Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 25504 PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ON A PROPOSED L O A N IN THE AMOUNT OF US$21.9 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR A JUDICIAL REFORM SUPPORT PROJECT July 8, 2003 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Transcript
Document of The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Report No: 25504
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
ON A
PROPOSED LOAN
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$21.9 MILLION
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FOR A
JUDICIAL REFORM SUPPORT PROJECT
July 8, 2003
This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. I t s contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
ADB APJR APL AusAID
B SP BTr CAS CAT C I D A
COA CPA DBM DENR
DOF DOJ EA EDSA ECC EMP EU FM FMBO FMO FMR FSD GOP HOJ HRD
IBP IBRD
ICB
ICT
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective as o f June 25,2003)
US$1 = P53.5
FISCAL YEAR January 1 -- December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Currency Unit = Peso (P)
Asian Development Bank Action Plan for Judicial Reform Adaptable Program Lending Australian Agency for International Development Bangko ng Central Bureau o f Treasury Country Assistance Strategy Computer-Aided Transcription Canadian International Development Agency Commission on Audit Chartered Public Accountant Department o f Budget and Management Department o f Environment and Natural Resources Department o f Finance Department o f Justice Environment Assessment Epifanio de 10s Santos Avenue Environmental Compliance Certificate Environment Management Plan European Union Financial Management Fiscal Management and Budget Office Financial Management Office Financial Monitoring Reports Financial Services Division Government o f Philippines Halls o f Justice Human Resources and Development Integrated Bar o f the Philippines International Bank for Reconstruction and Development International Competitive Bidding Information and Communication Technology
IDA
ISSP
JICA
L B P LIL MDFO
MR MTPDP
N C A NCB NGAS
NGO OCA occ 1 PHILJA PHRD
P M O PPGP
PR&D
PU ROA
SA sc SOE TA T I UNDP
USAID
International Development Association Information System Strategic Plan Japan International Cooperation Agency Land Bank o f Philippines Learning and Innovative Loan Municipal Development Finance Office Memorandum Receipt Medium Term Philippine Development Plan Notice o f Cash Allocation National Competitive Bidding New General Accounting System Non Government Organizations Office o f Court Administrator Office o f the Clerk Court 1 Philippine Judicial Academy Policy and Human Resources Development Program Management Office Procurement Policy Guidelines and Procedures Policy Research and Development Procurement Unit Request for Obligation Allotment Special Account Supreme Court Statement o f Expenditures Technical Assistance Transparency International United Nations Development Program United States Agency for International Development
Vice President: Jemal-ud-din Kassum Country ManagerDirector: Robert Vance Pulley
Chief Economist/Sector Director: Homi Kharas L loyd McKay Task Team Leadermask Manager:
FOR O F T I W USE ONLY PHILIPPINES
JUDICIAL REFORM SUPPORT PROJECT
CONTENTS
Page A. Project Development Objective
1. Project development objective
2. Key performance indicators
B. Strategic Context
1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project 2. Ma in sector issues and Government strategy 3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices
C. Project Description Summary
1. Project components 2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project 3. Benefits and target population 4. Institutional and implementation arrangements
D. Project Rationale
1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection 2. Major related projects financed by the Bank andor other development agencies 3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design 4. Indications o f borrower commitment and ownership 5. Value added of Bank support in this project
1. Sustainability 2. Critical r isks 3. Possible controversial aspects
2
3
4 4 7
8 10 10 11
12 13 14 15 15
16 16 16 17 17 18 20
20 21 22
This document has a restricted distr ibution and m a y be used by recipients only in the performance o f their official duties. I t s contents may not be otherwise disclosed without W o r l d B a n k authorization.
(B) Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements Annex 7: Project Processing Schedule Annex 8: Documents in the Project File Annex 9: Statement of Loans and Credits Annex 10: Country at a Glance
22 22
23
23
24 27 43 44 46 47 51 56 57 58 61
PHILIPPINES Judicial Reform Support Project
Project Appraisal Document East Asia and Pacific Region
EASPR
Date: July 8, 2003 Team Leader: Lloyd E. Mckay Chief EconomistlSector Director: Homi Kharas Country Director: Robert V. Pulley Project ID: PO66076 Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan (SIL)
Sector(s): Law and Justice (100%) Theme(s): Judicial and other dispute resolution mechanisms (P), Access to law and justice (P), Legal institutions for a market economy (P), Other public sector governance (P)
For Loans/Credits/Others: Loan Currency: United States Dollar Amount (US$m): $21.9 Borrower Rationale for Choice of Loan Terms Available on File: Proposed Terms (IBRD): Fixed-Spread Loan (FSL)
Initial choice of Interest-rate basis: Type of repayment schedule: [XI Fixed at Commitment, with the following repayment method (choose one): [ ] Linked to Disbursement
' Yes
Front end fee (FEF) on Bank loan: 1.00%
I
Borrower: THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Responsible agency: SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES Address: Padre Faura, Manila, Philippines
Contact Person: Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. Evelyn Dumdum, Program Director, Program Management Office, Supreme Court of the Philippines
in 1998, he announced the following "Vision" for the Philippine judiciary: Shortly after the present Chief Justice o f the Supreme Court, Hilario G. Davide Jr. assumed office
' I A Judiciary that is independent, effective and eficient, and worthy ofpublic trust and confidence; and a legal profession that provides quality, ethical, accessible and cost-effective legal service to our people and is willing and able to answer the call to public service."
This announcement built upon a momentum for judicial reform that had been growing since the 1980s in response to rising public dissatisfaction with the judiciary, including widespread perceptions o f corruption. To help build a foundation for reform to pursue this vision for the Philippine judiciary, the Supreme Court commissioned a series o f diagnostic studies, using Policy and Human Resource Development (PHRD) funds (see further Part D. 5 below). These studies added to analytical support from the United Nations Development Program and bilateral donors undertaken during the 1990s. These analyses identified six key challenges confronting the Philippine judiciary: delays in the delivery o f justice and associated limitation on access, widespread perception of corruption, ineffective administrative structures and operating systems, deficient court technologies and facilities, a need to strengthen human resources, and a need to improve public information and collaboration with civi l society.
Equipped with the findings o f these diagnostic studies and with the backing o f the other members o f the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice conducted extensive consultations with judges, court staff, and the private sector to develop a judicial reform program to make the above vision a reality. The result was the Supreme Court's Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR), f irst issued in November 2000, and since revised periodically in response to further stakeholder consultations' reviews and suggestions. The APJR sets forth a plan for reforming the Supreme Court, appellate tribunals, the lower courts, and the bar over the medium term through procedural, administrative, and management changes, together with improvements to supporting infrastructure and human resources. While i t contains a number o f system- wide reforms, the APJR also proposes several experimental reforms that w i l l be undertaken in three pilot courts around the country where their impact and suitability can be tested and shared with stakeholders.
The costs associated with implementing the Philippine judicial reform program -- the APJR -- are being financed by the government o f the Philippines and by grant funds provided by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Japan has provided significant PHRD grant assistance as well, which supported the development of the APJR and preparation o f the proposed project - the Judicial Reform Support Project. A Danish Governance Trust Fund has allowed Philippine researchers to make preliminary estimates o f the impact o f a poorly functioning judiciary on the Philippine economy. A Bank-managed Dutch Trust Fund has helped finance an analysis o f the caseload o f the courts and develop delay reduction strategies.
In the on-going dialogue on judicial reform between the Bank and the Supreme Court and other stakeholders in the Philippine judicial system, i t became clear that the magnitude o f change required would require support in excess o f what could be provided through grant funds. As a result, the Supreme Court and the Government asked the Bank to support implementation of judicial reforms through a medium term Judicial Reform Support Project. The relationship between the proposed Project and the
- 2 -
Supreme Court's overall APJR i s explained more fully in Section B. In essence, this i s an institutional reform project with supporting infrastructure investments to complement a number o f significant reform initiatives supported by other partners o f the Philippines, and to ensure a comprehensive and well integrated solution to the challenges o f judicial reform. Effective integration o f the institutional reform and infrastructure investments to be financed through the proposed Project w i l l be critical for success.
In line with the APJR, the proposed Project's development objective i s to support the development o f a more effective and accessible judicial system that would foster public t rust and confidence. Specifically, the Project w i l l assist in:
Ensuring speedy and fair dispensation of justice to all by improving the eficiency of case adjudication and access to justice through: improved information and communication technology (ICT) based case and court records management systems; reorganization o f the court jurisdictional structure; and piloting mechanisms for making courts more accessible to people in remote localities, through establishing mobile courts and conducting studies;
Upgrading the integrity of the judiciary through: developing a comprehensive Code o f Ethics for justices, judges, lawyers and court personnel and alternative feedback mechanisms on judicial performance; implementing the Judicial Performance Management System; and enhancing professional development within the judiciary, through the introduction o f a Human Resources Development Master Plan for non-judicial personnel of the judiciary; and strengthening Philippines Judicial Academy (PHILJA);
Strengthening institutional capabilities through: implementing a decentralized administration model for the judiciary; installing comprehensive computer-based financial and administrative systems; developing model integrated court facilities; and strengthening policy, research and development (PR&D) capabilities through the establishment o f a research facility and an electronic judicial library; and,
Promoting stakeholder support for reform of the judiciary through: developing broad stakeholder support for the APJR, facilitating knowledge sharing, and ensuring professional management o f the reform process.
2. Key performance indicators: (see Annex 1)
entire APJR, and as a part of the Project, i t s expertise in monitoring and evaluation (M&E), including the collection o f timely information and statistics, w i l l be upgraded. The PMO wi l l be responsible for collecting statistics, conducting surveys, evaluating impacts and taking corrective measures. The Project w i l l provide financing for periodic surveys, gender assessments, civi l society feedback surveys, and training in M&E.
A Program Management Office (PMO) has been established to oversee implementation o f the
The development o f baseline data for performance indicators has already commenced. A case decongestion and delay reduction strategy study has already produced some findings. For example, according to th i s study, median time from case filing to closing o f file takes about 6.6 years in Sandiganbayan, about 2.6 years in Court o f Appeals, 2.6 years in Court o f Tax Appeals and about 1.4 years in the Supreme Court. These w i l l serve as the basis for the further development o f indicators by types o f cases in these courts. User surveys in pilot regional locations have also been advanced to assess stakeholder perceptions with respect to lower court operations and needs.
Project progress w i l l be monitored using indicators including:
- 3 -
Court efficiency and access w i l l be measured by periodic reviews o f the timeliness o f case processing in higher courts, and in three pilot model courts, and the number o f people served by the pilot mobile courts.
Integrity infrastructure development wi l l be measured by intermediate indicators such as the number o f judges, lawyers and staff participating in the Comprehensive Code o f Ethics training and implementation workshops, the timeliness with which complaints against judges and court personnel are resolved, and survey indications regarding perceptions o f corruption.
The strengthening o f institutional capacity w i l l be measured by the number of integrated pilot model court facilities made operational with new case management systems, administrative policies and citizen outreach programs, and progress in establishing effective ICT systems in the senior courts and in the three pilot courts.
Stakeholder participation and user confidence in the judicial system w i l l be measured by the extent o f increase in the number o f men and women participants in knowledge sharing activities and review o f opinion surveys conducted in partnership with judges and other employee associations, and with Social Weather Station and other civi l society organizations and institutions.
B. Strategic Context 1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project: (see Annex 1) Document number: R2002-0083 Date of latest CAS discussion: June 4, 2002
The overarching objective o f the May 2002 Country Assistance Strategy i s to support the Philippines in reducing poverty by achieving more rapid growth and empowering the poor to participate more fully in development. To help achieve more rapid growth, the Bank Group plans to help the Government o f Philippines (GOP) ensure that the key building blocks for sustained growth - increased investment and productivity within both private and public sectors - are firmly in place. Empowering the poor involves improving investments in human resources, the efficient provision o f other basic public services, and increasing access to productive assets such as land and credit.
Supporting the Court’s judicial reform program and improving governance in both the public and private sectors w i l l be important for both these two major pillars o f the Bank’s assistance program. And it i s important for all four parts of the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan - poverty reducing growth, environmentally sustainable rural development, comprehensive human development, and good and effective governance. Improvements in judicial performance are critical to rebuilding investor confidence and attracting renewed investment (part o f the needed foundation for poverty reducing growth), to land reform that i s central to rural development, and improving governance. Modernizing and streamlining courts to improve judicial performance directly supports the goal o f improving governance, protecting the vulnerable and combating corruption.
Pursuing judicial reforms i s also consistent with the findings o f the 2002 World Development Report which identifies courts as one o f the key institutions required for market development, and with surveys o f developing world entrepreneurs that have pointed to poorly performing courts as an obstacle to business. B y strengthening courts at al l levels, the project w i l l thus help expand the private sector.
2. Ma in sector issues and Government strategy:
As noted above, the APJR targets six key challenges confronting the Philippine judiciary:
- 4 -
(1) Delays in the delivery of justice and associated limitations on access. The Supreme Court i s the only court in the Philippines that does not have a significant backlog o f undecided cases. The Courts of Appeals, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan (the special anti-corruption court of the Philippine judiciary), and the lower courts all continue to receive more cases than they are able to resolve. Over the past ten years the volume o f unresolved cases has continued to grow, albeit at a decreasing rate.
Court Court o f Appeals Regional Trial Courts Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts Total
Increase in Cases Backlogged in Philippine Courts December 1992 - December 1998
Interviews with lawyers, judges, and other court observers suggest that the principal causes o f delay and congestion are: (a) the vulnerability o f the judicial process to dilatory tactics and forum shopping by lawyers and clients seeking delay; (b) a severe shortage o f resources and a weak administrative structure that prevents efficient use o f existing resources; (c) the requirements that courts hear certain types o f cases, no matter how trivial the dispute or how little the resulting social benefit such as those arising from a returned check; (d) inefficiencies in the other pillars o f justice, particularly in the investigative, apprehension, prosecution and legal aid agencies; and (e) limited use o f alternatives to litigation such as mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. While preliminary results from an analysis o f court case files now in progress confirm several o f these observations, they reveal that the causes o f delay are different in different courts. This w i l l permit the final delay reduction program to target reforms that w i l l be most effective. The findings also suggest severe weaknesses in the prosecution o f criminal cases, clogging the courts with cases that are ultimately dismissed.
The difficulty o f the poor to access the courts i s the result o f many factors, including: (a) the need often to travel great distances, including, for many, to another island, to reach a courthouse; (b) high costs, which encompass not only high attorney fees but income forgone due to detention, delayed resolution, and erroneous decisions; and, (c) ignorance o f legal rights.
(2) Corruption in the Judiciary. Successive surveys indicate that almost half of all Filipinos think that “some” or “quite a few” judges accept bribes. A 1999 Social Weather Station survey reported that about 62 percent o f Filipinos in general and 70 percent o f those who had direct experience with the courts said there i s significant corruption in the Judiciary. A subsequent February 2000 survey indicated that 65 percent believed “many” or “most” lawyers could be bribed, while 57 percent thought the same o f judges.
These perceptions arise partly from weaknesses in the institutional framework o f the Judiciary. The Judiciary lacks autonomy, i s without efficient means for receiving and resolving complaints o f unethical conduct and has a weak system o f performance management and accountability. I t i s poorly organized, with blurred delineation o f functions, and i s overly centralized in Manila. Judges’ salaries are low, the appointment process i s politicized, and there i s an absence o f programs to educate the public about the courts and the judicial process.
