Thank you also to two super ladies — Dr. Lourdes Reyes-Montinola, chairperson of the FEU Board of Trustees; and Dr. Lydia B. Echauz, FEU president — who, along with super law Dean Andres D. Bautista, the perennial leader of the Philippine Association of Law Deans, are responsible for FEU’s generous cosponsorship of this tenth lecture in the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. Distinguished Lecture Series.

As some of you may know, this intellectual pursuit is one of several projects being held nationwide all year round to commemorate the many outstanding achievements of the Supreme Court during the seven-year term of our beloved Chief.

Ladies and gentlemen, Hilario G. Davide Jr. will be remembered in history as one of the greatest Chief Justices not only in our country, but also in the Asia-Pacific region. I am certain that whenever a history of the judiciary in our part of the world is written, he will always merit a sparkling chapter. Back in 1999 when I wrote Leadership by Example, just after his appointment as the "Centennial" or even "Millennial" Chief Justice, I already had an intimation of his impending renown. In that book I said that, "as the administrator of the entire judiciary and the leader of the Supreme Court, he is the single most important personality who will shape the dispensation of justice and define legal thought in our country."

I dedicated that modest volume to him and expressed the hope that I would be able "to lay out a standard or paradigm from which to view, years hence, the shaping influence of our new Chief’s credo of Leadership by Example."

Generally, members of the Supreme Court are rated on the basis of their contribution to jurisprudence, especially the depth and breadth of their legal philosophies, as well as their influence in shaping the destiny of the country and the lives of our people. In a speech entitled "Judging the Judges" delivered earlier this year, I outlined the four Ins by which to assess — in my opinion — the qualities of an ideal judge: Integrity, Independence, Industry, and Intelligence.

To say that Chief Justice Davide consistently and constantly embraced these four Ins of an ideal magistrate, lived to the hilt his own credo of leadership by example, and transcended the normal standard of jurisprudential excellence is to state the obvious, and even the customary, about him.

Some find the exemplary manner in which Chief Justice Davide presided over the impeachment trial of former President Joseph Estrada in November 2000 to January 2001 as the acme of his judicial reputation. His even-handedness, coolness under pressure, judicial wisdom and towering persona dominated that national, historical milestone covered live daily by all major radio and television networks.

Other people know him for his simple and transparent lifestyle, his unsullied integrity and dedication to duty. Many will never forget that he is always on time for all his appointments and schedules. Sometimes, he embarrasses his hosts by arriving way ahead of them during convocations, fora, speaking engagements, dinners or simple meetings.

The Supreme Court is a collegial body that decides by the majority of its members. Though regarded as the primus inter pares (first among equals), the Chief Justice — like the 14 other magistrates of the Court — has only one vote. And that one vote has sometimes been a lonely voice in the minority.

However, as Chief Justice of the Republic, not just of the Supreme Court, he is unquestionably the chief executive officer of the entire judicial department of government. Outside the realm of decision-making in the Supreme Court, he is the unquestioned boss; nothing happens without his say-so. By his own admission, more than 60 percent of Chief Justice Davide’s time is spent on untangling and solving the administrative, financial and management concerns of the 28,000 judicial employees spread all over the country.

Hilario G. Davide Jr. is undoubtedly a brilliant jurist; but more than that, he is a great leader. He is not just a perceptive thinker and an ingenious decision writer; he is also a compelling people mover. He aims to inspire, to motivate and to lead other officials to work unceasingly, to rise above their puny limitations, to excel beyond themselves, and to achieve collectively their loftiest dreams and highest aspirations.

Undeniably, it is in the realm of leading the judiciary to independence, integrity, transparency, and accountability that the distinction between the jurist and the chief executive has made the real difference. He has succeeded in becoming a great paradox: As a jurist crafting landmark decisions, he has remained detached, unreachable, untouchable, even unfathomable; yet as a leader and CEO, he has been transparent, accountable and to a considerable degree, even approachable. He has been a tested and dynamic team builder and mover. His leadership comes from the courage to think outside the box — to innovate, to re-engineer, to reinvent new and better ways of managing and moving forward, even if the judge in him compels him to follow tradition, uphold precedents and stabilize judicial thought. In short, our Chief Justice has successfully blended the reclusion needed by a magistrate, with the people skill required from the leader of the third branch of our government. As a jurist, he is an individualist; as an executive, he is a team player.

