Barangay Justice System and Other Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanics (Mediation) in the Philippines

Mr. Bernardo T. Ponferrada Head, Judicial Reform Office Philippine Judicial Academy the Supreme Court of the Philippines Manila, Philippines
I The Philippine boast itself with having a rich cultural background and tradition which includes the concept of governance and settlement of disputes among the people at the village or barangay level. The basic unit of Philippine society is the family and a combination of families in a given territory may constitute a village, commonly known as the barangay the lowest level of the Philippine local government structure. Prominent in the governance of the barangay is the role of the Barangay Justice system, in involving members of the community in the settlement of disputes through nonjudicial modes or processes. Even before the Barangay Justice System came into being, time-honored traditions advanced by ancient Filipinos and integrated as part of Filipino culture and traditions, based on Kinship, Utang na Loob (debt of GRAITUTE), Padrino (GODFATHER), Pakikisama (COMRADESHIP) and Community Mores, define how justice is to be served. Some Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms are unwritten based on ones honor and are effective among the cultural minorities. The Katarungan Pambarangay law (Barangay justice System) has been in place in the Philippine System of local governance since the promulgation of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1508 in 1978 and subsequently amended and strengthened with the passage of Republic Act Organizing at the village of barangay level all over the country, the Katarungang pambarangay is the only system formally accepted and practiced in about 41,943 villages or barangay in the Philippines. STRUCTURE OF THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM Heading the system is the Punong Barangay (Village Chief or Barangay Chairman). He is an elected official. He also acts as the Chief Executive and Presiding Officer of the Village Legislative Council

In discharging his duties under the Barangay Justice System, the Punong Barangay is assisted by the Lupong Tagapamayapa (Peace Seeking Committee). The LUPONG TAGAPAMAYAPA The Lupong Tagapamayapa (Peace Seeking Committee) is composed of 10-20 persons, who are appointed by the Punong Barangay. The punong Barangay is the Chairman. It is from the Lupon membership that a conciliators panel (Pangkat Ng Tagapagsunod) composed of 3 members is chosen by agreement of the disputants or, if no such agreement is reached, then to be drawn by lot the Punong Barangay. QUALIFICATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LUPONG TAGAPAMAYAPA 1. Resident of the barangay, or working in the village 2. Known integrity 3. Competence 4. Known for impartiality 5. Independence of mind A distinct characteristic of the system is its informality, and LAWYERS are banned in the entirety of the process. JURISDICTION OF THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM Under Section 2, Rule VI of the Katarungan Pambarangay Implementing Rules approved on October 10, 1991, ALL DISPUTES maybe the subject of proceedings for amicable settlement; Except: 1. Where one party is the government or any subdivisions or instrumentality thereof; 2. Where one party is a public officer of employee and the dispute relates to the performance of his/her duties; 3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or fine exceeding P5,000.00 or P12,500.00 4. Offenses where there is no private offended party. 5. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; 6. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangay of different cities or municipalities except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties

thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon. 7. All Agrarian disputes under Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. WHO MAY BE PARTIES Under Section 1, ule VI of the Implementing Rules, only individuals shall be parties to these proceedings either as complainant or respondents. No complaint by or against corporations, partnership or other judicial entities shall be filed, received or acted upon. PROCEDURE FOLLOWED UNDER THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM The proceeding under the system is informal. However, even if the process is characterized by informality and the same is summary, due process and the rudiments of fair play must be observed. 1. Upon the filing of a complaint with the Lupon, the Barangay Chairman immediately calls the parties and the witnesses to a meeting. 2. The Chairman acts as a neutral person who mediates on the conflicting interest of the parties and convinces them to settle. 3. If amicable settlement fails within 15 days from the 1st meeting, the chairman shall constitute a conciliation panel known as PANGKAT TAGAPAGSUNOD composed of 3 members chosen by the parties from a list of the members of the Lupon. 4. Then, the Pangkat shall hear the parties and witnesses, simplifying the issues and explore all possibilities of amicable settlement. 5. If the Pangkat fails to effect an amicable settlement within 15 days from the day it convened, then, a certificate is issued by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretary to the effect that no settlement has been reached. 6. Accordingly, a certification to FILE ACTION may now be issued by the Lupon. 7. It is only then, and with this certification that the parties may go to court for adjudication. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE OF THE PARTIES TO APPEAR Complainant

