Expanding and Enhancing Justice Zones (PH0068)

Brief Description of the Commitment

Overall, the commitment is geared towards enhanced administration of justice through intensified justice sector coordination at the local level, which is implemented through the Justice Zones. Four milestones are laid out under this commitment: (1) increase in the number of Justice Zones nationwide; (2) setup of Transparency Boards in all Justice zones; (3) jail decongestion efforts; and (4) enhancing psychosocial rehabilitation for drug dependent persons.

Problem Definition

1. What problem does the commitment aim to address?

a. Lack of access to justice is a recurring theme when one is asked to describe the Philippines’ justice system. While the reasons therefor vary from sector to sector, the fragmented approach employed by the justice sector actors in addressing justice issues and concerns is easily identified as the root cause that eventually affects one’s access to justice. Considering the myriad of justice sector agencies, a person may find himself or herself at a loss as to which agency can provide the proper relief. It thus becomes incumbent on the justice sector agencies to collectively assess and improve the user experience of the service users in the locality at different stages of the legal process. The primary and overarching problem sought to be remedied by the establishment of Justice Zones and the enhancement of existing ones is the fragmented manner by which the different institutions in the justice system operate, especially at the local level. The various pillars of the justice system have long been accustomed to performing their respective roles in the system with narrow focus on their own spheres of authority. They act independently of each other despite having the same service users. This approach often results in finger-pointing and blame passing: the courts dismiss the cases for lack of evidence, blaming the prosecution; the fiscals, in turn, blame the police for lack of better evidence gathering or handling; and the police blame the courts and the prosecutors for lack of policy guidance or inconsistency in procedures or requirements. To address this fragmented approach, Justice Zones have been created to serve as avenues, not just for the traditional “cooperation” among these institutions at the local level, but for their unified action as a sector. This initiative promotes a “sector perspective” in the performance of the institutions’ respective roles. It has thus become necessary to establish more Justice Zones in different parts of the country to replicate and build on the successes of the existing Justice Zones in their localities.

b. Another matter to address is the lack of publicly available data on the number of cases filed and disposed of by the different courts. The data can be used by non-government actors to assess the performance of each court and its staff. Building on the Naga City Justice Zone’s practice of displaying its courts’ data for public viewing and utilizing technology, a Transparency Board will be available online to promote transparency and accountability. Later, other Justice Zones will also be directed to provide data for their own Transparency Boards. Once the data from several Justice Zones become available, a microsite dedicated for these boards can be set up and linked to the Supreme Court or the Office of the Court Administrator’s website.

c. A significant challenge in the justice system is the congestion of jails, which not only negatively impacts the health of the persons deprived of liberty but also reflects the pace at which their cases are handled. It has been reported that the nationwide congestion rate is at 370% and that 336, out of 447 jail facilities in the country, are at full capacity.1 While several efforts have been made to improve these numbers, more still needs to be done. For this reason, a jail decongestion project will be conducted with the objectives of reducing admissions, increasing releases, and expanding the capacities of jail facilities. This project would need the engagement for civil service organizations, especially those providing legal aid services, to contribute to the discussion and in proposing solutions to the identified issues and problems relative to jail congestion.

d. As regards drug cases, re-offending was identified as a problem due to drug dependency. Rather than punish reoffenders, a more holistic solution that will address the root cause of the problem is to provide psychosocial rehabilitation to them. This hopes to not only steer them away from committing crimes or taking prohibited drugs again but give them direction after their release.

2. What are the causes of the problem? The various pillars of the justice system have long been accustomed to a fragmented approach of accomplishing the tasks within their respective spheres of authority, acting independently of each other. As regards the criminal justice system, the five pillars are: (a) the courts; (b) prosecution and public attorneys; (c) correction facilities; (d) law enforcement; and (e) community. Prior to the creation of the JSCC and the Justice Zones, the lack of intensified coordination efforts hindered the identification and implementation of holistic solutions that require a multi-stakeholder approach.