Indeed, Chief Justice Davide is known in many ways by many people. In my view, however, he will be best remembered for the wide-ranging judicial reforms he initiated upon taking his oath of office on November 30, 1998. The Chief himself has said that he regards judicial reforms "as the centerpiece of [his] stewardship of the Supreme Court and the judiciary x x x. It will serve as a transparent yardstick by which [his] legacy as Chief Justice can be judged and measured."

Just eleven days after assuming office, he spelled out his "vision, mission, and direction" — the "Davide Watch" — during a Kilosbayan forum on December 11, 1998. Now famous is the cornerstone of his Chief Justiceship — his vision statement, which I quote:

"A Judiciary that is independent, effective, and efficient, and worthy of public trust and confidence. A legal profession that provides quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal service to our people and is willing and able to answer the call of public service."

The Davide Watch is complemented by an "Action Program for Judicial Reform" (APJR). Comprehensive, pervasive and wide-ranging, the APJR takes its bearing from earlier reform initiatives collectively known as the "Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary." The Blueprint and later the APJR outlined the concerns and priority reforms that were identified during an 18-month consultation process carried out with various stakeholders of the judiciary across the country. Held during the term of Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, these consultations were funded by a grant from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Finally approved by the Supreme Court on December 8, 2000, the APJR is superintended for the Court by the Executive Committee for the Judicial Reform Program. To emphasize the pivotal importance of the APJR, it is the only SC standing committee that is personally and directly headed by the Chief Justice. It is administered on a day-to-day basis by the Program Management Office (PMO) of the Supreme Court. The APJR has six components: (1) Judicial Systems and Procedures; (2) Institutions Development; (3) Human Resource Management; (4) Institutional Integrity Development; (5) Access to Justice by the Poor; and (6) Reform Support Systems.

While the APJR is subdivided into these six major "components," I would like to discuss the reform projects as they relate to three general matters: (1) the transformation of judges, (2) the improvement of their facilities and tools, and (3) the enhancement of the relationship of the judiciary with its various publics. By subdividing the projects into these three topics, I hope to be able to present the projects more clearly and systematically.

First, let me take up the changes aimed at the transformation of judges — their persons, education, values, habits, and aptitudes.

The reforms go back deep into the improvement of the law school curriculum. Our Constitution empowers our highest court to promulgate rules concerning "admission to the practice of law." Using this provision as basis, our Court adopted on June 8, 2004, three broad categories of reform in the bar examinations: (1) structural and policy changes, (2) modifications in the design and construction of test questions, and (3) improvements in the checking and grading methods. The ultimate goal is to devise the most appropriate system to measure the competence and character required to become a member of the legal profession.

The structural and policy reforms include the appointment of a tenured Board of Bar Examiners, in lieu of ad hoc committees appointed every year; and the investigation of character and fitness as a prerequisite for taking the examination. Along with essay test questions, objective multiple-choice questions have already been introduced in the bar examinations. Reforms are also veered toward the adoption of alternative grading methods, such as scaling, to promote test equity and to standardize the levels of difficulty of the tests; and the eventual computerization or automation of the bar examinations to facilitate application, testing and reporting procedures.

There is also an ongoing debate about the necessity of conducting bar examinations. In some neighboring countries, like Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore, no tests are needed to join the bar. In some others, like Japan and Korea, the bar tests are so stringent that only about three percent pass them. In our country during the last five years (2000-2004), an average of about 25 percent of the examinees have obtained the 75 percent passing grade.

At the initiative of the Supreme Court (SC), the Legal Education Board (LEB) will be formally organized shortly. Headed by a retired SC justice, the Board will oversee the operation of all law colleges and reformulate their law curricula to make them more responsive to the needs of the 21st century. For that matter, the Court has approved the referral to the LEB of the inclusion in the law curriculum of a subject on clinical legal education. Already, a Judicial Apprenticeship Program under the APJR has been piloted. This program is designed to train selected third and fourth year law students in Metro Manila in legal research and introduce them to actual court proceedings.