- 5 -
(3) Weak administrative structures and operating systems. This i s manifested in delays in the provision o f financial, administrative and logistical support services to the various courts. These are symptoms o f over-centralization, duplication o f oversight functions and a deficient staffing structure at oversight and court levels. Inadequate funding and a lack o f physical and technological facilities exacerbate the problem.
Weaknesses in the key operating systems are reflected in insufficient planning and performance management systems, an expenditure-oriented budgeting system with limited links to planning and performance management, a deficient case management system, and limited capacity for managing procurement, physical assets and financial flows. These lead to further delays in decision-making, wasteful use and ineffective application o f severely limited resources, and an inability to control operations and manage performance.
(4) Deficient court technologies and facilities. Most courts are housed in poorly maintained and deficient facilities owned by local government units. Moreover, court facilities are often not conducive for hearing very private and socially sensitive cases, like rape and domestic violence. Rental and maintenance agreements are often informal, and anecdotal evidence suggests that judges often find themselves in awkward positions when local government officials or their supporters appear before them.
Outside the Supreme Court, the use o f computer technology i s limited to non-existent. Many lower court judges supply their own computers, but these are neither networked nor used for much besides word processing. The lack of integrated information technology systems to support nationwide operations reduces the capacity to plan, monitor and evaluate performance and take proper control o f operations.
(5) Underdeveloped human resources. The absence of a well-organized and effective human resources development program for the entire judicial system undermines human resources capabilities. There i s a need for multi-pronged and coordinated programs in judicial appointments, career development, remuneration, continuing capacity building, and disciplinary mechanisms to achieve improvements in proficiencies, job performance, innovation, and work ethics.
(6) Improvements in information provided to the public and greater collaboration with civil society. The public has little understanding o f how the courts operate and what their rights are under the law. This has profound implications for access to justice, especially by the poor. I t also contributes to a situation where the courts are extremely vulnerable to graft and corruption and political pressures. There i s a need to improve public information and collaboration with civi l society, organized groups, the legal profession and media, in order to improve access, improve the utilization o f judicial services, and enhance accountability o f judicial personnel.
The APJR sets forth an integrated program to address these issues over the medium and long term, with a six part reform program including:
(a) Judicial Systems and Procedures, which involves reforms in substanthe law, jurisdictional structure o f the courts, rules o f court, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, case management systems, and judicial performance management systems.
(b) Institutions Development, which involves pursuing judicial financial and administrative reforms, reengineering the internal administrative structure, staffing, and operating systems, upgrading information and communications technology, and providing the physical infrastructure (halls o f justice and improved printing facilities in the Supreme Court) for better workplace quality.
- 6 -
Human Resources, which includes reforms in the judicial appointments process, judicial remuneration, judicial career development, training o f judicial and non-judicial personnel, and in judicial and legal education.
Integrity Infrastructure Development, which includes deliberate measures to prevent and combat graft and corruption in the Judiciary.
Access to Justice by the Poor, which adopts an integrated approach to ensure that the judicial reform program wi l l result in improvements in the public's access to judicial services, particularly by the poor and disadvantaged.
Reform Support Systems, which focuses on efforts to build and sustain support for judicial reform among lawyers, clients, and others with a stake in the quality o f the judicial system. This includes putting in place a strong capacity to manage the entire judicial reform process over the medium and long terms.
3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices:
justice, (b) upgrading the integrity of the judiciary, (c) strengthening institutional capability, and (d) deepening stakeholder support for sustained reform. The proposed Project w i l l provide full support for discrete components o f the APJR not financed by grants from other development partners, rather than partial support for a large number of components. This leaves responsibility for coordination o f support and the APJR's overall success squarely on the Judiciary, which i s consistent with Bank policy that stresses national ownership.
The proposed Project w i l l support the APJR by: (a) improving court efficiency and access to
Three other strategic choices were also taken in designing the Project: (1) to focus on the Judiciary alone, (2) to have a single loan rather than two or more smaller ones, and (3) not to address the issue o f low salaries under the Project, despite i t having been identified as an important issue.
While the judiciary i s central to the Philippine justice system, it i s admittedly not the only institution involved in resolving disputes and delivering justice to the citizenry. The Department o f Justice (DOJ), Local Government Units, lawyers, and a variety o f other governmental and nongovernmental institutions, are a part o f the system as well. It was decided to focus the Project on improvements to the courts alone both for reasons o f "manageability" and because o f the interest and commitment to reform o f the Chief Justice, other members o f the Supreme Court, judges in the lower courts, and court personnel. Under the Philippine Constitution, the Judiciary i s a separate and independent branch o f government, and experience in other Bank projects has shown the difficulty o f coordinating a project across more than one branch o f government. Furthermore, the Judiciary was the first to come forward with an integrated reform plan, and the Government requested the Bank to support the Supreme Court's initiative and provide impetus to reforms in the Philippine justice system. Government and donor efforts are under way to firm up parallel reform efforts in the other pillars o f justice, but i t w i l l s t i l l be some time before these are finalized. USAID has provided some support to the DOJ for formulating a medium term reform program. CIDA i s supporting efforts to reform and strengthen alternative law groups and c iv i l society organizations.
Because the Philippine Judiciary has never been a participant in a Bank-funded project, consideration was given to starting with a small loan to be followed by one or more additional loans as the Judiciary and the Bank became more familiar with one another. This option was rejected for three reasons. First, preparing two or more small loans would be more costly. Second there i s a desire to
- 7 -
capitalize on the momentum for reform offered by the APJR and the leadership of the current Chief Justice. Third, certain components o f the APJR require significant expenditures at the outset, notably ICT and the rehabilitation or upgrading o f the model court facilities.
L o w salaries for judicial personnel i s acknowledged to be an impediment to human resource development and draft legislation to de-link judicial salaries from the Salary Standardization Law i s currently being considered by the House and Senate. Concurrent efforts are also under way to try and alleviate th i s problem by reclassifying judges to upgrade them within existing salary structures. Given the existing level o f domestic commitment to solve t h i s constraint, together with the limited contribution that a modest investment project such as this could make in this area, i t has been decided not to explicitly address this constraint within the proposed Project. Indeed, explicit Bank involvement in t h i s issue could be counterproductive. However, the increases in judicial efficiency and increased capacity for internal revenue generation w i l l help provide a capacity to address this problem. Moreover, by supporting improved public sector revenue mobilization and civi l service reforms, the series o f Bank adjustment operations currently under preparation would help the government create an opportunity to address t h i s problem.
C. Project Description Summary 1. Project components (see Annex 2 for a detailed description and Annex 3 for a detailed cost breakdown):
Component A: Improving Case Adjudication and Access to Justice
This component w i l l assist in promoting speedy and fair dispensation o f justice to al l by improving the efficiency o f case adjudication and access to justice through the implementation of modem case management techniques, planning and tools, and the upgrading of information and communication systems. I t also aims to fill information gaps regarding access to justice, including examining constraints, and establishing pilot mobile courts which are anticipated to strengthen access to justice, especially for the poor and vulnerable. Case management reform wi l l include electronically integrating in the courts the various processes in the receipt, recording and tracking of cases, identifying their nature, and generating other statistics that w i l l enable analysis o f cases and case management performance o f the courts. The system wi l l make possible the inter-court tracking o f cases (transfers and appeals) by the Supreme Court and the generation o f micro and macro statistical reports useful in evaluating performance at various levels of the judiciary and in formulating policies and systems for continuing case management improvement. The key foundation for designing this improved case management system i s a study currently under way to analyze and determine the nature and causes o f case congestion and delay in the Philippines Judiciary, and to make recommendations for a case decongestion and delay reduction strategy.
Component B: Enhancing Institutional Integrity
This component i s intended to improve public trust and confidence in the justice system and to strengthen the foundation of institutional integrity upon which efficiency and effectiveness in operations, and impartiality in judicial processes and decisions, can be achieved and sustained. This component would: (a) strengthen the Code o f Ethics for justices, judges, lawyers and court personnel; (b) strengthen the feedback mechanisms for monitoring the conduct, operations and performance o f judges, lawyers and court personnel; (c) convert the judiciary-wide Judicial Performance Management System into a computerized system, and implement i t within the three pilot model courts and the higher courts o f the judiciary; and, (d) formulate and implement a gender-sensitive Human Resources and Development Master Plan for nonjudicial personnel, and strengthen the overall capacities o f the Philippine Judicial Academy.
- 8 -
Component C: Strengthening the Institutional Capacity of the Judiciary
This component w i l l strengthen institutional capacity through implementing a decentralized administration model for the judiciary; installing comprehensive computer-based financial and administrative systems; developing model integrated court facilities; and strengthening policy, research and development (PR&D) capabilities, including through the establishment o f an electronic judicial library. By empowering the lower courts in pilot locations to assume administrative and operational responsibilities within their jurisdiction, i t i s expected that the performance o f the courts and the delivery o f services w i l l be significantly enhanced. Financial management improvements would include reporting and information systems for revenue management, fund management, physical asset management and the payroll system. This component would also begin to address infrastructure deficiencies by setting up a pilot model court to showcase reforms in each o f three regions - Mindanao, Visayas and Luzon. Model pilot courts would include: space for family courts, interview rooms, court administration functions; facilities for court-annexed mediation services; modem Information and Communication Technology facilities; provision of appropriate public access to judicial records archives and information offices to make legal and judicial information accessible; provision o f adequate food service facilities and restrooms for staff and the public; and space for training, and meetings with media, lawyers and other stakeholders.
Component D: Management Office
Ensuring Stakeholder Support for Reform and Strengthening the Program
This component w i l l assist in developing and strengthening support for the reform process, ensure that judges and other stakeholders are able to participate in the development o f modernization ideas and in the implementation of key reform activities. I t would also provide assistance to the Program Management Office (PMO) in facilitating and coordinating the APJR and the Project.
A. Improving Case Adjudication and Access to Justice
B. Enhancing Institutional Integrity
C. Strengthening Institutional Capacity o f the Judiciary
D. Stakeholder Support for Reform and Program
Continnencies Total Project Costs
Interest during construction Front-end fee
Total Financing Required
6.37
0.27
14.76
0.84
1.96 24.20 0.00 0.22
24.42
26.1
1.1
60.4
3.4
8.0 99.1 0.0 0.9
100.0
5.69
0.24
13.07
0.72
1.96 21.68 0.00 0.22
21.90
26.0
1.1
59.7
3.3
8.9 99.0 0.0 1 .o
100.0
* Bilateral grant funding i s being sought for these components. I f such funding not available in a timely manner, the contingency included above will be used to avoid delays.
- 9 -
2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project: Development o f an effective and accessible judicial system requires concerted efforts, including:
(a) Improved efficiency and capacity of the judiciary. The management o f the resources and the responsibilities o f the judiciary i s a central focus o f the APJR. The proposed Project w i l l support the AJPR’s objective o f achieving major improvements in the way the court system i s managed. Improved case management and court administration policies and procedures wi l l be adopted, which w i l l include upgrading and linking strategic, business and budget planning and processing capabilities and the decentralization o f certain managerial and administrative functions, supported by upgraded ICT capabilities and courthouse facilities. Proposed organizational reforms would sh i f t more o f the administrative tasks o f the judiciary to professional administrators and strengthen the research capabilities available to judges.
b
(b) Improved access to justice for the poor and vulnerable. Improvements in courthouse facilities (including launch o f mobile courts), in information about user rights and judiciary responsibilities, and provision o f alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g. mediation services) w i l l make it easier and less burdensome for the poor to access the court system.
(c) Improved integrity infrastructure of judiciary. Policies and procedures w i l l be introduced to upgrade the professional competence of court personnel, to foster judicial independence and the accountability o f court personnel, and to improve the effectiveness o f arrangements for handling complaints about members of the judiciary through civi l society participation.
3. Benefits and target population:
following governance indicators: (i) improved business confidence and hence increased investment and faster economic growth; (ii) reduced corruption; (iii) improved tax revenue collection and hence increased capacity to finance strategic poverty reducing public investments, and (iv) increased respect for the rule o f law. More basically, the benefits are on improved delivery o f judicial services through a more efficient and effective judiciary which enjoys increasing public trust and confidence.
By improving the delivery o f justice, the proposed Project w i l l contribute to improvements in the
Economic growth and the Judiciary. A study financed by the Danish Governance Trust Fund indicates that the potential economic benefits o f judicial reform are very large. Senior managers o f 320 o f the largest Fil ipino f i rms were asked to evaluate the effect o f the current performance o f the courts on their business and to estimate how the presence o f a well-functioning judiciary would affect their investment and employment decisions. Almost half the respondents said that problems resolving legal disputes had an “important” or “very important” impact on their business. Over a third said that that they would expand employment or increase investment i f the Philippine Judiciary performed as well as those in Hong Kong or Singapore.
Anticorruption. The proposed Project w i l l help speed up the disposition of cases pending before the Sandiganbayan, the court which hears all corruption cases brought against mid and senior level civi l servants and elected leaders. The court had 4322 cases pending at the end o f 2000, and at historical rates o f disposition, even if no new cases were filed, i t would take the court several years to resolve them. A preliminary analysis o f some 250 cases decided through May 31,2001, shows that the medium time from the filing o f a case to closure i s 6.6 years with some cases taking as long as a decade to resolve. The data also disclose that over three-fourths o f all cases filed result in an acquittal. The project w i l l provide monitoring o f disposition times and acquittal rates to help the court, prosecutors and defense attorneys, and the public understand where performance can be improved.
- 10-
Revenue collection. The proposed Project w i l l also help modernize the Court o f Tax Appeals. This court hears all appeals o f decisions o f the Philippine tax authority, and i t s backlog o f undecided cases i s growing at an alarming rate. Analysis o f the last 500 cases the Court decided through May 3 1, 2001, showed that almost 2 bil l ion pesos in tax revenues were in dispute. The median time to resolve a case was over two and one-half years and some cases took almost 10 years. Taxpayers prevailed in toto in close to three-fourths o f these cases and won a partial victory in another 11 percent. Reforms w i l l help to speed up the processing o f the cases and assist the Court, the government, and lawyers for taxpayers to identify weaknesses in the overall system o f tax administration and compliance.
Rule of law. B y speeding up the resolution o f pending cases, increasing access to justice and helping to reduce corruption, the project w i l l increase respect for the rule o f law. Courts foster the rule o f law by uniformly and predictably applying the law to the disputes brought before them. Corruption within the judiciary undermines the courts’ ability to promote the rule o f law, for there i s nothing as inconsistent with the predictability and uniformity o f the courts as the sale of a decision to the highest bidder. Lengthy delays in deciding cases also compromise the rule o f law. As time passes, witnesses’ memories fade and physical evidence deteriorates and the possibility for accurate adjudication i s reduced. Delay also undermines citizen confidence in the courts and the justice system generally. Those who have a grievance come to court expecting a resolution of their claim within a reasonable period.
Many groups in Philippine society, but especially the poor, w i l l benefit from the proposed Project. Many o f the Project’s benefits w i l l accrue to the Philippine citizenry generally and not just those who are directly involved with cases before the judiciary. Greater respect for the rule o f law, swifter prosecution of corruption cases, an increase in tax collection, and a better business climate w i l l yield society-wide benefits. To the extent the Project w i l l improve the business environment, firms, investors, workers and consumers, w i l l all benefit.
