“IT IS ALLOWED by the rules.”
That was the response of a young judge when I asked why criminal cases in the Philippines take so painfully long to resolve. It was not said with arrogance or indifference. It was offered almost matter-of-factly, as though explaining why the sun rises in the east. And perhaps that is precisely what makes the statement so disturbing. It is allowed by the rules.
In the Philippines, criminal cases can take ten years or longer while everybody still calls the proceedings a “trial.” Some accused persons spend those years detained because they face non-bailable charges, while others remain detained simply because poverty prevents them from posting bail. Some eventually spend more time in detention than the imposable penalty for the offense charged against them. There have even been cases where accused persons waited decades before finally hearing the magical word: acquitted. “Congratulations, you are innocent, and sorry about those years of your life.”
And then comes another cruelty. Compensation for wrongful imprisonment is severely restricted under our existing system, and acquittal itself does not automatically entitle someone to compensation for years lost in detention. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused must be convicted in a lower court first and acquitted by an Appeals Court, before they can be compensated.
So an accused person can lose years of freedom, employment, family life, health, dignity, and opportunity, and eventually walk out carrying nothing except a court decision declaring that the prosecution failed to prove guilt. The government returns his freedom after consuming a substantial portion of his life. Apparently, we have developed the extraordinary governmental power to return time without actually returning time.
And why can this happen?
Because it is allowed by the rules.
JUSTICE DELAYED
Repeat that sentence because it explains much of the tragedy of Philippine criminal justice. Our Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy disposition of cases and a speedy trial. The Supreme Court has promulgated rules intended to encourage continuous trial and reduce unnecessary postponements. Judges are repeatedly reminded that justice delayed is justice denied. Yet cases continue to crawl through our courts with the breathtaking speed of EDSA traffic during rush hour.
We therefore have the right to speedy trial in principle, while tolerating exceedingly slow trials in practice. We proclaim constitutional rights with great ceremony, then bury those rights beneath postponements, resets, unavailable witnesses, missing records, overloaded calendars, absent lawyers, reassigned prosecutors, and another hearing scheduled several months later. Everybody knows something is wrong, but everybody can point somewhere else. Nobody owns the delay because delay belongs to everybody. It is allowed by the rules.
In my previous writings about prolonged pretrial detention, I have described three interconnected sources of delay: structural, organizational, and cultural. These causes do not operate independently from one another. They reinforce one another until delay becomes embedded within the machinery of justice itself. The extraordinary eventually becomes ordinary. The unacceptable eventually becomes acceptable.
The structural causes are built into the architecture of our justice system. Courts carry enormous caseloads, prosecutors handle more cases than reasonable human beings can properly prepare, public attorneys confront overwhelming numbers of clients, and forensic and investigative services often lack adequate resources. Courtrooms, detention facilities, transportation systems, information systems, and records management remain fragmented across agencies. One delayed police report can delay the prosecutor, one unavailable witness can delay the court, and one missing document can postpone everybody. The accused waits while government agencies pass the delay from one desk to another.
Then there are the organizational causes of delay. The police, prosecution, courts, public attorneys, jails, prisons, probation offices, and local governments operate within the same justice system but frequently function like separate islands. Their schedules are different, their databases rarely communicate seamlessly, and their performance measures do not always reward speedy case resolution. A prosecutor may be ready while the police witness is unavailable. The judge may be ready while the defense lawyer is attending another hearing.
Then somebody gets reassigned. Then somebody retires. Then somebody asks for another postponement.
Then everyone returns three months later.
CUMULATIVE INJUSTICE
Nobody deliberately planned a five-year trial. Nobody sat inside a conference room and announced, “Mga kasama, let us destroy this man’s life for the next decade.” The delay simply accumulated one perfectly explainable postponement at a time. Every individual postponement appeared reasonable. The cumulative injustice became monstrous.
That brings us to the third source: the culture of delay. This may ultimately be the most difficult problem because people eventually adapt themselves to dysfunctional institutions. Lawyers expect postponements, prosecutors expect postponements, judges accommodate postponements, witnesses expect postponements, and detained accused persons eventually learn that waiting is simply part of Philippine justice. A hearing that lasts fifteen minutes may be followed by another hearing scheduled several months later. Everyone leaves the courtroom and continues with life, except the accused who returns to his overcrowded jail.
For judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, another postponement means another date on the calendar. For a detained accused person, another postponement means another portion of his life. Three months means ninety more nights sleeping inside an overcrowded cell. Six months means another Christmas possibly spent away from his children. Five years means watching children grow through visitation windows.
But apparently, it is allowed by the rules.
This is where prolonged trial detention connects directly with our jail congestion crisis. We keep building jail facilities while refusing to repair the machinery continuously filling them. We discuss congestion rates, food budgets, diseases, violence, staffing shortages, and inadequate rehabilitation programs as though jail congestion mysteriously descended from heaven. But overcrowding is partly manufactured upstream by our own criminal justice processes. Every unnecessary day of pretrial detention occupies another jail bed, consumes another meal, requires another guard, and costs Filipino taxpayers additional money.
