TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS1
Marivic Trabajo Daray

I. INTRODUCTION

1. History

A. International Experience

Measurement systems have been developed as a tool for

enhancing the performance of courts so that they are able to
provide fair and efficient adjudication and disposition of cases.
Because many trial courts lack the means to create a mechanism
for self-evaluation, these systems have been developed to help
improve the administration of justice on the basis of universally
accepted performance standards.

a. TCPS

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) of the

United States pioneered the implementation of the Trial Court
Performance Standards and Measurement System (TCPS).2
The standards under this system focused on court goals and
identified the fundamental goals and responsibilities of courts
within the five (5) performance areas or standards, namely: 1)
access to justice; 2) expedition and timeliness; 3) equality,
fairness, and integrity; 4) independence and accountability; and
5) public trust and confidence.

1
This discussion is an adaptation of the three studies that had been developed on the topic
of trial court performance measures, namely: (1) TCPS and (2) CourTools, both developed by
the US National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and (3) the International Framework for
Court Excellence developed by an International Consortium composed of the following: the
Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA); the US Federal Judicial Center; the
NCSC; and the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, with the assistance of the European
Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Spring Singapore and the World Bank. Permission
to use these studies had been given by Mr. Daniel J. Hall, Vice President, Court Consulting
Services of the NCSC.
2
Please refer to the following link for further discussion:
<http://www.ncsconline.org/D_research/TCPS/index.html> (visited January 26, 2010).

O-1
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

b. CourTools

However, it was the experience of the NCSC that the

measurement tools for the TCPS were difficult to use.
Consequently, the NCSC developed the CourTools3 which are
ten key measures that gauge court performance across a
number of different dimensions. These ten key measures are
as follows: 1) access and fairness; 2) clearance rates; 3) time to
disposition; 4) age of active pending caseload; 5) trial date
certainty; 6) reliability and integrity of case files; 7) collection of
monetary penalties; 8) effective use of jurors; 9) court employee
satisfaction; and 10) cost per case. These are being
implemented in nearly 30 states in the US and have proven to
be practical and feasible. They have also been used in other
countries.

c. IFCE

Recently, an International Consortium4 developed the

International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE),5 or the
Framework. This system fits performance measures, like the
CourTools, within a framework of court values and areas that
courts need to devote efforts to be excellent. This framework
had already been utilized by some courts in Europe, Australia,
Singapore, and the United States in assessing court
performance.

The Framework is a quality management system

designed to assess and improve the quality of justice and to
make an evaluation of the administration of the courts. It starts
off with the identification of ten (10) key court values which
should be incorporated into the seven (7) identified areas of
excellence in the courts.

The ten (10) most important court values essential to the

successful functioning of the courts are: 1) Equality Before the
Law; 2) Fairness; 3) Impartiality; 4) Independence of Decision-
Making; 5) Competence; 6) Integrity; 7) Transparency; 8)
Accessibility; 9) Timeliness; and 10) Certainty. These shared
values are embedded in the seven (7) individual areas of

3
Please refer to the following link for further discussion: <http://www.courtools.org> (visited
January 26, 2010).
4
See Footnote 1 on the composition of the International Consortium.
5
Please refer to the following link for further discussion: <http://www.courtexcellence.com>.

O-2
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

excellence and measurement specified in the Framework,

namely:

1. Court Management and Leadership;

2. Court Policies;
3. Court Resources (Human, Material and Financial);
4. Court Proceedings;
5. Client Needs and Satisfaction;
6. Affordable and Accessible Court Services; and
7. Public Trust and Confidence.

A court can begin its journey towards excellence by

addressing each of the Seven Areas, both in terms of
performance results and public confidence in the quality of
services delivered by the court. The journey is one of
continuous improvement towards excellence achieved through
internal organization of the courts, emphasizing strong
leadership, clear court policies, quality resource management,
effective and efficient court operations, and a high level of
quality and reliability of court performance data.

