Beyond the Numbers

 

 

"Out of the PhP 1.8 trillion national budget in 2012, only 0.7% was allotted to the Judiciary from 0.8% in 2009.

 

Meanwhile, the share of the Judiciary’s budget is 11.9 % of the total budget for the criminal justice system in 2012 from 14.0% in 2009. "

Beyond the Numbers
The Philippine Criminal Justice System:  Do we have enough judges to act on filed cases?

by Jose Ramon G. Albert, Ph.D.1                                              Filipino Version


The Philippine Criminal Justice System: Do we have enough judges to act on filed cases?Statistics provide a way of discerning truth, and this is why it is not uncommon for statistical applications to be used in the legal setting. But there are also statistics that can describe the legal system. In 2011, the NSCB released the Statistically Speaking article “Guilty and Not Guilty2 ” profiling prisoners, jail facilities, jail congestion, cost of jails and prisons to government.  As a follow-up of this article, let us now cite some statistics on adjudication, i.e., the legal process of hearing and resolving a case or dispute. This process is undertaken by the judicial branch of the government, which consists of: (1) the higher courts, which include the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals; and (2) the lower courts, viz., the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MuTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), Shari'a District Courts, Shari'a Circuit Courts.

In 2012, the annual cost of maintaining each prisoner in the country (as per the 2012 General Appropriations Act), is P19,345. This cost per inmate includes food and medicine allowance, and is much higher than the maximum assistance provided to a poor family at P15,000 per year3 under the conditional cash transfer (CCT)  program of the government.  The cost in one semester (P9,672.50)  slightly exceeds  the 2012  first semester per capita poverty threshold  pegged at  P9,3854 thus making prisoners even non-poor  by definition. With the increasing occupancy rate of jails which in 2011, is already four times their capacity5 , it is imperative that we examine the adjudication process, specifically, cases filed in the courts, the number of judges, the court caseload, the disposition rate and the backlog. 

 

Filed cases in the lower courts accelerate by 7.5 percent in 2012 from 0.7 percent in 2011

Cases filed in the lower courts have been increasing at an annual  average rate of 1.3 % for the period 2008-2011.  Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) received the most number of filed cases, accounting for 51.5% of total filed cases in the lower courts, followed by Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs) and Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTCs) sharing 18.2% and 17.6%, respectively (Table 1).

 

Case inflow 6 and outflow 7 on a downtrend

Total inflow of cases in the lower courts has been declining from 457,146 in 2005 to 385,067 in 2012, down by 2.4% per annum. Total outflow of cases has likewise been on a downtrend, from 487,605 cases in 2005 to 382,957 in 2012, declining by 3.4% per annum, and falling faster than the inflow of cases (Table 2). 

Lower courts have to handle a total of more than 1 million cases in a year!

The lower courts were continuously confronted with heavy volume of caseload8 during the period, 2005-2010, with an annual average caseload of 1,059,484 or equivalent to an average of around 4,221 cases per working day. Looking at the court-case disposition rate, i.e., the ratio of total cases decided/resolved over total cases filed in a year, the Municipal Circuits Trial Courts (MCTCs) bested all other lower courts as it posted the highest disposition rate of 1.2.  The RTCs, MTCs, and MTCCs which account for the lion’s share of the total court caseload, continuously posted low (less than one) annual disposition rates from 2005 to 2010 which means that the backlog for these courts has been increasing over the years (Table 3).  Hmmmm. I wonder if this suggests that lawyers are prolonging the trial process, or that judges are taking too long to make judgments, or that judges just have too many cases to resolve, or all of the above.

 

Each judge in the lower courts handles an annual average caseload of 644 cases or about three cases to be resolved each day

The total number of judges in the lower courts averaged 1,637 during the period, 2006-2009.  Given the average annual caseload of 1,055,068  during the same period,  each judge will handle 644 cases every year or about three cases to be resolved each day, assuming that there are 251 working days each year.  Starting 2007, the number of judges has been decreasing, from 1,710 to 1,647 in 2009, down by 3.7%.  On the average, male judges dominated the lower courts by a ratio of two male judges for every female judge, during the period 2006-2009.  When we examine gender balance, we discover that it is only in the Metropolitan Trial Courts where we can find an equal proportion of female and male judges (Table 4).

 

The lower courts continue to post high vacancy rates since 2005

The total incumbent judges vis-a-vis the total judicial positions during the period 2006-2009 showed an annual average vacancy rate of 24.3%.  The Shari'a Circuit Courts and the MCTCs posted the highest vacancy rates of 38.7% and 35.7%, respectively while the MTCCs registered the lowest vacancy rate of judges at 17.0% (Table 5).  

 

Statistics show that the judiciary faces serious difficulties in addressing case backlogs, and that additional investments will be required to improve the adjudication process!

