On Certiorari

On Certiorari: Improving Access to Judicial Remedy


I.
Introduction

The accessibility of court remedies to the poor is constitutionally guaranteed. The 1987 Constitution provides that, “Free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”[1] In addition, the Rules of Court insures that litigants will be afforded with speedy, just and inexpensive remedy for their claims. Court remedies are conceived to serve the ends of justice rather than to frustrate it. Unfortunately, experience shows that they could also be used to perpetrate injustice. Moreover, the usual delay of courts in the disposition of remedies frustrates justice.

The effectiveness of court remedies has direct relationship with the judicial process itself. As such, any proposal to improve their effectiveness must consider the nature and structure of the judicial process.

II.
The Power of Judicial Review

The power of judicial review is one of the most important features of Philippine judiciary. Certiorari is the power of the court to correct the abuse and misuse of governmental powers. The Supreme Court said that the writ of certiorari is intended “to annul void proceedings; to prevent unlawful and oppressive exercise of legal authority; and to provide for a fair and orderly administration of justice.”[2]

The power of judicial review has two aspects: first, it refers to the power of the higher court to correct grave abuse of discretion committed by a lower court or tribunal in cases pending before the latter; and second, it refers to the power of the court to determine whether or not the other branch of government committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the latter, judicial review is the awesome power to declare a law or official act invalid for violation of the provision of the Constitution.

As the power to correct grave abuse of discretion of lower court or tribunal

Ordinarily, a petition for writ of certiorari is availed of during the proceeding in the trial court. In exceptional circumstances, however, the writ of certiorari plays the role of a final solution after all remedies under the Rules of Court failed. For instance, certiorari has been an effective remedy to review a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case. In Galman vs. Sandiganbayan,[3] the Supreme Court issued the writ of certiorari despite the acquittal of the accused and the claim that opening the trial would put them in double jeopardy. The Supreme Court declared that “it is a settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against [this Court’s] setting aside of the trial court’s judgment of acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process.”

The Supreme Court clarified this doctrine in the case of People vs. Francisco.[4] The Supreme Court held that certiorari will not lie for a judgment of acquittal where the flaw committed by the trial court merely refers to its appreciation of evidence which may have resulted in possible lapses in its evaluation of the same as it nevertheless does not detract from the fact that the evidence was considered and passed upon by the said court. According to the Supreme Court: “…if a judgment sought to be reviewed was one entered after an acquittal by a jury or the discharge of the accused on the merit on the merits by the trial court, the standing of the prosecution to review it by certiorari is far more likely to be denied that if it were such an order as one sustaining a demurrer to, or quashing the indictment, or granting a motion for arrest of judgment after a verdict of guilty.” The Philippine jurisprudence has been consistent in its application of Double Jeopardy Clause such that it has viewed with suspicion, and not without good reason, applications for the extraordinary writ questioning decisions acquitting an accused on ground of grave abuse of discretion.[5]

As the power to declare a law or official act unconstitutional

The 1987 Constitution expanded the power of judicial review by declaring that it includes the power to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.[6] Text authors and political law authorities consider this as an express abolition of the political question doctrine. In the exercise of its certiorari power, the Supreme Court can look into the official conduct of any government official and declare it invalid if it failed to conform to the Constitution.

Over the years, the Supreme Court brushed aside the political question doctrine by taking cognizance of cases involving Executive and Legislative actions. Two cases exemplified this vast power of judicial review of the Supreme Court.

The power of judicial review was invoked to determine the constitutionality of the exercise of presidential prerogative in the case of Prof. Randolf S. David vs. Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,[7]involving seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition against Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5 which declared a state of national emergency and called upon the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the country. Answering the issue of whether or not the Supreme Court could inquire into the basis for the declaration of state of emergency, it held that, “(W)hile the Court considered the President’s ‘calling-out’ power as a discretionary power solely vested in (his) wisdom, it stressed that ‘this does not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion.” It adds that the second part of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution represents a broadening of judicial power to enable the courts of justice to review what was before a forbidden territory, to wit, the discretion of the political departments of the government. It speaks of judicial prerogative not only in terms of power but also of duty.[8]

