University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Arts and Letters

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS PAGE 1

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE

ABSTRACT

Tribal wars have been a practice among indigenous people of the
Philippines, especially in the province of Kalinga. Over the years, the Bodong has
proven to have maintained peace in Kalinga, especially when the MBCC was
awarded the Galing Pook Award in 2009 and was institutionalized in 2011. The
researchers utilized a quantitative descriptive comparative research design to
assess the effectiveness and the efficiency of the quality performance and
management of the council in the seven areas of court excellence set by the
globally renowned International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE). The

study is significant in determining the overall effectiveness and efficiency of
MBCC in providing services to its clients. The researchers recommend that the
survey of this study be used by the council in a continuous improvement process.
It will help improve how peace is fostered in Kalinga, especially when ITabuks
are satisfied with the MBCC’s performance.
Keywords: Bodong, Matagoan, Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council
(MBCC), International Framework for Court Excellence, effectiveness, efficiency,
assessment
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers are profoundly grateful for the people who took part in the
success of the study:
Atty. Teodoro Lorenzo Fernandez, the thesis advisor, who has always
been responsive and thought critically in guiding the researchers to discover the
scope, the significance and the reliability of this study;
Mr. Heriberto Barila, head of the Matagoan Bodong Consultative
Council (MBCC), and its staff who imparted to the researchers necessary sources
of information and assisted them in gathering data from the participants of this
study;
Ms. Melanie Turingan who performed her duties beyond what the
researchers asked for and diligently provided them 24/7 with the correct statistical
tools in treating the data corresponding to the nature of this study;
Atty. Sedfrey Candelaria and Atty. Melissa Bautista for accommodating
the researchers in the PHILJA and for referring them to a proper interview with
Atty. Megan Musni of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) who
affirmed the possible use of the underlying principles of the IFCE in assessing the
MBCC and shared the office’s plans in implementing the IFCE in courts
nationwide by 2022;
Dr. Liz Richardson, Secretariat of the International Framework for Court
Excellence (IFCE) who responded to the researchers’ queries and confirmed that
even non-courts like the MBCC may use the IFCE;
The previous MBCC clients for participating in the study’s survey;
The researchers’ families for their undying support throughout the course
of this research;
Above all, the researchers are always grateful to the ALMIGHTY GOD
from whom all wisdom, hope, and blessings flow.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1............................................................................................................9
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND........................................................9
1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................9
1.2 Theoretical Framework..............................................................................11
1.3 Objectives of the Study...........................................................................12
1.3.A Main Objective..................................................................................12
1.3.B Specific Objectives............................................................................12
1.4 Statement of the Problem...........................................................................13
1.5 Significance of the Study........................................................................15
1.6 Scope and Limitation.................................................................................15
1.7 Definition of Terms...................................................................................16
CHAPTER 2..........................................................................................................18
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.............................................................18
2.1 Overview....................................................................................................18
2.2 Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC)....................................18
UNIVERSITY
2.3 International Framework for OFCourt
SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL
Excellence.........................................23 PAGE
2.3.A Purpose of the framework.................................................................23
2.3.B Applying the framework to courts.....................................................24
2.3.C Benefits of adopting the framework..................................................25
2.3.D Court values embodied in the framework.........................................26
2.3.E Seven Areas of Court Excellence......................................................27
2.3.E.a Court management and leadership.............................................27
2.3.E.b Court planning and policies.......................................................28
2.3.E.c Court resources (human, material and financial).......................30
2.3.E.d Court proceedings......................................................................33
2.3.E.e Client needs and satisfaction......................................................34
2.3.E.f Affordable and accessible court services....................................35
2.3.E.g Public trust and confidence........................................................36
2.3.F Continuous improvement process.....................................................36
2.3.G IFCE in the Philippines....................................................................37
2.4 Effectiveness and Efficiency.....................................................................38
2.4.A Court management effectiveness.......................................................39
2.4.B Court management efficiency............................................................39
2.5 Summary....................................................................................................39
2.6 Synthesis of the Study............................................................................41
CHAPTER 3..........................................................................................................43
RESEARCH METHODS......................................................................................43
3.1 Research Design.....................................................................................43
3.2 Sample Size and Sampling Design.........................................................43

3.5 Data Analysis..........................................................................................45
CHAPTER 4..........................................................................................................47
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA............47
4.1 Presentation of Data...................................................................................47
4.1.A Demographic Profiles (Clients)........................................................47
4.1.B Effectiveness and Efficiency (per item)............................................50
4.1.B.1 MBCC Effectiveness (Clients and Staff)...................................51
4.1.B.2 MBCC Efficiency (Clients and Staff)........................................61
4.2. Analysis of Data.......................................................................................69
4.2.A Overall Effectiveness........................................................................69
4.2.B Overall Efficiency.............................................................................73
CHAPTER 5..........................................................................................................83
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................83
5.1 Discussion and Conclusion........................................................................83
5.2 Recommendations......................................................................................86
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework..........................................................................10
Figure 2. Ranks of effectiveness of MBCC in each area of court excellence
(Clients and Staff)………………………………………………………………...77
Figure 3. Ranks of efficiency of MBCC in each area of court excellence (Clients
and Staff)
………………………………………………………………………………………
….……..78
(Clients)
………………………………………………………………………………………
….……..79
Figure 5. Ranks of effectiveness of MBCC in each area of court excellence (Staff)
………………………………………………………………………………………
……….……..80
Figure 6. Ranks of efficiency of MBCC in each area of court excellence (Clients)
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………….……...81
Figure 7. Ranks of efficiency of MBCC in each area of court excellence (Staff)
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………….……...82
APPENDICES
Data Collection Instrument……………………………………………………….75
Curriculum Vitae………………………………………………………..…….….83
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………….85
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Clients by Tribe/Sub-tribe.............................47

Table 2. Frequency Distribution of Staff by Tribe/Sub-tribe.................................48
Table 3. Agreement on Management and Leadership Effectiveness (Clients).......49
Table 4. Agreement on Management and Leadership Effectiveness (Staff)...........50
Table 5. Agreement on Planning and Policies Effectiveness (Clients and Staff)...51
Table 6. Agreement on Resources (Human, Material, and Financial) Effectiveness
(Clients and Staff)...................................................................................................52
Table 7. Agreement on Mediation/Conciliation Proceedings Effectiveness
(Clients)..................................................................................................................52
Table 8. Agreement on Mediation/Conciliation Proceedings Effectiveness (Staff)
................................................................................................................................53
Table 9. Agreement on Client Needs and Satisfaction Effectiveness (Clients)......54
Table 10. Agreement on Client Needs and Satisfaction Effectiveness (Staff)........55
Table 11. Agreement on Affordable and Accessible MBCC Services Effectiveness
(Clients)..................................................................................................................55
Table 12. Agreement on Affordable and Accessible MBCC Services Effectiveness
(Staff)......................................................................................................................56
Table 13. Agreement on Public Trust and Confidence Effectiveness (Clients)......57
Table 14. Agreement on Public Trust and Confidence Effectiveness (Staff)..........58
Table 15. Agreement on Management and Leadership Efficiency (Clients)..........59
Table 16. Agreement on Management and Leadership Efficiency (Staff)..............59
Table 17. Agreement on Planning and Policies Efficiency (Clients and Staff)......60
Table 18. Agreement on Resources (Human, Material, and Financial) Efficiency
(Clients)..................................................................................................................61
Table 19. Agreement on Resources (Human, Material, and Financial) Efficiency
(Staff)......................................................................................................................62
Table 20. Affordable and Accessible MBCC Services Efficiency (Clients)............63
Table 21. Affordable and Accessible MBCC Services Efficiency (Staff)................64
Table 22. Public Trust and Confidence Efficiency (Clients and Staff)...................65
Table 23. Management and Leadership Overall Effectiveness..............................66
Table 24. Planning and Policies Overall Effectiveness.........................................66

Table 25. Resources (Human, Material, and Financial) Overall Effectiveness....67
Table 26. Mediation/Conciliation Proceedings Overall Effectiveness..................67
Table 27. Client Needs and Satisfaction Overall Effectiveness.............................68
Table 28. Affordable and Accessible Services Overall Effectiveness.....................68
Table 29. Public Trust and Confidence Overall Effectiveness Public Trust and
Confidence Overall Effectiveness...........................................................................69
Table 30. Overall Effectiveness..............................................................................69
Table 31. Management and Leadership Overall Efficiency...................................70
Table 32. Planning and Policies Overall Efficiency..............................................70
Table 33. Resources (Human, Material, and Financial) Overall Efficiency.........71
Table 34. Mediation/Conciliation Proceedings Overall Efficiency.......................71
Table 35. Client Needs and Satisfaction Overall Efficiency..................................72
Table 36. Affordable and Accessible Services Overall Efficiency.........................72
Table 37. Public Trust and Confidence Overall Efficiency....................................72
Table 38. Overall Efficiency...................................................................................73

CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
The mountainous province of Kalinga used to be known for tribal warfare
and revenge (Tandoc, 2009). During the olden days, conflicts in Kalinga were
resolved through physical atrocities; a tribe would rather go to war than to
surrender a criminal that belongs to their tribe. It led to the decline of not only the
province’s economic productivity, but also of its governing peace. The Matagoan
Bodong Consultative Council, anOF

UNIVERSITY institutionalized
SANTO TOMAS peace program of the
GRADUATE province,
SCHOOL PAGE
is regarded for resolving conflicts and restoring harmonious co-existence among
Kalinga tribesmen (Estanislao, 2011). Certainly, it helps Kalinga maintain its
“Matagoan” or “peaceful zone” appropriation.
The MBCC traces back its roots from the Kalinga practice of Bodong.
Later on, it merged with the Matagoan Council that strives for peace in the
Kalinga community. The remodeling of the two traditional practices brought about
the MBCC, employing existing customs, practices, and beliefs of the native
residents in resolving tribal disputes (Estanislao, 2011). As a matter of fact, it has
won the Galing Pook Award in 2009 for resolving thirty-three (33) of thirty-five
(35) tribal wars in Kalinga from 2002 to 2007.

