Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

Full Name Salvador, Eliseo Jr. J. Date 06 February 2017

Student Number 3rd. year/ 2014-MJD-038

Title:
Jury system in the Philippines, the needed Judicial reform
Thesis Statement:
In this paper I would be analyzing the current judicial system in the Philippines
compared to a jury system applied in other countries. Further I shall look at the possible
effects of the jury system on our justice system, administration of justice and public
policy making. I shall also highlight the importance of the jury system in the speedy
disposition and impartial resolution of cases and bring out the value of jury which is
considered both as a “model of deliberation” and an “engine of civic spirit”. I would also
like to examine several sensational cases and their outcome in order to get a broad
overview of my topic. Using these I would like to show the efficacy of the jury system and
how it is rightly justified in the case of the Philippines.
The Philippine judicial system is perceived to be the one of the most corrupt
judicial system in the world. A simple case will toil for years to reach its finality.
Oftentimes those less fortunate litigants surrender their fate because of helplessness to
the system which by principle should protect and defend them.
Our justice system has already been in existence for more than 100 years yet
criminality and corruption still thrives, hardened criminals are not afraid of the law or
had found a way to circumvent it to their own advantage. By adopting the jury system,
court dockets will be unclogged and justice will be served more swiftly.
There is an immediate need to reform the judiciary, as the old maxim states,
justice delayed, justice denied.

I. Background

A. Historical background of the Philippine judicial system

Before the arrival of the Spaniards in the Philippines, Filipinos had their
own laws and system of administering justice. The government was
patriarchal in form and the basic unit of government was the barangay.

Each barangay is independent of each other, each barangay is governed

by a datu, who gained position by inheritance, wisdom, physical prowess or
wealth. The datu exercise all functions of government. The datu is the

1|Page
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

executive, legislative and the judiciary of his barangay and the commander in
chief in times of war.

There were elders who advised the datu on vital matters, such as
promulgation of laws, the trial of cases, the declaration of war and
negotiations with other barangays.

Oral and written laws existed during that time, the unwritten laws
embodied is customs and traditions which were handed down by traditions
from generation to generation. The written laws were promulgated by the
datus. All ancient written laws of the Filipinos were lost with the exception of
the Code of Maragtas and the Code of Kalantiaw, both from Panay Island in
the Visayas.

The laws of the barangay were made by the datu with the help of the
elders. In the confederation, the laws were promulgated by the superior datu
with the aid of the subordinate or lesser datus. When a law was to be made
for the whole confederation, the supreme datu will summon the subordinate
datus to his own house and explain to them the need for such law. The other
datu usually assented and the law was thus written down. 1.

Cases of disputes were tried by the datu, acting as a judge with the help of
the barangay elders sitting as jury. Disputes between datus, or between
residents of different barangays, were sometimes settled by arbitration with
some datus or elders from other barangays acting as arbiters or mediators. In
this way, war was always averted2.

All trials both criminal or civil were held in public. The litigants plaintiff and
defendant- pleaded their own case and presented their witnesses. Before
testifying, these witnesses took an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the
truth. Perjury was rare. When the court was in doubt as to whom of the
litigants were really guilty, it resorted to trial by ordeal. This is especially true
in criminal cases. It was believed that the gods protected the innocent and
punished the guilty and that ordeals revealed divine truth to the people. An
accused person who was innocent was believed to be always successful in
the ordeals because gods made him so. 3

As the years pass by and civilization progress, the trial by ordeal was
slowly removed from the system and rules and procedure in the conduct of
trial was refined, formalized and put into writing.

1 Teodoro A. Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People p.42

2 Blair and Robertson, Vol. V pp. 177 and Vol. VII p. 179
3 Teodoro A. Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People, pp. 41-44

2|Page
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

B. Present judicial system in the Philippines

The 1987 Philippine Constitution cites that Judicial power rests with the
Supreme Court and the lower courts, as established by law 4. Its duty is to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable5.
Judicial power, includes the duty of the court of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government6.
In the Philippine setting, the judge is the sole decision maker in a
controversy, decisions or judgments are easier to be bought. Chief Justice
Ma. Lourdes Sereno revived the term ‘hoodlum in robes’, urging lawyers to
help purge the judiciary of corrupt members. It’s a welcome call, but a serious
purge will prove as challenging as cleaning up Congress and the rest of the
political establishment. The Supreme Court itself has not been free of
corruption scandals, and its members continue to resist efforts to promote
fiscal transparency.7
Further, judges, human as they are, is susceptible to vow in the
influence of money, threat, political pressure and political bias. During the
administration of President Joseph Estrada, some judges were even involved
into criminal syndicate groups, however, said move of President Estrada lost
its steam after he himself was involved in a political crisis.
Recently, President Rodrigo Duterte also involved some active
members of the judiciary as protector of the drug trade in our country.
A simple civil case in the Philippines will drag for years to reach
judgment. Thus, a well respected columnist of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
even wrote an entire column entitled Philippines has slowest judicial system
in the world. Neil Cruz, As I see it, 11/24/14.
Several group such as Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc.
(HMMI), Jury System Philippines and We Want Jury System in the Philippines
is actively campaigning for the shift to the jury system, they cite several
injustices which will be thoroughly discussed later on this thesis paper.

C. Historical Origin of the Jury System

4 Art. VIII, sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution

5 Art. VIII Sec. 1 (2)
6 Article VIII, Section 1, 1987 Constitution
7 Editorial, Philippine Star 9/30/2013

3|Page
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

The Jury system initially descended from Great Britain, Greece,

Athens, Italy and Egypt. During the 18th and the 19th century
colonialization played a significant role in the global development of the
jury system.

However, despite colonial influence, judicial systems across the

world function in their own way. Juries engage in examining and deciding
the facts in a jury trial, the accuracy of the testimony, the guilt or
innocence of criminal defendants and liabilities in a civil litigation. Some of
the countries where this system is prevalent include Britain, United States,
Brazil, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan and South Korea 8.

The concept of the jury system was imported into Britain after the
Norman Conquest, though its early functions were quite different from
those today. Early jurors in England acted as witnesses providing sources
of information on local affairs. But they gradually came to be used as
adjudicators in both civil and criminal disputes. Under Henry II, the jury
began to take on an important function, moving from reporting on events
they knew about, to deliberating on evidence produced by the parties
involved in a dispute. Gradually it became accepted that a juror should
know as little as possible about the facts of the case before the trial, and
which is the position today.9

The jury is considered as a fundamental part of the English legal

system, albeit only a minority of the cases is tried by the jury these days.
In a sense, it plays a vital role in ensuring that the criminal justice system
works for the benefit of the public rather than for the benefit of unjust
leaders, the adoption of the jury system will ensure that justice will be
served by insulating it from outside influence which might affect the
decision of the judge handling the case.