For those who have passed the bar examinations and have become attorneys-at-law, the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program has been strengthened by the SC to ensure that members of the bar are continuously updated on current laws and jurisprudence. The MCLE requires lawyers to complete training hours in various law subjects, including legal ethics, before they can renew their licenses. In 2004, 1,527 lectures or programs were presented by accredited providers.

To minimize, if not totally eliminate, partisan politics in the appointment of judges and to assure that only the most qualified are appointed, our Constitution limits the choices of the President only to those recommended by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The JBC is mandated to submit to the President at least three nominees for every judicial vacancy. For the Supreme Court, the President is required to issue the appointment within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy; and for the lower courts, within 90 days from the submission of the list to the President. The Council is chaired by the Chief Justice; its members are the secretary of justice; a senator; a congressman; a retired SC justice; and one representative each of the bar, the academe, and the private sector.

Realizing the pivotal role of the JBC in reforming the judiciary, the Supreme Court passed on April 27, 2004, a Resolution strengthening the role and the capacity of the JBC. Under the new restructured administrative organization, the JBC shall "exercise decentralized management functions." Consequently, it will have (1) a separate budget to be approved by the Supreme Court, (2) authority to administer its approved budget, and (3) administrative functions to promote and ensure proper and optimum use of its resources.

At the core of continuing legal education is the Philippine Judicial Academy (Philja). The Philja offers, among others, (1) training for aspirants to judicial positions under its regular pre-judicature program; (2) orientation seminar-workshops for newly appointed judges; (3) regional judicial career enhancement programs for both judges and judicial personnel who have been serving the judiciary for some time; and (4) special focus programs for judges handling specialized cases.

The Philja has also launched an e-learning project to provide training through the use of the Internet. This online distance learning program allows judges from selected first- and second-level courts nationwide to learn new practices and opinions on legal issues. E-learning modules on (1) electronic evidence and (2) psychological incapacity were launched on December 1, 2004, to complement the traditional modes of face-to-face instruction. A video production on the conduct of pretrial in civil and criminal cases, as well as on the use of depositions and modes of discovery, has likewise been completed.

Another landmark judicial reform initiative of the Philja under the APJR is its Mediation Project. On October 16, 2001, the Court designated the Academy as the component unit for court-annexed mediation (CAM) — now part of pretrial — and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. In line with this mandate, the Philja has established 29 Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) units nationwide and has trained a total of 527 mediators. From 2002 to 2005, mediation efforts at the trial courts posted a success rate of 77 percent. With the success of court-annexed mediation in the trial courts, the Supreme Court authorized Philja to pilot-test mediation in the Court of Appeals, also to address increasing docket congestion. Statistics from the two-month pilot testing (September 16 to November 22, 2002) showed that of the one hundred (105) cases that underwent CA mediation, 67 percent or 70 cases reached a compromise agreement.

Court-annexed mediation was further energized through the Justice Reform Initiatives Support (or JURIS) Project begun in January 2003. The project teaches judges how to mediate cases after court-annexed mediation has failed. Pilot testing of the project in San Fernando City, Pampanga, showed a 73.30 percent success rate, while that in Bacolod City was 63.72 percent successful.

Results of a survey conducted by the Social Weather Stations (SWS) showed that judges were highly satisfied with mediation as a means of declogging court dockets. Supported by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Philja developed study programs at the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, for judges, judicial educators and court officials.

In a related education program and with the help of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Court has also undertaken (1) various judges’ forums on the role of courts in environmental protection; and (2) a training course in Japan on performance evaluation, court administration, judicial career development, and judicial education. Workshops for judges on e-commerce and commercial laws have also been conducted.

There is more good news: The Supreme Court is in the final stages of negotiation for a P600-million grant from the Japanese government to build the Philja Training Center in Tagaytay. The Center is envisioned to be the permanent venue not only for the continuing education of incumbent judges, but also for the training of those aspiring to join the judiciary.

