Completion Report

Project Numbers: 41380-013 and 41380-023

Loan Numbers: 2489 and 2840
Technical Assistance Numbers: 7210 and 8006
June 2017

Philippines: Governance in Justice

Sector Reform Program

This document is being disclosed to the public in accordance with ADB’s Public Communications
Policy 2011.
 CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit – peso/s(P)

At Appraisal At Program Completion

Loan 2489 17 November 2008 28 February 2010
P1.00 = $0.02023 $0.02165
$1.00 = P49.42 P46.17

Loan 2840 7 November 2011 31 March 2012

P1.00 = $0.02336 $0.02326
$1.00 = P42.80 P42.99

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank

ADR – alternative dispute resolution
CA – Court of Appeals
CTA – Court of Tax Appeals
DBM – Department of Budget and Management
DILG – Department of the Interior and Local Government
DOF – Department of Finance
DOJ – Department of Justice
JOW – Justice on Wheels
JSCC – Justice Sector Coordination Council
PPPF – post-program partnership framework
TA – technical assistance

NOTE

In this report, “$” refers to US dollars.

Vice-President S. Groff, Operations 2

Director General J. Nugent, Southeast Asia Department (SERD)
Director K. Bird, Public Management, Financial Sector, and Trade Division, SERD

Team leader E. Sasaki, Senior Financial Sector Specialist, SERD

Team members C. de Vera, Operations Assistant, SERD
L. Levaque, Social Development Specialist (Gender and Development),
SERD
D. Nguyen, Financial Sector Economist, SERD
A. Santos, Senior Financial Management Officer, SERD

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation
of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian
Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any
territory or area.
 CONTENTS

Page

BASIC DATA i
I. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1
II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 1
A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 1
B. Program Outputs 2
C. Program Costs 5
D. Disbursements 5
E. Program Schedule 6
F. Implementation Arrangements 6
G. Conditions and Covenants 6
H. Related Technical Assistance 6
I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 7
J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 7
K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 8
III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 8
A. Relevance 8
B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 9
C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 9
D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 10
E. Impact 10
IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11
A. Overall Assessment 11
B. Lessons 11
C. Recommendations 11
APPENDIXES
1. Design and Monitoring Framework 12
2. Policy Matrix 16
3. Post-Program Partnership Framework 23
4. Technical Assistance Completion Reports 25
5. Summary of Gender Equality Results and Achievements 29
 BASIC DATA

A. Loan Identification

1. Country Republic of the Philippines

2. Loan Numbers Loan 2489-PHI (Subprogram 1)
Loan 2840-PHI (Subprogram 2)
3. Program Title Governance in Justice Sector Reform Program
4. Borrower Republic of the Philippines
5. Executing Agencies Supreme Court and Department of Finance
6. Amount of Loan Subprogram 1 Subprogram 2
$300 million $300 million
7. Program Completion Report
Number 1622

B. Loan Data
1. Appraisal for Subprogram 1 Subprogram 1 Subprogram 2
Reconnaissance for Subprogram 2
– Date Started 15 September 2008 7 June 2011
– Date Completed 26 September 2008 13 July 2011

2. Fact-Finding
– Date Started 7 November 2007 1 August 2011
– Date Completed 30 May 2008 23 August 2011

3. Loan Negotiations
– Date Started 11 November 2008 12 October 2011
– Date Completed 12 November 2008 12 October 2011

4. Date of Board Approval 16 December 2008 16 December 2011

5. Date of Loan Agreement 18 December 2008 13 January 2012

6. Date of Loan Effectiveness

– In Loan Agreement 18 March 2009 13 April 2012
– Actual 10 February 2009 15 February 2012
– Number of Extensions 0 0

7. Closing Date
– In Loan Agreement 28 February 2010 31 March 2012
– Actual 28 February 2010 31 March 2012
– Number of Extensions 0 0

8. Terms of Loan
– Interest Rate LIBOR-based
– Maturity (number of years) 15
– Grace Period (number of years) 3

9. Disbursements
a. Dates
Initial Disbursement Final Disbursement Time Interval

Subprogram 1 12 February 2009 27 November 2009 9.5 months

Subprogram 2 16 February 2012 16 February 2012 0
 ii

Effective Date Original Closing Date Time Interval

Subprogram 1 10 February 2009 28 February 2010 12.6 months

Subprogram 2 15 February 2012 31 March 2012 1.5 months

b. Amount ($ million)
Last Net
Category or Original Revised Amount Amount Amount Undisbursed
Subloan Allocation Allocation Canceled Available Disbursed Balance
Subprogram 1 300.0 300.0 0.0 300.0 300.0 0.0
Subprogram 2 300.0 300.0 0.0 300.0 300.0 0.0
Total 600.0 600.0 0.0 600.0 600.0 0.0

C. Program Data

1. Program Cost ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual
Foreign Exchange Cost
Subprogram 1 300.00 300.00
Subprogram 2 300.00 300.00
Total 600.00 600.00

2. Financing Plan ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual
Implementation Costs
ADB Financed
Subprogram 1 (2 tranches) 300.0 300.0
Subprogram 2 (single tranche) 300.0 300.0
Total 600.0 600.0
ADB = Asian Development Bank.

3. Cost Breakdown by Program Component ($ million)

Component Appraisal Estimate Actual
Subprogram 1
Tranche 1 150.0
Tranche 2 150.0
Subprogram 2 300.0
Total 600.0

4. Program Schedule
Item Appraisal Estimate Actual
Other Milestones
Subprogram 1
Tranche 1 12 February 2009
Tranche 2 27 November 2009
Subprogram 2 16 February 2012
 iii

5. Program Performance Report Ratings

Ratings
Development Implementation
Implementation Period
Objectives Progress
Subprogram 1
From 10 February 2009 to 28 February 2010 S S
Subprogram 2
From 15 February 2012 to 31 March 2012
S = satisfactory
Note: No ratings in eOps for program loans.

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

No. of No. of Specialization
Name of Mission Date Persons Person-Days of Members
Subprogram 1
Fact-finding a 7 November 2007– a, b, c, d,
30 May 2008 6
Appraisal 15–26 September 2008 6 72 a, b, c, d
Review b September–October 2009 9 a, c, d, e, f
Subprogram 2
Reconnaissance 7 June–13 July 2011 2 14 a, d
Fact-finding 1–23 August 2011 8 184 a, b, d, g, h, i, j
Program completion review 2 6 k, l

a = economist, b = counsel, c = governance specialist or consultant, d = public sector management specialist, e = justice
sector reform and/or policy expert, f = jail decongestion expert, g = gender specialist, h = country specialist, i = justice
sector coordinator, j = fiscal planning and budget expert, k = financial sector economist, l = national officer.
a Fielded reconnaissance mission that was upgraded to fact-finding. Mission was fielded intermittently.
b Mission was fielded intermittently in conjunction with the review mission of TA 7210-PHI: Supporting Governance in

Justice Sector Reform in the Philippines.

 I. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1. The Governance in Justice Sector Reform Program was designed to address weaknesses
in the judiciary and justice sector institutions that are mainly caused by inadequate resources—a
situation exacerbated by weak financial management. Chronically insufficient resources have
undermined capacity and incentives to meet institutional mandates and performance targets. The
lack of resources has also created conditions that jeopardize the integrity of justice sector
agencies and their staff, and has weakened the independence of the courts. The program aims
to help address these issues. The Board of Directors of the Asian Development Bank (ADB)
approved the program cluster on 16 December 2008, comprising two subprograms anchored in
a well-defined medium-term framework. 1 The $300 million loan for subprogram 1 (covering
January 2006–August 2009) was disbursed in two tranches of $150 million each in February and
November 2009. The $300 million loan for subprogram 2 (covering September 2009 to March
2012) was disbursed in a single tranche in February 2012.2

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation

2. Binding constraints. Ensuring the rule of law and a strong independent judiciary are
prerequisites to economic development. Effective enforcement of laws and contracts strengthens
investor confidence, facilitating growth in domestic and foreign direct investment. Investors cite
the judicial system in the Philippines as complex. Judicial processes are lengthy, resulting in
delayed case resolution. An impartial and accessible justice system is also crucial to reducing
poverty. Delays in the delivery of justice disproportionately affect the poor, in terms of prolonged
unemployment and income foregone as a result of detention, since the majority of detainees are
poor, marginalized, and underprivileged. Delays in criminal proceedings, weak capacity, lack of
coordination, and jail overcrowding undermine the criminal justice system in the Philippines.

3. Government commitment. The Philippine Development Plan, 2010–2016 and the

Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan, 2004–2010 emphasized strengthening the rule of
law to improve governance. The judiciary has undertaken several reforms since 2000. The
Supreme Court commenced implementation of the action program for judicial reforms—a
comprehensive reform program of three successive chief justices that identified, prioritized, and
implemented judicial reforms. The action program was regarded as a concrete step in laying the
foundation for the long-term development of the judiciary, supported by the executive branch.

4. Lessons learned and the program design. Judicial reforms obtained significant donor
support for a wide range of projects, which focused on judicial efficiency and independence, fiscal
autonomy and accountability, and access to justice. The projects require sustained support and
commitment over the medium to long term. ADB’s lessons from the Philippines in implementing
judicial reforms underline the importance of ownership, political will, leadership, and interagency
coordination as essential conditions to reform success. Engagement should be long-term, while
flexibility, continuous efforts, and persistence are key ingredients. These lessons are reinforced
by a special evaluation study on ADB support to legal and justice sector reform in developing

1 ADB. 2008. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Program Cluster,
Loan for Subprogram 1, and Technical Assistance Grant to the Republic of the Philippines for the Governance in
Justice Sector Reform Program. Manila.
2 ADB. 2011. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Policy-Based Loan
for Subprogram 2 and Technical Assistance Grant to the Republic of the Philippines for the Governance in Justice
Sector Reform Program. Manila.
2

member countries.3 The design of the program was underpinned by these lessons. ADB’s country
strategy and program for the Philippines supports judicial reforms as an integral element of
governance-oriented reforms, and the strengthening of the government’s commitment to
implement the rule of law.4 ADB has provided continued support to address capacity, efficiency,
and accountability weaknesses in the judiciary since 2001. Technical assistance (TA) projects
sustained this engagement, helping to provide the foundations for the current program. The
program priorities are aligned and well coordinated with development partners to maximize
synergies.

B. Program Outputs

5. Progress under subprogram 1 in achieving its objectives was significant, fully complying
with all eight policy conditions. Subprogram 2 built on the reforms initiated under subprogram 1,
and had 16 policy actions under the following five broad medium-term objectives:
(i) strengthened judicial fiscal autonomy and improved justice sector accountability and access to
resources, (ii) enhanced justice sector integrity, (iii) supporting efficiency in the justice sector,
(iv) access to justice by the poor and vulnerable groups, and (v) expanding the delivery of justice
through alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The program cluster’s policy actions are in the policy
matrix (Appendix 2).

6. Over the implementation period of the program cluster, increases in the resources of
justice sector agencies were accompanied by improved performance in the program’s policy
areas where reforms were instituted. Greater resources strengthened the demand for increased
accountability for expenditure management. ADB’s involvement facilitated regular and more open
dialogue between the judiciary and the executive over the level and use of budgetary resources,
without undermining judicial autonomy. The budget increases were particularly notable as they
occurred against the backdrop of fiscal consolidation. ADB has been a strategic partner of the
judiciary in placing the decentralization of court administration at the forefront of the policy agenda,
and incremental progress continues to be made.

7. Output 1: Strengthened judicial fiscal autonomy, and improved justice sector

accountability and access to resources. Under subprogram 1, the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) continued to release the judiciary’s budget and cash allocations on a regular
and single-line-item basis, providing it with full autonomy in reallocating expenditures. Such
treatment is unique among government agencies. Fiscal autonomy is complemented by increased
resources along with reforms aiming to increase efficiency and accountability. Results-based
management has been gradually mainstreamed, as judiciary and justice sector agencies have
made significant progress since 2008 in budget preparation compliant with the medium-term
expenditure framework and the organizational performance indicator framework. The
organizational performance indicator framework directs resources toward priorities and results
(measured by agency performance indicators). Gradual progress in making remuneration
competitive for justices and judges, and optimizing staff levels, were being achieved. Selected
justice sector agencies received increases in their annual appropriations over the program period,
averaging 35%, which was notably higher than the national average of about 25%. Justice sector
agencies also received increases in their 2011 appropriations, averaging 15%, which was also
significantly higher than the national average of 7% of the 2010 national expenditure program.
Among other things, increased funding allowed for the creation of 22,000 additional positions
3 ADB. 2009. Special Evaluation Study: ADB Technical Assistance for Justice Reform in Developing Member
Countries. Manila.
4 ADB. 2005. Country Strategy and Program: Philippines, 2005–2007. Manila; and ADB. 2011. Country Partnership
Strategy: Philippines, 2011–2016. Manila.
 3

across justice sector agencies to help address severe staffing-related bottlenecks in carrying out
core functions (policy action 3).

