University of the Philippines Manila College of Arts and Sciences

JUSTICE FOR ALL: Is the Action Program for Judicial Reform Effective in Contributing to Better Access to Justice by the Poor?

Erika Mae U. Gumabol BA Political Science PS 153: Judicial Law

I.

Overview

The Philippine Judiciary System has been built for fairness, equality, orderliness and easiness to settle legal controversies. It is a tool in building a just and humane society and establishing a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace1. However, in these days, delays which take a case regarding the salary of an employee 15 years to be decided, inaccessibility of justice, spread of corruption and politicizing judicial process are a buzz but seemed to be the norm. How can one judge a sinner2 if the judge is his/her comrade or, worse, if the act is no longer considered a sin? Definitely, the masses trust on the justice system is constantly dwindling. The government surely knows this and tries to put back its prestige and integrity. For one, they took into account the transparency of Philippine Courts, making reforms for it to be popular and strengthen its principles as well as seeking the ways and reasons behind the delays, corruption and violations of canons making it not only impossible to deliver justice but also inaccessible to the poor. This paper would like to discuss the actions of the government to address such problems, especially focusing on the Action Program for Judicial Reform. The focus would be on the limited access to justice by the poor. However, this paper doesnt cover matters of Sharia courts or muslim peoples inaccessibility to justice.
II.

The Action Program for Judicial Reform

The Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) was created in 2001 with the help of great minds from Japan and US among other countries. It is designed to strengthen the capabilities of courts for better efficiency, flexibility and effectiveness. Improving the Judiciary doesnt stop at reforms in judicial process 3 but extends to the management of the courts, funding and devising alternative mechanisms to fit the needs and desires of

1 An excerpt of the Preamble from the 1987 Constitution. 2 Sinner is used to refer to one who commits a crime or violates laws and not necessarily regarding morality or
religious beliefs.

the modern age. A Judiciary that is: fair, accessible and efficient, independent and self-governed, with a streamlined institutional structure, decentralized, information systems-based, giving competitive and equitable compensation, continuously improving its competence, transparent and accountable, encouraging consensus building and collaboration is the sole principle of Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). In brief, the APJR focuses on six components namely: (1) judicial systems and procedures, (2) institutional development reforms, (3) human resource development, (4) reform support systems, (5) institutional integrity development, and (6) access to justice by the poor, particularly on case congestion and delay, budget deficiency, politicized system of judicial appointments, lack of judicial autonomy, human resource development issues, dysfunctional administrative structure and operating systems, insufficient public information and collaboration with society, perceived corruption in the judiciary, and perceived4 limited access to justice by the poor. For this program to push through, roughly P4.3 billion is needed just for the first six years. The funding comes from sources aside from the National Budget, there are loans and grants by World Bank, and other foreign aids, plus the local investments. The Program Management Office (PMO), which is under the direct administrative and technical supervision of the Chief Justice, is tasked to manage the whole program, monitor it and ensure its effectiveness. This study aims to show how the APJR contributes to accessibility of justice to the poor but first, there is a need to define access to justice, how and why its important,

3 A writ, warrant, subpoena, or other formal writing issued by authority by authority of law; also the means of
accomplishing an end, including judicial proceedings, or all writs, warrants, summonses, and orders of courts of courts of justice or judicial officers. It is likewise held to include a writ, summons, or order issued in a judicial proceeding to acquire jurisdiction of a person or his property, to expedite the cause or enforce the judgment, or a writ, warrant, mandate, or other process issuing from a court of justice (Malaloan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104879, 6 May 1994).

4 It is questionable whether the limited access to justice by the poor is really just in the view of the majority and not
really happening due to the great number of cases clogging the dockets. This phrase is from the main website of APJR (www.apjr.judiciary.gov.ph).

and be able to decide whether APJR did a significant change and if it targeted the real problems and devised effective solutions for it.
III.