Legal and judicial education is intended to enhance not only the intellectual ability of lawyers and magistrates, but also their ethical standards. Thus, the Court has strictly enforced the lawyer’s oath. During the last six years, the SC has fined, warned, censured, admonished, reprimanded, ordered arrested, suspended, or disbarred 463 lawyers for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

For the judiciary, the Supreme Court has adopted on June 1, 2004, the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The Code was patterned after the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct ("Bangalore Draft"), which had been crafted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity ("Judicial Group"), under the aegis of the United Nations (UN). The Bangalore Draft was approved in November 2004, during a round-table meeting of Chief Justices from civil law countries at the Peace Palace, The Hague in The Netherlands. The Draft was prepared during the Judicial Group’s two meetings in Vienna in April 2000 and in Bangalore in July 2001, upon the UN’s invitation.

To give teeth to the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the Court has amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (on the discipline of judges). This amended Rule classifies the nature and the gravity of administrative offenses, as well as the sanctions for them, and provides for the proper conduct of administrative investigations. Earlier on, in 2002, the Court had already resolved that administrative cases against magistrates and court officials, if based on reasons that were also grounds for disciplining members of the bar, should automatically be converted to disciplinary proceedings against their very membership in the bar. Thus, they would be investigated both as magistrates and as members of the Philippine bar.

Even before the new Code was adopted, the Supreme Court had already been strictly enforcing the earlier Canons of Judicial Ethics and the (old) Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippines. From 1999 to 2004, the SC has — after appropriate proceedings — reprimanded, censured, fined, forfeited the benefits, suspended from office, or dismissed from the service, 660 justices and judges.

Judicial ethics symposia have been held to discuss the new Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as the training of law professors in new teaching methodologies in legal and judicial ethics. Various seminars for court employees on the Code of Conduct for Judicial Personnel have also been held.

While our highest court has been strict in disciplining the misfits and the errants, it has likewise been enthusiastic in honoring the faithful and the exemplary through its annual Judicial Excellence Awards. In this program, we search for, recognize and reward outstanding judges and clerks of court. The search for outstanding men and women in the judiciary was begun by the Foundation for Judicial Excellence in 1991. In 2004, however, the Supreme Court took over this annual endeavor. This year, the awarding ceremonies have been set for December 12, 2005.

Of the 2003 and the 2004 Judicial Excellence awardees, six have already been promoted to the next higher court, three of them to the Court of Appeals.

This year, the Judicial Excellence awardees are as follows:

(1) For the second-level court judges category: Executive Judge Eduardo I. Tanguanco, Regional Trial Court, Bacoor, Cavite; Judge Marissa Macaraig-Guillen, RTC, Makati City; and Judge Mario V. Lopez, RTC, Batangas City.

Judge Simeon P. Dumdum Jr. of the RTC, Cebu City, was cited for writing the Best Decision in a Criminal Case.

(2) For the first-level court judges category: Judge Francisco Roberto D. Quilala, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sarrat-Vintar, Ilocos Norte, who also won the award for Best Decision in a Civil Case; Judge Antonina B. Escovilla, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Davao City, Branch 2; and Judge Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, Branch 6, also the winner for the Best Decision in a Criminal Case.

(3) For second-level clerks of court: Atty. Ana Candida N. Casiño, RTC, Medina, Misamis Oriental; and Atty. Joyce Kho Mirabueno, RTC, General Santos City, Branch 23.

(4) For first-level clerk of court, the sole winner was Atty. Marichu Teresa Simpao-Taguilaso, MeTC, Manila.

Equally important, the SC was able to convince Congress and the President to double the basic judicial compensation through a 25 percent increase per year for four years starting in November 2003. Partly because of this additional financial benefit, many competent lawyers are now applying for the many vacant trial courts. Across the different court levels, there is still a vacancy rate of more than 31.17 percent. But I am certain that this proportion will drastically go down in the next two years as the vacancies are gradually filled up.

Better retirement benefits for members of the judiciary have likewise been secured. Moreover, the High Court has authorized the grant of automatic, permanent, total disability benefits to the heirs of justices, judges, and court officials (with the rank, salary and privileges of justices and judges) who die while in the service regardless of the cause of death, except suicide or instances when it was the magistrate or official who provoked the attack or assault that resulted in his or her death. Also, to protect judges from baseless administrative charges, the SC has decided that a complaint filed within six months before the compulsory retirement of a judge, if based on a cause of action that occurred within one year prior to the filing of the complaint, should be dismissed forthwith.