8. In addition, a significant increase in the number of women in managerial and technical

positions underscores a gender-responsive structure to reduce gender bias (policy action 4).
Under subprogram 1, the judiciary’s budget reached the targeted 1.0% of the 2010 National
Expenditure Program. In terms of real increase, justice sector agency appropriations increased
by 10% against a national average of 3% (policy action 5). Reforms supported by the program
are under way to improve efficiency and strengthen transparency and accountability in the use of
resources by the judiciary, in part through capacity building and administrative decentralization to
regions. This process started under subprogram 1 with the establishment of a pilot regional court
administration office in judicial region 7 starting in July 2008. The addition of regional court
administration offices in two more regions was approved in 2009, and an oversight unit was
created in March 2010 to ensure the implementation of the phased decentralization process,
beginning with procurement functions (policy action 6).

9. Output 2: Enhanced justice sector integrity. Notable progress has been made on
integrity-related measures across justice sector agencies, including the judiciary and the
Department of Justice (DOJ). During subprograms 1 and 2, the Judicial and Bar Council, which
is constitutionally mandated to nominate to the President candidates for judicial posts, continued
to adopt clear and objective criteria that measure the integrity, probity, and independence of
judicial nominees to improve the quality of judicial appointments and to reduce judicial vacancies.
The Supreme Court continued to institute measures to strengthen (i) the integrity of the courts to
address corruption through the adoption of a judicial code of ethics for justices, judges, and court
personnel; (ii) rules and procedures involving judicial appointments; and (iii) the disciplinary
system. Following an integrity development review in 2009, the Supreme Court formed an
Integrity Development and Review Committee that meets regularly and recommends integrity
measures to the Supreme Court en banc. Decisions and resolutions of the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and Sandiganbayan (the court that adjudicates graft and
corruption charges against high-level government officials) also became publicly available.
Judicious filing of administrative cases against erring judges, after investigation, increased 109%
from 193 in 2006 to 403 in 2009. The publication of Supreme Court decisions of public interest
takes place within 24 hours of the issuance of the decision. The Supreme Court approved a newly
developed human resource manual on 29 March 2011. During the subprogram 1 implementation
period, the DOJ worked with the Bureau of Internal Revenue to develop common guidelines on
the prosecution of tax evasion cases. The DOJ adopted a code of conduct and established central
and regional internal affairs units for the evaluation and investigation of complaints against
prosecutors and staff of the National Prosecution Service.

10. Output 3: Supporting efficiency in the justice sector. Justice sector agencies
continued to demonstrate improvements in efficiency under subprograms 1 and 2. Efforts were
deepened to (i) strengthen case tracking and case flow management (case management
information system—Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and Sandiganbayan); (ii) strengthen
interagency coordination, jurisdiction, investigation, prosecution, and adjudication functions; and
(iii) streamline rules and procedures of courts. The average duration of a case in the court was
reduced as targeted from 4 years to 3 years. From 2007 to 2010, backlogs were reduced in
metropolitan trial courts by 25%, in metropolitan trial courts in cities by 43%, and in municipal trial
courts by 37% (all above targets), resulting from the implementation of small claims reforms, the
Justice on Wheels (JOW) program, and mediation reforms. The Supreme Court has established
a committee to address case congestion and delay in the lower courts, and reviewed and
streamlined the system for hearing and adjudicating disputes—rules, systems, and procedures
4

(policy action 7). The Court of Appeals implemented its zero-backlog policy effectively to decide
quickly on older cases, giving priority to criminal cases involving detained convicts (policy
action 8); the court has successfully resolved most of these types of cases. It also enhanced its
case management information system to improve case management and public access to case
status and decisions. The Court of Tax Appeals installed an online case tracking and case
management system, making possible greater public access to case status information as well
as supporting efficient case management for justices (policy action 9).

11. The National Prosecution Service developed and pilot tested a case flow management
system in selected offices across the country that enables chief prosecutors to monitor the
efficiency of prosecutors in case processing. Institutionalization of the Justice Sector Coordination
Council (JSCC)—through an agreement (Manila Declaration of April 2010) between the chief
justice of the Supreme Court, the secretary of the DOJ, and the secretary of the Department of
the Interior and Local Government (DILG)—continued to improve coordination and provided a
common and regular forum where issues of mutual interest in strengthening sector performance
can be identified and addressed. The work of the JSCC was aligned with the government’s
agenda of strengthening the rule of law and addressing corruption (policy action 10).

12. Output 4: Access to justice by the poor and vulnerable groups. The judiciary
continued to focus on improving access by the poor and vulnerable groups. The Supreme Court
conducted regular forums on linking reforms in court policies and rules, including a forum on
environmental justice in 2009, to ensure that poor and marginalized communities do not suffer a
disproportionate burden of the cost of justice. The operation of the JOW program was
strengthened over subprograms 1 and 2. The JOW, which deploys mobile courts to municipalities
or cities with high caseloads and high vacancy rates and to detention centers without courts or
judges to hear cases in the area, complements the existing court-annexed mediation program.5
To the end of the subprogram 2 implementation period, the JOW released 5,334 inmates, settled
6,880 civil cases through mobile court-annexed mediation, and provided free legal aid to
2,750 poor detainees. From eight mobile courts, the JOW was expanded in mid-2010 to cover all
courts nationwide. The 44 pilot small claims courts created during subprogram 1 were
implemented in all lower courts. The Supreme Court simplified rules for cases involving small
claims so that people who cannot afford a lawyer can still understand the process, while judges
can render decisions on the same day of the hearing (policy action 11). To increase understanding
and skills related to handling gender-based violence, activities were undertaken in the Philippine
National Police and the DOJ through increased training and the preparation of manuals and
handbooks. These improved the capacities of prosecutors and police to investigate and process
gender-based violence cases and respond to the needs of victims (policy action 12).

13. Institutional measures to address jail congestion were strengthened. A major development
in addressing jail congestion was the National Summit on Persons Deprived of Liberty held in
November 2010 (policy action 13). An interagency executive committee has been monitoring
implementation of the commitments (policy action 14). A Supreme Court committee for the
decongestion of provincial, city, and municipal jails and an interagency technical working group
under the DOJ have been addressing the underlying systemic issues involved in reforming the
correctional system. This includes measures to improve inter-organizational coordination in
scheduling case hearings, streamlining cumbersome legal processes, and improving information
sharing. These efforts complement the various legislative initiatives to reform the correctional
system in the Philippines.

5 Court-annexed mediation, as practiced in the Philippines, is a procedure before the main trial that involves settling
cases filed in court with the assistance of a mediator accredited by the judiciary.
 5

14. Output 5: Expanding delivery of justice through alternative dispute resolution. ADR
mechanisms have continued to expand and have been institutionalized within the judiciary
through the creation of court-annexed mediation units; the Philippine Mediation Center was the
program’s oversight body. Court-annexed mediation mechanisms—such as mediation, arbitration,
and conciliation—have contributed to easing the caseload burden of the formal court system.
During subprogram 1, there were 102 court-annexed mediation units. The remit of these units
was expanded through the creation of court-annexed mediation units in all lower courts
nationwide in 2010, requiring the mandatory referral of all cases identified for mediation under the
existing rules, and inclusion of offenses punishable by up to 6 years imprisonment. In September
2009, the Supreme Court adopted the special rules of court on ADR and launched a series of
seminars nationwide to train regional trial court judges on their use. The rules lay down, among
other things, a comprehensive framework on the enforcement of arbitral awards. In January 2011,
the Supreme Court adopted consolidated and revised guidelines to implement the expanded
coverage of court-annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution. These policies significantly
expand the cases that are required to be referred to mediation (i.e., those punishable by
imprisonment of less than 6 years). As a result of these reforms, the number of cases referred to
court-annexed mediation increased from 21,211 in 2006 to 46,311 in 2010, or by 118%; cases
referred to judicial dispute resolution increased by 250%, from 1,437 in 2006 to 5,032 in 2010
(policy action 15). In December 2009, the DOJ promulgated the implementing rules and
regulations of the ADR Act, which created the Office for ADR, and emphasized its lead role in
promoting and developing ADR in the public and private sectors (excluding court-annexed ADR,
which is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court). To make the Office for ADR operational,
the DBM provided a budget of P10 million in 2011 for its initial organization (policy action 16).

15. Given the long-term nature of some of the critical reforms, and the efforts to sustain
implementation, a post-program partnership framework (PPPF) was established through the
JSCC. This has created the basis for continuous policy dialogue and engagement during the
critical 2012–2013 period. The PPPF focused on the key priorities in the reform of the judiciary
and justice sector agencies. Details of the proposed PPPF for the judiciary and justice sector
agencies are in Appendix 3.

C. Program Costs

16. The government requested a loan of $300,000,000 from ADB’s ordinary capital resources
in support of subprogram 1, and a loan of $300,000,000 from ADB’s ordinary capital resources to
support subprogram 2. The program loans reflected the development financing needs of the
government, aiming to increase development and social spending, and produce economic gains
through increased resources, efficient resource use, and greater accountability, resulting in a
higher quality of public service in the justice sector.

D. Disbursements

17. The $300 million loan for subprogram 1 was disbursed in two tranches of $150 million
each in February and November 2009 upon the government’s full compliance with the policy
actions for both tranches. The $300 million loan for subprogram 2 was disbursed in a single
tranche in February 2012 after confirmation of the government’s full compliance with the policy
actions. The disbursement schedule was appropriate, retroactively financing the justice sector
reforms in a sequential manner through the two subprograms.
6

E. Program Schedule

18. The first tranche of subprogram 1 covered January 2006 to July 2008. All actions in the
policy matrix under the first tranche were implemented within this period. The second tranche of
subprogram 1 covered July 2008 to August 2009. All actions in the policy matrix under the second
tranche were implemented within this period. The subprogram 2 implementation period, from
September 2009 to August 2010, was extended until March 2012. Eight additional policy actions
were added to the initially approved eight triggers under subprogram 2 to reflect the enlarged
scope and depth of reforms and the achievements of justice sector agencies under the following
five broad medium-term objectives: (i) strengthened judicial fiscal autonomy and improved justice
sector accountability and access to resources, (ii) enhanced justice sector integrity, (iii) supporting
efficiency in the justice sector, (iv) access to justice by the poor and vulnerable groups, and
(v) expanding the delivery of justice through ADR. All policy actions under subprogram 2,
including eight additional policy actions, were implemented.

F. Implementation Arrangements

19. Implementation arrangements established under subprogram 1 continued under

subprogram 2. The Supreme Court and the Department of Finance (DOF), as the executing
agencies, were responsible for the overall implementation of the two subprograms, including
program administration, disbursements, maintenance of all program records, and reporting to
ADB. Key implementing agencies were the Supreme Court, the DOJ, the DILG, the DBM, and
the Office of the Solicitor General. The program coordination committee established under
subprogram 1, co-chaired by the head of the International Finance Group of the DOF and the
Supreme Court’s court administrator, met regularly and, when needed, on an ad hoc basis with
representatives from the DBM, the DOJ, the DILG, and the Office of the Solicitor General to
coordinate and ensure effective implementation of the proposed reforms. In coordination with the
program coordination committee, ADB carried out periodic reviews and monitored progress under
the program.

20. ADB’s support also facilitated more formal and regular coordination among multiple justice
sector agencies through the establishment of the JSCC, and strengthened interbranch
coordination to address sector-wide issues such as case decongestion and delay reduction. The
JSCC, chaired by the chief justice and whose membership includes the secretary of justice and
heads of all justice sector agencies, met regularly. It transcended the constitutional divide
between the executive and judicial branches of the government.

