|
Not
too long ago, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, through the Philippine
Judicial Academy (PHILJA), partnered with the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA) and the National Judicial Institute (NJI)
in implementing the Justice Reform Initiatives Support (JURIS) Project
– a five-year initiative that aims to contribute to the country’s
efforts to improve the quality of judicial services and access to
justice by poor and marginalized groups.
The
JURIS Project was considered successful as it resulted to complete
curriculum training in court-annexed mediation (CAM) and judicial
dispute resolution (JDR) given to judges, mediators, lawyers, and
court personnel; an increased capacity of the PHILJA on alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) practices and training methods; and a strengthened
Philippine Mediation Center Office (PMCO), the continuing mechanism
within the courts for ADR training.
JDR,
as an adjunct of court-annexed mediation, enables judges during the
pre-trial stage to attempt to settle disputes between party-litigants
after a similar effort by a court-accredited mediator has failed.
Through
JDR, judges utilize their skills in mediation, conciliation, and early
neutral evaluation to expedite case resolution and help decongest
court dockets.
With
the end of JURIS and subsequent to the piloting of JDR in six (6)
model court sites in the country – San Fernando, Pampanga; Bacolod
City; San Fernando, La Union; Cagayan de Oro City; Baguio City; and
Makati City – PHILJA-PMCO is now taking the challenge of sustaining
and scaling up JDR throughout the country.
Initial
Efforts
Designating
JDR Focal Persons and Devising the Work Plan for JDR
To
demonstrate its commitment to this challenge, PHILJA-PMCO designated
two PMCO lawyers, Atty. Rodel Hernandez and Atty. Jose Saluib Jr.,
as focal persons for JDR. Under the supervision of the PMC Chief of
Office, they are expected to assume a vital role in the operations
and management of the PMCO insofar as JDR is concerned. This includes
ensuring that training activities are well-organized, monitoring tools
and reporting processes are efficient, and that support systems for
effective JDR implementation are in place.
As
part of its Strategic Planning exercise early this year, PHILJA-PMCO
further devised an annual work plan for enhancing JDR in existing
sites as it decided to roll out JDR in two additional areas –
Quezon City and Manila. The roll-out plan commences with a trainers’
conference, followed by faculty development workshops and capacity
building activities for judges. This also includes orientation seminars
for lawyers and court personnel, and an internship program with peer
assistance aspects that involves current and newly-trained JDR judges.
Conducting
the JDR Trainers’ Conference
In
March 2010, PHILJA-PMCO conducted a two-day trainers’ conference
among JDR practitioners in the country. The conference provided an
opportunity for the judges to review existing JDR training modules
through facilitated workshops and sharing of JDR experiences in their
respective courts. It also generated recommendations for the development
of enhanced training modules that are more relevant to the knowledge,
skills, and attitude concerns of judges, court personnel, and lawyers
in JDR.
Another
important outcome of this conference was the judges’ affirmation
of their commitment to advance JDR and to jumpstart future training
initiatives by assuming the roles of course leaders, lecturers, resource
persons, facilitators, and judge-mentors or peer assistants.
Enhancing
JDR Training Program through Faculty Development Workshops
Held
a day prior to each JDR training conference, PHILJA-PMCO conducted
Faculty Development Workshops with the participating judge-lecturers,
resource persons, and facilitators from the current JDR sites. The
judge-trainers run through the course program to level-off on the
program and session objectives, key learning points, intended training
methodology, and materials to be used in the training.
As
a result of the exercise, the training program was further enhanced
with several changes in the program flow and session methodologies,
such as the use of more experiential narratives, panel and group discussions,
and additional role-play exercises. In both workshops, it is commendable
that judge-trainers willingly adapted to the circumstances by modifying
their assigned modules in a very short span of time.
Training
1st and 2nd Level Court Judges in Quezon City
Two
training activities on JDR were organized in April and June 2010,
the first of a planned series of trainings conducted by PHILJA-PMCO
since the completion of the JURIS project.
The
first training batch consists of twenty-six (26) judges from the first
and second level courts of Quezon City, including newly appointed
judges from the existing JDR sites of Makati City and Pampanga. The
second training, on the other hand, saw the participation of forty-four
(44) first and second level court judges of the city, including those
that have not been previously trained in the current JDR sites of
Makati City, Benguet, and La Union. JDR Judges Cesar O. Untalan and
Selma P. Alaras, both from Makati City, respectively assumed the role
of course leaders during these trainings.
Designed
to develop and enhance the skills of judges in performing their functions
as mediators, conciliators, and neutral evaluators under the court
issuances on JDR, the participants were made to understand the context
of JDR as a necessary complement of court-annexed mediation and the
need for judges to go through a challenging paradigm shift in resolving
disputes.
