An Assessment of RA 9227's (The Additional Judicial Compensation Act) Effects on The Judicial System

Abstract

The study deals with the effects of RA 9227 on the various stakeholders in the court. These are the judges and justices, court employees, lawyers and their litigants. RA 9227 is a known as the Additional Judicial Compensation Act of 2003. Passed in October 2003, the law aims to provide an allowance for judges and justices and those with equivalent rank. The authors of this law also felt that by giving an allowance they would entice more applicants for judgeship and lessen vacancies and thus speed up the flow of cases. This allowance is equal to the salary that they received. The allowance shall be implemented in 25% increments over four years until November 2006 when the full allowance will start to be given. The source of the fund which is the increase in the fees collected by the court in Rule 141 shall also be staggered over four years. The law gained praises from judges as one that had given them their long deserved compensation. It has however caused lawyers led by the IBP to protest the exorbitant fees that the law brought about, while the employees lamented their exclusion from the law. The research found that the judges were the most positively affected by the law, a result manifested both by the SWS survey and the interview showed high satisfaction among the judges. On the other hand the other stakeholders like the employees, lawyers and litigants were affected negatively. The employees, because they did not receive benefits and the JDF is going to be capped by RA 9227, the lawyers and litigants because the gain no collateral benefits (i.e. faster case disposition), and are even required to pay more in fees. RA 9227, is a narrow legislation that benefits only the judges. While the added compensation is indeed welcome, the negative effect of the law to the other stakeholders is heavier than its benefits. The problem lies in the source of funding for the added compensation which has resulted in exorbitant fees that are collected from the lawyers and litigants. The study suggests that the law be amended and that the source of the funding be transferred from the increase in fees to the national treasury. Furthermore, it also recommends an increase in the judiciary's budget in keeping with its stature as the third branch of government and to allow it to fund its reform programs. These, along with further study of this subject matter are some of the recommendations of this study.