Speedy justice, anyone?

Usad pagong. Turtle-paced. These words readily come to mind when one thinks of the justice system in this country. It is the never-ending lament of our people. Despite all efforts, daw, of the Supreme Court to speed up the trial of cases pursuant to a clear constitutional mandate, very little progress is seen or felt.

About the only time the right to “speedy trial” comes into serious play in any court drama is when a big-time crooks is being set free on account of “inordinate delay” in the prosecution of offenses they have been charged with. But for the victims of crimes crying for justice, they have to wait till hell freezes over.

By ratifying the Constitution, the sovereign people meant to exorcise the demon that has eroded public faith in the judiciary: Justice delayed is justice denied. They have fixed a standard for strict compliance, which no court (including the Supreme Court) can alter, modify or ignore.

Section 16, Article III of the Constitution enjoins “all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies” to ensure that “all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases.” Complementing that, Section 15, Article VIII likewise enjoins that “all cases must be decided or resolved within twenty-four (24) months… for the Supreme Court, twelve months (12) for all collegiate courts, and three months (3) for all other lower courts.”

In reality, the average time for anyone to obtain any final redress of their grievances in a court of law is 10 years. The extremes are from three—a rarity, indeed—to about 30 years. This continuing mockery of the Constitution has made its framers, and the people who ratified it, really look like fools.

To dodge culpability, most judges have cultivated the habit of falsifying their records. To illustrate: Say, an order is dated May 1, but the Post Office rubber stamp on the envelope containing it reads Aug. 11. It will thus appear that the fault lies with the clerks who are sleeping on the job. It takes them more than three months just to mail that order to the parties? But that’s being unfair to them.

Chances are, it is the judge who is goofing around, and the antedating (falsification) is meant to show that he has resolved the case within the prescribed period, thereby covering up his noncompliance with time-specific rules, or, worse, his indolence.

Practicing lawyers whisper very softly the same thing about the Court of Appeals, where copies of orders or decisions are mailed to the parties several months from the dates written on them. More than the clerks’ negligence, the suspicion logically points to falsification by … who else? As to the Supreme Court itself, it tops the list of cunctators and makes no effort to mask its own “betrayal of the public trust.” What is it “supreme” for?

If the instruments of justice are the very ones guilty of screwing up the administration of justice, what can the Filipino people expect?

There’s only one decent thing to do. Judges and justices who have no respect for the Constitution and deride it as “too doggone demanding” (hey, did anyone ever force them to apply for the job?) should resign.

RIMALDO PACIFICO,
[email protected]