Operationalizing the right to speedy trial: A discussion on the applicability of limine hearings to civil and criminal proceedings in the Philippines

Clicks: 3
ID: 286445
2018
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #3,356 of 3,757 articles by views in Malay Journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 3,757 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The Supreme Court has recognized that case congestion and delays plague most courts in cities, given the huge volume of cases filed each year and the slow and cumbersome adversarial system that the judiciary has in place. Several jurisprudence have exemplified the detrimental effects of protracted and lengthy disposition of cases – most especially in criminal proceedings where the life and liberty of the accused is most affected. Litigants in the country are guaranteed the constitutional right to speedy trial. It is nevertheless, admitted by the Supreme Court that this right must contend with the realities of everyday life, and thus, is a relative term and a flexible concept. This study looks into the applicability of a motion in limine in the Philippines as a remedy available to parties to minimize delay and ensure speedy trial. It likewise discussed how a liminial motion is complementary and supplementary to the current judicial reform programs on procedure made by the Supreme Court. In essence, a motion in limine (“on or at the threshold” or “in the beginning”) is a remedy filed by a counsel to prevent the introduction of improper evidence. This allows the judge to make a ruling as to the admissibility of evidence, “at the threshold” – that is, during pre-trial. The remedy complements the current rules on Pre-Trial which mandates that all evidence to be presented must be marked during Pre-Trial otherwise, such is inadmissible. It likewise complements the current Judicial Affidavit Rule which mandates that judicial affidavits must be submitted not more than five days before Pre-Trial. Thus, upon pre-trial, the litigants are already well-aware of the evidence to be presented by the opposing party – be it documentary, object or testimonial evidence. It is therefore proper to consider a motion in limine as an available remedy in order to facilitate the speedy disposition of the admissibility of evidence and thresh out all improper and inadmissible evidence during trial.
Reference Key
persistent_1760658600_68f184a863672 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ting, Kathrine T.
Journal Malay Journal
Year 2018
DOI
DOI not found
URL
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/7254
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.