ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS

issued by the Supreme Court from 2010-2015

In partial fulfillment with the requirements in Legal Techniques and Logic

Is submitted by:

Agutaya, Ma. Angeli Graciella W.

Kalaw, Ann Bernadette M.

Lafuente, Fionna Lyn A.

Marquez, Agrieliza

Olmedo, Jessica L.

to:

Atty. Chato A. Cabigas-Punzalan

INTRODUCTION

By virtue of an express grant by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. This supervision includes, among others, issuing administrative orders detailing rules and procedures anent the internal matters in the Judiciary.

Administrative Orders (AO) are enforceable orders issued by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its powers over the courts and quasi-judicial bodies under its administrative supervision for the latter to take certain actions or refrain from doing something (Insert Citation). These orders may have objectives such as efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of internal affairs in the judicial department. The importance of these administrative orders cannot be overlooked. These orders help the Judiciary in achieving its avowed purpose.

This study aims to provide a simplified explanation of the matters addressed by the following Administrative Orders issued by the Supreme Court from 2010 to 2015: Administrative Order No. 87-2010, Administrative Order No. 103-2011, Administrative Order No. 171-2012, Administrative Order No. 52-2013, Administrative Order No. 138-2014, and Administrative Order No. 80-2015.

BODY

This part details the discussion of each Administrative Order issued by the Supreme Court per year from 2010-2015. Among the matters discussed are the purpose, scope, and authority given under each administrative order.

I. Administrative Order No. 87-2010

Administrative Order No. 87-2010 was issued to decentralize administrative and financial management functions, based on the principle of subsidiarity. The said decentralization is intended to improve efficiency in the management of limited resources and to provide prompt and responsive services to the first and second level courts. The same order vests certain powers to the Court Administrator and provides for the creation of an Oversight Unit.

The Court Administrator was given responsibility in the overall management of the implementation of the decentralization process and in the overall authority over administrative and financial management functions involving the 3rd, 7th and 11th Judicial Regions and the Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) therein, and such other RCAOs which may be established thereafter. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (B.P. 129), otherwise known as “The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980”, provides for the creation of Regional Trial Courts in thirteen judicial regions. B.P. 129 provides that: 3rd Judicial Region shall be composed of the provinces of Bataan, Bulacan (except the municipality of Valenzuela), Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, and Zambales; 7th Judicial Region shall be composed of the provinces of Bohol, Cebu, Negros Oriental, and Siquijor, and the cities of Bais, Canlaon, Cebu, Davao, Dumaguete, Lapu-Lapu, Mandaue, Tagbilaran and Toledo; and 11th Judicial Region shall be composed of the provinces of Davao del Norte, Davao Oriental, Davao del Sur, South Cotabato, and Surigao del Sur, and the cities of Davao, and General Santos.

In the implementation of the decentralization process, the Court Administrator has the power to administer the centrally managed funds within the approved allotment and cash programs of the judicial region and its RCAO, including the timely review and approval of requests by RCAO for releases from these funds and to recommend to the Chief Justice budget realignments.

An Oversight Unit (OU) was created to act as the coordination and capacity-building arm of the Court Administrator for the implementation of the decentralization process. Among the functions of the OU are the coordination of actions that require integrated decisions and the provision

of guidance to the RCAOs in the formulation of their proposed annual budgets, annual work and financial plans, allotment programs and cash programs.

II. Administrative Order No. 103-2011

Due to accumulation of voluminous records and numerous physical evidence over the last half century by the trial courts, storage space for these records and evidence has been sorely lacking, leading to using all available free space in the Halls of Justice, including public hallways and corridors, stairwells, basements, and even fire exits. This resulted in improper and unsafe storage practices, exposure of the papers and documents to loss, as well as danger to the courts and their personnel, and the general public.

To address the aforementioned problems, a system of records disposal has been created by virtue of Administrative Order No. 103-2011. The said administrative order prescribes the guidelines to be followed by the concerned trial courts in the disposal and maintenance of court records. These guidelines will not govern when there is a specific law governing the disposal of certain court records, papers and/or exhibits.