LEGAL CYNICISM
We cannot build our way out of a justice system that unnecessarily detains people. Build another jail today and an inefficient system will eventually fill it tomorrow. Build a larger jail tomorrow and the same machinery will eventually fill that one too. The solution must therefore include reducing unnecessary detention and dramatically shortening the time required to resolve cases. Jail congestion is not merely a corrections problem because it is also a courts problem.
And there is an even deeper consequence: legal cynicism.
People become cynical about law when the law repeatedly promises one thing and delivers another. Tell citizens that everyone is presumed innocent, then detain an indigent accused person for years because he cannot afford bail. Tell them everyone has the right to speedy trial, then allow proceedings to continue for a decade. Tell them justice treats everyone equally, then let wealthy accused persons hire armies of lawyers while poor defendants wait inside crowded cells.
Eventually people stop believing the words.
That is how legal cynicism grows. Citizens begin believing that laws are beautiful sentences written for textbooks while actual justice depends upon money, connections, influence, and luck. They begin believing that courts are places where cases disappear into endless calendars. They begin believing that constitutional guarantees are aspirations rather than enforceable rights. When citizens stop trusting justice institutions, the legitimacy of government itself begins to erode.
This is why procedural justice matters tremendously. People can accept unfavorable outcomes when they believe the process was fair, transparent, respectful, neutral, and reasonably efficient. But people become angry when the process itself appears arbitrary and endless. A justice system cannot demand respect merely because judges wear robes and lawyers call one another “Your Honor.” Respect must be earned through fairness.
That is why Congress and the Supreme Court must finally confront the question everyone has carefully avoided.
How long is too long?
SPEEDY RESOLVE
There must be a definitive and enforceable outer limit on the duration of criminal proceedings, while accounting for delays genuinely caused by the accused and narrowly defined exceptional circumstances. We cannot simply say cases must be resolved “speedily” without defining when delay becomes legally intolerable. Two years may provide a starting point for serious discussion. If prosecutors cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt within a reasonable and clearly defined period, the burden of governmental failure should not endlessly fall upon the accused.
Two years is already an extraordinarily long time for someone sitting inside a jail.
That is approximately seven hundred thirty days of waking up behind bars. Seven hundred thirty nights away from one’s family. Seven hundred thirty days during which employment disappears, marriages suffer, children grow older, parents die, and opportunities vanish. If the State possesses sufficient evidence to take away someone’s liberty, then the State should possess sufficient capacity to present that evidence within a reasonable period. Government cannot demand unlimited time while taking finite years from another human being.
There should likewise be mandatory periodic custodial hearings for detained accused persons. Every six months, the State should explain why continued detention remains necessary and why the case has not progressed faster. Judges should examine whether the accused remains a flight risk or genuine danger, whether delays are attributable to the prosecution or defense, and whether supervised release can adequately manage identified risks. Detention should never continue automatically merely because detention began earlier.
This would finally create accountability where currently accountability disappears. Judges would have incentives to manage their dockets aggressively. Prosecutors would have incentives to prepare cases promptly and bring witnesses efficiently. Defense lawyers would be discouraged from abusing postponements because defense-caused delays could be excluded from applicable limits.
Rules change behavior.
Right now, our rules tolerate delay, so delay becomes rational behavior.
CONTINUOUS TRIAL
Our Constitution already commands speedy justice. The Supreme Court already recognizes the importance of continuous trials. We already know prolonged detention destroys families, worsens jail congestion, consumes government resources, undermines rehabilitation, and breeds cynicism toward the law. What remains missing is the sharp edge of accountability: a deadline with consequences.
Without consequences, “speedy trial” becomes another beautiful constitutional phrase. Without enforceable limits, everyone can support speedy justice while nobody becomes responsible for delivering it. Without accountability, another postponement becomes merely another piece of paper. Meanwhile, another human being returns to jail.
So perhaps that young judge inadvertently gave us the most accurate diagnosis of Philippine criminal justice.
“It is allowed by the rules.”
If ten-year trials are possible, then change the rules.
If unnecessary postponements carry no consequences, then change the rules.
If poor people can remain detained longer than the penalties they might eventually receive, then change the rules.
If our jails remain congested because unconvicted people wait endlessly for their cases to move, then change the rules.
If constitutional rights cannot protect people because procedural rules tolerate endless delay, then change the rules.
BIGGEST LOSERS
Justice cannot mean asking innocent-until-proven-guilty people to surrender years of their lives while government finds time to decide whether they actually committed a crime. Justice cannot mean telling their families to wait patiently because another hearing has been reset. Justice cannot mean congratulating someone after an acquittal following years of incarceration. No court can return those years.
The accused certainly loses.
His family certainly loses.
Our congested jails certainly lose.
Our taxpayers certainly lose.
But ultimately, the biggest losers are the Filipino people. Every unreasonable delay teaches Filipinos that constitutional rights can be negotiated by bureaucracy. Every unnecessary detention tells poor people that liberty has a price tag. Every decade-long trial produces another reason for citizens to become cynical about law.
And when Filipinos finally stop believing that their justice system can deliver justice, we will have lost something far more important than another court deadline.
We will have lost their faith in the rule of law.
And this time, we cannot say nobody warned us.
It was allowed by the rules.
#thefilipinocriminologist
#DrRaymundNarag
#cumulativeinjustice
#speedytrial
#BureauOfPrisonsAndPenology