While ”appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year”, this restriction does not apply as regards the percentage of the Judiciary’s allotment vis-à-vis the national budget9 .  Out of the PhP 1.8 trillion national budget in 2012, only 0.7% was allotted to the Judiciary from 0.8% in 2009. Meanwhile, the share of the Judiciary’s budget is 11.9 % of the total budget for the criminal justice system in 2012 from 14.0% in 2009 (Table 6).  With Gross Domestic Product (GDP) level of PhP6.3 trillion in 2012, the share of the entire criminal system’s budget to GDP is 1.8% while that of the adjudication/courts is less than 1%. Part of the inefficiencies suggested by trends in the statistics may be issues of budget, but of course, it is also important that budgets are properly used.

 

Community courts help ease the congestion of prisons

Aside from the formal courts, another venue for resolving disputes is through alternative community courts known as the barangay justice system 10 which are meant to help decongest the cases handled by regular courts. The community courts work mostly as alternative, community-based mechanism for resolution of conflicts and compulsory mediation process at the village level.  However, these cannot replace the function of formal courts in adjudicating grave offenses like homicide and murder.

In 2011, of the 461,834 disputes (criminal, civil, others) referred to the barangay justice system operating all over the country, 355,345 cases or 76.9% were settled.  Majority or 75.5% of the total settled cases were settled through mediation; conciliation accounted for 20.4% and arbitration, 4.2%.  Alternative courts generate an estimated government savings of PhP 3,294.7 million in 2011, and help ease the congestion of prisons. In this regard, we would like to commend these barangay chairpersons all over the country for serving as little judges at the barangays, helping the community ensure that justice and rule of law  continue to  prevail  in our  own neighborhood!  (Table 7

 

Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at jrg.albert@nscb.gov.ph.

 

 

Filipino Version

 

Criminal Justice System sa Pilipinas: Mayroon ba tayong sapat na mga hukom upang tumugon sa mga nakahaing kaso?

by Jose Ramon G. Albert, Ph.D.

Isang gabay ang estadistika para malaman ang katotohanan, at dahilan dito, pangkaraniwan na ngayon na makahanap ng mga aplikasyon ng Statistics sa legal system. Ngunit mayroon ding mga estadistika na maaaring makapagbigay larawan sa ating legal system. Noong 2011, ang NSCB ay naglathala ng isang artikulo sa Statistically Speaking series na pinamagatang “Guilty and Not Guilty.“  Dito nilarawan ang mga bilanggo,  mga pasilidad ng bilangguan sa ating bansa, ang kasikipan ng mga bilangguan, at mga ginugugol na gastos sa mga bilangguan at mga bilanggo ng  ating pamahalaan. Isang follow-up ang gagawin natin sa artikulong ito, pero atin ngayong bibigyan pansin ang ilang estadistika sa adjudication, i.e., ang legal na proseso ng pagdinig at paglutas ng kaso o ng hindi pagkakaunawaan. Ang prosesong ito ay isinasagawa sa pamamagitan ng panghukumang sangay ng pamahalaan, na binubuo ng: (1) mataas na hukuman , kung saan kasama ang Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, at Court of Tax Appeals; at (2) mababang hukuman na kinabibilangan ng Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTCs), Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MuTCs), at Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), Shari'a District Court, Shari'a Circuit Court.

Noong 2012, ang gastos ng pagpapanatili ng bawat bilanggo sa ating bansa sa buong taon (batay sa 2012 General Appropriations Act), ay PhP19,345. Ang halagang ito na kinalolooban ng alokasyon para sa pagkain at gamot para sa isang bilanggo, ay mas mataas pa sa kaysa sa pinakamataas na tulong na ibinibigay sa isang mahirap na pamilya sa halagang PhP15,000 bawat taon sa ilalim ng Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program ng gobyerno. Ang gastos sa kalahating taon (PhP9,672.50) para sa isang bilanggo ay bahagya lamang na lumagpas sa per capita poverty threshold sa unang anim na buwan ng 2012 na napako sa PhP9,385 kung kaya ang mga bilanggo ay nangangahulugang hindi mahirap. Sa pagtaas ng occupancy rate ng mga bilanggo kung saan noong 2011, ay nasa apat na beses na ng kanilang kapasidad, hindi maiwasan na dapat nating suriin ang proseso ng adjudication, partikular, ang mga kaso na inihahain sa hukuman, ang bilang ng mga hukom, ang caseload ng hukuman, ang rate ng pag-aayos ng mga kaso at ang backlog.

