[A.M.
No. 02-7-01-SC. July 9, 2002]
RE:
MOU BETWEEN THE GOV’T. OF CANADA & THE PHILS. CONCERNING JUDICIAL REFORM
SUPPORT PROJ.
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated JUL 9 2002.
A.M. No. 02-7-01-SC (Re: Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of Canada and
the Government of the Philippines Concerning Judicial Reform Support Project.)
The Court Resolved to CONFIRM the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of
Canada arid the Government of the Philippines concerning the Judicial Reform
Support Project, signed on 18 June 2002 in Ottawa, Canada by Hon. Susan Whelan.
Canada’s Minister for International Cooperation and Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., to wit:
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
CONCERNING
4128/31102
The Government of Canada (CANADA) and the Government
of the Republic of the Philippines (THE PHILIPPINES), desiring to collaborate
on the implementation of a Canadian development assistance project in the Philippines,
have reached the following understanding:
NATURE OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING
SECTION 1.01
This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes a
subsidiary arrangement made pursuant to the General Agreement on Development Cooperation
between CANADA and THE PHILIPPINES dated the 13th of November 1987
and is intended to set out the responsibilities of CANADA and THE PHILIPPINES
in relation to the project described in Article III. It does not constitute an
international treaty.
CANADA designates the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA) to assume its responsibilities under this Memorandum
of Understanding. For the implementation of its undertakings, CIDA will award a
contract to a Canadian Executing Agency (CEA) who will be responsible for the
overall financial, administrative and technical management of the project under
the direction of the Project Steering Committee (PSC).
SECTION 2.02
THE PHILIPPINES designates the Supreme, Court of the
Philippines (SC) to assume its responsibilities under this Memorandum of
Understanding. For the implementation of its undertakings, the SC will work
through the Philippines Judicial Academy (PHILJA) and the Program Management
Office (PMO) responsible for the implementation of the Action Plan for Judicial
Reform (APJR).
SECTION 2.03
The Supreme Court designates PHILJA and the PMO to
assume their respective responsibilities related to the implementation of the
project described in Article III of this Memorandum of Understanding.
ARTICLE III
SECTION 3.01
CANADA and THE PHILIPPINES will participate in the
Judicial Reform Support Project (the Project) in the Philippines. The Project’s
goal is to contribute to Philippines efforts to improve the quality of judicial
services and access to justice, particularly by the poor and marginalized
groups, by supporting selected elements of the Supreme Court’s Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001-2006 (APJR) launched
in December 2000 and the APJR Supplement issued in August 2001. The purpose is
(1) to support and promote mediation (an Alternative Dispute Resolution
mechanism specified in the APJR) both as an annex to and as an alternative to
court adjudication by strengthening the mediation programs of the Philippines
Judicial Academy (PHILJA) and the Barangay Justice System (BJS) and increasing
their capacity for planning, implementation and monitoring; and (2) to support
and strengthen the advocacy efforts of the Alternative Law Groups (ALGs),
particularly their capacity to represent the poor and marginalized interests
(labour, farmers, women, children, etc.), and undertake test cases to promote
access to justice reforms.
SECTION 3.02
A brief description of the Project is attached to
this Memorandum of Understanding as Annex “A”.
For the purpose of implementing the Project, the CEA
will develop a Project Implementation Plan for approval by the PSC and
signature by CANADA and THE PHILIPPINES within one hundred and eighty (180)
days from the date of the contract referred to in Section 2.01. When duly
signed by CANADA and THE PHILIPPINES, the Project Implementation Plan will be
attached hereto as Annex “D”. The Project Implementation Plan will constitute
an operational document between CIDA and the Supreme Court and will contain,
inter alia, the following:
a) a detailed description of the Project;
b) an
outline of the methods and means to be used to implement the Project;
c) a schedule
for the implementation of the Project activities, including a milestone chart;
d) the budget and duration of the Project;
e) the reporting requirements for the
Project;
f) the
nature, timing and responsibilities for project monitoring evaluations and the
means by which they will be made;
g) the Project organization including resources required for the Project; and
h) a
statement of additional responsibilities of CANADA and THE PHILIPPINES together
with their contributions.
