Chapter XVThe Administration of JusticeIn no branch of the public administration have there been more numerous or more beneficial reforms than in the administration of justice. They have resulted in simplifying organization, in decreasing the possibility of corruption and partiality, and in diminishing the cost of litigation and the time which it requires.For the benefit of those especially interested I give in the appendix the past and present organization of the courts.1The subject is too technical to interest the average layman.The slender salaries paid to judges, the fact that in the majority of cases their appointment and promotion were due to influence and suggestion, their liability to be transferred from one court to another or from the Philippines to the Antilles, as frequently happened, and the further fact that the subordinate personnel of the courts was not a salaried one, caused the administration of justice in the Philippine Islands to be looked upon askance. There was a general belief, well founded in many instances, that lawsuits were won through influence or bribery. Clerks and the subordinate personnel of the courts were readily bribed. Indeed, they frequently demanded bribes from litigants, or from defendants in criminal cases, under promise to expedite the trials if paid to do so, or under threat to commit some injustice if payment was not forthcoming. For many years after the American occupation justices of the peace received no salaries and had tolook to fees for their compensation. This system worked wretchedly. The positions were only too often filled by very incompetent and unworthy men, who stimulated litigation in order to make more money. Now all justices of the peace receive reasonable salaries.The paying of regular salaries and the furnishing of necessary offices and supplies have done much to improve the work of justice of the peace courts, which are now presided over by men who average far better than even their immediate predecessors.Until they were put on a salary basis the work of the Filipino justices of the peace left much more to be desired than is lacking at present. In many instances they allowed gross brutalities, perpetrated by the rich on the poor, or by the strong on the weak, to go unpunished. The following case furnished me by an American teacher is typical of what has occurred only too often:—“On another occasion, I met the brother of my housemuchacha,2a boy about eight. He had a sort of protuberance on one side caused by broken ribs which had not been set. I questioned mymuchacha. She said her step-father had kicked the child across the room some weeks before and broken his ribs. The next day, I took the child together with Señora Bayot, the wife of the Governor’s secretary, before the local Justice of the Peace. Señora Bayot translated and the child told the same story as had his sister. The Justice of the Peace issued an order for the step-father to report to him on the next day. That night mymuchachatold me that her step-father had threatened to kill the child if he did not tell the Justice that he got the hurt by falling out of an orange tree. The child did as ordered, and the step-father was dismissed. When I questioned the Justice of the Peace as to why he credited the second tale, he said the child was under oath then, and was not under oath in the first statements.”It was not deemed wise at the outset to appoint a Filipino judge for the city of Manila, as it was feared that there would be a lack of confidence in a Filipino who had occasion to decide cases involving large sums of moneyin which Americans or foreigners on the one hand and Filipinos on the other were interested; but a few years after the establishment of the new judicial system Filipino judges had won such a reputation for justice and fairness as to gain the confidence of Americans and foreigners and the appointment of a Filipino judge for the court of the city of Manila did not arouse any opposition.University Hall, ManilaUniversity Hall, ManilaFilipino judges of courts of first instance seem usually to have been actuated by a desire to do full justice. The instances in which complaints have been made against them because of partiality to party or to race are few. Some of them have been justly criticised for tardiness in cleaning up their dockets, and it is undoubtedly true that their capacity for turning out work is on the average below that of their Americans associates.The fact must not be forgotten that Americans are in the majority in the Supreme Court, which reviews the decisions of courts of first instance, and this undoubtedly exercises a restraining influence. It is not possible accurately to judge what would be the actions of a body of men now subject to such control if it did not exist. It is furthermore true that the Filipinos are more inclined to be suspicious of their own countrymen than of Americans, and there have been from time to time specific requests from them that judges in certain provinces be Americans.Under the Spanish régime the fees paid by litigants were excessive and the use of stamped paper was compulsory. Its value ranged from twenty-five centavos to two pesos for a folio of two sheets according to the amount involved in the suit. Now there are fixed fees of $8 in civil suits, except in probate matters, where the fee is $12.It was in the power of an unscrupulous litigant to make a lawsuit almost eternal. In matters involving an amount exceeding $250 it was lawful to institute proceedings in the action whereby the decision of the main issue was suspended pending decision of the proceedings, and as a decision was appealable to theaudiencia, this was often doneby attorneys who had an interest in delaying the suit. By instituting one proceeding after another a suit could be indefinitely prolonged.Another method of securing delay was to object to the judge. In case the judge denied the ground of the objection, a proceeding was instituted against him and the trial of the main issue was turned over to another judge; although the proceeding arising out of the objection did not suspend the trial of the main issue, when the time came to decide the latter the decision was withheld until the proceeding arising out of the objection was settled, and as this latter was one in connection with which other proceedings could be instituted which might delay the decision and consequently the decision of the main issue, there was no end to the matter.To-day all this has been stopped by the procedure in court. The challenging of judges is not allowed, although they must refrain from the trial of any matter when they are disqualified in any way as regards it. Proceedings which suspend the trial of the main issue cannot be instituted. The procedure itself is more expeditious, the time allowances and formalities have been reduced, and all the long Spanish civil procedure regarding the presentation of evidence has been shortened. Suits are settled with a speediness previously unknown. In order to avoid delay on the part of judges in rendering decisions, an act has been passed prohibiting the payment of their salaries without a certificate that they have no matter which has been awaiting decision for