To improve its relationship with the Presidency and Congress, the Supreme Court has strengthened its Committee on Legislative-Executive Relations. The Committee’s expanded functions include liaising with the executive and the legislative branches of the government to get support for the constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary, as well as better pay and benefits for judicial personnel. The presiding justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals now sit as members of the Committee for a more coordinated and integrated preparation and presentation of the judiciary budget.

Let me now discuss the second general area of judicial reform — the improvement of the judicial working environment, especially the provision of adequate facilities and tools.

With the help of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Court came up, as I earlier stated, with a "Blueprint of Action for the Judiciary," to which the present APJR owes its origin. The ADB, on the other hand, funded a comprehensive study, "Strengthening the Independence and Defining the Accountability of the Judiciary." This study reviewed the organizational, administrative and financial structures of the third branch of government; and proposed their revision and streamlining to ensure independence, transparency and accountability.

A more focused project called "Institutional Strengthening of the Shari’a Justice System" was also undertaken. Among others, its purposes are to review the overall performance of the Shari’a justice system, identify its strengths and weaknesses, and assess the administrative structures and operating systems in the judiciary. The objective is to determine factors that promote or hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of the Shari’a courts.

Since the early 1990s, the Supreme Court has started computerizing its administrative, personnel and financial processes. The computerization, however, has been largely in the form of independent hardware-software components. To upgrade these existing stand-alone computerized financial, personnel, and administrative systems in the Supreme entire Court, the APJR — through the Committee on Computerization — has recently embarked on the total computerization of the entire judiciary. With the support of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Court has pilot-tested in trial courts in Pasay City, the Case Flow Management (CFM) system, a computer program designed to expedite the resolution of cases through the effective monitoring and strict observance of time limits in the conduct of case events, from filing to disposition.

A second computer project, the Court Administration Management Information System (CAMIS), which is supported by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), has also been pilot-tested in Metro Manila. CAMIS automates statistical data to improve case tracking and reporting. Through this project, the Supreme Court aims to build and strengthen the capacity of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Management Information Systems Office (MISO), so as to evolve a publicly accessible automated system that would be able to provide a comprehensive database of all cases, including the current status of each.

As earlier stated, our stand-alone computer projects are being integrated with these new state-of-the-art CFM and CAMIS pilot projects.

To complement this hardware and software development, the Court is also undertaking a Computer Literacy Program for all the 28,000 judicial officials and employees throughout the country. Justices of the Supreme Court and the three appellate courts were the first to undergo a basic computer orientation seminar-workshop. A concept paper for the Information Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy Task Force, which will draw up the training programs for all judicial personnel, is now being finalized.

Consistent with our computerization program, the Supreme Court has, during the past five years, provided every courtroom in the country with at least one personal computer. A second one will be distributed within the next six months. Even more significantly, the Court has very recently approved an interest-free P1,000-per-month installment program to enable justices and judges to acquire and own their personal laptops. With this development, circulars and administrative issuances for all courts shall be made by the SC through its website or through compact discs (CDs) that will be distributed nationwide from time to time.

On November 19, 2004, the Court launched its fully electronic library (e-library), the first of its kind in Asia. Powered by a search engine, the e-library cuts research time and elevates legal research to a new level of accuracy and comprehensiveness never imagined a few years ago. Already connected with the Internet, it is easily accessible to all courts nationwide. Courts without Internet access are provided with CDs containing up-to-date legal reference materials.

The e-library has many advantages: (1) it is cheap, because there is no more need to buy expensive books; (2) it is always up-to-date, because decisions of the SC are uploaded within 48 hours from the time they are promulgated; (3) it is accessible anytime seven days a week, because it never closes; (4) it does not need space — it is available anywhere and everywhere; (5) it is fully searchable — by word, phrase, case title, case number, subject matter, date of promulgation, name of parties, name of justice who wrote the decision, and so on.

Like the e-library, the Benchbook for Trial Court Judges aims to assist judges in research. Designed as an easy-to-search tool, the Benchbook enables magistrates to decide points of law quickly as they arise in the course of a trial. It comes in both digital and paper versions. To guide judges in preparing their decisions, a manual of uniform writing style has likewise been developed by the Supreme Court.