Ten years later, the MBCC indigenous justice system resolves an average
of fifty (50) cases a year. Moreover, the MBCC is now open even to non-
binodngans or non-indigenous people living in the locality. Thus, the MBCC
expanded into a wider avenue for amicable settlement among all the people of
Kalinga.
A problem, however, poses in the reality that the MBCC has not used a
standard of assessing its management’s effectiveness and efficiency over the
years, especially for the past eight years since its outstanding award. Hence, the
researchers in this study would like to evaluate the degree or “where” the MBCC
currently is, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The underlying principles of

the International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE) comes out as fitting to
the adaptation of an assessment survey that could be modified to render it suitable
for the setting of such court.
In an interview with Secretariat for IFCE Liz Richardson, the researchers
were told that IFCE is a quality management framework that has been developed
specifically for courts, by courts. In addition, the mediation/conciliation council
such as the MBCC could likewise use the standard with modifications.
In another interview with the Office of the Court Administrator of the
Philippines, responsible for assessing Philippine courts, the office confirmed that
it seeks into implementing the IFCE to Philippines courts by year 2022. The office
commends the globally-renowned IFCE and agrees that the framework’s
underlying principles could well be used in assessing the MBCC.
The MBCC has been of wide acceptance in the province of Kalinga. To
have a wider view of MBCC’s effectiveness and it efficiency, the researchers have
decided to include as respondents both its staff and its clients. The levels of
agreement of the clients and of the staff will determine the effectiveness and the
efficiency of the council.
1.2 Theoretical Framework
Figure 1
The Theoretical Framework is composed of Richardson’s Framework for
court excellence as it is divided into seven areas these seven which can be
dissected and segregated based on their effectiveness and efficiency to make
assessing their excellence quantifiable. The Framework suggests that there are
seven areas of the court that can be used to measure court excellence, adapting
principles of management and putting them in the study of law, efficiency and
effectiveness can be used as the determinant for the difference of each seven areas
and also as a tool to be able to segregate them.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.3.A Main Objective
To assess, based from the perception of the clients and the staff, the overall
effectiveness and the overall efficiency of the MBCC in the seven areas of court
excellence using the underlying principles of the IFCE
1.3.B Specific Objectives

1. To assess the effectiveness of the performance and management of the MBCC
A. To determine if there is a significant difference between the perception
of the staff and that of the clients to such effectiveness
B. To determine which area of performance and management MBCC is
most effective at
B.1 In the perception of clients
B.2 In the perception of the staff
C. To determine which area of performance and management MBCC is
least effective at
C.1 In the perception of clients
C.2 In the perception of the staff

2. To assess the efficiency of the performance and management of the MBCC
A. To determine if there is a significant difference between the perception
of the staff and that of the clients to such efficiency
B. To determine which area of performance and management MBCC is
most efficient at
B.1 In the perception of clients
B.2. In the perception of the staff
C. To determine which area of performance and management MBCC is
least efficient at
C.1 In the perception of clients

1.4 Statement of the Problem
The researchers of the study came upon the following questions to be
answered at the end of the study:
1. Is the performance and management of the MBCC overall effective in the seven
areas of court excellence?
A. Is there a significant difference between the perception of the clients
and that of the staff as to the effectiveness of the performance and
management of the MBCC?

B. In which area of court excellence is the MBCC’s performance and
management most effective?
B.2 In the perception of the clients
C. In which area of court excellence is the performance and management
of the MBCC least effective?
C.1 In the perception of the clients

2. Is the performance and management of the MBCC overall efficient in the seven
areas of court excellence?
A. Is there a significant difference between the perception of the clients
and that of the staff as to the efficiency of the performance and
maangement of the MBCC?
B. In which area of court excellence is the performance and management
of the MBCC most efficient?
B.1 In the perception of the clients

C. In which area of court excellence is the performance and management
of the MBCC least efficient?
C.1 In the perception of the clients
1.5 Significance of the Study
Despite many years of being of service to the Kalinga community,
MBCC’s quality performance and management has never been assessed. The
study is useful for the determination of the overall effectiveness and efficiency of
the areas of court excellence as sustained in the MBCC. The output of the study
can help MBCC determine which of its areas need improvement for better
administration of justice. The MBCC can use the study to help improve how they
handle their court. In addition the results of the study can continue helping the
MBCC for a long time, since it can be modified. It can help the tribes in Kalinga
by assuring them that the justice being served to them, is a justice that is proven to
be excellent. To preserve the Kalinga culture by improving their traditional way of
settling disputes.
1.6 Scope and Limitation
The study is to be conducted among 45 employees—mediators, staff—of
MBCC including its clients during the month of January during the second
semester of academic year 2017.
The respondents are employees and clients of MBCC who are likely well-
acquainted with court management. The survey is self-assessment because it is
what the IFCE requires, and since they qualify as staff of MBCC. The respondents
will also include clients because they got to experience the quality of service that
the MBCC offers.
The limitation of the study is that the findings will be limited to the
respondents’ perspectives.
1.7 Definition of Terms
 Bodong. It is an institution, literally translated as peace pact, established
purposely to maintain peace and harmony as well as to establish
relationships and alliances between and among people covered by it. It also
provides mechanisms for settlement of disputes arising from violations of
the Pagta of the Bodong.
 ITabuk. A person who is a binodngan, a Kalinga, or other ethnic group
living permanently in the City of Tabuk.
 Pagta. The law of the Bodong. It contains specific provisions and
corresponding penalties for violation of such.

 International Framework for Court Excellence. The goal of the
Consortium’s effort has been the development of a framework of values,
concepts, and tools by which courts worldwide can voluntarily assess and
improve the quality of justice and court administration they deliver.
 Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC). This refers to the
mandated peace core that initiates and formulates cultural policies/rules
instituting the resolutions covering tribal disputes/ conflicts and ensuring
peace and order. It is also empowered to recommend programs for ethnic,
cultural and social integration of Tabuk City society.
 Effectiveness. Doing the right things and are measured by results, its goals
are to decrease work and to increase client satisfaction.
 Efficiency. Doing the right things in a speedy manner and is aimed at
reducing the use of resources in order to maximize return.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Overview
The assessment of the MBCC using the underlying principles of the
IFCE as standard have various studies relating to the subject matter that have been
conducted before it. The MBCC has never been assessed through a quality
management framework. The underlying principles of the IFCE has proven to be
effective in measuring court excellence. Previous studies have shown that court
management can be measured based on their effectiveness and efficiency
Studies regarding the IFCE have been previously conducted like the “The
International Framework for Court Excellence and therapeutic jurisprudence:
Creating excellent courts and enhancing well-being.”

Although, the MBCC is a mediation council and not a court the IFCE can
still be used as a tool to measure its excellence since it can be modified to fit the
standard of the court or anything that acts as a court.
2.2 Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC)
Matagoan is coined from two terms “tago” which means person or human
being and “matago” which means to live. It started as the Matagoan Council of
Tabuk in the year 2001. It was reorganized and turned into the Matagoan Bodong
Council in the year 2003. In 2005, the Matagoan Consultative Body was formed.
Later on, the Matagoan BodongOF

UNIVERSITY Council
SANTO and the Matagoan
TOMAS Consultative
GRADUATE SCHOOL Body PAGE
merged in order to form the Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC),
which was institutionalized in 2011 by Ordinance No.03 Series of 2011. Before
the MBCC was formed, common crimes used to be prevalent and so it triggered
tribal wars. Occurrences of land grabbing and squatting happened commonly
(“Galing Pook”, 2009). Bodong is a peace pact that evolved from the customs and
traditions of Kalinga. Disclosed in it is the people’s cultural identity, the heritage
and integrity that continuously developed with the passing of time (CBNasia,
2015).
2.2.A Principles and policies (Article III)

The ITabuk Code of Laws, commonly known as the Pagta, is the law of the
Bodong created and ratified by the ITabuk Congress that applies to all ITabuk
regardless of creed, status, race, ethnic origin and station in life, ideological and
filial relationship. Nevertheless, as it should be, it adheres to the rule of law.
The Pagta contains a few principles and policies that aim to promote peace and
order and guarantee the welfare, safety and interest of the ITabuk. Unlike the old
practice of the Kalinga people, the Pagta strictly prohibits revenge. Violations of
the Pagta may be brought to the Barangay Lupon, to the Bodong concerned, to the
Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC) or to the Regular Court. Parties
may avail of judicial remedies simultaneously before the court and the Matagoan
Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC).
The Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC) exerts all efforts for
the speedy resolution of dispute brought before them. Death, physical injuries and
damage to property resulting from accident are settled amicably at the MBCC. In
addition, the MBCC takes jurisdiction of any complaint upon endorsement of the
Barangay Captain, of the Peace Pact Holder, upon personal request or upon
referral by proper authority. It integrates equal treatment in the imposition of fines
and penalties; no excessive fines are imposed. It does not settle cases involving the
same party who violates the Pagta twice. Cases are not settled as well unless the
respondent surrenders or is arrested by the authorities. Lastly, when the agreed

amount of indemnity and other terms of the settlement are fully complied with, an
affidavit of desistance is executed and signed by the complainant.(Source)
2.2.B Duties and functions (Article IV)
The MBCC is tasked to receive and settle complaints upon
endorsement by the Lupon Chairman, Bodong Holders or upon referral by the
proper authority; or to act on the request for mediation and conciliation of any
interested party. It enforces its decisions in accordance with the Pagta. Part of its
role due to being institutionalized is to act upon requests for financial assistance
and/ or documentation of the Dornat, or warming up of bodong, or Inum, or the