It promotes not only a healthy criminal justice system but also a

healthy society, where political leaders can not abuse criminal justice
system to silence their opponents. Political leaders will think twice first
before meddling on a case, unlike now where a political figure can easily
influence a prosecutor or a judge.

8 Is the jury system appropriate-Prof. Abhik Majumbar-National Law University Orissa

9 Lawteacher.net/jury system

4|Page
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

“Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than a

wheel of the constitution; it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.”
Lord Devlin (1956).

WHAT IS THE JURY SYSTEM?:- The Jury comprises of a body of

twelve impartial men, temporarily selected from the mass of their fellow
citizens and this body is presided over by the magistrate.

They would also be made to take an oath in the Bishop’s presence

to tell the truth about a certain matter.

Their main function is to determine, in civil cases, the issues of fact

as are submitted by the court to their decision, by a “unanimous” verdict
and in criminal trials, to find the guilt or innocence of the accused by a
general verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty”.

JURY AS A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION:- The justification of the

jury is given by two of its most important characteristics – “the
participatory” and “the representative”, and both of them converge at the
point of deliberation.

With regard to the former, the jury process provides a citizen with
an opportunity to participate directly in the process of self-governance
whereas the latter proceeds on a series of related assumptions such as
the modern jury seeks to draw its membership from a cross-section of the
political jurisdiction within which it sits, justice in a particular case would be
favoured when it is the product of the participation of a cross-section of the
political community and the jury members should necessarily engage in
extended deliberation in order to arrive at a verdict.

Hence the jury here is said to be democratic, not because of the

efficacy of individual jurors but because of the will of the jury which is
ultimately equated to that of the community10.
II.

A. Call for a jury system

Several groups in the Philippines is calling for the shift to the jury system, They claim that a
shift to a jury system will give our justice system the much needed reform it needed in order to
adopt with the current situation in the country.

Basically, jury trials will speed up the disposition of cases in court and thereby ease the court
dockets and detention facilities will be decongested. Lawyers will be forced to practice their

10 Is the jury system appropriate-Prof. Abhik Majumbar-National Law University Orissa

5|Page
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

profession with utmost care. The people in the entire country will become oriented with their laws
and they will become “teachers” for their family members, friends, and neighbors on their ethics
of citizenship. The more the people are acquainted with their laws, the better they become law
abiding citizens.

Instead of getting “instructions” from outlaws, the people will be getting instruction on their
laws from presiding judges by serving in jury trials - an authoritative and free legal education of
the citizens just like they do in the United States. The massacre last 2009 in Maguindanao
probably could not have happened if its instigators would have been oriented with the laws of
their community. Perhaps, they would have been more law abiding citizens and most of them
would not have participated in that gruesome activity.

B. Advantage and disadvantage of a jury system

One of the advantage of a Jury system is that it best reflect the views of the society because of
random selection from a wide range of population. Those accused will be tried by their peer or by the
people and their conviction or acquittal shall be based on the jury and will not be decided alone by a
judge. When a person's liberty is at stake it is a matter of principle that s/he should be tried by his/her
peers.
The jury is regarded by the public as the ‘bulwark of individual liberties'. Under the jury system,
individual liberties will be protected, the accused guilt or innocence will be judged by the people and not
through the strict interpretation of the law by a judge.
Fact-finding is a matter of common sense and does not require any specialized legal training,
knowing right from wrong doesn’t need a law degree, it only needs a sense of righteousness in order to
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. It free the jury from the complexities of the law but judge
a case based on reason and justice.
The opinion of the 12 jurors is better than the single opinion of the judge since it will more likely to
prevent the individual biases. It also prevent influence peddling among the influential people in the
community and ease pressure on the part of the judge in deciding cases.
Jurors can be totally independent because it is unaccountable. Further, they are free from outside
pressures since they are unknown outside of the case and decide on a case base on their own personal
convictions.
Juries are barometers of public feeling on the state of law, e.g. by deliberately acquitting against the
weight of the evidence to express disapproval of a ‘bad' or ‘unpopular' law.
The presence of the lay jury ensures that the proceedings are kept simple and efficient, it cuts the
waiting time of an accused. In effect, it unclogged court dockets and also unclogged detention cells in the
country as well.

6|Page
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

Disadvantages of a jury system.

The argument that due to the random selection, a jury represents the society is deceptive as the juries
can comprise only to those, who are able to act as juror at the end of the selection process. 11
The jury is an uneducated body in the law and is often unable to weigh evidence properly and to
understand certain complex matters. 12
The jury is not suitable for the complex fraud cases and these cases very often cause problem for the
lay jury. The Roskill Report (1986) recommended the replacement of the jury in such cases by a judge
sitting with expert assessors.13
Juries are often unable to understand the more complex distinction in the law, such as the distinction
between murder and manslaughter.14
Jurors may be dominated by two or three strong minded individuals in the jury. Which could
influenced the rest of the jury on arriving on their conclusion. 15
It is a fact that juries acquit proportionately more defendant than the magistrates do. Many critics of
the jury system argue that this is a major failing on the part of juries, arising either from their inability to
perform their function properly, or from their sympathy with defendants, or both. 16
Jurors may be biased for or against certain groups- e.g. they may favour attractive member of the
opposite sex, or be prejudiced against the police in cases of malicious prosecution or false
imprisonment.17
It is not possible to guarantee that there has been absolutely no tempering with the jury.
The unaccountability of the jury by virtue of the secrecy of the jury room, is against the democratic
principles.

C. Is it applicable to the Philippines

Other countries who is using the jury system is quite similar to our judicial system, the United
States of America for example who has been under a jury system is very similar to our judicial system.
Thus, it is applicable in our country.
The Philippine justice system can shift to a jury system gradually, just like any new innovation
being adopted by the judiciary. Like the e-courts which was first implemented or piloted in Quezon City
and now being implemented in the City of Makati.
The jury system can first be piloted in the City of Manila, where existing courts can be re-
configured to a jury court. Yes, it needs a large sum of money to be implemented properly, but we need to
start into something if we really want to reform the judicial system in the country.

