Under the leadership of Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, the Supreme Court has been seen to have risen to the challenge of times and kept the wheels of justice continuously moving despite the coronavirus pandemic that unexpectedly caught the Philippines and the world unprepared for the virulent virus that slowed down every business and government operations.
Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the judiciary under the stewardship of Peralta, who was appointed by President Rodrigo Duterte as the 26th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on October 23, 2019, has continuously kept the wheels of justice grinding and perform its mandate, making sure that the judicial processes from the 15-member bench down to the small courts were moving unhampered without sacrificing the health and welfare of the court employees and the public.
Guided by his vision of reforms in the judiciary under his 10-Point Program, which focuses on four areas, namely: efficiency, integrity, service, and security, which he immediately laid down after his appointment as Chief Justice, Peralta implemented various reform measures, such as the launching of the Judiciary Public Assistance Section or JPAS, otherwise known as the Judiciary Help Desk, which provides a communication link between the judiciary, the stakeholders, and the public. JPAS addresses the needs of the public as it needs attention to request for assistance and information, queries, and concerns from the public.
“I have gone through the task of laying groundworks for other reforms based on my 10-point program, when unexpectedly a curve ball has been thrown at us. This happened in mid-March 2020 and this was the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only the country but the entire world was not prepared for the coronavirus, which slowed down almost every business and government operations,” Peralta told reporters on October 23, marking his first year as top magistrate.
“But not even the COVID-19 will prevent or stop the judiciary from performing its mandate. I personally monitor the courts from the Supreme Court down to the small courts daily. I did not allow this virulent virus to prevent the SC from making sure that the wheels of justice will continue to be moving unhampered and without sacrificing the health and welfare of the court employees and the public,” the Chief Justice declared.
“I was constantly in touch with the other members of the Court and key officials in the Supreme Court as I deliberated with them on some policy changes through bearable technology, emails, text messages and online meetings,” he said, citing the first online meeting of the Court En Banc on April 17.
At the height of the lockdown, Peralta was in constant communication with Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez several times a day to discuss matters with him to make sure that all concerns of the lower courts were being attended to.
“Nonetheless, I am pleased to say that despite the pandemic most of the items in my 10-point program have already come to fruition,” Peralta declared, adding that he was most especially proud that “only a year under my watch, the Court has approved several rules and guidelines to address head on the problem of the court decongestion.”
Shortly after taking over the helm of the judiciary following his appointment as the 26th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in October last year, Peralta laid down his so-called “Ten-Point Program, which was basically an overview of his major plans and programs “to guide the Judiciary to greater heights.”
“As these plans and goals are meant to uplift the judicial system and to improve public service, I will be needing your full support and cooperation. I cannot carry out the plans and achieve the goals by myself. But as I stressed earlier, I shall lead by example,” Peralta said, in soliciting the support of his colleagues and Court’s personnel in achieving his vision of reforms for the judiciary.
The aspects of Peralta’s Ten-Point Program
Elimination of backlog: The Supreme Court and all other courts have been mandated to continue to comply with existing rules and guidelines pertaining to prescribed periods for trial dates, including promulgation of decisions, and other rules geared towards the realization of speedy disposition of cases.
Implementation of duly approved Revised Rules of Court and the continuous revision of the Rules of Court and other rules of procedures to be more responsive to the needs of court-users and for the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJA) to focus on skills-based training for judges and court personnel. Chief Justice Peralta also vowed to implement the Rule on Search and Inspection Order provided for under the Philippine Competition Commission Law; implementation of the Special Rules on Admiralty Cases; and the amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules on Evidence.
The SC implemented automation of court processes and the incorporation of court technology in hearings and trials to both the adjudicative and the administrative processes of the Court. It entails the use of court technology during trial, especially for electronic evidence and testimonies through videoconferencing. This also necessitates the strengthening of the management information systems offices of the courts.
