Hi-tech but ‘Dark Ages’-slow
My uncle, 70 years of age, continues to practice law. He is good and still alert. In a word, he’s brilliant. He goes to trial often on behalf of clients who don’t want to let go of his legal services. His track record is quite impressive. But now he has quite a bit of a problem: the Supreme Court requires electronic filing of pleadings under some rules he cannot comprehend! He has been avoiding computers like a plague! That’s where I come in. I have been helping him out.
I have become some sort of a paralegal assistant to him. Being exposed to judicial proceedings that much, I could not help but think: While the Supreme Court is in the right direction toward bringing judicial proceedings up to speed with modern technology (with e-filing and all that stuff), the length of time it takes for judges and justices to come up with decisions is still of the Dark Ages—to get light, one had to slave all day over ways to build a fire!
Twenty to 30 years of litigation over a controversy should already be a thing of the past. But the turtle-paced delivery of justice in this country to this day truly, really sucks! Though my uncle hopes to stay for another 15 years, he does not expect to survive his cases now pending with the courts, including those with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. (Maybe my own children in high school, who want to become lawyers, can take over by then!)
Former Commission on Audit Commissioner Bartolome C. Fernandez Jr., in a commentary published in the May 9, 2013, issue of the Inquirer, recalled: “On one occasion, during a chat with a retired Supreme Court justice, I called his attention to the constitutional mandate for the Supreme Court to render decisions within 24 months. His retort floored me: ‘Alam mo, Bart, hindi namin pinapansin yan’.” There is a saying, Kung ano ang ginagawa ng mga matatanda, gagawin din ng mga bata.” If that is what the justices of the highest court of the land do (ignore the Constitution), what can anyone expect from the judges of the lower courts? The good example should start from the top.
—JANNO MARKO MONTECRISTO,