11 Lawteacher.net
12 Lawteacher.net
13 American Bar Association, Principles for Juries and Jury Trials (2005)
14 American Bar Association, Principles for Juries and Jury Trials (2005)
15 Lawteacher.net
16 Lawteacher.net
17 Lawteacher.net

7|Page
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

Just like any innovations being introduced in the system, there are hardship and problems to be
encountered in its implementation, but these must not deter us in our resolve to reform the judiciary. What
is more important is that the jury system can facilitate justice more speedily.

III.
A. The jury system
The Trial Jury, or “TJ”, is a group of 12 citizens chosen by lottery from a list of registered voters
in a district who shall serve as a group judge under oath to decide a case fairly in court.
The Trial Jury shall be presided by a judge. His main job is to enforce order and discipline in the
courtroom, to determine the admissibility of the evidence introduced at the trial, to issue Jury Instruction
to the trial jury and finally to read the jury verdict in open court and to impose the penalty upon the
convicted accused pursuant to the verdict.
The fitness for jury duty of the citizens called to serve in the trial jury shall be jointly determined
and impaneled by the opposing parties or their counsels in court under the supervision and presence of the
presiding judge, All the jurors are required to be present in the trial jury at all times. The jury trial cannot
proceed in the absence of any juror and any juror who shall fail to comply with this requirement shall be
liable for imprisonment by direct and summary contempt of court.
The function of the trial jury is to determine the facts of the case and at a proper time to discuss
and to decide the same upon instruction of the presiding judge. The judge shall have no participation in
the discussion or in deciding the case.
In the beginning of the jury proceeding, the presiding judge shall be required to issue and read a
set of Statutory Basic Jury Instruction for the trial jury. He must do this without deviation or modification
in reading the instruction. Should he violate this requirement to favor or disfavor a party, he can be liable
for obstruction of justice upon complaint by any citizen or party to the grand jury.
In addition to the penalty of obstruction of justice, he will be subject to disciplinary action for
removal from the bench and forfeiture of his bar license to practice law.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the jury system in England and Wales is that while juries
now decide only a small fraction of all criminal cases and almost no civil cases, the right to trial by jury
continues to be a highly charged subject.
Most discussion of jury policy generates public attention, and virtually every proposal to restrict
trial by jury in the last half century has provoked widespread and often impassioned opposition. There is
an ancient right for an accused to be tried only “by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the
land”18 and even though there is no modern constitutional right to trial by jury in England and Wales,
governments have found the public extremely unwilling to sanction further restrictions to jury trials.
Jury service is unique in being the only form of civic participation that is compulsory for almost
all citizens (and many non-citizen residents) to perform today, and delivering justice by juries has
overwhelming support among the public in England and Wales.

18 “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or
deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so,
except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land”. Magna Carta Clause 39

8|Page
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

Over 80% of the public trust a jury to come to the right decision, think that trial by jury is fairer
than being tried by a judge and that juries produce better justice 19.
This overwhelming public support and robust defense of legal provisions for jury trials
demonstrates the special place juries have in the public mind.
Juries in some form have existed in England for at least eight centuries 20, but the jury has
fundamentally changed over time. Today, it is an institution in which twelve randomly selected members
of the public are used to judge guilt or innocence in only a very small proportion of all criminal cases and,
in exceptional circumstances, a few civil cases 21.
In England, over 98% of all criminal cases are non-jury trials heard by magistrates alone 22. Only
the most serious indictable criminal offences are necessarily tried by a jury in the Crown Court. The only
other criminal cases that may be tried by a jury are either way offences, which may be tried either in the
Crown Court with a jury or in Magistrates’ Court if both magistrates and defendant agree.

Jury Selection and Composition

A key issue in jury policy is the question of how jurors are selected and its impact on the
composition of juries. While there is no clear constitutional right to trial by jury in England where jury
system originated, the principle most often cited in relation to jury composition is that a defendant is
entitled to be tried by a “jury of one’s peers”. In England, various meanings have attached to this concept
over time23, but these have generally included the judgement of:
· One’s equals or neighbours
· A body of fair-minded persons
· An independent or impartial body
· A randomly chosen body
· A representative body

19 Survey commissioned by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association and published in
January 2002. The Crown Court Study in the early 1990s also found that 80% of jurors who had served on a jury
rated the jury system as either very good or good. M. Zander and P. Henderson, Crown Court Study, The Royal
Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study No.19. HMSO (1993).
20 The abolition of the process of trial by ordeal in 1215 is widely cited as the origin of the use of juries in criminal
cases, although the Normans had earlier used the practice of convening a group under oath to establish the truth.
See Smith, Bailey and Gunn on the Modern English Legal System (2002) 17-084.
21There is now only a qualified right to jury trial in four types of civil cases: defamation (libel and slander), fraud,
malicious prosecutions and false imprisonment. See Supreme Court Act 1981 section 69.
22 In 2004, there were 2.02 million criminal cases committed for trial in the Magistrates’ Courts: Criminal Statistics
2004 England and Wales Home Office Statistical Bulletin 19/05 2nd edition (2005) Table 2A, paragraph 2.8. In the
same year only 30,067 cases involving a not guilty plea by the defendant were disposed of in the Crown Courts:
Judicial Statistics 2004 Department for Constitutional Affairs Table 6.8 p.90.
23 G. Marshall ”The Judgement of One’s Peers: Some Aims and Ideal of Jury Trial” in N. Walker with A. Pearson
(eds) The British Jury System (1975) p.5

