I read with interest the news reports and comments on the “delayed” Maguindanao massacre trial. Notably, former minister of justice Estelito Mendoza opined on the need for the present justice secretary and the prosecutors to get their act together (“DOJ and the Ampatuan trial,” Letters, 12/2/13). A private prosecutor, lamenting the very slow pace of the proceedings, suggested that the Rules of Court be amended.
I would rather propose that Rule 135, particularly Section 6 thereof (“Means to carry jurisdiction into effect”)—which states that “when the exercise of such jurisdiction is not especially pointed out by law or by these Rules, any suitable process or mode of proceedings may be adopted which appears comformable to the spirit of the said Rules”—be revisited.
As a retired judge with 17 years of service in the judiciary, I fully understand the awesome burden weighing on the shoulders of the presiding judge—but it is a burden I do not consider exceptional. In the high-profile case against Galib Andang (Commander Robot) et al. (dating back to 2000), a client, one of the over 100 accused, was arrested in 2008 but has yet to be arraigned after 13 amendments to the rule!
Upon the enactment of Republic Act No. 8493 (“An Act to Ensure Speedy Trial of all Criminal Cases …”) on April 15, 1998, the Supreme Court issued an implementing circular. The law provided that once a trial started, it shall continue from day to day as may be practicable, until terminated; and in no case shall the entire trial period exceed 180 days from the first day of trial.
Alas, the law is mostly ignored. Perhaps, the reason could be that, in the Constitution, what is highlighted is the right of the accused to speedy trial, or there are legal precedents to the effect that “the right to speedy trial is necessarily relative …. consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures the right to a defendant, although it does not preclude the rights of public justice” (Mercado v Santos, 66 Phil. 215). But most probably, the law did not anticipate the enormity of heinous crimes that some of us are capable of committing.
I assume that the high court has by now realized this dismal situation and has come up with a strategy to meet the problem head on. In not a few instances, the Court has designated “assisting judges” and/or “acting judges” in some courts. And given the unusual number of the accused as well as witnesses, I believe there is no legal impediment to the designation of at least four judges in this case.
It is settled that it is within the powers of the high court to suspend the Rules should it be warranted by the interest of justice.
—CESAR M. SOLIS,
retired judge, Quezon City