Good morning esteemed guests, colleagues, friends, and fellow democrats!

Today, we are launching the 4th in a series of the Philippine democracy assessment. This time, the assessment is on “the rule of law and access to justice”, a work that is co-published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) based in Sweden and the action for economic reforms in the Philippines. The National College Of Public Administration And Governance (NCPAG) of the University of the Philippines Diliman is pleased to host and co-sponsor this event as the NCPAG hopes to be associated with the democracy assessment now and in the future through the IDEA Asia-Pacific Programme.

I am very pleased and honoured to have embarked on this project, namely, the democracy assessment, since 2003, which is a side result of my fellowship at the University of Manchester, Institute for Policy and Development Management. Through this democracy assessment, a new horizon of an intellectual journey opened. I do not primarily refer to this project as an academic undertaking alone, although it certainly is – rather, I consider this as a “public intellectual” contribution. Through the democracy assessment project, my path crossed with political foundations, the practitioners in the field of electoral governance and advocates including constitutional commissioners, legislators, party list representatives, political parties, corruption watchdogs, economic and social development workers, activists, planners, bureaucrats, young leaders, justices of the courts, lawyers, media practitioners, and academics. All of them help and continue to contribute to our understanding of democracy in this country.

The methodology

The democracy assessment allows us citizens and political players, to step back, reflect and discern about the quality of our democracy. As we do the assessment, we experience how we also engage with other citizens who may think differently, in an education about democracy. We discuss, we argue, we agree, we disagree even as we tolerate and respect each other’s views – all these experiences in the democracy assessment tell us how indeed the topic on democracy could as well be a democratic exercise. And if there is one thing that sets apart the democracy assessment from the democracy projects, it is that the methodology does not only enable the citizens to talk about and assess democracy but also that the approach itself is democratic. Unlike the rating and ranking by some experts on democracy, the democracy assessment as a tool adopted by this project treats the citizens as the expert on democracy. Democracy is seen and viewed from the lenses of the citizens, the various players and stakeholders in a given country, and therefore the standards of democracy whilst enjoying some universal elements, do bear the particular texture and flavour of one’s country and context. It adopts a combination of approaches to data gathering techniques – from scanning and analysis of documents and other secondary sources, to key informant and expert interviews, to focus group discussions, to round table discussions among various stakeholders, to poll survey on public perceptions. And quite importantly, a framework that assessors define and adopt based upon a set of questions. I think the key to the democracy assessment is the set of questions that the assessment raises, and not so much the answers to these questions. The questions are raised and framed in such a way that the respondents are allowed the space and the free flow of answers, the depth of interpretations and the breadth of opinions on the rule of law and access to justice such that the answers become discursive and being so, bear out an interesting weave of interpretation and analysis on the quality of democracy. I like the methodology here because it is certainly quite empowering at the same time humbling!

The content of the book

1. The framework

The assessment dissects the rule of law and access to justice by examining the ‘formal versions” and the “substantive versions” of the rule of law and democracy in the words of Walter Bryce Gallie (1956). The framework examines the rule of law (referring to the presence of institutions) such as the laws, the judiciary, as well as the conditions of the rule of law as seen in the politics, the culture, habit a commitment, people’s perceptions, and the transparency and accountability on the one hand, and the access to justice (particularly by the vulnerable sectors) through the affordability of court proceedings, the intelligibility of the proceedings, the efficiency, responsiveness, the mechanisms of information for citizens, and the respect for and recognition of indigenous justice system on the other hand. Rule of law and access to justice are inseparable. The two, when examined under the lenses of the mediating values of accessibility, efficiency, equal treatment to all, representation, responsiveness, predictability of rules, clarity, limits of power and discretion – should achieve the end goals of human rights and of democracy.

2. The chapters

Using this framework, the assessment attempts to examine the extent by which public officials are subject to the rule of law and to the transparent rules in the performance of their functions. This is referred to as the rule of law in public administration. In specific terms, the assessment looks at mutual checks and balance among the branches of government, the accountability of public officials and the constitutional mechanisms for accountability, the accountability of local government and the police, accountability in the military, the people’s right to information, and the deeper assessment of the state of the law versus practice. Some sections in the chapters unravel the stark realities of the human rights violations, the abuse of powers, the failure to bring wrongdoers to justice, and the extent to which the institutions struggle with independence such as in the cases of the ombudsman and congress, among others.

The independence of the courts and the judiciary is examined, particularly the extent to which these are autonomous from the executive, and how free they are from various kinds of interference. Among the findings of the assessment reveal the weakening of mechanisms of checks (such as impeachment and the attempts at overturning unconstitutional actions. However, strengthening of the judicial bar council is noted.