A congressional action became a subject of a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the case of Francisco, Jr. vs. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc.[9] The case involved the constitutionality of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings and the validity of the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., which was filed by then Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentabella. The antecedent facts of this case disclosed that an impeachment complaint was previously filed before the House of Representative against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. on June 2, 2003. On October 22, 2003, the same was dismissed by the House Committee on Justice for being insufficient in substance. A day after the dismissal, or on October 23, 2003, was filed by the two representatives against CJ Davide, Jr. The second impeachment complaint was challenged on the ground that it violated Section 5 of Article XI of the Constitution which provides that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.” The Supreme Court declared that the Rules of Impeachment and the second impeachment complaint are unconstitutional. However, the most crucial issue confronting the Supreme Court was the propriety of exercising judicial review over the proceedings against the Chief Justice. Some legal luminaries, who rendered their friendly opinions on the matter, pleaded for judicial abstinence or inhibition. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court decreed that it shall obey its constitutional duty to determine the matter brought before it, to wit: “This court did not heed the call to adopt a hands-off stance as far as the question of the constitutionality of initiating the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide is concerned. To reiterate what has been already explained, the Court found the existence in full of all the requisite conditions for its exercise of its constitutionally vested power and duty of judicial review over an issue whose resolution precisely called for the construction or interpretation of a provision of the fundamental law of the land. What lies here is an issue of a genuine constitutional material which only this Court can properly and competently address and adjudicate in accordance with the clear-cut allocation of powers under our system of government.”

The Supreme Court held that our concept of judicial review is radically different from the American concept of judicial review. Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution provides our courts with far less discretion in determining whether they should pass upon a constitutional issue. In the language of the Supreme Court, “In our jurisdiction, the determination of a truly political question from a non-justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. If there are, then our courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government properly acted within such limits.”


III.
Improving Access to Certiorari

The above discussion laid down two essential facts about certiorari. First, that it is a very strong remedy. And second, to make it accessible and relevant as a judicial remedy, reforms should be undertaken to improve the court’s structure, technology and processes.

A. Reforming the Rules of Procedure and Judicial Policy

1. Limiting the occasion for the use or misuse of certiorari during the trial to prevent it from becoming a tool to delay the proceeding.

Generally, all exercise of discretion by the trial court can be questioned via a petition for certiorari. Unfortunately, some practitioners use certiorari to question even the slightest abuse of discretion of the trial court to delay its proceedings. While the Rules provides that the judge must proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from filing of the petition if no preliminary injunction is issued by the higher court,[10] mostly likely than not, he or she would wait for the final disposition of the issue before continuing with the proceeding.

By limiting the occasion for the exercise of discretion by the trial judge, we can also limit the commission of grave abuse of discretion. To do this, the scope of the Rules of Summary Procedure should be expanded. The present Rules of Summary Procedure covers civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiff’s claim does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) in Metropolitan Manila, exclusive of interest and costs.[11] Expanding its coverage to claims for money or damages not exceeding Five hundred thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) will not only serve this purpose but will simplify the procedure for simple claims as well. Corollary to this, the ordinary Rules of Civil Procedure should be applicable only to complex cases.

2. A judicial policy of affording finality to the Court of Appeal’s decision which does not dispose of the principal case.

A few cases have highlighted the exclusive power of the Supreme Court in matters of procedure and judicial remedies. In People vs. Mateo,[12] the Supreme Court ruled that procedural matters, first and foremost, fall more squarely within the rule-making prerogative of the Supreme Court than the law-making power of Congress. In the said case, the Supreme Court prescribes the intermediate review by the Court of Appeals of death penalty or life imprisonment cases before they are finally elevated to the Supreme Court. Also, in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC,[13] the Supreme Court declared that the provision of Section 9 of B.P 129 on appeal of NLRC decision to the Supreme Court refers to petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As such, said petition should be filed with the Court of Appeals in accordance with the principle of hierarchy of courts. Well, the Supreme Court explained in St. Martin case that the additional phase in appeal procedure in labor cases is favorable to the parties as it would give them “the advantage to have all the evidence on record be re-examined and re-weighed after which the findings of facts and conclusions of said bodies are correspondingly affirmed, modified or reversed.”