G. Conditions and Covenants

21. The first tranche of subprogram 1 was from January 2006 to July 2008. All actions in the
policy matrix under both the first and second tranches of subprogram 1 were implemented. All
policy actions under subprogram 2, including eight additional policy actions, were also
implemented. The detailed compliance status is in the policy matrix (Appendix 2).

H. Related Technical Assistance

22. Two TA projects were provided under the program cluster: (i) an advisory TA grant
attached to the subprogram 1 loan, designed to strengthen the delivery of targets envisioned
under subprogram 2; and (ii) a capacity development TA grant attached to the subprogram 2 loan
to ensure that the policy and institutional reforms would be sustained beyond the program
 7

implementation period. The TA completion reports (Appendix 4) rate both TAs successful. Overall,
the two TA projects contributed to the success of the program.

23. The original implementation period of the $2 million advisory TA was from 6 May 2009 to
31 August 2010. The TA was extended for 21 months to 31 May 2012 because of a change in
leadership of the judiciary and the executive, which caused the delays in implementation. The TA
largely delivered on its outcome and outputs, with the number of cases referred to court-annexed
mediation increased by 118% from 2006 to 2010. The TA (i) strengthened judicial fiscal autonomy
and justice sector accountability, and improved access to resources; (ii) improved integrity and
individual accountability in the sector; (iii) supported efficiency in the justice sector; (iv) supported
ADR; and (v) promoted access to justice by the poor and vulnerable groups.

24. The original implementation period of the $1 million capacity development TA was from
31 July 2012 to 28 February 2014. The TA was extended for 20 months to 31 October 2015
because of the change in leadership of the Supreme Court, which led to changes in reform
priorities. The TA achieved impact indicators, with the Rule of Law index improved from 33.8% in
2007 to 53% in 2015, and the overall corruption perception index ranking improved from 141 in
2007 to 95 in 2015. Outcome indicators were largely achieved, with an increase in the case
clearance rate from 27.3% in 2006 to 37.8% in 2010, a 10% increase in the number of clients
served by the Public Attorney’s Office from 2007 to 2010, and the number of cases referred to
court-annexed mediation increased by 118% from 2006 to 2010.

I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement

25. No consultants were recruited and no procurement was made under the program cluster
loans.

J. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency

26. The Supreme Court and the DOF, as the executing agencies, implemented the two
subprograms effectively, through coordination between the implementing agencies (the Supreme
Court, the DOJ, the DILG, the DBM, and the Office of the Solicitor General); program
administration; disbursements; maintenance of all program records; and reporting to ADB.

27. The program coordination committee established under subprogram 1, co-chaired by the
head of the International Finance Group of the DOF and the Supreme Court’s court administrator,
met regularly and, when needed, on an ad hoc basis with representatives from the DBM, the DOJ,
the DILG, and the Office of the Solicitor General to coordinate and ensure effective
implementation of the proposed reforms.

28. ADB’s support facilitated formal and regular coordination between multiple justice sector
agencies through the establishment of the JSCC, and the attached TA projects helped improve
institutional capacity and interbranch coordination to address sector-wide issues such as case
decongestion and delay reduction. The JSCC met regularly, and transcended the constitutional
divide between the executive and judicial branches of the government.

29. The performance of the borrower and the executing agencies is rated highly satisfactory.
8

K. Performance of the Asian Development Bank

30. In coordination with the program coordination committee, ADB carried out periodic reviews
and monitored progress under the program. The attached ADB TA projects provided timely and
relevant assistance to the strengthening of institutional and operational capacities in the justice
sector through consultations, policy advice, training, and workshops. ADB’s facilitated
establishment of the JSCC to strengthen interbranch coordination to address sector-wide issues
such as case decongestion and delay reduction, and ameliorated the constitutional divide
between the executive and judicial branches of the government.

31. The performance of ADB is rated satisfactory. Even so, subprogram 2 was extended
beyond the initial time frame and the attached TA was also extended.

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE

A. Relevance

32. The program design was highly relevant. It was to support the Philippine Development
Plan, 2010–2016 and the earlier Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan, 2004–2010, which
both emphasized strengthening the rule of law to improve governance. Investors cited the judicial
system in the Philippines as complex, and the judicial processes as lengthy, resulting in delayed
case resolution. Ensuring the rule of law and a strong independent judiciary are prerequisites to
economic development. Effective enforcement of laws and contracts strengthens investor
confidence, facilitating growth in domestic and foreign direct investment. An impartial and
accessible justice system is crucial to reducing poverty.

33. Delays in the delivery of justice impact disproportionately on the poor in terms of prolonged
unemployment and income foregone as a result of detention, since the majority of detainees are
poor, marginalized, and underprivileged. Delays in criminal proceedings, weak capacity, lack of
coordination, and jail overcrowding undermine the criminal justice system in the Philippines.

34. The program cluster was designed against this background in line with the government’s
development plans. It aimed to support the implementation of comprehensive judicial reforms in
laying the foundation for the long-term development of the judiciary, supported by the executive
branch. The program was built on ADB’s lessons from the Philippines in implementing judicial
reforms, which underlined the importance of ownership, political will, leadership, and interagency
coordination as essential conditions to reform success. Lessons also showed that engagement
should be long-term, while flexibility, continuous efforts, and persistence are key ingredients.
These lessons are reinforced by a special evaluation study on ADB support to legal and justice
sector reform in developing member countries (footnote 3).

35. ADB’s country strategy and program for the Philippines supports judicial reforms as an
integral element of governance-oriented reforms, and the strengthening of the government’s
commitment to implement the rule of law (footnote 4). ADB has provided continued support to
address capacity, efficiency, and accountability weaknesses in the judiciary since 2001. TA
projects sustained this engagement, helping to provide the foundation for the program. The
program priorities were also aligned and coordinated with development partners to maximize
synergies.
 9

B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome

36. The program achieved its outcome successfully. Progress under subprogram 1 in
achieving its objectives fully complied with all eight policy conditions. Subprogram 2 built on the
reforms initiated under subprogram 1, and had 16 policy actions. All policy actions under
subprogram 2, including eight additional policy actions, were implemented. Over the
implementation period of the program cluster, increases in the resources of justice sector
agencies were accompanied by improved performance in the program’s policy areas where
reforms were instituted. Greater resources strengthened the demand for increased accountability
for expenditure management. ADB’s involvement facilitated regular and more open dialogue
between the judiciary and the executive over the level and use of budgetary resources, without
undermining judicial autonomy. The budget increases were particularly notable as they occurred
against the backdrop of fiscal consolidation.

37. The outcome indicators in the program’s design and monitoring framework comfortably
achieved the performance targets:
(i) The court case clearance rate was targeted to increase from 27.3% in 2006 to
34.0% by 2010. The actual overall judiciary clearance rate was 37.8% in 2010—
44.0% in the Supreme Court, 52.0% in metropolitan trial courts in cities, and 43.0%
in metropolitan trial courts and municipal trial courts.

(ii) The number of clients served by the Public Attorney’s Office was targeted to
increase by 10% from 2007 to 2010. The actual number of clients served by the
Public Attorney’s Office increased from 4.382 million in 2007 to 4.802 million or by
420,000 clients (10%).

(iii) The number of cases referred to mediation was targeted to increase by at least
50% from 2006 to 2010. The number of cases referred to court-annexed mediation
increased from 21,211 in 2006 to 46,311 in 2010, or by 118%; and the number of
cases referred to judicial dispute resolution increased from 1,437 in 2006 to
5,032 in 2010, or by 250%.
The design and monitoring framework, which also shows substantial outputs achievements, is in
Appendix 1.

C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs

38. The program is rated successful in delivering its results. All actions in the policy matrix
under the first tranche of subprogram 1 were taken within the implementation period from
January 2006 to July 2008. All actions in the policy matrix under the second tranche were
implemented within the program implementation period from July 2008 to August 2009. However,
the originally planned subprogram 2 implementation period from September 2009 to August 2010
was extended until March 2012 because progress was slower than expected, with eight additional
policy actions added to the initially approved eight triggers to reflect the enlarged scope and depth
of reforms and the achievements of justice sector agencies under the following five broad
medium-term objectives: (i) strengthened judicial fiscal autonomy and improved justice sector
accountability and access to resources, (ii) enhanced justice sector integrity, (iii) supporting
efficiency in the justice sector, (iv) access to justice by the poor and vulnerable groups, and
(v) expanding the delivery of justice through ADR. All policy actions under subprogram 2,
including the eight additional policy actions, were implemented during the extended
implementation period.
10

D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability

39. The project sustainability in the future is less likely.

40. ADB has provided continued support to address capacity, efficiency, and accountability
weaknesses in the judiciary since 2001. The sector reform obtained significant donor support for
a wide range of projects, which focused on judicial efficiency and independence, fiscal autonomy
and accountability, and access to justice. The judiciary has undertaken several reforms since
2000. The Supreme Court commenced implementation of the action program for judicial
reforms—a comprehensive reform program of three successive chief justices that identified,
prioritized, and implemented judicial reforms. The action program was regarded as a concrete
step in laying the foundation for the long-term development of the judiciary, supported by the
executive branch. ADB’s involvement facilitated regular and more open dialogue between the
judiciary and the executive over the level and use of budgetary resources, without undermining
judicial autonomy.

41. Over the implementation period of the program cluster, increases in the resources of
justice sector agencies were accompanied by improved performance in the program’s policy
areas where reforms were instituted. Greater resources have strengthened the demand for
increased accountability for expenditure management. The budget increases are particularly
notable as they occurred against the backdrop of fiscal consolidation from 2000 to 2009. The
government achieved fiscal consolidation by 2010, and the budget surpluses supported its
commitment to justice sector reform thereafter.

42. ADB’s support facilitated more formal and regular coordination among multiple justice
sector agencies through the establishment of the JSCC, and strengthened interbranch
coordination to address sector-wide issues such as case decongestion and delay reduction. The
JSCC meets regularly, and helps address the constitutional divide between the executive and
judicial branches of the government.

43. Ensuring the sustainability of reforms poses challenges. Recent events highlight
continued weakness in the sector over congestion in prisons and a potential rising backlog of
cases addressed. Moreover, budgetary allocation to the judiciary in the government’s national
expenditure plan falls below 1% of the total government expenditure. Targeting a 1% allocation
of the total expenditure was one of the triggers for the second tranche disbursement of the
subprogram 1 loan.6 Thus, the sustainability of reforms is less likely.

E. Impact

44. General. Positive impacts were generated during program implementation. Progress
under subprogram 1 in achieving its objectives was significant, fully complying with all eight policy
conditions. All policy actions under subprogram 2, including eight additional policy actions, were
also implemented. Over the implementation period of the program cluster, increases in the
resources of justice sector agencies were accompanied by improved performance in the
program’s policy areas where reforms were instituted. Greater resources strengthened the
demand for increased accountability for expenditure management. ADB’s involvement facilitated
regular and more open dialogue between the judiciary and the executive over the level and use

6
“National Expenditure Plan (NEP) for 2010 budget to show Department of Budget Management proposal to provide
the Judiciary with budget sourced from the National Government equivalent to at least 1% of total government
expenditure proposed under the 2010 NEP.”
 11

of budgetary resources, without undermining judicial autonomy. The budget increases were
particularly notable as they occurred against the backdrop of fiscal consolidation. ADB has been
a strategic partner of the judiciary in placing the decentralization of court administration at the
forefront of the policy agenda, and incremental progress continues to be made.

45. Gender. The program was successful in achieving gender equality results:
(i) improving the capacity of the police and judiciary to deliver gender-sensitive services,
particularly to women survivors of gender-based violence; (ii) strengthening institutional
mechanisms for planning, implementing, and evaluating gender mainstreaming initiatives; and
(iii) increasing women’s representation in the judiciary and justice sector agencies. These gender
results, including increased access for women to gender-sensitive justice services, were key
ingredients in the overall achievement of the program’s outcome and effectiveness. More details
on the gender results are in Appendix 5.

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Overall Assessment

46. The program cluster delivered its results successfully, fully complying with all policy
actions under the two subprograms. Throughout program implementation, increases in the
resources of justice sector agencies resulted in improved performance in the program’s policy
areas—increased accountability for expenditure management; improved coordination between
the judiciary and the executive over the level and use of budgetary resources; and enhanced
integrity, efficiency, and inclusiveness of the justice sector. The program is rated qualified as
successful given concerns with sustainability that impacts may not be long-lived (para. 43).