Commitment description

1. What has been done so far to solve the problem? Background:  April 30, 2010 marked the establishment of the Justice Sector Coordinating Council (JSCC), which is composed of the institutions in the justice system, specifically the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Interior and Local Government. The JSCC member institutions aim to (a) work on cross-cutting issues affecting the justice system while at the same time, respect and preserve the independence of the offices and agencies, (b) adopt a coordinated approach to justice sector policy making, planning, and operations; and (c) identify priority issues and challenges that may be collectively addressed and meet on a regular basis.  The JSCC’s flagship program for justice sector coordination at the local level is the establishment of Justice Zones. These are areas or localities where several inter-agency coordinative reforms are present based on pre- identified elements, which cover the entire lifetime of a criminal case: from case start-up (initiatory complaint, arrest, investigation, case build-up), to case adjudication (prosecution, pre-judgment detention, decision), post- judgment incidents (probation, parole, service of sentence).  To date, 12 Justice Zones have been established nationwide. (i.e., Quezon City in 2014; Cebu City in 2018; Davao City, Angeles, Bacolod City and Naga City – all in 2019; Calamba City in 2021; Balanga City and Baguio City in 2022; Zamboanga City, Tagaytay City, and Puerto Princesa City in 2023). These Justice Zones have proven to be effective mechanisms and platforms for coordination among the local justice sector stakeholders.  Notably, the JSCC has decided to constitute “specialty Justice Zones” which will focus on specific areas of concern. For instance, Zamboanga City is the first specialty Justice Zone that focuses on trafficking in persons cases and is envisioned as a “Trafficking-Free” Justice Zone, while the Tagaytay City Justice Zone focuses on economic development and tourism. The Puerto Princesa Justice Zone is the first ever Green Zone, not only in the Philippines, but also in the Asia-Pacific Region. It was launched last November 10, 2023.  During the series of Justice Zones Dialogues in 2022 and 2023, the JSCC Technical Working Group on Processes and Capacity Building (PCB) identified activities that can be adopted in all Justice Zones. The activities were categorized into these four focus areas: Barangay Justice System; Jail Decongestion; Rehabilitation and Reintegration; and Gender and Social Inclusion. Selected activities under these areas are specified in this document as part of the commitment to enhance the administration of justice.  Notably, the targets of setting up Transparency Boards, conducting jail decongestion programs, and providing psychosocial rehabilitation to drug depedents are just some of the activities in the existing Justice Zones that are envisioned to be replicated in all Justice Zones nationwide. The ultimate objective is to enhance the administration of justice in a manner that is felt at the local level.

2. What solution are you proposing? To recap, these are the solutions or activities to be implemented: 1. The establishment of more Justice Zones nationwide to proactively address the challenges of the justice sector institutions in their respective localities 2. The creation of digital Transparency Boards to promote transparency and accountability by having publicly viewable information regarding the cases initiated and disposed of in each court 3. The conduct of jail congestion programs in all Justice Zones, which will start with a national summit 4. The inclusion of psychosocial rehabilitation aspect in drug-related cases

3. What results do we want to achieve by implementing this commitment? The completion of the above-mentioned solutions is envisioned to result in the more holistic approach of the different institutions involved in the justice system. The specific metrics for success of these endeavors are detailed later in this form.

Additional Information

This commitment is in line with Chapter 13.2 of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2023-2028, Enhance Administration of Justice, as well as the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations (SPJI) 2022-2027.

Commitment analysis

1. How will the commitment promote transparency? The commitment will improve the citizens’ understanding of how the justice system works. In turn, the trust of the citizens in the justice sector will greatly improve with the raised awareness of how the processes and actors work, leaving no room for doubt and speculation. This is achieved by expanding the justice system’s reach to various citizens in different localities of the Philippines and allowing them to become more aware and familiar with the different modalities of attaining justice and by displaying relevant and updated information of the lead officers and agencies which are responsible in addressing the citizens’ concerns and issues.

2. How will the commitment help foster accountability? The clear designation of tasks between and among justice sector actors will allow the public to pinpoint the stages and actors where delays and other issues occur, to identify and exact accountability and to address inefficiencies. This is achieved by making the responsible heads, officers and agents of the three justice sector institutions mindful of their duties to the citizens not only in Metro Manila but also across the Philippines. Expanding the reach of the justice system imposes upon the said responsible personalities the duty to ensure the effective and timely delivery of justice in far flung areas, knowing that more people can better monitor and access who are the designated authorities.

3. How will the commitment improve citizen participation in defining, implementing, and monitoring solutions? Citizen participation is essential in the success of a Justice Zone. The community, as a pillar of the Justice Sector, plays an important role in the success of every Justice Zone. In particular, the community through the Barangays spearhead the Barangay Justice System to screen disputes from entering the formal court system. Likewise, in the area of psycho-social rehabilitation and community integration, the community takes a leadership role. This is achieved by providing more relevant and timely information to the citizens which are useful in their assessment of the changes and development of the criminal justice system in the Philippines. Expanding the presence of the different justice sector institutions will drive the curiosity of the citizens who, in effect, would be more engaged and vigilant of their rights and privileges.

See action plan for commitment milestones and expected outputs.

Action Plan Review

Commitment 5. Establishing the Procurement Diagnostics Hub

Commitment 5 seeks to establish a Procurement Diagnostics Hub that would contain comprehensive procurement data analytics and diagnostics. While it promises to regularly publish procurement analytics, it remains limited in scope and lacks concrete steps to facilitate citizens to use the hub to monitor public procurement. This commitment builds on a pilot project implemented by the Government Procurement Policy Board Technical Support Office (GPPB-TSO) with technical assistance from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office in 2018–2019. The pilot project generated analytics related to procurement timeliness, bid statistics, supplier participation, and major procurement risks in 2019, [65] but no comprehensive analytics had been published since then. [66] The implementation of this commitment’s first two milestones to finalize the Procurement Diagnostics Hub framework preceded the publication of the action plan in December 2023. During implementation, the IRM recommends piloting a participatory review of the procurement process (from planning to implementation and reporting) that establishes a clear mechanism for how public inputs will be collected and a mandate for government agencies to provide reasoned responses on how those inputs are considered.