To the esteemed judges of this debate and my fellow students of law, a pleasant day everyone!

Amid allegations of inefficiency, lack of manpower, and corruption in the ranks of the judiciary,
Department of Justice (DoJ) Secretary Leila de Lima said in a newspaper that the country is not
ready to adopt a "juror system" patterned over the court proceedings in the United States in a
bid to hasten and improve the delivery of justice to both the victim and the accused in the
Philippines.
1

De Lima admitted that there are flaws in the country's judicial system that result in severe
backlog of criminal cases, mistrials and long delays in hearing process.

Nonetheless, De Lima, who served as Human Rights chairperson during the term of former
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, emphasized that the Philippine judicial system is not yet
mature enough to implement a juror-type system in the processing of criminal cases.
"I think it is not good, it is not practical and it is not going to be feasible given our culture," she
said.
From there lets look at our cultural difficulties. In most countries, people consider it their civic
obligation to serve their jury duty. They take pride in it, and try to carry out this duty as best as
possible.
In our country Philippines, however, the maturity of most people toward civic responsibility is still
wanting in many ways. Consider how difficult it is to get witnesses to appear in court for cases
where they have no personal stakes. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to require
disinterested citizens to leave their jobs and their families in order to sit as a juror for as long as
it takes to finish a case.
If we had a jury system, every citizen may, at one time or another, be called upon to render jury duty. But
how do we address the fact that a fairly large segment of our population has not completed college
education?
Court proceedings are done in English. Too, legal concepts are not easy to grasp.
Not to mention the possibility that the jury now can become a prey to emotional appeals and to
grandstanding by lawyers who have mastered the art of theatrics.
this is hardly surprising because the jury is composed of laymen, people who often do not have a
background whatsoever on the vast intricacies of the law. And so it is easier to sway their decisions
based on grandstanding and fancy talk, rather than on the strength of the evidence presented or the
application of the law to the case.

1
Manila Bulletin Sat, Dec 11, 2010
In contrast, in our judicial system, a judge is the one who hears the cases and the one who writes the
decisions. Our Rules of Court require that decisions of judges must clearly state the facts and the law
applicable to the case. Decisions without a legal basis may be overturned and nullified by a higher court.
Add to this the coming into play of personal biases, belief systems, and prejudices of jurors who are
wanting in legal training. They come into the courtroom with their own pre-programmed set of beliefs,
stereotypes, and biases. They will judge the parties based on their clothing, their appearance, the way
they talk and act, or their dislike toward the counsel. More often than not, these personal opinions and
prejudices influence their decisions regardless of the law and the evidence presented.
Judges do have their personal belief systems and biases, too, but these are tempered by their training in
the legal profession and the need for them to state the legal bases for their decisions in writing.
In the US, frivolous damage lawsuits are rampant because it is so easy to be awarded damages by the
jury. Think of the infamous McDonalds coffee case of Joa n Fino, wherein the jury awarded $2.9 million
to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee which she held between her thighs in the car while it was
parked. Finos lawyer was asked why the incident should warrant such a large lawsuit.
Butch Wagner said that the heat of the coffee, and the fact that the lid was not properly
secured are all factors in the case.
Think also of the O.J. Simpson case, where, despite glaring evidence, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the
murder of two people, one of whom was his wife. Then there was the Rodney King case where the mostly
white jury found the white police officers not guilty even though they were caught on tape kicking and
beating the African-American cab driver with their clubs and batons.
Ours may not be a perfect judicial system. And it is true that there is still much room for reform and
improvement in the judiciary. But adopting a system clearly not suited to our own may yield even bigger
disasters than what it seeks to solve.