Continuation of the weeding out of misfits from the Judiciary and adoption of a system where the Court may initiate on its own, the investigation of cases being handled by members of Judiciary even in the absence of complaints. Chief Justice Peralta has imposed timelines in resolving administrative complaints, including complaints initiated by the Court, and timelines for the Supreme Court to resolve these complaints.
Strengthening of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the implementation of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB). This would mean automation of the processes of the Office of the Court Administrator to monitor and effectively address the concerns of the lower courts as regards infrastructure, communication, equipment, and supplies issues; to address the lack of court personnel and the inequitable distribution of cases in the lower courts; to create an Audit Office dedicated to the conduct of judicial audits; to appoint more Judicial Supervisors to conduct and oversee the said audits; to harmonize the functions of the OCA and the Judiciary Integrity Board, and harmonize its functions with the OCA.
Strengthening and improving the security of Justices, judges, and Halls of Justice. Peralta expressed hope that the Court devises a system, either through legislation or through the Court’s initiative, the creation of a Security System patterned after the United States Marshals.
Setting up of a 24/7 help desk in the Office of the Chief Justice and other offices to receive the concerns of court users
Monitoring of performance of all courts, especially for the observance of the Rules on Hearing Dates, including observance of reglementary or prescribed periods to resolve pending incidents. Peralta stressed that this was intended to attain an objective evaluation of work performance of court officials and employees, for purposes of promotion and the conferment of the Judicial Excellence Awards.
Improvement of procurement and bidding processes, for faster and timelier implementation of projects. Improvement of procurement and bidding processes would involve the establishment of a dedicated procurement and bidding-support office, and the adoption of best practices of other government agencies. Peralta noted that at present, the Court’s ad hoc committees are unable to effectively cope with the procurement demands of the courts.
Creation of a Strategic Planning and Management Unit under the Program Management Office (PMO). The top magistrate explained that this plan was aimed to organize the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of court projects geared towards court-specific goals that are aligned with the country’s national development plan, as well as to ensure continuity of court programs and projects in the event of changes in management and leadership.
The Peralta Court during the COVID-19 pandemic
When President Rodrigo Duterte placed the entire country under various levels of community quarantine starting in March due to COVID-19 pandemic, the public health emergency did not deter or even sidetrack the Peralta Court from its priorities, including the implementation of necessary measures aimed at eliminating the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court and all other courts.
To implement his various reforms in the judiciary, the top magistrate with the concurrence of his colleagues in the high bench adopted several administrative circulars and issuances, including measures aimed at preventing the spread of the coronavirus, while ensuring the wheels of justice would continue to grind for effective and responsive justice.
On March 13, 2020, the SC issued Administrative Circulars 28-2020 and 29-2020 suspending personal follow-ups and instead coursed through the matters through Judiciary Public Assistance Section, which is also known as “Judiciary Help Desk”, a brainchild of Chief Justice Peralta.
On March 16, 2020, the Court ordered the suspension of hearings nationwide and prescriptive periods extended for one month.
On March 20, 2020, the Court issued Administrative Circular No. 32-2020 ordering physical closure of courts, but established court hotlines for the public concerns to be addressed through these hotlines.
On March 31, Administrative Circular 33-2020 was issued where the Court suspended physical filing of criminal complaints, information and bail requirements and instead allowed electronic filing through email and approval of bail and release order should be electronically transmitted within the same day to the proper law enforcement authority or detention facility to enable the release of the accused.
Peralta emphasized that allowing the electronic filing of complaints and charges, as well as electronic posting of bail, would further minimize the number of court personnel who must leave their homes during the lockdown.
"This will enable the courts to digitally act on the matters covered by this circular, thereby reducing the necessity of the judge and court staff to physically travel to their stations,” Peralta said, in Administrative Circular No. 33-2020.
This would mean that information can be filed electronically, and the judge shall evaluate within 3 days if it would be dismissed or if the case would proceed.
According to the Chief Justice, if the judge orders an arrest, "the accused (may) submit all the requirements for bail, which may likewise be initially electronically transmitted to the court."
"The electronically transmitted approval of bail and release order by the Executive Judge shall be sufficient to cause the release of the accused," Peralta said. The SC monitors the implementation of the circular through the Office of the Court Administrator.