more than three months.Owing to the inquisitorial procedure which obtained under Spanish rule, the disposition of criminal cases was even slower than that of civil cases. The cause would be commenced, eitherde officio, by the judge who had a knowledge of the crime, or by the prosecuting attorney, or by virtue of private accusation on the part of the person aggrieved. The case once started, the investigations made during the period known as thesumariowere conducted inthe absence of the accused. The latter had no hand in the case, as it was thought that the reserve and secrecy of the procedure ought not to be violated to the end that the accused might not frustrate the evidence of the prosecution by preparing his defence. Owing many times to the inactivity of the judge or of the prosecuting attorney, to the great amount of work which weighed down the courts—for actions were begun when there was knowledge of the commission of the crime, although the perpetrators were not known—and by the manipulations at other times of the private accuser to whose interest it was to harm the accused by delaying thesumario, this period was often made to extend over years and years. Meanwhile the defendant was confined in prison, as no bail was allowed in any case in which the penalty was that ofpresidio correccional(from six months and one day to six years’ imprisonment) or greater. In addition to this the circumstance that all criminal causes in the islands had to be sent for review to the properaudiencia, caused a large accumulation of old cases in these higher courts, and this alone made their disposition a matter of some years.To-day the procedure is rapid. Information having been brought against the defendant, the trial is had in the same term or at most during the next term of court. Sometimes the trial is suspended owing to the non-appearance of witnesses, but it can be said that cases are rare where causes are pending in the docket of the court for a longer period than two terms. Causes appealed to the Supreme Court are disposed of promptly, and as a general rule it does not take over six months to get a decision.Defendants in criminal cases have now been granted by the Philippine Bill certain fundamentally important rights which they did not formerly enjoy; namely, to appear and defend in person or by counsel at every stage of the proceedings; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to testify as witnesses in theirown behalf; to be exempt from testifying against themselves; to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine, the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process issue for obtaining witnesses in their own favour; to have speedy and public trials; to be admitted to bail with sufficient sureties in all cases, except for capital offences. None of these rights were enjoyed under the procedure in effect during the Spanish régime. A man was prosecuted without being notified of the charges against him, and he was only made aware of the case against him after thesumario. When all of the evidence of the prosecution had been taken the accused was heard in his own defence. He was compelled to testify, and was subjected to a very inquisitorial examination, including questions which incriminated him. Although he had the right to compel witnesses for the prosecution to ratify over their signatures the evidence against him given during thesumario, as the defence of the majority of the accused was in the hands of attorneysde officiothey nearly always renounced this privilege of the defendant, and, as has already been said, bail was not admitted in any grave offence during the trial.No sentence of acquittal in a criminal case can now be appealed from by the government. Under the Spanish system sentences of acquittal of courts of first instance had to be referred for review to the properaudienciaand the fiscal of the latter could appeal from a sentence of acquittal by it.The Philippine Bill grants to the inhabitants of the islands other important individual rights which they did not formerly possess.The Spanish constitution was not in force here, and although the Penal Code contained provisions for punishing, in a way, officials who violated certain rights granted by the Spanish constitution, citizens had no expeditious method of securing their punishment. Now the Code of Civil Procedure grants them certain special remedies by which theirrights can be made good. To illustrate: Under the Spanish régime the only remedy for a man illegally detained was to bring a criminal action against the person illegally detaining him. He did not have the remedy of the writ of habeas corpus nor the writ of prohibition against an official who attempted to make him the victim of some unlawful act. His only remedy was to bring a criminal action against such official, or to sue him for damages. He could not compel public officials to perform their ministerial duties by mandamus proceedings.The individual rights conferred by the Philippine Bill, and the special remedies granted by the Code of Civil Procedure, assure to the inhabitants of the islands liberties and privileges entirely unknown to them during the days of Spanish sovereignty, and these liberties and privileges are adequately safeguarded.Two things still greatly complicate the administration of justice in the Philippines.The first is the dense ignorance of the people of the working class who for the most part have failed to learn of their new rights, and even if they know them are afraid to attempt to assert them in opposition to the will of thecaciques, whose power for evil they know only too well.The other is the unreliability of many witnesses and their shocking readiness to perjure themselves. It is always possible to manufacture testimony at small expense. While the criminal libel suit brought against certain members of the staff of the newspaperEl Renacimiento, which libelled me, was in progress the judge showed me the opinion of the two Filipino assessors3in one of the cases and told me that it was written by an attorney for the defence. I could not believe this, but a few days later an assessor in another of the cases called at my house, bringing a draft of the opinion of himself and his associate which he sought to submit to me forcriticism or modification, saying that I knew much more about the case than they did! He was nonplussed at my refusal to read the document, and left saying “acqui tiene V. nuevo servidor.”4Had I redrafted the opinion, as I might have done, my “new servant” would have called later for aquid pro quo.Some of the Filipino judges of first instance have proved weak in matters affecting the integrity of public domain and the protection of the public forests, but on the whole these officers have done rather surprisingly well. It must be remembered that the best men in the islands have now been appointed, and that another generation must come on before there will be available any considerable number of new candidates who are up to the standard of the present appointees.1See p. 998.2Female servant.3Men appointed to assist the judge in deciding questions of fact. Their decision is not binding on him.4Here [i.e.in me] you have a new servant.