The international framework for court excellence is

illustrated as follows:

COURT
PERFORMANCE
AND
QUALITY

COURT
VALUES

SEVEN
AREAS FOR
COURT
EXCELLENCE

O-3
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

B. Philippine Experience

The introduction of Trial Court Performance Standards and

Measurement System into the Philippine Judicial System was
done in the first benchbook for trial court judges, which is now the
subject matter of this revision. The said system applied the five
(5) key performance areas which were the original components of
the TCPS as originally designed by the NCSC, namely: 1) access
to justice; 2) expedition and timeliness; 3) equality, fairness and
integrity; 4) independence and accountability; and 5) public trust
and confidence.

2. Objectives

The objectives of this discussion are two-fold:

1) To discuss a measurement system which would adapt the

above experiences of the NCSC and the International
Consortium into the Philippine Judicial System; and
2) To show concrete steps for the implementation of the
measurement system in order to guide the trial court judges
and court personnel in applying the system to their courts.

With the above objectives in mind, this topic will first enumerate
the court values within the Philippine Judicial System based on the six
canons of judicial conduct and to present the key areas of excellence in
the courts which shall be the basis for the measurement process that
will be undertaken by the courts. After these areas of excellence have
been described, the procedure on how the measurement system is
going to be implemented will be outlined to aid the courts in further
enhancing their effectiveness and efficiency.

O-4
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

II. PHILIPPINE COURT VALUES

The basic court values of the Philippine Judicial system are based in
the Canons outlined under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which was
promulgated by the Supreme Court on April 27, 2004.6 These six (6) court
values are as follows:

1. Independence;
2. Integrity;
3. Impartiality;
4. Propriety;
5. Equality; and
6. Competence and Diligence.

These court values are more specifically discussed under Ethics and
Judicial Conduct, one of the chapters in this revised benchbook.

Knowledge of these court values is necessary before one proceeds to

measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the courts, since these values
provide the gauge by which the areas of court excellence can be assessed
and measured. In the process of assessing court excellence, there is a need
to provide guide posts as to how these court values have been realized and
adopted in the trial court.

Having these court values in mind, we now proceed to a discussion of

the seven areas of excellence by which the courts will have to measure its
performance.

III. AREAS OF COURT EXCELLENCE7

1. Court Management and Leadership

Proactive management and inspiring leadership in an

organization are crucial for court success and excellence. They are the
key in moving beyond the status quo by improving quality,
effectiveness, and efficiency of services. Due to the specific character
of courts as professional organizations, judges, as heads of the courts,
and the clerks of court, as managers of the courts, must develop a
vision of what the court can be, promote core-values that are important
for an optimal functioning of their courts, and take into account the
needs and wishes of the court users through two-way communication.

6
A. M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
7
These areas of court excellence are adapted from the IFCE Framework of the International
Consortium.

O-5
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Strong leadership requires the creation of a highly professional

management capability within the courts, as well as a focus on
innovations within the courts and the anticipation of changes in society
which can lead to changes in demands for judicial services.

2. Court Policies

Defining, implementing, and assessing court policies are key

tools for effective management and strong leadership. It implies that the
courts systematically collect information about their performance, the
changes in society, and the needs and wishes of court users and
external partners of the courts. This obviously requires a proper
management information system to register and process performance
data relevant for analysis. Excellent courts use a system of policies and
plans to realize the objectives that have been formulated in terms of
court performance and quality.

3. Court Resources (Human, Material and Financial)

Excellent courts manage all available resources properly,

effectively, and proactively. The most important resources of the courts
are its personnel, the judges, and court staff. Excellent courts use up-
to-date information on the workload of judges and staff. Excellent courts
apply and continue to improve objective workload models, which
describe the relationship between court case categories and the
average time needed by a judge and court staff to prepare and finalize
a case.

In excellent court organizations, there is a good working climate

and the level of satisfaction of personnel, both judges and staff, is high.
There is also a system for continuing training and professional
education.