 

Mga naihaing kaso sa mababang hukuman ay mabilis ang pagtaas na naitalaga ng 7.5% noong 2012 mula sa 0.7% noong 2011

Patuloy ang pagtaaas ng mga kasong naihain sa mababang hukuman. Tumataas ito ng average rate na 1.3% para sa panahong 2008-2011. Nakatanggap ang Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) ng pinakamaraming bilang na mga kasong inihain.  Higit sa kalahati

(51.5%) ng kabuuang naihaing kaso sa mababang hukuman ay ang mga kasong naihain sa RTCs, na sinusundan ng Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCCs)  at Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTCs)  na may pagbabahagi ng 18.2% at 17.6% , ayon sa pagkakabanggit (Talaan 1).

 

Bumababa ang mga case inflow at outflow

Ang kabuuang inflow ng mga kaso sa mababang hukuman ay bumaba mula sa  457,146 noong 2005 hanggang 385,067 noong 2012, bumaba  ng 2.4% sa bawat isang taon. Ang kabuuang outflow ng mga kaso ay pababa rin, mula sa 487,605  kaso noong 2005 hanggang 382,957  noong 2012.  Bumaba ito ng 3.4% kada taon. Kapansin-pansin na bumababa ito ng mas mabilis kaysa sa inflow ng mga  kaso. (Talaan 2).  

 

Ang mababang hukuman ay humahawak ng may kabuuang higit sa 1 milyong mga kaso sa isang taon!

Ang mababang hukuman ay patuloy na nahaharap sa dumaraming caseload sa panahong, 2005-2010. Ang annual average caseload ng mababang hukuman ay 1,059,484 o katumbas ng 4,221 mga kaso sa bawat araw ng trabaho. Kung ating titingnan ang court-case disposition rate, na siyang, ang proporsyon ng kabuuan ng mga kasong nagpasyahan o nalutas sa kabuuan ng mga kasong inihahain sa isang taon, ang the Municipal Circuits Trial Courts (MCTCs) ay siyang may pinakamataas na disposition rate na 1.2. Ang mga RTCs, MTCs, at MTCCs na may malaking bahagi sa kabuuang dami ng kaso sa hukuman ay patuloy na pinapakita na mababa (mas mababa sa isa) ang annual disposition rate mula noong 2005 hanggang 2010 na nangangahulugang ang backlog para sa mga korte ay patuloy ang pagtaas sa mga nakaraang taon (Talaan 3).  Ipinapahiwatig kaya ng mga numerong ito na pinatatagal talaga ng mga abogado ang  proseso ng paglilitis, o  masyado lang matagal ang kanilang pagsusuri  bago makapagpasiya  o masyadong maraming hawak na kaso na kailangang  lutasin ang mga hukom, o lahat ng nabanggit?

 

Ang bawat hukom sa mababang hukuman ay pinangangasiwaan ang average caseload na 644 mga kaso o tatlong kaso na nalulutas sa  bawat araw

Ang pantaunang karaniwang bilang ng mga hukom sa mababang hukuman ay umabot ng  1,738  na hukom  sa panahong, 2006-2009. At dahil merong  1,077,148  average annual caseload  na naitala sa parehong panahon, lumalabas na merong  katumbas na 644 kaso ang  bawat hukom sa isang taon o tatlong kaso na dapat lutasin sa bawat araw ng isang hukom. Iyan ay kung mayroon lamang na 251 working days sa bawat taon.  Simula noong 2007, ang bilang ng mga hukom ay bumaba ng 3.7%  mula sa 1,710 hanggang sa 1,647 noong 2009.  Ang mga lalaking hukom ang nagdodomina sa mababang hukuman sa proporsyon na 3 lalaking hukom sa bawat isang babaeng hukom.  Kapag ating susuriin ang gender balance, ating matutuklasan na sa Metropolitan Trial Courts lamang matatagpuan ang pantay na proporsyon ng babae at lalaking mga hukom (Talaan 4).

 

Ang mababang hukuman ay patuloy na nagtatala ng mataas na vacancy rate ng mga hukom mula noong 2006

Kapag pinansin ang kabuuan ng kasalukuyang nanunungkulang mga hukom at  ang kabuuang panghukuman posisyon sa panahong 2006-2009, makakalap natin na ang average annual vacancy rate ay 24.3%. Ang Shari'a Circuit Courts at ang MCTCs ay nagtala ng pinakamataas na vacancy rates na 38.7% at 35.7%, ayon sa pagkakabanggit,  habang ang MTCCs ay nagrehistro ng pinakamababang vacancy rate ng mga hukom na 17.1% (Talaan 5).

 

Ipinakikita ng estadistika na ang hukuman ay nahaharap sa malala napakahirap na suliranin sa pagtugon ng mga backlogs na kaso, at ang karagdagang pamumuhunan ay kinakailangan upang mapabuti ang proseso ng adjudication!