Access to Justice

Making justice more accessible means to improve, assist and develop individual and group access to law and justice which supports economic and social development. It must give the poor the opportunity to assert their rights without their economic status or lack of financial capability hindering them to be heard or even just approach any branch or instrumentality of the government under the justice system. Increasing accessibility to courts lessens and overcomes the economic, psychological, informational and physical barriers faced by women, indigenous populations, and other individuals who need its services (worldbank.org). Access has three major components: convenience, availability and affordability. Convenience is not limited to the ease in physically reaching the starting point of service and in receiving the necessary service. Its also when ones time and efforts are not wasted due to long lines, delays, cancelations of proceedings etc. and too much requirements plus facilities and instrumentalities that needed renovation and replacement long time ago. Availability means the presence of proper courts near the complainants or plaintiffs place or the geographical proximity and accessibility of service and of lawyers. Affordability is another because justice system mustnt be cost prohibitive. Moreover, access involves the right to be effectively heard, and theres also the aspect of trust whether the judge is known to be just or corrupt, or whether they believe that true justice will be served by any government instrumentality. This study doesnt cover corruption or trust issues, however. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws as stated in Art. III Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution. In the same Article Section 11, free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty .In the same Constitution it stated further that the Supreme Court

has the duty to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasijudicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court (Art. VIII, Sec. 5). Clearly, justice served is not only our right individually or collectively but also the governments duty to the people without prejudice. It is deemed necessary for a people to survive as it acts as a protection against any exploitation and enables people to live harmoniously due to the presence of order or rule of law thats why its access should be free for the underprivileged. The biggest sectors of the disadvantaged that are in provided legal representation by the lawyers without charge are the urban poor and laborers (formal and informal). There is a noticeable bias towards the urban poor because very few lawyers practice in the rurals. This is why some of the planned projects of APJR revolve on decentralization of the Judiciary. Aside from the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) or Intergrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) which they can approach for legal assistance, the filing fees and hidden costs are still there. Many circumstances and people pervert even the highest law of the land and always seem to find ways to bend it according to their interests. On August 2004, RA 92275 was implemented and all legal fees, docket fees, filing fees and likes have been significantly increased. This was for the Salary Standardization Law raising the salary of selected judiciary personnel which they did deserve but, sadly, the government passed the burden to the people. From then on, the courts experienced a decline in cases and the lawyers complained of clients merely seeking for legal advices or just canvassing for acceptance fees. This is much the same with Department of Justices (DOJ) RA 92796
5RA 9227 or the act granting additional compensation in the form of special allowances for justices, and all other
positions in the judiciary with the equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals and judges of the Regional Trial Court, and for other purpose.

6 Republic Act 9279 or An Act Granting Additional Compensation in the Form of Special Allowances for Members of
the National Prosecution Service and State Counsels of the Department of Justice and for Other Purposes issued DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 42

and En Banc Resolution No. 01-05 (2005) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) regarding the legal fees which adds to the hidden costs of filing a case. These do not even translate to swift delivery of justice. Quoting Atty. Sonny Pulgar, in effect it now becomes the duty of the people to pay the judiciary to do its job. Next time we will pay the PNP to run after the criminals How can there be impartial administration of justice when only the rich and the powerful could go to court? As years pass, not only did the fees increase but the requirements in filing appeals and petitions7 too which not only costs more but also takes too long and much effort. Thankfully, the Supreme Court decided that we must stress that the technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate, the cause of justice8 in one case and despite lacking a certain document upon petition, the court still resolved the matter. The Court has fixed the limitation in the filing of petitions for writs of certiorari and other special civil actions like Mandamus, Prohibition, Injunction, etc. too within 60 days9 from the former 6 months which is anti-poor because of their incidental cluelessness or inherent ignorance regarding legalities and that the poor have other priorities to consider. These laws are obviously against the Constitution. For instance, during a visit in a local Municipal Trial Court, a complainant withdrew her complaint saying that her absences in work cost her more than what she could have pursuing the case. The minimum filing fee is P150-200. This doesnt include the cost of providing the requirements, transportation to and from the court, food when the 7 As the Rules now stand any petition filed before Court of Appeals shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of
the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46(Sections 1-2, Rule 65) and various certification and verifications needed by the plaintiff or principal party. Failure to comply may merit immediate dismissal (Section 5, Rule 7). Furthermore, if the principal party failed to appear in court, (counsel or the petitioner themselves), there is a possibility for dismissal and cant be reopened due to the counsels negligence. (CABALES and TORRES, petitioners, vs. NERY and CA, G.R. No. L-31987 November 21, 1979 ) without these, the petition gets dismissed: 1. The verification and certification of non-forum shopping was not signed by all of the petitioners (Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139395, August 15, 2000); 2. There is no written explanation why personal service of copies of the petition upon respondents was not resorted to (Sec. 11, Rule 13, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure; Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Hon. Helen Bautista-Ricafort, et. al., 293 SCRA 661) 3. Petitioners counsel failed to indicate his Attorneys Roll number (SC resolution dtd. Nov. 12, 2002 in Bar Matter No. 1132).