“We issued these circulars because we wanted the courts to continue to function and therefore those arrested without a warrant and complaints should be filed within the period required under the rules should be immediately attended to,” he stressed.
On April 27, 2020, Peralta said since there were cases that cannot be attended to through electronic transmission, the SC had allowed the pilot testing of videoconferencing.
“Fortunately, even before the pandemic, we were already pilot testing videoconferencing as early as June 2019. We were pilot-testing videoconferencing in Davao City. So, because of that in Davao, it becomes easy for us to implement the use of videoconferencing in other courts. We expanded the videoconferencing, and we allowed some courts in the National Capital Region and select courts in every region to utilize videoconferencing,” he said.
“We also allowed videoconferencing in all stages of trial. That is not only on arraignment but also during the trial, and pilot courts had been provided with Judiciary 365 accounts with email and videoconferencing applications,” he added.
On April 30, 2020, the Court issued Administrative Circular No. 38-2020, by the initiative of the Supreme Court, to allow reduced bail and recognizance for indigents persons deprived of liberties (PDLs).
“Because at that time, we felt that COVID-19 was already spreading in jails not only in BJMP (Bureau of Jail Management and Penology) jails, but also in provincial jails, municipal jails and detention centers of our police and there is a need to decongest our jails. Based on our studies, only a few PDLs were able to apply for bail because the majority of them are indigents who could not afford to pay for their bail,” Peralta lamented.
Under the circular, indigent PDLs, who face possible imprisonment of reclusion temporal or 12 year and 1 day to 20 years; prision mayor or six years and one day to 12 years; prision correctional or six months and one day to six years; could post bail at reduced amount, while those indigent PDLs facing arresto mayor or one month to six months and arresto manor or one day to 30 days have been allowed bail on their own recognizance.
When the modified enhanced community quarantine was imposed on May 14, 2020, the High Tribunal issued Administrative Circular No. 39-2020 mandating physical closure of courts and all matters coursed through email, hotline, and Judiciary Public Assistance Section, and allowed the filing of pleadings for criminal and civil cases through email. The SC also allowed videoconferencing of the raffle of cases and hearings in both criminal and civil cases.
On May 15, 2020, when other places were put under the general community quarantine, the SC issued Administrative Circular No. 40-2020 allowing courts to physically open with skeleton staff and in-court hearings were allowed. “We also allow the filing of pleadings, which may be done physically or electronically. In videoconferencing hearings were still authorized, with judges presiding from court unless exempted.
From May to September 2020, the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator issued a series of circulars that ultimately paved the way for authorizing all courts to conduct videoconferencing hearings.
The SC also extended until September 30, 2020 the prohibition against the transfer of prisoners from one detention facility to another purportedly to control the spread of coronavirus among persons deprived of liberty.
In a circular issued by Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez, the SC forbids the transfers of suspected criminal offenders who are now in the detention facilities of the Philippine National Police to the jails managed by the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology.
The Office of the Court Administrator also bans the transfers of convicted PDLs from BJMP jails to the facilities of the Bureau of Corrections like the National Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City.
The ban stayed until September 30 “considering that the country remains to be in different levels of community quarantine due to COVID-19 pandemic.”
Justice with compassion
With the implementation of various measures that allowed the courts to perform even during the lockdowns, some 81,888 persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) were released from March 17 to October 16 and more than half of them were through videoconferencing hearings.
Peralta stressed that 19,173 of the PDLs were released on bail, reduced bail, or recognizance, while others were acquitted, had their cases dismissed, served either the minimum or maximum penalty, or are out on probation.
The chief magistrate also noted that during the seven-month period, where the country was in a lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic, 880 children in conflict with the law (CICL) were released through video conference hearings.
E-Justice
In the early weeks of the pandemic in the country, Peralta had ordered the physical closure of courts to reduce transmission.