Chapter XVThe Administration of JusticeIn no branch of the public administration have there been more numerous or more beneficial reforms than in the administration of justice. They have resulted in simplifying organization, in decreasing the possibility of corruption and partiality, and in diminishing the cost of litigation and the time which it requires.For the benefit of those especially interested I give in the appendix the past and present organization of the courts.1The subject is too technical to interest the average layman.The slender salaries paid to judges, the fact that in the majority of cases their appointment and promotion were due to influence and suggestion, their liability to be transferred from one court to another or from the Philippines to the Antilles, as frequently happened, and the further fact that the subordinate personnel of the courts was not a salaried one, caused the administration of justice in the Philippine Islands to be looked upon askance. There was a general belief, well founded in many instances, that lawsuits were won through influence or bribery. Clerks and the subordinate personnel of the courts were readily bribed. Indeed, they frequently demanded bribes from litigants, or from defendants in criminal cases, under promise to expedite the trials if paid to do so, or under threat to commit some injustice if payment was not forthcoming. For many years after the American occupation justices of the peace received no salaries and had tolook to fees for their compensation. This system worked wretchedly. The positions were only too often filled by very incompetent and unworthy men, who stimulated litigation in order to make more money. Now all justices of the peace receive reasonable salaries.The paying of regular salaries and the furnishing of necessary offices and supplies have done much to improve the work of justice of the peace courts, which are now presided over by men who average far better than even their immediate predecessors.Until they were put on a salary basis the work of the Filipino justices of the peace left much more to be desired than is lacking at present. In many instances they allowed gross brutalities, perpetrated by the rich on the poor, or by the strong on the weak, to go unpunished. The following case furnished me by an American teacher is typical of what has occurred only too often:—“On another occasion, I met the brother of my housemuchacha,2a boy about eight. He had a sort of protuberance on one side caused by broken ribs which had not been set. I questioned mymuchacha. She said her step-father had kicked the child across the room some weeks before and broken his ribs. The next day, I took the child together with Señora Bayot, the wife of the Governor’s secretary, before the local Justice of the Peace. Señora Bayot translated and the child told the same story as had his sister. The Justice of the Peace issued an order for the step-father to report to him on the next day. That night mymuchachatold me that her step-father had threatened to kill the child if he did not tell the Justice that he got the hurt by falling out of an orange tree. The child did as ordered, and the step-father was dismissed. When I questioned the Justice of the Peace as to why he credited the second tale, he said the child was under oath then, and was not under oath in the first statements.”It was not deemed wise at the outset to appoint a Filipino judge for the city of Manila, as it was feared that there would be a lack of confidence in a Filipino who had occasion to decide cases involving large sums of moneyin which Americans or foreigners on the one hand and Filipinos on the other were interested; but a few years after the establishment of the new judicial system Filipino judges had won such a reputation for justice and fairness as to gain the confidence of Americans and foreigners and the appointment of a Filipino judge for the court of the city of Manila did not arouse any opposition.University Hall, ManilaUniversity Hall, ManilaFilipino judges of courts of first instance seem usually to have been actuated by a desire to do full justice. The instances in which complaints have been made against them because of partiality to party or to race are few. Some of them have been justly criticised for tardiness in cleaning up their dockets, and it is undoubtedly true that their capacity for turning out work is on the average below that of their Americans associates.The fact must not be forgotten that Americans are in the majority in the Supreme Court, which reviews the decisions of courts of first instance, and this undoubtedly exercises a restraining influence. It is not possible accurately to judge what would be the actions of a body of men now subject to such control if it did not exist. It is furthermore true that the Filipinos are more inclined to be suspicious of their own countrymen than of Americans, and there have been from time to time specific requests from them that judges in certain provinces be Americans.Under the Spanish régime the fees paid by litigants were excessive and the use of stamped paper was compulsory. Its value ranged from twenty-five centavos to two pesos for a folio of two sheets according to the amount involved in the suit. Now there are fixed fees of $8 in civil suits, except in probate matters, where the fee is $12.It was in the power of an unscrupulous litigant to make a lawsuit almost eternal. In matters involving an amount exceeding $250 it was lawful to institute proceedings in the action whereby the decision of the main issue was suspended pending decision of the proceedings, and as a decision was appealable to theaudiencia, this was often doneby attorneys who had an interest in delaying the suit. By instituting one proceeding after another a suit could be indefinitely prolonged.Another method of securing delay was to object to the judge. In case the judge denied the ground of the objection, a proceeding was instituted against him and the trial of the main issue was turned over to another judge; although the proceeding arising out of the objection did not suspend the trial of the main issue, when the time came to decide the latter the decision was withheld until the proceeding arising out of the objection was settled, and as this latter was one in connection with which other proceedings could be instituted which might delay the decision and consequently the decision of the main issue, there was no end to the matter.To-day all this has been stopped by the procedure in court. The challenging of judges is not allowed, although they must refrain from the trial of any matter when they are disqualified in any way as regards it. Proceedings which suspend the trial of the main issue cannot be instituted. The procedure itself is more expeditious, the time allowances and formalities have been reduced, and all the long Spanish civil procedure regarding the presentation of evidence has been shortened. Suits are settled with a speediness previously unknown. In order to avoid delay on the part of judges in rendering decisions, an act has been passed prohibiting the payment of their salaries without a certificate that they have no matter which has been awaiting decision for