8 Fiel et. al. -vs.- Kris Security System, Inc. (G.R. No. 155875) 9 Sec. 4, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Court

procedures take so long, and it doesnt consider your time if ever you have work or need to be elsewhere much less your time waiting for justice to be served. One would surely think of the immediate needs first like food, shelter, and work, especially in the midst of rising cost of living, before considering justice. It is a known fact that majority of the Filipinos are poor and even people in the middle class think this way. When a complainant goes to file a criminal case, he/she wants the defendant to be punished and the relief to be given. However, with the new 2004 Circular on pre-trial conferences, the complainant is advised to drop the case so that the criminal would pay because otherwise the criminal wont pay. Without proper knowledge of the law, the complainant agrees and so the criminal gets released as if nothing happened. Reduction of court load mustnt supersede the main objective of the court which is to uphold the law and carry out remedies to the wronged parties and impose appropriate penalties against the guilty parties so as to learn from their unlawful acts. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has based the award of moral damages by adequately considering the official, political, social, and financial standing of the offended parties on one hand, and the business and financial position of the offender on the other (Domingding v. Ng, 55 O.G. 10 cited in the case of Fernando Lopez et al vs. Pan American World Airways, G.R. No. L-22415, March 30, 1966). In other words, the poor may be given only P20,000 for a certain damage but when the rich files regarding the same issue under the same circumstances, they may receive P200,000 as relief. As of 2008, the average relief for the family of a murdered poor person is P50,000 only. The United Nations Development Proggramme (UNDP) stated that access to justice is also closely linked to poverty reduction since being poor and marginalized means being deprived of choices, opportunities, access to basic resources and a voice in decision-making and that we should all be equal before the law otherwise, it would undermine democracy. This is an essential part of democratic governance and a part of the core foundation of any accountable and democratic society. In Indonesia, they built a National Strategy on access to justice because, first and foremost, they recognize that access to justice for the poor is a critical means of eradicating poverty and explicitly

acknowledges the human rights dimensions of poverty. So, in what ways do APJR ensure accessibility to justice?
IV.

Action Program for Reform on Better Accessibility to Justice

World Bank suggested new legislation, subsidized legal services, alternative dispute resolution, citizen education programs, court fee waivers and information technology as other means to improve access. They are also one of the many collaborators in creating APJR. The main solutions APJR has with regard to access to justice by the poor is to promote physical access to the courts as well as speedy and fair adjudication of cases for all, to protect the poor from the abuses of those who claim to influence judicial decisions by strengthening the integrity of the judicial system, and to improve the affordability of judicial services to the poor. According to Madame Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, there are four main factors hindering the access to justice: (1) delays in judicial proceedings, (2) erroneous decisions rendered by lower court, (3) prohibitive costs of litigation, and (4) inadequacy or lack of information about the judicial system. This means that the projects of APJR revolves around policy research using various case studies, building capacity of courts to accept and hear cases which in one way could translate to creation of more courts by the legislative and/or increasing the manpower of the courts, information education and communication (IEC) popularizing judiciary and disseminating basic information about its processes, projects and goals, and improving systems and procedures. Together with the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Alternative Law Groups (ALGs) and Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the government managed to gain positive results in their joint project entitled Improving Governance to Reduce Poverty: Access to Justice for the Poor. Overall, there are 28 concrete projects for access to justice by the poor as of 2006. With 971,406 Euro or PhP58,284,360 budget funded by the European Commission (EC).