9|Page
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

These suggest that specific qualities (independence, impartiality, representation and random
selection) are needed for a jury to perform effectively, yet these qualities are not always necessarily
consistent with one another.
For instance, a randomly selected jury will not automatically be a representative jury; it is in the
nature of random selection that some juries will be unrepresented. Today, a guiding principle in jury
selection is that individuals are randomly selected for jury service, although random selection of jurors is
a relatively recent invention was only introduced in England and Wales following recommendations made
in the Morris Report in 196530. The view that currently underpins jury policy in this country is that a
randomly selected jury is most likely to be representative and a representative jury is most likely to be
impartial24.
Adherence to Facts, Continuous Proceeding Required In Jury Trials
This proposed jury system shall require the courts to adhere to the finding of facts by the trial
jury. The main intent of adopting trial by jury is to avoid arbitrary decision by one man who may be
laboring under the influence of third parties such as friends, and relatives, or some interested characters in
the outcome of the case.
It is also intended to speed up trials of cases as required by the constitution, to ease the back log
of cases that have afflicted the Philippine court systems for so many years now.
The trial date agreed upon by the Presiding Judge, the Prosecution, and the Defense shall become
a firm trial date (or FTD) and no postponement shall be allowed under any circumstances except for
continuances of no more than 3 days from the date the trial jury begins to hear the case.
The proposed jury law shall provide a rule in which private practicing attorneys may apply to
serve as a Community Deputy Prosecutor (CDP). The proposed law shall likewise provide a rule in which
private practicing attorneys may apply to serve as a Presiding Pro-Temp Judge (PPTJ) for a trial jury. All
CDPs and PPTJ shall promise without fail to attend to their respective commitments to participate in the
trial proceedings within 3 days notice in the event that each of them is called in for some reasons to speed
up the administration of justice in their community.
At the pre-trial conference to set the FTD, it will be the responsibility of the prosecution to name
his CDP to take over the case in the event of a life threatening situation that may befell on him during the
trial.
At the same pre-trial conference to set the FTD, it will be the responsibility of the defense
counsel to name his substitute defense counsel in the event of a life threatening situation shall befell on
him during the trial.
If a life threatening situation shall befell upon the accused during the trial, the presiding judge of
the trial jury shall order the appearance of an appropriate medical doctor who will testify under oath,
subject to cross examination by the counsels of either party, to determine the merits of the claim of the
accused that he is incapable of going forward with the trial. If the accused is incapable of going forward
with the trial, the estimated date by the medical doctor, but no more than 15 days, Saturdays, Sundays,
and Holidays, included, shall be the maximum continuance firm date of the jury trial.

24

10 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

The purpose of the strict adherence to continuous proceeding in a jury trial is to avoid
disturbing the trend of thought and focus of the minds of the jurors on their case. A
continuance of more than 15 days shall cause a mistrial and a party misusing continuances of
trials should be held responsible to pay the expenses of a mistrial including the jurors fee, the
time of the court and its personnel, and the party not responsible for the mistrial.

Any person, the presiding judge, the prosecutor or defense counsel who shall attempt to
intentionally delay the jury trial by misusing the above rule shall be liable for obstruction of
justice upon complaint by any citizen before a grand jury.

Should any person is found guilty for maliciously obstructing the trial and such person is
a licensed professional, he shall be subject to disciplinary action for removal of his license to
practice his profession.

The FTD shall be determined by basing the longest time period offered by either party for
his preparation to go to trial but not longer than 3 months if the accused is in custody or not
longer than 6 months if the accused is free on bail.

No continuance of a trial longer than 3 days shall be allowed unless based on a life
threatening situation of the accused or either counsels. If a presiding judge of the trial jury is
afflicted with a life threatening situation, he shall be substituted promptly with a Presiding
Pro-Temp Judge.

The presentation of the evidence before the trial jury shall be the same as in presenting
the evidence in a bench trial.

Significance of Number of Votes in Jury Verdicts

The members of the trial jury are required to cast their ballot secretly to reach a verdict so
that none of the members shall know each others vote for or against the verdict. No juror,
including its foreman, shall be allowed to force any juror to vote for or against in the verdict
of the jury so that the verdict shall be purely free from coercion.

A tie vote of 6 guilty and 6 not guilty shall be an automatic verdict of acquittal. No appeal
on the part of the prosecution shall be allowed.

A guilty vote of 7 to 8, 9 to 10, and 11 to 12 by a trial jury shall produce a guilty verdict
that will influence the imposition of the penalty upon the convicted accused in the minimum
range, the medium range, and the maximum range of penalty according to the range of
imprisonment of the penalty as defined by law as follows: A guilty vote of 7 to 8 will draw a
minimum penalty; 9 to 10 will draw a medium penalty; and 11 to 12 will draw a maximum
penalty. If the guilty verdict is 12 with attending aggravating circumstance as found by the
jury, the convicted accused shall suffer the full period of penalty without the benefit of
presidential clemency.

An appeal from a guilty verdict shall be allowed only on the question of law. No appeal
shall be allowed on the issue of facts. The finding of facts by the jury shall be final. The
reason for this is that an appellate court cannot substitute the actual ocular assessment by the
jurors over the demeanor of the witnesses or of the accused.

11 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

Another purpose of this rule is to prevent twisting of facts on appeal to accommodate the
interest of some influential characters or powerful figures like the President and armed
supported officials or rich people.

An issue of law may be in the form of wrong instruction of a rule or law given to the jury.
The jury cannot be faulted for the error of law because they are merely passive recipient of
the instruction of law. The proponent of the error of law on appeal shall have the
responsibility of showing to the appellate court on the issue of law on his appeal.

If the president shall abuse his or her parol powers, such president shall be liable for the
charge of obstruction of justice.

The function of the jury

The function of the jury is to weigh up the evidence and to decide what the true facts of
the case are or what actually happened. The judge gives the direction to the jury on the
relevant law, which the jury has to apply to the facts of the case in order to reach a verdict. If
it is a criminal case and the jury has given a verdict of guilty, then the judge will decide on
appropriate sentence. In civil cases, juries function is to decide on how much money should
be awarded in damages.
IV- Countries under jury system
A. The jury trial in various jurisdictions
Australia
The Australian Constitution provides that: "80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of
the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was
committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or
places as the Parliament prescribes. 25
Austria
Austria, in common with a number of European civil law jurisdictions, retains elements of trial by jury in
serious criminal cases. 26

Belgium
Belgium, in common with a number of European civil law jurisdictions, retains the trial by jury through
the Court of Assize for serious criminal cases and for political crimes and for press delicts (except those
based on racism or xenophobia), and for crimes of international law, such as genocide and crime against
humanity. 27

25 Wikipedia
26 Wikipedia
27 Wikipedia

12 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

Canada
Under Canadian law, a person has the constitutional right to a jury trial for all crimes punishable by five
years of imprisonment or more. The Criminal Code also provides for the right to a jury trial for most
indictable offences, including those punishable by less than five years imprisonment, though the right is
only constitutionally enshrined for those offences punishable by five years imprisonment or more.
Generally, it is the accused person who is entitled to elect whether their trial will proceed by judge alone
or by judge and jury; however, for the most severe criminal offences—murder, treason, alarming Her
Majesty, intimidating Parliament, inciting to mutiny, sedition, and piracy—trial by jury is mandatory
unless the prosecution consents to trial by judge alone. 28

France
In France, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial only when prosecuted for a felony (crime in French) that is
an offence which may bring least 15 years' imprisonment (for natural persons) or a fine of €75,000 (for
legal persons). The only court that tries by jury is the cour d'assises, in which three professional judges sit
together with six or nine jurors. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority (six or eight votes). 29