more than three months.Owing to the inquisitorial procedure which obtained under Spanish rule, the disposition of criminal cases was even slower than that of civil cases. The cause would be commenced, eitherde officio, by the judge who had a knowledge of the crime, or by the prosecuting attorney, or by virtue of private accusation on the part of the person aggrieved. The case once started, the investigations made during the period known as thesumariowere conducted inthe absence of the accused. The latter had no hand in the case, as it was thought that the reserve and secrecy of the procedure ought not to be violated to the end that the accused might not frustrate the evidence of the prosecution by preparing his defence. Owing many times to the inactivity of the judge or of the prosecuting attorney, to the great amount of work which weighed down the courts—for actions were begun when there was knowledge of the commission of the crime, although the perpetrators were not known—and by the manipulations at other times of the private accuser to whose interest it was to harm the accused by delaying thesumario, this period was often made to extend over years and years. Meanwhile the defendant was confined in prison, as no bail was allowed in any case in which the penalty was that ofpresidio correccional(from six months and one day to six years’ imprisonment) or greater. In addition to this the circumstance that all criminal causes in the islands had to be sent for review to the properaudiencia, caused a large accumulation of old cases in these higher courts, and this alone made their disposition a matter of some years.To-day the procedure is rapid. Information having been brought against the defendant, the trial is had in the same term or at most during the next term of court. Sometimes the trial is suspended owing to the non-appearance of witnesses, but it can be said that cases are rare where causes are pending in the docket of the court for a longer period than two terms. Causes appealed to the Supreme Court are disposed of promptly, and as a general rule it does not take over six months to get a decision.Defendants in criminal cases have now been granted by the Philippine Bill certain fundamentally important rights which they did not formerly enjoy; namely, to appear and defend in person or by counsel at every stage of the proceedings; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to testify as witnesses in theirown behalf; to be exempt from testifying against themselves; to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine, the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process issue for obtaining witnesses in their own favour; to have speedy and public trials; to be admitted to bail with sufficient sureties in all cases, except for capital offences. None of these rights were enjoyed under the procedure in effect during the Spanish régime. A man was prosecuted without being notified of the charges against him, and he was only made aware of the case against him after thesumario. When all of the evidence of the prosecution had been taken the accused was heard in his own defence. He was compelled to testify, and was subjected to a very inquisitorial examination, including questions which incriminated him. Although he had the right to compel witnesses for the prosecution to ratify over their signatures the evidence against him given during thesumario, as the defence of the majority of the accused was in the hands of attorneysde officiothey nearly always renounced this privilege of the defendant, and, as has already been said, bail was not admitted in any grave offence during the trial.No sentence of acquittal in a criminal case can now be appealed from by the government. Under the Spanish system sentences of acquittal of courts of first instance had to be referred for review to the properaudienciaand the fiscal of the latter could appeal from a sentence of acquittal by it.The Philippine Bill grants to the inhabitants of the islands other important individual rights which they did not formerly possess.The Spanish constitution was not in force here, and although the Penal Code contained provisions for punishing, in a way, officials who violated certain rights granted by the Spanish constitution, citizens had no expeditious method of securing their punishment. Now the Code of Civil Procedure grants them certain special remedies by which theirrights can be made good. To illustrate: Under the Spanish régime the only remedy for a man illegally detained was to bring a criminal action against the person illegally detaining him. He did not have the remedy of the writ of habeas corpus nor the writ of prohibition against an official who attempted to make him the victim of some unlawful act. His only remedy was to bring a criminal action against such official, or to sue him for damages. He could not compel public officials to perform their ministerial duties by mandamus proceedings.The individual rights conferred by the Philippine Bill, and the special remedies granted by the Code of Civil Procedure, assure to the inhabitants of the islands liberties and privileges entirely unknown to them during the days of Spanish sovereignty, and these liberties and privileges are adequately safeguarded.Two things still greatly complicate the administration of justice in the Philippines.The first is the dense ignorance of the people of the working class who for the most part have failed to learn of their new rights, and even if they know them are afraid to attempt to assert them in opposition to the will of thecaciques, whose power for evil they know only too well.The other is the unreliability of many witnesses and their shocking readiness to perjure themselves. It is always possible to manufacture testimony at small expense. While the criminal libel suit brought against certain members of the staff of the newspaperEl Renacimiento, which libelled me, was in progress the judge showed me the opinion of the two Filipino assessors3in one of the cases and told me that it was written by an attorney for the defence. I could not believe this, but a few days later an assessor in another of the cases called at my house, bringing a draft of the opinion of himself and his associate which he sought to submit to me forcriticism or modification, saying that I knew much more about the case than they did! He was nonplussed at my refusal to read the document, and left saying “acqui tiene V. nuevo servidor.”4Had I redrafted the opinion, as I might have done, my “new servant” would have called later for aquid pro quo.Some of the Filipino judges of first instance have proved weak in matters affecting the integrity of public domain and the protection of the public forests, but on the whole these officers have done rather surprisingly well. It must be remembered that the best men in the islands have now been appointed, and that another generation must come on before there will be available any considerable number of new candidates who are up to the standard of the present appointees.1See p. 998.2Female servant.3Men appointed to assist the judge in deciding questions of fact. Their decision is not binding on him.4Here [i.e.in me] you have a new servant.