Under the joint project is the Strengthening Access to Justice by the Disadvantaged: Freedom and Death Inside the Jail10 to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the penal institutions as well as their capabilities and limitations. They found out that the facilities and basic services are inadequate, they lack personnel and effective programs, there are evident loopholes in police operations, and theres slow judicial work. With this, they recommended having another Quezon City Jail, empowering the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) for them to be able to impose and do their duties which should also be revised or cleared properly, and improving jail programs. Another project is the Study on Addressing Affordability Constraints on Access to Justice by the Poor and the Disadvantaged. It involved surveys to determine the real status of free legal service in the country, organizing workshop to formulate measures and programs addressing affordability constraints, and drafting bills for implementation of the created measures. The findings led them to device solutions such as accrediting law graduates as paralegals representing the poor, having an internship program for law students to assist in providing free legal services adopting development mechanisms for public and private resource mobilization to support affordable legal and judicial services. There are major accomplishments in increasing manpower where the Supreme Court had 88 qualified mediators, 32 judges and 108 court personnel were trained on judicial dispute resolution, procedures for referring cases to the mediation center and processing files, not to mention the added 254 lawyers oriented on mediation and judicial dispute resolution. Alongside strengthening and increasing personnel, the Strategic Gender and Development (GAD) Mainstreaming Plan for the Judicial System allows them to be gender sensitive with their training on gender sensitivity and showcasing prominent women in the judiciary as it was realized that gender bias is one of the main hindrances to justice. There were also additional five Pilot Courts with

10 A Participatory Research on Members of the Quezon City Jail

Information Officers and two operational Mobile Courts11 as of 2006. These results contributed to the convenience and availability of justice and judiciary services. Another project is the Public Education and Advocacy on the Rule of Law (PERLAS) for the primary and secondary education students to acquire basic understanding of the Constitution and of the justice system. At least 75% of lower courts are effective in conducting IEC among court users, specially the poor and marginalized. They also continue to publish materials, conducting public fora, workshops/Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)12 and constituency building to increase IEC. Poor municipalities, previously not having accessed/received materials on the Judicial System, have been given IEC materials since 2007. These allowed the increased network and knowledge of the marginalized regarding their rights and the legal system. These answer the problem with lack of adequate information about law, judicial process, and limited popular knowledge of rights. To reduce backlogs and delays, or basically enhance operational capacity and performance, the Court Administration Management Information System (CAMIS) was made. It is a software for receiving, logging, and monitoring statistical reports on caseload and case information. Until now, the PMO is ensuring the widespread usage of this technology but problems with teaching the personnel persist. Figure 1 Access to Justice by the Poor Projects In the figure above (Figure 1), the actual projects developed are more than the targeted number to be developed. This shows the increased vigor to achieve the noble goal. However, it doesnt translate to success or proper monitoring of the activities. The Judicial Reform Support Project (JRSP) is intended to sustain selected policies and institutional reforms, in concert with related infrastructure developments.
11 Under the project named Justice on Wheels which concentrates on children in conflict with the law and boasted
freeing 1000 detainees within 8 months (Pazzibugan, 2009).

12 From 2004-06, a total of 95 FGDs and workshops have been conducted.

Some bills that are pending in the Congress are regarding juvenille justice, national land use, local sectoral representation, and labor dispute resolution which aids in achieving better access to justice. In these times, many law students specialize in intra-corporate controversies or controversies involving firms, big industries, land and the likes so APJR made policy reform work on review of law schools curriculum and feasibility of offering more courses on human rights. Peoples perception rating of the Judiciary increased by an average of 5% per year for a period of 5 years (2001-2006) and at least 67% approval rating since 2010. This survey was conducted among the clients so, being critical, it is well known that majority of court cases involve people who are well-off and knowledgeable enough..

