Obvioussolution
WHY are we complaining about the supposed slow pace in the resolution of the Ampatuan massacre cases? We’re talking about mass murder here and the cases are only five years old. Note that it took the Sandiganbayan 18 years to arrive at a verdict in the Ozone Disco case where the only issue involved was reckless imprudence. So we’re still “on schedule” in the Ampatuan murders.
When I was a young practitioner, I defended the accused in a murder case. As is the practice in such cases, I filed a petition to allow my client to post bail and gain temporary liberty. Under the rules, the petition (or motion) must be heard to give the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong.
Our petition was never heard. For nearly one year, the accused languished in jail while waiting for the judge to call his case. The end came only when he died. The police must have immediately informed the judge about my client’s death because only a few weeks after he (the client, not the judge) was buried, I received an order to submit his death certificate. His Honor was in a hurry to dismiss the case so he could include it in his monthly report to the Supreme Court.
Not very long ago, I decided to go back to trial work after a self-imposed retirement.
One of my first few jobs was the cross-examination of the first witness for the other party. About 20 to 30 minutes after I started, the judge asked if I still had many questions to ask. When I said yes, he “suggested” that I continue the cross on the next setting because there were many other cases that still had to be called. It turned out that the earliest available date for the next scheduled hearing was in February, next year yet.
When I recounted my experience to fellow lawyers, they told me that my clients should consider themselves lucky. In some courts, the next available date in the court’s calendar is somewhere in May already, they said.
It’s not the judge’s fault. The court’s dockets are clogged. There are simply too many cases and there are not too many courts. And there are enough holes in the rules that a smart lawyer can punch.
One of my first court appearances was before the late Cebu City Municipal Judge Celedonio Salvador. My case–oral defamation–was scheduled for arraignment and trial but since I was newly hired, I told the judge that I was ready for arraignment only.
He exploded when he heard what I said. That’s the trouble with you lawyers, he told me, his eyes blazing. “You complain about clogged dockets and delayed justice when the truth is that you yourselves created this situation with your tricks!”
I was taken aback. I was new and knew no tricks. I told him the truth and it disturbed me that he should get mad. Many years later, I discovered why he reacted that way.
Some lawyers call it gamesmanship when they’re able to suspend the happening of the inevitable. I call it tricks.
The Supreme Court has introduced many innovations since I stepped inside a courtroom for the first time nearly 40 years ago. For example they’ve done away with the direct examination of the witness (a bane, by the way, for new members of the bar) to cut the time to complete the hearing of a case. But the clogged dockets are still there.
Why? Because again, there are simply not enough courts to hear so many cases. Inting Espina joined the bar more than 20 years ago and within that period only two branches of the regional trial court have been added in Cebu City. By how many hundreds of thousands, do you think, had the city’s population grown during that same period?
Unfortunately, the obvious solution to the problem of delay in the administration of justice also happens to be the most difficult, if not altogether impossible. This government doesn’t have the money to create new courts.
The only other solution: Stop suing.