[ A.M. No. 24-04-09-SC. August 20, 2024 ]
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. 24-04-09-SC. August 20, 2024 ]
RE: DRAFT IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11691 OR THE JUDICIARY MARSHALS ACT R E S O L U T I O N
ZALAMEDA, J.:
The Judiciary bears the crucial task of upholding the rule of law and preserving the rights and guarantees granted by the Constitution. To ensure the fulfillment of such duty, the members of the Judiciary must be free from any threat that may prevent them from exercising their functions. It is to this end that the Supreme Court sought, and the Congress provided, for the creation of a body primarily tasked to protect, defend, safeguard, watch over, provide security, and ensure the safety of the members of the Judiciary and court personnel as well as the halls where they sit.
Violent crimes committed against members of the Judiciary
In 2019, Judge Reymar Lacaya (Judge Lacaya) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Zamboanga Del Norte, was shot and killed outside a courthouse.[1] He was at the parking area when a lone gunman approached and shot him in broad daylight.[2] In the same year, Judge Mario Anacleto Bañez (Judge Bañez) of the RTC in Ilocos Sur, was gunned down by men on a motorcycle as he was driving home to San Fernando City, La Union.[3] He was found with a bullet wound in the head and died while being taken to the hospital.[4] His killing came only four days after a former Judge, Exequil Dagala (Judge Dagala), was shot dead inside his house in Surigao del Norte.[5] The year after, in 2020, Judge Ma. Theresa Abadilla (Judge Abadilla) of the RTC Manila was shot in the head inside her chamber at Manila City Hall.[6] The killing was reported to have been done by Judge Abadilla’s Clerk of Court, who purportedly shot her after their conversation about his work performance.[7] Unfortunately, Judge Abadilla was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.[8] Reports reveal that the deaths of Judges Lacaya, Bañez, Dagala, and Abadilla represent just a fraction of the increasing incidents involving violent crimes committed against members of the Judiciary. There have been over 3334 judges killed while in service.[9] Less than 10% of these cases have been resolved, and there are several wherein the instigator remains to be unidentified.[10] In every case involving the killing of members of the Judiciary, the Court, together with the legal community, has strongly condemned such violent acts. The Court has expressed admiration for judges and their display of courage in the administration of justice. At the same time, it has exerted efforts to look into potential institutional changes, in order to enhance protection for members of the Judiciary.
Institutionalizing protection of the members of the Judiciary: Creation of the Office of the Judiciary Marshals
The Supreme Court called for a legislative act that will create a battalion-size independent armed unit patterned after the United States (U.S.) Marshal Service to secure the judiciary and assist in the administration of justice.[11] In response, Senator Richard Gordon (Senator Gordon) introduced Senate Bill No. 1947 entitled, “An Act Creating the Office of the Judiciary Marshals, Defining its Functions and Powers, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes.” In his sponsorship speech, he discussed the alarming problem of killing of judges, with deaths already reaching 34 since 1999, including the following notable cases: In 2004, Judge Voltaire Rosales was ambushed in Batangas Road. The killer, an inmate and a drug lord in Muntinlupa, was traced through the help of Gen. Edgardo Aglipay. In 2007, Judge Nathaniel Pattugalan was shot dead while on board a passenger jeepney in Quezon City. The first attempt to kill him was while he was driving to work in Cagayan where a gunshot wound in the head paralyzed him. In 2015, Judge Erwin Alaba was mercilessly shot dead in the chest while he was driving in Baler, Aurora. His spouse was wounded in the incident. In the same year, Judge Wilfredo T. Nieves died after incurring multiple gunshot wounds in the head and right upper extremities. Raymond Dominguez, one of the notorious Dominguez Brothers who have been involved in carnapping since 2010, was identified as the mastermind in the killing. Judge Edmundo Pinlac was shot dead by motorcycle-riding gunmen while on his way to Ozamis City.Meanwhile, in the co-sponsorship speech of Senator Ronald Dela Rosa, he highlighted the recent case of Atty. Baby Maria Concepcion Landero-Ole, who was gunned down by unidentified men while driving her pick-up truck along the Danao City Highway in Cebu.[12] The Senators pointed out that since 2016, at least 54 judges, prosecutors, and lawyers have already been killed. Further, as of January 2021, only 23 cases had been filed in court, 15 of which were on trial, with only two convictions and six acquittals. The Philippine National Police further reported that 47 suspects were still at large, six suspects were already released, 26 suspects were detained, while seven were killed.