It starts with a gruesome killing or senseless death. Then, it is widely reported in traditional media and goes viral on social media. Then the police investigation, then the NBI investigation. Details come out, misinformation bubbles up. Charges are filed or aren’t, the usual press conferences are held. And then silence. The cases are swallowed up by the courts and buried in the pits of the criminal justice system. The cycle repeats.

Until there is a major development in the case like a witness being killed (the Maguindanao massacre), a dismissal (usually graft cases against politicians), or a conviction (sometimes the rich and powerful), there is no interest save for the occasional write up on what happened to such and such a matter.

This is to be expected, because cases last so long in this country. This has been the situation even before the founding of the republic. In the time of Rizal in the late 19^th century, when life was simpler and society more innocent, he had already observed the length of time it took for cases to be resolved. It took a herculean effort to sustain vigilance to ensure the punishment of the guilty and the protection of the just.

The reasons for the wait are plain and numerous. Very much like the traffic gridlocks we experience and our dealings with any government office, we get frustrated with them and ask – why can’t this or that be done to solve the problem? It seems simple enough, except for those who are in the position to do something about it.

For example, instead of having forms available online for downloading, or getting to email parties upon request, the public is told: “Punta nalang kayo, sir/madam, sa opisina.” This does not consider the distance and the cost, especially for those who live far away or have disabilities. At least some electronic changes occurred in the judiciary during the pandemic. Most courts now have official emails that can be reached reasonably.

Another example is when the likes of the IATF adopt a commanding attitude and tell citizens to do this and to do that, without grounding their directives in facts and taking into account how these directives are offensive to common sense.

The first thing to do is examine and transform the mindsets of bureaucrats. Private companies live and thrive on their customer-first strategies, but the government suffers from a lack of care for its constituents. Citizen-centric it must become.

Our systems in government institutions are designed with a distrust of its users. It is a politically grand concept to enshrine the principle of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power, but it is different when it comes to renewing a driver’s license or a passport. The one who presents must be presumed to be the person asking for the service without requiring all the documents to prove one’s identity and intention.

The second approach is to redesign our agencies and how they operate. There is the posting of a citizen’s charter to outline steps, and the anti-red tape law that is meant to shorten delays. But unless there is a focused reengineering of the processes, these will have limited impact. Such efforts are ongoing in businesses and governments in some parts of the world, but they are not as deliberate in the Philippines.

Particularly for the court system where the check-and-balance concept is most applied, complex laws and complicated rules add to the confusion and account for a befuddling, costly, and lengthy experience for litigants.

It takes a wholesale, stepladder strategy to simplify laws from the legislature, simplify procedures of the judiciary, and simplify rules for the executive. The probability is akin to the alignment of stars in the galaxy. No wonder legal reform is almost non-existent!

Yet much is at stake with the clear and consistent interpretation and application of laws that constitute the pillar of the rule of law, which is the foundation for criminal, social, and economic justice. Witness the need for the stability of contracts, for fairness in bids and awards. Witness the graft in infrastructure and health services and weep for the costs of squandered resources and lost opportunities for development.

The third angle is to turn things around to plan for enough capacity in the courts. If there are more investigators, prosecutors, public defenders, and courts and corrections officers, even with the staggering delays, cases can move a bit faster. The economic law of supply and demand ought to be embedded when plans are made for the justice system.

Otherwise, cases will go on and on until the innocents tire or die out. Cases will last an eternity until the guilty are absolved just by the passage of time. Contrary to the popular expression “walang forever,” on the contrary, cases can be forever. – Rappler.com

Geronimo L. Sy is a former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Justice. He set up the Office of Cybercrime and the Office for Competition.