Greece
The country that originated the concept of the jury trial retains it in an unusual form. Serious crimes in
Greece are tried by a panel of three professional judges and four lay jurors who decide the facts, and the
appropriate penalty if they are convicted. 30

Gibraltar
Being a Common Law jurisdiction, Gibraltar retains jury trial in a similar manner as that found in
England and Wales, the exception being that juries consist of nine lay people, rather than twelve. 31

Hong Kong
Hong Kong, as a former British colony has a common law legal system. Article 86 of Hong Kong's Basic
Law, which came into force on 1 July 1997 following the handover of Hong Kong from Britain to China
provides: "The principle of trial by jury previously practiced in Hong Kong shall be maintained." 32
Criminal trials in the High Court are by jury. The juries are generally made of seven members, who can
return a verdict based on a majority of five.
There are no jury trials in the District Court, which can impose a sentence of up to seven years
imprisonment. This is despite the fact that all court rooms in the District Court have jury boxes. The lack

28 Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms § Right to trial by jury
29 Wikipedia
30 Wikipedia
31 Wikipedia
32 Article 86, Hongkong Basic Law

13 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

of juries in the District Court has been severely criticized. Clive Grossman SC in a commentary in 2009
said conviction rates were "approaching those of North Korea."
Many complex commercial cases are prosecuted in the District Court rather than before a jury in the High
Court. In 2009, Lily Chiang, former chairwoman of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, lost
an application to have her case transferred from the District Court to the High Court for a jury trial.
Justice Wright in the Court of First Instance held that there was no absolute right to a trial by jury and that
the "decision as to whether an indictable offence be tried in the Court of First Instance by a judge and jury
or in the District Court by a judge alone is the prerogative of the Secretary for Justice." Chiang issued a
statement at the time saying "she was disappointed with the judgment because she has been deprived of a
jury trial, an opportunity to be judged by her fellow citizens and the constitutional benefit protected by the
Basic Law." 33

India
The first case decided by an English jury in India happened in Madras in 1665, for which Ascentia Dawes
(probably a British woman) was charged by a grand jury with the murder of her slave girl, and a petty
jury, with six Englishmen and six Portuguese, found her not guilty. With the development of the East
India Company empire in India, the jury system was implemented inside a dual system of courts: In
Presidency Towns (Calcutta, Madras, Bombay), there were Crown Courts and in criminal cases juries had
to judge British and European people (as a privilege) and in some cases Indian people; and in the
territories outside the Presidency Towns (called "moffussil"), there were Company Courts (composed
with Company officials) without jury to judge most of the cases implying indigenous people.

After the Crown Government of India (Raj) adopted the Indian Penal Code (1860) and the Indian Code of
Criminal Procedure (1861, amended in 1872, 1882, 1898), the criminal jury was obligatory only in the
High Courts of the Presidency Towns; elsewhere, it was optional and rarely used. According to sections
274 and 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jury was composed from 3 (for smaller offences
judged in session courts) to 9 (for severe offences judges in High Courts) men; and when the accused
were European or American, at least half of the jurors had to be European or American men. 34

Ireland
In the Republic of Ireland, a common law jurisdiction, jury trials are available for criminal cases before
the Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court and defamation cases, consisting of twelve jurors.
Juries only decide questions of fact; they have no role in criminal sentencing in criminal cases or
awarding damages in libel cases. It is not necessary that a jury be unanimous in its verdict. In civil cases,
a verdict may be reached by a majority of nine of the twelve members. In a criminal case, a verdict need

33 Wikipedia
34 Jean-Louis Halpérin (25 March 2011). "Lay Justice in India"

14 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

not be unanimous where there are not fewer than eleven jurors if ten of them agree on a verdict after
considering the case for a reasonable time. 35

Italy
The Corte d'Assise is composed of 2 judges and 6 laypersons chosen at random among Italian citizens 30
to 65 years old. Only serious crimes like murder can be tried by the Corte d'Assise. 36

Japan
On May 28, 2004, the Diet of Japan enacted a law requiring selected citizens to take part in criminal court
trials of certain severe crimes to make decisions together with professional judges, both on guilt and on
the sentence. These citizens are called saiban-in (裁判員 "lay judge"). The saiban-in system was
implemented in May 2009. 37

New Zealand
New Zealand previously required jury verdicts to be passed unanimously, but since the passing of the
Criminal Procedure Bill in 2009 the Juries Act 1981 has permitted verdicts to be passed by a majority of
one less than the full jury (that is an 11-1 or a 10-1 majority) under certain circumstances. 38

Norway
Norway has a system where the lower courts (tingrett) is set with a judge and two lay-judges, or in bigger
cases two judges and three lay-judges. All of these judges convict or acquit, and set sentences. Simple
majority is required in all cases, which means that the lay-judges are always in control.

In the higher court/appellate court (lagmannsrett) there is a jury (lagrette) of 10 members, which need a
minimum of seven votes to be able to convict. The judges have no say in the jury deliberations, but jury-
instructions are given by the chief-judge (lagmann) in each case to the jury before deliberations. The voir-
dire is usually set with 16 prospective jurors, which the prosecution and defense may dismiss the 6
persons they do not desire to serve on the jury.

This court (lagmannsretten) is administered by a three-judge panel (usually 1 lagmann and 2

lagdommere), and if 7 or more jury members want to convict, the sentence is set in a separate proceeding,
consisting of the three judges and the jury foreman (lagrettens ordfører) and three other members of the
jury chosen by ballot. This way the laymen are in control of both the conviction and sentencing, as simple
majority is required in sentencing.
35 Wikipedia
36 Wikipedia
37 Lay judges in Japan
38"s46C Juries Act 1981"

15 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

The three-judge panel can set aside a jury conviction or acquittal if there has been an obvious miscarriage
of justice. In that event, the case is settled by three judges and four lay-judges.

