LADY Justice in the time of coronavirus still holds a weighing scale and is blindfolded, but she wears a face mask for precaution.
Among those inevitably impacted by the enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) forced on society by the deadly Covid-19 is the judicial system, with the Supreme Court having to order the suspension of all court hearings as part of social distancing.
However, Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta has given assurances that the justices and judges would not abandon their duties under the Constitution despite the continued spread of Covid-2019.
So far, one of the SC staff has tested positive for Covid-19, which prompted court officials to immediately conduct contact tracing to prevent its spread in the judiciary.
A government prosecutor has also been found positive for Covid-19, prompting the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in Laguna to close its office.
Also, the entire Justice Complex in Parañaque was ordered closed after it was found out that a litigant died, also due to the virus.
On March 16, as President Duterte ordered the monthlong Luzon-wide ECQ, the SC declared work stoppage in all courts and court offices and units in the country, leaving only a skeleton staff to act on urgent matters to stop the spread of the virus.
As expected, there were fears the quarantine would likely cause further delay in resolving cases pending before the courts and worsen the backlog of lawsuits.
For the Court, however, there is nothing more important than containing the virus and ensuring the safety of its employees and all court officials, lawyers and litigants amid the pandemic.
While the work stoppage in all courts will last until April 15—a date that may be extended depending on the result of the Luzon-wide ECQ—Peralta gave assurances that the wheels of justice would remain rolling, albeit slower in this current situation.
“The Constitution and our laws are not suspended, and our courts are not shutting down in times of emergencies. But with the situation still rapidly evolving, and an atmosphere of uncertainty pervading, we must all do everything we can,” Peralta had earlier stressed.
In a state of war
Although the enemy is not visible, Peralta agreed that the judiciary is in a state of war—a moment it deems not an excuse for paralysis, but just a challenge to use existing and newly adopted measures to keep as much normalcy in the judicial branch as possible.
“You are correct in comparing our present situation to a state of war. That is why immediately after the declaration by the World Health Organization that the Covid-19 is a global pandemic, I immediately saw the need for the creation of a Judiciary Covid-19 Task Force,” Peralta told the BusinessMirror in an e-mail interview.
The Task Force was tasked to recommend to the Chief Justice actions to be taken, guidelines and policies, to prevent the spread and minimize the threat of the virus, monitor the conditions of justices, judges, court officials and personnel and workplaces.
It was likewise directed to monitor issuances of the Executive and Legislative departments to harmonize actions of the judiciary.
During the work stoppage period, the SC instructed at least the majority of the justices of the collegiate courts, and one or two judges in the mutli-sala stations of the second and first level courts, together with the necessary skeleton staff, to be in court or on stand-by at any given day to immediately act on these urgent matters.
For single-sala stations, their respective judges and the necessary skeleton staff are required to be in court on stand-by.
The SC also extended for 30 days the deadline for the filing of petitions and appeals, complaints, motions, pleadings and other court submissions that fall during this period.
For court actions with prescribed periods, the SC said these prescribed periods will be extended for 30 calendar days counted from April 16.
Work from home, online filing
Aside from these, the SC allowed the online filing of complaints as part of the measures adopted by the Court to continue delivering justice during the public health emergency declared by Duterte.
The measure, according to Peralta, is meant “to further limit the physical movement of court users, judges and personnel during this period of public health emergency as declared by the President pursuant to existing laws.”
Under the said procedure, criminal complaints and information, together with other supporting documents, may be filed through electronic transmission or e-mail before the proper first- or second-level court.
Once the complaint or information is received by the court, the Clerk of Court must refer the same to the judge on duty, who is required to evaluate the complaint or the resolution of the prosecutor, and its supporting evidence within three days.
The judge on duty will then determine whether the case can be dismissed outright for lack of probable cause or proceed with issuing a warrant of arrest.
The judge may also order the prosecutor to submit, through electronic transmission, additional evidence.
The circular also allows the requirements for bail to be electronically transmitted to the court—to be examined by the judge, who will approve it and order the provisional release if the requirements are complete.
Even the approval of bails and issuance of release orders will be transmitted to proper authorities electronically for implementation.
“Work that can be performed in the respective residences of the justices, judges and court personnel shall proceed,” the SC said.
E-inquest
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has also adopted a parallel measure when it allowed the implementation an e-inquest proceedings.
The measure covers the entire National Capital Region (NCR) and will be in place until the period of public health emergency is over.
The SC also required all judges and justices to draft decisions and orders in their respective residences during this period.
The orders and decisions will be promulgated upon the resumption of court operations.
Eye opener for SC
While he is praying that the current situation will never happen again in the years to come, the Chief Justice sees the need to adopt measures that would prepare the judiciary in case a similar crisis occurs.
“First of all, I hope that a crisis such as this will not happen again. However, with the current initiatives and programs being undertaken by the Court, particularly the adoption of present technology into our rules and court proceedings, I believe that the judiciary will be prepared in the event a similar emergency occurs,” he said.
One of these initiatives is the use of videoconferencing technology that would allow detained persons to testify and be cross-examined on their criminal cases inside their detention cells.
The guidelines for “tele-hearing,” the SC’s term for videoconferencing, was approved by the SC as a full court on recommendations made by Peralta, who was then an associate justice and then became the chairman of the SC’s committee on revision of rules.
The videoconferencing has long been practiced and adopted during court trial of cases in technologically advanced countries like the United States to address delays in court proceedings.
The method is described as “the holding of a conference among people at remote locations by means of transmitted audio and video signals.”
Through these conferences, “individuals meet one another in a real-time virtual manner ‘as if they were in the same room’ without the hassle and expense of traveling.”
It could also reduce the likelihood of postponement of cases or “missed opportunity [for the accused] to be present and confront the witnesses against them” due to instances of inability to travel from the jail to courtroom.
“Oh yes, definitely. We are in fact pilot-testing remote testimony via videoconferencing in Davao City with the hope and objective of its application nationwide,” Peralta said, when asked if tele-hearings would lessen the impact of this kind of crisis on the judiciary.
Image credits: BM Graphics: Ed Davad, Bernard Testa