Excellent court organizations have sufficient material resources

to fulfill their objectives and carefully manage and maintain these
resources. Poor quality of courtrooms, inadequate buildings, a lack of
office space for judges, court staff, and court records, inadequate office
material and equipment, including computers, will have a negative
effect on the court’s performance and the quality of the services
delivered.

The sound and proactive management of financial resources

implies effective budgeting and fiscal management.

O-6
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

4. Court Proceedings

Fair, effective, and efficient court proceedings are indicators of

court excellence. Inefficient steps of court proceedings can be identified
and proposals for improvement developed based on an analysis and
description of work processes in the courts. Timeliness and foresight
are crucial. Duration of the litigation process must be constantly
monitored, as well as cases that have been pending for an excessive
period. Appropriate measures must be taken in situations where the
duration exceeds the norms. The standard operating procedures of an
excellent court comprise important elements, such as agreed-upon time
standards, establishment of case schedules in individual cases, the
active role of the judge with respect to time management, limitations in
the postponement of court sessions, effective scheduling methods for
court sessions, and the use of differentiated case management, like the
caseflow management (CFM) system and, if applicable, mediation or
alternative dispute resolution techniques.

Efficient and effective court proceedings also require a sound

division of labor between judges and court staff. Judges should focus
on adjudication. Court staff should deal with minor judicial tasks and
administrative aspects.

5. Court Users Needs and Satisfaction

One of the important aspects of the search for excellence is that

it takes the needs and perceptions of court users into account. Court
users include, but may not be limited to, members of the public and
businesses making use of the services of the courts (e.g., litigants,
witnesses, crime victims, those seeking information or assistance from
court staff, etc.) and professional partners (lawyers, public prosecutors,
enforcement agents, legal representatives of governmental agencies,
court experts, and court interpreters). Accordingly, measures must
address not only the level of satisfaction with the outcome of the court
proceeding, but also the level of satisfaction with how the parties,
witnesses, and lawyers were treated by the judges and the court staff;
the (perceived) expertise of the judges and staff; and the fairness and
understandability of court procedures and decisions.

6. Affordable and Accessible Court Services

Physical access is easy and comfortable. Court users can easily

reach the public visitors area of courtrooms, directions in the courts are
clearly displayed, and a central information point guides court users

O-7
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

through the court. Safety is guaranteed, but excessive safety

measures do not prevent litigants from feeling comfortable.

Excellent courts do not only provide easy physical access, but

when feasible and appropriate, also have a high level of ‘virtual’
accessibility, for example, through a court website with information
enabling self-represented court users to navigate the courts (general
information on the court, court proceedings, and court fees), electronic
filing, and use of videoconferencing. Court users should be able to
keep themselves informed about the progress of a case and/or should
be able to download, register and transfer electronically documents to
the courts and retrieve information back as well.

Access to justice is facilitated by adhering to universal physical

access standards, providing court interpreters, offering information in
the languages spoken in the community served by the court, and
working with agencies and the legal community to ensure that legal
assistance is available to those financially unable to retain a lawyer.

7. Public Trust and Confidence

In general, a high level of public trust and confidence in the

judiciary is an indicator of the successful operation of courts. Lack of
corruption, high quality and understandability of judicial decisions,
respect for the judges and timely court proceedings will increase the
public trust in the judiciary. A high level of public trust will enhance
voluntary compliance with court orders, strengthen respect for the rule
of law, and increase support for the provision of resources to meet
court needs. Excellent court organizations systematically measure the
level of public trust and confidence in the judiciary and court staff and
compare the results with the public trust in other governmental
organizations.

O-8
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

IV. THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS

With the above knowledge of the seven areas of excellence, the courts
are now ready to start its journey towards excellence.

