Court Plans for Adoption of Online Facilities in its Processes
by Alex Miguel P. Reyes
2005-0270
I. Present State of the Judicial System in the Philippines
Almost all people involved in or well-read about the current state of our judicial system agree that, aside from the alleged corruption therein, delay in the administration of justice due to protracted litigation is its most pressing problem. The saying “Justice delayed is justice denied” seems to be of no importance in our legal system. Records of the Supreme Court show that there are 6,662 cases pending before the High Court alone and a total of 802,007 pending cases for all the courts in the country. There are only 18 judges per million people and the judiciary budget declined from 1.2 percent to 0.9 percent of the total budget last year.1
Some of the delays are caused by the parties to the case themselves or by their savvy lawyers - these the courts can somehow detect and control or sanction. But some are due to circumstances beyond the control of the system, like the lack of means to effect the speedy dispensation of justice.
Some of these cases even involve the same person - i.e., the same person is being tried for several crimes, in different venues, at the same time. Let’s take a look at one such situation. Rolando (not his real name), 32, is accused of petty theft in Zambales. He is presently detained in Olongapo City while the case is on trial. Apart from this, he has a pending rape case in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija and a pending robbery leading to manslaughter case in Manila. As the Cabanatuan Regional Trial Court decides to hear the case of Rolando, it has to put up with the constraints of waiting for his trial to end in Olongapo and transport him together with his jail escorts to Nueva Ecija. By the time the Manila Regional Trial Court has the chance to prosecute his case, ten years shall have passed.2
II. The Need for Judicial Reforms
Thus, under the leadership of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., the Supreme Court in 2001 set in motion the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). Translated into tangible projects, the APJR addresses six reform areas: (1) judicial systems and procedures, (2) institutions development, (3) access to justice by the poor, (4) integrity infrastructure development, (5) human resource development, and (6) reform support systems.3
One project currently being undertaken under this program is the setting-up of pilot ecourts in the country. These courts, patterned after those of Singapore and Michigan, U.S.A., would allow online trial and electronic litigation, and hopefully, help de-clog the system by trying multiple cases involving the same accused simultaneously.
According to Atty. Ivan John E. Uy, Chief of the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) of the Supreme Court, “These courts already have e-filing and court appearances via teleconference. Imagine, if we have that institutionalized here? There is no need for Rolando to be transported from Olongapo while his case in Cabanatuan is arraigned. He can appear in court inside his detention cell via teleconference. Imagine the amount of money the government can save and the efficiency it can give in de-clogging the court dockets because three chambers can go on trial simultaneously!”4
The e-courts project of the Supreme Court has a P20 million budget from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. and the budget of the High Court. With the team of Atty. Uy in the forefront, it aims to operationalize three pilot ecourts in the country, namely, Makati, Cebu and Marikina by the end of the year. 5
Atty. Uy explains that each pilot e-court will be equipped with transcription technology, tele-video conferencing facility complete with three direct-feed cameras and satellite hook-up, case management system or case tracking system, and a web- based query system. He says that the court already is equipped with a computer aided transcription (CAT) machine. “The technology enables the court stenographer to transcribe the testimony of the witness directly through the software and it produces the report right away.” This was used during the Estrada impeachment trial.6
He adds that his team is currently developing transcription software to improve the present transcription technology of the court, a voice recognition transcription machine or VRT. “What the technology does is to aid the proceedings with the stenographer parroting the testimony of the witness as the computer records the voice parroted by the stenographer. The technology will have a much faster transcription capability compared to CAT.” The video teleconferencing facility aims to specifically benefit family courts and suspects detained in other salas (courthouses). The case of Rolando’s rape victim getting justice with him still detained and tried in Olongapo, may be possible because all the three courts can try the case simultaneously via teleconferencing.7
The case management system is designed to provide an online tracking system where litigants, lawyers and judges alike can monitor developments and changes in the status of the cases filed before the courts. “This is particularly helpful if the case is re-shuffled,” Atty. Uy explains. The MISO team is also developing a web-based query system where litigants can post and receive feedback either through an e-mail-based reply system or web-based posting on the status of the cases filed before an e-court.8
III. Teleconferencing in the Courtroom
The debate over the use of video teleconferencing by the judicial system centers around two groups: those who champion its use citing the numerous benefits it provides to both the court system and the defendant, and those who claim that the use of such technology violates the due process rights of the defendant. Both sides of the debate present persuasive arguments with vigor and merit. The following section recites the most commonly cited benefits of such a system as well as the most commonly cited concerns of the use of video technology.9
Benefits To The Government
As stated above, court systems throughout the United States have employed video technology in earnest throughout the past two decades. Such use of video technology allows the government to accrue a number of benefits. In fact, one commentator has noted that the benefits of such a system flow primarily to the government. One of the most substantial benefits of such a system is the enhanced safety of the courtroom. When defendants are broadcast to the courtroom from the jail by video technology, the need to transport the defendants is obviated. Therefore, corrections and court personnel are spared the security concerns of transporting defendants through open parking lots and hallways in the court building. The use of video technology may relieve a possible volatile situation between violent and antagonistic defendants. The use of video technology may also relieve the concerns of a victim who fears the sight of a defendant. Further, an effect produced by eliminating the transportation of defendants is that less police and court officers are needed at the courthouse, allowing more patrol time on the streets.10