conduct of new bodong. In addition, MBCC’s cultural roles include preserving
and maintaining ITabuk Culture; and restoring the harmonious relationship of the
conflicting parties after the settlement of the case in accordance to cultural
practices. Meanwhile, its performance and management roles include capability
building of the MBCC members and Bodong Holders and Information
Educational Campaign (IEC) of the Pagta—programs, activities and projects
executed for the development of economy, health, education, and peace and order,
specially directed to the youth who are branded as the common offenders. In
summary, the MBCC functions to effectively and efficiently implement the Pagta
by serving as peacemaker to all conflicts or disputes between and among ITabuk.
(Source)
2.2.C Procedure for settlement (Article XIV)
2.2.C.a Violation of ITabuk Pagta
When an ITabuk violates any provision of the Pagta, a procedure is
followed for settlement. The offended party has the option to report the violation
to the MBCC, Bodong Holder or to the Police. Upon receipt of proper
endorsement by the Lupon Chairman, Bodong Holders, upon referral by the
proper authority, or upon request of any interested party, the MBCC notifies the
respondent within a reasonable period of time. The conciliation, negotiation, and
mediation occur within a period of thirty (30) days. As for cases involving
difficult issues, it is calendared for additional thirty (30) days. (Source)
2.2.C.b Violation of ITabuk Pagta and existing bilateral pagta
Unlike the procedure mentioned above, in cases of violation of the ITabuk
Pagta and of an existing bilateral pagta, the offended party first reports the
violation to the bodong holder. The bodong holder of the aggrieved party refers
the case to his kasupang, the bodong holder of the other sub-tribe, by sending a
written notice of the violation with a narration of the facts of the case. Upon
receipt of the written notice, the bodong holder immediately investigates and
works on the settlement of the case. If no settlement is reached, the bodong holder
informs his kasupang of the non-settlement of the violation. Upon receiving the
notice of non-settlement, the aggrieved party is given the option to go to court, the
MBCC, the Lupong Tagapamayapa, or to any government agency. In case the
violation remains unsettled in the hands of the previously mentioned, a certificate
of non-settlement is issued and sent to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for the issuance
of a certificate to file action.(Source)
2.2.C.c Enforcement of settlement agreements
The Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC) primarily enforces
all amicable settlements pursuant to the Pagta. Should enforcements fail, the
MBCC sends the settlement agreement to the Lupon concerned in accordance with
the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. (Source)

2.3 International Framework for Court Excellence
A consortium of courts and court-related organizations like the Australian
Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA), The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) in
the United States and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in the United
States and the State Courts of Singapore came together to come up with the
International Framework for Court Excellence during the year 2006. This
framework’s objective is to supply courts and tribunals with an organized way of
analyzing existing court processes, policies and systems in order to identify which
areas need improvement and innovation.
The framework was developed with the aid and direct involvement of
judicial officers and court and justice administrators. It is a tool used to check the
court’s performance internally as court staffs and administrators themselves
answer the surveys, they rate their own performance in a checklist. (Richardson,
Spencer & Wexler 2016)
These seven areas can be assessed on either efficiency or effectiveness, the
subsections of these areas can be dissected and will then translate as a variable for
measurement on whether it contributes to the court’s effectiveness or efficiency.
2.3.A Purpose of the framework
The Framework is represented as a means to assess a court’s performance
within seven detailed areas of court excellence. It is also capable of providing a

fair guidance for courts in order for them to enhance their performance.
Specifically designed for use by courts, its model methodology is for continuous
evaluation and organizational improvement while determining the special needs
and issues that confront courts (Keillitz, Glanfield & Hall, 2016).
What sets the Framework apart from all the other measures used
worldwide in assessing court performance is its holistic approach. It does not limit
the aspects of court activity and of performance measures.
The Consortium developed the Framework due to the lack, absence and
inadequacy of court-specific frameworks in bench-marking measuring
performance system at both the international and national level. It is the result of
an international attempt to create a process for achieving court excellence

regardless of the location or size of a court or the resources or technology
available to it (National Center for State Courts, 2008). Thus, it is designed to be
utilized and equally effective in all courts--sophisticated large urban courts and
smaller rural or remote courts.
2.3.B Applying the framework to courts
The Framework applies to bodies referred to as courts, tribunals,
commissions, committees and similarly named bodies. Courts play a fundamental
role in the everyday lives of citizens, enterprises and governments. They create
and sustain a rule of law that organizes peoples' lives. The court is a neutral and
credible place for people who do away from the rule of law—criminal, civil and
specialized. Thus, "court" in the International Framework for Court Excellence
denotes all the bodies that are part of a country's formal court system.
The Framework covers both adjudicative and non-adjudicative functions.
As to the latter, Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) such as mediation,
conciliation, or arbitration are encouraged by the IFCE because it reduces
workloads of judges if conducted by non-judicial personnel outside the court's
auspices. Furthermore, it adds to the satisfaction of court users as it develops
fuller participation and privacy. Private firms promoting ADR do not however fall
within the sphere of the Framework.

Irrespective of the legal culture, specialization level, types of judicial
officers and involvement of citizens in the process, the International Framework
for Court Excellence applies to all courts including Alternative Dispute Resolution
(National Center for State Courts, 2008).
2.3.C Benefits of adopting the framework
A sound justice system enables positive economic growth and healthy
social development (National Center for State Courts, 2008). Despite the diversity
of political, economic, and legal systems, the special role of courts is recognized
throughout the world. To fulfill such function, it is then imperative for the
Framework to ensure a high-level community confidence in courts; which is done
by reviewing court procedures, assessment, and performance on a regular basis.
Court independence and public accountability are established upon the
adoption of the framework. These will enable the court to set up its legal and
organizational boundaries in monitoring and controlling its operations, and in
accounting publicly for its performance.
2.3.D Court values embodied in the framework
In order for a court to implement quality improvement methodologies, it
must first determine its distinctive roles and values. Among the most important
values for the court to carry out its role are: equality before the law, fairness, and
impartiality, independence of decision-making, competence, integrity,
transparency, accessibility, timeliness and certainty. These values provide an
avenue for the proper functioning of courts.
The conduct of court revolves around fairness and impartiality in the
judicial process, as well as in the decision of the judge. Such decision-making by
the judge must be independent or based solely on his thorough knowledge and
understanding of the law and the facts of the case. Integrity involves the
transparency and propriety of the process, the decision and the decision-maker.
Justice must not only be done but rather be seen (Sharman, 1996). Accessibility
encompasses easily gaining information, less expensive costs of availing the court
services, and effective use of court facilities. Timeliness implies the balance
between the time required to obtain a decision and the guarantee of certainty that a
right decision will be reached. These values have been derived from specific
provisions of the law and international treaties; and are properly adhered to by the
citizens when made explicit and public. A shared understanding of these values
gives the court an organizational direction.

2.3.E Seven Areas of Court Excellence
2.3.E.a Court management and leadership
Leadership structures should be frequently analyzed, tested, and re-
examined. Maintaining flexibility while retaining consistency in response to the
constantly changing requirements placed upon the courts is essential.
The purposes and responsibilities of courts provide the goal, the cause, and
the justification for the other nine Core Competencies. Purposes legitimizes the
exercise of Leadership, provides information for Visioning and Strategic Planning,
and gives orientation to the practice of Caseflow Management and the other six
more technical competencies.

Leadership energizes court system and court accomplishment. Effective
leadership is observable and, it could be easily learned to a significant extent.
Organizational leadership that requires to promote a professional and proactive
management culture, pursues innovation and is accountable and open (Gray &
Preston, 2016).
Caseflow Management is the process by which courts fulfill their primary
function: to move cases from filing to disposition. Included are all pre-trial phases,
trials, and increasingly, events, which follow disposition to secure the integrity of
court orders and on time completion of post-disposition case activity. Caseflow
Management is the core of court management, it is an avenue for mediators to

receive procedural due process and equal protection (Caseflow Management,
n.d.).
Visions are inspirational snapshots of the future. They look forward and
reach back to core values: the ends of justice and service and the means of judicial
independence, substantive and procedural due process, equal protection, open
access, and the fair and efficient application of the law to the facts. Visioning
invites court leaders, their justice partners, and the community, first to imagine
and then to deliver the future they prefer. Strategic planning is a process—
involving principles, methods and tools—to help court leaders decide what to do,
and how and when to do it. The strategic planning process is directional and
linear. Strategic planning translates vision into plans and action (Bertran, 2009).
2.3.E.b Court planning and policies
Strategic planning in courts is the process of systematically pointing out
the organization’s fundamental purpose, to come up with a desirable future, to
make visions into goals, to come up with objectives so that goals will be achieved,
and then to restructure the organization, to have the employees be trained, to put in
resources, to come up with policies, and to redesign technology, so that the
objectives will be reached (Kiefer, 2016).
In a study conducted by the Institute for Court it was concluded that
strategic planning is an effective tool for courts; however it is obvious that courts
do not necessarily have to utilize formal strategic planning in order to succeed.
First, court–related social trends need to be forecast and their implications defined.
Then, alternative scenarios of the future must be created that are “compilations of
trends which present differing images of the future.” Once major trends are
identified and alternatives for the future are postulated, the next step is to envision
an ideal future institution.
Courts should have a genuine desire to improve their performance to
adjudicate cases, to deliver court services, and be accountable to the public, based
on fundamental principles, a sense of urgency, and a focus on dramatically
reinventing the overall system. The external theme was advanced with the
warning: “To kindle trust and confidence and adequate funding, a high performing
court engages in a vigorous campaign to organize and mobilize its partners in the
justice system. Attention to improved performance by a court has tangible benefits
for partners who use the courts. High performing courts remind the Bar as well as
the external supporters and advocates of new calendars and practices, of how a
well–managed court facilitates and enables them to present and enforce their
clients’ interests and rights–and to enjoy substantial remuneration in retained
cases. Partners in the justice system are in a position to amplify and corroborate
the leadership role required when a court makes a serious commitment to high
performance” (Ostrom, Hanson, 2010).
Education, Training and Development can aid courts to improve the

performance of court and justice system and meet their desired future. The goal of
education, training and development programs is to let judges and court staff
especially those in and hope for leadership positions and many others on that the
court depend on, inside and outside the courts.
2.3.E.c Court resources (human, material and financial)
Just like persons having hierarchy of needs, courts have certain basic needs
and functions that must be performed if they wish to operate effectively and fulfill
their mission. Upon the satisfaction of such needs, courts can start effecting new
programs, improved operations, and more community outreach. If budgets are cut,
courts revert back to their mission until they can again start enhancing their funds
(Aikman, 2006). Thus, defining their priorities is an inceptive step for them. This
is in line with taking into account the development and changing needs of court
users and of the society (National Center for State Courts, 2008).
Performance of courts in developing countries relies solely on human
resources because judiciaries depend very much on individual contributions
(Beardsley, 2010). As a result, excellent courts nurture the professional values of
its employees by establishing objective workload models. Moreover, systems for
the stimulation of knowledge sharing and improvement of relevant knowledge
such as continuing training and professional education are instituted to provide a
good working climate and high level of satisfaction of personnel.

