Judiciary Reform: Mindanao Final Agreement

Written by

« Back to Accord

Judiciary Reform: Mindanao Final Agreement

Implementations

Judiciary Reform – 1996

The 1996 peace accord calls for one Supreme Court justice, two Court of Appeal justices, as well as one member of the Bar Council, to come from the ARMM. In addition, an Office of the Deputy Court Administrator is to be established and headed by a person recommended by the ARMM Governor. None of the aforementioned appointments related to judicial reform were implemented in the year.

Judiciary Reform – 1997

None of the aforementioned appointments related to judicial reform were implemented in the year.

Judiciary Reform – 1998

None of the aforementioned appointments related to judicial reform were implemented in the year.

Judiciary Reform – 1999

None of the aforementioned appointments related to judicial reform were implemented in the year.

Judiciary Reform – 2000

None of the aforementioned appointments related to judicial reform were implemented in the year.

Judiciary Reform – 2001

In 2001, Republic Act 9054, also called the Extended ARMM Law, is passed by the Congress of the Philippines. The bill contained a section on judicial powers of the ARMM and repeats the language of the 1996 peace agreement, but adds in the additional phrase “whenever feasible.” Article 8, Section 2 (Judges from the Autonomous Region) of RA 9054 reads as follows:
“It shall be the policy of the central government or national government that, whenever feasible, at least one (1) justice in the Supreme Court and two (2) justices in the Court of Appeals shall come from qualified jurists of the autonomous region.”

RA 9054 also repeats the language of the 1996 peace agreement regarding the creation of the Office of Deputy Court Administrator, but the office was not created, and none of the three aforementioned appointments were made1 The Republic of the Philippines Department of Justice (DOJ) directory of offices does not include any listing for Office of Deputy Court Administrator for the ARMM.2

  1. “Republic Act 9054,” Congress of the Philippines, accessed July 31, 2012, http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_11/RA09054.pdf
  2. “Department of Justice Website,” Republic of the Philippines, accessed July 31, 2012, http://www.doj.gov.ph/directory-of-officials.html

Judiciary Reform – 2002

None of the aforementioned appointments related to judicial reform were implemented in the year.

Judiciary Reform – 2003

None of the aforementioned appointments related to judicial reform were implemented in the year.

Judiciary Reform – 2004

None of the aforementioned appointments related to judicial reform were implemented in the year.

Judiciary Reform – 2005

In 2005, the GRP reported to the OIC that the judicial reform provisions had been fully implemented and they reported that five Sharia district courts and 30 Sharia circuit courts had been established in the ARMM.1 In a 1994 interview, Judge Alauya, a Sharia Magistrate, indicated that there were at that time five Sharia district courts and 31 Sharia circuit courts in the ARMM, and that judges received their training in Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia.2 While it is unclear what the objectives were regarding Sharia courts in the ARMM, what can be established by the two sources is that no change occurred between 1994 and 2005.

  1. “Report of the OIC Secretary-General on the Question of Muslims in Southern Philippines,” Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC/33-ICFM/2005/MM/SG/REP.2), 2006, accessed June 9, 2012, http://www.oic-oci.org/baku2006/english/SG-report/33ICFM-MM-SG-REP-ENG-P…
  2. Joe Avancena, “Kingdom keen to train Sharia judges for Mindanao,” SAUDI GAZETTE, May 30 1994, accessed August 02, 2012, http://www.lexisnexis.com