The Project Implementation Plan may be amended
without recourse to the formal amendment procedure referred to in section
11.02.
ARTICLE V
SECTION 5.01
The contribution of CANADA will consist of
professional and technical services, as well as monitoring and evaluating the
Project, more particularly set forth in Annex “B” of this Memorandum of Understanding. The total value
of Canada’s contribution will not exceed seven million Canadian dollars (Cdn
$7,000,000).
SECTION 5.02
CANADA’s contribution cannot be used to pay any
taxes, fees, customs duties or any other levies or charges imposed directly or
indirectly by THE PHILIPPINES on any goods, materials, equipment, vehicles, and
services purchased or acquired to meet project requirements or in relation to
the implementation of the Project.
ARTICLE VI
SECTION 6.01
The contribution of THE PHILIPPINES will consist of
technical and administrative inputs and all other project requirements provided
by the government representatives to the Project more particularly set forth in
Annex “C” of this Memorandum of Understanding.
INFORMATION
SECTION 7.01
THE PHILIPPINES and CANADA will ensure that this Memorandum
of Understanding is carried out with due diligence and efficiency and each will
furnish to the other all such information relating to the Project as will
reasonably be requested.
ARTICLE VIII
SECTION 8.01
Any communications or documents given, made or sent
by either THE PHILIPPINES or CANADA pursuant to this Memorandum of
Understanding, will be in writing and will be deemed to have been duly given,
made or sent to the Party to which it is addressed at the time of its delivery
by hand, mail, telegram, facsimile, cable or radiogram at its respective
address, namely:
FOR
CANADA: Director
General
Indonesia, Philippines, South Pacific Program & East Timor
Canadian International Development Agency
200 Promenade du Portage
Hull, Québec
K1A 0G4
Facsimile: (819) 953-3350
FOR
the PHILIPPINES: The Chief Justice
Supreme
Court of the Philippines
Supreme
Court Main Building
Padre
Faura corner Taft Avenue
Ermita,
Manila 1004
SECTION 8.02
Either Party hereto may, by written notice to the
other Party hereto, change the address to which any notice or request for the
Party so giving such notice will be addressed.
SECTION 8.03
All communications and documents submitted to CANADA
will be in either the English or the French language, and those submitted to
THE PHILIPPINES will be in the English or the Filipino language.
ARTICLE IX
SECTION 9.01
CANADA and THE PHILIPPINES will consult each other in
respect of any matter that may arise in connection with this Memorandum of
Understanding.
SECTION 10.01
Differences which may arise in the application of the
provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will be settled by means of negotiations
between CANADA and THE PHILIPPINES, or by any other manner mutually agreed upon
by their respective Governments.
ARTICLE XI
SECTION 11.01
This Memorandum of Understanding together with
Annexes “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”), which forms an integral part hereof constitutes
the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the Project.
SECTION 11.02
This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended in
writing as deemed necessary by CANADA and THE PHILIPPINES.
SECTION 11.03
This Memorandum of Understanding will come into
effect on the date of signature mentioned below and will remain in effect for
the duration of the Project.
Done in two copies, in Gatineau (Hull Sector),
Province of Quebec, this 18th day of June 2002.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Sgd.) Susan Whelan (Sgd.)
Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Minister
for International Cooperation Chief
Justice
Supreme
Court of the Philippines
ANNEX “A”
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
1.0 Project
Objectives
The goal of
the project is to contribute to Philippines efforts to improve the quality of
judicial services and access to justice, particularly by the poor and
marginalized groups, by supporting selected elements of the Supreme Court’s Action Program for Judicial Reform 2001-2006,
(APJR) launched in December 2000 and
the APJR Supplement issued in August
2001. The purpose is: to support and
promote mediation (an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism specified in the
APJR) both as an annex to and as an alternative to court adjudication by
strengthening the mediation programs of the Philippines Judicial Academy
(PHILJA) and the Barangay Justice System (BJS) and increasing their capacity
for planning, implementation and monitoring; and to support and strengthen the
advocacy efforts’ of the Alternative Law Groups (ALGs), particularly their
capacity to represent the poor and marginalized interests (labour, farmers,
women, children, etc), and undertake test cases to promote access to justice
reforms.
