PRACTICABILITY

Can the Republic of the Philippines afford to

allot fund, as of the moment, to provide for
appointed jurors?
If yes, is appointing jurors more important than
paying off the Philippine debt?
Is allotting fund for jurors far more important
than sending more children to school who
cannot afford them?
Is adopting a jury system a top priority?
Are majority of the Filipinos responsible
citizens?
Do Filipinos have a culture of close family ties?
If yes, will a regular Filipino be interested to
appear in court for a case that he has no
personal stake?
Will a Filipino be able to leave his job and
families in order to sit as a juror for as long as
it takes to finish a case?
Can the culture of close family ties affect the
adaptation of US jury system in the Philippines?
Do most Filipinos speak in English?
Do majority of these English-speaking people
complete their college education?
If not, does this mean we should only send
college graduates as jurors?

NON- PRACTICABILITY
It is not feasible to enforce the jury
system in the Philippines because of:
1. Financial constraints-- there is a need
to provide the jurors with lodging, meals,
and an allowance the entire time that
they are serving. Given the already
modest salaries that judges and other
court employees are receiving, a budget
for jury members (numbering 12) is
clearly unrealistic.
2. Cultural difficulties-- In most
countries, people consider it their civic
obligation to serve their jury duty, the
United of States included. They take
pride in it, and try to carry out this duty
as best as possible. In the Philippines,
however, the maturity of most people
toward civic responsibility is still wanting
in many ways. Consider how difficult it is
to get witnesses to appear in court for
cases where they have no personal
stakes. Imagine how much more difficult
it would be to require disinterested
citizens to leave their jobs and their
families in order to sit as a juror for as
long as it takes to finish a case.
3. English proficiency-- If we had a jury
system, every citizen may, at one time
or another, be called upon to render jury
duty. But how do we address the fact
that a fairly large segment of our
population has not completed college
education? Court proceedings are done
in English.

If yes, is this not a form of bias in itself to

exclude those who did have a complete
educational background?

4. Legal concepts are not easy to grasp-- Most

jurors dont have a background in law.
If there is a charming, influential presentation
in court, then that alone may be enough to
create sufficient reasonable doubt. Juries are
supposed to look for facts, but a good
presentation or their own emotions may cause
them to render a verdict that are not just. This
system is not feasible because the jury is
composed of laymen, people who often do not
have a background on the vast intricacies of
the law. And so it is easier to sway their
decisions based on grandstanding and fancy
talk, rather than on the strength of the evidence
presented or the application of the law to the

case. In contrast, in our judicial system, a judge

is the one who hears the cases and the one who
writes the decisions. Our Rules of Court
require that decisions of judges must clearly
state the facts and the law applicable to the
case. And Decisions without a legal basis may
be overturned and nullified by a higher
court. And for that we rest our case.