For positive performance and quality services delivered by the court,
material resources or facilities and equipment must be sufficient and well
managed by the staff. It is expected that there must be enough room for the
proceedings, as well as for storing documents. In addition, up-to-date computers
and the necessary software applications for the proper functioning of the court are
necessary for courts to catch up with the dynamic technological society (National
Center for State Courts, 2008).
Information Technology can help all courts do what they do faster,
cheaper, and better. Computerization gives way to courts to give away justice in
the face of growing demand for efficient and immediate service; grave changes in
people’s mobility and the social, political, and economic environment; and
expanded caseload volume and complexity. Court leaders who effectively manage
Information Technology know about its limits and the challenges that come along
with it. They also know if its expectations are met, Information Technology is a
huge improvement to the court and justice system operations.
It is necessary for a court to have good people, people who are competent,
up to date, professional, ethical, and committed. Effective Human Resource
Management not only aids performance, but also boosts morale, employee
perceptions of equality, and dignity.
The distribution, procurement, and administration of the court’s budget
affects every court operation and, measures how well, and even determines
whether or not, courts achieve their mission. Resources are usually not enough to
provide funds for everything of value the courts or any other organization might
do.
Courts and judges do more than just considering pieces of evidence
provided by the parties, rule on motions, and decide cases on the merits. Courts
must carry and utilize this information as well as manage other Essential
Components, which vary from the relatively dull such as court security, a
courtroom, clerk and reporter, to the urbane such as child custody evaluations,
legal research staff, and indigent defense. These and other services, programs, and
infrastructure not dealt with by the other core competencies constitute the court’s
Essential Components.It is understood by effective court leaders that the court’s
Essential Components, irregardless of who owns formal authority over then, will
work to make sure that the court’s Essential Components are well managed
(Steelman, 2008).
Lastly, the sound financial management of excellent courts reflects its
effective budgeting and fiscal management that are based on relevantly
documented needs.
2.3.E.d Court proceedings
A committed court, utilizing case management techniques, can control the
pace of litigation and improve case processing times (Sipes, 1980). It is necessary
for courts to regularly monitor and identify which parts of the court proceeding
need be improved especially to matters concerning timeliness and role distribution
among the judges and the employees--the mediators and the office staff in our
case.
Courts improve its chances of significantly affecting case processing by
adopting standards and policies of the IFCE to control case load. The Framework
comprises of time standards, effective case scheduling methods, judge's active role
in time management, limitations in the postponement of mediations, and the
practice of other case management methods, as well as expeditious resolution of
cases. In compliance with the aforementioned, the mediators and the office staff
must set their goals, objectives, and expectations as to how long each
mediation/conciliation should take so they can implement change.
The Framework also requires a sound division of labor between mediators
and office staff. Mediators should focus on mediation/conciliation tasks including
appropriate leadership, managerial and policy work.
2.3.E.e Client needs and satisfaction
Studies show that the perceptions of those using the courts are more
influenced by how they are treated and whether the process appears fair, rather
than the whether they received favorable or non-favorable court decisions
(National Center for State Courts, 2008). Court users refer to the members of the
public and the businesses making use of the services of the courts such as the
complainants, respondents and witnesses and professional partners such as
mediators and mediation/conciliation experts. Correspondingly, it is not only the
satisfaction with the court proceedings that must be assessed but also how the
complainants, respondents, and witnesses have been treated by the court staff; the
perceived expertise of the mediators and staff; and the fairness and
understandability or court procedures and decisions.
If the courts are capable of being accessible, open, responsive, affordable,
timely, and understandable, courts must learn from and educate the public. To
interact effectively with their many publics, court leaders must understand the
media and its impact on the public’s understanding of, and satisfaction with the
courts. Understandable courts, skillful community outreach, and informed public
information improve court performance and enhance public trust and confidence
in the judiciary.
2.3.E.f Affordable and accessible court services
Court fees should not prevent court users from accessing judicial process,
cumbersome procedures and requirements, and basic information. They must be
readily available at low or no cost. Physical access must also be easy and
comfortable. Public visitors must easily reach the clearly displayed central
information point of courtrooms. Safety must be guaranteed as well, but not to the
point as to prevent the litigants from feeling comfortable. Additionally, a high
virtual accessibility through court websites must enable self-represented court
users to navigate court information—general information on the court, court
proceedings, and court fees—electronic filing, and use of live-streaming in order
for them to keep up with the progress of cases. They must also be able to
download, register and transfer online the documents to the courts and retrieve
back information too.
Excellent courts offer linguistic access for those not fluent in the language
used in the proceedings and for those with hearing and vision disabilities. Basic
information about court processes must also be available in the commonly spoken
languages of the community. Competent interpreters with ethical responsibilities,
well equipped with the constraints of court interpretation, must be available in
both courtroom and registry counter.
Financial barriers to judicial processes are limited by fixing fees at a
reasonable level, waiving of fees for indigents and working with agencies and
organizations to ensure the availability and affordability of legal services and legal
assistance.
2.3.E.g Public trust and confidence
It is important for court to maintain public trust and confidence, it is
integral to the credibility of the judicial branch. It is the court’s duty to resolve
disputes and through this public trust is established and nurtured. It must appear to
be just. The public’s perception of the court is largely formed by the experiences
of individual parties in individual cases, all looking to the court for quick and just
resolution of their disputes. Court leaders help promote and maintain public trust
and confidence by creating organizational cultures that foster integrity,
transparency and accountability for court processes and operations (National
Center for State Courts, 2008).
2.3.F Continuous improvement process
The framework is not fullyOF

UNIVERSITY finished
SANTO as TOMAS
it is continuously
GRADUATE improving
SCHOOLinstead PAGE
of having one off effort to reform the framework, it continuously provides ways to
improve its performance after reviewing it. Involving judges, administrators, other
court employees, stakeholders and the broader community, the process is
participatory. The first step is to assess, self-assessment using the seven areas of
court excellence. The second step is to plan, to deeply analyze the results of the
assessment and identify areas that need improvement in order to develop an
improvement plan. The third step is to implement the improvement plan. The last
step is to evaluate, to review and refine then monitor the areas that have been
improved. The steps are repeated continuously in order to determine which areas
need improvement (Richardson, Spencer & Wexler 2016). The framework’s
methodology is intended for continuous improvement and evaluation. Through the

implementation of the framework, a court not only identifies which area it
performs well in and which area it has had shortfalls (Gray & Preston 2016).
2.3.G IFCE in the Philippines
An interview was conducted with the Office of the Court Administrator.
According to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Philippines
representative Atty. Megan Musni, the Philippine courts have not yet fully adapted
the IFCE. The Philippine courts currently use Specific Performance Management
System (SPMS) set by the Civil Service Commission of the Philippines in
assessing the individual performances

UNIVERSITY of court
OF SANTO TOMAS staff, which are SCHOOL
GRADUATE usually for PAGE
promotion purposes. However, the OCA has already conducted in March 2017
seminars in the Philippines that educated courts about using the IFCE and the
OCA’s plans to implement it to courts by year 2022. In other words, the IFCE is
set to change or substitute the current SPMS used by the OCA in assessing
individual performances of court staff.
Even though the MBCC is not a formal court, it could still use the
principles of the IFCE as it has already been renowned globally for being a
cornerstone to court effectiveness and efficiency, as per IFCE Secretariat Liz
Richardson and OCA representative Atty. Megan Musni.

2.4 Effectiveness and Efficiency
The difference between effectiveness and efficiency can be summed up by
the definition that effectiveness is about doing the right things while efficiency is
about doing things right. Efficiency is usually what is to be improved (Goh, 2013).
Strategic decisions that help strengthen efficiency tend to be aimed at reducing the
use of resources through maximizing return. Any action taken to lessen inventory
waste, for example, would be a strategic decision whose goal is greater
efficiency. Management effectiveness can be measured by results. Goals such as
decreasing case backlogs and increasing client satisfaction come under the
heading of management effectiveness. This is how you measure whether

