Alternative Dispute Resolution

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.