2.0 Expected
Results
At the impact level, the primary expected result is
improved access to timely, convenient, affordable and fair judicial services,
especially by the poor and marginalized groups. Secondary expected results
include: improved knowledge of available judicial services and legal remedies
by the poor and marginalized groups; and improved public confidence in the
judicial system. These will be achieved through the outcomes and outputs
indicated below.
OUTCOMES
1.1 Increased
demand for mediation as a means of resolving disputes;
1.2 Increase
in # of cases resolved by court referred mediation and the BJS and improved
quality of decisions;
1.3 Strengthened
institutional capacity of key institutions involved to plan, implement,
monitor, evaluate, follow-up, and make improvements;
1.4 Increased financial and human resources
available to mediation;
2.1 New or
revised laws, and/or regulations affecting access to justice of poor and
marginalized groups influenced by advocacy efforts;
3.0 Gender
equality issues reflected in revised procedures, curriculum, training, budgets,
and new/revised laws.
OUTPUTS
1. Mediation Promoted and Supported:
PHILJA and Court referred mediation
·
Strategic planning
methods being used
·
Program plans developed
and used
·
Increased number of
trained mediators using training
·
Improved curriculum
including gender issues
·
Improved adult
education training methods
·
Evaluations conducted
and follow-up activities in areas identified for improvement;
·
More judges and DOJ
prosecutors trained by PHILJA advocating court referred mediation
Barangay Justice System (BJS)
·
More Barangay captains,
Lupon (community council) members and advocates using improved knowledge;
increased number of community members knowledgeable about V system and seeking
its services
·
Follow-up to evaluation
issues initiated
·
Improved communications
and training materials being used in local languages
·
Improved mechanisms
& support for monitoring and follow-up
·
Increased collaboration
between stakeholders (DOJ, DILO, etc;)
2.
Advocacy for Reform Enhanced
Enhancing Policy Advocacy Capacity Of
ALGs
·
Specific policy issues
identified, researched and advocacy activities implemented V
·
Proposals to strengthen
capacity and sustainability of ALGs developed and implemented.
·
Strategic litigation
undertaken.
3.
Technical Assistance and Research Undertaken
·
Selected research and
technical studies to complement above components completed and being used
4. Gender Equality Addressed
·
Gender equity issues
reflected in above components contributing to expected gender outcomes and
impacts
3.0 Project
Scope
The scope of the project entails three components
involving several counterparts from within the government and the
non-government (NGO) sectors. It also entails work at the national and local
levels. The project components are described below:
Mediation Support: The component will cover both court-annexed mediation and mediation
mechanisms that are alternatives to court adjudication. The component is in
line with the judicial systems and procedure’s element of the APJR that targets
mediation mechanisms both as a vehicles for declogging the courts while
providing effective and inexpensive mechanisms for dispute resolution. The
primary partner will be PHILJA with support also being given to the Barangay Justice System. The PHILJA
sub-component will focus on mediation but also support strategic planning,
gender consideration, curriculum development, and use of adult learning methods
and program evaluation. Taken together these can make a significant
contribution to capacity development and institutional strengthening. The
component will also specifically promote the incorporation of a gender
responsive planning into the PHILJA program. Cooperation is possible with the
National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRF\V) and would be
positively received. There are also possibilities with the Women Lawyers
Network. On the Canadian side, the possibility of working with the Canadian
National Judicial Institute (NJI) was explored and PHILJA would be comfortable
working with them. The NJI has the capacity to assist not only in the delivery
of one-off training but also planning/programming judicial education, the
promotion of adult learning methods, and strategic planning.