By
means of lectures, interactive exercises, and role plays, judges were
trained to expand their sphere of influence by conducting JDR and
to understand conflicts by looking at the interests involved rather
than just the legal rights of parties in resolving disputes. Judges
being instrumental in facilitating the negotiations between the parties,
skills enhancement exercises and strategies towards effective communication,
such as active listening, framing and reframing techniques, were given.
As process managers in JDR proceedings, judges were also trained on
the use of caucuses as means of handling deadlocks in negotiations
as well as other creative techniques for building trust, continuing
communication and joint problem-solving among the parties. The trainings
also considered the important ethical, cultural, and social dimensions
of dispute resolution.
The
participants highly appreciated JDR and the training activities. In
their evaluation of the training, most judges found the sessions very
interesting, skills-enhancing, and challenging as JDR requires them
to assist the parties to think about creative and out-of-the-box solutions
to their disputes.
Preparing
Lawyers and Court Personnel on JDR in Quezon City
Following
the judges’ training, a one-day orientation on JDR for clerks
of court, prosecutors, and lawyers was organized by PHILJA-PMCO in
coordination with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Quezon
City Chapter. The executive judges of both court levels, Judge Fernando
T. Sagun Jr. and Judge Caridad M. Walse-Lutero, also lend their support
to this activity.
The
orientation program sought to develop a clear understanding of JDR
as a complement of court-annexed mediation and to encourage the members
of the legal profession within and outside of the courts to become
indispensable partners in this effort, particularly as JDR commences
in Quezon City.
The
program succeeded in drawing a total of ninety-three (93) attendees
composed of 55 court personnel, 10 prosecutors, and 28 private law
practitioners.
Preliminary
Outcomes
Overall,
the initial efforts of PHILJA-PMCO to sustain and scale-up JDR in
the country are turning out well, particularly in terms of enhancing
the capacity of the judges in resolving disputes through mediation,
conciliation, and early neutral evaluation. Recently trained judges
gave positive evaluation of the JDR training activities. Of significance
to most judges was the welcome challenge of moving mindsets in dispute
resolution, of taking off one’s robes to demonstrate this paradigm
shift, and of explaining such change in demeanor and process to the
disputants.
Participants
are likewise appreciative of the critical role of judges in contributing
to the prompt resolution of cases, de-clogging of court dockets, and
most importantly, empowerment of the parties in resolving their own
disputes. Increased access to justice, preservation of relationships,
and keeping of the peace are also perceived as attainable with JDR.
For
these reasons, JDR has indeed stirred the interest and excitement
of most judges.
Challenges
and Next Steps
Apart
from training activities, however, PHILJA-PMCO continues to take on
the challenge of sustainability and scaling-up as it embarks on the
needed next steps for JDR. This includes preparing for internship
and actual roll-out of JDR in Quezon City, managing JDR operations
at the PMC office and unit levels in the current and new sites, and
strengthening JDR policies.
Preparations
for the internship, including peer-to-peer mentoring, and actual roll-out
in Quezon City are in progress. Without any external support akin
to the JURIS project, PHILJA-PMCO, in coordination with the Office
of the Court Administrator, confronts the need to mobilize its manpower
and fund resources in order to facilitate the effective roll-out of
JDR in Quezon City and other sites. JDR judges from Makati City will
need to leave their courts in order to be tapped as peer assistants
or mentors in case the newly trained judges from Quezon City would
need guidance in the conduct of JDR during the internship period.
This will be undertaken by a designated pool of JDR judge-mentors
for every new JDR site.
Managing
JDR operations at the PMC office and unit levels is another important
challenge for PHILJA-PMCO. While focal persons for JDR have already
been designated at the central PMC office and current sites are manned
by a staff, PHILJA-PMCO needs to continually ensure that monitoring
and reporting processes are efficient and that support systems for
effective JDR implementation are in place. This includes improvements
in reporting, monitoring and evaluation, and database management systems,
coordination and feedback mechanisms, stakeholder management, partnership-building
and resource mobilization.
Finally,
with the constant interaction of policy and practice, PHILJA-PMCO
needs to enhance current JDR policy guidelines so that these are more
attuned to the felt needs of the JDR community. The initial training
conferences have surfaced a number of substantive and procedural concerns
that can be best addressed by appropriate policy responses. The challenge
is to implement mechanisms that capture these concerns into responsive
policy guidance for the JDR practitioners.
PHILJA-PMCO
has definitely brewed positive steps towards strengthening ADR through
Judicial Dispute Resolution. With strategic optimism and vigorous
work to overcome the given challenges, tremendous success in sustaining
and scaling-up JDR can be assured.
Brenda Jay Angeles Mendoza
July, 2010
Thank you and all the best.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Chancellor |