1. General Measurement System

A. Assessing Court Excellence

The first step in the journey towards court excellence

involves an assessment of how the court is currently performing.
Undertaking a self-assessment as the first step allows the court to
identify those areas where attention may be required and to set a
benchmark against which the court itself can measure its
subsequent progress. This process incorporates a self-assessment
tool, which allows a court to undertake its own assessment of its
performance measured against the seven areas for court
excellence above-enumerated.

This first step starts with the court and its personnel
answering the Self-Assessment Questionnaire,8 which is
designed to enable the assessment to be easily undertaken by the
court itself.

The Self-Assessment Questionnaire is a necessary first step

to developing a plan to close the gaps between ‘what is’ and ‘what
can be’. It will assist in determining which issues can and must be
addressed in the short-term and those that necessitate more
intermediate or long-term planning.

The Self-Assessment Questionnaire necessarily reflects the

seven areas for court excellence and under each area are listed
key activities, which if, performed at the highest quality level,
represent excellence in judicial/court administration. A court is
required to consider each of these activities and to assess whether
it has addressed the issue and, if so, the extent to which its
approach has been successful.

Although it is essential that an initial self-assessment be

conducted, it is a matter for the court itself to decide as to when a
follow-up assessment is undertaken. Periodic assessments maybe
done annually to allow a court to: 1) identify the areas in which the
court needs to make further improvements; 2) determine the areas
8
Appendix 1 to this topic.

O-9
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

in which the court will focus its immediate and long-term efforts;
and 3) assess the progress the court has made towards the
needed improvements.

The Self-Assessment Questionnaire asks users to rate their

court’s current approach in each area on a six-point scale labeled:
None, Reactive, Defined, Integrated, Refined, and Innovative,
which shall be given corresponding points from 0 to 5, respectively.

A self-assessment team is recommended to be formed in

each court. The team will be composed of the Presiding Judge, the
Clerk of Court, and a representative from the administrative staff
who is not a lawyer. A copy of the questionnaire should be given to
each member of the court’s self-assessment team. The self-
assessment team will need to convene at least one planning
session to determine the procedure and schedule for carrying out
the self-assessment exercise. They will also need to review the
questionnaire to identify the basic information that needs to be
gathered to facilitate the process of self-assessment.

A key activity that may be conducted by the court in taking

this first step of assessment is the scheduling of an annual strategic
planning workshop or seminar for the court personnel where the
self-assessment team shall be created and the measurement
system herein outlined will be discussed. With the creation of the
self assessment team, the next procedure of the measurement
system will now proceed without any difficulty.

A quarterly or monthly review to make periodic assessments

may also be done in the form of monthly or quarterly meetings as
directed under existing Circulars of the Supreme Court.

B. Identifying Areas of Improvement

Having completed the Self-Assessment Questionnaire, the

court will have identified the areas where improvement is required.
Some courts may choose to concentrate their efforts in discrete
areas, while others may proceed with a full court review and
reform. In either case, prioritizing court issues is highly
recommended. This will allow the reform process to focus on
specific performance areas over a period of time.

It is essential for court leadership to ensure that the process

of planning for improvement provides ample opportunity for judicial
officers, court employees, and the court’s professional partners to

O-10
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

be consulted and involved. The assessment will have identified a

range of issues for the court to address in developing an
improvement or action plan.

In outlining areas for improvement, the trial courts will have

to mention these items per area of court excellence in order to be
able to address them comprehensively. There is, therefore, a need
that the identification of these areas of improvement should refer
back to the seven areas of court excellence as above listed.

C. Collecting and Analyzing Information

Implementation requires collection of both quantitative and

qualitative data. The nature and complexity of the data and data
collection tools required by each individual court will vary according
to the issues. Depending on their action plans, some courts will use
many data collection tools while others may use only a limited
number. In addition to obtaining data from its case management
system, courts may use surveys of court employees, attorneys, and
court users. A survey of the public at large may also be useful.

