| 02 August 2009
Sometimes, foreigners who have stayed in our country some years begin to think they know more than we do about solving the ills of this nation. It is true we are critical of the people running our government. Some groups or movements, in fact, overdo it. Yet, it is simply irritating to hear a non-Filipino speak with arrogance and condescension about our systems without laying down a clear basis. This is about my daughter’s brush with such a non-Filipino.
My daughter who is in fourth year law at the University of the Philippines had an argument on the phone with an American guy who is married to my daughter’s best friend. The argument left her unnerved and fuming. I gathered from her that the American fellow was insisting that our judicial system was all wrong because we did not adopt the jury system. He was insisting that the jury system would totally eliminate corruption and injustice. This prompted my daughter to retort with conviction her views about why the jury system would not necessarily work in this country. As I listened to her argue on the phone, I realized that her thoughts made sense and that indeed we may be far better off without a jury system.Here are her arguments, in a nutshell. Foremost are the financial constraints. To enforce the jury system, there is a need to provide the jurors with lodging, meals, and an allowance the entire time that they are serving. Given the already modest salaries that judges and other court employees are receiving, a budget for jury members, numbering 12, is clearly unrealistic.
Then there is the issue of even greater delay in the disposition of cases because of the selection process. In the jury system, potential jury members are selected through voter registration and drivers’ license lists. A form is sent to prospective jurors to pre-qualify them by asking them to answer questions about citizenship, disabilities, ability to understand the English language, and whether they have conditions that would excuse them from being a juror. If they are deemed qualified, summons is issued to them. Once they appear in Court, they have to earn the approval of both lawyers for the opposing parties. This process alone takes time because it rarely happens that all the potential jurors are accepted the first time around. Only when the jury is complete can the trial commence.
In a recent Massachusetts case, a judge dismissed a juror for discussing the news coverage of a case involving a man on trial, in violation of the rule that jurors should not have access to media to insulate them from outside influence. The whole process of jury selection had to start all over again before trial could begin. This also happens when the jury is unable to arrive at a unanimous decision, clearly setting back the resolution of the case.
Then there are cultural difficulties. In most countries, people consider it their civic obligation to serve their jury duty. They take pride in it, and try to carry out this duty as best as possible. In the Philippines, however, the maturity of most people toward civic responsibility is still wanting in many ways. Consider how difficult it is to get witnesses to appear in court for cases where they have no personal stakes. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to require disinterested citizens to leave their jobs and their families in order to sit as a juror for as long as it takes to finish a case.
If we had a jury system, every citizen may, at one time or another, be called upon to render jury duty. But how do we address the fact that a fairly large segment of our population has not completed college education? Court proceedings are done in English. Too, legal concepts are not easy to grasp.
The jury then becomes prey to emotional appeals and to grandstanding by lawyers who have mastered the art of theatrics.
If you’ve ever seen a movie or a show about lawyers, you will recall that their arguments before a jury are mostly appeals to sympathy, or are misleading and irrational. Rarely do they base their arguments on law. This is hardly surprising because the jury is composed of laymen, people who often do not have a background whatsoever on the vast intricacies of the law. And so it is easier to sway their decisions based on grandstanding and fancy talk, rather than on the strength of the evidence presented or the application of the law to the case.
In contrast, in our judicial system, a judge is the one who hears the cases and the one who writes the decisions. Our Rules of Court require that decisions of judges must clearly state the facts and the law applicable to the case. Decisions without a legal basis may be overturned and nullified by a higher court.
Add to this the coming into play of personal biases, belief systems, and prejudices of jurors who are wanting in legal training. They come into the courtroom with their own pre-programmed set of beliefs, stereotypes, and biases. They will judge the parties based on their clothing, their appearance, the way they talk and act, or their dislike toward the counsel. More often than not, these personal opinions and prejudices influence their decisions regardless of the law and the evidence presented. Judges do have their personal belief systems and biases, too, but these are tempered by their training in the legal profession and the need for them to state the legal bases for their decisions in writing.
On the issue that judges are more prone to bribery than a jury, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the reverse may be truer. While judges may be bribed, and some argue, much easier because a party only has to deal with one person, the danger exists even more with regard to jurors because they have nothing to lose. Their jury duty is temporary and they have jobs to go back to. Judges, on the other hand, may be removed from their respected seats in court, and deprived of their retirement and other benefits. Further, it is more difficult to keep an eye on each and every juror, than it is to monitor one judge presiding over a case.
Lastly, my daughter argued, the jury system was NOT foolproof. In the US, frivolous damage lawsuits are rampant because it is so easy to be awarded damages by the jury. Think of the infamous McDonald’s coffee case, wherein the jury awarded $2.9 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee which she held between her thighs in the car while it was parked.
Think also of the O.J. Simpson case, where, despite glaring evidence, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murder of two people, one of whom was his wife. Then there was the Rodney King case where the mostly white jury found the white police officers not guilty even though they were caught on tape kicking and beating the African-American cab driver with their clubs and batons.
Ours may not be a perfect judicial system. And it is true that there is still much room for reform and improvement in the judiciary. But adopting a system clearly not suited to our own may yield even bigger disasters than what it seeks to solve.
And, as to the American fellow insisting that we adopt the jury system, he better do his homework before engaging Filipinos in debate what is best for us.
Comments
For example if your own house has a broken post and is affecting the foundation of your home, losing its balance. it can fall in any unexpected moment..
In order to fix it, don't you dare to spend money to erect it to become balanced again?
The same thing with our Judiciary, well known as rotten. In order to acquire a good foundation in our Judiciary, Trial-By-Jury is a must to be installed which is the only thing missing and so must be incorporated. Right, so that once installed it would serve as a safety net to protect the rights of the people and at the same time would give them rights as caretaker of democracy and rights to participate in the administration of justice. We Filipinos were not enjoying the fullness of democracy and so, we are now clamouring for it through the installation of the Jury system. And It's much better to spend our public funds on something worthwhile rather than go to the pocket of some privelege few politicians..Don't u think so, madam?
Don't you think so, madam?
"The ordinary people who take action and persevere is better than those who think they know the solution but doesn't take the initiative"
If they(those who are in power)only think for their vested interests and not for the betterment and welfare of the people as a whole..if this would not be stopped, Absolute poverty to me is the sign that final of our days is just right around the corner...when are we going to move to action? when it's too late? Because too much succtioning of the masses would lead us to lost strenght and will convert us into weak..bcuz we're left without the essential weapon...C'mon fellows!! United we Stand
Your fear for our beloved Philippines is for real. We have been sliding down a slippery slope for decades and it seems our leaders are in denial and do not seem bothered. Why bother? They are rich anyway! How about those who are living on $1 a day or less? Philippines have now the higher proportion of extreme poor than Vietnam. Violence (Economist, 11 Feb issue) is imbedded in a political system run by and for a feudal gentry and businessman-on-the-make.
A jury system is not the only solution to our country’s myriad of problems but it is a start. It will help a well-meaning leader fight corruption and eventually change our peoples’ corrupt attitude.
Why not join our movement and actively campaign for a Jury System?
Seems to me that you contradict yourself? Natural corruption in the hearts of human beings is one of the reasons for corruption in some juries. They are also vulnerable to making decisions based on emotions above evidence.
If that man does not like the way our country is run then why doesn't he go back to America where they have a jury system? Is it not illegal for non-Filipinos to criticize the government of the Philippines?
You have this...
Foremost are the financial constraints. To..provide the jurors with lodging, meals, and an allowance the entire time that they are serving...salaries that judges and other court employees are receiving, a budget for jury members, numbering 12, is clearly unrealistic.
Tell me Mr.college educated lawyer who has put a price on justice if your daughter had been among the group the Ampatuans killed...how much would justice be worth?
If we can afford to give a retiring general a P50,000,000 "going away" gift, then pay him P10,000,000 a month retirement for life, why can't we afford justice?
May I suggest that you read a recent comment on "WHY JURY SYSTEM WILL NOT WORK IN THE PHILIPPINES" by Fred Morgia.
Do you think you can convince him?
I am not saying that we are ready for a jury system, we are not even ready for STOP signs, equal pay for equal work or the separation between church and state
What I am saying is ''Yes we can very easily afford it by spending our tax money on justice rather than pampering the rich''
Quit misleading the poor by spoon feeding them false information so they can make better decisions
“Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I can not, in good conscience say that given the great amount of corruption in the P.I., where convicted, not just charged, can stroll into town for a weekend of fun and pleasure because everything and anything can be had...for a price...except true justice, not the one bought...its rarer than a red diamond
What I am saying is that the excuse ''we can not afford it, its too expensive'' is a farce
When taxes are collected justice, jobs, schools and infrastructure should all be above government give away..perks and pork
65 year old immature country just not ready, as a whole, to join the world stage
Education is the key
RSS feed for comments to this post.