Court-Case Disposition Rate by Type of Court 2003-2009

Court Total Supreme Court Court of Appeals Sandiganbayan Court of Tax Appeals Regional Trial Courts Metropolitan Trial Courts Municipal Trial Courts in Cities Municipal Trial Courts Municipal Circuit Trial Courts Shari'a District Courts Shari'a Circuit Courts 2003 0.70 0.97 1.00 3.08 0.81 0.64 0.59 0.78 0.77 0.80 2.33 0.71 2004 0.74 0.97 0.96 1.98 0.73 0.69 0.68 0.87 0.77 0.76 1.50 0.89 2005 0.82 0.97 0.71 0.79 0.76 0.84 0.89 0.95 1.17 0.90 2006 0.85 1.20 1.18 1.21 0.79 0.73 0.88 1.03 1.11 0.77 1.07 2007 0.69 1.00 0.93 1.28 0.84 0.68 0.59 0.79 0.72 0.75 0.81 0.93 2008 0.88 0.68 1.90 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.98 1.61 0.67 0.70 2009 0.83 1.54 1.29 0.80 0.74 0.94 1.08 0.88 0.35 0.72

Note: Court-case disposition rate is the ratio of total cases in a year over total cases filed. 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. Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines

There are noticeable inconsistent improvements in the rates of disposition of cases by all courts but overall, there is still increase in backlogs despite the APJR. This means that solutions to delays in judicial proceedings still creates a great hindrance to the poors accessibility to justice and needs further improvement but APJR looks promising enough to hasten proceedings and reduce backlogs. Aside from the data above, APJR boasted of 2,502 court cases had been referred for mediation 1,326 or 64% cases were settled as of June 2005.

V.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Food, jobs and justice. Jose Diokno considered these three as vital components to a surviving society. A society wouldnt be stable without peoples legal empowerment. The poor people who are denied access to justice are the same people who already experience disadvantages of many other kinds, including women, children, people living with disabilities, indigenous peoples, members of racialized minorities, the elderly, prisoners and refugees (Canadian Bar Association, 2006). Such problem is persistent due to the lack of political will of the government. However, with the increased awareness and participation of the government to international organizations such as UN, Asian Development Bank, and Canadian Bar Association among others and participations in international judicial fora, the attention is shifted to the justice system. If the judiciary does not adapt to the demands of becoming an institutional voice for the poor, it will continue to lose legitimacy and recede further into elitism (Dugard, 2008). Since 2001, APJR had been busy and their numerous projects to target six basic goals are slowly bearing fruit. Due to the wide scope of their goals, it is imminent that more manpower and budget is needed to be able to fulfill its goals faster and continue its purpose. There is a need too to educate the public on the ways of judicial process so they wont just rely on lawyers to answer their queries. APJR made ways to strengthen the

communication system of the Judiciary by publishing books, reports, writing articles in newspapers, opening a website in 2007, and the PERLAS project among others. However, whether those materials are easily understandable and accessible by the masses is in question. Fortunately, on the other hand, they realized the proper utilization of modern technology in aiding judicial process and IEC goals. To help in evaluating the outcome, theres a need to refer to Madame Sandovals four factors hindering access to justice. First, efforts to reduce the backlogs and delays in judicial proceedings are really not enough but since most projects are still in early stages. Second, the erroneous decisions rendered by lower courts cant easily be remedied, thus, the solutions are more focused on the future cases. Third, obviously, APJR is not yet successful in reducing the costs of litigation, for their proposals are still pending in Congress but immediate solutions, if maintained and developed, are very promising. These include the additional members of PAO, mediation team, and Mobile Courts. Fourth, inadequacy in information about the judicial system, the laws and the basic rights of the people is addressed by increasing the information education and communication (IEC) materials. The said factors hindering access to justice by the poor arent the only ones to be considered. There are the issues that were enumerated in the early part of this study which sums up to grave abuse of powers 13, limitations in existing remedies in practice or according to the law, and existence of several laws that doesnt support the Constitution. In the end, people still consciously avoid legal system due to financial reasons, fear, or a sense of pointlessness or futility of the action. APJR is now looking into alternatives on raising revenues to support its projects and depending on their decision, this could easily negate the efforts done for the poor. In this capitalist world, there seems to be a need for constant reminder that the justice system isnt there for revenue collection or a mere business opportunity. Furthermore, their meetings lack the voice of the masses and they rely too much on social researches to determine their grievances and needs. In other words, limited public participation in 13
Abuse of authority and powers results in unlawful searches, seizures, detention and imprisonment; and weak enforcement of laws and implementation of orders and decrees (UNDP, 2006)

reform programs is also a hindrance. Planning should include encouraging lawyers to accept cases for the marginalized by any form of recognition, or some form of compensation, to strengthen Katarungang Pambarangay to avoid easily dismissible or premature cases, and to give priority to the poors cases by designating special courts for them in one way. Despite the efforts, there is still much to do for the principle that justice is every persons right to access and must be under an independent and impartial court with the opportunity to receive a fair and just trial in view of an effective remedy to a grievance to be manifested throughout the country which in turn will yield development and prosperity. Bibliography " PUBLIC ORDER, SAFETY AND JUSTICE ." National Statistical COordination Board. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <www.nscb.gov.ph>. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Angelina. "Access to Justice Initiatives: Implementation of Reforms in the Philippines." Asia Pacific Judicial Reofrm Forum. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Supreme Court, Manila. 17 Nov. 2001. Class lecture. "Documents." Asian Development Bank (ADB). N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.adb.org>. Dugard, Jackie. Courts and the Poor in South Africa: A Critique of Systemic Judicial Failures to Advance Transformative Justice. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand, 2008. Print. "Judicial Reform Support Project (JRSP) in the Philippines: Consulting Services for the Conduct of Comprehensive Evaluation." DEVEX Do Good. Do it Well. N.p., 14 Dec. 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <www.devex.com/en/projects/judicial-reformsupport-project-jrsp-in-the-philippines-consulting-services-for-the-conduct-ofcomprehensive-evaluation>. Laserna Jr., Manuel. "Access to justice by the poor." Philippine Laws and Cases - Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.. N.p., 18 July 2008. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2008/07/access-to-justice-by-poor.html>. "Law & Justice Institutions - Access to Justice for the Poor." World Bank Group. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTLAWJUSTINST/0,

,contentMDK:20745998~menuPK:1990386~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~the SitePK:1974062,00.html>. Leon, Hector S.. Textbook on the Philippine Constitution. 1997 ed. Manila: Rex Book Store, 1997. Print. PMO Annual Report 2006. Manila: Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2006. Print. Paul, John. "APJR : The Action Program for Judicial Reform." APJR : The Action Program for Judicial Reform. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://apjr.judiciary.gov.ph/>. Pazzibugan, Donna. "1,000 freed by Justice on Wheels ." Philippine Daily Inquirer [Manila] 28 Feb. 2009: n. pag. Inquirer News. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. "Plans and Reports." National Economic and Development Authority. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <www.neda.gov.ph/Plans_and_Reports/>. Pulgar, Sonny. "ANTI-POOR SUPREME COURT: PHILIPPINE SETTING | SonnyPulgar.com." SonnyPulgar.com | Katataspulong ng Quezon Province. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <http://www.sonnypulgar.com/anti-poor-supremecourt-philippine-setting/>. "RA 9227." The LAWPhil Project. N.p., 23 Oct. 2003. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2003/ra_9227_2003.html>. Strengthening the Communication System of the Judiciary. Manila: Philippine Judiciary, 2003. Print. "The Monitoring and Evaluation System for the Action Program for Judicial Reform." none. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <www.pahrdf.org.ph/pahrdf_/Outputs/M&E %20System-Outputs-581548488282007.pdf>. Torres, Cristina, Rolando Talampas, Alberto Muyot, and Eliza Longalong. A Survey of Private Legal Practitioners to Monitor Access to Justice by the Disadvantaged. Mandaluyong: Arts & Sciences Interdisciplinary Network, Inc., 2003. Print. UNDP. "Access to Justice." Home | United Nations Development Programme. N.p., 3 Sept. 2004. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <http://www.undp.org/>.