1. If complainant, after due notice, willfully fails or refuses to appear without justifiable reason, on the date set for mediation, conciliation or arbitration, the complaint may dismissed. 2. Such dismissal, after the party is given the opportunity to explain his nonappearance, shall bar, the complainant from seeking judicial recourse for the same cause of action as that dismissed. Respondent 1. If respondent, despite notice, fails to appear without proper and, satisfactory explanation having been made for his non-appearance, may counter-claim he may have interposed arising from or necessarily connected with the complaint, maybe dismissed. 2. Such dismissal bars the respondent from filing such counterclaim in court or with any proper government agency or office for adjudication. 3. In all cases where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding called by the Punong Barangay to constitute the pangkat. If the respondent still fails or refuses to appear without any justifiable reason, such failure/refusal to appear is sufficient basis for the issuance of a certification to file action. 4. Or, in addition, if such failure is unjustified, it may subject the recalcitrant party/witness to punishment for contempt of court, upon application with the trial court by, either: a. Lupon Chairman b. Pangkat Chairman c. Any of the contending parties. HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM? A Supreme Court UNDP Issue Paper on Local Autonomy and Administration of Justice conducted by the Ateneo School of Government, indicates that in 1988 alone, a total of 279,115 barangay disputes were recorded nationally. Out of this total, 236,452 cases were settled, or a fantastic 84% solution factor. The Figure is indicative of a substantial number of potential cases that never reached the court because of the effective intervention of a settlement mechanism under the Barangay Justice System.

In time, the available data clearly shows that when the system is utilized to its maximum potentials, the process of amicable settlement at the barangay level can be empowering for the community members. This is so-because the system fosters harmony peace and tranquility at the lever of the most basic structure of local government, conducive to the progress of communities. CHALLENGES TO THE SYSTEM However, some existing challenges confronting the Barangay Justice System maybe worth looking into for the purpose, perhaps, of policy reforms. Viewed from another point of view, there are recurring doubts being entertained on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Barangay Justice System. Such doubts may appear validated when one realizes that eve n if more than twenty (20) years have passed since the implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay law (PD No. 1508, as amended by Republic Act No. 7160), our courts are still congested. A survey of such challenges somehow partly reveals the following: 1. There is a need for community members to better familiarize themselves with the operation of the Barangay Justice System. More public campaigns on the processes of the system may worth pursuing. 2. There exist lack of sufficient knowledge and information about the guidelines on how the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay shall be implemented Reasons given are: a. Lack of trust b. Inefficient and ineffective local officials to enforce the law c. Lack of dissemination on the working of the system 3. Exposed in a book on the Philippine Justice System written recently by Mr. John Willem, a baker, is the decreasing credibility of barangays as a political unit, more especially in urban areas. In rural areas, however, the author observes that Barangay Captains still have the respect in the community.

In contrast, in urban areas, even judges and the ordinary people hardly know who their Barangay Captain is. Mr. Baker thinks that this may have an effect on why the backlog of cases is more serious in urban areas. 4. Inherent weaknesses of the Lupon and Pangkat have been observed. a. There is an imperative need to require the Lupon and Pangkat members to undergo a regular Continuing Education program on Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration. b. Value re-orientation and ethical standards among the members of the Lupon and Pangkat must be enhanced to maintain the standards of integrity and impartiality. OBJECTIVES OF THE BARANGAY JUSTICE SYSTEM The overriding objective in promulgating and implementing the system is to decongest caseloads of the court by proving disputants an avenue to settle disputes out of court with the aid of mediation, conciliation and arbitration by respected elders of the village. MEDIATION IN THE PHILIPPINES IN COURT-REFERRED, COURT-RELATED CASES Apart from the Barangay Justice System just discussed, the Philippines has other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms available. One of the innovative approaches recently introduced by the Supreme Court is Mediation in court-referred mediation cases. With the trial facing a huge backlog of cases, the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) in line with the Action program for Judicial Reforms (APJR) proposed MEDIATION as an effective measure to decongest trial courts of pending cases. CONCEPT OF MEDIATION Mediation is a process of resolving disputes with the aid of neutral person the MEDIATOR who helps parties identify issues and develop proposals to resolve their disputes . Unlike arbitration, the mediator is not empowered to decide disputes. Inspired by the results of the pilot projects on court-referred, court-related mediation experimented in selected areas in Metro Manila, Cebu and Davao (1999 2001), the Supreme