To start, a Records Disposal Period was set from July 16, 2011 to August 15, 2011 for all trial courts, both First Level Courts and Second Level Courts, as well as the Office of the Clerk of Courts, in the cities of Quezon, Manila, Makati and Angeles. During this period, hearings shall only be conducted on urgent matters such as but not limited to applications for habeas corpus, writs of Amparo or habeas data, temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, temporary/permanent protection order, applications for bail, arraignment and trial of detained accused, and the like.

The procedure as outlined in the order starts with the publication of the notice of Records Disposal Period in major dailies in the country notifying the public that they may withdraw residual records (those which the courts are not bound to electronically copy and preserve) within fifteen days from the publication upon application with the branch concerned or if unknown, with the Office of the Clerk of Court and payment of the retrieval fee of five hundred Pesos. This fee shall be refunded to the applicant if the requested file cannot be located anymore and a certification that it could no longer be located shall be issued. Upon receipt of any application for retrieval, a “hold list” is drawn up enumerating the case details covered by the application, records of which should be set aside accordingly. A notice of the intention to dispose court records is also posted by the trial courts concerned for the duration of the Records Disposal Period in the individual

branches, and in conspicuous places in the Halls of Justice, the City Hall, and the Central Post Office in the station.

The Records Disposal Period was devoted primarily to sorting and segregating the inactive case records, which include archived cases, disposed cases, and those in the dead files, to identify records for destruction in accordance with the following guidelines.

1. In cases where all proceedings have been terminated for a period exceeding 20 years on the date of the required inventory, all trial court records, papers and exhibits, including object evidence/exhibits which by their nature cannot be appended to case records, shall be completely destroyed subject to the retention of the decision, order or resolution that finally disposes of the case.

2. In cases where all proceedings have been terminated for at least seven years on the date of the required inventory, the same shall be set aside for complete destruction subject to the retention of certain documents such as:

a. In all civil cases, special civil actions, special proceedings, land registration cases and commercial court cases: complaint, petition or other initiatory pleading; any responsive pleading; the decision, order or resolution that finally disposes of the case; the certificate of finality; any outstanding writ of execution; and in land registration cases, the sepia film plan and the original of the technical description of the property.

b. In all criminal cases: the Information; the decision, order or resolution that finally disposes of the case; any proof of identity of the accused; the final discharge of the accused from probation; and the order of commitment of the accused to serve the sentence imposed by the court.

c. In all family court cases, whether civil or criminal in nature: all records and exhibits.

d. In naturalization cases: the petition and all its attachments; the decree, order or resolution either granting or denying the petition; and the subscribed oath as citizen of the applicant.

e. Where the contents of a case record are illegible and beyond recognition: if the status of the case is known and verifiable as disposed from other court records, such as the docket book, the entire record shall be completely destroyed.

Upon segregation in accordance with these guidelines, a list was prepared outlining the documents for destruction which was submitted to the Executive Judge by August 17, 2011 who compiled all the documents in the station and submitted the same to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) not later than August 19, 2011. The Court Administrator is the one who sought authority for destruction from the Executive Director, National Archives of the Philippines. Upon approval, destruction of case records, papers and exhibits was carried out through shredding and recycling, as the OCA deems proper.

The records, papers and exhibits that are required to be maintained shall be in the custody of the Clerk of Court, and shall be scanned and electronically copied in a manner to be determined most expedient by the OCA. Once scanned, the electronic files shall be stored at a Central Information Facility at the Office of the Clerk of Court of each station concerned.

These guidelines shall be conducted periodically every seven years, as scheduled by the OCA. Also, a mechanism for periodic monitoring and productivity assessment review shall be set up per station and under the supervision of the OCA.

III. Administrative Order No. 171-2012

In order to protect court personnel and the transacting public at large and to secure records and office equipment, Administrative Order No. 171-2012 was issued transferring the location of Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Tanjay City, Negros Oriental. The said court was previously situated in an old building which was fire hazard which posed danger to the life and limb of the court personnel and of the public. It was temporarily transferred to the Hall of Justice (HOJ) in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental.