Other notable projects aimed at improving the judicial working environment are the provision of computer-aided transcription (CAT) facilities; the preparation of an infrastructure master plan; and case-decongestion and delay-reduction projects, particularly in the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan.

With a loan from the World Bank, the SC is building — as a preview of a future nationwide courtroom construction program — model electronic courts in selected areas in the country; namely, the cities of Angeles, Lapulapu and Cagayan de Oro. Soon also, the old Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) building, located on Arroceros Street in Manila, will be rehabilitated for its eventual conversion into a modern Hall of Justice for Manila trial courts.

To enable the members of the bench to rule immediately (on the spot) on legal issues connected with the new sciences and technologies, new rules of procedure have been promulgated by the Supreme Court. These new rules cover, among others, admission of electronic evidence, infringement of intellectual property rights, corporate rehabilitation, intra-corporate controversies, and the protection of juveniles in conflict with the law. Other notable improvements in the Rules of Court involve those on violence against women and their children, as well as sexual harassment cases; proper work decorum in the judiciary; and death penalty cases.

On the third general area of reforms, let me discuss how the Supreme Court is improving its relationship with its various publics.

In this day and age of transparency, the judiciary realizes that, to be better understood and thereby to maintain public trust, it must somehow open up the judicial fortress without, however, compromising the confidentiality of its collegiate deliberations. Thus, on January 1, 1999, it established its Public Information Office (PIO), not as a public relations arm, but as an information-based office.

The primary objective of the PIO is to bring the Court closer to the people. Its goal is simple: to tell our various publics the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Its job is not to "sanitize" or "angle" stories. Neither is it to "proselytize" and "propagandize," much less to spin tales or embroider judicial work.

In line with its primary task of disseminating news about the Court and its decisions as promptly and as widely as possible, the PIO regularly publishes the bimonthly Benchmark; and the monthly Court News, a full-color four-page newsletter intended for the Court’s diverse publics, including chambers of commerce, nongovernmental organizations, the provincial press, and foreign embassies. Practically on a daily basis, the PIO also issues news bulletins through the Court News Flash. These publications are written in simple non-legalese. They are available online through the PIO’s website, a sub-domain on our main website, www.supremecourt.gov.ph.

To respond to criticisms from the business sector that the judiciary is inordinately interfering in the economic life of the country, the Court, with the assistance of The Asia Foundation, launched the Chamber-to-Chamber Dialogues. The term "chamber-to-chamber" was derived from the "chambers" of magistrates and the various "chambers" of commerce spread all over the country. For the same purpose, I recently wrote a book entitled Leveling the Playing Field, which explains in detail the role of the judicial branch in economic governance.

As a final item under the topic of improving the judicial environment, our Supreme Court has embarked on a "Justice-to-Justice" and a "Judge-to-Judge" Program to encourage intellectual exchanges among judges of the world. These Justice-to-Justice and Judge-to-Judge Dialogues have been made possible by funding assistance from the USAID through the American Bar Association-Asia Law Initiative (ABA-Asia).

Another notable project is called "Access to Justice for the Poor through Information, Education and Communication (IEC)." This program involves, among others, the training of the clerks of court of selected municipal courts and of barangay officials in selected parts of the country, to enable them to provide vital information on the legal rights of the poor and the disadvantaged. As implementing agency of Component 1 — "Institutionalization of the Decentralized Information Function of the Judiciary" — the SC will oversee the formulation of IEC guidelines, policies and standards of conduct for Municipal Court Information Officers (MCIOs); and the training of MCIOs. The Court will also sponsor a training program to sensitize municipal court judges and court personnel (in the target project areas) to the economic and social conditions of the poor.

With assistance from the European Union (EU), the SC has also embarked on "strengthening the courts for internally displaced persons and communities," which is a component of the project called "Rehabilitating Internally Displaced Persons and Communities in Southern Philippines." The mother project seeks to address the rehabilitation and resettlement of at least 10,000 displaced families in Southern Philippines. Included is the construction or repair and rehabilitation of the Halls of Justice in selected areas.

