Republic of the Philippines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

Sixteenth Congress
First Regular Session

HOUSE BIL'No, 38872

Introduced by HONORABLE ROMERO “MIRO” S. QUIMBO

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Although statistics on Philippine corruption has been improving, most
recently jumping 11 spots in both World Economic Forum’s Global
Competitiveness Report! and Transparency International’s Corruption
Perception Index in 20132, we still need to intensify the crusade against
corruption. Despite the gains so far made, corruption still remains as the
most problematic factor in doing business in the Philippines according to
the Global Competitiveness Report®, which, accordingly, curtails the
potentials of our economy. ‘This is but one of the deleterious effects of the
corrosion that corruption brings to our society. Also, the same report shows
that in terms of efficiency of the legal framework, much has yet to be
improved by our judicial institutions.

Perhaps one of the legal loopholes which inadvertently aid corruption in the
country are the snail-paced prosecution and adjudication of cases,
particularly in the Sandiganbayan. This, in turn, is attributed to congestion
problems and limited number of Justices to sit on and dispose cases, At
present, the Sandiganbayan is divided into five (5) divisions of three (3)
Justices each. Considering the magnitude of cases the Justices have to
hear and decide on, with 2,600 cases pending as of last year, the slow grind
of the wheels of justice is an inevitable product of the current system. It has
been said that the litigation of a case in Sandiganbayan takes about five to

* Desiderio, Louella. “Global Competitiveness: Phl Up Six Notches to 59", The Philippine Star website, 5
September 2013. <http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/09/05/1172731/global-competitiveness-phl-six-
notches-S9th, accessed 09 February 2014>.

* Corruption Perception Index 2013, Transparency International website, December 2013. <
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/, accessed 09 February 2014>.

* Schwab, Klaus. Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013,
<chttp://www3,weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf, accessed 09 February
2014>.


eight years before they are promulgated.

‘This bill is an ameliorative approach in declogging the dockets of the
Sandiganbayan with the least cost to the government. The bill is aiming to
amend Section 3 of Presidential Decree 1606, as amended, to allow
individual justices of the Court to sit and receive evidence, for and in behalf
of his/her Division instead of requiring the presence of the three justices
before a case is heard and evidence is received. The bill also ensures that a
Justice-in-Charge is able to oversee the development of cases in his/her
division.

‘This legislative measure is a counterpart of Senate Bill 470, which Senator
Franklin M. Drilon has authored. In my shared vision and commitment
with Senator Drilon to improve our judicial system and support our
government's fight against corruption, | am earnestly secking the immediate
approval of this measure by Congress.

* Bordadora, Norman. “2 Senate Bills to Make Sandigan More Effective”, The Philippine Daily Inquirer website,
12 July 2013, <http://newsinfo inquirer net/443387/2-senate-bills-to-make-sandigan-more-effective, accessed
09 February 2014>


Republic of the Philippines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

Sixteenth Congress
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL No, 8872

Introduced by HONORABLE ROMERO “MIRO” S. QUIMBO

AN ACT
FURTHER AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended,

is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 3 ~ Divisions of Courts; Quorum. The Sandiganbayan shall sit
in five (5) dvisions of three justices each. [The five (5) may sit at the same

time.

‘Three Justices shall constitute a quorum for sessions in divisions:
Provided, That when the required quorum for the particular division cannot
be had due to the legal qualification or] IN CASE OF temporary disability of
a Justice or [of] a vacancy [occuring therein], the Presiding Justice may
designate [an Associate] ANOTHER Justice of the Court, to be determined
by strict rotation on the basis of the reverse order of precedence, to sit as a
special member of said division with all the rights and prerogatives of a
regular member of said division in the trial and determination of a case or
cases assigned thereof [, unless the operation of the court will be prejudiced
thereby, in which case, the President shall, upon recommendation of the
Presiding Justice, deisgnate any Justice or Justices of the Court of Appeals


to sit temporarily therein].

EVERY CASE FILED WITH THE SANDIGANBAYAN SHALL BE
RAFFLED FOR ASSIGNMENT TO A JUSTICE-IN-CHARGE, WHO SHALL
MONITOR AND REPORT THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CASE TO THE
MEMBERS OF HIS DIVISION. THE JUSTICE-IN-CHARGE SHALL HEAR
AND RECEIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE DIVISION TO WHICH HE BELONGS
AND RESOLVE EVERY INCIDENT THAT ARISES IN THE COURSE OF
THE PROCEEDING IN THAT CASE.

AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DECISION, THE
JUSTICE-IN-CHARGE SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE DIVISION,
WHICH REPORT SHALL CONTAIN A SUMMARY OF THE CONFLICTING
CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES, THE ISSUE OR ISSUES INVOLVED, THE
ARGUMENTS OF THE CONTENDING SIDES, AND THE LAWS AND
JURISPRUDENCE THAT CAN AID THE DIVISION IN DECIDING OR
RESOLVING THE CASE.

IN CONSULTATION, THE THREE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION
SHALL AGREE ON THE CONCLUSION OR CONCLUSIONS IN THE CASE
AND ASSIGN A MEMBER TO WRITE THE DECISION FOR THE DIVISION.
IF THE UNANIMOUS VOTE OF ALL ITS MEMBERS CANNOT BE HAD,
THE PRESIDING JUSTICE SHALL DEISGNATE BY RAFFLE TWO
SPECIAL MEMBERS FOR THE DIVISION TO CONSTITUTE IT INTO
DIVISION OF FIVE JUSTICES. THE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OF SUCH
DIVISION SHALL PREVAIL.

SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,