Under the existing policies of the courts, data may be

gathered from the monthly or semestral or other periodic reports
submitted in compliance with existing circulars of the Supreme
Courts.9

2. Specific Measurement Tools

Other specific court performance measurement tools may also

be utilized alongside those outlined above, like the following:

A. Quantitative Measurement Tools. They are instruments to help

courts to define their objectives and measure some elements of
court performance. Examples of performance indicators are:
duration of proceedings, average caseload per judge, clearance rate
and age of pending cases. These indicators are readily available in
the monthly reports and semestral inventory submitted by the trial
courts to the Case Management Office of the Supreme Court.

B. Court Users Satisfaction Survey Tool. An effective court

users’ survey questionnaire may be formulated to facilitate the
discussion by court users of the performance of the court.

9
Administrative Circular No. 4-2004, dated February 4, 2004; OCA Circular No. 27-2004,
dated February 20, 2004.

O-11
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Under this tool, a feedback mechanism may be installed in the

courts where the court users’ assessment of the basic services
given by the courts are assessed. Examples of this feedback
mechanism would be the putting up of a “suggestion box” in the
court premises.

C. Court Policy and Leadership Tool. The court policy tool is a list
of subjects and background information that courts can use to draft
new court policy or to change current policies. Examples would be
the monthly report of cases and semestral inventory of cases and
other periodic reports required for submission by the Office of the
Court Administrator.

D. Court Peer-Review Tool. To assess the quality of courts, court

policies, and court leadership, a system of peer-review can be used.
In practice, this means that colleagues from other courts visit the
court and evaluate quality items of the court by making use of a set
of standard evaluation instruments, like questionnaires to interview
judges and court staff. In modern management system, this is more
commonly called as bench-marking.

E. Court Audit. A court audit can focus on various aspects of the

functioning of court. The audit may not only be an audit of the cases
pending before the courts, but a performance audit may likewise be
designed to measure not only the performance of the personnel, as
mandated under existing rules10 but also to measure the
performance of judges.11 A regional performance audit and
evaluation system should be implemented in the regions by the
Deputy Court Administrator assigned to the specific region and
these regional audit and evaluation findings will be further assessed
in the national level by the Court Administrator.

F. Performance Measurement for Specialized Courts. Standards

and tools should be designed to measure performance in
specialized courts or in particular types of cases. It may be noted
that under some existing Circulars of the Supreme Court, some
special courts are required to submit reports which are unique to the
said special courts. The data provided in these reports may be used
to measure the performance of these special courts.

10
OCA Circular No. 71-2003, dated June 4, 2003 as revised under OCA Circular No. 102-
2006, dated July 26, 2006.
11
OCA Circular No. 29A-2003, dated January 31, 2005.

O-12
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

3. Communicating Performance Results and Improvements

An information campaign to positively promote the court’s efforts

is essential. The court should communicate to the bar, public
prosecutors, law enforcement, other governmental and non-
governmental agencies, and the general public the results of its
evaluations and its plans for improvement. The court should meet
regularly with the bar and community groups, issue press reports to
local newspapers, television news shows, and public radio channels,
and disseminate the information in printed pamphlets and on its
website.

In addition, the Judge, as the person responsible for the trial

court performance, must hold individualized briefings and provide
written reports to certain governmental and non-governmental groups,
including the legislature. Accountability is the key. Open
communication about court performance — be it stellar, good,
mediocre, or poor — builds public trust and confidence. This is
particularly true if a report includes a court’s strategy for improving
performance.

O-13
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

V. THE PHASES TOWARDS COURT EXCELLENCE

Understanding the phases towards court excellence is necessary in

order for the judge and the court staff to be able to properly evaluate its
performance and determine the area where the court needs to improve.

It is an admitted fact that the journey towards court excellence is one of

continuous improvement and that there are three (3) phases leading towards
the road of court excellence, to wit:

1. Phase 1 – No clear court vision or strategy.

There is poor court performance in terms of trial length, backlog,

outcomes and enforcement. There is also a low level of public trust
and lack of human, material, and financial resources.

