This subject deserves a bigger place in our
curriculum and greater emphasis in the legal practice. The Alternative Dispute
Resolution or better known as ADR is a whole new legal continent that few have
invested time and effort to explore and lay paths. In this one-semester encounter
with ADR, I have taken away 3 major ideas.
First, ADR is more attuned with our culture and
sensibilities. The Filipino culture is mainly
characterized as one that is collective and close-knit. We know our neighbors
and their neighbor’s neighbor and family closeness is a corner stone in our
being Flipino. We just want to get along. This paints a general picture that
the Filipino is a litigation-adverse people. We do not use the court as the
first weapon of choice. We often take intermediaries to at least settle
differences either in love or in contracts. We take all the necessary steps for
us not to proceed to the point where we drag our names and reputation in an
open court. This cultural context is a fertile ground for ADR to develop. We do
not have to force it in because we naturally embrace it, consciously or
otherwise. Second, ADR is cost-efficient and practical. Considering
our economic situation, ADR is best suited for poor and rich alike. The rich
could save a lot of cost that entails a full-blown trial. When the zone of
possibilities offers a settlement to a conflict, it would be rational for
business owners to employ this method and use the savings to further invest. It
would also save our government a lot of trial time and thus allocate more to
matters that require litigation as a matter of law. ADR is also a pro-poor
policy tool. It allows the poor access to justice without staggering court
costs. It empowers the poor because they are included in the
conflict-resolution process. Participation in conflict resolution by the
parties themselves offers a greater chance for resolving conflict. Legalese,
which oftentimes creates barriers to conflict-resolution, is put out of the
process. This inclusive and equitable process reinforces the social justice
mandate of our constitution and enhances the dignity of the human person
especially the poor and marginalized. Third, ADR contributes to community
cohesiveness. A full-blown trial does not only entail economic
costs but it also includes psychological and social costs as well. The scene of
a witness traumatized in open court, reputations being questioned in the
witness stand, and neighbors divided are things that nobody wants to happen.
ADR on the other hand employs community leaders as adjudicators of
controversies. The parties’ problems are settled by people they respect. They are not also bound by the strictness of
the Rules of Court such compelling people to testify and cross-examine. This
flexibility of the proceeding and its emphasis on community effort strengthens
the community overall. It facilitates trust and reconciliation.
ADR is a way towards the future. If law schools
are serious in reforming our legal institutions, they should employ greater
emphasis on ADR. The alternative way of ending conflicts without the heavy cost
and burden of trial strengthens not only our public institutions, but it
ultimately strengthens our faith in the whole justice system and justice
itself.