In May 2015, the Norwegian Parliament asked the government to bring an end to jury trials, replacing
them with a bench trial (meddomsrett) consisting of two law-trained judges and three lay judges
(lekdommere). This has not been fully implemented yet as of February 2016, but is expected soon. 39

Russia
In the judiciary of Russia, for serious crimes the accused has the option of a jury trial consisting of 12
jurors. The number of jury trials remains small, at about 600 per year, out of about 1 million trials. A juror
must be 25 years old, legally competent, and without a criminal record. The 12 jurors are selected by the
prosecution and defense from a list of 30-40 eligible candidates. The Constitution of Russia stipulates
that, until the abolition of the death penalty, all defendants in a case that may result in a death sentence are
entitled to a jury trial. Lawmakers are continuously chipping away at what types of criminal offenses
merit a jury trial. 40

Singapore
In Singapore, the jury system was abolished in 1969. Jury trials for all had been earlier abolished in 1959,
except for capital offenses with death penalty. As Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew described to the BBC
and in his memoirs, due to his experiences as a trial lawyer, "I had no faith in a system that allowed the
superstition, ignorance, biases, and prejudices of seven jurymen to determine guilt or innocence." 41

South Africa
The jury system was abolished in South Africa in 1969 by the Abolition of Juries Act, 1969. The last jury
trial to be heard was in the District of Kimberley. Some judicial experts had argued that a system of
whites-only juries (as was the system at that time) was inherently prejudicial to 'non-white' defendants
(the introduction of nonracial juries would have been a political impossibility at that time). More recently
it has been argued that, apart from being a racially divided country, South African society was, and still is,
characterized by significant class differences and disparities of income and wealth that could make re-
introducing the jury system problematic. Arguments for and against the re-introduction of a jury system
have been discussed by South African constitutional expert Professor Pierre de Vos in the article "Do we
need a jury system?" On 28 March 2014, the Oscar Pistorius trial was adjourned due to the illness of one
of the two assessors that assist the judge on questions of fact (rather than law), in place of the jury, to
39 "Stortinget fjerner juryen fra rettssalen (Norwegian)"
40 Barry, Ellen (November 15, 2010). "In Russia, Jury Is Something to Work Around". The New York Times.
41 "'Judiciary', Singapore - A Country Study"

16 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

reach a verdict. The legal system in the UK sees no reason to block extradition on this, as witnessed in the
Shrien Dewani case. 42

Sweden
In Sweden, juries are uncommon; the public is represented in the courts by means of lay judges
(nämndemän). However, the defendant has the right to a jury trial in the lower court (tingsrätt) when
accused of an offense against the fundamental laws on freedom of expression and freedom of the press. If
a person is accused of e.g. libel or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred, in a medium covered by the
fundamental laws (e.g. a printed paper or a radio programme), she has the right to have the accusation
tried by a jury of nine jurors. This applies also in civil (tort) cases under the fundamental laws. A majority
of at least six jurors must find that the defendant has committed the alleged crime. If it does not, the
defendant is acquitted or, in a civil case, held not liable. If such a majority of the jurors hold that said
crime has in fact been committed, this finding is not legally binding for the court; thus, the court (three
judges) can still acquit the defendant or find him/her not liable. A jury acquittal may not be overruled after
appeal. In Swedish civil process, the "English rule" applies to court costs. Earlier, a court disagreeing with
a jury acquittal could, when deciding on the matter of such costs, set aside the English rule, and instead
use the American rule, that each party bears its own expense of litigation. This practice was declared to
violate the rule of presumption of innocence according to article 6.2. of the European Convention on
Human Rights, by the Supreme Court of Sweden, in 2012. 43

Switzerland
As of 2008, only the code of criminal procedure of the Canton of Geneva provides for genuine jury trials.
Several other cantons – Vaud, Neuchâtel, Zürich and Ticino – provide for courts composed of both
professional judges and laymen (Schöffengerichte / tribunaux d'échevins). Because the unified Swiss
Code of Criminal Procedure (set to enter into force in 2011) does not provide for jury trials or lay judges,
however, they are likely to be abolished in the near future. 44

United Kingdom
The United Kingdom consists of three separate legal jurisdictions, but there are some features common to
all of them. In particular there is seldom anything like the U.S. voir dire system; jurors are usually just
accepted without question. Controversially, in England there has been some screening in sensitive
security cases, but the Scottish courts have firmly set themselves against any form of jury vetting. 45

England and Wales

42 Wikipedia
43 Wikipedia
44 Mansour, Fati (29 September 2008). "Le jury populaire à l'agonie" (in French). Le Temps. Archived from the
original on 29 September 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
45 Wikipedia

17 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), everyone accused of an offence which carries
more than six months imprisonment has a right to trial by jury. Minor ("Summary only") criminal cases
are heard without a jury in the Magistrates' Courts. Middle-ranking ("triable either way") offences may be
tried by magistrates or the defendant may elect trial by jury in the Crown Court. Serious ("indictable")
offences, however, must be tried before a jury in the Crown Court. Juries sit in a few civil cases, in
particular, defamation and cases involving the state. Juries also sit in coroner's courts for more
contentious inquests. All criminal juries consist of 12 jurors, those in a County Court having 8 jurors and
Coroner's Court juries having between 7 and 11 members. Jurors must be between 18–75 years of age,
and are selected at random from the register of voters. In the past a unanimous verdict was required. This
has been changed so that, if the jury fails to agree after a given period, at the discretion of the judge they
may reach a verdict by a 10-2 majority. This was designed to make it more difficult for jury tampering to
succeed.

In 1999 the then Home Secretary Jack Straw introduced a controversial bill to limit the right to trial by
jury. This became the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which sought to remove the right to trial by jury for
cases involving jury tampering or complex fraud. The provision for trial without jury to circumvent jury
tampering succeeded and came into force in 2007, the provision for complex fraud cases was defeated.
Lord Goldsmith, the then Attorney General, then pressed forward with the Fraud (Trials Without a Jury)
Bill in Parliament, which sought to abolish jury trials in major criminal fraud trials. The Bill was subject
to sharp criticism from both sides of the House of Commons before passing its second Commons reading
in November 2006, but was defeated in the Lords in March 2007.