Another chapter of the assessment focuses on access to justice, which examines the extent to which there is due process and equal protection. It seeks answers to the smaller question: how equal and secure is the access of citizens (and i emphasize here, the ordinary citizens and the vulnerable ones) to justice, to due process and to redress in the event of maladministration? Another question is also addressed, such as : are there laws guaranteeing equal treatment of citizens in a justice system? The assessment reveals the laws and practice providing equal protection for vulnerable groups such as labour, farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples, urban poor, women, and children. Furthermore, the laws and rules providing legal remedies to all citizens are examined – particularly the remedies and procedures as these equally apply to all citizens. And to what extent these laws discriminate directly or indirectly against vulnerable groups. Is the justice system accessible to all especially those needing protection? The assessment finds some factors that obstruct justice particularly the costs of legal proceedings, the alienation of the court proceedings from the citizens because of the inaccessibility of language, the overdrawn process and procedures of the courts that in themselves make justice inaccessible to those who have less resources. The diagnosis offers some measures of reform. Then, there is also the assessment of the public attorney’s office, a sanctuary for the poor yet which by itself is beleaguered by the poverty of resources and the number of legal experts who lawyer for the vulnerable. The criminal justice system is examined, as are equally the various facets of the administration of justice in the courts.

A special concern that is linked to the rule of law and access to justice are the challenges both local and global, and which condition the rule of law – namely, the practice on counter terrorism and anti insurgency, and how global policies influence local laws and practices. Similarly examined at length are the laws regarding the Philippine compliance to international conventions particularly those affecting vulnerable groups. The list of international conventions is long, however, the compliance to these is not necessarily remarkable – to put it kindly.

Finally, thanks to the social weather stations, the assessment has an interesting chapter on the public perception on judicial and other institutions. Although the people’s perceptions may not necessarily be true or correct, or something that you and i may agree to, nevertheless, the perceptions are themselves a reality and a perspective about how the people think about the rule of law and access to justice. Bringing in the people’s perceptions is important. The questions asked pertain to perceptions of people across background, territory or geography, and so on, about the judicial and other institutions and the extent to which people trust these institutions including the courts, the police and judicial authorities. I must say that during our focus group discussions and validation, the participants find the public perceptions quite interesting and revealing as well. In fact, the integrated bar of the philippines in cebu suggested tjat we go around the country amongst various ibp chapters to present the findings on public perceptions so that the legal practitioners are made aware about how people think about them and the justice system. These perceptions affirm that many people seek refuge in institutions and authorities that are proximate to them and that, they think there has not been much reforms taking place during the last 5 years or so, in the judicial institutions and similar institutions. There is so much challenge for civil society efforts to pursue education about access to justice. I hasten to add, measures are necessary to reform the rule of law in public administration.

As a summary, the assessment says: in the Philippines there are formal institutions and rules of justice in place, thanks to the modern institutions. However, the performance of these institutions sometimes contradicts the fundamental principles and the purposes of justice and democracy. A number of reasons explain the ineffectiveness of such institutions and rules, including the grey areas in the letter of some laws and rules which make the implementation of such rules subject to the interpretation of legal practitioners and of the courts, inaccessibility of the procedures and the language of the court proceedings which alienate the legal experts from the common people, and the incoherence of rules as defined by various institutions and agencies of justice. A significant factor that explains the weakness of the rule of law has to do with the functioning of the public administrative institutions. These weaknesses include the constraint on resources, the slow disposition of court cases which is linked to the vulnerability to corruption by legal practitioners and law enforcers, or even by the lack of appreciation of the rule of law and justice among enforcers and legal practitioners. Despite the challenges to justice reforms, a redeeming value is the civil society and the paralegal advocates to boost the trust in legal institutions and to educate the communities on the rule of law and justice.

Finally, to close my presentation and because we failed to acknowledge them in the book, I wish to acknowledge the constant support and cooperation extended by our reliable friends and companions in the democracy assessment, all these years – without whom, the assessments would never have been made possible: special thanks to the 3 m’s namely, 1) Mon Fernan, our resident editor who works so hard behind the scene but is certainly, the ‘wind beneath the wings’ of democracy assessment, 2) Maricor Baytion and the Ateneo de Manila press for being there always and for being flexible and supportive about the conditions and terms as well as the costs of printing. Whenever there are odds, Maricor would be quick to say: “ no worries… we shall do it” , and 3) the great, respectable and sometimes controversial Mahar Mangahas and the Social Weather Stations, for lending us not only their expertise in surveys and polling, but also for sharing us the commitment to democracy through the eyes of the public. To you all, many, many thanks and more power to you! I look forward to working with you again on the fifth democracy assessment and more.