Bilang malayang sangay ng pamahalaan, ang badyet ng judiciary  ay hindi puwedeng bawasan ng lehislatura  kumpara sa natanggap nito nang nagdaang taon. Ngunit ang proteksion na ito ay hindi umiiral kung ang pag-uusapan  ay ang bahagi  ng  badget ng judiciary kumpara  sa badyet ng buong pamahalaan.  Kung ihahambing sa P1,426 bilyon  na  badyet  ng buong pamahalaan noong 2009 at P1,816 bilyon noong  2012, ang  kaukulang bahagi ng badget ng judiciary ay bumaba sa 0.7% noong 2012  kumpara  sa naitalang  0.8% noong  2009. Ang badyet ng judiciary ay katumbas ng  11.9% ng kabuuang badyet ng criminal justice system para sa 2012 at ito ay mas mababa sa 14.0% na naital noong 2009 (Talaan 6).  Kung ihahambing sa PhP6.3 trillion ng ating Gross Domestic Product (GDP na naitala noong 2012, ang bahagi ng badyet ng criminal justice system ay 1.8% at ang bahagi ng hukuman ay kulang pa sa 1%. Bahagi ng mga  kakulangan na ipinakita ng mga estadistika ay maaaring sanhi nang mga isyu sa badyet, ngunit siyempre, mahalaga rin na ang badyet ay gamitin ng maayos.

 

Ang Community courts ay makakatulong sa  pagluwag ng kasikipan ng piitan

Bukod sa mga pormal na hukuman, ang isa pang pamamaraan sa paglutas ng mga hindi pagkakaunawaan ay sa pamamagitan ng alternatibong community courts na kilala bilang Katarungang Pambarangay. Naglalayon ang mga korteng ito na makatulong sa pagbawas ng mga kasong pinapangasiwaan ng mga regular na korte. Ang community courts ay kadalasang nagsisilbi bilang kahalili. Ito ay community-based na mekanismo para sa paglutas ng mga salungatan at compulsory mediation na proseso para sa lebel ng kanayunan. Gayunpaman, hindi maaaring palitan ng mga ito ang tungkulin ng formal court sa pagadjudicate ng mabibigat na pagkakasala tulad ng homicide at pagpatay ng tao.

Noong 2011, sa 461,834 kaso ng hindi pagkakaunawaan  (kriminal, sibil, at iba pa) na sinangguni sa Katarungang Pambarangay na umiiral sa buong bansa, 355,345 na kaso o 76.9% ay nalutas.  Karamihan o 75.5% ng mga ito ay nalutas sa pamamagitan ng  g Mediation; 20.4% ay nalutas sa conciliation at 4.2% sa arbitration. Ang alternatibong korte ay nakapagbigay ng PhP 3,294.7 million na savings sa pamahalaan noong 2011 at tumutulong na mapaluwag ang kasikipan ng piitan. Sa bagay na ito, nais naming purihin ang mga punong barangay sa buong bansa sa kanilang pagsisilbi bilang little judges ng barangay, pagtulong sa komunidad upang matiyak na ang katarungan at panuntunan ng batas ay patuloy na mangingibabaw sa ating sariling mga kapitbahayan! (Talaan 7)

 

Kung kayo ay may reaksyon o ibang pananaw ukol sa artikulong ito, mangyari lamang na sumulat sa may akda sa email address na: jrg.albert@nscb.gov.ph.

________________________________

1Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). The NSCB, a statistical agency functionally attached to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), is the highest policy making and coordinating body on statistical matters in the Philippines. Immediately prior to his appointment at NSCB, Dr. Albert was a Senior Research Fellow at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, a policy think tank attached to NEDA. Dr. Albert finished summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Mathematics from the De La Salle University in 1988. He completed a Master of Science in Statistics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989 and a Ph.D. in Statistics from the same university in 1993. He is a Professorial Lecturer at the Decision Sciences and Innovation Department of Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business, De La Salle University. He is also a past President of the Philippine Statistical Association, a Fellow of the Social Weather Stations, and an Elected Regular Member of the National Research Council of the Philippines.

This article was co-written by Severa B. de Costo, Regina S. Reyes, Marieta V. Gumela,  Statistical Coordination Officer VI, Director, and Statistical Coordination Officer III, respectively of the NSCB. This article was translated in Filipino by  Virginia Batham of  NSCB. The authors  thank  Director Candido J. Astrologo and  Edwin U Aragon  for the assistance in the preparation of the article.  Special  appreciation  also  for  the  De la Salle on-the-job training students Rhenzy Aure Crema,  Mark Steven Fernandez, John Paulo C. Sigue, Lance Adrian A. Gutierrez and Josephos  Edcel T. Elijay in  processing the  data. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSCB and its Technical Staff.