The trial for the first serious offence to be tried without a jury for 350 years was allowed to go ahead in
2009. Three previous trials of the defendants had been halted because of jury tampering, and the Lord
Chief Justice, Lord Judge, cited cost and the additional burden on the jurors as reasons to proceed without
a jury. Previously in cases where jury tampering was a concern the jurors were sometimes closeted in a
hotel for the duration of the trial. However, Liberty director of policy Isabella Sankey said that "This is a
dangerous precedent. The right to jury trial isn't just a hallowed principle but a practice that ensures that
one class of people don't sit in judgement over another and the public have confidence in an open and
representative justice system. 46

Scotland
In Scots law the jury system has some similarities with England but some important differences, in
particular there are juries of 15 in criminal trials, with verdicts by simple majority. 47

Northern Ireland

46 Juries in England and Wales

47 Trial by jury in Scotland

18 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

In Northern Ireland, the role of the jury trial is roughly similar to England and Wales, except that jury
trials have been replaced in cases of alleged terrorist offences by courts where the judge sits alone, known
as Diplock courts. Diplock courts are common in Northern Ireland for crimes connected to terrorism. 48

United States
In the United States, every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six
months has a constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury, which arises in federal court from Article
Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury;
and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed." The right was
expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Both provisions were made
applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most states' constitutions also grant the right
of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated that right in offenses punishable by
fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not
required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases. Under the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the defendant is entitled to a jury trial, he may waive his right to
have a jury, but both the government (prosecution) and court must consent to the waiver. Several states
require jury trials for all crimes, "petty" or not. 49

B. Sensational cases decided by a jury

To be discussed under this chapter is some of the sensational jury trial which catches worldwide attention
and their outcome.

O.J. Simpson
June 1994 – October 1995

The trial that set the bar for round-the-clock media coverage, and the case that made one network—Court
TV (now truTV)—a household name. This wasn’t just the O.J. show, kicked off by a low-speed police
chase with the Juice lying in the back of the infamous white Ford Bronco. This case was full of characters
good, evil, and devious, from Johnnie Cochran to Judge Ito, Kato Kaelin to Mark Fuhrman—even a
certain black leather glove got its fifteen minutes, and then some. Today, the O.J. Simpson trial is still the
standard bearer when it comes to sensational court cases. Indeed, seemingly the entire country gasped on
October 3, 1995, when the jury returned its verdict: not guilty. What other trial can say it sucked the air
out of a nation? 50

Martha Stewart
June 2003 – July 2004

48 Wikipedia
49 Juries in the United States
50 thedailybeast.com

19 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

Martha Stewart’s crime wasn’t particularly heinous—charges related to insider trading of ImClone
Systems stock—but with her squeaky clean image newspapers and television news shows jumped over
themselves to provide wall-to-wall coverage of her fall from grace. Who could have that imagined
America’s perfect hostess, who built a media empire out of how to make ordinary twigs into a lovely
centerpiece, would ever end up in prison duds? That’s what happened in July 2004, when Stewart was
sentenced to five months in the big house. 51

Michael Jackson
November 2003 – June 2005

For all of Michael Jackson’s talent and hard work, his legacy will forever be tainted by one ugly and
recurring storyline. The first allegations of child molestation against the King of Pop arose in 1993,
though charges fell apart under scrutiny. Nearly a decade later footage taken for a documentary by Martin
Bashir had enough questionable content that Jackson was arrested in November 2003 and indicted on
seven counts of child molestation and other charges. Jackson was acquitted on all charges less than two
years later. 52

Timothy McVeigh
August 1995 – June 1997

America’s most notorious homegrown terrorist, Timothy McVeigh was one of the masterminds, along
with co-conspirator Terry Nichols, behind the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
building, which killed 168 people in April 1995. Until the attacks of September 11, 2001, it was the
deadliest terrorist act on U.S. soil. 53

Rod Blagojevich
December 2008 – June 27, 2011

51 thedailybeast.com
52 thedailybeast.com
53 thedailybeast.com

20 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich found out the hard way that the grease-palmed politics of
yesteryear just don’t fly anymore. In June Blagojevich was found guilty of 17 corruption charges,
including soliciting bribes to fill Barack Obama’s senate seat. 54

Lewis “Scooter” Libby

The media didn’t just cover Scooter Libby’s trial—the media were in the thick of things from the very
beginning. Dick Cheney’s chief of staff went down hard when he was convicted of leaking confidential
information about CIA agent Valerie Plame to the New York Times. The story—covert agent working in
service of the United States people outed by high up White House officer—was rich and gained traction at
all levels of the media molehill.55

Saddam Hussein
December 2003 –November 2006

In name recognition alone, newspaper and television reporters couldn’t have picked a better subject to go
on trial. The location of the trial, in front of a tribunal in Baghdad. Not so much. While the location made
it difficult to get play-by-play coverage, the Hussein trial is still one of the most covered. Derided by
human rights activists as a sham proceeding whose conclusion was foregone, the former Iraqi dictator
was ultimately served the death penalty. In true modern media fashion, where everyone can be a witness
to history, the aftermath was replete with a leaked, unedited cell phone video of the execution. 56

C. Countries who abolished the jury system and the reason for their abolishment

Russia’s move in abolishing jury system on cases involving terrorism, hostage-taking, armed
insurrection, sabotage and civil disturbances
Russia abolished jury trials for terrorism and treason 57. The country's parliament voted to back a
bill backed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's dominant United Russia party giving three judges the right
to rule on cases involving terrorism, hostage-taking, armed insurrection, sabotage and civil disturbances.
The bill will go before Russia's upper house, the Federation Council where approval is expected
to be a formality, before it becomes law.
The move came 15 years to the day since the adoption of Russia's first post-Soviet Constitution
which reintroduced jury trials abolished by the Bolsheviks in 1917.

54 thedailybeast.com
55 thedailybeast.com
56 Tthedailybeast.com
57 Economist.com

21 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

Critics said the move raised the spectre of a return to Soviet-style trials controlled solely by
judges. The Soviet court system was notoriously vulnerable to pressures from above and sentences were
often dictated via a telephone call from the KGB secret service or Communist party.
Vladimir Vasilyev, who proposed the bill, told parliament: "We want to be sympathetic people,
moving towards democracy but I don't want to see terrorists going free."
Supporters of the bill said the switch was necessary because some courts in the southern Russia " where
unrest and anti-government insurgency has spilt over since the Chechen conflict" were acquitting or being
too lenient towards groups suspected of being involved in organized crime.
Violence has been spreading across the region, including a bomb attack and most recently the
assassination two weeks ago Vitaly Karayev, mayor of Vladikavkaz, the capital of North Ossetia, as he
left for work.
But critics said the move would increase the risk of unfair trials.
Yelena Mizullina, a member of left of centre Fair Russia party, said: "This law is unconstitutional.
This bill does not protect the rights of citizens."
Allison Gill, director of the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch, said that although there was
no internationally protected right to a jury trial, the move raised concerns," she said.
"Special procedural rules for trying terrorism and other such cases tend to result in reduced rights
for defendants.
"The courts in every case should do their job and that job is to give a fair trial and not simply to
convict. We do not see why a court with a jury should be less well equipped to handle a terrorism case
than any other." She added: "My main concern in this case is the impulse that we have seen in lots of
countries to introduce special procedural rules for terrorism cases."
Jury trials were first introduced in Russia by Alexander II under judicial reforms in 1864 ushered
in after the freeing of the serfs three years earlier.
Scrapped in 1917 but reintroduced by President Boris Yeltsin's 1993 Constitution, nine Russian
regions have since adopted jury trials, including Moscow.
Recent research shows that Russian juries acquit in nine per cent of cases compared with one per
cent of cases tried by judges sitting alone.58
The India experience, abolishing the jury system
Earlier the Government of India had introduced the jury system but in 1872, some changes were
made which eventually led to its complete loss of power. However, in 1886, the Indian National Congress
passed resolutions for giving finality to the verdicts of juries.
Jury trials were yet again abolished by the Government of India in 1960 on the grounds of an 8:1
acquittal of Kawas Nanavati in K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra case. In this case, Kawas
Manekshaw Nanavati was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife Sylvia's paramour.
This incident shook the whole nation and marked the end of jury trial held in India.