Court promulgated on October 16, 2001 in Administrative Matter No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, various documents and guidelines on mediation, such as: Administrative Order on Mediation Second Revised Guidelines on Mediation Code of Ethical Standardization for Mediators Procedures for the Accreditation of Mediators SIGNIFICANT FEATURES CONTAINED IN VARIOUS DOCUMENTS ON MEDIATION 1. The designation of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) as the component unit of the Supreme Court for court-referred, court-related mediation cases and other Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms. 2. The establishment of the Philippine Mediation Center, mandated in coordination with the office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to establish units of the Philippine Mediation (PMC Units) in courthouses and in such other places as maybe necessary. The PMC Unit is manned by the Supervisor and mediators and a Clerk- in-charge designated by the Executive judge. The unit renders mediation services in the area. RE-PMC UNITS So far, PHILJA has already established 16 PMC units in Metro Manila, 3 in Cebu and 4 in Davao 1. The institutionalization of mediation in the Philippines. 2. Professionalization of Mediators a. Requirements of PHILJA for mediators to undergo rigid training and screening and continuing education and refresher courses, before and after accreditation by the Supreme Court. Observance and adherence by mediators to the court-approved Code of Ethical Standards for mediators.

b.

CASES COVERED BY THE MEDIATION PROGRAM As approved by the Supreme Court, the following cases are referable to mediation:

1. All civil cases, settlement of estates and cases covered by the RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE, except those cases which by law may not be compromised. (i.e. Annulment of Marriage, etc.) 2. Cases cognizable covered by the Lupon Tagapamayapa under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, which has just been mentioned. 3. Civil Aspect of BP 22. (Bouncing Check Law) 4. Civil Aspect of QUASI- offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code, such as cases involving negligence and imprudence. PROCEDURE AND SELECTION OF MEDIATORS 1. After determining during the pre-trial that the case falls within the coverage of the program and there is possibility of an amicable settlement or a submission to Alternative Modes of Dispute Resolution, the trial court issues an order referring the case to the PMC unit for mediation. 2. Upon receipt of court order, the supervisor shall assist the parties select a mediator, mutually acceptable to both, from the list of accredited mediators, informing them of the fees, if any, and the mode of payment. If parties cannot agree on the mediator, the supervisor assigns and selects a mediator. In both instances, the name of the mediator must be submitted to the court for its confirmation/affirmation. The affirmation/confirmation by the court of the selection elevates the mediator to the status as an Officer of the Court. 3. After payment of 50% of the mediation fees, the mediator shall immediately commence the mediation process unless both parties agree to reset mediation within the next five (5) working days. Once the mediation proceeding begin, the same shall continue and the mediation process shall not exceed 30 days. It may, however, be extended for another 30 days, upon agreement of the parties and with the approval of the court, to give the parties sufficient time to reach a compromise agreement. 4. If mediation succeeds, the trial court shall be informed immediately and given the a. original copy of the Compromise Agreement to be the basis of a judgment by compromise; b. a withdrawal of the complaint, or

c. a satisfaction of the claim 5. If mediation fails, the mediator shall issue a Certificate of Failed Mediation and submit it to the court. Accordingly, the case is returned to the court for further proceedings. As shown in partial status report on the operations of PMC units in Metro Manila, Cebu and Davao in the month of March, 2002, a percentage rate of 84.16% success of the mediated cases has been accomplished. The Philippine Judicial Academy expects improvements in the performance of the PMC Units as increase in the referral of cases from the courts for mediation, is being noticed, since litigants and even lawyers are beginning to be aware of the advantages of the mediation process. MEDIATION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS On April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court in Administrative Matter No. 01-2-17-SC, passed a resolution approving the Pilot Testing of Mediation in the Court of Appeals. Around 60 retired justices, judges, senior lawyers and law professors will undergo Orientation-Training Seminars as prospective mediators for the Pilot project. Initial plans and organization to implement the pilot program are not on-going and undertaken by PHILJA and the Court of Appeals. A settlement month is set on September this year for the project.