Zambales prosecutors ask SC to suspend Judicial Affidavit Rule

Provincial prosecutors in Zambales have asked the Supreme Court to abolish or at least suspend the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), a measure meant to speed up the resolution of cases by cutting down in half the period in presenting evidence.

In a letter to the high tribunal, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zambales said the JAR would be "disadvantageous" to the prosecutors because of the government's lack of resources.

"[T]he Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zambales [is] requesting that the Judicial Affidavit Rule be abolished or the modified rule under the Resolution dated January 8, 2013 be made permanent or the modified rule under the resolution dated January 8, 2013 be made permanent, or if both are not possible, that, in the alternative, the suspension of the implementation of the Rule be extended for further study," the group said.

In response to the request, the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, referred the matter to the appropriate SC committee.

"The Court further resolved to refer the aforesaid letter to the subcommittee on the Revision of Rules on Civil Procedure for appropriate action," it ruled.

The SC sub-committee is headed by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta.

Under the JAR, parties are required to prepare judicial affidavits in place of the traditional and usually lengthy direct testimony in order to expedite the presentation of evidence.

Judicial affidavits are sworn statements containing the witness' testimony in question-and-answer form.

Following the rule's approval in 2012, the National Prosecution Service, which is under the Department of Justice, complained that its prosecutors might not yet be ready to comply with the JAR as it would mean additional work for them on top of their already heavy workload.

In response, the high court on January 8, 2013 issued a modified JAR, in which public prosecutors are allowed to use sworn statements that had been used during preliminary investigation or inquest in place of new judicial affidavits.

The modified version was only supposed to have been in effect until last December 31, 2013, but the high court extended it for the entire 2014.

Private lawyers, however, were not covered by the modified JAR and were still required to prepare judicial affidavits for their clients.

Apart from the NPS, the Prosecutors' League of the Philippine had also sought the deferment of the JAR on December 12, 2012. —Mark Merueñas/KBK, GMA News