COMMENTARY Law in an online setting: ‘We should be open in these trying times’ – an insider’s perspective
ON April 16, 2021, Supreme Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez suggested that, “We should be open in these trying times.” Whether you are a judge with comorbidities, a senior-citizen lawyer or a student, no one is spared from the Covid-19 virus. This fact is acknowledged by the Supreme Court, which acts in line with rules and regulations set by the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases (IATF-EID) and upon recommendation of executive judges. Still, the justice system must persevere and adapt.
Marquez admits that the Supreme Court, to the best of its abilities, tries to monitor the state of lower courts. Not all lower courts, however, are compliant with administrative circulars and IATF guidelines. The Supreme Court also cannot monitor all actions of its 2,000 lower courts nationwide. As a result, the Supreme Court administrator recommended for lawyers who experience this situation to help the high court by reporting these instances by filing a complaint against the judge holding fort. It is only with the help of the lawyers and litigants that these matters can be addressed by the Supreme Court. Some examples of behavior that should be complained about include the failure of judges to set the exact time for hearings to start, in order to avoid crowding in court rooms as well as the corridors, hallways and waiting areas, and to increase ventilation in the Hall of Justice; failure of judges, lawyers and court staff to wear their masks properly; and negative attitude of judges, lawyers and court staff toward videoconferencing hearings.
Recognizing the plight of judges, lawyers and litigants, the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) issued Circular 44-2021 on March 23, 2021 in which “judges in the said areas may conduct fully remote video conferencing hearing[s] during the said period, without prior permission from the OCA. The said judges may [also] conduct such fully remote video conferencing hearings outside their respective judicial regions but only in the resolution of the bail applications of persons deprived of liberty and provided that they are within the National Capital Judicial Region (NCJR) or the four provinces.” After which, on March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court announced the physical closure of NCJR courts and the courts of nearby provinces Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna and Rizal. The Supreme Court then extended the physical closure of courts in the NCJR and nearby provinces from March 29 to 31, 2021 and throughout the Holy Week through another announcement dated March 27, 2021. It issued Administrative Circular 15-2021, 21-202 and 22-2021, ultimately extending the physical closure of courts until April 30, 2021 in light of the enhanced community quarantine and modified enhanced community quarantine in these areas.
(NCR is the National Capital Region or Metro Manila.)
Marquez expressed his enthusiasm regarding holding videoconferencing hearings. He considers these to be a “very good remedy.” The Supreme Court administrator supported this by saying that as of April 2021, 234,540 videoconferencing hearings had been held in the Philippines. Marquez said such hearings have a success rate of 87.5 percent. The remaining 12.5
percent have to do with internet connectivity issues. Videoconferencing hearings have also paved the way for creating different opportunities such as allowing witnesses or tourists to appear in court from outside the country with the help of Philippine embassies abroad. But not all hearings can be held online. For instance, if the case is a murder case, the important witness must be presented in court. For cases like this wherein holding hearings in court is unavoidable, the acrylic dividers serve as a guard against Covid-19. Some courts are disinfected as well.
Marquez disclosed that aside from OCA-issued Circular 49-2021 on granting of a communication allowance of P5,000 every month to judges and clerks of court of the office of the clerk of court of the first and second-level courts, the current Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo recently approved for all judges and court employees to be subsidized by the judiciary for Covid-19 testing,
whether antigen or RT-PCR. At present, the Supreme Court is coming up with a circular on how the process is going to be. Gesmundo mentioned that temporarily, the allowance will be given so that the courts are equipped with their own secure internet connectivity for videoconferencing hearings. In the long term, there is a project in the works for the Supreme Court to provide interconnectivity to all courts wherein there will only be a single internet service provider and all courts will be connected.
Gianna Therese C. Zafra is a full merit scholar in the University of Asia and the Pacific. She is currently in her second year of the Lex Honors Program. She aspires to be a lawyer in a few years, taking after her mother. In particular, she wants to be a litigator. She encourages every person to make a difference as she believes that there is strength in inclusivity, unity and diversity.