2 http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2011/091211.asp

3 http://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph

4 http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/defaultnew.asp

5 Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP)

6 Case inflow refers to the summation of cases newly filed, cases revived/reopened, and cases received from other salas/courts during the reference period.

7 Case outflow refers to the summation of cases decided/resolved, cases archived, case transferred to other salas/courts, and cases with proceedings suspended during the reference period.

8 Court caseload refers to the summation of the cases pending at the end of the preceding period and case inflow during the reference period.  A ratio of less than 1 indicates an increasing backlog; greater than 1, decreasing backlog; and equal to 1 means that the backlog is being maintained.

9 Supreme Court Annual Report 2007

10 Barangay Justice System or Katarungang Pambarangay is a local justice system in the Philippines operated by the smallest local government units, the barangay which is overseen by the barangay captain as highest elected official of the barangay and its executive. The system exists to help decongest the regular courts and works mostly as alternative, community-based mechanism for dispute resolution of conflicts and compulsory mediation process at the village level."

 


comments powered by Disqus

Table 1. Number of Newly Filed Cases In Lower Courts, By Type of Court:
2008 to 2011

Court 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average  Number of Newly Filed Cases
2008-2011
Percent Share Average Growth Rate
2008-2011
Year-on-Year Growth Rates
2008-09 2009-10 2010-2011
                     
Total  337,946 324,517 326,897 351,488 335,212 100.0 1.32 -3.97 0.73 7.52
                     
Regional Trial  Courts 167,181 164,952 175,847 182,915 172,724 51.5 3.04 -1.33 6.60 4.02
Metropolitan Trial Courts 64,027 60,676 54,729 57,060 59,123 17.6 -3.77 -5.23 -9.80 4.26
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 62,840 54,916 58,355 68,320 61,108 18.2 2.83 -12.61 6.26 17.08
Municipal Trial Courts 24,778 22,872 19,743 24,265 22,915 6.8 -0.69 -7.69 -13.68 22.90
Municipal Circuits Trial Courts 18,787 20,707 17,787 18,452 18,933 5.6 -0.60 10.22 -14.10 3.74
Shari'a District Courts 43 60 84 57 61 0.0 9.85 39.53 40.00 -32.14
Shari'a Circuit Courts 290 334 352 419 349 0.1 13.05 15.17 5.39 19.03

Source: Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court

 

Table 2. Case Inflow and Case Outflow by Lower Courts: 2005 to 2012

Court 2005 2006 2007 2008
Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow
                 
Total 457,146 487,605 414,719 443,979 383,360 424,425 399,281 431,949
                 
Regional Trial  Courts 201,347 198,720 198350 191,157 189,492 187,959 191,867 194,786
Metropolitan Trial Courts 86,019 99,027 81847 92,635 74,551 91,015 80,760 93,185
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 88,083 95,219 81976 94,630 72,321 85,591 78,870 87,649
Municipal Trial Courts 42,653 48,820 28323 35,211 26,397 32,595 26,012 31,028
Municipal Circuits Trial Courts 38,741 45,487 23633 29,823 20,276 26,849 21,400 24,997
Shari'a District Courts 36 41 45 34 42 46 43 29
Shari'a Circuit Courts 267 291 545 489 281 370 329 275
Court 2009 2010 2011 2012
Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow
                 
Total 377,120 402,500 379,950 385,616 403,204 391,107 385,067 382,957
                 
Regional Trial  Courts 189,025 190,461 197,553 184,288 207,029 193,809 200,287 186,450
Metropolitan Trial Courts 72,391 76,787 68,848 76,779 68,298 68,171 60,047 66,113
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 67,577 79,651 69,386 76,398 79,182 77,076 76,152 78,356
Municipal Trial Courts 25,143 32,656 24,644 26,792 27,069 27,108 26,502 30,389
Municipal Circuits Trial Courts 22,583 22,616 19,074 21,015 21,137 24,282 21,363 20,850
Shari'a District Courts 65 23 84 29 57 33 34 33
Shari'a Circuit Courts 336 306 361 315 432 628 682 766

 

Court Annual Growth Rate Annual  Average
Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow
         
Total -2.4 -3.4 399,981 418,767
         
Regional Trial  Courts -0.1 -0.9 196,869 190,954
Metropolitan Trial Courts -5.0 -5.6 74,095 82,964
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities -2.1 -2.7 76,693 84,321
Municipal Trial Courts -6.6 -6.5 28,343 33,075
Municipal Circuits Trial Courts -8.2 -10.5 23,526 26,990
Shari'a District Courts -0.8 -3.1 51 34
Shari'a Circuit Courts 14.3 14.8 404 430

 

Source: Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court

Notes: 

  • Case inflow refers to the summation of cases newly filed, cases revived/reopened, and cases received from other salas/courts during the reference period.

