships and the pursuit of pakikisama
is at times, inevitably taken advantage of using judicial power to grant favors.

Inappropriate Connections
Judges are expected to exercise judicial power. Such power includes the duty
of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. 24
This rule has both legal and practical value. Legally, it affirms the
independence of the judiciary from the two other branches of government, as
required by the Constitution. Thus, as co-equal bodies, neither the executive nor
the legislative branch can dictate or exert influence upon the judiciary.
Practically, considering that the appointments, promotions and movements of
judges are subject to executive approval, and that the organization, budget and
22

The definition of Judges family in the New Code of Judicial Conduct includes a judges spouse, son, daughter,
son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within the sixth civil degree, or
person who is a companion or employee of the judge and who lives in the judges household.
23

For example, judges have crossed the ethical line in permitting undue influence by family members. In re Inquiry
Concerning a Judge, 832 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2002) (judge violated canon by requesting scheduling favor for family
member from a fellow judge).
24
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 1, 2nd

16

resources of the judiciary are matters that require legislative grace, the said
provisions require judges to uphold their solemn duty to render justice freely
without any obligation to reciprocate whatever beneficence that might have
been bestowed on them by the other two branches.
In Alfonso vs. Alonzo-Legasto,25 a judge did not act independently of the Local
Government Unit (LGU) when she downsized her staff at the MTC and asked the
city to re-employ the laid-off workers without diminution of compensation or
disadvantage with regard to location of work assignment. The Supreme Court
ruled that the respondent judge had acted improperly in not informing the Court
(through the Office of the Court Administrator) of the need to streamline her
court and of its personnel needs, instead asking the LGU to employ those who
were displaced due to her downsizing.
The High Court cited Bagatsing vs. Herrera2626 explaining that judicial
independence is the reason for leaving exclusively to the Court the authority to
deal with internal personnel issues, even if the court employees in question are
funded by the local government. Because a reasonable person could conclude
that the LGU maintained some influence over the MTC judge, under the New
Code of Judicial Conduct, respondent judges actions created an improper
connection with an executive/administrative body the LGU.

Appointment of Judges
The reality in the Philippine political system is that judges can easily get an
appointment or promotion with some assistance or support from political
leaders, religious groups, military stalwarts, big companies and the affluent. The
most pervasive influence comes from leaders in the legislature and those closely
allied with the executive department. For instance, most members of the bench
have received appointments through the grace of past and present political
leaders of this country. It is natural to suppose that considerations of fealty and
utang-na-loob would compel the judge to consider such factors when rendering
his or her decision. However, acting upon such considerations violates this code.
Mere congeniality between a judge and a governor may not necessarily be
unethical, but it may still create the appearance of impropriety. The case of
25
26

A.M. MT J-94-995, September 5, 2002, 388 SCRA 351

L-34952, July 25, 1975, 65 SCRA 434

17

Suspension of Clerk of Court Jacobo 27 illustrates this point. The judge in that case
was on congenial terms with the governor from whom he borrowed vehicles on
several occasions to travel to his judicial station. The Supreme Court held that
this congeniality was not necessarily detrimental to judicial independence,
provided that there was no showing that such relations were for corrupt ends.
However, had this case been tried under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the
judges acts would likely have created an appearance of an improper
connection. To the common person, the accommodation may seem a reason for
the judge to ingratiate himself towards his benefactors, which may ultimately be
perceived as affecting the judges ability to rule independently. Therefore,
whether or not the congenial relationship was indeed used for corrupt ends, it
would be advisable for judges to avoid becoming dependent on other parties,
especially for basic needs like transportation to the judges workstation. 28

Undue Influence on Judges Decision

It is desirable that the judge should, as far as reasonably possible, refrain
from all relations which would normally tend to arouse the suspicion that such
relations warp or bias his judgment, and prevent an impartial attitude of mind in
the administration of judicial duties.29
Based on the Sandiganbayan data, the highest elective official charged and
convicted during the cumulative period of 1979-May 2006 (or of 27 years) is
governor.
Of the 20 cases filed against 12 incumbent and former provincial mayors at
the Sandiganbayan, 15 cases are pending and 4 were dismissed. Furthermore,
only a small number of mayors were found guilty of violating RA 2019,
malversation, estafa, bribery and theft; 5 out of 168 municipal and city mayors
who were charged with 725 offenses. A total of 161 (22.2%) cases were
dismissed or withdrawn by the OSP. 30

27

27 A.M. No. 93-10-1296-RTC, August 12, 1998, 294 SCRA 119

28

The appearance of impropriety standard, though elastic, is considered an objective standard. Inquiry Concerning
a Judge No. 5-3675, B22 P.2d 1333 (Alaska 1991) (test is whether a judge fails to use reasonable care to prevent
objectively reasonable persons from believing an impropriety was afoot
29

Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon 25 (Personal investments and relations), specifically, first paragraph, 2nd
sentence
30
Id.

