Comments on: We remain ruled, but by our own brothers http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/we-remain-ruled-but-by-our-own-brothers/ In the dark, dark days of martial law, we used to read between the lines, to ferret out the truth... Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:59:49 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: danabatnag http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/we-remain-ruled-but-by-our-own-brothers/#comment-13 danabatnag Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:38:45 +0000 http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/?p=15#comment-13 good points. i'm not ready to concede that there is no divide in philippine society, but there may be other reasons than the one that i cited. :) this time, you know more about the topic, not me, so i won't argue. thanks for the comments, i hope you'll check out the other law school notes i plan to post later (that way i get free tips! hahaha!) seriously, you have a good point. and they improve the discussion :) good points. i’m not ready to concede that there is no divide in philippine society, but there may be other reasons than the one that i cited. :)
this time, you know more about the topic, not me, so i won’t argue. thanks for the comments, i hope you’ll check out the other law school notes i plan to post later (that way i get free tips! hahaha!)
seriously, you have a good point. and they improve the discussion :)

]]> By: Francis Acero http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/we-remain-ruled-but-by-our-own-brothers/#comment-12 Francis Acero Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:38:12 +0000 http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/?p=15#comment-12 The jury system seems to be better than the system that we have at the moment (bench trial), but as I practice more, I become more convinced that having a jury might not be the for the best, not for the old reasons that you cite - such as having no faith in the Filipino - but for other reasons: a) We can't afford a jury system. b) A jury system is prone to ad hominem arguments that put undue emphasis on choice of lawyer. c) The grass is always greener on the other side - we'll be singing the praises of a bench trial if we ever do make that switch. First, finding a jury that can do what it is supposed to do is expensive. We do not have a dependable identification system to notify potential jurors that they are being called to serve. We do not have satisfactory housing for these people while they are serving jury duty. Nor do we have any space for them inside our courtrooms. A jury will stay in isolation for as long as necessary in evaluating the weight of evidence. In the meantime, they will have to be compensated financially. They must be able to serve without fear of losing work. What happens when the person summoned to jury duty is a seaman or similarly situated OFW? Second, a jury (even in the United States) is prone to ad hominem arguments. This is a major source of tort law reform in the United States, where awards for damages can skyrocket exponentially just because one lawyer is able to use courtroom drama to a better extent than the next guy. Here, battles are won and lost on paper. I doubt if questions of fact can be resolved better by such a system. Third, even when an award has been reached by a jury, most convicts will still insist on a bench-decided appeal to convict, overturn, or remand a judgment reached by a jury. This is because these trials do not need to explain why a case is decided a certain way. Remove court justifications for their decisions, and no one will ever get a sense that they got a fair shake. Take President Estrada's Sandiganbayan verdict, which was read only in its dispositive - a choice made by President Estrada. The guilty verdict there would have put the lives of the jurors at risk precisely because these people would not need to explain why the former President is/was guilty of plunder. Contrast that with the Hubert Webb decision (which was read in full), and there's more credibility there, at least in my perspective (even though I personally disagree with the weight given to particular testimony). This is not to say that the system is perfect. Systems should be subject to refinement to improve productivity and decrease downtime. However, just because a system seems to work somewhere else does not necessarily mean it will work here. My two cents. :) The jury system seems to be better than the system that we have at the moment (bench trial), but as I practice more, I become more convinced that having a jury might not be the for the best, not for the old reasons that you cite – such as having no faith in the Filipino – but for other reasons:

a) We can’t afford a jury system.
b) A jury system is prone to ad hominem arguments that put undue emphasis on choice of lawyer.
c) The grass is always greener on the other side – we’ll be singing the praises of a bench trial if we ever do make that switch.

First, finding a jury that can do what it is supposed to do is expensive. We do not have a dependable identification system to notify potential jurors that they are being called to serve. We do not have satisfactory housing for these people while they are serving jury duty. Nor do we have any space for them inside our courtrooms.

A jury will stay in isolation for as long as necessary in evaluating the weight of evidence. In the meantime, they will have to be compensated financially. They must be able to serve without fear of losing work. What happens when the person summoned to jury duty is a seaman or similarly situated OFW?

Second, a jury (even in the United States) is prone to ad hominem arguments. This is a major source of tort law reform in the United States, where awards for damages can skyrocket exponentially just because one lawyer is able to use courtroom drama to a better extent than the next guy. Here, battles are won and lost on paper. I doubt if questions of fact can be resolved better by such a system.

Third, even when an award has been reached by a jury, most convicts will still insist on a bench-decided appeal to convict, overturn, or remand a judgment reached by a jury. This is because these trials do not need to explain why a case is decided a certain way. Remove court justifications for their decisions, and no one will ever get a sense that they got a fair shake.

Take President Estrada’s Sandiganbayan verdict, which was read only in its dispositive – a choice made by President Estrada. The guilty verdict there would have put the lives of the jurors at risk precisely because these people would not need to explain why the former President is/was guilty of plunder. Contrast that with the Hubert Webb decision (which was read in full), and there’s more credibility there, at least in my perspective (even though I personally disagree with the weight given to particular testimony).

This is not to say that the system is perfect. Systems should be subject to refinement to improve productivity and decrease downtime. However, just because a system seems to work somewhere else does not necessarily mean it will work here.

My two cents. :)

]]>