Improving court access and the timeliness o f court decisions w i l l help the poor the most. For instance, court delays make i t harder for those injured in automobile accidents and others victims o f negligent or grievous conduct to receive compensation. The burden o f delay i s uneven. The poor are most l ikely to suffer from delays for they are the ones who find repeated trips to court most costly, and they are the ones most in need o f swift and adequate compensation. The Project elements targeted at enhancing access to justice by making courthouses more accessible, improving case management and introducing mobile courts for small claims cases, w i l l also have the greatest impact on the poor.
4. Institutional and implementation arrangements:
under the leadership o f the Chief Justice and direction o f an Executive Committee for the AJPR. The PMO has been set up and staffed with technical and administrative personnel. Operations manual, procurement and financial management arrangements and systems have been established demonstrating readiness for Project implementation. The PMO wi l l be responsible for the implementation o f the overall APJR and thereby coordinate al l donor assistance programs to ensure consistency o f purpose and avoid duplication among donor support programs. Periodic progress reports would be prepared by the PMO. It w i l l participate with Bank supervision missions in assessing implementation progress and i t w i l l plan dissemination activities. During appraisal, the capacity o f the PMO would be assessed and agreements reached on the performance indicators to be used for project monitoring and periodic evaluations.
The proposed Project w i l l be implemented through the PMO of the Supreme Court o f Justice,
Particular attention i s being given to ensure the presence o f procurement and financial management capacities needed to underpin successful implementation o f the Project and to build on that to strengthen these capacities in the judiciary more generally. The PMO has specialist procurement staff in place and they are working with other court officials in a procurement committee for the Project.
- 11 -
Procurement Policy Guidelines and Procedures mandating delegation of signing authority on contracting payment and disbursement are part o f the Project Operations Manual. Similarly, the PMO has established sound financial management arrangements for the Project and finance staff o f the PMO.
The proposed Project shall disburse funds using the traditional Statement O f Expenses (SOE) method, with a Special Account opened with an acceptable commercial bank as revolving fund. The Project w i l l be submitting quarterly Financial Monitoring Reports (FMRs) and annual audited financial statements.
D. Project Rationale 1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection:
o f the Supreme Court in consultation with the Supreme Court en banc (the 15 justices o f the Supreme Court), relevant departments and agencies of the Government of the Philippines (GOP), including the Department o f Justice (DOJ), the Department o f Budget and Management (DBM), and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and Bank staff. The proposed design takes into account assistance program arrangements and discussions that the Supreme Court and GOP authorities have had with other funding partners.
The proposed Project i s an integral part o f the APJR. I t was initiated by the PMO and other staff
World Bank staff discussed with the Supreme Court and relevant government agencies alternative designs, including the choice o f lending instruments (eg , a Learning and Innovation Loan (LL) and Adaptable Program Lending (APL), the scope o f proposed activity coverage o f the Judiciary’s activities (especially the options for tackling the extensive physical infrastructure needs o f the Judiciary), and options for including other parts o f the justice sector (e.g. the DOJ) in the scope o f the Project.
Alternative choice of lending instrument:
0 Substantial diagnostic work, much o f which was supported by development partners (including the World Bank), preceded preparation o f the APJR, o f which the proposed Project i s an integral part. This preparatory work clearly identified the need to address the extensive physical and communications infrastructure needs of the judiciary as part of comprehensive solution to current problems. With the extensive “learning” process already undertaken and ongoing, and with the need to address the infrastructure shortcomings o f the judiciary as a matter o f priority, both the Supreme Court and GOP concluded that a LIL would not be an optimal instrument. Their preference i s for a larger, though s t i l l modest project to implement institutional reforms, together with some supporting infrastructure investments, while s t i l l designing the project to facilitate learning and the ability to adapt design features in the light o f lessons leamed.
0 The fact that the proposed Project i s intended to support a broad-based program of reform makes an APL a relevant option to consider. While the GOP has stated that i t recognizes reform o f the justice sector as a long-term process, i t has chosen not to pursue an APL at this time because i t wishes to take into account (i) the lessons to be derived from the proposed project concerning infrastructure options for the courts, and (ii) the needs o f other parts o f the justice sector (including prosecutorial capacity), in determining subsequent financing strategies for the sector.
Scope of proposed coverage of the judiciary’s activities:
In keeping with the APJR, i t i s deemed important that the proposed Project support an integrated blend of institutional reforms supported by needed infrastructure, and that i t be closely coordinated
- 12-
with support being provided by other development partners. However, establishing an appropriate physical infrastructure (courthouses) and information and communication technology (essential in a country consisting o f 7,100 islands scattered over 115,800 square miles) wi l l require the commitment o f very significant funding over a number o f years. Serious consideration was therefore given by the Supreme Court, in consultation with relevant parts o f GOP and with Bank staff, to the possibility o f expanding the physical infrastructure component from that now proposed for the Project. The present proposal for this component (see Section C, para. 1 above) reflects the conclusions that a more extensive program o f rehabilitation and construction would benefit from (i) the drawing o f lessons from the implementation o f component C o f the proposed Project (piloting o f court rehabilitation facilities) and (ii) an examination of future financing strategy options for the Judiciary currently under way with ADB support, with due regard to sustainability. Notwithstanding these appropriate concerns about sustainability, i t i s important that this does include infrastructure refurbishment for the pilot model courts, in order for them to effectively showcase and pilot the overall integrated judicial reform program.
Decision on whether to include other institutions of the justice sector:
0 GOP recognizes that all parts of the justice sector require reform. I t also recognizes that the full benefits to the Philippines o f carrying out the APJR wi l l only be realized when commensurate improvements are made to the other “Pillars o f Justice” - the prosecution, law enforcement, corrections and the lawyer community. To this end, i t has commissioned The Asia Foundation to assist in carrying out a diagnostic assessment o f the DOJ and i s seeking the assistance of other donors in carrying out reform o f the different parts o f the justice sector. At the same time GOP recognizes that reforming the Judiciary i s in itself a major undertaking requiring the concerted efforts o f Philippine stakeholders in the justice sector and support from development partners. Given the state o f preparedness o f the Judiciary for carrying out reform (through the APJR) and the Bank‘s experience in assisting judicial reform in other countries, i t was considered appropriate to focus Bank assistance at t h i s time on supporting the APJR.
2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies (completed, ongoing and planned).
This i s the f i r s t major project financed by the Bank for the Philippine Judiciary. Indeed i t i s the first major loan borrowed by the Republic o f the Philippines for the Judiciary. But there are several other complementary concurrent projects in support o f other parts o f the APJR now being implemented by the Supreme Court with grant financing from other development partners. To ensure effective coordination and integration o f t h i s array o f assistance for various sources, all assistance for judicial reform i s being coordinated by the PMO. Within this PMO team, there are designated contact persons for each development partner, but no separate project management office for any one sub-project.
The following i s a summary o f support from developing partners, grouped in terms o f how they relate to the six-part strategy o f the APJR. A more detailed list of projects supported by the APJR i s included as part o f Annex 2. Taken together, these developing partner supported projects plus this JRSP constitute a comprehensive program o f support for the Philippine judicial reform program.
- 13 -
Mapping of Development Partner Support for the APJR
Judicial Systems Procedures Institutions Development
X X X X X X
X X X X
Human Resources Development Integrity Infrastructure Development Access to Justice by the Poor
X X X X
X X X X
X X X
Ban k-f inanced
IReform SupFr t Systems
Not Applicable
X X X
Other development agencies
IP/DO Ratings:-HS (Highly Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory), HU (Highly unsatisfactory)
3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design:
Experiences with judicial reform in other countries; e.g., Venezuela, Guatemala, Georgia, Columbia, Canada, Spain, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador demonstrate that success depends on: (a) a high level of national ownership and commitment; (b) reaching out and working with users in the design and implementation o f reform; (c) sequencing implementation in a manner consistent with absorptive capacity; (d) achieving results to reinforce momentum and support for on-going reform; and, (e) understanding local culture and ensuring that reforms are compatible.
The proposed Project design reflects these lessons by being rooted within a Philippine-designed and led judicial reform program (the APJR), focusing on a limited set o f reforms and sequencing them to ensure that they are manageable given existing capacity and financial resources and w i l l yield relatively quick and visible results.
High level of national ownership and commitment. See Part D.4 below.
Reaching out and working with users in the design and implementation of reform. The APJR i s the product o f extensive consultations over the past two years with stakeholders in the justice sector, including members o f the Judiciary and the legal community and with the key oversight agencies of the executive branch o f Government.
Sequencing implementation in a manner consistent with absolptive capacity. The proposed scale of the Project and the content o f i t s constituent parts, as well as the proposed sequencing of the
- 14 -
0
0
4.
components, has been explicitly designed with a view to ensuring the reforms can be implemented as planned. A fundamental feature of the proposed Project i s that each sub-component w i l l be implemented by those whose job i t i s to perfonddeliver the servicekask which i s the subject o f reform, and that representatives o f these individuals have been, and w i l l continue to be, an integral part o f the designing process o f such sub-components. The performance benchmarks for the proposed Project have been designed specifically to take absorptive capacity into account.
Achieving results to reinforce momentum and support for ongoing reform. Both the authorities of the GOP and the Chief Justice have stressed the need for achieving “quick wins” where these are appropriate. Implementation o f the APJR i s already underway. The emphasis on early results where feasible i s illustrated by the fact that several judges and other court officials have been disciplined, suspended or dismissed for incompetence or lack o f integrity or probity in the last months, following the launching o f the APJR process.
Understanding local culture and ensuring that reforms are compatible. The APJR i s the product of Filipino initiative, leadership, research and effort. Consultations with stakeholders have been held - and w i l l continue to be held - in most parts o f the country and with different segments of society, including representatives o f indigenous peoples.
Indications of borrower commitment and ownership: As noted above, there i s a very high level o f national ownership and commitment for the APJR.
The APJR, o f which the proposed Project-is a part, has been endorsed and adopted by the Supreme Court en bane (all 15 members o f the court) and has full support o f the Executive Branch o f Government. The program has been prepared using a participatory process involving stakeholder consultations. These consultations have included workshops with judges, court staff, and users groups and sector agencies and institutions. These user groups and agencies have included the professional lawyer associations, law schools, prosecutors, legislators and civi l society organizations.
Given the importance o f the judicial sector in the Philippines development agenda, the President’s State o f the Nation Address endorsed the APJR. Also, the Philippine Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) in July 2002 highlights judicial reform as key to improvements in governance, growth and poverty reduction.
5. Value added of Bank support in this project:
sustained poverty reduction. This reality, together with the Bank’s experience with judicial reform elsewhere, makes i t a strategic area for Bank support and i s an area where the Bank can add significant value. Improving governance i s an integral part o f all opportunities where capacity i s being built. It i s also the central focus o f ongoing ASEM trust fund supported technical assistance and partnership work with other donors.
Concerns for judicial reform i s central to governance improvement and hence to efforts to achieve
The Bank has already been engaged with the Supreme Court, in the preparatory phase o f the Philippine Action Program for Judicial Reform. This engagement has included the provision o f grant funded technical assistance for carrying out research and studies covering: Assessment o f Past Judicial Reform Efforts, Review o f the Criminal Justice System, Review o f the Barangay Justice System, Review o f the Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism, and Assessment o f the Impact o f Education and Directions for Change and Development. This engagement has provided the Bank with a good understanding o f the issues and challenges for judicial reform in the Philippines, which in turn puts the Bank in a sound position to draw out relevant lessons for the benefit o f the Philippines from the Bank’s experience in supporting judicial reform projects in a number o f countries around the world in the last
- 15 -
decade. This makes i t appropriate for the Bank to respond positively to GOP’s and the Supreme Court of the Philippines’ request for assistance in supporting judicial reform. This experience should be o f material assistance to the Philippine authorities in both the design and implementation phases o f such reform.
Finally, because the Bank i s a long-term development institution, i t i s a logical partner for the Supreme Court in pursuing what i s clearly a long-term agenda for the Philippines: having an independent Judiciary wi th integrity, that delivers justice effectively, efficiently, expeditiously and at a reasonable cost. In particular, i t i s well placed to help GOP generate the significant amount o f funding that w i l l be required over a long period o f time to support institutional reforms and to meet the infrastructure and technology needs o f the Judiciary. Moreover, a loan supported by the Bank brings with i t a commitment to cost-effective procurement and other project standards such as community participation.
E. Summary Project Analysis (Detailed assessments are in the project file, see Annex 8)
1. Economic (see Annex 4): Cost benefit NPV=US$ million; ERR = % (see Annex 4) Cost effectiveness Other (specify)
and anecdotal evidence suggests that they are large. For instance, the study by the Danish Trust fund shows that almost half o f large Filipino f i r m s surveyed reported that resolving legal disputes had an “important” or “very important” impact on their business. Over a third o f those surveyed also said they would expand employment or investment if the Philippine Judiciary w i l l perform as well as that in Hong Kong or in Singapore. In addition, the direct and indirect social returns from the improved delivery o f judicial services in the pilot sites, and the improved efficiency and integrity of the higher courts are substantial. Given the modest cost o f th i s investment in judicial reform and the critical contribution that an efficient and publicly trusted judiciary makes to development, i t i s clear that only modest improvements would be needed to yield a substantial positive economic return on this investment in judicial reforms.
I t i s difficult to estimate the social and economic benefits from judicial improvement but survey
2. Financial (see Annex 4 and Annex 5): NPV=US$ million; FRR = % (see Annex 4)
Typically, judicial reform i s not subject to a conventional financial analysis, as a substantial part o f the desired outcome i s related to improved security and social outcomes that are difficult to relate to financial benefits. Streamlining o f administrative functions would improve financial management and operations o f the court system.
Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal cost o f the proposed Project i s about US$24.4 Mi l l ion over the next six years. Estimates indicate that Project investments would be more than offset by increased tax revenue arising from improved compliance, better revenue from court fees and improvement in the efficiency o f Court operations. Improved judicial efficiency w i l l result in courts delivering a greater volume o f judicial services without an increase in operating costs.
3. Technical:
In line with the APJR, the Project components are technically sound and viable. The program design i s comprehensive and detailed as i s needed to effectively address identified problems. As noted
- 1 6 -
earlier, i t i s built on extensive consultations together with the earlier diagnostic studies conducted with UNDP and World Bank assistance. Institutional capacity building, reform o f processes, information technology designs, and social communications and participation programs are all part of the proposed Project. The overall APJR combines investments in hardware and software reforms plus human assets of the Philippine Judiciary, and institutional reforms to ensure that reforms are well entrenched. A key factor w i l l be the involvement and training o f court personnel (both judicial and non-judicial) in all technical aspects o f Project design and implementation. The information technology systems would be user friendly and simple to maintain.
4. Institutional:
The proposed Project w i l l be implemented by the PMO within the Supreme Court. The PMO i s currently staffed by technical and administrative experts and has received init ial training in Bank procurement and financial management systems. Site management units w i l l be established for each o f the pilot model court sites under Part C o f the Project (see Annex 2) to be responsible for day-to-day coordination o f Project-related activities at such sites.
4.1 Executing agencies:
Supreme Court o f the Philippines
4.2 Project management:
The Supreme Court o f the Philippines, assisted by the PMO, w i l l be responsible for project management. There w i l l not be a separate dedicated Project Coordination Unit but specific personnel within the PMO have been designated to manage the Project. The fact that the PMO wi l l manage both this Project along with al l other development partner assistance as an integral part o f the Supreme Court’s Action Program wi l l strengthen national ownership and commitment and it w i l l help strengthen coordination and sustainability.