B. Lessons

47. Judicial reforms involve a wide range of institutions and require sustained support and
commitment over the medium to long term. Justice sector institutions are conservative and
resistant to change. Lessons from the Philippines in implementing judicial reforms underline the
importance of ownership, political will, leadership, and interagency coordination as essential
conditions to reform success. It is one of the most complex sectors, making consensus building
among different stakeholders—mainly constitutional bodies—unstable and difficult. The program
targets may have been too scattered and could have been more focused on capacity and
institutional development rather than policy improvement to ensure sustainability. The program
could benefit from an investment project or a sector development program involving investment
components, rather than a policy-based loan.

C. Recommendations

48. It is recommended to monitor closely if the results delivered by the program are sustained
and extended along the PPPF of the program in the future, especially in (i) regular and open
dialogue between the judiciary and the executive over budget management, (ii) judicial autonomy,
(iii) decentralization of court administration at the forefront of the policy agenda, and (iv) effective
interagency coordination by the JSCC to address sector-wide issues such as case decongestion
and delay reduction.
 12 Appendix1

DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Performance
Data Sources
Design Targets and Assumptions and
Achievements and Reporting
Summary Indicators with Risks
Mechanisms
Baselines
Impact By 2016: Achieved: The World Assumptions
Greater public Improvement in Rule of law index Justice Project Macroeconomic and
trust and rule of law index improved from 33.8% Rule of Law political stability and
confidence in (2007 baseline: in 2007 to 35.4% in Index continued adoption of
the justice 33.8%) and 2009 sound macroeconomic
system corruption Transparency policies
perception index Overall corruption International,
(2008 baseline perception index corruption Sustained commitment
rank of 141 and ranking improved from perception index to strengthen rule of law
score of 2.3) 141 in 2007 to 134 in and governance
2010 and corruption reforms
perception index score
Foreign direct from 2.3 to 2.4 Strong civil society and
investment stock Bangko Sentral media oversight
as a percentage Foreign direct Ng Pilipinas,
of gross domestic investment stock was NSCB Risk
product increased 14.4% of gross Political economy risks
to 20% by 2016 domestic product in for institutional change,
(2006 baseline: 2009 and reforms in the
14.4%) judiciary
Outcome Increase in case Achieved Supreme Court, Risks
A more efficient clearance ratea in In 2010, overall actual Office of the Institutional risks from
justice sector courts from clearance rate in the Court vested interests to
27.3% in 2006 to judiciary was 37.8%— Administrator, change, weak
34.0% by 2010; 44.0% in the Supreme CAMIS case management systems,
increase in Court, 52.0% in statistics 2006– and lack of strong and
number of clients metropolitan trial courts 2010; effective commitment to
served by PAOb in cities, and 43.0% in judiciary annual reforms
by 10% between metropolitan trial courts report
2007 and 2010; and municipal trial Weak implementation
and increase in courts. Number of Annual report and capacity for case
cases referred to clients served by the statistical reports, decongestion and delay
mediation by at PAO increased from PAO, DOJ reduction reforms
least 50% 4.382 million in 2007 to Supreme Court,
between 2006 4.802 million, or by Philippine Judicial
and 2010 420,000 clients (10%). Academy, CAM
Number of cases and JDR reports
referred to court-
annexed mediation
increased from 21,211
in 2006 to 46,311 in
2010, or by 118%; and
number of cases
referred to judicial
dispute resolution
increased from 1,437
in 2006 to 5,032 in
2010, or by 250%.
 Appendix 1 13

Performance
Data Sources
Design Targets and Assumptions and
Achievements and Reporting
Summary Indicators with Risks
Mechanisms
Baselines
Outputs Real increases in Achieved Table B10, Assumption
1. Strengthened the justice Judiciary and justice Budget of Adoption of public
judicial fiscal sector’s annual sector agencies Expenditures and financial management
autonomy, budget and in received real increases Sources of measures, with
and improved judiciary’s share in their 2011 budgets Financing 2012 adequate budget
justice sector in national budget (judiciary 2.26%, DOJ resources
accountability from 0.83% 2007 5.19%, PAO 38.28%, Supreme Court
and access to to about 1.00% in BuCor 6.43%, Office of budget Risks
resources 2010 the Solicitor General Institutional resistance
5.17%, PPA 6.45%, to introduce budget
and BJMP 10.61%). reforms
Judiciary’s actual 2010
obligations Opportunities for
(P15.015 billion) was corruption arising from
1.019% of 2010 actual resistance
obligation of
Judiciary P1.473 billion) Lack of effective
accomplishments delegation of
and expenditures Achieved administrative and
published and Judiciary’s annual financial management
publicly available report containing functions
details of its caseloads
and outputs in
expenditures are
published annually on
its website
2. Enhanced Supreme Court Achieved Supreme Court Assumption
justice sector integrity Two standing annual report Supreme Court
integrity infrastructure committees on commitment to REPI-
strengthened by enhancing institutional recommended reforms
2010 integrity and ethics sustained
established to address
integrity issues Risk
Monitoring Weak mechanisms for
Filed administrative number of ensuring accountability
cases against judges complaints, for performance and
increased from 193 in administrative delivery of service and
2006 to 403 in 2009, or cases filed versus corruption risks
an increase of 109% number resolved
annually
3. Supporting Decrease in the In 2010, 47.38% of all Agency reports Assumptions
efficiency in average duration cases in the lower Effective
the justice of a case in lower courts were 1 year old Statistical implementation of rule
sector courts from or less, 14.00% were Reports Division, of law reforms, including
4 years to 3 years 1–2 years old, and CMO, Office of measures streamlining
by end of 2010 9.19% were 2–3 years the Court court rules and
old, so 70.57% of all Administrator procedures
cases were 3 years old
or less. CAMIS statistics, Strong interagency
Reduction in Supreme Court coordination
backlog of court Backlog of cases in
cases by 15% by metropolitan trial
 14 Appendix1

Performance
Data Sources
Design Targets and Assumptions and
Achievements and Reporting
Summary Indicators with Risks
Mechanisms
Baselines
2010 (base year courts reduced by
2007) 25.0%, from 113,330
in 2007 to 90,686 in
2010; in municipal trial
courts in cities by
43.0% from 90,083 in
2007 to 63,059 in
2010; and in municipal
trial courts by 37.2%
from 60,550 in 2007 to
44,128 in 2010
4. Access to Reduction in In BJMP, in 2010, BJMP Statistics Assumption
justice by the average length of average length of stay on Detainees Effective coordination
poor and time spent by a of inmates was 2007–2011 between judiciary,
vulnerable detainee in jail 15 months; cases correctional institutions,
groups from 5 years in resolved increased Supreme Court and enforcement
2008 to 3 years in from 754 in 2006 to CAMIS reports agencies to improve
2010, and 5,361 in 2009, or an legal services
increase in increase of 611%, and
processing of number of detainees
cases under JOW released increased
program (2006 from 300 in 2006 to
baseline: 754) 2,513 in 2009, or an
increase of 738%
5. Expanding By end of 2010: Total number of Agency reports Risk
delivery of Increase in mediated cases in and certifications Resistance of judges to
justice number of 2010 was 23,374 (or implement mandatory
through mediated cases an increase of about referral to CAM units all
alternative by about 20% 11.75%), and success for mediation, and lack
dispute (2007 baseline: rate of court-annexed of adequate mediators
resolution 20,905); and mediation was 66% in and monitoring
increased 2010c mechanism
success rate of
resolution of
mediation cases
to 75% (2007
baseline: 68%)
Activities with Milestones Inputs
1.1 Public expenditure management in the judiciary strengthened Loan
through key measures including (i) adoption of the organizational Subprogram 1: $300 million
performance indicator framework budget, and (ii) training in medium- Subprogram 2: $300 million
term and results-based budgeting for relevant personnel from the
Office of the Court Administrator and judicial regions (Central Luzon, Technical Assistance
Central Visayas, and Mindanao) ADB Policy and Advisory technical
1.2 Salaries for justices, judges, and nonjudicial personnel upgraded assistance (2010): $1,500,000
through phased implementation of salary increases in accordance ADB Capacity Development
with Salary Standardization Law 3 technical assistance (2014):
1.3 DBM approved increase in the number of positions performing core $1,000,000
functions in NPS, PAO, BJMP, BuCor, and PNP to improve
distribution of work, and the National Expenditure Program provided Government contribution is in kind
for an average of 35% increases in the annual appropriations of and it Includes office
 Appendix 1 15

Activities with Milestones Inputs

selected justice sector agencies compliant with the organizational accommodation, remuneration and
performance indicator framework, including the judiciary, DOJ/NPS, per diem of counterpart staff,
PAO, BuCor, the Office of the Solicitor General, and BJMP transport, and others
2.1 A committee headed by a Supreme Court justice tasked to review
and implement the REPI recommendations, the Office of the Court
Administrator continued to monitor performance through CAMIS,
and DOJ launched the Codes of Conduct of the Prosecution
Service.
3.1 Supreme Court (i) established an interagency committee to address
case congestion and delays in the lower courts, and (ii) drafts new
court procedural rules to minimize delays and congestion
3.2 Justice Sector Coordinating Council established and operational
3.3 Court of Appeals introduced and effectively implements the zero-
backlog policy; and Court of Tax Appeals developed and
operationalized CMIS
4.1 Supreme Court continues, and expands, the implementation of its
Access to Justice for the Poor Program through key initiatives such
as (i) enhanced Justice on Wheels program, (ii) small claims courts,
and (iii) ADR mechanisms.
4.2 DOJ and PNP-trained trainers on the management of gender-based
violence cases
4.3 Consensus reached through national summit among Supreme
Court, DOJ, DILG, PNP, PAO, BuCor, BJMP, and PPA on
fundamental reforms needed for the correctional system, and an
interagency executive committee established by the president
monitors implementation of agreed reforms from summit
5.1 Supreme Court promulgated the consolidated and revised guidelines
to implement the expanded coverage of court-annexed mediation
and judicial dispute resolution, and the special rules of court on ADR
and DOJ established the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office and
promulgated the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the ADR
Act
ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADR = alternative dispute resolution, BJMP = Bureau of Jail Management and Penology,
BuCor = Bureau of Corrections, CAM = court-annexed mediation, CAMIS = court administration management system,
CMIS = court management information system, CMO = Court Management Office, DBM = Department of Budget and
Management, DILG = Department of Interior and Local Government, DOJ = Department of Justice, JDR = judicial dispute
resolution, JOW = Justice on Wheels, NPS = National Prosecution Service, NSCB = National Statistical Coordination Board,
PAO = Public Attorney’s Office, PNP = Philippine National Police, PPA = Parole and Probation Administration,
REPI = Review and Enhancement of Performance and Integrity.
a Clearance rate refers to the volume of cases disposed of as a percentage of total caseload. Low clearance rate means that

backlogs remain high; higher clearance rates mean that the backlog of cases that need to be resolved is diminishing.
b
PAO is responsible for providing legal assistance to the poor.
c
One possible explanation as to why the targets have not been achieved is that the number of cases going to mediation
continues to be low. To address issues in the referral of cases to mediation and success rates, the chief justice adopted a
reversion policy in 2011, where cases identified for mediation pending with judges are reverted to court-annexed mediation
units through a three-layer process. If mediation fails, the case goes to mediation by the judge. The Supreme Court issued
consolidated guidelines that expanded the scope of cases identified for mediation and updated the rules of procedures on
mediation.
Source: Asian Development Bank.
16 Appendix 2
GJSRP 2 – Original Triggers (8) (Indicative)
and Original Milestones
1. Strengthened Judicial Fiscal Autonomy, and Improved Justice Sector Accountability and Access to Resources
1. 1 SC to implement OPIF judiciary-wide
a. SC to publish Annual report on Judiciary – key measures including (i) adoption of OPIF budget
wide operations including budgetary
performance.
b. SC to prepare template for disclosure of
own-source revenue mobilization and
utilization
c. SC to approve financial management
assessment and recommendations in not less
than 2 selected regions, apart from Region 7,
preparatory to the establishment of new
RCAOs. SC to implement accepted
recommendations of study; DBM to provide
necessary funding for implementation following
the confirmation of SC recommendations,
consistent with agreed-upon MTEF and OPIF
targets.
d. DOJ submits OPIF compliant budget for
fiscal year 2009 and 2010
e. SC to include publication of MTEP 2010-
2012 in its Annual Report
1.2 The judiciary to prepare and submit to the
SC en banc for its consideration and approval
the rationalization program including a phased and non-judicial personnel upgraded through
salary adjustment plan in accordance with the
proposed SSL 3.
1.3 DBM to approve the rationalization program
submitted by the justice sector agencies in the
POLICY MATRIX
GJSRP 2 – Refined (8) and New Policy Actions (8) Implementing Partners
in bold, and Refined Milestones (33) and Stakeholders
1. Refined Policy Action: Public expenditure SC, and Lower Courts, DBM
management in the Judiciary strengthened through
and (ii) training in medium-term, and results based
budgeting, for relevant personnel from OCA and
judicial regions (Central Luzon, Central Visayas, and
Mindanao) (Accomplished)
1.1 Judiciary publishes annual report on website
containing outputs and expenditures (on track)
1.2 Judiciary annually submits to DBM budget
proposal containing actual and projected revenues
and actual projected expenditures form these
(on track)
1.3 SC launched RCAOs in region 3 and 11 within
the scope of phased decentralization (on track)
1.4 DOJ submitted OPIF compliant budget for fiscal
year 2009 and 2010 through Form A and B
specifying outputs and expenditure levels for
3 years. DOJ is in DBM OPIF book which reports
actual and projected outputs and expenditures
(on track)
1.5 SC publishes in annual report 3 year budget SC, and Lower Courts, DBM
indicating prior year, current year and proposed year
budgets. 2012 expenditures will be contained in the
2010 annual report about to be published in website
(on track)
2. Refined Policy Action Salaries for justices, judges DOJ and attached agencies
and DBM
phased implementation of salary increases in
accordance with SSL 3 (Accomplished)
3. Refined Policy Action DBM approved increase in SC, DOJ and attached
the number of positions performing core functions agencies

GJSRP 2 – Original Triggers (8) (Indicative)
and Original Milestones
Executive branch, and these agencies shall
adopt and start implementing the program.
1.4 NEP for 2011 budget to show DBM proposal
that justice sector agencies compliant with
OPIF will be provided real increases in
budgetary resources that take into
consideration current inflation, consistent with
their approved MTEPs, and based on
performance, absorptive capacity, and the
prevailing macroeconomic and fiscal situation
of the country.
a. Notice of Cash Allocation to show that
DBM has released cash allocations to the
Judiciary each quarter in full and in
accordance with agreed upon operational
cash program of SC from 2009 and onwards
b. DOJ to adopt policy for improved resource
allocation for local and field offices to improve
performance and service delivery.
c. OSG shall prepare and submit to Congress
a bill allowing it to retain a percentage of
assets or their value forfeited or escheated in
favor of the government, and a percentage of
monetary awards to client departments and
agencies as additional employee incentive.
d. PAO prepares MTEP with expenditure
provisions in line with justice sector agency
budgetary support.
1.5 SC en banc to issue guidelines authorizing
replication of financial management
procedures ensuring transparency in the use
of all resources available to the courts in at
least two selected regions other than Region 7.
Appendix 2 17
GJSRP 2 – Refined (8) and New Policy Actions (8) Implementing Partners
in bold, and Refined Milestones (33) and Stakeholders
in NPS, PAO, BJMP, BuCor, and PNP to improve
distribution of work (Accomplished)
4. Refined Policy Action NEP provided for an
average of 35% increase in the annual
appropriations of selected OPIF compliant justice
sector agencies including Judiciary, DOJ/NPS, PAO,
BuCor, OSG, and BJMP (Accomplished)
4.1 DOJ formulated P17 billion medium-term
strategy in April 2011 to improve resources of
agencies including regional and field offices of NPS,
NBI and PAO and provided training on MTEF and
OPIF to regional prosecutors and heads of
administrative and financial offices of DOJ and
attached agencies (on track)
4.2 Two separate bills filed to strengthen OSG with
provisions on funding allowances and benefits from
monetary awards or assets on forfeitures, and fees
collected by the special committee on naturalization
and other sources (on track)
4.3 PAO regularly submits to DBM its 3-year forward
estimates. PAO prepared its 2011-2016 Medium-
term Expenditure Framework as integral part of DOJ
medium-term strategy (on track)
4.4 In 2009 Notices of Cash Allocation were
released every six months. The Department of Judiciary, DOJ and attached
Budget and Management issued National Budget agencies, and DBM
Circulars 523 (2010) and 528 (2011) for
comprehensive (one time release of NCAs based
on agency annual cash programs (on track)
5. New Policy Action: Representation of women in
the judiciary and justice sector agencies increased SC
during 2007–2011. Out of 1,614 personnel recruited
during this period, 1,179 or 73% were women
18 Appendix 2
GJSRP 2 – Original Triggers (8) (Indicative)
and Original Milestones
a. SC to complete evaluation of pilot RCAO
7. SC to launch RCAOs in at least 2 other
regions.
b. SC to implement oversight structure for
RCAOs approved by SC.
c. SC to provide budgetary allocations in
2010 to support the Region 7 pilot RCAO.
2. Enhanced Justice Sector Integrity
a. SC to utilize all available information on
cases of impropriety provided by civil society
groups such as Court Watch in its
investigations to ensure integrity of court
personnel.
b. SC to approve recommendations in REPI
c. SC to prepare and implement the
customized manual on internal controls
d. DOJ to develop and carry out consultations
with stakeholders on the code of conduct for
prosecutors and recommend system to monitor
compliance.
e. Appellate courts (CA, CTA and
Sandiganbayan) to initiate public availability
(Web based) of the decisions of the appellate
courts within 48 hours from promulgation
GJSRP 2 – Refined (8) and New Policy Actions (8) Implementing Partners
in bold, and Refined Milestones (33) and Stakeholders
6. Refined Policy Action: SC approved the
establishment of RCAO in judicial regions 3 and 11
(Central Luzon and Mindanao) and established an
oversight unit to monitor, coordinate, and provide
guidance to ensure smooth implementation of the
phased decentralization process (Accomplished)
6.1 SC launched RCAOs through creation and
operationalization of general services unit, regional
procurement planning committee and regional bids
and awards committee in Regions 3 and 11, within
the scope of phased decentralization (on track)
6.2 SC created and operationalized an oversight
unit (OU) through AO 135 (2009) and AO 87-2010
(on track)
6.3 GAA 2010 and 2011 allocated P57.7 million for
MOOE of RCAO 7. Budgetary releases to RCAO
released from this amount (on track)
a. SC upon recommendation of Supreme Court
Appointments Watch (SCAW) an SC watch group
provides copies of JBC tally sheets containing
member votes for the position of chief justice and
other judicial positions (on track)
b. REPI recommendations integrated in SC
approved human resource manual. A whistle-
blowing policy is adopted. Cases of public interest
published in website within 24 hours (on track)
c. Internal audit office operationalised with
27 positions which performs internal audit of financial
transactions (on track)
d. Code of Conduct developed with nationwide
consultations and launched. Compliance monitoring
integrated into semestral performance evaluation of
employees (on track)

GJSRP 2 – Original Triggers (8) (Indicative)
and Original Milestones
f. RCAOs to make publicly available (Web
Based) the decisions of the RCAO courts
within one week from promulgation
3. Supporting Efficiency in the Justice Sector
a. NPS to pilot an automated prosecution case
management system in the Office of the Chief
State Prosecutor and Lapu Lapu City
b. NPS to include in its budget submission to
DBM for 2011 budget items preparatory to the
roll-out of the automated prosecution case
management system to other NPS offices.
c. JSCC adopts a common set of objectives for
enhancing performance of justice sector over
the medium-term. SC, DOJ, OMB, PAO, OSG,
DILG-PNP to develop framework for sector-
wide information exchange system
d. NPS to implement the DOJ-developed
capacity development programs for its field
offices, and continue implementation in
national capital region
e. DOJ to reflect in its budget submission to
DBM for 2010 budget for all programs
implementing the NPS capacity development
strategy. The NEP for 2010 shall reflect
provision of line item budget to implement the
strategy
f. SC to institute orientation programs for new
non-judicial staff
g. SC annual budget to reflect an allocation for
orientation and training of non-judicial staff.
h. Sandiganbayan to implement and
mainstream continuous trial in all divisions.
Appendix 2 19
GJSRP 2 – Refined (8) and New Policy Actions (8) Implementing Partners
in bold, and Refined Milestones (33) and Stakeholders
e. CA, CTA decisions published in website within
24 hours. Sandiganbayan decisions submitted to SC
for publication in website (on track)
f. Enterprise wide EIS is being developed under the
World Bank’s JRSP and will be the basis for
development of lower court CMIS and website
access to information (on track)
a. Pilot implementation completed in 11 sites.
Nationwide rollout being prepared (on track)
b. Authorized 2011 appropriations of NPS includes
P47 million for computerization Phase 3 which
includes e-PCMS (on track)
c. 300 prosecutors provided basic orientation
seminars in 2008-09. 500 copies of electronic legal
research materials distributed. Regional ICT literacy
conducted (on track)
d. 2010 budget of DOJ/NPS allocated P9.6 million
for training and scholarships of which P2.2 million
was reported in the 2012 budget proposal as utilized
(on track)
e. Orientation of New Employees Program of SC
formulated and to be conducted monthly in 2012
(on track)
f. Budget for training amounts to P54.6 million in
2011 and P83.4 million in 2012 covering 24 training
courses for non-judicial staff (on track)
g. Continuous trials undertaken for high profile
cases by Sandiganbayan (on track)
7. New Policy Action: SC (i) established an inter- SC
agency committee to address case congestion and
delays in the lower courts, and (ii) drafted a Primer
on the proposed Rules for Hearing and Adjudicating
Disputes (Accomplished)
20 Appendix 2
GJSRP 2 – Original Triggers (8) (Indicative)
and Original Milestones
3.1 CTA makes available to DOF information on
the status of criminal tax evasion cases
generated by its CMIS based on a signed
memorandum of understanding between SC
and DOF.
4. Access to Justice by the Poor and Vulnerable Groups
4.1 SC to implement its Access to Justice by
the Poor Program
a. NEP for 2011 to include budgetary allocation initiatives such as (1) enhanced justice on wheels,
for access to justice by the poor program
b. SC to evaluate pilot small claims courts and
makes recommendations for further
implementation. SC to designate the
recommended number of first level courts
nationwide as small claims courts, based on
the evaluation.
c. PNP to establish system for monitoring and
evaluating the performance of its women and
children desks.
GJSRP 2 – Refined (8) and New Policy Actions (8) Implementing Partners
in bold, and Refined Milestones (33) and Stakeholders
8. New Policy Action: Court of Appeals introduced CA
and effectively implements the zero-backlog policy
(Accomplished)
9. Refined Policy Action: CTA developed and CTA
operationalized CMIS and makes available
information on status of tax evasion cases on its
website (Accomplished)
10. New Policy Action: JSCC becomes fully SC, DOJ and JSAs, DILG,
operational (Accomplished) BJMP
10.1 JSCC meets regularly and has a common focus
on important sector issues – case and jail
decongestion, development of a national justice
information system, and is committed to greater
coordination (on track)
11. Refined Policy Action: SC continues and SC, PHILJA, DOJ, PNP,
expanded the implementation of its “Access to PAO
Justice for the Poor Program” through key
(2) small claims courts, and (3) ADR mechanisms
(Accomplished)
11.1 Budget imbedded in the regular budgets of
lower courts to which small claims cases are
assigned (on track)
11.2 After pilot implementation in 44 areas, small
claims cases are now the functions of all lower
courts nationwide (on track)
12. New Policy Action: DOJ and PNP trained trainers DOJ, and PNP
on the management of gender-based violence cases
(Accomplished)