management decisions are actually improving court management performance
(Johnston, 2015).
2.4.A Court management effectiveness
A court is considered effective if its court dockets are not congested and it
reduces court delays. Court management is effective when it is able to resolve
disputes with due process in due time. Effective court management means
producing outstanding results. Ensures that the system of case management are
fully compliant with the policies and standards established by the IFCE.
(Hyderabad, 2017)
2.4.B Court management efficiency
The effective use of court management will then lead to the efficiency of
court management. Court management efficiency means getting maximum results
with minimum efforts. Court management efficiency means to always check on
caseloads and trends and to point out problems that are contributing to the delay in
the trial. To ensure that processes and procedures of the court (including for filing,
scheduling, and conduct of conciliation, access to information and documents and
grievance redressal) are fully compliant with the policies and standards established
by the IFCE (Hyderabad, 2017).
2.5 Summary
The Framework is based on two key factors for court excellence—
management and measurement. Clearly, the two involve human resource as
judiciaries are dependent on human personnel. Court values are constitutionally
granted such as equality before the law, fairness, impartiality and independence of
decision-making, competence and integrity of the judge, transparency of changes
and progress, most especially accessibility of court documents in the office and
online. The timeliness and certainty of the decision follow after such.
The seven areas of the framework can be divided into both effectiveness
and efficiency. The areas that are measured for its effectiveness are measured on
how the MBCC performs. On the other hand, efficiency is measured based on how
the MBCC performs.
Seven areas for court excellence involve court management and leadership,
court policies, human, material and financial resources, court proceedings, client
needs and satisfaction, affordable and accessible court services, and public trust
and confidence. These can be dissected and the parts determined can be viewed
whether it tests the effectiveness of efficiency of court management.
An excellent court performance and quality is a result of the incorporation
of the court values in the seven areas for court excellence. The IFCE is a perfect
fit to measure a court’s excellence since it can be modified in order to fit a certain
court’s setting. Hence it can also be applied to the MBCC even if the MBCC is a
mediation council.
2.6 Synthesis of the Study
A peaceful society is a consequence of having a rule of law that is
grounded on equity. It is the very reason of the people’s adherence. In relation, the
court plays a special function in establishing a peaceful society, becoming the
place, for resolving disputes; and subjecting violators to punishment that is due to
them, or in better terms, programs for rehabilitation. This engenders the necessity
to better the performance and management of courts for the sake of society itself.
Court values build the principles and conduct of a court, sufficient enough
to raise its court’s standards. Utilizing the seven areas to see which aspect of court
management lacks in the MBCC, in order to know which areas to improve or to
hone. Justice delayed is justice denied and so, using the seven areas of court
excellence, will insure that it will guide the court to the achievement of speedy
trial with just results.
Fairness and equality is the backbone of the law, impartiality in decision-
making and in offering court services, renders the court decisions irrelevant. It is
important for courts to maintain their public trust and confidence in them. Various
studies have backed the theory that the seven aspects of court excellence are what
needs to be focused on in order to know which aspects to improve and which
aspects to hone.
The study can be better understood if viewed piece by piece, measuring the
excellence of the MBCC using the underlying principles of the IFCE dissecting
them and then determining which parts contribute to the effectiveness or
efficiency of the council.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS PAGE
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Research Design
A quantitative descriptive comparative research design is employed in the
study. The researchers used a quantitative descriptive approach to describe
systematically and accurately the performance and management characteristics of
the MBCC and to portray the overall level of agreement of the respondents as to
the council’s effectiveness and efficiency. In addition, the respondents—the
clients and the staff—of the statistic were similar in some respect yet they also
vary in some respect. Hence, the researchers utilized a comparative research
design to figure out the differences in the level of agreement between the two
groups of respondents.
3.2 Sample Size and Sampling Design
Purposive or judgment sampling is utilized in this research. Following a set
of criteria, which are as follows: must be a staff and clients of the MBCC.
The researchers selected the sample based on their knowledge about the
study and the population. The participants were selected for being most likely to
give the necessary information as regards to the study—the effectiveness and the
efficiency of the MBCC.
The International Framework for Court Excellence encourages as many

staff as possible to involve themselves in the assessment process or the survey. In
compliance with IFCE's requirement, a total of 18 out of 18 staff members of the
MBCC were needed to gather information from every entity in the population of
the staff. In the case of the clients, MBCC mediates and conciliates an average of
45-50 clients annually. However, only 47 client-respondents have been surveyed.
The sample size of the participants will yield an accurate and detailed data
collection in drawing conclusions for the whole population.
3.3 Research Instrument
The quantitative descriptive comparative survey is used as research
instrument for both the clients and the staff. The research instrument is based from
the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) Philippines version of the IFCE
assessment survey, which categorizes the items according to the seven areas of
court excellence and employs the Likert Scale of Ageement for answering. Its
portions were modified to adapt to MBCC’s mediation/conciliation setting.
3.4 Data Gathering Procedure
The survey was conducted on February 6-8 of year 2018 in the province of
Kalinga. Beforehand, the researchers asked the MBCC to provide a complete list
of its staff and of its previous clients. On the first day of the researchers’ stay in
Kalinga, all the members of the staff including the mediators answered the survey.
As for the clients and due to time constraint, only 47 of an average 45-50 clients
annually of the MBCC have been surveyed.
On the second and third days, the researchers, together with the MBCC
head and one staff, drove around the province of Kalinga to distribute the surveys
to the home of each of the 47 clients. For the clients who were absent during the
researchers’ visit, the surveys were left in their residence, with the family member
present being instructed of the researchers’ collection of the survey the next day.
The following week, the data from the surveys were inputted in Microsoft
Excel then was alter submitted to the statistician for analysis. Unfortunately, the
statistician gave the results three weeks later. The researchers then resorted to
another statistician and were luckily attended to.
3.5 Data Analysis
3.5.A Grouping of items
Prior to analyzing the data, the researchers identified which items of each
area of excellence of the survey pertained to the council’s effectiveness and
efficiency.
3.5.A Statistical Tools

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) is utilized in the
study, which made use of few statistical tools for the analysis of data. The
Independent t-test analysis is used to compare the means of two independent

groups—the clients and the staff—in order to determine whether there is statistical
evidence that the associated population means are significantly different.
Meanwhile, the means compared in the previously mentioned is a measure of
central tendency that refers to the average of the respondents’ answers. Lastly,
Measures of Variation (SD) is used to describe the distribution of data; the lesser
the value, the closer are the respondents’ level of agreement.

CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the results derived from the survey conducted
involving respondents coming from the different tribes in the province of Kalinga
who have been clients and are staff of the Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council
(MBCC). The following tables and figures representing the results are interpreted
to come up with the level of effectiveness and of efficiency of the council based
from the perspectives of the clients and of the staff. Statistical tools have been
used for the proper handling of data.
4.1 Presentation of Data
4.1.A Demographic Profiles (Clients)
Sub-tribe/ Tribe Frequency Valid Percent

Igorot 5 10.6
Ilocano 2 4.2
Bago 2 4.2
Tobog 1 2.1
Lubo—Kalinga 2 4.2
Biga—Kalinga 1 2.1
Tinglayan—Kalinga 1 2.1
Tanglag—Kalinga 1 2.1
Nanong—Kalinga 2 4.2
Taloctore—Kalinga 1 2.1
Aciga—Kalinga 1 2.1
Maducayan—Kalinga 3 6.3
Dacalao—Kalinga 1 2.1
Butbut—Kalinga 2 4.2
Banao—Kalinga 1 2.1
Colninga--Kalinga 1 2.1
Guilayon—Kalinga 1 2.1
Dao-gas—Kalinga 1 2.1
Kalinga 3 6.3
No Answer 15 31.9
Total 47 100
Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Clients by Tribe/Sub-tribe
Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage of distribution of clients
based on their tribes or sub-tribes. There are a total of 47 respondents. 48.3% of
the respondents are from the Kalinga tribe such as Lubo, Biga, Tinglayan,
Tanglag, Nanong, Taloctore, Aciga, Maducayan, Dacalao, Butbut, Banao,
Colninga, Guilayon, Dao-gas, while 10.6% are from the Igorot tribe, 4.2% from
the Ilocano, 4.2% from the Bago, 2.1% from the Tobog, and 31.9% who chose not
to specify their tribe. From the demographics, it can be said that most of the client-
respondents are from the Kalinga tribe.
Sub-tribe/ Tribe Frequency Valid Percent

Ilocano 1 5.5
Bago 1 5.5
Ifugao 1 5.5
Guilayon—Kalinga 1 5.5
Nanong—Kalinga 5 28.5
Taloctoc—Kalinga 1 5.5
Lubuagan—Kalinga 1 5.5
Tanglag—Kalinga 1 5.5
Gamonang—Kalinga 1 5.5
Tulgao—Kalinga 1 5.5
Calacad—Kalinga 1 5.5
Pasil—Kalinga 1 5.5
Biga—Kalinga 1 5.5
Kalinga 1 5.5
Total 18 100
Table 2. Frequency Distribution of Staff by Tribe/Sub-tribe
Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage of distribution of staff by tribe
or sub-tribe. 83.5% of the 18 respondents are from the Kalinga tribe but mostly
28.5% of the Nanong sub-tribe of Kalinga, while 5.5% are from the Ilocano tribe,
5.5% from the
Bago tribe, and 5.5% from the Ifugao tribe. From the demographics, it can
be said that most of the staff-respondents are from the Kalinga tribe.
4.1.B Effectiveness and Efficiency (per item)
The items of each area of MBCC excellence have been categorized into
two—effectiveness and efficiency. Thus, the following tables have grouped
together those items pertaining to the effectiveness of the MBCC; likewise with
items pertaining to MBCC’s efficiency. The interpretation of the tables will yield
the level of agreement by the clients from those of the staff.
The value of the means have the following interpretation: 0—1.4 refer to
strong disagreement, 1.5—2.4 refer to disagreement, 2.5—3.4 refer to agreement
and 3.5—4 refer to strong agreement. The cells highlighted red have the highest
means in the category they belong to; while those highlighted green have the
lowest. In other words, the color of the highlighted cells determine if the item is
most effective and least effective, and most efficient and least efficient.
4.1.B.1 MBCC Effectiveness (Clients and Staff)
A1 A3 A4 A7 A10
Frequency 47 47 47 47 47
3.4681 3.3191 2.7447 3.3830 3.6596
Mean
.90532 .86241 1.34274 .73878 .47898
SD
Table 3. Agreement on Management and Leadership Effectiveness (Clients)
Table 3 answers the effectiveness of the factors shown under the
Management and Leadership category of the survey. Client-respondents strongly
agree (3.6596) that (A10) the MBCC is effective in developing a settlement
culture consistent with their indigenous values. The respondents also strongly
agree (3.4681) that (A1) the MBCC annually describes the objectives, roles,
functions, duties, and values it adheres to. Moreover, they agree (3.3830) that (A7)
the MBCC regularly provides information to MBCC users and the community;
agree (3.3191) that (A3) the MBCC keeps data on their performance against time
standards and targets set for case settlement/ management; and agree (2.7447) that
(A4) said consultative council holds meetings with clients at least twice each year.
A1 A3 A4 A7 A10
Frequency 18 18 18 18 18
Mean 3.8889 3.4444 2.9444 3.4444 3.6667

SD .32338 .51131 .63914 .51131 .48507
Table 4. Agreement on Management and Leadership Effectiveness (Staff)
Table 3.B answers the effectiveness of the factors shown under the
Management and Leadership category of the survey. The staff-respondents
strongly agree (3.8889) that (A1) their office report annually the objectives, roles,
functions, duties and the values they adhere to. Respondents also strongly agree
(3.6667) that (A10) their settlement culture is consistent with their indigenous
values. Moreover, they agree (3.4444) to both A3 and A7 that their office keeps
performance data against time standards and targets for case
settlement/management and holds meetings with clients at least twice each year.
Lastly, they agree (2.9444) that (A4) they regularly provide information to its
users and the community.
B3 (Clients) B4 (Clients) B3 (Staff) B4 (Staff)