To control the spread of the COVID-19, the Supreme Court was prompted to implement various measures intended to transition the judiciary from physical court proceedings to online court processes, including hearings, filing of pleadings, and posting of bail.
The SC had approved the use of videoconferencing for hearings involving high-risk or seriously ill detainees in August 2019 and tested it in Davao, but the pandemic led to the rollout of the technology for over a thousand of courts nationwide.
According to Peralta, 110,369 videoconferencing hearings have been conducted from May to October, a large majority of them on criminal cases. More than 43,000 are on the arraignment and pre-trial stage and more than 40,000 are in the trial proper.
The Chief Justice said thousands of promulgations of judgment, bail hearings, pre-arraignment, and post-judgment hearings have also been held online.
Peralta said 88% of videoconferencing hearings are successful and attributed failures to technical problems like internet connection.
In October 2020, the SC through OCA has required all judges and personnel of first and second level courts that all official announcements, issuances, and periodic reports would be electronically sent to and from SC through the Philippine Judiciary Office 365 accounts.
In OCA Circular No. 162-2020, the Court Administrator stressed that the full utilization of Philippine Judiciary Office 365 accounts for court issuances would start on October 1, 2020.
With this, the OCA reminded all concerned judges and court personnel to regularly log in to their accounts at least once in the morning upon arrival in court and once in the afternoon before departure to check for newly released administrative orders, circulars, and other Court issuances.
“All administrative orders, circulars, memoranda and other issuances by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice and the Office of the Court Administrator shall now be posted and disseminated to the first and second level courts through the Official Announcements and Issuances Channel in the Philippine Judiciary Office 365 platform,” the circular stated.
“These will no longer be individually distributed to the courts, either by registered or electronic main,” it said.
Starting October 1, hard copies of reports and documents will no longer be accepted.
The OCA have provided the more than 1,000 single-sala courts with Philippine Judiciary 365 accounts to enable them to conduct trials through videoconferencing during the pandemic.
Only 252 employees tested positive for COVID-19
Of the judiciary's 28,954 employees, which include those from the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and lower court, Peralta said that 252, or less than 1%, tested positive for COVID-19.
Performance of the Supreme Court
Peralta said the Supreme Court has achieved a clearance rate of 98 percent, constituting performance of the high court, in general for judicial cases pending as of December 31, 2019 to September 30, 2020. Clearance rate is based on performance of resolved cases during that period.
For administrative and bar matters, the SC recorded a clearance rate of 127 %, representing the performance of the Court’s En Banc, and its three divisions for cases pending as of December 31, 2019 to September 30, 2020.
Declogging various courts
Citing a high number of pending cases with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, regional trial courts, and first level court, the Chief Justice gave highest priority to the elimination of backlog of cases.
At the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice adopted various measures intended to speed up resolution of pending cases, one of which was the immediate dismissal of petitions or cases when the SC lacks jurisdiction, for wrong remedy or violation of hierarchy of courts or non-compliant of the Rules.
Peralta also expressed confidence that the SC can now expedite resolution of many cases involving notices of disallowances filed by the Commission on Audit, an independent constitutional body.
For the Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan, Peralta vowed to meet with presiding justices of CA and Sandiganbayan to tackle the backlog at their respective dockets.
SC adopts new Rules of Court
The Peralta Court has approved several Rules of Court aimed at expediting resolution of cases, such as the Rule on Administrative Search and Inspection under the Philippine Competition Act, Rule of Procedure for Admiralty cases and 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Revised Rules on Evidence.
Rule on Administrative Search and Inspection Under the Philippine Competition Act
In January, Chief Justice Peralta spearheaded the launching of the Rule on Administrative Search and Inspection under the Philippine Competition Act or Republic Act No. 10667, which is intended to help in the investigation and prosecution of offenses punishable under the competition law.
The completion and adoption of the Rule on Administrative Search and Inspection under the PCA was the result of months of hard work and effort by the Supreme Court’s Special Committee for the Rules on Inspection, the Court’s resource persons, and the officials of the Philippine Competition Commission. Peralta serves as the chairperson of the SC’s Special Committee for the Rules on Inspection.