To increase the accessibility of the judicial system, especially to the poor and the disadvantaged, the Supreme Court launched its Justice on Wheels program on December 21, 2004. The first mobile court — in the form of a large bus staffed by a judge, a prosecutor, and a stenographer, among others — is designed to bring the courts closer to the people in places were they would otherwise be inaccessible. Though less than a year old, our first mobile court has already made an impact on our efforts to decongest jails and speedily resolve family problems.

Still another innovative APJR undertaking is called "Public Education on the Rule of Law Advancement and Support" (PERLAS) project. A collaborative undertaking of the SC, the Department of Education, The Asia Foundation and the Lawyer’s League for Liberty (Libertas), the project seeks to integrate into the ‘curricula of elementary and high schools the value of civic-mindedness and obedience to the rule of law. Presently, teaching exemplars embodying these values are being prepared for distribution to all primary and secondary schools nationwide.

The Supreme Court takes great pride and care in pursuing and implementing the foregoing judicial reform projects under their overall umbrella called APJR. The SC is happy to note that, already, the APJR has earned local and international acclaim. The World Bank’s chief counsel for East Asia and the Pacific region, Anthony Gerald Toft, in his own lecture earlier delivered in this Series, has openly endorsed the Philippine judicial reform program as one worthy of emulation by other jurisdictions. Verily, our judicial reform program has earned the support of all major international development institutions, like the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the World Bank (WB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and The Asia Foundation (TAF); as well as the national aid agencies of Australia, Canada, the European Union, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States. I do not know of any other country that has enjoyed similar global assistance for the modernization of its judicial system.

All in all, the APJR has brought cutting-edge technology and best management practices to the third branch of government. It has ushered the judiciary to the digital age through the piloting of electronic tools and modern facilities. By sharpening management skills, the APJR has helped the judiciary strengthen its independence and integrity and respond speedily to the 21st century’s call for more transparency and accountability. To paraphrase the Davide Watch, the APJR has enabled the judiciary to become truly "worthy of public trust and confidence."

As a lasting testament to our judicial reform program, our Supreme Court is sponsoring on November 28-30, 2005, an International Conference and Showcase on Judicial Reforms. This gathering is divided into two parts: (1) plenary and parallel sessions to facilitate the international exchange of ideas, experiences, best practices and reform initiatives; and (2) a showcase or exhibit of the judicial reform projects I have mentioned earlier.

Expected to attend the conference-cum-showcase are around 150 foreign Chief Justices, senior magistrates and judicial educators. In addition, we are inviting 150 of our own appellate court justices and selected trial court judges to participate also. Among those who have already confirmed their attendance are the Chief Justices of far-flung countries, like Russia, South Africa, Botswana, Maldives, The Netherlands and Argentina; as well as of our neighboring countries in Asia.

As conference chairperson of this international gathering, I am overwhelmed not only by the warm response of our counterpart judiciaries in the world, but also by the funding grants given by international institutions, like the United Nations Development Program, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Australian Agency for International Development, Canadian International Development Agency, American Bar Association, Asia Law Initiative and The Asia Foundation. Their assistance has enabled us to sponsor this global milestone without any expense on the part of the Supreme Court and the Philippine government; and to offer free hotel accommodation, meals and local transportation to all invited delegates.

As we all know, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. is retiring from the judiciary on December 20, 2005, when he reaches the compulsory retirement age of 70. To him, the judiciary owes a great debt of gratitude for conceptualizing and initiating the judicial reform program under the APJR. Like the deft and constant gardener that he is, he has sown the seed of a reformed and transformed judiciary through his vision-mission statement, and then nurtured it through the APJR. With local and international support that he himself has whipped up, he has created the necessary environment for the reform program to take root in the judicial system.

But the APJR is not just the personal vision or project of the Chief Justice. I believe that it is also the vision and project of the entire Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary. Thus, it will be continued even after his retirement. Those of us who will be left behind shall pursue the reform program with the same ardor and vigor as shown by our beloved leader.

Our Chief has brought the dawn of judicial renaissance to our country. We who now bask in the morning sun vow to continue his mission until our collective dream of rendering speedy, high-quality justice under a transformed judiciary will have been achieved.