A Broken Judicial System; Can It Still be Fixed?

Transparency International has identified a number of severe hindrances to the smooth delivery of justice in the Philippines. These are: (1) backlog of cases; (2) delays in resolving complaints against members of the judiciary, court officers and lawyers; and (3) inadequate salaries and facilities. These are merely symptoms of the underlying main problem that beset the judiciary.

Judge's average salary is currently pegged at US$5,996 a year. While most judges receive additional allowance from local government units and the Supreme Court, even at US$28,000 a year the salary is still low compared to the workload. However, this should not be an excuse anymore why judges can be prone to corruption. Inadequate salary is only a supplementary problem to the main problem besetting the judicial system in the Philippines: the lack of proper accountability in the system.

The accountability factor starts with the selection of judges which is being handled by a Judicial and Bar Council. This body is prone to patronage politics such that lawyers aspiring to become judges are expected to have a political sponsor in order to be appointed as judge. While this does not necessarily lead to dependence of the judiciary to politicians, it has the effect of eroding the public's trust in the judicial system and also the judicial system's perception of itself. The aura of independence, meritocracy and allegiance to the rule of law is already eroded at the onset. Reforms are thus needed in the judicial selection process.

The second accountability factor is the presence or lack thereof of a monitoring and disciplinary framework. The need to monitor and discipline erring judges may be made insignificant if the educational system has instilled in future judges the moral and republican-democratic values that are the foundation for a solid judicial system. However, we are already aware that our own educational system is wanting in that regard because it is itself one of the most corrupt institutions in the country. Thus, there is a great need to strengthen the monitoring and disciplinary framework of our judicial system.

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno was correct in saying, when she was interviewed by the JBC for the post of Associate Justice, that reforms in this area must come from the top. We must take our cue from the leadership in the Supreme Court. Now that she is in the helm, despite the difficulties she is facing as a relatively young and inexperienced primus inter pares or first among equals, we hope that the chief justice can push forward the reforms she intended. One of the reforms she must implement now is to create an efficient mechanism of reporting to the Supreme Court the corrupt and inept practices of judges. This should be coupled with prompt resolution of complaints against judges. While there have been a number of cases already where several judges were dismissed from service, these numbers are still considered too small compared to the number of judges who are perceived by lawyers and the public to be inept and corrupt. That is why we must also fix our current system that discourages the media from commenting on the public behavior of judges and their decisions. The concept of maintaining an aura of institutional invincibility of judges and the courts is already outdated in this age of transparency. No institution must be exempted from public scrutiny and democratic discourse. Many people are still afraid of corrupt and scheming judges because they wield so much power yet to make them accountable is an arduous and painful process reserved only to the most persistent and courageous fighter.

When can ordinary citizens or lowly lawyers be able to stand up against a corrupt and inept judge without fear of reprisal and with full trust that the system's leadership will examine their cause with efficiency and objectivity? That is a big question that is still hanging in the air.