18

An additional 18 out of 253 other respondent mayors who were earlier

charged in 1979-2000 were found guilty by the anti-graft court for similar
offenses during 2001-May 2006. Cumulatively, from 1979 to May 2006 or a
period of 27 years, only 23 mayors were found guilty of violating RA 3019 and
malversation of funds, estafa, bribery and theft. 31
Even high profile cases or those involving top national officials have been
few, with most of the cases either dismissed, withdrawn or still pending. (e.g.
plunder case against former president Joseph E. Estrada, case against former
First Lady Imelda Marcos for violation of RA 3019, and the complaint filed against
the late Vice President Salvador P. Laurel in his capacity as Chair of the National
Centennial Commission during the Ramos Administration.) 32
These are fact-based data that illustrate how proper administration of justice
is challenged through the decisions of our honorable courts, as numerous public
authorities whose cases have been instinctively dismissed may have been
properly ruled upon, had the Judges been provided established assistance from
the detached.

Heavy Workload
A policy research done by the Center for People Empowerment in Governance
(CenPEG)

in

July-November

2006

in

partnership

with

the

Transparency

International (TI) Philippines studies the performance of the Ombudsman and the
Sandiganbayan regarding the investigation/prosecution and judicial disposition
of cases of graft and corruption and related. 33
The analysis of the performance of the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan
(anti-graft court) was based, among others, on database supplied by the two
government institutions covering 2001-May 2006 and on the other date covering
1979-2000.34

31

32
33
34

Is the Philippine Judicial System Effective in Fighting Corruption? A preliminary report of the Center for People
Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) in partnership with Transparency International (TI) Philippines.
Dec. 8, 2006
Id.
Id.
Is the Philippine Judicial System Effective in Fighting Corruption? A preliminary report of the Center for People
Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) in partnership with Transparency International (TI) Philippines.
Dec. 8, 2006

19

The

CenPEG

research

study

found

that

both

the

Ombudsman

and

Sandiganbayan had an overload of cases including carry-over cases, resulting in

the rising number of pending cases every year. 35
Ombudsman had a total of 78,700 criminal and administrative cases
(including old and new) filed during in 2001-May 2006. The Sandiganbayan had
total included cases of 7,324 out of which 1,700 were dismissed. Majority of the
cases 3,909 or (53.4%) are pending at the writing of this report while 1,413
(19.3%) were archived.36
Of the 7,324 cases attended to by this body in 2001-May 2006, only 45 cases
(0.6%) ended in convictions while 51 (0.7%) had acquittals. 37
The sheer volume of cases filed with the Ombudsman indicated not only the
magnitude of the incidence of corruption in the country but also some measure
of concern by public complainants themselves. 38

III.ADVANTAGES OF THE JURY SYSTEM

1. The legal system is more open because members of the public are involved
and the whole process is public.39
2. The secrecy of the jury deliberation in the jury room protects the jury from
pressure and outside influences when deciding a verdict. 40 As humans, we are
prone to pressures.
3. The right to be tried by one's peers is a bastion of liberty against the State. 41
4. No one knows who is in the jury until trial begins, and for that reason both
sides are often anxious to settle the case (on terms acceptable to both sides,
refers to civil cases) to avoid going before a jury which can be so
unpredictable.135 This speeds up case resolution and thus, court dockets will
not be clogged. This also encourages people to settle amicably so that it
35

Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.

36
37
38

39

English Legal System Page <http:// www.kwteacher.net/ELS/Lay%20People/Juries%202.htm>

40
41

Id.
Id.

20

would be unnecessary for them to go to court, thereby saving time, effort,

and, money.42
5. The qualification of the common people to serve as jurors is based on their
status as masters and inherent sovereign authorship of justice powers under
their Constitution, and is not necessarily based on their technical expertise of
the kw. Their justice power is not delegated from prosecutors or judges. They
are not agents of the government and they are not agents of public officials
either. Thus no public officialnot even the Presidenthas the power to
approve or disapprove their appointments as jurors. 43
6.