In the first phase, the courts are struggling with a lack of human,
material, and financial resources. Under such conditions, many courts
are not even able to perform their mission-critical functions. The court
proceedings are inefficient; there is no clear management of the court;
and there is no strategic vision.

Division of labor between judges and court staff is

undifferentiated. Judges are responsible for administrative work, as
well as their judicial function, and in some instances, administrative
staff make determinations that are more appropriately made by a
judge.

There is no court policy, vision, or strategy guiding the direction

of the court or anticipating the changing demands and needs from the
court users. The court is internally oriented, and there is no relationship
with civil society.

The performance of the court is poor: that is, it is characterized

by a lengthy litigation process, high backlog of cases, unpredictable
outcomes of judicial decisions, and lack of enforcement of decisions.
Judges and staff are underpaid and de-motivated. Instances of
corruption might be present.

The public trust in the judiciary is low.

O-14
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

2. Phase 2 – Court acknowledges the need for improvement.

Proactive changes initiated by the judiciary will lead to gradual

development of court excellence. External forces also bring about
change.

In the second phase, there is an acknowledgement of the state

of affairs and an internal or external stimulus for change in the courts.
Internally, a change in court leadership can provide the stimulus for a
court to undertake the journey towards court excellence. This proactive
change initiated by the courts themselves may provide ownership of
the reform agenda and facilitate successful implementation through full
participation of all stakeholders.

3. Phase 3 – Court is well-established with strong leadership and

vision.

Advanced court management information systems and court

performance data allow continuous improvement. Human, material,
and financial resources are appropriately funded.

In the hypothetical final phase of court excellence, leadership

and management are balanced. The vision and objectives of the court
are understood by judges and all court staff are reviewed and updated
on a regular basis. By using effective court management information
systems, court performance data of the various sections of the courts
is available on a day-to-day basis. All relevant court performance data
is available, including the duration of proceedings and the waiting time
of cases. Court performance is evaluated by looking at the quality of
the services delivered by the courts using quality indicators, as well as
quantitative performance data. Problems with lack of resources are
identified and addressed immediately. The court buildings and offices
reflect the importance of the rule of law, provide a productive and
pleasant work environment, and are easily accessible. Judges,
lawyers, parties, and court personnel have ready access to case files
and legal information. The public can easily obtain information about
court processes and operations.

Judges and court staff are highly motivated and regularly

receive training and education to keep their professional knowledge up
to date. Court proceedings are efficient and effective. Delays are
minimized.

O-15
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

VI. CONCLUSION

The measurement approaches reflected in this discussion have been

specifically developed to meet the special needs and unique roles and
functions of courts. Courts are encouraged to consider the measurement
systems outlined in this topic as a guide for the journey to court excellence.

It is critical for courts to ensure that all judicial officers and staff are
included in this approach. The best results in any organization are achieved
when everyone is focused on the same goals. Creating a court culture that is
supportive of reform and service improvement is a critical first step in moving
towards court excellence.

Courts should also be open to engaging the services of quality

improvement experts to assist them in undertaking the assessment and in
developing a quality improvement plan. There are experts capable of guiding
courts through the process itself.

Finally, courts should consider sharing their experiences with other

courts. It is in learning from each other that the objective of court excellence is
achieved.

O-16
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

VII. APPENDICES

The Self-Assessment Questionnaires:

1. Self -Assessment Questionnaire 1.1 – for 1st Area of Excellence

2. Self -Assessment Questionnaire 1.2 – for 2nd Area of Excellence

3. Self -Assessment Questionnaire 1.3 – for 3rd Area of Excellence

4. Self -Assessment Questionnaire 1.4 – for 4th Area of Excellence

5. Self -Assessment Questionnaire 1.5 – for 5th Area of Excellence

6. Self -Assessment Questionnaire 1.6 – for 6th Area of Excellence

7. Self -Assessment Questionnaire 1.7 – for 7th Area of Excellence

O-17