  • Case outflow refers to the summation of cases decided/resolved, cases archived, case transferred to other salas/courts, and cases with proeedings suspended during the reference period.

 

Table 3 Court Caseload, Disposition Rate and Backlog of Lower Courts:
2005-2010

Court 2005 2006 2007
Caseload Dispo-sition
rate
Backlog Caseload Dispo-sition
rate
Backlog Caseload Dispo-sition
rate
Backlog
                   
Total 1,140,567   657,039 1,156,601   714,736 1,022,640   593,294
                   
Regional Trial  Courts 541,836 0.79 345,706 548,317 0.79 358,467 550,370 0.68 356,659
Metropolitan Trial Courts 213,045 0.76 114,719 222,193 0.73 129,702 177,701 0.59  84,632
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 189,943 0.84 100,863 190,824 0.88 101,867 156,664 0.79  73,466
Municipal Trial Courts 109,689 0.89 55,878 107,294 1.03  67,604 80,941 0.72  47,550
Municipal Circuits Trial Courts  85,483 0.95 39,634  87,052 1.11  56,695 56,389 0.75  30,716
Shari'a District Courts 54 1.17  13 94 0.77 60  75 0.81  46
Shari'a Circuit Courts  517 0.90 226  827 1.07  341 500 0.93  225
Court 2008 2009 2010
Caseload Dispo-sition
rate
Backlog Caseload Dispo-sition
rate
Backlog Caseload Dispo-sition
rate
Backlog
                   
Total 1,038,961   639,560 1,002,070   616,464 996,065   971,837
                   
Regional Trial  Courts 549,261 0.81 361,163 562,751 0.82 378,465 566,917 0.75 556,692
Metropolitan Trial Courts 181,629 0.82 104,996 163,420 0.87  86,641 156,967 0.82 157,216
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 155,638 0.86 80,352 152,785 0.98  76,387 153,366 0.88 141,905
Municipal Trial Courts  83,569 0.98 47,554  71,053 1.06  44,261 67,229 1.25  65,908
Municipal Circuits Trial Courts  68,116 1.61 45,076  51,294 1.46  30,287 50,688 1.03  49,274
Shari'a District Courts  113 0.67  90  129 0.48  100  98 0.25  125
Shari'a Circuit Courts  635 0.70 329  638 0.60  323 800 0.69  717

 

Source: Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court

Notes:

  • Court caseload refers to the summation of the cases pending at the end of the preceding period and case inflow during the reference period.
  • Court-case disposition rate is the ratio of total cases decided/resolved over total cases filed in a year. A ratio of less than 1 indicates an increasing backlog;greater than 1, decreasing backlog; and equal to 1 means that the backlog is being maintained.
  • Case backlog to the total number of pending cases, i.e., those that have not been disposed of at the end of the reference period. It is derived by subtracting case outflow from court caseload.

 

Table 4. Number of Judges in Lower Courts By Sex and By Type of Court:
2006 to 2009

Court 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Male   Female   Total   Male   Female   Total   Male   Female   Total   Male   Female  Total
                         
Total 1,096 432 1,528 1,174   536 1,710 1,116 548 1,664 1,104   543 1,647
                         
Regional Trial Courts 597 211   808 575   224 799   542 228 770   527   223 750
Metropolitan Trial Courts 31 31 62 35 33 68 32   37 69 35 34 69
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 112 46   158 129 66 195   125   67 192   112 61 173
Municipal Trial Courts 165 80   245 180   110 290   178 110 288   187   115 302
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts 163 63   226 225 99 324   209 103 312   214   108 322
Shari'a District Courts  -   -   -   -  1   1 - - - - - -
Shari'a Circuit Courts 28   1 29 30 3 33 30   3 33 29 2 31

 

Court Annual Average (2006-2009)   Proportion By Sex
 Male   Female  Total  Male   Female 
           
Total   1,123 515  1,637 68.6 31.4
           
Regional Trial Courts 560 222  782 71.7 28.3
Metropolitan Trial Courts   33   34    67 49.6 50.4
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 120   60  180 66.6 33.4
Municipal Trial Courts 178 104  281 63.1 36.9
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts 203   93  296 68.5 31.5
Shari'a District Courts  -         
Shari'a Circuit Courts   29 2    32 92.9 7.1

Source: Office of the Court Administrator

 

Table 5. Vacancy Rate of Judges in the Lower Courts: 2006-2009

Court 2006 2007
Total
Judicial
Position
Total
Incum-bent
Judges
Total
Vacancies
Vacancy
Rate 
Total
Judicial
Position
Total
Incum-bent
Judges
Total
Vacancies
Vacancy
                 
