Another method of securing delay was to object to the judge. In case the judge denied the ground of the objection, a proceeding was instituted against him and the trial of the main issue was turned over to another judge; although the proceeding arising out of the objection did not suspend the trial of the main issue, when the time came to decide the latter the decision was withheld until the proceeding arising out of the objection was settled, and as this latter was one in connection with which other proceedings could be instituted which might delay the decision and consequently the decision of the main issue, there was no end to the matter.
To-day all this has been stopped by the procedure in court. The challenging of judges is not allowed, although they must refrain from the trial of any matter when they are disqualified in any way as regards it. Proceedings which suspend the trial of the main issue cannot be instituted. The procedure itself is more expeditious, the time allowances and formalities have been reduced, and all the long Spanish civil procedure regarding the presentation of evidence has been shortened. Suits are settled with a speediness previously unknown. In order to avoid delay on the part of judges in rendering decisions, an act has been passed prohibiting the payment of their salaries without a certificate that they have no matter which has been awaiting decision for more than three months.
Owing to the inquisitorial procedure which obtained under Spanish rule, the disposition of criminal cases was even slower than that of civil cases. The cause would be commenced, either de officio, by the judge who had a knowledge of the crime, or by the prosecuting attorney, or by virtue of private accusation on the part of the person aggrieved. The case once started, the investigations made during the period known as the sumario were conducted in the absence of the accused. The latter had no hand in the case, as it was thought that the reserve and secrecy of the procedure ought not to be violated to the end that the accused might not frustrate the evidence of the prosecution by preparing his defence. Owing many times to the inactivity of the judge or of the prosecuting attorney, to the great amount of work which weighed down the courts—for actions were begun when there was knowledge of the commission of the crime, although the perpetrators were not known—and by the manipulations at other times of the private accuser to whose interest it was to harm the accused by delaying the sumario, this period was often made to extend over years and years. Meanwhile the defendant was confined in prison, as no bail was allowed in any case in which the penalty was that of presidio correccional (from six months and one day to six years’ imprisonment) or greater. In addition to this the circumstance that all criminal causes in the islands had to be sent for review to the proper audiencia, caused a large accumulation of old cases in these higher courts, and this alone made their disposition a matter of some years.
To-day the procedure is rapid. Information having been brought against the defendant, the trial is had in the same term or at most during the next term of court. Sometimes the trial is suspended owing to the non-appearance of witnesses, but it can be said that cases are rare where causes are pending in the docket of the court for a longer period than two terms. Causes appealed to the Supreme Court are disposed of promptly, and as a general rule it does not take over six months to get a decision.
Defendants in criminal cases have now been granted by the Philippine Bill certain fundamentally important rights which they did not formerly enjoy; namely, to appear and defend in person or by counsel at every stage of the proceedings; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to testify as witnesses in their own behalf; to be exempt from testifying against themselves; to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine, the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process issue for obtaining witnesses in their own favour; to have speedy and public trials; to be admitted to bail with sufficient sureties in all cases, except for capital offences. None of these rights were enjoyed under the procedure in effect during the Spanish régime. A man was prosecuted without being notified of the charges against him, and he was only made aware of the case against him after the sumario. When all of the evidence of the prosecution had been taken the accused was heard in his own defence. He was compelled to testify, and was subjected to a very inquisitorial examination, including questions which incriminated him. Although he had the right to compel witnesses for the prosecution to ratify over their signatures the evidence against him given during the sumario, as the defence of the majority of the accused was in the hands of attorneys de officio they nearly always renounced this privilege of the defendant, and, as has already been said, bail was not admitted in any grave offence during the trial.
No sentence of acquittal in a criminal case can now be appealed from by the government. Under the Spanish system sentences of acquittal of courts of first instance had to be referred for review to the proper audiencia and the fiscal of the latter could appeal from a sentence of acquittal by it.
The Philippine Bill grants to the inhabitants of the islands other important individual rights which they did not formerly possess.
The Spanish constitution was not in force here, and although the Penal Code contained provisions for punishing, in a way, officials who violated certain rights granted by the Spanish constitution, citizens had no expeditious method of securing their punishment. Now the Code of Civil Procedure grants them certain special remedies by which their rights can be made good. To illustrate: Under the Spanish régime the only remedy for a man illegally detained was to bring a criminal action against the person illegally detaining him. He did not have the remedy of the writ of habeas corpus nor the writ of prohibition against an official who attempted to make him the victim of some unlawful act. His only remedy was to bring a criminal action against such official, or to sue him for damages. He could not compel public officials to perform their ministerial duties by mandamus proceedings.
The individual rights conferred by the Philippine Bill, and the special remedies granted by the Code of Civil Procedure, assure to the inhabitants of the islands liberties and privileges entirely unknown to them during the days of Spanish sovereignty, and these liberties and privileges are adequately safeguarded.
Two things still greatly complicate the administration of justice in the Philippines.