4.3 Procurement issues:
The capacity to manage procurement in the Judiciary as a whole i s being strengthened as part o f judicial reform. PMO staff have already received primary procurement training in preparation and w i l l receive refresher courses on a periodic basis.
4.4 Financial management issues:
Financial management improvements for the judicial system as a whole i s being strengthened as part o f the institutional reforms being supported by the project and the PMO’s financial management capacity has been strengthened to handle specific Project needs. Satisfactory financial management arrangements for the proposed Project are in place.
5. Environmental: Environmental Category: C (Not Required)
5.1 Summarize the steps undertaken for environmental assessment and EMP preparation (including consultation and disclosure) and the significant issues and their treatment emerging from this analysis.
The physical infrastructure component o f the Project which w i l l entail the rehabilitation and upgrading o f existing structures, w i l l undergo a streamlined environmental assessment process to ensure
- 17 -
that potential environmental impacts are adequately addressed. An environmental assessment report in the form o f an Init ial Environmental Examination Checklist and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (available in project files) i s being prepared for each project site under the Project. An Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) w i l l be secured from the Department o f Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for each project site prior to the construction activities. Regular monitoring and reporting o f the compliance to the ECC and implementation o f the EMP shall be conducted during the entire duration o f the infrastructure component.
5.2 What are the main features o f the EMP and are they adequate?
The EMP has two parts: (a) the Environmental Mitigation Plan, and (b) the Environmental Monitoring Plan. The EMP w i l l be developed with the participation o f the stakeholders for each o f the project sites and wil l be publicly disseminated.
5.3 For Category A and B projects, timeline and status o f EA: Date of receipt o f final draft: February 2003
An Initial Environmental Examination Checklist has been prepared to simplify the documentation requirements during the environmental assessment process.
5.4 How have stakeholders been consulted at the stage o f (a) environmental screening and (b) draft EA report on the environmental impacts and proposed environment management plan? Describe mechanisms o f consultation that were used and which groups were consulted?
Under Philippine Law, stakeholder consultation i s mandatory from the beginning of the EA process which starts at screening and continues during the preparation o f the EA report and the EMP. The Supreme Court personnel and the general public were interviewed and small group meetings were conducted to solicit their views on the proposed infrastructure activities. During the preparation o f the EA report, an open consultation process w i l l be organized to determine and to ensure the social acceptability o f the different activities.
5.5 What mechanisms have been established to monitor and evaluate the impact o f the project on the environment? D o the indicators reflect the objectives and results o f the EMP?
The EMP which sets the monitoring indicators for the refurbishment o f buildings w i l l be implemented by the Site Management Units office supervising specific project sites. Compliance with the EMP wi l l be monitored and evaluated by a Multipartite Monitoring Team led by the PMO and DENR.
6. Social:
6.1 Summarize key social issues relevant to the project objectives, and specify the project's social development outcomes.
Judicial improvements, particularly those leading to improved access to justice by the poor, w i l l yield social benefits for marginalized peoples. No resettlement or displacement o f communities or indigenous peoples w i l l be encountered in the Project, as physical infrastructure improvements are limited to the rehabilitatiodupgrading o f existing structures. Moreover, since none o f the proposed infrastructure improvementshpgrading would involve any structures having significant historical value (none o f the buildings to be upgraded i s situated in sites having known significant archeological or cultural value), no impact i s anticipated in terms o f cultural property.
- 18 -
In terms o f gender, project interventions (formulation o f the unified code of ethics, preparation o f a human resource development plan, strengthening o f policy research, public information and even infrastructure development) w i l l be explicitly designed to facilitate gender-equity in access to justice.
6.2 Participatory Approach: How are key stakeholders participating in the project?
The creation o f technical working groups with the internal and external stakeholders are key elements o f implementing the APJR and the Project. For policy direction, an Executive Committee has been formed, comprising the Chief Justice, and the principals from the Court, the Judicial Academy, Office o f the Court Administrator and the PMO. Meanwhile, working groups with the donors, oversight agencies o f the Government, civi l society organizations, internal Supreme Court offices and judges have been constituted to ensure broad involvement with and ownership o f the reforms. A participatory approach i s contemplated during project implementation and w i l l be used for stakeholder information and dissemination o f results. The results of NGO and other consultations are available with the PMO.
6.3 How does the project involve consultations or collaboration with NGOs or other civi l society organizations?
Consultation with NGOs has been carried out by the PMO seeking feedback on the APJR and for developing communication plans. NGOs wi l l be key participants in knowledge sharing, access to justice and citizen information programs.
6.4 What institutional arrangements have been provided to ensure the project achieves i t s social development outcomes?
The PMO includes staff with technical expertise in social communications and community dialogue. Moreover, the judicial reform program i s explicitly focused on improving access to justice and i t s design and implementation involve much consultation with civi l society.
6.5 How wi l l the project monitor performance in terms o f social development outcomes?
Project supervision missions would maintain dialogue with civi l society organizations and engage them in the evaluation of outcomes and in the dissemination o f results and findings. Stakeholder participation, as measured by knowledge sharing activities and opinion surveys, w i l l be one o f the explicit performance indicators (see section A2).
- 19 -
7. Safeguard Policies:
Policy Triggered Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04) Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37) Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50) Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)"
7.2 Describe provisions made by the project to ensure compliance with applicable safeguard policies.
NA
Yeso NO
0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03) Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
4.37) ._ -, GP 7.50) ' 7.60)*
Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50 Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, G I
,
No No No No No No ~ _ _ _ _
As noted above, an Initial Environmental Examination Checklist has been prepared to simplify the documentation requirements during the environmental assessment process. Compliance with the EMP wi l l be monitored and evaluated by a Multipartite Monitoring Team led by the PMO and DENR
F. Sustainability and Risks 1. Sustainability:
the effectiveness of human resources development, financial provisions, and reform support from stakeholders. Hence i t depends on the generation of beneficial results. Financial sustainability depends on priority commitment from the administration, the mobilization o f user fees, and effective financial management.
The sustainability o f judicial reforms depends on continued leadership and political commitment,
* - 2 0 -
2. Critical Risks (reflecting the failure of critical assumptions found in the fourth column o f Annex 1):
From Outputs to Objective Change in Supreme Court and hence reform leadership.
Inadequate or ineffective concurrent investment in human resources development.
Political upheaval during the project life.
Inadequate capacity o f the PMO or i t suffers high turn over.
From Components to Outputs Inadequate fundinglresources due to fiscal constraint.
Difficulties in effectively coordinating multiple contribution from different development partners.
Slow or inadequate staffing and resources for the PMO.
Resistance from interest groups that could oppose reforms.
Slow flow o f funds due to bureaucratic procedures could slow down project implementation and output delivery. Overall Risk Rating
M
M
M
S
M
S
M
M
S
S qisk Rating - H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N(
Risk Mitigation Measure
Knowledge sharing with justices and other 3fficials in the Judiciary Branch and executive agencies plus the formation o f an Executive Committee within the Supreme Court so oversight of the APJR does not rest with the Chief Justice alone.
Support efforts to mobilize bilateral grants for this purpose and if necessary include th i s as a component in a second judicial investment project.
Continued follow up with different stakeholders.
Ongoing training o f staff seconded from different parts o f the judiciary and o f local technical consultants in good practices in judicial reform.
Resource commitment has been secured up front. Government resources to be complemented by donor grants where possible. Project size kept small to contain fiscal commitments at th i s time.
Have the Supreme Court's PMO be the coordinating and management agency for al l assistance.
Have all staffing in place before Negotiating the Project.
Init ial focus o f reforms on the "higher courts" where there i s strong support in the Supreme Court, and on generating results to sustain public and government support.
Strong financial management arrangements and upstream planning to allow for the slow management of funds.
sgligible or Low Risk)
- 21 -
3. Possible Controversial Aspects:
N o specific controversial aspects have been identified or expected. Widespread public support for the Supreme Court’s judicial reform program, and World Bank agreement with the reform program as outlined by the Supreme Court, mean that the reforms supported by this project are not controversial. The fact that the Project design has included social communication and ongoing consultations with stakeholders also provides a mechanism for early detection o f any controversial aspects, thus allowing timely remedial action.
G. Main Loan Conditions 1. Effectiveness Conditions
There are two Conditions of effectiveness: 0
0
The adoption o f an updated Supreme Court’s Information System Strategic Plan (ISSP). Finalization and adoption o f the Project Operations Manual.
2. Other [classify according to covenant types used in the Legal Agreements.]
(a) The Program Management Office w i l l be maintained for the l i f e o f the proposed Project, with appropriate terms of reference, staff and budget and other resources, in each case acceptable to the Bank.
(b) The Borrower’s National Competitive Bidding procedures w i l l be modified for the purposes o f the proposed Project as described in Annex 6, in order to ensure economy, efficiency, transparency and consistency with the Bank’s Procurement Guidelines.
(c) Regular stakeholder consultation on the APJR with a consultative group comprised of the representatives o f major stakeholders in the court system, including representatives o f the judicial system, lawyer associations, civi l society, academia, DOJ, and Congress, w i l l be carried out at least semi-annually throughout the l i fe o f the proposed Project.
monitored and evaluated on an ongoing basis, in accordance with indicators satisfactory to the Bank. (The proposed indicators are set out in Annex 1 .) A mid-term review o f the proposed Project w i l l be carried out after the first three years o f Project implementation.
(d) Adequate policies and procedures w i l l be maintained to enable the proposed Project to be
(e) Financial Covenants:
(i) The Borrower w i l l maintain an adequate financial management system, including records and accounts, and prepare financial statements in a format acceptable to the Bank.
(ii) The financial monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Bank on a timely basis (no later than 45 days after the end o f each quarter after the Effective Date of the Loan Agreement).
(iii) Annual independently audited Financial Statements for the Project shall be submitted to the Bank no later than 6 months following the Supreme Court’s fiscal year.
(0 An Infrastructure Master Strategic Plan that has been discussed with the Bank and whose views have been taken into account w i l l be adopted by the SC by January 15,2004.
(g) A training plan covering all training activities under the Project and taking into account the Banks comments thereon w i l l be adopted by January 1,2004.
- 22 -
(h) The APJR will be regularly reviewed (at least annually) by the Supreme Court, with the Bank being given reasonable opportunity to comment on it and on proposed revisions, and the APJR also be reviewed regularly with the other stakeholders identified under point (c).
I 1. Compliance with Bank Policies I 1. This project complies with al l applicable Bank policies.
2. The following exceptions to Bank policies are recommended for approval. The project complies with al l other applicable Bank policies. I
(i) The principles set forth in the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines will be applied in the event that environmental screening indicates that an assessment and management plan are required.
i b, Readiness for Implementation 1 .a) The engineering design documents for the f irst year's activities are complete and ready for the
start of project implementation. 0 1 .b) Not applicable.
2.
3 .
b 4.
The procurement documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start of project implementation. The Project Implementation Plan has been appraised and found to be realistic and o f satisfactory quality. The following items are lacking and are discussed under loan conditions (Section G):
The procurement documents (including engineering designs for court rehabilitation etc.) for the f i r s t activities are as complete as possible and ready for the start o f project implementation. PMO staff
with an ICT consultant are currently completing detailed design work and specifications for services scheduled for procurement in the latter part o f year one. Hence, though the resulting
documents are not a l l yet in place, there i s good reason to be confident that they will be a timely manner. An Administrative Order entitled, Procurement Policy Guidelines und
been prepared and will be issued prior to effectiveness.
~
h i s project complies with a l l applicable Bank policies.
!Lloyd Mckay !Team Leader
n Chief EconomistlSector Country Director ,. Director
- 23 -
iector-related CAS Goal:
'ublic sector govemance mproved.
Project Development 3bjective: f i e development of a more Zffective and accessible udicial system that would Foster public trust and Zonfidence.
Annex 1: Project Design Summary
PHILIPPINES: Judicial Reform Support Project
Sector Indicators:
3xtent of increase in investor, :xpert, and general public :onfidence by End of Project EOP).
Outcome / Impact Indicators: 1. Five percentage-point increase in user satisfaction and confidence in Higher courts.
2. Five percentage-point increase in user satisfaction and confidence in Pilot Model Courts relative to the average for lower courts.
3. Number of pilot model :ourts and decentralized administrative and financial management offices developed and tested.
4. Channels of intemal and extemal communication and stakeholder participation developed and made operational.
iectorl country reports:
Jsers' surveys. ICRG :ports. CPIA, PMO, Global :ompetitiveness, and T I :ports. Social Weather tation surveys.
'roject reports:
3ender-segregated surveys. CRG Annual Reports. 'reject progress reports. Data ;athered and synthesized by he OCA, PMO and other rudiciary Branch Offices. jocial communication and :ommunity outreach program 'eports.
from Goal to Bank nission) 'osited link between public ector govemance and loverty reduction holds.
:from Objective to Goal)
1.Support for other critical :lements of the APJR i s xovided by either GOP or Ither donors and these Aements are successfully mplemented on time.
2. The Executive and Legislative Branches of GOP md the Supreme Court .emain committed to mplementing the APJR.
3. Legislation overhauling .he judicial career system, .ncluding changes in the ippointment process and remuneration, i s approved.
4. The legal profession or other key stakeholders do not block implementation of critical elements of the APJR.
5. The refurbishing/ construction of courthouses to showcase decentralization and pilot reforms are completed on time.
- 24 -
Output from each Component: A. Case adjudication and access to justice i s improved.
C. Institutional capacity of the Judiciary strengthened.
Output Indicators:
1.1, At least a 10 percentage reduction in case processing times (including median time from case filing to closing of file) in Higher courts.
1.2. At least a 10 percentage reduction in case backlogs in Pilot Model Courts relative to the average of lower courts.
1.3. At least a 20 percentage per annum increase in the number of citizens served by mobile courts after they become operational.
Increased utilization of Court mediation system to reserve disputes
2.1. Promulgation of a comprehensive manual on the Code of Ethics by end of year 4.
2.2. Implementation of a gender-sensitive Human Resource Development Plan for non-judicial personnel by end of year 2. Fifty percent of judges and other court personnel receiving training on Code of Ethics.
2.3 Mechanism for civil society feedback on judicial performance strengthened by end of year 2.
3.1. Completion and testing o f Pilot Model Court with provision of modem case management system, decentralized administration
sroject reports:
Jrogress reports. Studies. Workshops. Statistics mblished by the Judiciary ind the PMO.
Progress reports. Evaluation reports. Gender-segregated surveys of court users, lawyers, and general public.
Project-level and organizational reports, civil works updates. User and employee surveys.
:from Outputs to 3bjective) L .Supreme Court implements he APJR and maintains a iarticipatory process .hroughout implementation.
2 . Changes in the legal xvironment such as mactment of new laws or a sudden upsurge in cases do not place new, unforeseen demands on court system.
3. Judges and other judicial personnel continue to support reform process.
4. Training on ICT, CAT, and other new technologies keeps pace with their introduction.
5 . Construction schedules on pilot model courts maintained.
6. Knowledge activities continuously inform project development and implementation.
7 . Staff provided adequate incentives to use new skills and systems.
- 25 -
D. Stakeholders for reform supported.
Project Components / Su b-components: A. Improving Case Adjudication and Access to Justice.