Total 2,153 1,554 599 27.8% 2,182 1,717 465 21.3%
                 
Regional Trial  Courts 952 794 158 16.6% 962 806 156 16.2%
Metropolitan Trial Courts 82 64 18 22.0% 95 68 27 28.4%
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 205 166 39 19.0% 212 179 33 15.6%
Municipal Trial Courts 388 257 131 33.8% 387 303 84 21.7%
Municipal Circuits Trial Courts 470 245 225 47.9% 470 328 142 30.2%
Shari'a District Courts 5 0 5 - 5 0 5 -
Shari'a Circuit Courts 51 28 23 45.1% 51 33 18 35.3%

 

Court 2008 2009 Average Annual Vacancy Rate  (2006-2009)
Total
Judicial
Position
Total
Incum-bent
Judges
Total
Vacancies
Vacancy
Rate
Total
Judicial
Position
Total
Incum-bent
Judges
Total
Vacancies
Vacancy
Rate 
                   
Total 2,182 1,669 513 23.5% 2,182 1,643 539 24.7% 24.3%
                   
Regional Trial  Courts 962 778 184 19.1% 962 755 207 21.5% 18.4%
Metropolitan Trial Courts 95 69 26 27.4% 95 69 26 27.4% 26.3%
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities 212 177 35 16.5% 212 176 36 17.0% 17.0%
Municipal Trial Courts 387 297 90 23.3% 387 291 96 24.8% 25.9%
Municipal Circuits Trial Courts 470 315 155 33.0% 470 321 149 31.7% 35.7%
Shari'a District Courts 5 0 5 - 5 0 5 - -
Shari'a Circuit Courts 51 33 18 35.3% 51 31 20 39.2% 38.7%

 

Source: Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court

 

 

Table 6. Budgetary Appropriations for the Criminal Justice System By Pillar and By Agency: 2009 to 2012

Pillar/Agency 2009 2010 2011 2012
(In thousand
pesos)
Percent Share (In thousand
pesos)
Percent Share (In thousand
pesos)
Percent Share (In thousand pesos) Percent Share
                 
TOTAL 78,877,909 100.0 931,305,839 100.0 104,069,564 100.0 112,134,810   100.0
                 
1. Law Enforcement 49,662,939 63.0 52,417,951 5.6 71,826,166 69.0 75,756,733 67.6
a. National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) 1,100,866 1.4 1,291,058 0.1 1,312,184 1.3 1,332,611 1.2
b. Philippine National Police (PNP) 47,268,957 59.9 49,889,574 5.4 69,377,190 66.7 73,217,682 65.3
c. National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) 836,316 1.1 851,520 0.1 784,533 0.8 842,559 0.8
d. Commission on Human Rights CHR) 255,278 0.3 285,889 0.0 266,900 0.3 273,100 0.2
e. Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) 201,522 0.3 99,910 0.0 85,359 0.1 90,781 0.1
                 
2. Prosecution 3,085,494 3.9 2,555,391 0.3 2,827,857 2.7 3,376,465 3.0
a. National Prosecution Service (NAPROS) 1,759,539 2.2 1,491,121 0.2 1,795,956 1.7 2,067,719 1.8
b. Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) 1,325,955 1.7 1,064,270 0.1 1,031,901 1.0 1,308,746 1.2
                 
3. Adjudication/ Courts 11,064,967 14.0 11,158,172 1.2 12,163,151 11.7 13,355,764 11.9
a. Supreme Court (SC) 11,064,967 14.0 11,158,172 1.2 12,163,151 11.7 13,355,764 11.9
                 
4. Correction 5,920,110 7.5 6,246,411 0.7 7,085,754 6.8 7,577,650 6.8
a. Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) 4,192,698 5.3 4,494,532 0.5 5,151,027 4.9 5,574,644 5.0
b. Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR) 1,339,924 1.7 1,367,913 0.1 1,510,626 1.5 1,553,030 1.4
c. Parole and Probation Administration (PPA) 387,488 0.5 383,966 0.0 424,101 0.4 449,976 0.4
                 
5. Community/ Public Safety 9,144,399 11.6 858,927,914 92.2 10,166,636 9.8 12,068,198 10.8
a. Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) 6,815,954 8.6 856,482,028 92.0 7,261,958 7.0 7,719,860 6.9
b. Bureau of Local Government Supervision (BLSG) 1,474,146 1.9 1,535,237 0.2 1,631,567 1.6 1,776,267 1.6
c. Office of Civil Defense (OCD) 89,488 0.1 85,528 0.0 90,890 0.1 1,221,559 1.1
d. Public Attorney's Office (PAO) 764,811 1.0 825,121 0.1 1,182,221 1.1 1,350,512 1.2

 