Chapter XVThe Administration of Justice
In no branch of the public administration have there been more numerous or more beneficial reforms than in the administration of justice. They have resulted in simplifying organization, in decreasing the possibility of corruption and partiality, and in diminishing the cost of litigation and the time which it requires.For the benefit of those especially interested I give in the appendix the past and present organization of the courts.1The subject is too technical to interest the average layman.The slender salaries paid to judges, the fact that in the majority of cases their appointment and promotion were due to influence and suggestion, their liability to be transferred from one court to another or from the Philippines to the Antilles, as frequently happened, and the further fact that the subordinate personnel of the courts was not a salaried one, caused the administration of justice in the Philippine Islands to be looked upon askance. There was a general belief, well founded in many instances, that lawsuits were won through influence or bribery. Clerks and the subordinate personnel of the courts were readily bribed. Indeed, they frequently demanded bribes from litigants, or from defendants in criminal cases, under promise to expedite the trials if paid to do so, or under threat to commit some injustice if payment was not forthcoming. For many years after the American occupation justices of the peace received no salaries and had tolook to fees for their compensation. This system worked wretchedly. The positions were only too often filled by very incompetent and unworthy men, who stimulated litigation in order to make more money. Now all justices of the peace receive reasonable salaries.The paying of regular salaries and the furnishing of necessary offices and supplies have done much to improve the work of justice of the peace courts, which are now presided over by men who average far better than even their immediate predecessors.Until they were put on a salary basis the work of the Filipino justices of the peace left much more to be desired than is lacking at present. In many instances they allowed gross brutalities, perpetrated by the rich on the poor, or by the strong on the weak, to go unpunished. The following case furnished me by an American teacher is typical of what has occurred only too often:—“On another occasion, I met the brother of my housemuchacha,2a boy about eight. He had a sort of protuberance on one side caused by broken ribs which had not been set. I questioned mymuchacha. She said her step-father had kicked the child across the room some weeks before and broken his ribs. The next day, I took the child together with Señora Bayot, the wife of the Governor’s secretary, before the local Justice of the Peace. Señora Bayot translated and the child told the same story as had his sister. The Justice of the Peace issued an order for the step-father to report to him on the next day. That night mymuchachatold me that her step-father had threatened to kill the child if he did not tell the Justice that he got the hurt by falling out of an orange tree. The child did as ordered, and the step-father was dismissed. When I questioned the Justice of the Peace as to why he credited the second tale, he said the child was under oath then, and was not under oath in the first statements.”It was not deemed wise at the outset to appoint a Filipino judge for the city of Manila, as it was feared that there would be a lack of confidence in a Filipino who had occasion to decide cases involving large sums of moneyin which Americans or foreigners on the one hand and Filipinos on the other were interested; but a few years after the establishment of the new judicial system Filipino judges had won such a reputation for justice and fairness as to gain the confidence of Americans and foreigners and the appointment of a Filipino judge for the court of the city of Manila did not arouse any opposition.University Hall, ManilaUniversity Hall, ManilaFilipino judges of courts of first instance seem usually to have been actuated by a desire to do full justice. The instances in which complaints have been made against them because of partiality to party or to race are few. Some of them have been justly criticised for tardiness in cleaning up their dockets, and it is undoubtedly true that their capacity for turning out work is on the average below that of their Americans associates.The fact must not be forgotten that Americans are in the majority in the Supreme Court, which reviews the decisions of courts of first instance, and this undoubtedly exercises a restraining influence. It is not possible accurately to judge what would be the actions of a body of men now subject to such control if it did not exist. It is furthermore true that the Filipinos are more inclined to be suspicious of their own countrymen than of Americans, and there have been from time to time specific requests from them that judges in certain provinces be Americans.Under the Spanish régime the fees paid by litigants were excessive and the use of stamped paper was compulsory. Its value ranged from twenty-five centavos to two pesos for a folio of two sheets according to the amount involved in the suit. Now there are fixed fees of $8 in civil suits, except in probate matters, where the fee is $12.It was in the power of an unscrupulous litigant to make a lawsuit almost eternal. In matters involving an amount exceeding $250 it was lawful to institute proceedings in the action whereby the decision of the main issue was suspended pending decision of the proceedings, and as a decision was appealable to theaudiencia, this was often doneby attorneys who had an interest in delaying the suit. By instituting one proceeding after another a suit could be indefinitely prolonged.Another method of securing delay was to object to the judge. In case the judge denied the ground of the objection, a proceeding was instituted against him and the trial of the main issue was turned over to another judge; although the proceeding arising out of the objection did not suspend the trial of the main issue, when the time came to decide the latter the decision was withheld until the proceeding arising out of the objection was settled, and as this latter was one in connection with which other proceedings could be instituted which might delay the decision and consequently the decision of the main issue, there was no end to the matter.To-day all this has been stopped by the procedure in court. The challenging of judges is not allowed, although they must refrain from the trial of any matter when they are disqualified in any way as regards it. Proceedings which suspend the trial of the main issue cannot be instituted. The procedure itself is more expeditious, the time allowances and formalities have been reduced, and all the long Spanish civil procedure regarding the presentation of evidence has been shortened. Suits are settled with a speediness previously unknown. In order to avoid delay on the part of judges in rendering decisions, an act has been passed prohibiting the payment of their salaries without a certificate that they have no matter which has been awaiting decision for more than three months.Owing to the inquisitorial procedure which obtained under Spanish rule, the disposition of criminal cases was even slower than that of civil