B. Enhancing Institutional Integrity.
C. Strengthening Institutional Capacity of the Judiciary Branch.
D. Stakeholder Support for Reform and PMO.
and financial management systems, and adequate physical infrastructure.
3.2. Five percentage-point increase in user satisfaction with Pilot Model Courts after first year of their operation.
consultations, citizen feedback and dissemination of results.
4.2. Measures to mitigate negative impacts of the APJR on intemd and extemal stakeholders identified by end of year 1.
4.1. Maintenance o f an active institutionalized organizational reports. program of public education, knowledge sharing, reports.
Project-level and
Consultations and media
Inputs: (budget for each component)
6.37 million
Project reports:
Project reviews and progress reports.
0.27 million
14.76 million
0.84 million
from Components to 3utputs) I. Continued Executive, ,egislative and Judicial 3ranch resource and policy support and commitment.
2. Effective follow-up and management by the PMO.
3. Timely procurement of goods, works and services.
4. Quality monitoring and evaluation and participation of stakeholders.
- 26 -
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description
PHILIPPINES: Judicial Reform Support Project
Introduction:
Successive studies undertaken over the past decade and increasingly during the past few years indicate that the Philippine judiciary faces a number o f major challenges:
0 Delays in the delivery o f justice and associated limitations on access. Only the Supreme Court i s up-to-date in i ts caseload. The other courts continue to receive more cases each year than they decide. The result i s that over the past decade, the backlog o f pending cases has continued to increase, although in the last three years the rate of increase has begun to decline.
0 Widespread perceptions o f corruption in the judiciary. Successive surveys indicate that upwards o f half of all Filipinos think that "some" or "quite a few" judges accept bribes. A weak disciplinary process, a failure to aggressively enforce the code o f ethical standards among judges and others in the judiciary and the lack o f transparency in and public awareness o f court operations have seriously undermined perceptions of the integrity o f the courts. The Supreme Court i s taking the initiative in tackling this issue but the l i s t o f complaints from users of court services continues to be long.
0 Ineffective administrative structures and operating systems. Decisions on personnel actions, resource management, and administrative matters concerning the lower courts are centralized in the Supreme Court.
0 Deficient court technologies and facilities. Most courts are housed in poorly-maintained facilities owned by local government units. Rental and maintenance agreements are often informal, and anecdotal evidence suggests that judges often find themselves in an awkward position when either the local government or i t s supporters are parties in cases before them.
The need for significant strengthening o f policies and practices for human resource development.
The need to improve public information concerning the courts and to strengthen collaboration of the judiciary with civi l society.
To address such shortcomings, the Supreme Court has developed an Action Program for Judicial Reform (the APJR), a blueprint to improve the judicial system. The program has six parts. The first involves reforms to judicial systems and procedures to make the courts more efficient and to enhance their fairness and accessibility. The second covers institutional development and includes strengthening the courts' financial autonomy, constructing and rehabilitating facilities, and modernizing information technology infrastructure. Human resources development i s addressed in the third part through training o f judges and court personnel. The fourth part covers the reform o f support systems, managing the reform process and building support for i t with lawyers, court personnel, and other stakeholders. The last two parts were added as a result o f consultations with stakeholders. They cover improving access to justice by the poor and enhancing the institutional integrity o f the judiciary.
- 27 -
The Supreme Court has actively sought the support of the donor community, including the Bank, in carrying out th i s Program. In keeping with the priority accorded to judicial reform, the Government has requested the World Bank to provide funding support for the proposed project described below, as part o f a coordinated support effort by development partners.
Project development objective
In line with the APJR, the proposed Project's development objective i s to support the development o f a more effective and accessible judicial system that would foster public trust and confidence.
Project Scope
The proposed Project w i l l further the objectives o f the APJR through i t s support of inter-related measures and initiatives to:
(a) Improve the efficiency o f case adjudication and access to justice, through improved ICT- based case and court records management systems, and reorganization o f the court jurisdictional structure; and piloting mechanisms for making courts more accessible to people in remote localities, through establishing mobile courts;
(b) Upgrade the integrity o f the judiciary, through developing a gender-sensitive unified Code o f Ethics for justices, judges, lawyers and court personnel and alternative feedback mechanisms on judicial performance; implementing the Judicial Performance Management System; enhancing professional development within the judiciary, through the introduction o f a gender-sensitive Human Resources Development Master Plan for non-juridical personnel o f the judiciary; and strengthening PHILJA;
(c) Strengthen institutional capabilities, through implementing a decentralized administration model for the judiciary; installing comprehensive computer-based financial and administrative systems; developing pilot model court facilities; and strengthening policy, research and development (PR&D) capabilities through the establishment o f a PR&D institute and the development o f an electronic judicial library; and
(d) Strengthen the institutional capabilities o f the judiciary in developing broad stakeholder support for the APJR and in managing the reforms.
The Project w i l l constitute one o f a number o f initiatives undertaken by the Supreme Court and supported by various development partners of the Philippines under the coordination o f the Supreme Court's Program Management Office. The proposed project i s designed to support selected policy and institutional reforms, together with associated infrastructure improvements, set out in the APJR. The detailed components o f this proposed project complement the initiatives supported by grant financing from other sources and ensure that the Supreme Court's overall judicial reform program i s comprehensive and adequately resourced.
Overall, the proposed Project i s national in coverage except for ICT, court infrastructure and decentralization investments which w i l l be targeted to higher courts and three pilot model courts in three regions-Mindanao, Visayas and Luzon-to show-case reforms and build momentum.
- 28 -
By Component:
Project Component A - US$5.69 million Component A: Improving Case Adjudication and Access to Justice
Improvement in case settlement and access to justice mechanisms i s intended to address the problem o f delay in the delivery o f justice and associated limitations on access. This component (through subcomponents A. 1 to A.4 and sub-component A.7) i s intended to improve court efficiency through modem case management techniques, planning and tools. I t also aims to fill information gaps regarding access to justice and test mobile courts which empower citizens and strengthen access to justice, especially for the poor and vulnerable (sub-components AS and A.6).
Subcomponent A.l: Design and implementation of an improved case management system
This sub-component w i l l design and implement an improved case management system at the Supreme Court, the Court o f Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court o f Tax Appeals and in pilot model courts (see Component C. 3). This case management reform wi l l include electronically integrating in the courts the various processes in the receipt, recording, and tracking o f cases, identifying their nature, and generating other statistics that w i l l enable analysis o f cases and case management performance o f the courts. The system w i l l make possible the inter-court tracking o f cases (transfers and appeals) by the Supreme Court and the generation o f micro and macro statistical reports useful in evaluating performance at various levels and in formulating policies and systems for continuing case management improvement.
The key foundation for designing this improved case management system i s a study currently under way with financed from a Bank-managed trust fund to analyze and determine the nature and causes o f case congestion and delay in the Philippines Judiciary, and to make recommendations for a case decongestion and delay reduction strategy. I t i s examining the various organizational elements affecting case adjudication (case management, jurisdictional structure, rules o f court, administrative structures and operating systems, human resources, etc.) and w i l l make proposals for an integrated strategy that i s intended to remove delay-promoting factors and enhance court efficiency. At the conclusion o f th i s study, the Supreme Court w i l l adopt a new case management strategy taking account o f i t s findings and recommendations.
Bank Financing. The proposed subcomponent w i l l finance the design and acquisition o f software, services and training needed to implement and operate the new case management system.
Subcomponent A.2: Design and implementation of court records management system
A judiciary-wide improved court records system wi l l be designed and installed in the higher and the pilot model courts. The system design w i l l include the formulation o f policies and procedures for the inventory and categorization o f court records such as indexing and coding, disclosure, archival, storage, disposal, physical layout, retrieval and filing design. A “Court Records Management Manual’’ w i l l be prepared to cover these matters and disseminated widely.
The system w i l l be designed to operate in both manual and computer-aided situations. The computerized system w i l l be included in the common I C T facilities to be provided in the higher courts and the pilot model courts under Component C.3 o f the proposed Project. The system w i l l also be linked to the library and research facilities to be developed under Component C.4 o f the proposed Project.
Bank Financing: The proposed sub-component w i l l finance the software, services and training needed to design, install and operate the new court records management system.
- 29 -
Subcomponent A.3: Installation of Computer-Aided Transcription (CAT) Technology
This sub-component w i l l provide for the acquisition and installation of computer-aided transcription (CAT) equipment in the higher and pilot courts, as manual transcription services are a cause o f delay in the courts. I t includes the formulation o f an implementation plan and the provision o f training for the operators o f the system. The CAT technology w i l l be linked with the case management and court records management systems to achieve greater efficiency in the judicial process.
Bank Financing. The proposed sub-component w i l l finance the software, consultant services, equipment and training required to design, install and operate the CAT technology in the higher and pilot courts.
Subcomponent A.4: Reorganization of the Court Jurisdictional Structure
This sub-component w i l l involve a nation-wide review and reengineering o f the judiciary’s jurisdictional structure and the establishment o f internal institutional guidelines for continued review, planning and policy improvements. The overriding policies and objectives are to (a) ensure that the jurisdictional structure o f the courts promotes access, achieves a balanced distribution of caseload, promotes simplification o f case processing procedures and standards, and promotes enhancement of judicial expertise among judges and court personnel; (b) ensure that the jurisdictional structure o f the courts promotes a clear delineation o f jurisdictions among courts, prevents misfiling o f cases, and enhances efficiency and clarity o f inter-court case flows; and (c) institute the capacity in the Supreme Court to review the efficiency, access and other implications of laws affecting the jurisdictional structure o f courts.
Bank Financing: The proposed sub-component w i l l finance consultant services and workshops for conducting the nation-wide review and implementing policy recommendations.
Subcomponent AS: Development of Policy Options for Addressing Affordability Constraints to Access to the Court System by the Poor
Access to justice by the poor and vulnerable has several dimensions and complexities. Under this subcomponent, two studies w i l l be carried out to address affordability constraints. The first, w i l l identify policy options for the adoption of a social pricing mixed scheme for legal fees to improve the affordability o f legal services, including the use of the courts by the poor. The second, w i l l identify mechanisms for public and private resource generation programs to support the availability o f affordable legal services to the poor. In both cases, assessments w i l l include a comparative analysis o f policy initiatives in other countries, and extensive consultations with relevant stakeholders in the Philippines.
Bank Financing: The proposed subcomponent w i l l finance consultant services and workshops for conducting the studies, obtaining stakeholder inputs and making policy recommendations.
Subcomponent A.6: Strengthening of Access to Justice via Mobile Courts
Bringing justice closer to people empowers citizens and promotes their fundamental rights. The very essence of empowerment i s about giving respect and dignity to the poor by establishing partnerships with them; i t i s about leveraging institutional transformation to connect to the needs o f the poor; and i t i s about supporting the poor in meeting these needs. Changing justice systems, improving access to justice and providing legal assistance requires empowering poor communities to seek justice services and to use peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms. Mobile Courts empower citizens by giving them the option to
- 30 -
solve the less complex disputes closer to home, in a simple fashion, and free o f charge. I t reflects, in this sense, the efforts o f the Judiciary to guarantee the constitutional rights of citizens to a fair, free, simple, and speedy administration o f justice.
This subcomponent w i l l consist o f two phases. In the first phase, a study w i l l be carried out on the establishment and operationalization o f mobile courts, both in sites with large land areas, a dispersed population and very limited transport facilities; and in locations to which access i s most easily obtained by sea. The study wi l l address issues o f jurisdictional arrangements for the mobile courts, explore optional arrangements such as sharing o f the mobile court facilities among the courts with appropriate jurisdiction, and the design o f the administrative management o f the mobile courts. The study w i l l also explore appropriate partnerships with local government units, local law schools and relevant local civic organizations towards providing opportunities for law students to participate in the judicial process, and for the general public to observe judicial processes, within the rules set by law on the rights o f litigants to privacy. The study wi l l include an assessment o f the feasibility o f establishing a land-based mobile court in two locations which are not well service by existing court facilities.
The study i s expected to make recommendations on options for institutional design (structure, staffing, s k i l l s definition), operating systems and procedures, reporting procedures and formats, installation and testing methodology, public informatiodadvocacylpromotion strategy and produce a mobile courts manual. I t w i l l also make recommendations as to how best to pilot mobile courts in a limited number o f locations. Typically, the mobile courts may use conciliation mechanisms, target small claim disputes and serve as citizen information and communication offices.
The second phase w i l l consist of implementing the mobile court program in two locations.
Bank Financing: This sub-component w i l l finance consultant services and workshops for conducting the study and carrying out o f a consultative process, and the procurement o f two mobile vehicles and relevant ICT equipment.
Subcomponent A.7: Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Development
This subcomponent w i l l support a major upgrade of the judiciary’s ICT capabilities, in order to improve i t s overall effectiveness. This ICT enhancement subcomponent w i l l be an essential complement to several o f the other subcomponents such as improved cash management, court records management, computer aided-transcription and performance management.
Based on the ISSP, the subcomponent would provide the technological infrastructure, applications, capability and organization to manage the overall information and communication needs o f the Judiciary. The technology infrastructure would be designed to run computer applications for the key work processes identified, as well as future applications with the use of common technology components so that information systems can be shared and managed on a judiciary-wide basis. Cutting across all processes, information systems and applications would include electronic data interchange for secured communication among courts and lawyers, and video conferencing facilities.
The common ICT infrastructure would include: (i) network (such as physical facilities, servers and storage, cabling, security systems and data communication services) providing connectivity to users in the various offices within the Judiciary; (ii) access devices acquiring current technologies in computer hardware, operating system and application software, and personal digital assistants or Internet-only devices that may be commercially available and cheaper in the near future; (iii) quality data generation capacity to support business and transactional systems; and (iv) information systems along with organizational support and staff for quality development and change management.
- 31 -
Bank Financing This subcomponent w i l l finance the design and acquisition o f appropriate software, the procurement and installation o f ICT equipment, and related training and reengineering activities.
Project Component B - US$0.24 million Project Component B: Enhancing Institutional Integrity
The development of an integrity infrastructure for the judiciary i s intended to improve public t rust and confidence in the justice system and to lay down the foundation of institutional integrity upon which efficiency and effectiveness in operations, and impartiality in judicial processes and decisions, can be achieved and sustained.
This component i s intended to result in the judiciary adopting a comprehensive and synchronized approach to strengthening the integrity infrastructure of the judicial system. This approach w i l l involve gender-sensitive institutional and procedural reforms, civi l society education and information, and private sector and inter-agency collaboration.
Subcomponent B.1: Formulation of a Comprehensive Manual on the Code of Ethics
I t has generally been long-recognized within the Philippines legal community that the codes o f ethics for justices, judges, lawyers and court personnel need to be re-examined and improved. The identification o f what constitutes ethical and unethical behavior w i l l form the basis for the development o f appropriate organizational behavior and culture, and the establishment of corresponding incentives, rewards, sanctions, and investigation and assessment systems.
This subcomponent w i l l consist o f (a) the review and assessment o f the present Canon o f Judicial Ethics, the Code o f Professional Responsibilities and the Code o f Conduct for Court Personnel; and (b) the formulation and development o f a gender-sensitive annotated Code o f Ethics for justices, judges, lawyers and court personnel.
Bank Financing: This subcomponent w i l l finance consultant services and workshops for conducting the review, assessment and recommendations, and carrying out a consultative process with men and women stakeholders.