Capacity development and institutional support will
also be provided to the Barangay Justice System (BJS). The BJS is a low-cost
community level dispute resolution mechanism that is a target for reform. This
is a very attractive option for increasing access of the poor and marginal
people to justice. There are also significant challenges such as: lack of
earmarked budgetary allocations from any source, limited budgets, and low
priority; systemic problems. The BJS falls under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for judicial matters, who provides almost no
leadership and no budget. Supervision and training falls under the Department
of Interior and Local Government (DILG) with a very limited budget. Barangay
Justice is one of many competing priorities for DILG. Some cities and
municipalities (usually higher income ones) provide budgetary support, but this
is the exception. This is a major issue if activities are to be sustained; a
tendency to use training of Barangay officials and advocates as the major
vehicle to make improvements and very little evaluation of results to determine
their longer term effectiveness, problems they encounter, follow-up required,
etc. A USAID evaluation is currently underway. The activities will be defined
in detail once the evaluation is completed.
Reform Advocacy Support: This component is in line with the reform support
system element of the APJR. It involves networking and collaboration between
the Judiciary and civil society for undertaking cooperative reform advocacy.
The primary vehicle for this will be the Alternative - Law Groups (ALGs). The
ALG is a network of member organizations. Among civil society groups, ALGs are
the most interested and involved in legal and judicial reform related to
improving access to justice of the poor. Each member organization has its own
programs and concerns, With modest needs for capacity building, especially for
developing strategic advocacy skills, there are several areas where the ALGs
can potentially support the CIDA project activities, and contribute towards the
full and effective implementation of the APJR. These include: working with
PHILJA in incorporating in the curriculum for judges and justices, laws
concerning the marginalized sectors; capacity building activities for community
based conciliators under the BJS, including training sessions and legal
clinics; public Information, Education and Communications programs on the BJS
such as primers, reading materials community discussion sessions on the system,
etc. The ALGs can mobilize civil society support for the reform programs and at
the same time serve a watchdog function for the implementation of the
APJR. The ALGs can also assist in
information dissemination.
Technical Assistance and Research Fund: This component will complement the two components
described above. It will also be used as a flexible mechanism to respond to
changing needs and developments as the APJR is implemented. During project
identification, various technical assistance and research needs emerged
especially in relation to the mediation component (e.g., numbers of mediators,
fee structures). It will also be used to support the PMO’s coordination
functions. The needs will be defined during project inception.
3.1 Timeframe
The project will be implemented over a five year
period.
3.2 Project
Implementation
Project implementation will involve the following
organizations and management structures.
CIDA will award a contract to a Canadian Executing
Agency (CEA) who will be responsible and for the overall financial,
administrative and technical management of the project under the direction of
the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PSC will be the main decision-making
structure and will be composed of CIDA and the key Filipino partners the
Supreme Court represented by the PMO and PHILJA, a BJS representative and an
ALG representative The CEA will act as the Secretariat to the Committee. The
overall accountability of the project will rest with the CEA. The CEA will be
accountable for ensuring that the various elements of the project are
implemented properly and a synergy develops across components. The CEA will
also ensure complimentarity with other CIDA projects and with other donor
projects supporting the APJR. Local executing agencies and/or individuals
recruited for implementation will be sub-contracted and managed by the CEA.
ANNEX “B”
CONTRIBUTION OF CANADA
CANADA through CIDA, will:
1. Enter into a contract with the CEA to manage CIDA’s input to the Project. As a condition for obtaining a Canadian contribution, CIDA will require that the CEA be responsible for the overall financial, administrative and technical management of the Project and be accountable to CIDA for Project outputs and Project results;
2. Provide a
representative for the Project Steering Committee as co-chair with the Supreme
Court; and
3. Provide
the services of a Project Monitor and an Evaluator, as deemed necessary.
ANNEX “C”
CONTRIBUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
THE
PHILIPPINES, through the Supreme Court, will:
1. Provide a
representative for the Project Steering Committee as co-chair;
2. Provide
administrative assistance to the Project as needed including access to required
information;
3. Ensure the Canadian Project staff are provided
with necessary documentation to facilitate their stay in the Philippines and
arrange for customs clearance for eligible and documented Project shipments
entering the Philippines; and
4. Provide
office facilities and related support as deemed necessary for Project
operations and activities.
ANNEX “D”
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
(To
be signed within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the contract signing
between CIDA and the CEA)
Very
truly yours,
Clerk of
Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst.
Clerk of Court