Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Judicial Dispute Resolution

    Uploaded by

    arajara16
    Judicial dispute resolution (JDR) allows judges to facilitate settlement between parties in litigation after mediation has failed. Traditionally, judges have acted as impartial arbiters, but JDR recasts their role as mediators to emphasize problem-solving over determining legal rights. A three-year experiment showed JDR yielded encouraging results, with high settlement rates. It is recommended JDR continue in first-level courts nationwide and in specialized second-level courts. The success is due to judges embracing facilitation and training/support from project managers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Judicial Dispute Resolution

    Uploaded by

    arajara16
    15 views1 page
    Judicial dispute resolution (JDR) allows judges to facilitate settlement between parties in litigation after mediation has failed. Traditionally, judges have acted as impartial arbiters, but JDR recasts their role as mediators to emphasize problem-solving over determining legal rights. A three-year experiment showed JDR yielded encouraging results, with high settlement rates. It is recommended JDR continue in first-level courts nationwide and in specialized second-level courts. The success is due to judges embracing facilitation and training/support from project managers.

    Original Title

    Judicial Dispute Resolution.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judicial dispute resolution (JDR) allows judges to facilitate settlement between parties in litigation after mediation has failed. Traditionally, judges have acted as impartial arbiters, but JDR recasts their role as mediators to emphasize problem-solving over determining legal rights. A three-year experiment showed JDR yielded encouraging results, with high settlement rates. It is recommended JDR continue in first-level courts nationwide and in specialized second-level courts. The success is due to judges embracing facilitation and training/support from project managers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views1 page

    Judicial Dispute Resolution

    Uploaded by

    arajara16
    Judicial dispute resolution (JDR) allows judges to facilitate settlement between parties in litigation after mediation has failed. Traditionally, judges have acted as impartial arbiters, but JDR recasts their role as mediators to emphasize problem-solving over determining legal rights. A three-year experiment showed JDR yielded encouraging results, with high settlement rates. It is recommended JDR continue in first-level courts nationwide and in specialized second-level courts. The success is due to judges embracing facilitation and training/support from project managers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR): As an Innovative Mode of Dispute Resolution

    Atty. Salvador S. Panga, Jr


    Judicial dispute resolution (JDR), as implemented in the Philippines, is a process
    by which a judge attempts to facilitate settlement between parties undergoing litigation
    after a similar effort by a court appointed mediator has failed. Traditionally, judges have
    been seen as stern, aloof and impartial dispensers of justice acting in accordance with a
    strict, rights-based adversarial system. The JDR program marks a radical departure
    from this concept, recasting the role of judges from magistrates to mediators, placing
    greater emphasis on value creation, joint problem-solving, option generation and the
    improvement of the parties’ relationship, than on the ascertainment of the parties’
    respective rights and obligations.
    The JDR program has experienced considerable success and acceptance before
    the first-level courts, and considering the strong stakeholder support for its expansion
    beyond the pilot areas, the team recommends that it continue to be fully implemented in
    all first-level courts nationwide. However, with regard to the second level courts, the
    team recommends that specialized courts be designated for JDR, rather than require all
    second-level courts to perform JDR.
    The three-year JDR experiment has clearly yielded extremely encouraging
    results, as seen from the disposition statistics, survey findings and the focus group
    discussions. While certain program modifications are in order, the basic concept of
    judge-facilitated settlement is one that appears to have been fully accepted by all
    sectors despite initial apprehensions. The success of the experiment is due mainly to
    the readiness of the judges themselves to take on the role of dispute facilitators, and the
    training, monitoring, program support and management provided by the JURIS Project
    and PHILJA. Whether these achievements can be sustained and reinforced as the
    program moves on to its next phase is the challenge that confronts all those involved.

    You might also like