Subcomponent B.2: Development of Alternative Feedback Mechanisms on Judicial Performance
This subcomponent w i l l strengthen media, civi l society and community contributions in monitoring the conduct, operations and performance of judges, court personnel and the overall court system. I t w i l l establish stronger collaboration with such groups by piloting alternative media and feedback mechanisms on judicial performance. The development o f alternative media and feedback mechanisms aims to improve the quality and quantity o f venues for information exchange on judicial functions, operations and performance.
Bank Financing: This subcomponent w i l l finance consultant services and workshops for conducting the review, assessment and recommendations, and carrying out a consultative process with stakeholders.
- 32 -
Subcomponent B.3: Implementation of the Computerized Judicial Performance Management System
This subcomponent w i l l convert the judiciary-wide Judicial Performance Management System currently being developed into a computerized system. The computerized system would be installed and operationalized within the three pilot courts under the proposed project and the higher courts of the judiciary, and linked together through the common ICT facilities to be provided under component C.2 o f the proposed Project.
Bank Financing: This subcomponent w i l l finance the design and acquisition o f appropriate software and related training and dissemination.
Subcomponent B.4: Professional Development for Excellence
The judiciary has recognized the importance of providing strong court administration support to i t s adjudicative functions in order for them to be efficient and effective. As declared in the APJR, “The Judiciary w i l l improve i t s capacities to provide quality training and development programs for non- judicial employees on a sustained basis.” The APJR also took note o f the grant of authority to the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) to oversee all training activities, including those that are non- judicial in nature, and emphasized the need for “coordinated action between PHILJA and the Supreme Court, ultimately leading to a comprehensive and coherent training program for everyone in the Judiciary.”
This subcomponent w i l l consist of (a) the formulation and implementation o f a gender-sensitive Human Resources and Development (HRD) Master Plan for Non-Judicial Personnel; and (b) strengthening the overall capacities o f the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA). The development and implementation o f a gender-sensitive HRD Master Plan i s expected to strengthen and enhance the capacities o f nonjudicial members and support staff of the Judiciary to cope with the rapid shifts in paradigms and processes, as well as the complexity o f evolving issues. The activities under the reform program in particular demand new competences, which w i l l require training and s k i l l s building which w i l l be supported under this subcomponent. Strengthening the overall capacities o f the Philippine Judicial Academy of the Supreme Court w i l l encompass conducting comprehensive surveys on judicial education, studies on comparative international experiences and best practices, institutional assessment and reengineering, implementation o f new institutional arrangements, formulation o f corporate plans and investment programs, and implementation o f new training curricula and delivery standards.
Bank Financing: This subcomponent w i l l finance consultant services for the carrying out o f the proposed studies and surveys, workshops, training and the provision of training equipment and distance learning tools and materials.
Project Component C - US$l3.07 million Project Component C: Strengthening the Institutional Capacity of the Judiciary
This component would strengthen the institutional capacity o f the Supreme Court to manage the higher and lower courts by setting up an operational structure and making the investments necessary to upgrade the management and technology systems and physical facilities that are essential to the judiciary’s ability to carry out i t s services. A key aspect o f t h i s component w i l l be the undertaking of initiatives that support the decentralization o f certain administrative functions. By empowering the lower courts in pilot locations to assume administrative and operational responsibilities within their jurisdiction, i t i s expected that the performance o f the courts and the delivery o f services w i l l be significantly enhanced.
- 33 -
Subcomponent C.1: Decentralizing Administrative Functions in Pilot Model Courts Locations
The ADB i s currently providing technical assistance to the Supreme Court to develop an overall decentralization plan for the judiciary. This subcomponent would support al l measures necessary to implement in three pilot model courts and in the higher courts, the decentralized structure agreed upon by the Court, commencing with the development o f a detailed technical design and implementation plan. These measures would be complemented by managerial and organizational reforms at the Supreme Court. (The sites for the pilot model courts have been selected on the basis o f the following criteria: clear ownership o f the site by the Supreme Court, “showcaseability”, replicability, engineering feasibility, and feasibility o f completing construction or rehabilitation works within an eight month time-frame.) The objective i s to ensure that each pilot court will, through the project and other partner-supported institutions development reform initiatives, have fully functioning case management systems and procedures, decentralized administrative structures and operating systems, and appropriate staffing with personnel trained in the application of new policies, use o f new technologies and implementation of new systems and procedures. The model courts w i l l be linked to counterpart oversight systems at the Supreme court.
This sub-component w i l l also implement expected revised policies on local government unit support for the operation o f lower courts -- existing policies are currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court with the assistance o f ADB. I t w i l l be synchronized with the formulation of the medium-term budget plans for the pilot sites to ensure harmony between national government resource allocations and judicial revenue generation improvement, on the one hand, and policies on local government support, on the other.
Bank Financing: The proposed subcomponent w i l l finance the procurement of equipment and services, including the carrying out o f workshops with stakeholders and training needed to implement successfully a decentralized management system in the pilot model courts.
Subcomponent C.2: Improving Financial Management Systems of the Judiciary
Current financial management and budget mechanisms at the central and regional court levels are weak. There are no automated systems for court fee collection and record keeping causing assorted problems such as lack o f transparency. The ADB i s currently providing technical assistance to the Supreme Court to assess this situation and develop improvement plans. This subcomponent w i l l support the development and implementation of a financial management improvement program, including reporting and information system revenue management, fund management, physical asset management and the payroll system. Integrated financial management systems w i l l be developed for use in pilot model courts.
Bank Financing: The proposed subcomponent w i l l finance the design and acquisition o f software, training and services for the development and implementation o f integrated financial and administrative management systems.
Subcomponent C.3: Development of Pilot Model Courts’ Infrastructure
Court infrastructure i s deficient, dilapidated and affects the performance and image o f the courts nationwide. This subcomponent w i l l begin to address these deficiencies through infrastructure improvements by setting up a model integrated court to showcase reforms in each o f the three regions - Mindanao, Visayas and Luzon. Model pilot courts would have several features including: space for family courts, interview rooms, survivor-sensitive facilities and court administration functions; facilities for
- 34 -
court-annexed mediation services; launch o f modem ICT facilities according to ISSP requirements; provision o f appropriate public access to judicial records archives and information offices to make legal and judicial information accessible; provision o f adequate food service facilities and restrooms for staff; and the public; and space for training, and meetings with media, lawyers and other stakeholders. Adequate and dignified facilities would be provided through rehabilitation o f existing courthouses and new construction, remodeling o f office layouts and provision o f furniture and ICT tools.
The model courts would implement administrative decentralization and operate with new case management service standards (developed under subcomponent A. 1 of the Project) that promote effectiveness, transparency and accessibility o f the judicial system at the local level. They would also set a standard for judicial control and citizen engagement.
This subcomponent w i l l be carried out in two phases. In the f i rs t phase, one pilot model court w i l l be upgradedconstructed to test and showcase Project reforms. Lessons learned w i l l be applied in carrying out the second phase, during which the remaining two pilot model courts w i l l be upgraded.
Bank Financing: This component w i l l finance consultant services for detailed engineering design, civi l works and procurement o f facilities and equipment.
Subcomponent C.4: Establishment of Electronic Judicial Library and Research Facilities
This subcomponent w i l l support the establishment o f electronic library and research facilities to permit timely access to judicial information relevant for judiciary personnel and the public in general, and the development o f options for institutionalizing judicial policy and research capacities.
Bank Financing: - The proposed sub-component w i l l finance the design and acquisition of software, and training.
Project Component D - US$0.72 million Project Component D: Ensuring Stakeholder Support for Reform and Strengthening the Program Management Office
The APJR outlines the mission and vision o f the future judiciary in the Philippines. This component w i l l assist in developing support for the reform process, ensure that judges and other stakeholders are able to participate in the development of modernization ideas, implement key reform activities, I t w i l l also provide assistance to the Program Management Office (PMO) in facilitating and coordinating the APJR and the Project. These objectives w i l l be achieved through these subcomponents:
Subcomponent D.l: Reform Support, Knowledge Sharing and Team Building.
Stakeholder support, knowledge and teamwork w i l l be fostered through: (i) carrying out a study o f the possible impact of the APJR on the judiciary’s personnel and the subsequent preparation and implementation o f an impact mitigation program based on said study; (ii) organizing and carrying out knowledge sharing programs (including field visits to good practice locations) for change agents in the judiciary, the government and the legal community and NGOs in general; (iii) providing specialized technical and institutional support, best practices and training support for judges working groups (e.g. on facilities, new judicial organizational model design and technological advances, judge evaluation systems, c iv i l society participation in courts), for brainstorming on future challenges o f the judiciary and assistance for implementation and supervision; (iv) designing and developing social communications programs to promote the APJR and share progress o f activities; (v) preparing a program for internal and external communication for the courts through periodic support to inter-institutional meetings (e.g., Supreme
- 35 -
Court, IBP and DOJ), association meetings (e.g., for judges, executive judges, stenographers, process servers, administrators, other stakeholders, etc.) for preparing professional development sessions and developing other mechanisms that promote a sense of commitment and public service, and organizing local and international seminars on strategic topics (e.g., court fees); (vi) developing community outreach programs (e.g., for children in primary schools to inculcate an understanding o f the rule of law and the role o f judges, in partnership with the department of education, launching Chief Justice scholarship program for law students); and (vii) carrying out gender-segregated user surveys for feedback and refining reform activities.
Bank Financing: The subcomponent w i l l finance consultant services, coordination and administration support, training and workshops.
Subcomponent D.2: Strengthening the Program Management Office.
This subcomponent w i l l support capability enhancement activities with respect to the PMO to upgrade i t s capacity to effectively coordinate and manage the implementation o f the APJR and the Project. Capacity building activities would include: (i) technical assistance in specialized areas such as institutional development, team building, procurement, site development management, public affairs, financial management, project evaluation; (ii) short-term technical support in judicial statistics, re- engineering, mediation techniques, establishing mobile courts, new judicial organization models; and (iii) support for administration and coordination, monitoring and control and provision o f ICT and training. The PMO would also receive support for preparing progress reports and developing a Website for knowledge development, information sharing and procurement announcements.
Bank Financing: The subcomponent w i l l finance technical assistance, coordination and administration support, training, computer equipment and logistical support and materials. Office space w i l l be provided by the Supreme Court and other courts as necessary. The Supreme Court w i l l also provide professional and support staff as needed.
- 3 6 -
Action Program for Judicial Reform DEVELOPMENT PARTNER ASSISTANCE M A P
X
JUDICIAL SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES
Funded through a WB- Trust Fund.
1. Court Management Systems 0 Caseload Survey and Dev’t.
of Case Decongestion Strategy
Management System Reengineering of the Case X
X Introduction of New Transcription and Recording Technology Formulation of Community Feedback Mechanisms to Address Delay
Streamlining of Rules of Court
Included in WB-JRSP CFM Pilot project funded by USAID. Included in WB-JRSP. Also in E-Courts Project of Sen. Pimentel. Proposed for EC
Nationwide Dev’t of Model
2. Court Jurisdictional Structure Reengineering of the Court
courts X
Jurisdictional Structure 3. Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism
0 Comprehensive Diagnostic Study of the ADR Mechanism
JURIS Regularly done by SC thru CRRC
Included in WB-JRSP. X X
Establishment of Court- Annexed Mediation System Establishment of ADR Institute and Curricula Installation of SC Capacity for Continuing Monitoring and Assessment of ADR Institutions . Strengthening of the Barangay Justice System
. Advocacy for wider use of ADR in National Government and the Private Sector
X Included in WB-JRSP.
X
I x I
X X To be included in CIDA- JURIS Project. USAID- AGILE also assisted activities related to ADR and court-annexed mediation.
-do- X
X
X
-do-
-do-
X X Several donor agencies are assisting specific componentslactivities relative to this concern.
-do- X X
assistance. I Also addressed by
I I I I I I I I I
- 3 7 -
Management System 0 Development and
Implementation of Judicial Performance Management System
X X Included in ADB-TA 3693. For implementation in pilot courts under the WB- JRSP.
Included in ADB-TA 3693
-do-
Reengineering 0 Formulation and
Institutionalization of Judicial Research Group
7. Information Systems Capacity
0 Formulation of Information Systems Strategic Plan
0 Definition of User Requirements and Systems Functional Specifications
Improvement
0 Application Systems Development, Installation and Implementation Reengineering and Automation of ArchiveslLibrary Operations Management
-do-
X
X
X X X
X X X
X
-do-
-do-
Re-engineering design included in ADB-TA; implementation included in JRSP pilot courts.
-do-
Specific components to be undertaken in the ADB-TA, the WB-JRSP, and the CIDA-PllAF Included in the WB- JRSP, PTTAF and CFMP
Included in the WB- JRSP.
. . Facilities
I I I I I I Construction and Improvement of Halls of Justice/Court Houses
Included in the WB- JRSP.
X
0 Upgrading of Printing Facilities
X
X
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
-do-
Assessment of training requirements and formulation of Capacity Building Program to be undertaken under the ADB-TA. Implementation of the Training Program to be undertaken by the Supreme Court.
Initial assessment done under WB-PHRD. Reengineering to be undertaken as part of ADB-TA. Implementation to be undertaken by the Supreme Court.
-do-
9. Judicial Appointments and Career Development
Formulation of the Reorganization Plan of the Judicial and Bar Council Reengineering of the Judicial Appointment Process Formulation of Judicial Career Development Plan
10. Training and Development of Court and Non-Judicial Personnel
Training Requirements in the Context of the Judicial Reform Program and Formulation and Implementation of Capacity Building Program for Non- Judicial Personnel
Overall Assessment of
11. Judicial Education
Reengineering of the Philippine Judicial Academy
Redesign and Development of the PHILJA Training Program System of Seminars and Symposia on Judicial Education Inter-Country Studies on Comparative Best Practices Construction and Equipping of the PHILJA Tagaytay Training Center
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Included in ADB-TA 3693.
-do-
X I X I
- 39 -
12. Remuneration Systems Reengineering
International Trends and Best Practices
Independent Remuneration Policy Strategy and Remuneration Systems Reengineering
0 Review and Application of
0 Formulation of an
13. Legal Education 0 Assessment of the Continuing
Legal Education Assessment of the Formal Legal Education System
0 Development of Curriculum and Institutional Standards on Legal Education
0 Executive Inter-Change on International Experience and Best Practice
-40 -
Included in ADB-TA 3693.
X
X Included in ADB-TA 3693.
X Included in JURIS
X X X -do-
X X -do-
x - -do-
14. Improvement of the Code of Ethics of the Judiciary
0 Review and Improvement of the Code of Ethics for Justices, Judges, lawyers and court personnel
15. Formulation and Conduct of Training Towards Improvement of Integrity in the Bench
implementation of training programs toward X improvement of integrity in the Bench
16. Collaboration of Civil Society Groups and the Media for Combating Graft and Corruption
Development and
0 Design and implementation of programs for collaboration X X X X with civil society groups
To be undertaken by the Supreme court. ADB-Asia
To be undertaken by the Supreme Court.
Disciplinary System and Institutionalizing an Integrity Infrastructure Uni
Improvement of the
Institutionalizing an Integrity disciplinary system
Infrastructure Unit
X Included in ADB-TA 3693.