cases. The cause would be commenced, eitherde officio, by the judge who had a knowledge of the crime, or by the prosecuting attorney, or by virtue of private accusation on the part of the person aggrieved. The case once started, the investigations made during the period known as thesumariowere conducted inthe absence of the accused. The latter had no hand in the case, as it was thought that the reserve and secrecy of the procedure ought not to be violated to the end that the accused might not frustrate the evidence of the prosecution by preparing his defence. Owing many times to the inactivity of the judge or of the prosecuting attorney, to the great amount of work which weighed down the courts—for actions were begun when there was knowledge of the commission of the crime, although the perpetrators were not known—and by the manipulations at other times of the private accuser to whose interest it was to harm the accused by delaying thesumario, this period was often made to extend over years and years. Meanwhile the defendant was confined in prison, as no bail was allowed in any case in which the penalty was that ofpresidio correccional(from six months and one day to six years’ imprisonment) or greater. In addition to this the circumstance that all criminal causes in the islands had to be sent for review to the properaudiencia, caused a large accumulation of old cases in these higher courts, and this alone made their disposition a matter of some years.To-day the procedure is rapid. Information having been brought against the defendant, the trial is had in the same term or at most during the next term of court. Sometimes the trial is suspended owing to the non-appearance of witnesses, but it can be said that cases are rare where causes are pending in the docket of the court for a longer period than two terms. Causes appealed to the Supreme Court are disposed of promptly, and as a general rule it does not take over six months to get a decision.Defendants in criminal cases have now been granted by the Philippine Bill certain fundamentally important rights which they did not formerly enjoy; namely, to appear and defend in person or by counsel at every stage of the proceedings; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to testify as witnesses in theirown behalf; to be exempt from testifying against themselves; to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine, the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process issue for obtaining witnesses in their own favour; to have speedy and public trials; to be admitted to bail with sufficient sureties in all cases, except for capital offences. None of these rights were enjoyed under the procedure in effect during the Spanish régime. A man was prosecuted without being notified of the charges against him, and he was only made aware of the case against him after thesumario. When all of the evidence of the prosecution had been taken the accused was heard in his own defence. He was compelled to testify, and was subjected to a very inquisitorial examination, including questions which incriminated him. Although he had the right to compel witnesses for the prosecution to ratify over their signatures the evidence against him given during thesumario, as the defence of the majority of the accused was in the hands of attorneysde officiothey nearly always renounced this privilege of the defendant, and, as has already been said, bail was not admitted in any grave offence during the trial.No sentence of acquittal in a criminal case can now be appealed from by the government. Under the Spanish system sentences of acquittal of courts of first instance had to be referred for review to the properaudienciaand the fiscal of the latter could appeal from a sentence of acquittal by it.The Philippine Bill grants to the inhabitants of the islands other important individual rights which they did not formerly possess.The Spanish constitution was not in force here, and although the Penal Code contained provisions for punishing, in a way, officials who violated certain rights granted by the Spanish constitution, citizens had no expeditious method of securing their punishment. Now the Code of Civil Procedure grants them certain special remedies by which theirrights can be made good. To illustrate: Under the Spanish régime the only remedy for a man illegally detained was to bring a criminal action against the person illegally detaining him. He did not have the remedy of the writ of habeas corpus nor the writ of prohibition against an official who attempted to make him the victim of some unlawful act. His only remedy was to bring a criminal action against such official, or to sue him for damages. He could not compel public officials to perform their ministerial duties by mandamus proceedings.The individual rights conferred by the Philippine Bill, and the special remedies granted by the Code of Civil Procedure, assure to the inhabitants of the islands liberties and privileges entirely unknown to them during the days of Spanish sovereignty, and these liberties and privileges are adequately safeguarded.Two things still greatly complicate the administration of justice in the Philippines.The first is the dense ignorance of the people of the working class who for the most part have failed to learn of their new rights, and even if they know them are afraid to attempt to assert them in opposition to the will of thecaciques, whose power for evil they know only too well.The other is the unreliability of many witnesses and their shocking readiness to perjure themselves. It is always possible to manufacture testimony at small expense. While the criminal libel suit brought against certain members of the staff of the newspaperEl Renacimiento, which libelled me, was in progress the judge showed me the opinion of the two Filipino assessors3in one of the cases and told me that it was written by an attorney for the defence. I could not believe this, but a few days later an assessor in another of the cases called at my house, bringing a draft of the opinion of himself and his associate which he sought to submit to me forcriticism or modification, saying that I knew much more about the case than they did! He was nonplussed at my refusal to read the document, and left saying “acqui tiene V. nuevo servidor.”4Had I redrafted the opinion, as I might have done, my “new servant” would have called later for aquid pro quo.Some of the Filipino judges of first instance have proved weak in matters affecting the integrity of public domain and the protection of the public forests, but on the whole these officers have done rather surprisingly well. It must be remembered that the best men in the islands have now been appointed, and that another generation must come on before there will be available any considerable number of new candidates who are up to the standard of the present appointees.
In no branch of the public administration have there been more numerous or more beneficial reforms than in the administration of justice. They have resulted in simplifying organization, in decreasing the possibility of corruption and partiality, and in diminishing the cost of litigation and the time which it requires.
For the benefit of those especially interested I give in the appendix the past and present organization of the courts.1The subject is too technical to interest the average layman.
