The Supreme Court has resolved to further study the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR) following objections from prosecutors.
In an en banc resolution, the SC referred the matter to the Court’s committee on the revision of the Rules of Court headed by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio.
“The Court resolved to refer to the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court, for appropriate action, the matter of the expiration of the extended period for the modified public prosecutors’ compliance with the provisions of the [JAR] insofar as the prosecution of criminal cases is concerned,” stated the resolution promulgated by Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal.
On February 21, 2012, the Supreme Court approved for piloting by trial courts in Quezon City the compulsory use of judicial affidavits in place of the direct testimonies of witnesses
However, objections raised by prosecutors against the implementation of the JAR due to lack of manpower and facilities, which could affect the work of the prosecutors, have prompted several SC justices to suspend it and subject it to further study.
Last year, the SC extended the implementation of modified judicial affidavit rules for fiscals, giving them another year to prepare for full compliance to the JAR.
In a full-court resolution, the SC resolved “to extend for another year, ending on 31 December 2014, the modified public prosecutors’ compliance with the provisions of the judicial affidavit rule insofar as the prosecution of criminal cases in concerned.”
The high tribunal also directed the prosecutors of the Department of Justice and the Prosecutors’ League of the Philippines (PLP) “to work closely with the SC sub-committee on the revision of the rules of criminal procedure, headed by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, in developing comprehensive and truly meaningful changes that will minimize the problems of delay in the criminal justice system.”
The SC issued the order upon the recommendation of the chairman of the committee under the office of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno tasked to address case congestion and delays.
In the modified compliance to JAR, public prosecutors are allowed to comply with the rule by submitting sworn statements of witnesses in lieu of judicial affidavits during the first year of its implementation.
“The public prosecutors shall use, for the purpose of complying with the Judicial Affidavit Rule in the first and second level courts during the one-year period, the sworn statements that the complainant and his or her witnesses submit during the initiation of the criminal action before the office of the public prosecutor or directly before the trial court,” read the order.
This modification, however, did not apply to private prosecutors. It was supposed to take effect for only one year.
“The Court expects the public prosecutors in both the first and second level courts to take steps during the one-year modified compliance period to seek needed augmentation of their ranks; and to develop methods and systems that would enable them to fully comply with the rule when the modified compliance period ends,” the SC had explained.
Lastly, the high tribunal clarified that the new rule “shall remain in full force and effect in all other cases and situations not covered by this resolution.”
JAR under Administrative Matter No. 12-8-8-SC was approved by the court to address case congestion and delays in resolution of cases attributed to the huge volume of cases filed each year and the slow criminal justice system.