X -do-
ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY THE POOR
18. Improvement of Access to Justice by the poor through the Judicial Reform Program
1 Conduct of Assessment of Impact of the Judicial Reform Program on Access to Justice bv the Poor Design and Implementation of Programs for the Mobilization of Public and Private Sector Resources towards Improving affordability of judicial services by the poor Conduct of studies in substantive law and their impacts on access to justice by the poor and disadvantaged Conduct of advocacy and collaboration work for the strengthening of the other pillars of justice for improved access by the poor (reengineering of PA0 and consolidation of government legal services, strengthening witness protection and investigation mechanisms, establishment of conflict resolution mechanisms in each department, promotion of ADRs, etc.)
0 Formulation and implementation of mechanisms and agreements for the adoption of social pricing mix for legal fees and generation of Judicial revenues and funds to support legal requirements of the poor
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be proposed for inclusion in UNDP- assisted activities. ClDA
Proposed for inclusion in UNDP-assisted activities.
- 4 1 -
Development of Feedback
Development and and Research Facility
Implementation of Internal and External Communication Strategy
21. Advocacy and Collaboration for Reforms in the other Pillars of Justice
Proposed for inclusion in EC-assisted project.
Already being undertaken by the Supreme Court.
Proposed for inclusion in EC-assisted project.
X
X X X
X X
Proposed for inclusion in EC-assisted project.
Proposed for inclusion in EC-assisted project.
Proposed for inclusion in EC-assisted project.
Being undertaken with UNDP assistance; related initiatives being undertaken by agencies in the executive branch. Also being done by SC.
- 42 -
Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs
Price Contingencies
Total Project Costs’ Interest during construction
Front-end fee Total Financina Reauired
PHILIPPINES: Judicial Reform Support Project
0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 19.20 24.20
0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22
5.00 19.42 24.42
B. Enhancing Institutional Integrity C. Strengthening Institutional Capacity D. Social Mobilization and Reform Support Contingency Total Baseline Cost
Physical Contingencies
Goods Works Services and Training Operating Costs Unallocated
Total Financing Required I 5.00 I 19.42 I 24.42 I Identifiable taxes and duties are 0 (US$m) and the total project cost, net of taxes, i s 24.4 (US$m). Therefore, the project cost sharing ratio i s 89.75%
o f total project cost net o f taxes.
- 43 -
Annex 4: Cost Benefit Analysis Summary
Benefits:
costs:
Net Benefits:
IRR:
PHILIPPINES: Judicial Reform Support Project
[For projects with benefits that are measured in monetary terms]
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
n.a. - not available.
If the difference between the present value o f financial and economic flows i s large and cannot be explained by taxes and subsidies, a brief explanation o f the difference i s warranted, e.g. “The value o f financial benefits i s less than that o f economic benefits because o f controls on electricity tariffs.”
Summary of Benefits and Costs:
The benefits from improvements in judicial performance are both economic and social. Implementation o f the project i s expected to increase the efficiency o f the pilot model courts and improve access to judicial services both in the pilot sites and in the judiciary as a whole. Direct benefits include increased efficiency, reduced costs o f litigation, more timely disposition of cases, improved collection of outstanding tax liabilities, increased confidence in, and access to the judiciary, as well as the transparent conduct o f judges and court clerks. The indirect benefits are stable and uniform application of the rule o f law, strong business confidence and stable investment climate and an increase in the number o f cases filed in court and an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Taken as a whole, these factors w i l l contribute to a more level playing field for business, spur investments and promote economic growth.
These benefits emanate from the renovation of the halls o f justice including the provision o f fumitures and equipment and the associated development of information systems, the improvement in case management, the building o f institution, and system re-engineering for the higher courts and selected pilot sites. The renovation o f halls o f justice including the provision o f furnishings and equipment w i l l have a direct impact on the delivery o f social services. This w i l l be confined solely to locality or community where the pilot model court infrastructure w i l l be set up. More importantly, the systems reform in the higher courts and selected pilot sites w i l l result to a more efficient operations in these courts and w i l l benefit society at large.
I t i s difficult to quantify the social and economic benefits o f an improved justice system but a cursory review o f baseline data suggest that they are large. First, the backlog o f cases has been increasing (see baseline table in the main text) and a case decongestion and delay reduction strategy study has
-44 -
indicated that the median time from case filing to clearing o f f i le takes about 6.6 years in the Sandiganbayan, about 2.6 years in the Court of Appeals, 2.6 years in the Court o f Tax Appeals and 1.4 years in the Supreme Court. Second, the cumulative value o f outstanding tax liabilities in dispute in the last 500 cases the Court o f Appeals decided through May 31,2001 was about P2billion. I t i s expected that the speedy disposition of cases w i l l generate substantial savings in expenses and w i l l yield an increased portion o f tax liabilities as additional revenues for the government.
I t i s noteworthy that judicial concern also ranks high in the perception o f business and civi l society at large. For example, half o f large Filipino f i r m s surveyed reported that the early resolution o f legal disputes i s “important” or “very important” for the efficient operation o f their business. In the same manner, a strong justice system, where access to judiciary i s widespread and integrity o f the justices i s beyond reproach, i s also a precondition for a stable investment climate and stronger economy to prosper. On top o f these are the substantial benefits that accrue to society as a result o f the swift resolution o f corruption charges, fairer application o f the rule law, and predictable and uniform interpretation o f business laws (see baseline table in main text for information on backlog).
M a i n Assumptions: NIA
Sensitivity analysis I Switching values of critical items:
- 4 5 -
Annex 5: Financial Summary
PHILIPPINES: Judicial Reform Support Project Years Ending
Year3
5.5 0.8 6.3 0.0 0.0
Total Financing Required Project Costs Investment Costs
1. Guidelines. Procurement o f works, goods and consultant services funded wholly or partly by Bank Loan w i l l be carried out in accordance with the Banks procurement guidelines (Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" of January and August 1996, September 1997 and January 1999, and the "Guidelines for Selection and Employment o f Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" o f January 1997 revised September 1997, January 1999 and May 2002). In the case of procurement under National Competitive Bidding method, a procurement side letter w i l l be issued by the Government detailing the procedures under the existing national laws that are not acceptable to the Bank.
2. Summary of Assessment of the Implementing Agency's Procurement Capacity. The Project w i l l be implemented by the Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines. An Assessment, in accordance with OCSPR Office Memorandum o f July 15,2002, o f i t s capacity to implement project procurement was carried out in December 2002. The Assessment was validated with the findings and recommendations o f the June 2002 Country Procurement Assessment Report.
Project procurement w i l l be handled by the Project's Procurement Specialist, a permanent staff member at the PMO. He w i l l be assisted by a consultant Procurement Specialist with extensive experience in international procurement. Small value procurement in the pilot model courts wi l l be handled by the designated procurement staff in the Site Management Unit.
Overall, the Assessment found that the procurement capacity o f the SC i s in the high risk category. The PMO i s now adequately staffed and the Project's procurement officer i s already designated. But, the SC has not previously implemented a project o f the magnitude o f the JRSP, neither has i t previously implemented a project assisted by a loan from an international funding institution. Hence, the capacity o f the Supreme Court in implementing foreign assisted project remains to be tested. Based on the Assessment, the following additional measures are intended to mitigate the SC's high risk category:
a) Hiring o f an experienced procurement specialist to provide technical assistance for at least one year;
b) Issuance o f an Administrative Order promulgating the Project's Procurement Policy Guidelines and Procedures (PPGP), as a condition for effectiveness, which w i l l provide for: (a) processing steps and leadtime following RA 9184 and i t s IRR; and (b) the delegation o f authority to approve contract awards and signing authority to the head o f the PMO and other responsible SC officials;
c) Creation o f a Bids and Awards Committee, exclusively for Project procurement and selection o f consultants, following the mandate of the Government Procurement Reform Act No. 9184 and i t s IRR.
3. Methods. Procurement under the Project w i l l comprise (i) construction or rehabilitation o f three Halls o f Justice Buildings; (ii) installation o f management information systems and equipment; and (iii) consultancy services for institutional strengthening. Project Cost by procurement arrangement i s presented in Table A.
3.1 Works (US$10.3 million) comprising o f the construction andor rehabilitation o f three Halls o f Justice (HOJ) Buildings w i l l be procured following International Competitive Bidding (ICB)
- 4 7 -
procedures. In executing the procurement process, the appropriate Banks Standard Bidding Documents w i l l be used. Contracts estimated to cost less than US$500,000 to an aggregate amount not exceeding US$3.0 million, w i l l be procured following NCB procedures.
3.2 Goods (US$5.3 mill ion equivalent) comprise contracts for: (a) installation o f information and communication systems for the entire Supreme Court and the lower courts; (b) mobile courts; (c) office and court equipment; and (d) motor vehicles. The following methods w i l l be used:
a) Contracts estimated to cost US$200,000 or more w i l l be procured following ICB procedures. b) Contracts estimated to cost less than US$200,000 or more, up to an aggregate amount not
exceeding US$0.3 million, may be procured following NCB procedures. c) Contracts estimated to cost less than US$50,000 equivalent, up to an aggregate amount not
exceeding US$O. 1 million, may be procured following shopping procedures.
3.3 Consulting Services (US$5.6 mill ion equivalent) comprise several contracts for (i) improving case adjudication and access to justice; (ii) enhancing institutional integrity; (iii) strengthening institutional capacity; (iv) information technology; and (v) facilitating change management and enhancing program management. The selection of consultants w i l l be in accordance with the Banks Standard Request for Proposals and Contracts. The following procedures w i l l guide the selection:
Contracts estimated to cost the equivalent o f US$200,000 or more, up to an aggregate o f US$2.7 mill ion equivalent, w i l l be selected following Quality and Cost Based Selection method; Contracts estimated to cost the equivalent o f US$200,000 or more, up to an aggregate o f US$1.3 mill ion equivalent, w i l l be selected following Quality Based Selection method. This w i l l involve highly specialized assignments such as the establishment of electronic library and systems development for case management; Contracts estimated to cost not more than US$100,000.00 equivalent, up to an aggregate of US$O.8 mil l ion equivalent, w i l l be selected following Selection Based on Consultant's Qualification method. This w i l l be limited to contracts below US$lOO,OOO which are standard non-complex assignments; Single source selection method for contracts with an aggregate value o f US$0.40 mill ion equivalent may be procured following single source selection method in accordance with Section 3.8 to 3.11 o f the Consultants' Guidelines. This w i l l involve the assignment on enhancing institutional integrity where the paramount qualification of the consultant i s excellent reputation and credibility. I t i s envisioned that the Court w i l l employ the firm that i s well-known for i t s integrity for this assignment; Individual consultant services, up to a maximum aggregate amount of US$0.4 million, w i l l be selected following Sections 5.1 to 5.4 o f the Consultants' Guidelines.
3.4 Training cost o f about US$2 10,000 w i l l include expenses for consultation workshops, travel (accommodation, meals, air-fare, etc.), and materials.
4. Prior Review. The procedures set forth in Paragraph 2 o f Appendix 1 to the Procurement and Consultants' Guidelines shall apply to:
a) Each contract for works estimated to cost US$500,000 equivalent or more; b) Each contract for goods estimated to cost US$200,000 equivalent or more; c) Each contract for consulting services with f i r m s estimated to cost more than US$lOO,OOO
equivalent;
-48 -
d) Each contract for consulting services with individuals estimated to cost more than US$50,000 equivalent;
e) Each contract for individual consultant following sole-source procedure.
(0.00) 11.67
(10.54) Total
5. Post review. With respect to each contract not subject to prior review, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 o f Appendix 1 to the Procurement and Consultants' Guidelines w i l l apply. The ratio shall be 15.
(0.00) (0.68) (0.00) (0.68) 3.00 9.75 0.00 24.42
(2.56) (8.80) (0.00) (21.90)
6. Advance Contracting and Retroactive Financing.
The Supreme Court has started advance procurement actions to procure consultancy services contract o f about $350,000 and goods o f about $150,000, for a total o f US$500,000. Preparation of bid documents are underway for the selection o f detailed engineering design consultants, the selection o f project specialist staff and the procurement o f some equipment and goods. Award o f contracts for these packages, and disbursement o f cash advances, are expected to be done prior to Loan effectiveness.
Procurement methods (Table A)
Table A: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (US$ million equivalent)
11 21
Figures in parentheses are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Loan. All costs include contingencies. Includes civi l works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services o f contracted staff o f the project management office, training, technical assistance services, and incremental operating costs such as those arising from the relocation o f court operations during renovation, and utility.
- 49 -
Table A1 : Consultant Selection Arrangements (optional) (US$ million equivalent)
I I (2.60) I (1.20) I (0.00) I (0.00) I (0.70) I (0.70) I (0.00) I (5.20) I Including contingencies
Note: QCBS = Quality- and Cost-Based Selection QBS = Quality-based Selection SFB = Selection under a Fixed Budget LCS = Least-Cost Selection CQ = Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications Other = SSS: Selection of individual consultants (per Section V of Consultants Guidelines), Commercial Practices, etc. N.B.F. = Not Bank-financed Figures in parentheses are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Loan.
Prior review thresholds (Table B) Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review'
more than 100 000 Individual more than
Total value of contracts subject to prior review:
Frequency of procurement supervision missions proposed:
18 mil l ion
One every 3 months (includes special procurement supervision for post-review/audits)
Overall Procurement Risk Assessment: High
Should the PMO capacity increase, the intensity of the supervision mission and post reviews o f the Bank w i l l be adjusted accordingly.
Thresholds generally differ by country and project. Consult "Assessment o f Agency's Capacity to Implement Procurement" and contact the Regional Procurement Adviser for guidance.
- 50 -
Annex 6(B): Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements
PHILIPPINES: Judicial Reform Support Project
Financial Management
1. Summary of the Financial Management Assessment
Country Issues
The country financial management issues relevant to the Project are (a) the slow transfer of fund disbursements,(b) project accounting practices, and (c) internal auditing functions:
1. Slow Funds Flow - I t commonly takes about 17 days for funds released by the Bank to reach Project Special Accounts due to the lengthy notification process involved. DOF has not agreed to the Bank’s proposal o f direct remittance o f funds to the SA o f a project, with payment advice and report on disbursements being issued to the BSP, BTr, DBM and MDFO, though the main reason for the funds processing going through these agencies are for documentary and notice purposes. Pending the resolution o f these issues, the Project w i l l need to allow for this delay in i t s management o f disbursements and SA replenishments. This reinforces the need for a strong FM system.
2. Project Accounting - The New General Accounting System (NGAS) Project Accounting module has not yet been completed. This i s a computerized module and i s scheduled to be completed by June, 2003. The NGAS presently being used by the Supreme Court has a regulatory Chart o f Accounts for Commission on Audit (COA) and DBM’s use. Thus, there i s a need for the Project to set up i t s own Project accounting system reflecting the components and major activities o f the project. A strong financial management arrangement for the project i s needed and adequate staffing provided.
3. Internal Audit function - Internal auditing i s not a well developed function in government agencies. Although internal audit units are authorized under the Internal Audit Code, budgetary considerations have prevented the full establishment o f them in all government agencies and local government units. Some agencies have internal audit functions but do not carry full blown intemal audit functions. The Internal Audit function in the SC does pre audit and not the normal Internal Audit function. Strengthening this i s part of the Project.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The strengths of the Financial Management system for the proposed Project are:
1. has the power to realign i t s budget and ensure funding for the Program Management Office (PMO).
Unlike other Agencies, the Supreme Court has i t s budget approval on a lump sum basis and thus
2. including improvements in financial management provides a necessary foundation for reform. In addition, it takes audit findings seriously and ensures that they are properly addressed. This cascades well into the strengthened financial management organization o f the Supreme Court and the Project.