Long delay in jury trials is rare as each jury is given only one case. Hearings
are from 11 am to 4 pm for only one case and mostly the next date is the
next day.44

7. The jury renders a verdict either of guilty or not guilty. They need not explain
their judgment Trial judges' time is not wasted in writing lengthy decisions. 45
8. Jurors are impartial since they are randomly selected representing a crosssection of the society.46

CONCLUSION
To sum up, the arguments of the Respondents are as follows:
House Bill No. 855 creating and implementing a Jury System in the RTC of the
Philippines is an efficient remedy towards, not per se a speedy resolution of pending
cases before first level courts all over the country, but on the proper administration
of justice itself to gain back the publics confidence in our justice system.
With the present condition of the publics eroding faith in our judiciary, it is
the high time that a change such as this be introduced, wherein a decision can be
repeatedly analyzed and reviewed through a consensus of 12 individuals who have

42
43
44

43 C. E. Person, The Judicial Process in the US <http://www.andersonkill.com/titanic/process.htm>

How the Independence of Jurors is Preserved
<http://philippinegovantigraft.hoestead.com/SolutionBasics2.htm>
http://www.rahulmehta.com/theory/rn_why.htm

45

Id.

46

English Legal System Page <http:// www.kwteacher.net/ELS/Lay%20People/Juries%202.htm>

21

been presented the facts, and most importantly the evidences, in cases of which
theyre being assigned to decide on.
The adoption of the jury system shall help eradicate the evils that plague our
present system. Each jurors background shall be sufficiently checked, such as
educational background, place of birth, religious affiliations, political linkage if any,
etc. Putting together these jurors to decide on a particular case, and being barred
from the media, is the best means to uphold the independence and integrity of the
justice system. Aside from thoroughly discussing the facts of the case, the jurors will
only decide on the merits and the evidence presented to them, oblivious to the
technical machinations of lawyers unlike the judges. The jurors do not need to be
experts on procedures and technicalities that are known and studied by lawyers.
These procedures, although controlling in our judicial system, are less likely to be
used in a jury system, for what they base their decisions on are only facts and
evidences presented to them during the proceeding.
It is a known fact that judges are appointed to their positions based on
recommendations and not particularly based on highest ethical standards, as long
as they meet the qualifications. It has been known that high profile politicians have
the say on which applicant is to be appointed as judge. In effect, having a jury
system holds far greater guarantee, as in the case of bribery, one has to bribe all
jurors. We believe this can not proliferate in a Jury System.
As stated in the history of the Philippine Justice System, the adoption of the
Jury System was rejected by the American government because of certain factors.
However, the reasons given no longer hold true in the present time. If the
Philippines is, as a nation currently mature enough to execute an automated
electoral system, then we are generally ready, as Filipino citizens to also exercise
our maturity in upholding an efficient administration of justice.
There is no longer any reason not to adopt the jury system in this country.
The Filipino nation is ready to take the active participation in the judicial process.
This trial by jury would assure the community that justice would be properly
dispensed with, because an individual who serves as a juror would be critical and
fair to judge his neighbor as he would himself want to be judged fairly and
objectively.

PRAYER
22

For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent respectfully requests this Cebu
High Court of Justice to declare that this case of the Petitioners be dismissed, for
lack of controversy and unfound unconstitutionality in our proposed statute, and
declare that:
1. The issue presented does not merit judicial attention for lack of case or
controversy.
2. That House Bill No. 855 is constitutional for it recounts to the constitutional
provisions which it seeks to follow.
3. That Jury System is a most efficient and viable means of solving graft and
corruption in the judicial system.
4. That House Bill No. 855 is complete as to its provisions that it is to undertake,
in order to meet the challenges of the countrys current justice system.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent most respectfully pray from this Honorable Court to
dismiss the petition and declare that the Jury System as an important means for the
effective administration of justice and to equally protect the aggrieved and the
accused from abuses, corruption, and other forms of injustices in the society.

23

APPENDIX
We may or may not include this. I just summarized it, per section pero hindi
pa rin complete.
But if we do, will definitely increase the number of pages, if well attach the
entire proposal...
Your call, Counsels :)
HOUSE BILL NO. 855
Grand Jury
The Independent Direct Secret Civil Investigating and Crime Indicting Agency of
the People
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3. Role of the Clerk of Court.
Section 4. "Citizens' Secret Crime Reports Drop Box"
Section 5.
Section 6. The members of the grand jury shall have a term of 6 months.
Section 7
Section 8. qualifications of a Grand Juror
Section 9. grand jury membership application
Section 10. Choosing the grand jury members:
Section 11. The first grand jury session for the new grand jurors
Section 12. Issuance of the Security Identification Number for each member of
the Grand Jury.
Section 13. Confidentiality of the names of the members of the Grand Jury:
Section 14. The grand jurors shall thereafter use their SIDNs in all their official
grand jury acts.
Section 15. Grand Jury Standard Instructions (2) Nature and source of power of the members of the grand jury:
(3) Grand Jury business hours
(4) Powers and duties of the foreman of the grand jury.
(7) The role of the Members of the Grand Jury:
(9) Dissolution of the Grand Jury

24