58 The Telegraph 12 December 2008

22 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

The central question of the case was whether Nanavati’s gun went off accidentally or whether it
was a premeditated murder. Nanavati pleaded not guilty and his defense team argued that it was a case of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, whereas the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder.
According to the jury in the Greater Bombay Sessions Court, Nanavati was pronounced not guilty
with an 8–1 verdict. The session’s judge referred the case to the high court. The prosecution then argued
that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points.
Firstly, the onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati.
Secondly, whether it was Sylvia's confession or any specific incident in Ahuja's bedroom that offered
grave provocation to Nanavati. Thirdly, the judge wrongly convinced the jury that the provocation could
also come from a third person. Finally, the jury was not instructed that Nanavati's defense had to be
proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person.
The court accepted these arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was once again
freshly heard in the high court. The High Court sentenced Nanavati to life imprisonment and this was
upheld by the Supreme Court in 1961. However, Nanavati was eventually pardoned and released. Since
then, the jury was influenced by media and public support for Nanavati and was also being misled, due to
which the Indian government finally abolished it in 196059.
V- Analysis
In this chapter, I would like to include the ideas and perspectives of different people regarding
the concept of the jury system and these are as follows:-

“Jurors are ordinary persons drawn from different walks of life to achieve a collection of

wisdom that could not be achieved alone” – Aristotle

“By obliging men to turn their attention to other affairs than their own, it rubs off that private

selfishness which is the rust of society… I think that the practical intelligence and political good

sense of the Americans are mainly attributable to the long use that they have made of the jury” -

Alexis de Tocqueville

“Our nation relies on the determination of jurors of our peers in both civil and criminal trials…

because you are the ones capable of deciding who is to be believed and what the facts are” -

Justice O’Connor, Supreme Court

59 Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 A.I.R. 605

23 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

“The jury is a sort of ad hoc parliament convened from the citizenry at large to lend
respectability and autonomy to the process…. Any erosion of citizen participation in the sanction system
is in the long run likely, in my view, to result in a reduction in the moral authority that supports the
process” - Justice Gibbons, Federal court

This has been the only system that has placed power directly in the hands of the citizens” -

Abramson (1994)

“Jurors have certain unique characteristics as opposed to judges in decision-making. These

include the fact that they are 12 in number, have absolute power to acquit without being

accountable, receive evidence through a filtered judicial system” - Barbers (1997)

“The best deliberative democratic institution has been the jury in so far as sentencing is

concerned” - Turner (2003)

“There are numerous contentious issues that have been resolved through jury trial” - Vidmar

(2005)

“The jury requires reforms in its voting structure” - Yavir & Gerardi (2007)

“Deliberative democracy theory rests on the notion that citizens and their representatives have a

right to deliberate about public problems under conditions that are based on reflection and

public judgment. This theory, upon which jury trials are premised emphasizes on the desire to

implement societal values, perspectives, and interests” - Gutmann and Thomson (2008)

“The system aims at controlling prosecutorial authority and provides accountability and ensures

application of the due process of the law” Wilson (2009)”

Despite of all these positive and negative criticisms, the Jury System is still cherished as one of
the most valued institutions where complete liberty prevails. The role of this institution in representing the

24 | P a g e
 Atty. Michelle Anne B. Recto, LL.M.

voice of the common man and in preserving the core values of the community as a whole cannot be
underestimated.
The Jury System is the most deliberative democracy in the world. It gives to its citizens the right
to form, refine, and revise preferences through open deliberations. It is an institution where the citizens
are required to play a central role in delivering justice.
It’s most profound effect is the transformative power, with which it resolves conflicts in a way
that yields improved policy outcomes and transforms the participants in the deliberation by altering how
they think of themselves and their fellow citizens.
The jury system has certain advantages such as the jury trials have limited access to parties, hence
they cannot be easily manipulated or corrupted; moreover, jurors have a clear understanding of the current
cultural, social, economic, and political issues affecting their societies, unlike judges who belong to the
elite class.
In this way jurors have continued to protect society against unjust application of the law and act
as guardians of community rights.
This has been the cornerstone of the jury system, which ensures fair trials.
The comparative study of the jury system in civil and common legal systems shows that in
Britain, the mother of jury trial, 1% of civil and 5% of criminal trials are being decided by the juries. In
United States, the jury system works efficiently, comprising of a Federal Supreme Court and 13 circuit
courts’ precedents60.
The Japanese believe that the jury system is an important tool to shape the way in which justice
is to be meted out of through the public. In China, lay assessors are appointed to serve in minor criminal
offences whereas in countries like Austria, South Korea, France, Belgium and Denmark, jury trial is used
in serious cases under the guidance of judges.
In contrast to this there are some countries such as India, Kenya and Jordan where the jury system
has been has been losing its power or has been completely abolished. Thus, over the years, the jury trial
has been considered as the best tool for ensuring equity and for protecting ordinary citizens against
various injustices and unnecessary suppression of freedom with its democratic virtues.
Even today, it continues with the same spirit thus proving that no institution rivals the jury in the
making of a participatory and representative democracy

IV- Conclusion
After careful scrutiny of the topic on hand, it can be safely say that adopting a jury system on
some criminal cases in the Philippines
VI- Conclusion
VII- Recommendation
VIII- Bibliography

60 Kennedy M. Maranga, The Jury System as a Symbol of Justice: Comparative Analysis, SOCIAL SCIENCE
RESEARCH NETWORK (February 12, 2010)

25 | P a g e