Frequency 47 47 18 18
Mean 3.5532 3.2979 3.6111 3.7778
SD .71653 .74934 .50163 .42779
Table 5. Agreement on Planning and Policies Effectiveness (Clients and Staff)
Table 4 answers the effectiveness of the MBCC in its planning and
policies. Client-respondents strongly agree (3.5532) that (B3) the policies of the
MBCC supports its values, targets, and plans, while they agree (3.2979) that (B4)
MBCC publishes and disseminates via Information Education Campaign/
assembly their policies and monitor compliance. As for the staff, they strongly
agree (3.778) on B4 while they agree (3.6111) on B3. It can be said that the
clients’ and the staff’s level of agreement vary in the information dissemination
program of the MBCC. However, they both yield a positive agreement on that
matter.
C5 (Clients) C8 (Clients) C5 (Staff) C8 (Staff)

Frequency 47 47 18 18
Mean 3.3830 3.2979 3.4444 3.3333
SD .53378 .77781 .51131 .97014
Table 6. Agreement on Resources (Human, Material, and Financial)
Effectiveness (Clients and Staff)
Table 5 answers the effectiveness of the resources—human, material, and
financial—in the MBCC. Both the clients (3.3830) and the staff (3.4444) agree
that (C5) the MBCC provides mediators/conciliators with the information
necessary to make for settlements. Clients (3.2979) and staff (3.3333) agree that
that the parties in a case settlement feel safe in the MBCC’s settlement venues.
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D7 D8 D9
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Mean 3.3191 3.3830 3.5532 3.1702 3.2979 3.3191 3.3191 3.3830
SD .51526 .57306 .58267 .98509 .77781 .86241 .81043 .84835
(Clients)
Table 6 answers the effectiveness of the mediation/conciliation
proceedings of the MBCC as perceived by the clients.. The clients strongly agree
(3.5532) that (D3) the MBCC has a policy on the filing of cases, imposing of
penalties, waiver, postponement and implementation/enforcement of the
settlement. Clients also agree: (3.3830) that (D2) the MBCC manages case
settlements against those time standards of case settlement processing and meets
them; (3.3830) that (D9) the settlements by the MBCC are written clearly and
accurately; (3.3191) that (D7) the MBCC regularly reviews its processes and
procedures and (D8) keeps case settlement files complete, accurate, and able to be
retrieved quickly and maintained safely; (3.2979) that (D5) the staff, mediators
and conciliators are committed to quality of work; and (3.1702) that (D4) in case
of non-compliance, settlements are enforced.
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D7 D8 D9
N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Mean 3.1111 3.2778 3.5000 3.0556 3.3889 3.4444 3.3333 3.4444
SD .58298 .57451 .51450 .93760 .50163 .51131 .48507 .51131
(Staff)
Table 6.B answers the effectiveness of the mediation/conciliation
proceedings of the MBCC as perceived by the staff. The staff strongly agree
(3.5000) that (D3) the MBCC has a policy on the filing of cases, imposing of
settlement. They also agree (3.4444) that (D7) the MBCC regularly reviews its
processes and and procedures and that (D9) settlements are written clearly and
accurately. The staff agree (3.3889) to the (D5) commitment of the MBCC to
quality of work, (3.3333) (D8) that its records and case settlement files meet the
standard maintenance, (3.2778) (D2) that it manages case settlement processing
against the standards, and (3.1111) (D1) that the MBCC complies with the
established benchmarks of timely case settlement processing.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Mean 3.0638 3.1702 3.1277 3.0213 3.2128 3.4255 3.2979 3.5745
SD 1.11129 .98509 1.09578 1.22456 .99861 .71459 .99815 .71459
Table 9. Agreement on Client Needs and Satisfaction Effectiveness (Clients)
Table 7.A answers the effectiveness of the factors shown under the
category Client Needs and Satisfaction as perceived by the clients. Clients
(3.5745) strongly agree that (E8) MBCC listens and treats clients with respect.
Such strong agreement is supported by the clients agreeing (3.2979) that (E6) the
MBCC communicates clearly to complainants, defendants, their leaders, and
elders; which makes the clients agree (3.2979) that (E7) the MBCC’s actions are
fair and reasonable.
Clients also agree that the MBCC uses feedback (including survey, focus
groups, IECs, assembly and dialogue sessions) to measure clients’ satisfaction of
(E2) the mediators/conciliators’ capability in facilitating negotiations and

settlements (3.0213); (E3) witness and settlement proceedings (3.1277); (E1) staff
services (3.0638) and (E4) of filing of cases by office users (3.0213).
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8
n 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Mean 3.1667 3.0556 3.0000 3.0000 3.3333 3.5556 3.3889 3.6111
SD 1.09813 1.25895 1.18818 1.18818 .59409 .51131 .50163 .50163
Table 10. Agreement on Client Needs and Satisfaction Effectiveness (Staff)
Table 7.B answers the effectiveness of the category Client Needs and
Satisfaction in the survey, as perceived by the staff. The staff respondents strongly
agree (3.6111) that (E8) they listen to clients and treat them with respect. In
relation to such strong agreement, they agree (3.5556) that (E6) they communicate
clearly to complainants, defendants, leaders, and elder; and (3.3889) that (E7)
their actions are assessed by clients as fair and reasonable.
The staff agree that they use feedback (including survey, focus groups,
IECs, Assembly and dialogue sessions) to measure clients’ satisfaction of (E1)
their staff services (3.1667), (E2) the mediators/conciliators’ capability in
facilitating negotiations and settlements (3.0556), (E3) witness and settlement
proceedings (3.000), and (E4) filing of cases by office users (3.0000).

FI F6 F7 F8 F9
n 47 47 47 47 47
Mean 3.1915 3.2340 3.5532 3.4043 3.0426
SD .90020 .86509 .54408 .61360 1.02060
Table 11. Agreement on Affordable and Accessible MBCC Services
Effectiveness (Clients)
Table 8.A answers the effectiveness of the MBCC in providing affordable
and accessible services as discerned by the clients. The clients strongly agree
(3.55532) that (F7) the MBCC office is useful to clients. Subsequently, the clients
agree (3.4043) that (F8) the MBCC provides its services to the whole constituency
equally or treats everyone the same. Thus, (F6) its office becomes easy to
negotiate at for containing relevant information, which the clients agree (3.2340)
to, and (F9) provides information assist parties in settlements without
representation.
F1 F6 F7 F8 F9
n 18 18 18 18 18
Mean 3.6667 3.6111 3.7222 3.7222 3.6667
SD .48507 .50163 .46089 .46089 .59409
Table 12. Agreement on Affordable and Accessible MBCC Services
Effectiveness (Staff)
Table 8.B answers the effectiveness of the MBCC in providing affordable
and accessible services. The staff strongly agree (3.7222) that (F7) the MBCC
office is useful to clients and that (F8) the MBCC has equal treatment for the
whole constituency. The strong agreement is corroborated by the staff agreeing
(3.6667) as well that (F9) the office provides necessary information to assist
parties without representation and that (F1) the MBCC produces and distributes
information about its office. Lastly, (F6) its office is easy to negotiate and contains
relevant information as agreed to (3.6111) by the staff.
G1 G2 G4 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
N 47 47 47 47 47 46 47 47
Mean 3.3191 2.9149 3.2553 3.2128 2.9362 2.9348 3.0000 3.4043
SD .75488 1.08005 .84617 1.14086 1.24069 1.35650 1.26834 .90071
Table 13. Agreement on Public Trust and Confidence Effectiveness (Clients)
Table 9.A answers the effectiveness of the MBCC in public trust and
confidence as viewed by the clients. The clients strongly agree (3.4043) that (G10)
MBCC’s settlement procedures are available and communicated to clients in
easily understandable ways. In relation to the strong agreement, the clients agree
(3.3191) that (G1) the MBCC actively distributes information about its office and
operations to the public and to the clients; (3.2553) (G4) that people leaving
MBCC have understood the programs and services they underwent; (3.2128) (G6)
that the MBCC publishes information on procedures and settlement policy, as well
as annual accomplishment reports (3.0000) (G9) on reforms or improvements,
(G8) (2.9348) on performance based from data and survey; that (G7) (2.93262)
accounts / expenditures are transparent and audited annually; and (G2) (2.9149)
performance against time standards and other benchmarks are published.
G1 G2 G4 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10
N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
3.4444 3.0000 3.3889 3.4444 3.2222 3.2778 3.2778 3.5000
Mean
.98352 .48507 .50163 .51131 .54832 .95828 .95828 .51450
SD
Table 14. Agreement on Public Trust and Confidence Effectiveness (Staff)
Table 10.B answers the effectiveness of the MBCC in public trust and
confidence as considered by the staff. The staff-respondents strongly agree
(3.5000) that (G10) settlement procedures in the MBCC are understandably
communicated to the clients. Such strong agreement may have been brought about
by the information (G6) published and (G1) distributed by the MBCC regarding
its settlement procedures and operations, which the respondents agree to (3.4444).
As a result, the respondents agree (3.3889) that (G4) the clients leaving the MBCC
clearly understand the programs and services they were subjected to.
The staff also agree (3.2778) that annual accomplishment report of said
office includes (G8) performance data and survey and (G9) settlement reforms or
improvements. In addition, (G7) accounts and expenditures of the MBCC are
audited annually (3.2222) and (G2) information on the procedures and operations
of the MBCC are distributed to the public (3.0000), which the staff agree to as
well.
4.1.B.2 MBCC Efficiency (Clients and Staff)
A2 A5 A6 A8 A9
Frequency 47 47 47 47 47
Mean 3.5319 3.2553 3.3617 3.4468 3.5319
SD .71782 .87148 .89505 .50254 .50437
Table 15. Agreement on Management and Leadership Efficiency (Clients)
Table 11.A corresponds to the efficiency of the MBCC in its management
and leadership as viewed by the clients. The clients strongly agree (3.8333) that
(A2) it sets time standards and targets for case settlement/management and
(3.6111) (A9) provides continuing professional education including management
training and capability building to its mediators/conciliators and management
staff. Moreover, the clients agree that (3.4444) (A5) the MBCC reviews its
performance data and feedback and uses them to (3.2778) (A6) plan
improvements in their performance and procedures and (3.2222) (A8) to improve
its processes/procedures monthly and anytime as need arises.
A2 A5 A6 A8 A9
Frequency 18 18 18 18 18
Mean 3.8333
3.4444 3.2778 3.2222 3.6111
SD .38348
.51131 .95828 .94281 .50163
Table 16. Agreement on Management and Leadership Efficiency (Staff)
Table 11.B corresponds to the efficiency of the MBCC in terms of
management and leadership as deemed by the staff. The staff strongly agree
(3.8333) that (A2) MBCC sets time standards and targets for case
settlement/management. Moreover, they agree (3.6111) that (A9) MBCC provides
continuing professional education including management training and capability
building to its mediators/conciliators and management staff.
The staff agree (3.4444) that (A5) MBCC reviews its performance data and
feedback and uses it to (A6) plan improvements in their performance and
procedures (3.2778) and (A8) to improve its processes/procedures (3.2222).
B1 B2 B5 B1 B2 B5
(Clients) (Cilents) (Clients) (Staff) (Staff) (Staff)