GJSRP 2 – Original Triggers (8) (Indicative)
and Original Milestones
4.2 SC, BJMP, BuCor, and PAO to formulate,
adopt and implement a comprehensive jail
decongestion program.
a. BJMP to replicate SIRS in Quezon City, and
three other selected regions
b. BuCor to complete process map of
procedures relevant to decongesting prisons
under its jurisdiction and identify key
recommendations for implementation in 2011.
5. Expanding Delivery of Justice through Alternative Dispute Resolution
a. SC to complete roll out of court annexed
mediation
Appendix 2 21
GJSRP 2 – Refined (8) and New Policy Actions (8) Implementing Partners
in bold, and Refined Milestones (33) and Stakeholders
12.1 Participatory gender audit workshops
conducted in PNP to develop M and E Framework
and System in 2010. Establishment of M and E
systems in women’s and children’s desks work in
progress (on track)
13. Refined Policy Action: Consensus reached SC, DILG, DOJ, BJMP, PNP
through national summit among SC, DOJ, DILG, (DILG)
PNP, PAO, BuCor, BJMP, and PPA on fundamental BuCor, PPA, PAO (DOJ)
reforms needed for the correctional system
(Accomplished)
14. New Policy Action: An interagency executive SC, DILG, DOJ, BJMP, PNP
committee established by the President monitors (DILG)
implementation of agreed reforms from national BuCor, PPA, PAO (DOJ)
summit (Accomplished)
14.1 SIRs replicated in Quezon City, Antipolo City
and Cainta jail of BJMP. Jail management
information system initiated in BuCor (on track)
14.2 Bucor formulated organizational development
program and medium-term strategy including
decongestion of prisons. Computerized inmate
information system adopted and being link with
Parole and Probation to fast track probation of
eligible prisoners (on track)
15. New Policy Action: SC promulgated the: SC, PHILJA
(a) Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to
Implement the Expanded Coverage of Court-
Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution;
and (b) Special Rules of Court on Alternative
Dispute Resolution (Accomplished)
DOJ, OADR
22 Appendix 2

GJSRP 2 – Original Triggers (8) (Indicative) GJSRP 2 – Refined (8) and New Policy Actions (8) Implementing Partners
and Original Milestones in bold, and Refined Milestones (33) and Stakeholders
15.1 113 Court annexed mediation (CAM) units
rolled out nationwide; mediation system
strengthened nationwide through reversion to CAM
of all mediatable cases, assigning judges to second
level mediation where CAM fails to resolve and
expansion of jurisdiction to include criminal cases
b. DOJ to establish the OADR upon approval with maximum 6 years imprisonment (on track)
of its IRR by Congress.
16. New Policy Action: DOJ established the OADR
and adopted the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution
Act of 2004 (Accomplished)

16.1 OADR operational with personnel designated.

P10 million budget for MOOE provided in 2011
(on track)
ADR = alternative dispute resolution, AO = Administrative Order, BJMP = Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, BuCor = Bureau of Corrections, CA = Court
of Appeals, CAM = court-annexed mediation, CMIS = case management information system, CTA = Court of Tax Appeals, DBM = Department of Budget and
Management, DILG = Department of Interior and Local Government, DOF = Department of Finance, DOJ = Department of Justice, EIS = , ICT = information and
communication technology, IRR = implementing rules and regulations, GAA = General Appropriations Act, GJSRP = Governance in Justice Sector Reform Program,
JBC = Judicial Bar Council, JRSP = , JSA = justice sector agency, JSCC = Justice Sector Coordinating Council, M and E = monitoring and evaluation, MOOE =
maintenance and other operating expenditures, MTEF = Medium Term Expenditure Framework, MTEP = Medium Term Expenditure Plan, NBI = , NCA = Notice
of Cash Allocation, NEP = National Expenditure Program, NPS = National Prosecution Service, OADR = Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution, OCA = Office
of the Court Administrator, OMB = Office of the Media Board, OPIF = Organizational Performance Indicator Framework, OSG = Office of the Solicitor General,
PAO = Public Attorney’s Office, PCMS = , PhilJA = Philippine Judicial Academy, PNP = Philippine National Police, PPA = Parole and Probation Administration,
RCAO = Regional Court Administration Office, REPI = Review and Enhancement of Performance and Integrity, SC = Supreme Court, SCAW = Supreme Court
Appointments Watch, SIRS = Simplified Inmates Record System, SSL3 = Salary Standardization law 3.
 Appendix 3 23

POST-PROGRAM PARTNERSHIP FRAMEWORK

Priorities -
Key Actions by the Judiciary Stakeholders Results
Enhancing Reforms
Case decongestion Effective implementation of Enhanced Justice on Wheels Supreme Court, Judicial efficiency through
and reduction in delay program, small claims procedures, and mediation and Philippine Judicial monitoring of reduction in case
and case backlog alternative dispute resolution mechanisms Academy backlog, and quality of
Effective implementation of Case Decongestion and Case performance
Delay Reduction Project, stronger monitoring and Supreme Court, in
development of indicators, and strengthening of court cooperation with Improved access to justice by the
administration management information system and Department of poor and vulnerable groups
electronic case flow management Justice/National
Prosecution Strengthening interdependence
Issuance of court circulars Service, Public and interagency coordination
Implementation of recommendations of Chief Justice Attorney’s Office,
Committee to address case congestion and delays in lower Bureau of Jail Improved tax collection through
courts Management and improved compliance
Institutionalization of Justice Sector Coordinating Council Penology

Improved settlement of tax evasion cases by Court of Tax

Appeals
Institutional Organizational reengineering, with delegation, and budget for Supreme Court, Improved financial management
strengthening procurement, management of equipment and facilities, and Association of and court administration
maintenance of halls of justice Judges,
Department of
Effective implementation of results-based budgeting and
Budget and
phased decentralization within a well-defined time framework
Management
Improvement and Rollout of case management information system in lower Supreme Court, Enhanced court operations and
modernization of court courts Association of judicial efficiency
infrastructure Judges,
Court modernization—physical infrastructure and information
Department of
technology modernization
Budget and
Management
Institution of integrity Sanctions, strengthening measures to address challenges Supreme Court Strengthened integrity
reform measures within the ranks of the bench, and implementation of whistle-
blower policy
24 Appendix 3

Priorities -
Key Actions by the Judiciary Stakeholders Results
Enhancing Reforms
Strengthening the Continuing legal and judicial education and capacity Supreme Court, Improvement in judicial
competencies of development in results-based management, procurement, Philippine Judicial professionalism and
courts, judges, and information technology capability, and gender sensitivity in Academy organizational development,
court employees handling cases and monitoring of capacity improvements including gender sensitivity
and behavioral changes through monitoring and evaluation.
Gender-sensitive initiatives expanded through adoption of
policy for provision of gender-sensitive investigation facilities
at halls of justice under Justice Infrastructure Program and
other similar programs by 2012
Source: Asian Development Bank.
 Appendix 4 25

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPLETION REPORT

TA Number, Country, and Name: Amount Approved: $2,000,000
TA 7210-PHI: Supporting Governance in Justice Sector Reform in Revised Amount: Not applicable
the Philippines
Executing Agencies: Source of Funding: Amount Undisbursed: Amount Utilized:
Supreme Court of the Philippines (for Others: $1,500,000 $427,213.00 $1,572,787.00
judicial branch activities), DOJ (for TASF and Gender and
executive branch activities) Development
Cooperation Fund:
$500,000
TA Approval TA Signing Fielding of First TA Completion Date
Date: Date: Consultant: Original: Actual:
16 December 2008 10 January 2009 6 May 2009 31 August 2010 31 May 2012
Account Closing Date
Original: Actual:
31 August 2010 1 October 2012
Description: Recognizing that poor governance is a major constraint to inclusive and sustainable growth, the
Government of the Philippines developed the Philippine Medium Term Development Plan, 2004–2010 with the aim of
improving institutions and governance outcomes. The plan envisioned a judiciary that is independent, effective, and
efficient, resulting in a holistic and integrated reform effort in the justice system. It also recognized the link between the
rule of law and institutional reforms in the justice sector.
Building on ADB’s longstanding support to the Philippine judiciary and justice sector, ADB developed the Governance
in Justice Sector Reform Program to provide support to the government in promoting good governance in this sector.a
This TA grant was attached to the program loan under subprogram 1. The TA had two major areas of focus:
(i) supporting good governance in the justice sector, and (ii) enhancing gender-responsiveness in the justice sector.
The first component focused on supporting the government in building institutional capacity in the development and
implementation of a medium-term governance plan for justice sector reform, and was designed to strengthen the
delivery of targets envisioned under subprogram 2. The second component aimed to increase the capacity of the
Supreme Court, the DOJ, and the PNP to respond to gender-sensitive issues and implement their gender and
development plans.
Expected Impact, Outcome, and Outputs: The TA strived to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of legal
services delivered by the judiciary and the justice sector agencies to their constituent communities. The expected
outcome was enhanced capacities of the judiciary and the justice sector agencies to plan and budget for the general
welfare of their constituent communities in a transparent and accountable way. The TA had five outputs:
(i) strengthening judicial fiscal autonomy and justice sector accountability, and improved access to resources;
(ii) improving integrity and individual accountability in the sector; (iii) supporting efficiency in the justice sector;
(iv) supporting alternative dispute resolution; and (v) access to justice by the poor and vulnerable groups.
Delivery of Inputs and Conduct of Activities: The TA became effective on 10 January 2009 with an expected
completion date of 31 August 2010. It coincided with a change in the leadership of the judiciary and the executive, so
it was extended for 21 months to ensure its activities were consistent with the direction of the judiciary and the DOJ in
selected areas—especially the seven priorities of the honorable chief justice and the DOJ’s strategic plan.b
The TA underused $427,213.00, mostly because of the unused consulting cost of $486,359.00. It planned to finance
130 person-months of consulting inputs, comprising 10 international and 120 national person-months, but the actual
number of consultants increased from 13 to 17 as a result of the extended TA scope. The training and seminar cost
amounted to $305,895.00 against the original budget of $200,000.00; the difference was charged against the unused
consulting budget. Two consulting firms hired to support the two focus areas of the TA—justice sector reform and
gender and development—delivered their outputs. The overall performance of the consultants was satisfactory. Two
international consultants, the justice systems reform expert and the fiscal planning and budget expert, were rated
exceptional. The justice systems reform expert was responsible for overall coordination between ADB, consulting firms
and individuals, and relevant stakeholders; provided legal policy and technical input; and participated in policy dialogue
relating to the program. The fiscal planning and budget expert provided technical advice on implementing the regional
court administration office in region 7, defining the functions and operations of the oversight committee for
decentralization and designing the pilot oversight unit, and preparing the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and
Organizational Performance Indicator Framework compliant budget for justice sector agencies. The performance of
ADB and the executing agencies was satisfactory.
Output 1. The TA provided training to staff of the DOJ and related agencies on results-based budgeting using the
Organizational Performance Indicator Framework and the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. This led to the
preparation of the DOJ medium-term development program and the 2012 proposed results-based budgets.
Output 2. Workshops were conducted to customize the internal control manuals and code of conduct for justice sector
agencies. Capacity building on performance and evaluation standards was provided, and a system to monitor the
26 Appendix 4

performance of court administration offices was established.

Output 3. The TA strengthened computerization programs in the Court of Tax Appeals, Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology, and BuCor to improve case management and prisoner management information; and provided various
trainings on CAM and ADR, and the conduct of a national consultative conference on ADR.
Output 4. The TA provided hardware and information technology support to BuCor to improve the inmate information
system.
Output 5. The TA supported capacity building to BuCor in the formulation of the BuCor rebuilding plan and to the
DOJ’s interagency technical working group. The TA also assisted the technical working group in mapping various
prison reform diagnostics and initiatives, and provided a forum for policy dialogue and consensus in addressing the
challenges of the national jail system. With regard to the gender-related element, the TA assisted justice sector
agencies in (i) the development of gender-responsive skills in the PNP; (ii) gender capacity building for the National
Prosecution Service; (iii) gender policy development and capacity building of the judiciary; and (iv) the development of
a monitoring and evaluation framework. In the PNP, the TA focused on the development and publication of, and training
on, the procedures manual for handling GBV cases for first responders and women and children desk officers in five
selected regions, and strengthening of the PNP’s stress management program. In the judiciary, the TA supported the
formulation of a curriculum and pilot training on gender-sensitive handling of cases by family court judges, social
workers, and court interpreters. In the DOJ, the TA assisted in the development of a national gender sensitization
training program and the establishment of GST-trained public prosecutors, and accreting this GST in the mandatory
continuing legal education.
Evaluation of Outputs and Achievement of Outcome: The TA largely delivered on its outcome and outputs. In
2010, the actual clearance rates were 37.8%–52% across different court levels. The number of cases referred to court-
annexed mediation increased by 118% from 2006 to 2010.
Output 1. The judiciary adopted an incremental approach to the decentralization of financial and administrative
functions. Regional bids and awards committees and procurement units were installed in three pilot regions along with
training and capacity building. A procurement manual was prepared and procurement workshops were conducted for
selected offices in the Supreme Court. The TA also facilitated the provision of real budget increases to related justice
sector agencies. Accountability mechanisms were strengthened in the judiciary, as evident by efforts to publish
expenditures, outputs, decisions, and the status of cases by the courts in their websites.
Output 2. The Supreme Court strengthened its integrity infrastructure by establishing two standing committees on
enhancing institutional integrity. An integrity scorecard was prepared to measure performance regarding integrity. The
number of administrative cases filed against judges increased 109% from 193 to 403 in 2009. In the DOJ, the code of
conduct for prosecutors was rolled out nationwide.
Output 3. A Justice Sector Coordination Council was established, with the commitment to address priority cross-
cutting problems.
Output 4. The Supreme Court adopted the Special Rules of Court of ADR as well as the Consolidated and Revised
Rules on Court-Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution. In the DOJ, the IRR of the ADR Act were
promulgated and the Office for ADR has begun operations.
Output 5. The TA improved access to justice by the poor and vulnerable groups and addressed key gender-related
issues.
Overall Assessment and Rating: The overall assessment and rating for this TA is successful. The targeted outcome
and outputs were met. The TA provided good support for the success of subprogram 2.
Major Lessons: Leadership commitment and resolve is recognized as crucial in pursuing reforms, many of which
have profound organizational implications and therefore involve organizational change. Continuity and consistency of
support over the medium to long term will be essential in deepening the foothold that reforms have gained in the
immediate term, and expanding the gains toward institutionalization and sustained long-term gains. Many reforms in
the justice sector are not stand-alone and will require interagency coordination and mutual reinforcement.
Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions: ADB and other development partners should continue monitoring and
engaging with the government in the post program monitoring framework to make sure reform impacts can be
sustained in the long term.
ADB = Asian Development Bank, ADR = alternative dispute resolution, BuCor = Bureau of Corrections,
DOJ = Department of Justice, PNP = Philippine National Police, TA = technical assistance.
a ADB. 2008. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Program Cluster,

Loan for Subprogram 1, and Technical Assistance Grant to the Republic of the Philippines for the Governance in
Justice Sector Reform Program. Manila.
b
Support for regional court administration offices, budget reforms, human resources, integrity issues, and the case
management information system were to be recalibrated.
Prepared by: Duong T. Nguyen Designation and Division: Financial Sector Economist, SEPF
In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a
particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any
judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
 Appendix 4 27

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPLETION REPORT

TA Number, Country, and Name: Amount Approved: $1,000,000
TA 8006-PHI: Capacity Development for the Judiciary and Justice Revised Amount: Not applicable
Sector Agencies
Executing Agencies: Source of Funding: Amount Undisbursed: Amount Utilized:
Supreme Court of the Philippines (for TASF-Others $266,502.04 $733,497.96
judicial branch activities), Department of
Justice (for executive branch activities)

TA Approval Date: TA Signing Date: Fielding of First TA Completion Date

16 December 2011 22 February 2012 Consultant: Original: Actual:
31 July 2012 28 February 2014 31 October 2015
Account Closing Date
Original: Actual:
28 February 2014 29 February 2016
Description: The Philippine justice system suffers from several key issues, including (i) insufficient fiscal autonomy
and accountability, (ii) weak institutional integrity, (iii) low functional efficiency, and (iv) limited access to the system by
the poor. Recognizing that a poorly functioning justice system is a major constraint to inclusive growth, the Government
of the Philippines identified justice sector reform as a key priority in its reform agenda. To support this agenda, it
requested ADB to provide a TA. This TA was designed to support the implementation of subprogram 2 of the
Governance in Justice Sector Reform Program, with focus on areas in public financial management, human resources
development, court and jail decongestion, correction system modernization, sector-wide information and
communication technology development, and sector coordination.a
Expected Impact, Outcome, and Outputs: The expected impact of the TA was greater public trust and confidence
in the justice system. The outcome was a more efficient justice sector in delivering justice to all. The TA had three
outputs: (i) the judiciary and DOJ and other justice sector agencies institutionally strengthened through organizational
development, implementation of incremental decentralization, strengthening results-based management and human
resources development, improved capacity for case management in the judiciary, and development of the National
Justice Information System; (ii) support to case decongestion initiatives in the judiciary and DOJ, including support to
a sector-wide case decongestion initiative, support to the JSCC, and assistance in the preparation of background
papers and research on substantive reforms including legislative proposals; and (iii) support to jail decongestion and
prison system reforms, including interbranch dialogue, capacity building in the computerization of inmate records, and
improvement of management processes.
Delivery of Inputs and Conduct of Activities: The TA became effective on 22 February 2012, but implementation
was delayed to August 2012 and the TA was extended for 20 months. The extended implementation was due to the
change in leadership of the Supreme Court, which led to changes in perspectives, goals, and reform priorities. In
addition, delays arose from the need to sequence reforms with the passage of two laws, which modernized the BuCor
and adopted good conduct time allowance. As a result, the TA scope was expanded to cover new strategic areas, all
of which were within the TA framework. The number of consultants was increased from eight to 14, and the total
number of person-months increased from 65 in the original TA to 76.8. The consultant contract value increased to
$738,793.00 against the original budget of $630,000.00. The actual disbursed amount for consultants, however, was
lower at $680,159.00 because of an unclaimed consulting fee by two consultants. The difference between the original
budget for consultants and the actual disbursed amount was charged to the unused training/seminar budget of
$164,545.00. No equipment was purchased under the TA despite the original budget of $30,000.00. The overall
performance of consultants was satisfactory. The performance of ADB and the executing agencies was also
satisfactory.
Output 1. Support was provided to Supreme Court officials to enable them to use tools in results-based management
and to prepare their results-based 2016 budget proposal. Capacity development in participatory budgeting was also
provided and was delivered through an annual budget conference. Consultants worked closely with staff from the
National Prosecution Service, the NBI, and the Public Attorney’s Office to develop staffing decision models and
resource standards, which will be institutionalized and will guide internal policy makers in budget preparation and
execution. In BuCor, consultants trained staff to conduct results-based budgeting, organization development, program
identification, reform implementation programming, financial planning, correction system theories and processes; and
worked with them to prepare the modernization plan.
Output 2. The TA provided support in the development of the case decongestion manual and in the preparation and
dissemination of case decongestion tools and guides for the lower court judges. The TA also supported the conduct
of workshop among the DOJ, the Department of the Interior and Local Government, and judiciary agencies for the
preparation of a JSCC multiyear strategic plan.
28 Appendix 4

Output 3. The TA provided support for the review and preparation of prison reform legislation and the development of
BuCor’s automated integrated inmate information management system.

Evaluation of Outputs and Achievement of Outcome: The impact indicators were achieved. The Rule of Law index
improved from 33.8% in 2007 to 53% in 2015. The overall corruption perception index ranking improved from 141 in
2007 to 95 in 2015. Outcome indicators were largely achieved, with an increase in the case clearance rate from 27.3%
in 2006 to 37.8% in 2010, a 10% increase in the number of clients served by the Public Attorney’s Office from 2007 to
2010, and the number of cases referred to court-annexed mediation increased by 118% from 2006 to 2010.
Output 1. Recommendations for improvements to business process assessments and strategic planning systems
have been completed, and the Supreme Court has implemented some business process improvements. In the DOJ
and other justice sector agencies, tools have been introduced and implemented to strengthen the data requirement
definition and harmonization, business process development, staffing development, resource assessment, and
procurement processes. The BuCor modernization plan and the IRR to implement the good conduct time allowance
have been completed.
Output 2. Case decongestion has been achieved in 175 of 355 courts. For example, 31 courts had disposed
16,007 cases by May 2014 out of a total inventoried caseload of 31,307 for 33 courts. As of 2010, 70.57% of all cases
were 3 years old or less. From 2007 to 2010, the backlog of cases was reduced by 25% in metropolitan trial courts, by
43% in municipal trial courts in cities, and by 37.2% in municipal trial courts.
Output 3. A jail decongestion framework and implementation was completed. The average length of stay of inmates
was reduced to 15 months in 2010 from 5 years in 2008. Cases resolved increased to 5,361 in 2009 from 754 in 2006,
and the number of detainees released increased to 2,513 in 2009 from 300 in 2006. The DOJ is considering
recommendations in a report covering standards, policy statements, an implementation manual, and monitoring tool
kits.
Overall Assessment and Rating: Despite the underused budget (only 73% of its original budget was used) and the
lengthened implementation time line, the TA is considered successful and operationally relevant. Performance
indicators set in the outputs were mostly delivered, and targets set in the outcome were achieved with likely strong
long-term sustainability.
Major Lessons: Progress has been made but reforms in this sector are often complex, involving a wide range of
institutions and requiring sustained support and commitment over the medium to long term. For example, the activities
conducted under the TA were strategic but limited in scope and will require additional time before the policies,
processes, and practices of implementing institutions are effectively integrated. In addition, strong coordination
between government agencies and other development partners will be required to it reduce overlaps, improve
efficiency, and ensure that various initiatives are mutually reinforcing. It is important that ADB remain flexible and react
quickly as new critical needs emerge, especially in an environment where changes in leadership often result in changes
in vision, strategy, and priorities.
Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions: ADB and other development partners should continue supporting and
engaging in the JSCC. ADB should also monitor and engage with the government in the post program monitoring
framework to make sure reform impacts can be sustained in the long term.
ADB = Asian Development Bank, BuCor = Bureau of Corrections, DOJ = Department of Justice, JSCC = Justice
Sector Coordinating Council, TA = technical assistance.
a ADB. 2011. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Policy-Based Loan

for Subprogram 2 and Technical Assistance Grant to the Republic of the Philippines for the Governance in Justice
Sector Reform Program. Manila.

Prepared by: Duong T. Nguyen Designation and Division: Financial Sector Economist, SEPF
In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a
particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any
judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.
 Appendix 5 29

SUMMARY OF GENDER EQUALITY RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

A. Project Description

1. The Governance in Justice Sector Reform Program was a policy-based program loan
designed to support government efforts to enhance the rule of law in the Philippines through the
achievement of better governance and efficiency in the justice sector (outcome), and toward
earning greater public trust and confidence in the justice system (impact). It consisted of two
subprograms. Subprogram 1 was categorized effective gender mainstreaming under the gender
classification system of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It aimed at increasing resources for
the justice sector and supporting the efficient delivery of services. Subprogram 2 was categorized
some gender elements. It was focused on institutional capacity building to enable the delivery of
justice sector services to communities under a unified framework, and implement measures
addressing key justice sector priorities. Two technical assistance (TA) projects 1 were
implemented in conjunction with the program. This appendix summarizes the combined gender
equality results from the two subprograms and two TA projects that composed the program
covering the implementation period from 2008 to 2012.

B. Gender Analysis and Project Design Features

2. Gender-specific features were included in the design of the program—in the design and
monitoring framework (two target indicators) and the policy matrix (seven actions). The gender
design elements were organization-focused, and concentrated on capacity building for gender
sensitivity in handling gender-based violence cases of Supreme Court judges and staff,
Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors, and the Philippine National Police (PNP) officers of the
women and children protection desks. Gender actions were also identified in the
institutionalization of gender mainstreaming through training and mentoring support on gender
action planning for gender mechanisms of the Supreme Court, DOJ, and PNP.

3. All nine gender-specific targets and policy actions from subprograms 1 and 2 were
achieved, indicating the program’s high achievement of gender equality results. First, the policy
to ensure budget allocation for Gender and Development (GAD) activities was partly achieved by
strength of an existing national legal framework on gender budgets. 2 There was no report
received regarding the approval of a Medium Term Expenditure Plan as planned, however, fund
allocation for gender activities was annually secured by government agencies due to the strong
implementation of a GAD budget policy mandating a 5% minimum allotment for GAD related
activities in all agency’s budgets. Second, family court judges and court personnel (justices,
regular court judges, social workers, and interpreters) were trained in gender-sensitive handling
of gender-based violence (GBV) cases through 18 sessions in 2011 and 2012 (Table A5). These
sessions were included in annual regional and national convention seminars by the Philippine
Women Judges Association and the Philippine Association of Court Social Workers, Inc., whose
members are exclusively employed by the Supreme Court. This training tackled sensitivity to the

1
ADB 2008. Technical Assistance 7210-PHI: Supporting Governance in Justice Sector Reform. Manila; and ADB 2011
Capacity Development Technical Assistance 8006-PHI: Strengthening Capacity of the Judiciary and Justice Sector
Agencies. Manila.
2 The policy framework for allocating at least 5% of agency budgets for gender and development (GAD) is embodied

in Republic Act (RA) No. 7192 (Women in Development and Nation-Building Act) of 1992, the General Appropriations
Act, Joint Memorandum Circular issued in 1994 by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA),
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW), formerly the
National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW), and Republic Act 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women
of 2009.
30 Appendix 5

conditions and circumstances of women survivors of GBV, information on the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), national laws protecting
women and children’s rights, and the code of Muslim personal laws in relation to the Family Code,
among others. The training was administered by the Philippine Judicial Academy, the Supreme
Court’s staff development unit, and administered through its competency enhancement training
series. Initially, pilot testing was done to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the
training curriculum on gender-sensitive handling of GBV cases. A separate report presents even
more impressive figures. The Government of the Philippines claims to have conducted 36 training
programs on the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, 2003 for judges, prosecutors, and court
personnel of family courts and single branch (sala) courts handling sexual abuse and commercial
sexual exploitation cases during 2008–2013.3 It should be noted that the two indicators discussed
in this paragraph were part of the Subprogram 1’s DMF but were no longer included in
Subprogram 2.

4. Third, the Supreme Court developed and continues to prepare its annual gender action
plan (GAP) under the leadership of the Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary
(CGRJ). Fourth, the Supreme Court has acted and continues to reflect on its GAP implementation.
Its continuing GAP implementation and results monitoring is evidenced by the updated webpage
on sex-disaggregated data from Supreme Court operations.4 The CGRJ’s gender mainstreaming
efforts, as the gender focal committee of the Supreme Court, are mentioned in the CGRJ annual
reports and by the government in its 2015 state report to the CEDAW Committee.

5. Fifth, the PNP increased the number of women and children protection desks from
1,700 in 2008 to 1,830 in 2009. These desks are crucial in enhancing access to justice for women,
especially survivors of GBV, because gender-sensitive police officers as first responders are
trained and expected to act without cultural or gender biases—increasing the trust and confidence
of GBV survivors. Sixth, out of the 2,728 female police officers assigned to the women’s desks in
2009, 1,951 (72%) completed training on gender sensitivity and basic investigative skills in
handling crimes against women and children. The program’s impact is indicated by the
incorporation of information on gender equality concerns and violence against women in
education and cadet training courses by the PNP and its training arm, the Philippine Public Safety
College, according to the 2015 state report to CEDAW.5 This is also strongly linked to realizing
access to justice by women, especially the economically and socially disadvantaged.

6. Seventh, the representation of women in the judiciary and justice sector increased from
2007 to 2011. The report and recommendation of the President for subprogram 26 reported that
1,179 or 73% of the 1,614 personnel recruited during this period were women. The breakdown
by agency and position is not readily available. Nevertheless, a Philippine Commission on Women
report confirms that the participation of women in the judiciary increased slightly during program

3
United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. 2015. Combined seventh and eighth
periodic reports of States parties due in 2010: Philippines. http://library.pcw.gov.ph/sites/default/files/ Combined%20
7th%20%26%208th%20CEDAW%20Philippine%20Progress%20Report.pdf. para. 78.
4 Supreme Court. Sex-Disaggregated Data of Seminars for Judges and Lawyers. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/gender-
data/philja.html.
5 United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. 2015. Combined seventh and eighth
periodic reports of States parties due in 2010: Philippines. http://library.pcw.gov.ph/sites/default/files/ Combined%20
7th%20%26%208th%20CEDAW%20Philippine%20Progress%20Report.pdf. para. 58.
6 ADB. 2011. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Policy-Based Loan
for Subprogram 2. Manila.
 Appendix 5 31

implementation. In 2007, 32% of the total incumbent judges in the first and second level courts,
including shari‘a courts, were women; this increased to 33% in 2008 and 2009, and 34% in 2010.7

7. Eight, the program was instrumental in building a group of trainers in the DOJ (64) and
the PNP (total of 98), who were capacitated to roll out training on gender-sensitive management
of GBV cases and stress management sessions for (total of 74) service providers. Further, the
DOJ developed a national gender sensitization training program for public prosecutors, and
established its accreditation in the mandatory continuing legal education. Details on the training
of trainers are as follows:8

(i) 64 DOJ prosecutors received training as trainers in gender-sensitivity in handling

GBV cases (in 2 batches, 31 or 48% of total participants were women).
(ii) 23 PNP officers (13 or 53% women) and 75 PNP personnel (44 or 59%, in 2
batches) received training as trainers on gender-sensitivity in handling GBV cases
and on stress management for GBV responders respectively.
(iii) 50 DOJ prosecutors (30 or 60% women) from Mindanao and Metro Manila and 24
PNP officers (14 or 42% women) received training from roll out sessions managed
by those trained.

8. Ninth, the PNP conducted participatory gender audit workshops (two sessions, 42 officers,
among them 15 women or 36%) to develop a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and
system, which included setting performance standards and systems on the formulation,
implementation, and assessment of GAPs. (Also see footnote 8.) The gender focal points of the
PNP, the DOJ and its units: Office of the Solicitor General, the National Bureau of Investigation
- NBI, and the Parole and Probation Administration - PPA, benefited from five training sessions
on performance standards and accountability principles, on GAD programming, mentoring on
GAD plan formulation and implementation. The PNP developed an M&E system for women and
children protection desks, called the Women’s and Children’s Protection Center Information
System, for immediate consolidation of statistics on crime incidents involving women and children.
This improved access to information on GBV cases, and it was functional when the project
completion report was prepared. In addition, a standard protocol was established through the
publication and training sessions (four events) on the use of the Procedures Manual in Handling
GBV cases for First Responders and Women and Children Desk Officers in five selected regions.

9. Overall, the program was successful in achieving gender equality results in three key
areas: (i) improved DOJ, PNP, and court staff capacity to deliver gender-sensitive services to the
poor and vulnerable groups, particularly to women survivors of GBV; (ii) strengthened institutional
mechanisms for systematizing the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of
gender mainstreaming initiatives; and (iii) increasing women’s representation in the judiciary and
justice sector agencies. Women derived practical benefits from the program through increased
participation and access to gender-sensitive services, either as justice sector staff or as its clients.
The strategic gains from the program are expected to take root in the form of sustained
organizational policies, programs, and processes guaranteeing respect, protection, and fulfillment
of women’s human rights and social inclusion. Overall, these gender results—including women’s
increased access to justice—were key ingredients in the achievement of the program outcome
and effectiveness.

7 Philippine Commission on Women. Statistics on Filipino Women. Women participation in politics and governance.
http://www.pcw.gov.ph/statistics/201405/women-participation-politics-and-governance.
8 University of the Philippines Center for Women’s and Gender Studies. 2011. Final Report on Supporting Governance
in Justice Sector Reform Program (TA 7210) (Unpublished).
32 Appendix 5

Table A5: Achievement of Gender-Specific Targets and Policy Actions

A. Gender-Specific Targets in the Design and Monitoring Framework

Gender-Specific Targets Achievements

Outputs
4. Improved access to justice for the poor and vulnerable groups (Subprogram 1)
Supreme Court, Department of Partly achieved.
Justice (DOJ), National Prosecution No report received on MTEP achievement, however
1. Service (NPS), and the Philippine budget allocation for GAP implementation was allocated
National Police (PNP) approve a on an annual basis through the national gender budget
Medium Term Expenditure Plan policy.
(MTEP) that includes operations
expenses relating to the
2. implementation of an agreed-upon
Gender and Development (GAD)
agenda.

70% of family court judges and court Partly achieveda

personnel trained on gender- 2011: eight training sessions and/or seminars with GBV
sensitive handling of gender-based coverage were organized for 912 (668 or 73% women)
violence (GBV) cases (baseline: no participant judges and other Supreme Court (SC)
existing training) personnel.

2012: 10 training sessions and/or seminars with GBV

coverage were organized for 1,222 (774 or 63%
women) participant judges and other SC personnel.

Curriculum development and pilot testing of training on

gender-sensitive handling of cases by family court
judges, social workers, and court interpreters was done.
B. Gender-Specific Actions in the Policy Matrix
Policy Actions Achievements
Subprogram 1
4. Improved access to justice by the poor and vulnerable groups
Subprogram 1, tranche 1
3. 4.1.4. SC has adopted a gender Fully achieved. The SC, through its gender focal point,
action plan and conducted the Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the
gender-sensitivity trainings Judiciary (CGRJ), adopts and implements a gender
(GST) for judges, SC action plan on an annual basis.
lawyers, clerks of court, and
legal researchers. The SC conducted GST sessions (as reported under
achievements on the design and monitoring framework
target above).
Subprogram 1, tranche 2
4. 4.1.4. SC to evaluate Fully achieved. The CGRJ regularly meets to plan,
implementation of its gender implement, and evaluate implementation of its GAD
action plan plan.

B. Gender-Specific Actions in the Policy Matrix (continued)
Policy Actions
Subprogram 1, tranche 1
5. 4.1.5. PNP has established
1,700 women and children’s
desks at police station
6. Subprogram 1, tranche 2
4.1.6. PNP to develop and
implement capacity building
and training program for staff
and its women and children’s
desk
Subprogram 2
7. 1. Strengthened judicial fiscal autonomy and improved justice sector accountability and
access to resources
5. Representation of women in
the judiciary and justice sector during this period, 1,179 or 73% were womenc
agencies increased during
2007–2011.
8. 12. DOJ and PNP trained trainers
on the management of gender- developed a national gender sensitization training
based violence (GBV) cases.
9. 12.1. Participatory gender audit
workshops conducted in PNP
to develop M&E Framework
and System in 2010.
Establishment of M&E systems
in women and children’s desks.
Appendix 5 33
Achievements
Fully achieved. Reported as accomplished in
July 2008.b
The number of women and children’s protection centers
operating in police stations (also referred to as women
and children’s desks) increased from 1,700 in 2008 to
1,830 in 2009.
Fully achieved. Out of the 2,728 female police officers
assigned to the women’s desks in 2009, 1,951 (72%)
completed training on gender sensitivity and basic
investigative skills for handling crimes against women
and children.
Fully achieved. Out of 1,614 personnel recruited
Fully achieved. The Department of Justice (DOJ)
program for public prosecutors and established
accreditation of this training in the mandatory continuing
legal education. In addition, a group of trainers was
developed in the DOJ (64) and PNP (total of 98) to
undertake seminars on gender-sensitive handling of
GBV cases and stress management seminars for staff.
In total, 74 others benefitted from three rollout training
sessions led by the trainees. d
Fully achieved
Two participatory gender audit workshops conducted
with the 42 PNP officers (15 women or 36% of
participants)e
Publication and training sessions (four events)
conducted on the use of the procedures manual in
handling GBV cases for first responders and women
and children’s desk officers in five selected regions.
PNP developed a computerized information system for
tracking of GBV statistics.
The PNP and DOJ (Office of the Solicitor General,
National Bureau of Investigation-NBI, Parole and
Probation Administration-PPA) GAD focal point
committees received training on performance standards
34 Appendix 5

and accountability principles, on GAD programming,

mentoring on GAD plan formulation and implementation
(five events).
a This target was rated partly achieved because data directly responsive to the target were unavailable when the project
completion report was prepared. Related information suggests that achievement of this target—and evidence on
continued efforts to train Supreme Court staff in gender-sensitive handling of GBV cases beyond program
implementation—is well established.
b Asian Development Bank. 2008. Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed
Program Cluster, Loan for Subprogram 1. Manila. Appendix 2, page 51.
c Asian Development Bank. 2011. Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed
Policy-Based Loan for Subprogram 2. Manila, Appendix 4, page 27.
d University of the Philippines Center for Women’s and Gender Studies. 2011. Final Report on Supporting Governance
in Justice Sector Reform Program (TA 7210). (Unpublished).
e Ibid.

C. Lessons Learned and Recommendations

10. The program could have benefited from a system to improve the tracking and recording
of gender results during program implementation. For instance, multiple counting of beneficiaries
may happen when the learning events are designed as a series of training sessions for the same
set of trainees. Nonetheless, the program remains highly relevant to improving the gender
sensitivity of service providers and the mechanisms governing the rules, processes, and systems
of the justice sector.