It was ordered that the said Regional Trial Court will be transferred to its official station in Tanjay City within three (3) years or earlier from its temporary location in the HOJ, Dumaguete City. The Office of HOJ of Dumaguete City was ordered to supervise and coordinate the immediate accommodation and transfer of the said court as aforementioned. Presiding Judge Winston M. Villegas of the same court and the HOJ were ordered to coordinate with the local government of Tanjay City for the eventual transfer thereat.

IV. Administrative Order No. 52-2013

On 20 March 2013, Administrative Order No. 52-2013 was approved allowing the Branch 7, Regional Trial Court of Baganga, Davao Oriental and the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Cateel-Boston, Davao Oriental to rent

office spaces citing Sections 53.2 and 53.10 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9184 which allows negotiated procurement. The said order granted Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez the authority to personally discuss with the interested lessors their proposals and to sign the agreed contract. The charging of the total amount of the lease contract for a period of one (1) year should be charged against the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) of the Halls of Justice as provided in the said order.

V. Administrative No. 138-2014

Administrative No. 138-2014 provided the exemption of Branch 32, Regional Trial Court, Calbayog City, Samar from the application of Section 5, Chapter V of the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated 27 January 2004 in Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC, “Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of the Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties”. The said administrative matter deals on the exclusion of the vacant courts from the raffle of cases and said court shall be included in the raffle of newly-filed cases. The administrative order partially amended the designation of Judge Lampasa as Acting Judge of Branch 32, RTC, Calbayog City, Samar pursuant to Administrative Order No. 27-2014 dated 18 February 2014.

Accordingly, “all newly-filed cases shall be divided between branches 31 and 32 on the ratio of 2:1, that is, two (2) cases for Branch 31, and one (1) case for Branch 32. However, no case/s which need immediate action such as but not limited to writ of habeas corpus, issuance of search warrant, application for the issuance of temporary restraining order, etc. shall be raffled to Branch 32, whenever at the time of the raffle Acting Presiding Judge Lampasa is not holding court sessions or not reporting at Branch 32, RTC, Calbayog City, Samar”.

VI. Administrative Order No. 80-2015

Atty. Vicente M. Joyas, National President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) requested in a letter dated 29 April 2015 for the designation of official court observers and alternates in the regional elections of the Board of Governors of the IBP. The said elections were held simultaneously on 30 May 2015 at different venues, pursuant to Section 15, Article 1 of the By-Laws of the IBP.

The designated judges, as observers and alternatives, were ordered to coordinate with the Chapter President in their respective areas. It was provided in the said administrative order that a report should be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator, within ten (10) days from the date of the election. The report should include the following: a list of the duly

elected governors; any incident that may constitute any prohibited acts and practices relative to elections provided for in Section 14, Article 1 of the By-Laws of the IBP; and any other matter that in their opinion should be brought to the attention of the Court.

CONCLUSION

The proponents conclude that for more efficient and effective conduct of the affairs of the judicial department, the Supreme Court issues administrative orders pursuant to its administrative supervision over all courts from time to time as it may deem proper to suit the needs of the Judiciary. Like any issuance or order of the other two branches of the government; i.e. the legislative and executive department, administrative orders issued by the Supreme Court play a vital role in our society. These orders deal with matters that are within the competence or power of the Supreme Court as may be provided by the Constitution or applicable statute, or those matters that are internal in the judicial department. It cannot, as a rule, confer jurisdiction to the courts or provide for the creation of the same, which are matters that are within the exclusive province of the legislative department as mandated by the fundamental law of the land.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Section 6, Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution, February 2, 1987.

Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 87-2010, May 17, 2010.

Section 13, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, August 14, 1981.

Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 103-2011, July 11, 2011.

Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 171-2012, November 5, 2012.

Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 52-2013, March 25, 2013.

Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 138-2014, September 25, 2014.

Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 80-2015, May 14, 2015.