N 47 47 47 18 18 18
Mean 3.4043 3.3191 3.3617 3.4444 3.0556 3.3889
SD .53810 .75488 .89505 .51131 .87260 .50163
Table 17. Agreement on Planning and Policies Efficiency (Clients and Staff)
Table 12 shows the efficiency of the plans and policies of the MBCC as
perceived by the respondents—both clients and staff. Both the clients (3.3191) and
the staff (3.4444) agree that MBCC’s strategic plan identifies the settlement’s
values, target and plans; which is (3.3191) (3.0556) (B2) monitored and reviewed.
The policies are likewise reviewed regularly to ensure settlement quality and
efficiency (B5), which the clients (3.3617) and the staff (3.3889) agree to.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C6 C7 C9 C10
N 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Mean 3.3404 3.0851 3.2979 3.4894 3.2979 3.3617 3.2979 3.2340
SD .73059 .68619 .74934 .50529 .71975 .60525 .83184 .72869

Efficiency (Clients)
Table 13.A answers the efficiency of the human, material, and financial
resources of the MBCC wherein the clients agree to all the items. (C4) The
mediators/conciliators and management staff learn from, and communicate with
each other (3.4894). Moreover, (C1) the MBCC manages the workload of
mediators/conciliators and management staff so cases are settled in a timely and
quality manner (3.3404). As a result, (C7) there are sufficient venues to permit the
timely processing of case settlements (3.3617).
(C6) Identifying the training needs of management staff and
mediators/conciliators (3.2979), (C3) the MBCC comes up with a professional
development program for settlement and for mediators/conciliators (3.2979). The
aforementioned must have brought about (C9) the efficient and effective
management of its financial resources.
Lastly, MBCC (3.2340) (C10) allocates resources for actions identified in
their strategic plan and (3.0851) (C2) predicts and manages their resources to meet
anticipated workloads.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C6 C7 C9 C10
N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Mean 3.6111 3.3333 3.1111 3.4444 3.3333 3.3333 3.3333 3.2222
SD .50163 .48507 .90025 .51131 .48507 .48507 .48507 .42779
Efficiency (Staff)
Table 13.B displays the level of agreement of the staff in the efficiency of
the human, material, and financial resources of the MBCC. The staff agree to
every item. (C1) Cases are settled in a timely and quality manner because of the
workload management of mediators/conciliators and management staff (3.6111).
(C4) They learn from, and communicate with each other (3.4444).
MBCC identifies the training needs of the management staff and
mediators/conciliators (C6); and (C2) predicts and manages their resources to
meet anticipated workloads. As a result, (C7) sufficient venues are provided to
permit the timely processing of case settlements and (C9) financial resources are
managed effectively and efficiently (3.3333).
Lastly, the clients agree (3.2222) that (C10) resources for actions identified
in their strategic plan are allocated and (C3) a professional development program
for settlement and for mediators/conciliators is established.
D6 D6
(Clients) (Staff)
Frequency 47 18
Mean 3.3617 3.4444
SD .87042 .51131
Table 20. Mediation/Conciliation Proceedings Efficiency (Clients and Staff)
Table 14 answers the efficiency of the mediation/conciliation proceedings
in the MBCC in the perception of the respondents. Both the clients (3.3617) and
the staff (3.4444) agree that (D6) MBCC reviews the role of its staff and
mediators/conciliators to ensure efficiency of processes.
E9 E9
(Clients) (Staff)
Frequency 47 18
Mean 3.3191 3.2222
SD .88726 .94281
Table 21. Client Needs and Satisfaction Efficiency (Clients and Staff)
Table 15 corresponds to the efficiency of the MBCC in terms of client
needs and satisfaction. Both respondents—the clients (3.3191) and the staff
(3.2222)—agree that (E9) MBCC analyzes surveys and adjusts policies and
procedures for efficiency.
F2 F3 F4 F5
n 47 47 47 47
Mean 3.0426 3.2340 3.1064 3.0638
SD .72103 .72869 .89038 .86989
Table 22. Affordable and Accessible MBCC Services Efficiency (Clients)
Table 16.A describes the agreement of the clients in the efficiency of
providing affordable and accessible services by the MBCC. The clients agree to
all the items. (F3) MBCC makes it easy for people to find the relevant venue for
settlement (3.2340). (F4) People with disabilities are provided with support and
easy access to the office and its services (3.1064). (F5) (3.0638) The hours of
operation make it easy for users to get their business done (F2) (3.0426) in a
reasonable time.
F2 F3 F4 F5
N 18 18 18 18
Mean 3.5000 3.6111 3.1667 3.1667
SD .61835 .50163 1.04319 .51450
Table 23. Affordable and Accessible MBCC Services Efficiency (Staff)
Table 16.B answers the efficiency of the MBCC in offering affordable and
accessible services as deemed by the staff. The staff strongly agree (3.6111) that
(F3) MBCC makes it easy for people to find the venue for settlement and so (F2)
people get their businesses done in a reasonable time (3.5000). In connection to
the aforementioned, it can be inferred and attested as agreed (3.1667) to by the
staff that (F5) the operation hours of the MBCC add to the timeliness of
settlements. The accessibility of the MBCC provides support to parties with
disabilities as well (F4).

G3 G5 G3 G5
(Clients) (Clients) (Staff) (Staff)

N 47 47 18 18
Mean 3.3191 3.4468 3.3333 3.5556
Std. Deviation .55585 .50254 .48507 .51131
Table 24. Public Trust and Confidence Efficiency (Clients and Staff)
Table 17 shows the efficiency of MBCC’s public trust and confidence in
the judgment of the respondents. The staff strongly agrees (3.5556) while the
clients only agree (3.4468) that (G5) MBCC makes transparent to the parties the
policies and results of complaints filed. In addition, both the staff (3.3333) and the
clients (3.3191) agree that (G3) MBCC responds promptly to requests for
information from clients.
4.2. Analysis of Data
The following tables are comparative group statistics per category of the
survey on the efficiency and on the effectiveness of the MBCC. Statistical tools
have been used for the analysis of the data.

4.2.A Overall Effectiveness
p-value
Effectiveness N Mean SD t-value Significance (Two-
tailed)
Clients 47 3.5016 .50529 Not

3.4453 .871 .387
A Staff 18 3.3889 .50163 significant
Table 25. Management and Leadership Overall Effectiveness
On average, the respondents agree (3.4453)—the clients strongly agree
(3.5016) while the staff only agree (3.3889)—to the effectiveness of the
management and leadership in the MBCC. However, p-value at .387 indicates that
there is no significant difference between the variables.
p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.6596 .47898
3.5243 2.013 Significant .048
B Staff 18 3.3889 .50163
Table 26. Planning and Policies Overall Effectiveness
On average, the respondent strongly agree (3.5243) –the clients strongly
agree (3.6596) while the staff only agree (3.3889—to the effectiveness of the
planning and policies of the MBCC. P-value at .048 indicates that there is a
significant difference between the variables.

p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.5016 .50529 Not
3.5842 1.126 .264
C Staff 18 3.6667 .48507 significant
Table 27. Resources (Human, Material, and Financial) Overall Effectiveness
On average, the respondents strongly agree (3.5842)—both the clients
(3.5016) and the staff strongly agree (3.6667)—to the effectiveness of the human,
material, and financial resources of the MBCC. However, p-value at .264 indicates
that there is no significant difference between the variables.
p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.4468 .50254 Not
3.3901 .822 .414
D Staff 18 3.3333 .48507 significant
Table 28. Mediation/Conciliation Proceedings Overall Effectiveness
On average, the respondents agree (3.3901)—both the clients (3.4468) and
the staff agree (3.3333)—to the effectiveness of the human, material, and financial
resources of the MBCC. P-value at .414 indicates that there is no significant
difference between the variables.
Effectiveness N Mean SD t-value Significance p-value

(Two-
tailed)
Clients 47 3.4043 .71200 Not

3.4799 .822 .414
E Staff 18 3.5556 .51131 significant
Table 29. Client Needs and Satisfaction Overall Effectiveness
the staff agree (3.5556)—to the effectiveness of MBCC’s client needs and
satisfaction. P-value at .414 indicates that there is no significant difference
between the variables.
p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.4043 .57708 Not
3.5355 1.710 .092
F Staff 18 3.6667 .48507 significant
Table 30. Affordable and Accessible Services Overall Effectiveness
On average, the respondents strongly agree (2.5355)—the staff strongly
agree (3.6667) while the clients only agree (3.4043)—to the effectiveness of
affordability and accessibility of MBCC’s services. However, p-value at .092
indicates that there is no significant difference between the variables.
p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.4881 .54578 Not