The slender salaries paid to judges, the fact that in the majority of cases their appointment and promotion were due to influence and suggestion, their liability to be transferred from one court to another or from the Philippines to the Antilles, as frequently happened, and the further fact that the subordinate personnel of the courts was not a salaried one, caused the administration of justice in the Philippine Islands to be looked upon askance. There was a general belief, well founded in many instances, that lawsuits were won through influence or bribery. Clerks and the subordinate personnel of the courts were readily bribed. Indeed, they frequently demanded bribes from litigants, or from defendants in criminal cases, under promise to expedite the trials if paid to do so, or under threat to commit some injustice if payment was not forthcoming. For many years after the American occupation justices of the peace received no salaries and had tolook to fees for their compensation. This system worked wretchedly. The positions were only too often filled by very incompetent and unworthy men, who stimulated litigation in order to make more money. Now all justices of the peace receive reasonable salaries.
The paying of regular salaries and the furnishing of necessary offices and supplies have done much to improve the work of justice of the peace courts, which are now presided over by men who average far better than even their immediate predecessors.
Until they were put on a salary basis the work of the Filipino justices of the peace left much more to be desired than is lacking at present. In many instances they allowed gross brutalities, perpetrated by the rich on the poor, or by the strong on the weak, to go unpunished. The following case furnished me by an American teacher is typical of what has occurred only too often:—
“On another occasion, I met the brother of my housemuchacha,2a boy about eight. He had a sort of protuberance on one side caused by broken ribs which had not been set. I questioned mymuchacha. She said her step-father had kicked the child across the room some weeks before and broken his ribs. The next day, I took the child together with Señora Bayot, the wife of the Governor’s secretary, before the local Justice of the Peace. Señora Bayot translated and the child told the same story as had his sister. The Justice of the Peace issued an order for the step-father to report to him on the next day. That night mymuchachatold me that her step-father had threatened to kill the child if he did not tell the Justice that he got the hurt by falling out of an orange tree. The child did as ordered, and the step-father was dismissed. When I questioned the Justice of the Peace as to why he credited the second tale, he said the child was under oath then, and was not under oath in the first statements.”
“On another occasion, I met the brother of my housemuchacha,2a boy about eight. He had a sort of protuberance on one side caused by broken ribs which had not been set. I questioned mymuchacha. She said her step-father had kicked the child across the room some weeks before and broken his ribs. The next day, I took the child together with Señora Bayot, the wife of the Governor’s secretary, before the local Justice of the Peace. Señora Bayot translated and the child told the same story as had his sister. The Justice of the Peace issued an order for the step-father to report to him on the next day. That night mymuchachatold me that her step-father had threatened to kill the child if he did not tell the Justice that he got the hurt by falling out of an orange tree. The child did as ordered, and the step-father was dismissed. When I questioned the Justice of the Peace as to why he credited the second tale, he said the child was under oath then, and was not under oath in the first statements.”
It was not deemed wise at the outset to appoint a Filipino judge for the city of Manila, as it was feared that there would be a lack of confidence in a Filipino who had occasion to decide cases involving large sums of moneyin which Americans or foreigners on the one hand and Filipinos on the other were interested; but a few years after the establishment of the new judicial system Filipino judges had won such a reputation for justice and fairness as to gain the confidence of Americans and foreigners and the appointment of a Filipino judge for the court of the city of Manila did not arouse any opposition.
University Hall, ManilaUniversity Hall, Manila
University Hall, Manila
Filipino judges of courts of first instance seem usually to have been actuated by a desire to do full justice. The instances in which complaints have been made against them because of partiality to party or to race are few. Some of them have been justly criticised for tardiness in cleaning up their dockets, and it is undoubtedly true that their capacity for turning out work is on the average below that of their Americans associates.
The fact must not be forgotten that Americans are in the majority in the Supreme Court, which reviews the decisions of courts of first instance, and this undoubtedly exercises a restraining influence. It is not possible accurately to judge what would be the actions of a body of men now subject to such control if it did not exist. It is furthermore true that the Filipinos are more inclined to be suspicious of their own countrymen than of Americans, and there have been from time to time specific requests from them that judges in certain provinces be Americans.
Under the Spanish régime the fees paid by litigants were excessive and the use of stamped paper was compulsory. Its value ranged from twenty-five centavos to two pesos for a folio of two sheets according to the amount involved in the suit. Now there are fixed fees of $8 in civil suits, except in probate matters, where the fee is $12.
It was in the power of an unscrupulous litigant to make a lawsuit almost eternal. In matters involving an amount exceeding $250 it was lawful to institute proceedings in the action whereby the decision of the main issue was suspended pending decision of the proceedings, and as a decision was appealable to theaudiencia, this was often doneby attorneys who had an interest in delaying the suit. By instituting one proceeding after another a suit could be indefinitely prolonged.
Another method of securing delay was to object to the judge. In case the judge denied the ground of the objection, a proceeding was instituted against him and the trial of the main issue was turned over to another judge; although the proceeding arising out of the objection did not suspend the trial of the main issue, when the time came to decide the latter the decision was withheld until the proceeding arising out of the objection was settled, and as this latter was one in connection with which other proceedings could be instituted which might delay the decision and consequently the decision of the main issue, there was no end to the matter.
To-day all this has been stopped by the procedure in court. The challenging of judges is not allowed, although they must refrain from the trial of any matter when they are disqualified in any way as regards it. Proceedings which suspend the trial of the main issue cannot be instituted. The procedure itself is more expeditious, the time allowances and formalities have been reduced, and all the long Spanish civil procedure regarding the presentation of evidence has been shortened. Suits are settled with a speediness previously unknown. In order to avoid delay on the part of judges in rendering decisions, an act has been passed prohibiting the payment of their salaries without a certificate that they have no matter which has been awaiting decision for more than three months.