Pillar/Agency AVERAGE (2009-2012)
(In thousand pesos) Percent Share
     
TOTAL 306,597,031     100.0
     
1. Law Enforcement 62,415,947 20.4
a. National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) 1,259,180 0.4
b. Philippine National Police (PNP) 59,938,351 19.5
c. National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) 828,732 0.3
d. Commission on Human Rights CHR) 270,292 0.1
e. Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) 119,393 0.0
     
2. Prosecution 2,961,302 1.0
a. National Prosecution Service (NAPROS) 1,778,584 0.6
b. Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) 1,182,718 0.4
     
3. Adjudication/Courts 11,935,514 3.9
a. Supreme Court (SC) 11,935,514 3.9
     
4. Correction 6,707,481 2.2
a. Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) 4,853,225 1.6
b. Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR) 1,442,873 0.5
c. Parole and Probation Administration (PPA) 411,383 0.1
     
5. Community/Public Safety 222,576,787 72.6
a. Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) 219,569,950 71.6
b. Bureau of Local Government Supervision (BLSG) 1,604,304 0.5
c. Office of Civil Defense (OCD) 371,866 0.1
d. Public Attorney's Office (PAO) 1,030,666 0.3

 

Source: Department of Budget and Management

 

Table 7. Number of Actions Taken by the Lupong Tagapamayapa By Nature of Disputes , By Settled Cases By Region: 2011

Region Nature of Disputes Settled Cases
Criminal Civil Others Mediation Concilia-tion Arbitra-tion
Philippines 186,432 187,851 87,551 268,245 72,328 14,772
National Capital Region 46,094 53,680 18,328 48,108 25,156 5,743
Cordillera Administrative Region - - - - - -
I Ilocos Region 2,120 2,733 933 4,507 848 48
II Cagayan Valley 4,070 6,064 4,000 8,466 1,462 417
III Central Luzon 21,013 29,681 17,199 40,312 14,321 1,771
IV-A CALABARZON 9,284 10,343 4,224 11,504 5,169 1,483
IV-B MIMAROPA 7,370 3,942 3,472 10,844 1,532 361
V Bicol Region 1,813 1,937 1,341 3,716 355 70
VI Western Visayas 6,859 6,984 3,442 16,269 2,426 513
VII Central Visayas 10,155 9,854 2,211 13,485 2,774 273
VIII Eastern Visayas 14,978 13,353 8,734 26,320 4,424 906
IX Zamboanga Peninsula 14,525 4,126 6,968 14,851 2,897 935
X Northern Mindanao 15,606 14,013 6,795 21,121 3,717 478
XI Davao Region 21,732 16,318 4,411 29,599 3,920 1,335
XII SOCCSKSARGEN 3,376 5,702 2,769 6,867 1,648 159
XIII Caraga 7,437 9,121 2,724 12,676 1,679 280

 

Region Total disputes Total settled cases Proportion of cases settled (%) Estimated
Government
Savings (Peso)
Percent Share
Philippines 461,834 355,345 76.9 3,294,752,000 100.0
National Capital Region 118,102 79,007 66.9 750,166,500 22.8
Cordillera Administrative Region - - - - -
I Ilocos Region 5,786 5,403 93.4 51,328,500 1.6
II Cagayan Valley 14,134 10,345 73.2 98,368,000 3.0
III Central Luzon 67,893 56,404 83.1 535,819,000 16.3
IV-A CALABARZON 23,851 18,156 76.1 172,482,000 5.2
IV-B MIMAROPA 14,784 12,737 86.2 120,954,000 3.7
V Bicol Region 5,091 4,141 81.3 49,406,000 1.5
VI Western Visayas 17,285 19,208 111.1 112,271,000 3.4
VII Central Visayas 22,220 16,532 74.4 157,054,000 4.8
VIII Eastern Visayas 37,065 31,650 85.4 300,675,000 9.1
IX Zamboanga Peninsula 25,619 18,683 72.9 176,139,500 5.3
X Northern Mindanao 36,414 25,316 69.5 236,279,000 7.2
XI Davao Region 42,461 34,854 82.1 321,879,000 9.8
XII SOCCSKSARGEN 11,847 8,674 73.2 82,403,000 2.5
XIII Caraga 19,282 14,635 75.9 139,038,500 4.2

 

Source: Bureau of Local Government Supervision

- no report yet

 

Posted: 14 June 2013

 


 

The PSA Office
PSA CVEA Building,
East Avenue, Quezon City
Tel. No. (632) 462-6600; Fax No. (632) 462-6600
URL: http://psa.gov.ph
E-mail: info@psa.gov.ph

 

About Us | News | Statistics | Events || Terms of Use

Back to top


Updated 28 January 2016

Ver. 7.2014.234-11.04

1997-2015, Philippine Statistics Authority, East Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines