Manila Bulletin
Philippines
Trial court judges still required to file daily reports on release of PDLs – SC
Philippines
Trial court judges still required to file daily reports on release of PDLs – SC
Trial court judges still required to file daily reports on release of PDLs – SC
Published Jun 1, 2020 12:00 am
By Rey Panaligan
While all courts are back to full operations starting June 1, 2020, judges are still required to submit daily reports on the release of persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) and children in conflict with the law (CCWL).
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
In a circular issued by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, trial court judges are also directed to continue with their weekly reports on hearings via video conferencing.
In areas still under Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) or under modified ECQ (MECQ), daily reports are also required of trial courts on urgent matters that were acted upon.
PDLs are those charged in court with criminal offenses and violations of city and municipal ordinances and are detained while petitioning to post bail, attending hearings, and awaiting the decisions on their cases.
A CCWL is “anyone under 18 who comes into contact with the justice system as a result of being suspected or accused of committing an offense.”
The Supreme Court (SC) exercises supervision over all lower courts in the country through Marquez’s office, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
As of May 22, a total of 22,522 PDLs have been released from various detention facilities, particularly from the lockup cells of the Philippine National Police (PNP), when their cases were taken up by the courts via video conferencing.
The PDLs were released either through bail or their own recognizance or when they were found to have served the minimum period of their sentences.
Earlier, Marquez issued a circular to all trial court judges that hearings via video conferencing will continue in areas under General Community Quarantine (GCQ).
Marquez said the decision to continue with video conferencing was prompted by its success in the release of PDLs to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in jail facilities in the country.
“Hence in GCQ areas, if a party wishes that a testimony of a witness be heard via video conferencing, the proper motion just needs to be filed in court, and the judge, using his or her sound discretion, can either grant or deny the motion,” he said.
Video conferencing may be done in both criminal and civil cases and is authorized by Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta in previous circulars, he added.
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
In a circular issued by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, trial court judges are also directed to continue with their weekly reports on hearings via video conferencing.
In areas still under Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) or under modified ECQ (MECQ), daily reports are also required of trial courts on urgent matters that were acted upon.
PDLs are those charged in court with criminal offenses and violations of city and municipal ordinances and are detained while petitioning to post bail, attending hearings, and awaiting the decisions on their cases.
A CCWL is “anyone under 18 who comes into contact with the justice system as a result of being suspected or accused of committing an offense.”
The Supreme Court (SC) exercises supervision over all lower courts in the country through Marquez’s office, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
As of May 22, a total of 22,522 PDLs have been released from various detention facilities, particularly from the lockup cells of the Philippine National Police (PNP), when their cases were taken up by the courts via video conferencing.
The PDLs were released either through bail or their own recognizance or when they were found to have served the minimum period of their sentences.
Earlier, Marquez issued a circular to all trial court judges that hearings via video conferencing will continue in areas under General Community Quarantine (GCQ).
Marquez said the decision to continue with video conferencing was prompted by its success in the release of PDLs to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in jail facilities in the country.
“Hence in GCQ areas, if a party wishes that a testimony of a witness be heard via video conferencing, the proper motion just needs to be filed in court, and the judge, using his or her sound discretion, can either grant or deny the motion,” he said.
Video conferencing may be done in both criminal and civil cases and is authorized by Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta in previous circulars, he added.