Comments on the Judiciary Reorganization Act

Cite as: 26 Ateneo L.J. 79 (1981)
Download Abstract Download Article
This publication contains material that is protected under International and Philippine Copyright Law and Treaties. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited. No part of this online publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without the express written permission of the author as coursed through the Ateneo Law Journal.


Comments on the Judiciary Reorganization Act

Ambrosio B. Padilla

26 Ateneo L.J. 79 (1981)

Subject(s):        Judicial Reorganization Act

Keyword(s):     Judicial, Court, Corruption, Supreme Court

Prior to and during Martial Law, there have been two recognized principal flaws that plagued the Philippine judicial system. First is the undue delay in the promulgation of decisions resulting in numerous pending cases. Second are the decisions that may be characterized as unjust due to an existing atmosphere of corruption in certain judicial sectors. As a response to these problems, it is hoped that Cabinet Bill No. 42, otherwise known as Judicial Reorganization Act, possesses the potency to cure such defects.

The Author is, however, of the contrary opinion. In analyzing the effects of the Act, such as the maintenance of the status quo in terms of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as well as the mere change of names of the lower courts, among others, he postulates that the purpose, which propelled the enactment of the Judicial Reorganization Act, still has not been achieved. He ends his critique by stating the omnipresent problem of corruption in the government as one of the contributing factors of the Act’s less than average potency. 




More Issues