However, while it seems that an additional (appellate) step is facially beneficial to the parties, it actually made the judicial remedy inaccessible to them. With due respect to the Supreme Court, the effectiveness of judicial remedies cannot be assessed in terms of the number of steps or stages available to the parties but on the efficiency of the court in dispensing its business. Moreover, the institutional credibility of the court does not depend upon the number of stages or steps involved in determining the issue. Rather, it is the process, including the person facilitating it, which inspires the people’s confidence to the judicial institution. After all, the underlying principle of the Rules of Court is to secure just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases for the parties.[14]

As it stands, no constitutional or statutory constraint exists to a judicial policy of according finality to the Court of Appeals’ determination of an issue via writ of certiorari. Anyway, the Supreme Court can correct any error committed by the Court of Appeals when the principal case is finally elevated to it via Rule 45. This policy can be adopted jurisprudentially without amending the Rules of Court; moreover, the Supreme Court may waive such policy whenever necessary.

B. Addressing the prohibitive nature of the requirements for petition for certiorari

1. Adopt an Electronic Filing System (EFS) to save cost for reproduction of documents and pleading.

The cost of preparation and filing of a petition before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals make certiorari a prohibitive option for many people. The requirement of submitting eighteen (18) legible copies of the petition, complete with voluminous annexes, is a heavy burden for many litigants. To answer this problem, the Philippine Judiciary must fast track the adoption of paperless court system. Of course this system will require tremendous amount of resources, time and talent. So far, only Singapore was successful in adopting a paperless court system and to introduce an effective electronic filing system (EFS). The Singaporean electronic filing system[15] provides parties, lawyers and courts four main services, namely:
a. an electronic filing service, which will allow court documents to be filed;
an electronic extract service, which will allow law firms to obtain extracts of court documents;
an electronic service of documents facility, where law firms can serve court documents on their opponents, one or more of them, at the click of a mouse; and
an electronic information service, which will allow law firms to perform search queries on case information.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court can adopt a simplified electronic filing system which will give parties the option to resort to e-filing for petitions or pleadings before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Until a sophisticated process and technology of issuing e-court documents are acquired, court paper documents should be converted into Portable Document Format ('PDF') to facilitate their use as attachments for electronic pleadings.

2. Exempt meritorious cases from filing and other court fees.

I’m sure that many lawyers will not agree with this proposal. Many of us share the notion that these filing and court fees prevent litigants from abusing court remedies. Unfortunately, this requirement prevents only the poor from resorting to court for their claims. Court and litigation expenses have discriminatory impact to those who have no resources to pay for them. They render the equal protection clause nugatory. They practically negate the nature of access to court as a legal right. Exempting parties from payment of filing fees for resort to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court via extra-ordinary remedies can translate the equal protection clause into functional equality under the law.

IV.
Conclusion

To transform the judiciary we must consider the realities confronting our courts. These realities demand us to give more time, talent and resources to the task of reforming the system. Transformation is a serious business; it means deep commitment and sacrifices. For one, we need good and talented people who will work for the decisive transformation of Philippine courts. This in turn requires that the appointment to judicial positions be free from the clutches of patronage and partisan politics. Until then, no remedy or power of judicial review can effectively protect the poor and the marginalized from abuses of power.

Endnotes

[i] Lecturer, UB College of Law; Far Eastern University Institute of Law
Dela Salle Lipa Colleges
[1] Section 11, Article III, 1987 Constitution
[2] Lopez vs. City Judge, 18 SCRA 616
[3] G.R. No. 726670, 144 SCRA 43
[4] G.R. 127444, 340 SCRA 207
[5] Ibid.
[6] Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution
[7] G.R. 171396, May 3, 2006
[8] Ibid.
[9] G.R. 160261, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44
[10] Section 7, Rule 65 as amended by A.M. 07-12-SC, December 12, 2007
[11] As amended by A.M. 02-11-09-SC
[12] 433 SCRA 640 (2004)
[13] G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998
[14] Section 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court
[15] Tan Boon Heng, “E-Litigation: Singapore Experience”; www.lawgazette.com.sg/2001-11Nov01-focus2.htm, last accessed August 15, 2009