[13] With these reports, Senator Gordon remarked that there seemed to be a pandemic that has been causing the gruesome deaths of judges in the country. Nothing was being done except to leave the responsibility for protecting judges and resolving their cases with the police and other authorities. The government was simply letting the judges walk around as if they were expected to always remain strong and undeterred in handling cases assigned to them amid threats to their lives because of their profession.[14] These concerns were echoed during the hearing of the Committee on Justice on House Bill No. 5691 entitled, “An Act Creating the Philippine Marshal Service, Defining Its Functions and Powers, Appropriating Funds Therefor."[15] During the committee hearing, it was observed that in the last few years, an average of two judges were killed every year, with a total number of 31 judges killed in office. Of the 31 cases, only four or five have been considered solved. The rest remained unsolved. Many judges nationwide also continue to receive death threats in various forms. Even courthouses have been penetrated by gun-wielding individuals.[16] House Bill No. 5691 was later substituted by House Bill No. 9086,[17] entitled “An Act Establishing the Philippine Judiciary Marshals Service, Defining its Powers, Functions, and Organizational Structure, and Appropriating Funds Therefor.” The objectives for such measure are (1) to protect the members of the Judiciary and judicial personnel from violence, threats, and undue influence; (2) to secure properties and assets of the Judiciary across the country; and (3) to ensure that the performance of the duties and functions of the members of the Judiciary and judicial personnel are free from external factors that may affect the proper and effective administration of justice.[18] Toward this end, the legislators took inspiration from the U.S. Marshals. As early as 1789, President George Washington appointed the first 13 U.S. Marshals following the passage of the First Judiciary Act. The functions of said U.S. Marshals evolved from arresting fugitive slaves and returning them to their masters to pursuing counterfeits and confiscating properties to support the confederacy, apprehending desperados, as well as accompanying and protecting federal judges from threatened assaults. To this day, the U.S. Marshals play a crucial role in protecting federal jurists, court officers, and other threatened persons in the interest of justice.[19] Senate Bill No. 1947 and House Bill No. 9086 were eventually passed into law on April 28, 2022 as Republic Act (RA) No. 11691 or the “Judiciary Marshals Act.” RA No. 11691 provides for the creation of the Office of the Judiciary Marshals mandated to be primarily responsible for the security, safety, and protection of the members, officials, personnel, and property of the Judiciary, including the integrity of the courts and their proceedings.[20] In relation to its primary function, the Office of the Judiciary Marshals is also empowered to (1) conduct threat assessments and launch investigations on crimes and other offenses committed against judiciary employees and court property; (2) undertake probes on allegations of irregularities, including graft and corruption, committed by members of the legal profession;[21] and (3) assist in the implementation of lawful writs and orders, witness protection, and management and disposal of seized, frozen, or forfeited assets.[22] As the “law enforcement arm of the Judiciary,” the Office of the Judiciary Marshals was given concurrent jurisdiction with other law enforcement agencies in investigating crimes within its mandate.[23] Section 15 of RA No. 11691 authorized the Supreme Court to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for its implementation. Accordingly, a technical working group (TWG) was created under the Committee on Security pursuant to Memorandum Order No. 103-2022 dated July 11, 2022.[24] The TWG is composed of (1) Associate Justices of the Supreme Court; (2) Court Administrator; (3) Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; (4) presiding judges from the first and second-level courts; (5) Chief of the Management Information Systems Office; and (6) a representative from the Office of the Chief Justice. The TWG, with security experts as consultants, convened on several occasions to carefully formulate the implementing rules and regulations of RA No. 11691, taking due consideration of the lessons gathered from the five-day study tour on the U.S. Marshals Service. The implementing rules and regulations (1) elucidates on the manner by which the Supreme Court exercises its control and supervision over the Office of the Judiciary Marshals; (2) lays out the parameters for the performance of the specific powers, functions, and responsibilities of the Office of the Judiciary Marshals; and (3) provides details on the organization thereof and the Judiciary Marshals Academy, i.e., the composition, manner of appointment, qualifications, salaries and benefits, and tenure of the officials and personnel of the said offices. ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to APPROVE the “Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11691 or the Judiciary Marshals Act.” The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 11691 or the Judiciary Marshals Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette or two (2) newspapers of general circulation. SO ORDERED.” Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur.