Peace Through Justice*

by

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno Supreme Court

At the outset, I wish to thank the Gerry Roxas Foundation for giving

me the privilege of addressing the peace and justice advocates who are

heroically assisting the marginalized members of our community in attaining

justice through the Barangay Justice Service System (BJSS). I also take this

opportunity to thank USAID for tirelessly supporting projects like the BJSS

as well as the numerous judicial reform projects of the Supreme Court,

particularly its component of Access to Justice by the Poor. You continue to

be one of our relentless partners in injecting flesh and blood to our people’s

vision of justice -- undifferentiated justice to the prince and pauper alike.

There are many definitions of “peace” due to the different values

ascribed to the term by varying cultures and political currents. “The absence

of war” or absentia belli, however, is the least common denominator among

the varied definitions.1 This is not surprising, as both the word “peace,” or

pax, and its most commonly accepted definition are literal translations from

the Latin version introduced by the ancient Romans during the Pax Romana

— which, incidentally, is a misnomer, as the Roman Empire still carried out

the conquests of Britannia and Dacia, among others, during this period of so-

called “Roman Peace.”

* Keynote address delivered on the first day of the 2nd Barangay Justice Advocates

Congress on December 3, 2007, at the Grand Men Seng Hotel, Davao City.

1 Håkan Wiberg, Peace Research: Past, Present, Future (2005).

2

In modern times, Johan Galtung, one of the founders and key figures

of peace research, introduced the terms negative peace and positive peace.

These do not mean “bad” and “good” peace, for as Benjamin Franklin said,

“There is no such thing as a good war and there is no such thing as a bad

peace.” These terms refer to the traditionally negatively defined peace as the

absence of direct violence, such as war, terrorism and crime; and a positively

defined peace, involving the integration of society to eliminate structural or

indirect violence, such as poverty, hunger, discrimination, and social

injustice.2

How our society looks at peace is determinative of how we will act to

address the types of violence we must overcome to achieve it. We are

fortunate that our culture is known for its values of pakikisama (i.e.,

cooperation) and pakikipagkapwa tao (sympathy), virtues that express the

sense of maintaining smooth interpersonal relationships and preserving

harmony within the community and one’s own family.3

It is for this reason that, historically, Filipinos prefer settling conflicts

amicably and with peace prevailing among the parties. Early Spanish

writers, such as Fr. Juan de Placencia, tell us of how pre-Spanish Filipinos

peacefully settled conflicts within the community before the datu or a group

of elders of the balanghay to which the parties belonged. Following present-

day conciliation techniques, the datu would immediately summon the parties

2 Baljit Grewal, Positive and Negative Peace (2003). 3 Ronald E. Dolan, ed. Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress

(1991).

3

concerned whenever a complaint was made, in order to settle the conflict as

amicably and as quickly as possible.

On the other hand, cases of inter-barangay conflict were resolved

through arbitration, in which a board of elders from neutral barangays

would act as arbiter.4 Every effort would be exerted to accomplish the

cordial resolution of conflicts before discord could turn into violence, which

would admittedly be disastrous especially within small communities

composed of some 35-40 persons each. The practice of amicably settling

disputes continued during Spanish times, albeit to a more limited extent,

with regard to family-based disputes before the Cabeza de Barangay who

acted as the datu. The barangay system went into disuse with the advent of

the American adversarial system of justice.

In 1978, the Barangay Justice System was revived by former

President Ferdinand E. Marcos who issued Presidential Decree (PD) No.

1508, entitled “Establishing a System of Amicably Settling Disputes at the

Barangay Level.” The Katarungang Pambarangay Law, as PD 1508 is

called, was enacted in official recognition of the time-honored tradition of

amicably settling disputes among family and barangay members at the

barangay level, without having to resort to adversarial means. It was

created with the noble intention of promoting the speedy administration of

justice and implementing the constitutional mandate to preserve and develop

Filipino culture and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. This

is the historical matrix of the Local Government Code of 1991, which laid

4 Teodoro A. Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People (1960).

4

down the more complete structure of the barangays, as the basic units of our

government.

From the judicial lens, it is obvious to the eye that the Barangay

Justice System plays a vital role in addressing the weaknesses of our

adversarial system of dispute resolution. It is familiar learning that the

adversarial system of justice came from our American colonizers. More

than a century after it was put into place in our legal landscape, the question

lingers about its effectiveness in the light of our distinct custom and culture

as a people. Scholars, for instance, point out that the adversarial system is

based on a culture of combat, which is not attuned to our culture of

conciliation. The adversarial system is run by complicated, technical rules

that give parties who can pay high-priced lawyers great advantage over

parties who cannot afford them. The result is a tilted playing field, where

the poor get less effective legal representation. Indeed, the adversarial

system has been denounced as a system in which, often, facts cannot be

distilled from falsehoods. A system of justice in which one can only

perceive the appearance of truth, but not truth itself, leaves much to be

desired.

For these reasons, the judiciary has taken numerous measures to

address this flaw. Court-annexed mediation is one of the more successful

ones. Since 2004, out of the 67,232 cases referred under the system, 38,916

went through the mediation process and 27,094 have successfully been

resolved by 113 mediation centers spread in 11 judicial regions, under the

supervision of the Philippine Judicial Academy. This notable success-rate of

5

70% has directly contributed to a 2% decrease each year in the total number

of cases pending before the courts.

There is, however, no substitute for the Barangay System of Justice.

Because of the grassroots environment, wherein the Barangay System of

Justice is situated, it is in the optimal position to address family- and

community-based conflicts. It also provides the most immediately

accessible form of justice for the marginalized members of our society.

More often than not, the justice our poor people get from the barangays will

be the only kind of justice they will receive in their lifetime. It is thus

crucial that they get fair and fast justice.

The important role that the barangay plays in affording access to

justice to the marginalized is reflected in many of our laws. Let me cite but

a few. Barangay councils for the protection of children were constituted

under P.D. No. 603, the Child and Youth Welfare Code. The role of these

barangay councils in protecting and assisting abandoned or maltreated

children and dependents, as well as taking steps to prevent juvenile

delinquency, cannot be overstated.

Under Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, the barangay chair is authorized

to file complaints on unlawful acts committed in violation of this law,

entitled “The Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation

and Discrimination Act.” Under RA No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against

Women and Their Children Act of 2004, the Punong Barangay or Kagawad

is given the power to issue Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs) to prevent

6

further acts of violence against a woman or her child. A wide-angle view of

the barangays will therefore show the expanding role of our barangay

officials in our delivery of justice.

Like Congress, the judiciary has likewise emphasized the important

role the barangays play in the administration of justice. In 1993, my

predecessor, Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, issued Administrative

Circular No. 14-93, instructing all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial

Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts to desist

from entertaining suits filed without first complying with conciliation

proceedings before the barangay, when so required, to ensure that the aims

of the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law are not undermined. These

conciliation proceedings have a high success rate. Without them, the

overflow of cases in our courts would have been worse.

The success of the Barangay Justice System ultimately lies in the

hands of those who empower the parties with the knowledge required to

resolve conflict in the manner that accords with our culture and tradition.

Volunteers such as you make this possible. You fulfill the multifaceted role

of advocate and adviser by educating and advising parties as to their rights

and remedies. Unless litigants are aware of their rights and remedies under

the law, they will never appreciate the blessings of our justice system. The

best justice system cannot succeed when its features cannot be understood

by ignorant litigants.

7

Your invaluable contribution in bringing immediate redress to

community-based grievances is validated by statistics. The 3,470

community disputes you resolved between 2005 and 2006 are 3,470 less

cases that would have further overburdened our courts. Without your help,

these cases would probably remain unresolved, considering the possibility

that they may reach the highest court of the land. Indeed, ours is probably

the only system of justice in the world in which even garden-variety cases go

all the way up to the Supreme Court. In fine, our barangay system of justice

is one effective instrument for fighting the evil of delay in our justice

system. This is not a tiny evil. Studies show that one big reason why the

poor avoid going to courts is their fear that they cannot survive the slow

grind of justice.

I agree with Rev. Martin Luther King, who said that “without justice,

there can be no peace.” Justice and peace continue to be among the more

pressing of our problems. We don’t have to be omniscient to say that we

need to capture soonest the elusive solution to this problem of bringing to

our people equal justice to all and enduring peace in their lives. They who

work so that justice and pace will prevail in our land, work without weary,

and work without the blare of trumpets deserve our deepest gratitude.

In this light I would like to thank the Gerry Roxas Foundation,

USAID, and all the barangay justice advocates under the BJSS for bringing

justice and peace to the 1,306 barangays spread across 91 municipalities in

the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and Central

Mindanao. By affording justice to the community, particularly the

8

marginalized, our conflicts will be peaceably solved before they deteriorate

into structural violence. Your efforts give hope to our people that they are

nearer to the Promised Land, nearer than ever before.

A pleasant and harmonious day to all.