The Top Management’s commitment to implement the Action Program for Judicial Reform
3. The Organization of a separate and well supported PMO ensures effective project implementation and control, and effective coordination with support from other donors. A decision and circular has been issued for the organization of the PMO including the F M positions needed.
- 5 1 -
Accommodating this in the budget o f the SC i s a sign o f strong management support for the reform program.
1. While FM staff are in place for the project, the FM organization o f the SC as a whole i s not fully staffed.
4. important decisions and transactions o f the Supreme Court and i ts Reform Program.
An active Executive Committee and Court En Banc ensures proper checks and balances in
1. FM improvement i s part o f Component C.2 o f the Project.
5. the approval o f the Chief Justice and other Heads o f Departments concerned.
Tight approval procedure on contracts and disbursements that gets pre audited, in addition to
The weaknesses o f the financial management system o f the SC and the project are identified as follows together with actions taken to address them:
2. There i s inadequate working and storage space for the Supreme Court’s FM unit.
3. The FM function i s very centralized in the main SC office. This slows down transactions and reporting and weakens the internal control in the field.
4. Weak Control on Cash. There i s no updated Bank Reconciliation Statement of the cash Accounts which accounts for about 80 percent o f total Resources o f the SC. Further, there i s no cash planning or forecasting being done.
5. Financial matters o f the lower courts are handled by the Office o f Court Administrator (OCA) and hence are independent of the SC FM function as OCA does not report to the FMBO Head, the Head of the SC’s FM function. As a result, it i s not clear who i s responsible for Financial Management and the lower courts.
6. There i s no detail on differences between planned and actual expenditures, and Financial Management reports are on an ad hoc basis.
7. There i s no manual for the SC’s FM function that reflects the policies and procedures and the forms and report formats to be used and submitted.
8. The Internal Audit function does pre audit and not the normal Internal Audit function of essentially Operations & Management Review.
2. Ensuring that the Supreme Court’s FM unit has adequate space and storage as part o f Component C.2 o f the Project.
3. FM decentralization i s part of Component C.2 o f the Project.
4. Require the monthly submission to management and approval thereof o f Bank Reconciliation Statements with proper disposition o f any discrepancies and introduce cash forecasting as part o f Component C.2 o f the Project.
5. Clarifies responsibilities and strengthen checks and balances are part o f Component C.2 o f the Project, including restructuring o f the Finance Management o f the SC.
6. For the Project, the FMRs wi l l be required. Strengthening the Financial Management Reporting System for the Judiciary i s part o f the Project.
7. The PMO has already prepared a FM Manual for Project Financial Management. Implementation o f th i s SC FM Manual i s included in Component C.2 o f the Project.
8.The establishment of a real Internal audit function for the SC i s included in the Project.
- 52 -
2. Audit Arrangements
External Audit
The audit report for the PHRD Grant for project preparation ("Grant Activities") for the years ended Dec. 31, 1999, 2000 & 2001 expressed an unqualified or clean opinion on the financial statements for the Grant Activities. The audit reports were submitted late by 4 to 9 months with significant follow up by the Bank. This was due to the fact that the Project financials were prepared late as there was no PMO- FM function at that time.
However, the audit report for the SC as o f Dec. 31,2000 expressed a qualified opinion on the SC's financial statements due to certain non booking o f collections, lack o f Bank Reconciliation Statements, discrepancies between the General and subsidiary ledgers, non remittance to the Bureau of Treasury, and errors in recording. The Dec. 31,2001 audit report has not yet been issued. While these do not directly affect the project accounts, there i s a need for the SC to address this as part of their responsibility to have proper accountability. This reinforces the need for FM capacity building as part o f the project.
3. Disbursement Arrangements
The Project w i l l be disbursed over a period of 6 years under an investment loan as a Fixed Spread Loan in the amount o f $21.9 million. The disbursements of the loan w i l l be in accordance with the Financial Plan for the Project (see Table C).
The following FMRs would be submitted:
1. current Physical and Financial Status Report but should be in Financial terms which should at least include Current and Cumulative column. In addition, Receipts should be added before the use o f funds and Fund balance should be added at the end. This should have a top sheet condensed report where everything i s the same except that under the uses o f funds the amounts shall just be by components. This w i l l be submitted on a quarterly basis.
Financial Report: Statement o f Sources and Uses o f Funds - Using the current format o f the
2. has breakdown by component and sub component. The financial column must be linked to the Financial Reports in term o f the figures reflected. This wi l l be submitted on a quarterly basis.
Physical Progress Report - Use the current report, Physical and Financial Status Report which
3. status in terms o f stage and amount. This w i l l be submitted on a semi annual basis.
Procurement Report - Current report on Annual Procurement Plan with addition o f forecast and
The agreed FMR report formats have been made part o f the Project's FM Manual.
Loan Conditions
None other than financial covenants.
- 53 -
Financial Covenants
Incremental Operating Expenses Unallocated
Total Project Costs with Bank Financing Interest during construction
Front-end fee
Total
The following financial covenants are included in the loan agreement;
2.60 60% 0.68
21.68 0.00 0.22 100%
21.90
1. accounts and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
That the project maintain an adequate financial management system with appropriate books of
2. the quarter).
The FMRs shall be submitted to the Bank on a timely basis (no later than 45 days after the end of
3. following the Project’s fiscal year.
Annual Audited Financial Statements for the Project shall be submitted no later than 6 months
The Financial Statements shall be:
a. Balance Sheet b. C. Statement o f Special Account. d. Statement of SOEs.
Sources and Uses of Funds (one o f the FMRs);
Allocation of loan proceeds (Table C)
Table C: Allocation of Loan Proceeds
- 54 -
Use of statements of expenditures (SOEs): Disbursement for the Project would be under the Traditional SOE based method with an option to
convert to a periodic disbursements method using Financial Management Reports (FMRs) when the PMO i s adequately prepared to switch to it. In any case, F M R s w i l l be required for the Project. Withdrawal Applications w i l l be supported by SOEs for:
- - -
- - All incremental operating expenses.
Civ i l Works below $500,000 equivalent per contract; Goods below $200,000 equivalent per contract; Consulting f i rms ’ contracts below $100,000 equivalent per contract except those awarded on a single source basis; and Contracts for individual consultants below $50,000 per contract
All other Withdrawal Applications would be supported by full documentation and signed contracts.
Special account: A Special Account (SA) would be maintained by the PMO with the Land Bank o f the Philippines
(LBP). The SA maximum allocation shall be US$2.0 mill ion with an initial allocation of U S $ 1.0 mill ion until disbursements come up to US$7.0 million.
- 55 -
Annex 7: Project Processing Schedule
First Bank mission (identification) Appraisal mission departure Negotiations Planned Date of Effectiveness
P H I L I P P I N E S : Judicial Reform Support Project
1 Time taken to DreDare the Droiect (months) I I 24 I
Prepared by: Supreme Court o f the Philippines
Preparation assistance: PHRD Grant
Bank staff who worked on the project included:
Mr. Lloyd McKay Mr. Anthony G. Toft Mr. Waleed Haider Ma l ik Mr. Richard Messick Ms. Karin Nordlander Mr. Gerald Thacker Mr. Fulvio Carbonaro Ms. Cecilia D. Vales Mr. Joseph G. Reyes Mr. Jose Tiburcio Nicolas Ms. Maya Gabriela Q. Villaluz Mr. James P. Villafuerte Ms. Neena Shrestha Ms. Marjorie P. Espiritu Ms. Muriel S. Greaves Mr. Walter Meza-Cuadra
Lead Economist (Task Team Leader) Senior Counsel (LJR Specialist) Senior Public Sector Management Specialist Senior Public Sector Specialist Lead Counsel Infrastructure Specialist ICT Specialist Senior Operations Officer (Procurement) Operations Officer (Financial Management) Operations Officer (Social Protection) Operations Officer (Environment) Economist Program Assistant Program Assistant Program Assistant Program Assistant
- 56 -
Annex 8: Documents in the Project File*
PHILIPPINES: Judicial Reform Support Project
A. Project Implementation Plan Supreme Court o f the Philippines JRSP Project Implementation Plan
B. Bank Staff Assessments Procurement Capacity Assessment Report Financial Management Assessment Report
B.l Bank Documents
1, PHRD-Financed Studies:
Formulation o f Administrative Reforms (July 2000)
The Impact o f Judicial Education and Directions for Change (2000)
Institutional Assessment of the Philippine Judicial Academy (2000)
Previous Experience with Philippine Judicial Reform (July 2000)
The Philippine Criminal Justice System (July 2000)
Multi-Sectoral Consultation Workshops on the Action Program for Judicial Reform (June 2001)
Center for Public Resources Management
Philippine Judicial Academy,
Philippine Judicial Academy
Pro$ Myma Feliciano, Mr. Carmelo V. Sison and Ms. Zenaida S. Antonio
Pro5 Myma Feliciano and Pro$ Albert0 T. Muyot
Development Academy of the Philippines
2. Danish Trust Fund-Financed Studv
Justice and the Cost o f Doing Business Ma. Lourdes A. Sereno, Emmanuel de Dios and Joseph J. Capuno
3. Dutch Trust Fund-Financed Studv
Formulation o f Case Decongestion and Delay Reduction Strategy - Phase 1 (December 2001)
Final Report, Analysis o f the Caseload and Semestral Dockets of Lower Courts (March 2002) Center for Public Resource Management
Center for Public Resource Management
C. Other Procurement Plan for the First Year o f Implementation Supreme Court o f the Philippines: Judicial Reform Support Project, April 3,2003 Supreme Court - United Nations Development Program, Management Study of the Judiciary (May 1999)
*Including electronic files
- 57 -
Annex 9: Statement of Loans and Credits
PHILIPPINES: Judicial Reform Support Project 06-Feb-2003
Difference between expected and actual
disbursementsa Original Amount in US$ Millions
Project ID Y Purpose IBRD IDA GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig Frm Rev'd
Company AACT APW Trade Al l Asia Growth All Asia Manager AllAsiaVen Mgmt Asian Hospital Banco de Oro Bataan P/E Drysdale Food Eastwood Filinvest General Milling H&Q PV I11 H&QPV-I H&QPV-I1 MFI MEP MNTC Mariwasa Mindanao Power PIATCO PSMT Philippines Pagbilao Pilipinas Shell PlantersBank Pryce Gases SME.com STRADCOM Sual Power UPPC Union Cement Walden Mgmt Walden Ventures
Average annual growth, 1995-01 Population (“A) Labor force (%)
Most recent estimate (latest year avallable, 1995-01) Poverty (% of population below national poverty line) I/ Urban population (% of total population) Life expectancy at birth (years) Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) Access to an improved water source (% ofpopulation) Illiteracy (77 ofpopulation age 15+) Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)
Male Female
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1981
GDP (US5 billions) Gross domestic investmenVGDP Exports of goods and servicesiGDP Gross domestic savings/GDP Gross national savingdGDP
Current account balanceiGDP Interest paymentsiGDP Total debffGDP Total debt serviceiexports Present value of debffGDP Present value of debffexports
35.6 27.5 23.6 24.1
-5.8 2.3
58.3 33.6
1981-91 1991-01 (average annual growth) GDP 1.3 3.5 GDP per capita -1.1 1.4
77.0 1,050 80.8
2.0 2.6
26 59 69 31 32 67 5
117
1991 45.4 20.2 29.6 17.2 19.6
-1.9 3.2
71.5 23.0
2000
4.0 2.1
East Asla & Paclflc
1,626 900
1,649
1.1 1.3
37 69 36 12 74 14
107 106 108
2000 74.7 17.6 56.3 24.0 30.3
11.3 3.2
67.4 13.7 67.9
103.0
2001
3.4 1.5
Lower- mlddle- Income
2,164 1,240 2,677
1 .o 1.2
46 69 33 11 80 15
107 107 107
2001 71.4 18.0 49.3 19.4 26.0
6.3 3.5
73.3 16.7
2001-05
4.6 2.6
-3.2 5.3
I ~ Development diamond’
Life expectancy
GNI
capita per
Life expectancy
GNI
capita per
Access to improved water source
- Philippines - Lower-middle-income group
Economic ratios.
Trade
T
1
Indebtedness
-Philippines Lower-middle-income group
(average annual growth) Agriculture Industry
Services
Private consumption General government consumption Gross domestic investment Imports of goods and services
Note: 2001 data are preliminary estimates. * The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete.
- 61 -
Phil imines
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE
Domestic prices (% change) Consumer prices implicit GDP deflator
Government finance (“A of GDP, includes current grants) Current revenue Current budget balance Overall surplusldeficit
TRADE
(US$ millions) Total exports (fob)
Electronicsflelecom Garments Manufactures 2/
Total imports (fob) Food Fuel and energy Capital goods
Export price index (1995=100) Import price index (1995=100) Terms of trade (1995=100j
BALANCE of PAYMENTS
(US$ millions) Exports of goods and services Imports of goods and services Resource balance
Net income Net current transfers
Current account balance
Financing items (net) Changes in net reserves
Memo: Reserves including goid (US$ millions) Conversion rate (DEC, locaWS$)
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS
(US$ millions) Total debt outstanding and disbursed
IBRD IDA
Total debt service IBRD IDA
Composition of net resource flows Official grants Official creditors Private creditors Foreign direct investment Potlfolio equity
World Bank program Commilments Disbursements Principal repayments Net flows Interest payments Net transfers
1981 1991
,. 18.7 11.7 16.5
.. 17.7
.. 1.9
1981 1991
.. 8,839
.. 6,432
.. 12,051
.. 493
.. 1,784
.. 2,952
1981 1991
7,513 12,367 9,554 13,855
-2,041 -1,488
-527 -208 507 827
-2,061 -869
1,496 2,972 565 -2,103
.. 4,470 7.9 27.5
1981 1991
20,786 32,451 1,330 4,073
41 135
2,971 3,398 126 622
0 2
70 293 777 797 726 -146 172 544
0 0
0 566 448 386 38 310
410 76 89 314
322 -239
~~~ ~ ~
2000
4.3 6.7
15.6 -0.7 -4.1
2000
37,295 22,178 2,563
33,989 31,386
1,400 3,877
12,161
2000
41,267 36,484 4,783
3,212 437
8,432
-8,852 420
14,911 44.2
2000
50,382 3,627
207
6,758 573
5
157 28
245 2,029
290
255 162 352
-190 225
-415
2001
6.1 6.7
15.5 -0.8 -4.0
2001
31,243 16,800 2,400
29,301 29,546
1,369 3,542
1 1,665
2001
34,394 33,586
808
3,268 423
4,499
-4,588 89
15,549 51 .O
2001
52,356 3,250
204
7,776 491
6
-239 -99
90 120 31 2
-1 92 185
-377
- 62 -
lnflatlon (%)
l5 T
-GDP deflator +CPI I Export and Import levels (US$ mill.)
40.000 7
30,000
xI,WO
10,000
0
I - 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
l o Exports w Imports
~~
treveiopmenr tconomics Y / l e/u2 21 Manufactures includes electronicsltelecom and garments.
Current account balance to GDP (x)
I Composltlon of 2001 debt (US$ mill.)
A: 3,250 I 0: 6,049 e: 204 1,952 3,220
E 11,031
A - IBRD E. Bilateral B - IDA D. Other multilateral F - Private C . IMF G -Short-term
