Suggested reforms in the judiciary
Sometime this year (2017), I wrote the Supreme Court to posit some reforms in the Judiciary after a rather unsavory experience with our local Regional Trial Court (RTC). The deputy court administrator, Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino replied, “Be that as it may, your enumerated suggestions are not futile as the same have already been endorsed to pertinent committees of the Court for consideration.” These suggestions are: 1. All court personnel, including judges and Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) lawyers, should conduct themselves in a truly professional manner;
2. The court should require litigants and lawyers to submit their respective contact numbers;
3. In case of postponements of hearing for valid reason/s, litigants and lawyers should be duly informed by the court through landline call or text message to be followed by a written notice of the postponement and the new schedule;
4. At least a week after a particular hearing, litigants and lawyers should be informed of the next schedule through text message or landline call after a competent court personnel should have studied carefully the calendar of hearings to see to it that there will be no overlisting of cases to be heard on that particular day. A written notice should follow right away by registered mail or court messenger, whichever is appropriate.
5. I suggest that cash bail bond get interest. Once the case is terminated, the accused who is out on bail should have his money back bigger in amount from what he put up in the beginning. This is just fair because most cases take so long to be resolved. I find the present practice immoral and unfair. It makes you think that cases are purposely delayed so that the bail bond could earn more interest;
6. A certified true copy of the court’s decision should be enough requirement for the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) to release the cash bail bond. The present procedure to file a motion first and wait for the order of release by the judge always takes up a lot of time and appears tedious and redundant. A decision is already an authoritative piece of document;
7. Transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the trial should be included in the file of the case and just like any other documents related to the case, can just be photocopied from the file when requested by the litigants. The usual practice is to pay P10-P12.50 per page of the TSN, typed double-space, in large font to have more pages --and the proceeds go directly to the pocket of the stenographer. Also, the release of the TSNs are often late since the stenographer treats these as personal;
8. A private lawyer should not be obligated to be paid his/her appearance fee if there is resetting before the hearing could start and when the parties are already present in court or when ordered in the course of court sessions. This way, lawyers would not be complacent by also voicing their displeasure to the the court regarding the bad practice of resetting hearings even for flimsy reasons.
I know these suggestions would be unpopular to most lawyers, but fairness to the clients should be of utmost consideration.--
Rainier A. Belleza Jr.