Philippines - Judicial Reform Support Project

Report No. PID10637 Project Name Philippines-Judicial Reform Support... Project Region East Asia and Pacific Region Sector Institutional Development; Judicial Reform Project Number PHPE66076 Borrower Republic of the Philippines Implementing Agency Supreme Court of the Philippines Coordinating Agency: Program Management Office Tel : (632) 522 5090; Fax: (632) 576 8129 Environment Category C Date PID Prepared August 23, 2001 Projected Appraisal Date November, 2001 Projected Board Date March, 2002 1. Country and Sector Background Country Priorities The Philippines government and civil society have made improving governance a national priority. Strengthening the Philippine court system by making the judicial process more efficient, timely and predictable, and enhancing the integrity of the justice sector, is central to this. The Chief Justice has taken the lead in this effort by issuing the Davide Watch (Dec. 1998) and organizing the preparation of an Action Program for Judicial Reform (2000) (the Action Program). State of the Judiciary Successive studies over the past decade have indicated the following major issues with the performance of the Philippine judiciary: ? Delays in the delivery of justice and associated limitations on access. Only the Supreme Court is up to-date in its caseload. The other courts continue to receive more cases than they decide. The result is an increasing backlog of cases, although in the last three years the rate of increase has begun to decline. ? Widespread perceptions of corruption in the judiciary. Successive surveys indicate that a significant percentage of Filipinos think that "some" or "quite a few" judges accept bribes. The weak disciplinary process and enforcement of the code of ethical standards among the members of the judiciary and its ranks and the lack of transparency in, and public awareness of, court operations have seriously undermined perceptions regarding the integrity of the courts. The Supreme Court is taking the initiative in tackling this issue, but the list of complaints from users of court services remains long.  ? Ineffective administrative structures and operating systems. Decisions on personnel actions, resource management and administrative matters concerning the lower courts are centralized in the Supreme Court. ? Deficient court technologies and facilities. Most courts are housed in poorly maintained facilities owned by local government units. Rental and maintenance agreements are often informal, and anecdotal evidence suggests that judges often find themselves in an awkward position when either the local government or its supporters appear before them. ? The need for human resource development. ? The need to improve public information and collaboration with civil society. Strategy for Reform To address the shortcomings of the judiciary, the Supreme Court has developed the Action Program, a blueprint to improve the judicial system. The Supreme Court is actively seeking the support of the donor community in carrying out this Action Program, including the World Bank. 2. Objectives The aim of the proposed project is to further the objectives set forth by Chief Justice Davide in a policy statement issued shortly after taking office: the "system of administration of justice must be geared to achieve the goal of delivering fair, impartial, and swift justice." 3. Rationale for the Bank's Involvement Taking into account the needs of the judiciary and the support committed or offered by other donors, and building on earlier efforts funded by the United Nations Development Program, as well as reflecting consultations within the judiciary and with civil society and the executive branch of the Philippine Government, the proposed project is intended to support certain key short- and medium-term elements of the Action Program. 4. Proposed Project Description The proposed project would help achieve the objective of promoting a justice system geared to achieving the goal of delivering fair, impartial, and swift justice, by: strengthening the capacity of the Supreme Court to administer the judiciary; improving case adjudication and access to justice; enhancing the integrity infrastructure of the judiciary; and supporting reform outreach activities, knowledge sharing and the Program Management Office of the Supreme Court. Component 1: Strengthening the Supreme Court's Capacity to Manage the Judiciary. Management capacity would be strengthened through: developing and implementing a new managerial and organizational model; setting up at least two decentralized administrative units within court offices ( for metro Manila and one other location) for the lower courts; developing an Information and Communication Technology master plan for the entire judiciary; -2-  improving administrative capacity by developing ICT infrastructure; developing an intra-net for the Supreme Court users and subsequently extending the service to other courts; and upgrading the oversight and discipline infrastructure by developing a web-based feedback mechanism to receive complaints against attorneys and judges and other court officials (and/or provide feedback) in Metro Manila, with a subsequent expansion to other parts of the country, and by separating the judge discipline system from other disciplinary mechanisms. Component 2: Strengthening Case Adjudication and Access to Justice. Judicial procedures and systems would be improved through streamlining case adjudication and promoting 'access to justice' measures. Judicial capacity and access would be strengthened through measures designed to: reduce delays and streamline case management, including support for the enforcement of continuous trial rules; develop/simplify rules and procedures for courts and make them more readily accessible to the public; expand and promote various dispute resolution mechanisms, including expanding mediation weeks