Owing to the inquisitorial procedure which obtained under Spanish rule, the disposition of criminal cases was even slower than that of civil cases. The cause would be commenced, eitherde officio, by the judge who had a knowledge of the crime, or by the prosecuting attorney, or by virtue of private accusation on the part of the person aggrieved. The case once started, the investigations made during the period known as thesumariowere conducted inthe absence of the accused. The latter had no hand in the case, as it was thought that the reserve and secrecy of the procedure ought not to be violated to the end that the accused might not frustrate the evidence of the prosecution by preparing his defence. Owing many times to the inactivity of the judge or of the prosecuting attorney, to the great amount of work which weighed down the courts—for actions were begun when there was knowledge of the commission of the crime, although the perpetrators were not known—and by the manipulations at other times of the private accuser to whose interest it was to harm the accused by delaying thesumario, this period was often made to extend over years and years. Meanwhile the defendant was confined in prison, as no bail was allowed in any case in which the penalty was that ofpresidio correccional(from six months and one day to six years’ imprisonment) or greater. In addition to this the circumstance that all criminal causes in the islands had to be sent for review to the properaudiencia, caused a large accumulation of old cases in these higher courts, and this alone made their disposition a matter of some years.
To-day the procedure is rapid. Information having been brought against the defendant, the trial is had in the same term or at most during the next term of court. Sometimes the trial is suspended owing to the non-appearance of witnesses, but it can be said that cases are rare where causes are pending in the docket of the court for a longer period than two terms. Causes appealed to the Supreme Court are disposed of promptly, and as a general rule it does not take over six months to get a decision.
Defendants in criminal cases have now been granted by the Philippine Bill certain fundamentally important rights which they did not formerly enjoy; namely, to appear and defend in person or by counsel at every stage of the proceedings; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to testify as witnesses in theirown behalf; to be exempt from testifying against themselves; to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine, the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process issue for obtaining witnesses in their own favour; to have speedy and public trials; to be admitted to bail with sufficient sureties in all cases, except for capital offences. None of these rights were enjoyed under the procedure in effect during the Spanish régime. A man was prosecuted without being notified of the charges against him, and he was only made aware of the case against him after thesumario. When all of the evidence of the prosecution had been taken the accused was heard in his own defence. He was compelled to testify, and was subjected to a very inquisitorial examination, including questions which incriminated him. Although he had the right to compel witnesses for the prosecution to ratify over their signatures the evidence against him given during thesumario, as the defence of the majority of the accused was in the hands of attorneysde officiothey nearly always renounced this privilege of the defendant, and, as has already been said, bail was not admitted in any grave offence during the trial.
No sentence of acquittal in a criminal case can now be appealed from by the government. Under the Spanish system sentences of acquittal of courts of first instance had to be referred for review to the properaudienciaand the fiscal of the latter could appeal from a sentence of acquittal by it.
The Philippine Bill grants to the inhabitants of the islands other important individual rights which they did not formerly possess.
The Spanish constitution was not in force here, and although the Penal Code contained provisions for punishing, in a way, officials who violated certain rights granted by the Spanish constitution, citizens had no expeditious method of securing their punishment. Now the Code of Civil Procedure grants them certain special remedies by which theirrights can be made good. To illustrate: Under the Spanish régime the only remedy for a man illegally detained was to bring a criminal action against the person illegally detaining him. He did not have the remedy of the writ of habeas corpus nor the writ of prohibition against an official who attempted to make him the victim of some unlawful act. His only remedy was to bring a criminal action against such official, or to sue him for damages. He could not compel public officials to perform their ministerial duties by mandamus proceedings.
The individual rights conferred by the Philippine Bill, and the special remedies granted by the Code of Civil Procedure, assure to the inhabitants of the islands liberties and privileges entirely unknown to them during the days of Spanish sovereignty, and these liberties and privileges are adequately safeguarded.
Two things still greatly complicate the administration of justice in the Philippines.
The first is the dense ignorance of the people of the working class who for the most part have failed to learn of their new rights, and even if they know them are afraid to attempt to assert them in opposition to the will of thecaciques, whose power for evil they know only too well.
The other is the unreliability of many witnesses and their shocking readiness to perjure themselves. It is always possible to manufacture testimony at small expense. While the criminal libel suit brought against certain members of the staff of the newspaperEl Renacimiento, which libelled me, was in progress the judge showed me the opinion of the two Filipino assessors3in one of the cases and told me that it was written by an attorney for the defence. I could not believe this, but a few days later an assessor in another of the cases called at my house, bringing a draft of the opinion of himself and his associate which he sought to submit to me forcriticism or modification, saying that I knew much more about the case than they did! He was nonplussed at my refusal to read the document, and left saying “acqui tiene V. nuevo servidor.”4Had I redrafted the opinion, as I might have done, my “new servant” would have called later for aquid pro quo.
Some of the Filipino judges of first instance have proved weak in matters affecting the integrity of public domain and the protection of the public forests, but on the whole these officers have done rather surprisingly well. It must be remembered that the best men in the islands have now been appointed, and that another generation must come on before there will be available any considerable number of new candidates who are up to the standard of the present appointees.
1See p. 998.2Female servant.3Men appointed to assist the judge in deciding questions of fact. Their decision is not binding on him.4Here [i.e.in me] you have a new servant.
1See p. 998.
2Female servant.
3Men appointed to assist the judge in deciding questions of fact. Their decision is not binding on him.
4Here [i.e.in me] you have a new servant.