Under En Banc resolution, the rule shall govern the application, issuance, and enforcement of an inspection order for administrative investigations of alleged violations of the PCA, its implementing rules and regulations, and other competition laws. The Rule took effect on November 16, 2019.
The PCA “is the primary competition policy of the Philippines for promoting and protecting a competitive market.” It defines and penalizes anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position, and anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions.
It also gives the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) the power, upon order of the court, to undertake inspections of business premises and other offices, land, and vehicles, as used by the entity, where it reasonably suspects that relevant books, tax records, or other documents which relate to any matter relevant to the investigation are kept, to prevent the removal, concealment, tampering with, or destruction of the books, records, or other documents.
The rule was drafted to ensure that the exercise of the power granted under the PCA is effective, objective, efficient, and provides a balance between the right to due process and the strong public interest in the enforcement of the law.
Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases
Acting on the call of the stakeholders in shipping and maritime industry, Supreme Court has adopted what it called “The Rules of Procedures for Admiralty Cases” that will provide guidance to regional trial courts in the resolution of admiralty or maritime cases such as contracts, torts, injuries, or offenses that take on navigable waters, among others.
The SC promulgated the A.M. No. 19-08-14-SC otherwise known as The Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases intended to provide Philippine courts with a special and summary procedure for admiralty cases as defined by the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 or Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
The rules were drafted after the creation of the Special Committee for The Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases under Memorandum Order No. 23-2019 dated April 3, 2019. The Special Committee is headed by Supreme Court Associate Justices Diosdado M. Peralta and Alexander G. Gesmundo as the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, respectively.
It will govern the procedure in civil actions before the designated Admiralty courts involving claims and cases in admiralty filed based on shipping and other related laws, rules, and regulations.
Under A.M. NO. 03-03-03-SC dated June 21, 2016, cases involving admiralty and maritime laws are currently under the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts designated as “Special Commercial Courts.”
“In order to enhance the administration of justice in Admiralty cases in the Philippines through the development of judicial expertise, and to provide parties in Admiralty cases a fast, reliable, and efficient means of recourse to Philippine courts, the Supreme Court saw it fit to provide Regional Trial Courts with a special and summary procedure for Admiralty cases as defined by The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,” the SC said.
Under new rules, the high tribunal designates the existing branches of RTCs as admiralty courts which shall have jurisdiction over all actions in admiralty cases.
The regular procedure prescribed in the Rules of Court, and other pertinent Supreme Court Circulars and Resolutions, shall apply to The Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases in a suppletory capacity.
The SC said the Philippine Judicial Academy will be training judges and courts personnel to effectively implement the new rules on maritime cases.
“The application and adherence to The Rules shall also be subject to periodic monitoring through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). For this purpose, all designated Admiralty courts shall accomplish and submit a periodic report of data in a form to be generated and distributed by the OCA,” the high court stressed.
The Rules shall take effect on January 1, 2020 following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two papers of national circulation, the high court said.
2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence
The SC also implemented the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure upon recommendation made by the Court’s Committee for the Revision then headed by now Chief Justice Peralta intended to make the disposition of every action and proceeding as just, speedy, and inexpensive.
Peralta said the amendments are intended to prevent delays and decongest the courts of cases.
The SC also came out with the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence that was approved last October 8.
In crafting the rules on evidence, they incorporated the technological advances and developments in law, jurisprudence, and international conventions during the past decade.
The Peralta Court also adopted the 2020 Interim Rules on Remote Notarization of Paper Documents, which was prompted following the constraint on face-to-face meetings arising from the lockdowns.
The SC implemented the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights cases and guidelines in the imposition of community service as penalty.
Underscoring the importance of procedural rules as “fundamental part of any judicial system,” the chief magistrate emphasized that the continuous revision and issuance of rules of procedure is intended to make the law more responsive and accessible to the needs of court-users.”
Peralta stressed that the SC is constantly improving laws on procedure so that the courts may provide effective service to the public.