and furthering their use in resolving disputes heard by other institutions; set up mobile courts in areas where access to courts is difficult; promote legal aid clinics for disadvantaged groups, including women and indigenous people; and provide infrastructure at the higher and lower court levels to house new initiatives and improve user access and security. Component 3: Supporting Integrity Infrastructure. Support for integrity infrastructure would include: strengthening the judge disciplinary system by upgrading the capacity and processes of the court to address complaints about the behavior of judges and other court officials; setting up public information offices in court houses to provide, inter alia, information on the functions of the court, its role and responsibilities; providing dignified court hearing room space (courts are typically operating in dilapidated substandard facilities); evaluating the existing ethics code applicable to judges and court staff and revising it as needed; reviewing the relationship between local government units and the courts (in particular the supplements provided by LGUs for maintenance and other operating expenses) for possible real or apparent conflicts of interest; and ? streamlining the complex human resource and civil service personnel rules. Component 4: Support for Reform, Knowledge Sharing, and Change Management. This component would assist in developing support for the reform process, ensure that judges can participate in the development of modernization ideas, implement key reform activities, and provide assistance to the Supreme Court's Program Management Office (PMO), which has been established to facilitate and coordinate carrying out of the Action Program. Measures would -3 -  include: ? organizing knowledge sharing programs; ? providing specialized technical and institutional support, best practices and training support for judge working groups (e.g. on facilities, new judicial organizational model design and technological advances, judge evaluation systems, civil society participation in courts) and for brainstorming on future challenges of the judiciary; ? designing and developing social communication programs to promote the Action Program; ? developing community outreach programs (e.g. for children in primary schools to inculcate a sense of rule of law and role of judges in partnership with department of education, and launching a Chief Justice scholarship program for law students); ? carrying out user surveys for feedback and refining reform activities; ? providing assistance to the PMO in specialized areas such as institutional development, team building, procurement, public affairs, financial management, project evaluation; and ? providing expert services to the PMO to upgrade skills in such areas as judicial statistics, re-engineering, mediation techniques, use of mobile courts, and new judicial organization models. 5. Financing Total Project Cost: US$30 million. A Specific Investment Loan (SIL) of US$18 million equivalent is proposed. 6. Implementation Project implementation would be coordinated by the PMO, which is also be responsible for overall coordination of the Action Program. Implementation would be carried out by the judges and staff of the judiciary, operating for the most part through working groups. The PMO reports directly to the Chief Justice. Responsibility for accounting, financial reporting and auditing for the project would rest with the PMO. 7. Sustainability The Philippines Supreme Court has demonstrated its commitment to judicial reform by preparing the Action Program. The Chief Justice has presented this reform program to the donor community to seek assistance and has continued to vigorously champion these reforms throughout the Philippines. Indications of support have also been given by key parts of the administration. The sustainability of such judicial reforms depends on continued leadership and political commitment, the effectiveness of human resource developments, and appropriate financial provisions and management. Financial sustainability depends on priority commitment from the Government, the mobilization of user fees, and appropriate financial management. 8. Lessons learned from past operations in the country/sector Experiences with judicial reform in other countries (e.g., Venezuela, - 4 -  Guatemala, Georgia, Columbia, Canada, Spain, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador) demonstrates that success depends on: (a) a high level of national ownership and commitment; (b) reaching out and working with users in the design and implementation of reform; (c) sequencing implementation in a manner consistent with absorptive capacity; (d) achieving results to re-enforce momentum and support for on-going reform; and, (e) understanding local culture and ensuring that reforms as compatible. The proposed project design reflects these lessons by being rooted within a Philippine-designed and led judicial reform program (the Action Program), focusing on a limited set of reforms and sequencing them to ensure that they are manageable given existing capacity and financial resources and will yield relatively quick and visible results. 9. Environmental Aspects (including any public consultation) Issues: N/A Contact Point: Lloyd McKay Task Manager The World Bank 23rd Floor, The Taipan Place Building Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center Pasig City Manila, the Philippines Tel: (632) 637 5855 (Ext 3017) Fax: (632) 637 5870 For information on other project related documents contact: The Info Shop The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20433 Tel: (202) 458 5454 Fax: (202) 522 1500 Web: http://www.worldbank.org/infoshop Note: This is information on an evolving project. Certain components and/or sub-components may not be included in the final project. This PID was processed by the InfoShop during the week ending Setember 7, 2001. -5-