Another significant benefit gained by the government by the adoption of video technology is monetary savings. Transporting defendants to the courthouse requires time and money. Often times the courthouse and the jail are a significant distance apart. When the defendant is processed by video teleconference, travel expenses are relieved, as is the expense of housing the defendant at the courthouse holding center. Further, as discussed above, when security concerns are eliminated, the need for more court officers is alleviated, which may itself save a great deal of money that can then be used for more street patrol.11
Monetary savings are part of the overall improved efficiency of the judicial system when video technology is used. The traditional means of processing a defendant requires the defendant to travel from the detention center to the courthouse to await his arraignment, sentence, plea, etc.; many times this is a debilitating process. Moreover, the travel time for the prisoners, court personnel, and judges is reduced. As a result, reduced travel time means that more cases can be processed in the available amount of time, allowing the judge to move more quickly through the process.12
The government is not the sole recipient of the benefits bestowed by the use of video teleconference. The defendant also realizes various benefits when video technology is used. The defendant is relieved of the uncomfortable trip from the detention center to the courtroom. In some instances, the defendant may prefer the video teleconference because it results in less physical and emotional stress of the courtroom. Finally, some commentators have argued that the judge will focus more intently on the defendant’s case because all external interruptions are minimized.13
IV. Conclusion
Courts across the United States use video technology in a number of different proceedings, and while most can agree on the benefits that they gain by using such technology, there is a jurisdictional split on the affect that its use has upon a defendant who wishes to plead guilty by video teleconference. In the face of these benefits, however, we should be mindful of the statement made by Justice Brennan in Bruton v. United States: “We secure greater speed, economy, and convenience in the administration of the law at the price of fundamental principles of constitutional liberty. That price is too high.”14
When a defendant pleads guilty by video teleconference, a number of negative effects may greatly impinge upon his or her ability to have a fair and just hearing. These effects include the loss and distortion of non verbal cues; the lessening of the ability of the judge to adequately discern how voluntary and intelligent the waiver of rights given up with a guilty plea is; a more coercive atmosphere provided by the detention center; and the inability for counsel to provide adequate assistance. If any of these circumstances occur, the justness and fairness of the hearing is tainted, and may violate the due process rights of the defendant.15
In response to these concerns, the ideal situation would be for the rest of the country to follow the standard set forth by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Illinois v. Stroud. Under this standard, any guilty plea which is made by video teleconference would be held unconstitutional because the “defendant’s physical presence would contribut[e] to the fairness of the proceeding.” Further, if the defendant wishes to plead guilty by video teleconference, he or she may do so as long as the judge satisfies themselves that the plea is made voluntarily and intelligently.16
We cannot, at this point, expect criminal justice systems across the country to give up their use of video teleconferencing. With the Stroud standard, they would not have to. The defendant’s due process right to be physically present at the critical stage of pleading guilty is protected, and the court still is able to realize the benefits of video technology.17
In the local setting, the first beneficiary of the e-courts project is the courthouse of Judge Leticia Morales of Branch 140 of the Makati Regional Trial Court. With a total budget of P4 million, P2 million from the PDAF of Senator Pimentel and PZ million from the counterpart fund of the City; the Makati e-court will have a Supreme Court link, its own trial court website, computer aided transcription system, and an electronic case docketing system.18
Senator Pimentel, Mayor Jejomar Binay and Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco Jr. signed the memorandum of agreement (MOA) in November last year.19
The project will enable Branch 140 to computerize its proceedings, from the filing of cases, to docketing, transcription during trials, and case filing and retrieval.20
Atty. Uy looks forward to the day when Philippine e-courts will have an e-filing system to lessen the paper trail, e-payment that is linked to a case management system to combat corruption and bungling of cases, e-library armed with e-alerts that are linked both by e-mail and mobile phones to eliminate excuses of not appearing in court, and tele-video conference to facilitate multiple trials in real time as fundamental features of an e-court. He admits that this is ambitious but believes that this will ultimately revolutionize the justice system in the country.”21
Endnotes
- Donovan, Merzenaida. Pilot e-Courts: The Future for Faster Online Trials. http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/news_2007/archive_featurearticle010.html. Accessed 23 October 2008. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Lopez, Ann Lourdes C. Instituting Judicial Reforms: Access by the Poor, Justice for All. http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/news_2007/archive_featurearticle005.html. Accessed 23 October 2008. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Hillman, Zachry M. Pleading guilty and video teleconference: is a defendant constitutionally “present” wen pleading guilty by videoconference? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5GES/is_1_7/ai_n25016322/pg_2. Accessed 23 October 2008 [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Donovan, Merzenaida. Pilot e-Courts: The Future for Faster Online Trials. http://apjr.supremecourt.gov.ph/news_2007/archieve_featurearticle010.html. Accessed 23 October 2008. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]