Peralta explained that procedural rules “ensure that the results of court processes and issuances are in accordance with the principles of justice and legitimacy” and “form vital links that connect the domain of substantive law to that of judicial administration–ensuring that the application of the law in relation to the rights and liberties of the public is not only accurate but is also orderly, timely, and intelligible.”
Weeding out misfits from the judiciary
The High Court has reinvigorated the Judicial Integrity Board and instituted the Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office or CPIO to further strengthen integrity and prevent corruption in the judiciary.
In fact, the members of the JIB board have already assumed their duties and they are now in the process of drafting their own internal rules. The board is composed of retired SC Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., as chairperson; retired Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez as vice chairperson, while the members include retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Sesinando de Leon, retired Sandiganbayan Justice Rodolfo Ponferada, and retired Court of Tax Appeals Associate Justice Cieleto Mendaro-Grulla.
Peralta stressed that the high court adopted a system where the Court may initiate its own investigation of cases, even without complaints.
From October 2019 to September 30, 2020, the Supreme Court has ordered the dismissal of two judges and 14 personnel for various grave administrative offenses, forfeited benefits of a judge and three personnel and reprimanded and admonished seven judges and 29 court staff.
In disciplining the members of the Bar for the same period, the SC has disciplined 88 lawyers; disbarred 8 lawyers; suspended 31 from practice of law and 10 were suspended from practice of law and notarial commission.
“I would like to continue the weeding out of misfits from the Judiciary and push it even further by adopting a system where the Court itself may initiate the investigation of cases. It is high time that we take a serious stance against those who sully the Court’s good name and office.
With the activation of the JIB, the Office of the Court Administrator will be strengthened and forged a synergy between the functions of these offices through judicial audits, information gathering, and sharing.
Improving Security
The growing concern on the rising incidences of violence against justice, judges, and court personnel all over the country, the Peralta Court strongly advocated for Congress to enact a law which institutionalizes a security system patterned after the United States Marshals or the proposed Philippine Judiciary Marshals Service Act.
The Judiciary Public Assistance Section
The Supreme Court has set up a 24/7 help desk in the Office of the Chief Justice which consists of a helpdesk, hotline unit and email messaging unit.
“Communication has been thrust forward in this smartphone driven culture we call “now”. The need for access to and quicker response time are a must for any organization. We must have a channel of communication to the public we serve. I am interested in setting up a 24/7 Help Desk in the Office of the Chief Justice and other offices to receive the concerns of court users,” Peralta said. “We should be able to directly communicate with them and be responsive to their inquiries.”
From December 2019 to October 2020, the JPAS received 6,944 inquiries and concerns and the Court addressed them accordingly.
“Insofar as complaints, the JPAS has been highly effective in complaints involving judges. Even if the complaints are not signed, but for as long as they give the evidence, we can already proceed with the investigation of cases. Right then and there, we start the investigation and file necessary complaints if warranted,” Peralta pointed out.
To improve procurement and bidding process in the judiciary, the Court will set up a “Single Procurement Office” in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals, which are now pending review by the Plantilla Committee for further study. After the study made by the plantilla committee, then it will go to the En Banc for approval.
“Another area (of reform) is the need to improve the procurement and bidding processes, for faster and more timely implementation of projects. Sometimes urgency takes the backseat to bureaucracy and we need to address this,” Peralta noted.
Legacy of the Peralta Court
To the surprise of the judiciary and legal community, Peralta announced on December 1 that he will avail himself of early retirement in March this year or one year ahead of his mandatory retirement age of 70 on March 27, 2022. The Chief Justice did not elaborate on the reason for his early retirement but promised “to make a formal announcement in due time.”
Nonetheless, after one year and two months since he took over the judicial leadership, Peralta intimated that he wants the Peralta Court “to be remembered for four things: first the declogging of courts dockets; second, judicial reforms, especially the amendments of the Rules of Court towards the early disposition of cases; third, improving the welfare of court personnel and according them security of tenure; and fourth, better access to efficient, effective and responsive justice.