MEMO

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the Philippine Judicial System is transparent or opaque

DISCUSSION

I. The Philippine Judicial System is transparent with

respect to its finances and operations.

The Philippine Judicial System is transparent in two aspects: (1) financial resources,
specifically revenues and disbursements, and (2) the performance and operations of courts,
particularly the number of cases decided by each level of court including administrative
proceedings.

The Judiciary’s policy of transparency is implemented by providing the public, through

the Supreme Court official website, access to necessary information relating to the Members of
the Court and its key officials, as well as the summary reports on the finances and operations of
the Judiciary. 1

With respect to its finances and resources, the Supreme Court regularly publishes in its
website the following reports:
a) Financial and budget accountability reports of the Supreme Court and the lower courts
(from 2012-2014);
b) Monthly and quarterly reports on deposits, collections and disbursements of the Judiciary
Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (2015-2017);
c) Quarterly reports on revenue and other receipts of the Judiciary (2015-2017); and
d) List of equipment and supplies (2010-2017).2

Regarding the operations of the courts, comparative tables illustrate in detail the number
of cases resolved or decided on a quarterly and yearly basis from the first-level courts to the
Supreme Court, including the Shari’a Courts.3

In terms of administrative matters, the Quarterly Physical Report of Operation also

indicate the number of applications to the Philippine Bar processed, the number of certifications
of admission issued, and the number of administrative cases decided. Procurement Plans of the
Judiciary from 2010 to 2017 are also accessible online for public information.4

1
Supreme Court of the Philippines, Supreme Court Transparency Page, available at
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/transparency/index.php (last accessed February 21, 2018). The Supreme Court issued
Office Order No. No. 04-2015 entitled, "Directing the Public Information Office to Create the Supreme Court
Transparency Seal, and for Offices and Committees of the Supreme Court to Submit Reports and Provide
Information for the Accomplishment of said Task", dated 15 June 2015.
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
Id.
 To further promote transparency and minimize corruption in the judiciary, 212 court
branches across the Philippines are now using electronic courts (“eCourt). The eCourt system
allows the public to access online certain information on their cases such as the status of the case
and the dates of the next hearing. As such, the public may monitor online the progress of their
cases.5

II. The Philippine Judicial System is opaque with respect

to the courts’ decision-making process.

As opposed to the transparent policy respecting finances and operations, the Judiciary is
opaque as regards the deliberative and consultative process involved in the adjudication of cases.

In In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court
Officials and Employees as Witnesses,6 the Supreme Court held that court deliberations are
traditionally recognized as privileged communication. The rationale behind this rule is to enable
the Court to “freely discuss the issues without fear of criticism for holding unpopular positions or
fear of humiliation for one’s comments”.7

Further, the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court mandate the confidentiality of court
sessions, particularly the deliberations of the Members on cases and matters pending before it,
and thus prohibit their disclosure.8 The Court clarified that the rule is not confined to the
deliberations alone, but encompasses the documents and communications that are involved in the
deliberative process.9

Likewise, the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary proscribes the
disclosure of confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity.10

Hence, based on the foregoing, the Philippine Judicial System is opaque with respect to
the decision-making process preceding the decision and/or resolution of cases.

5
Gov’t rolls out over 200 eCourts to promote transparency, CNN PHILIPPINES, Mar. 30, 2017 available at
(http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/03/30/200-ecourts-transparency.html (last accessed February 21, 2018).
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/03/30/200-ecourts-transparency.html.
6
In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents and the Attendance of Court Officials and Employees as
Witnesses under the Subpoenas of February 10, 2012 and the Various Letters for the Impeachment Prosecution
Panel Dated January 19 and 25, 2012, 14 February 2012 (unsigned Resolution) available at
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/notice.pdf (last accessed February 21, 2018).
7
Id.
8
Supreme Court, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC Rule 10, Section 2.,
9
Supra note 3.
10
Supreme Court, New Code of Judicial Conduct, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC , Canon 4, Sec. 9.