3.4385 .535 .595
G Staff 18 3.3889 .50163 significant
Table 31. Public Trust and Confidence Overall Effectiveness Public Trust and
Confidence Overall Effectiveness
staff agree (3.3889)—to the effectiveness of the MBCC in public trust and
confidence. P-value at .595 indicates that there is no significant difference
p-value
tailed)
Over- Clients 47 3.4255 .49977 Not
3.4072 .264 .792
all Staff 18 3.3889 .50163 significant
Table 32. Overall Effectiveness

staff agree (3.889)—to the overall effectiveness of the MBCC in public trust and
confidence. P-value at .792 indicates that there is no significant difference among
the variables.
4.2.B Overall Efficiency
p-value
Efficiency N Mean SD t-value Significance (Two-
tailed)
3.5119 .623 Not .535
A Clients 47 3.4681 .50437
Staff 18 3.5556 .51131
significant
Table 33. Management and Leadership Overall Efficiency
On average, the respondents strongly agree (3.5119)—the staff strongly
agree (3.5556) while the clients only agree (3.4681)—to the efficiency of
management and leadership in the MBCC. However, p-value at .535 indicates that
there is no significant difference between the variables.
p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.4255 .54152 Not
3.4072 .249 .804
B Staff 18 3.3889 .50163 significant
Table 34. Planning and Policies Overall Efficiency
staff agree (3.3889)—to the efficiency of the MBCC in planning and policies.
However, p-value at .804 indicates that there is no significant difference between
the variables.
p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.3617 .52856 Not
3.3475 .198 .844
C Staff 18 3.3333 .48507 significant
Table 35. Resources (Human, Material, and Financial) Overall Efficiency
Ob average, the respondents agree (3.3475)—both the clients (3.3617) and
staff agree (3.3333)—to the efficiency of the MBCC in resources. P-value at .844
p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.3617 .87042 Not
3.4031 .378 .707
D Staff 18 3.4444 .51131 significant
Table 36. Mediation/Conciliation Proceedings Overall Efficiency
staff agree (3.4444)—to the efficiency of the MBCC in resources. P-value at .707
p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.3191 .88726 Not
3.2706 .387 .700
E Staff 18 3.2222 .94281 significant
Table 37. Client Needs and Satisfaction Overall Efficiency
staff agree (3.2222)—to the efficiency of the MBCC in client needs and
satisfaction. P-value at .700 indicates that there is no significant difference

p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.1277 .71070
3.3416 2.329 Significant .023
F Staff 18 3.5556 .51131
Table 38. Affordable and Accessible Services Overall Efficiency
On average, the respondents agree (3.3416)—the staff strongly agree
(3.5556) while the clients only agree (3.1277)—to the efficiency of the MBCC in
providing affordable and accessible court services. P-value at .023 indicates that
there is significant difference between the variables.
p-value
tailed)
Clients 47 3.2979 .71975 Not
3.4267 1.388 .170
G Staff 18 3.5556 .51131 significant
Table 39. Public Trust and Confidence Overall Efficiency
On average, the respondents agree (3.4267)—the staff strongly agree
(3.5556) while the clients only agree (3.2979)—to the efficiency of the MBCC in
public trust and confidence. However, p-value at .170 indicates that there is no
significant difference between the variables.
Efficiency N Mean SD t-value Significance p-value

(Two-
tailed)
Over- Clients 47 3.2766 .49791 Not
3.3049 .414 .680
all Staff 18 3.3333 .48507 significant
Table 40. Overall Efficiency
the staff agree (3.3333)—to the overall efficiency of the MBCC. P-value at .680
indicates that there is no significant difference among the variables.
Effectiveness
Management and Leadership
Planning and Policies
Resources (Human, Material, and Financial)

Effectiveness
Mediation/Conciliation Proceedings
Client Needs and Satisfaction
Affordable and Accessible Services
Public Trust and Confidence
3.25 3.3 3.35 3.4 3.45 3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65
Figure 2. Effectiveness of MBCC in each area of court excellence (Clients and
Staff)
Figure 2 shows the effectiveness of the MBCC in each area of court
excellence. Performance and management in the human, material, and financial

resources rank the most effective while the mediation/conciliation proceedings
ranks the least.
Efficiency
Efficiency
3.15 3.2 3.25 3.3 3.35 3.4 3.45 3.5 3.55
Figure 3. Ranks of efficiency of MBCC in each area of court excellence

(Clients and Staff)
Figure 3 shows the efficiency of the MBCC in each area of court
excellence. Performance and management in public trust and confidence rank the
most efficient while the human, material, and financial resources rank the least.

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
(Clients)
excellence according to the perception of the clients. Performance and
management in Planning and Policies rank the most effective while the human,
material, and financial resources rank the least.

Management and Leadership (G)
Planning and Policies (F)
Resources (Human, Material, and Financial) (E)

Mediation/Conciliation Proceedings (D)
Client Needs and Satisfaction ©
Affordable and Accessible Services (B)
Public Trust and Confidence (A)
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
(Staff)
excellence according to the perception of the staff. Performance and management
in providing affordable and accessible services rank the most effective while the
human, material, and financial resources and mediation/conciliation proceedings
rank the least.


2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Figure 6. Ranks of efficiency of MBCC in each area of court excellence
(Clients)
excellence according to the clients. Performance and management of the human,
material, and financial resources rank the most efficient while providing
affordable and accessible services rank the least.

Efficiency (Staff)

Efficiency (Staff)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 7. Ranks of efficiency of MBCC in each area of court excellence (Staff)
excellence according to the staff. Performance and management in public trust and
confidence rank the most efficient while client needs and satisfaction rank the
least.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of the research work conducted, the
conclusions induced and the recommendations made as fruits of the study. The
study is on the assessment of the Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council
(MBCC) using the underlying principles of the International Framework for Court
excellence as standard.
5.1 Discussion and Conclusion
Through the course of the study, all the objectives have been met. The idea
of the study has been formulated out of the researchers’ interest and curiosity in
the Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC) being awarded the Galing
Pook Award in 2009; and the fact that eight years later, it is still of wide
acceptance for settlement of disputes in the province of Kalinga, particularly the
ITabuks, despite being institutionalized many years ago in 2011 and never having
been assessed at present its performance and management side.
The study assessed the effectiveness and the efficiency in the performance
and management of the Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council (MBCC) using
the underlying principles of the IFCE as standard. The literature review was
concerned on the IFCE, using effectiveness and efficiency as measurement for
court performance, and the MBCC. A quantitative descriptive comparative design

using purposive sampling was utilized in the study in surveying the clients and the
staff of the MBCC.
In conclusion, the performance and management of the Matagoan Bodong
Consultative Council (MBCC) is effective and efficient in all the seven areas of
court excellence as agreed to by the respondents. Moreover, there is no significant
difference between the perceptions of the clients and of the staff on the overall
effectiveness and the overall efficiency of the MBCC in performance and
management. There may be significant differences in the levels of agreement
between the staff and the clients as regards to the effectiveness of the council's
planning and policies (see Table 24) and to the efficiency of its affordable and
accessible services (see Table 36) but these do not affect the overall effectiveness
and the overall efficiency of the MBCC. This is due to the fact that the
respondents' levels of agreement are both positive; either agreement or strong
agreement. What would deem the council's areas of court excellence problematic
is when the agreements vary positively and negatively.
The study concludes that MBCC proves to be most effective in providing
the mediators/conciliators with the information necessary to make for settlements
and in making the parties to a case settlement feel safe in the MBCC venues.
Thus, on one hand, MBCC is most effective in managing its human, material, and
financial resources. On the other, MBCC is least effective in its
mediation/conciliation proceedings, which includes: complying with timely

processing and case settlement; having policies on the filing of cases, imposing of
settlement even in cases of non-compliance; the staff’s commitment to quality of
work; regularly reviewing its processes and procedures; writing settlements
clearly and accurately; and keeping the records and case settlement files complete,
accurate, and maintained safely.
The study also concludes that the MBCC is most efficient in responding
promptly to requests for information from clients and in having a policy that
outlines the process for making and dealing with cases filed, and making
transparent to parties the result. In other words, it is most efficient in the area of
public trust and confidence. Meanwhile, it is least efficient in managing its human,
material, and financial resources, which includes: managing the workload of the
staff so cases are settled in a timely and quality manner; predicting and managing
resources to meet anticipated workloads; having a professional development
program for settlement and for mediators/conciliators; the mediators/conciliators
and the management staff learning from and communicating with each other;
identifying the training needs of the management staff in creating a training
program that meets those needs; having sufficient venues to permit the timely
processing of case settlements; and managing and allocating its financial resources
for actions identified in their strategic plan.

The study reveals that the Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council
(MBCC) is effective and is efficient in its performance and management; a reason
why ITabuks, even after decades of practicing the Bodong and nine (9) years since
awarding the MBCC the Galing Pook Award, continuously resort to the MBCC
for dispute settlements. It can be inferred from the findings of the study that the
overall effectiveness and efficiency of the performance and management of the
staff in the MBCC adds up to the clients’ wide acceptance of the institution’s
indigenous justice system. Moreover, it is implied that both the clients and the
staff are aware of the operations and policies of the Matagoan Bodong
Consultative Council (MBCC). In other words, the staff adhere to and fully
understand how they should serve; while the clients know how they should be
served.
5.2 Recommendations
The researchers commend the effectiveness and efficiency of the
performance and management of the Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council
(MBCC). They recommend the use of the study as the benchmark in determining
which areas of court excellence need to be addressed and maintained in the
MBCC—areas most effective, least effective, most efficient, and least efficient.
This is for the purpose that peace in the province of Kalinga is sustained through
the preservation of the Kalinga tradition and culture instilled in the MBCC.
Meanwhile, the significant difference between the clients’ and the staff’s levels of
agreement in certain areas of excellence, in which the staff strongly agree while
the clients only agree, raises contemplation on the realistic self-awareness of the
staff apropos their performance and management. Moreover, the
comprehensiveness and the being very detailed of the statistics and results of the
study are valuable in entailing the MBCC to more or other constructive inferences
about its performance and management.
The self-efficacy theory may be considered in light of the employees
giving themselves high scores on their performance ratings Self-efficacy is what
an individual foresees that he can accomplish in a given amount of time using his
capabilities as the basis in determining the results of these tasks (Redmond, 2016).
The employees themselves know the amount of work they have inputted into the
task they are accomplishing therefore they will look at themselves highly and give
themselves high remarks when asked to rate their performance. Self-efficacy can
also be defined as one’s capability to determine how one can successfully execute
a task (Bjork, 1994).
In the following years, the Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council
(MBCC) could make use of the study’s survey, while complying with and
modifying the standards of court excellence set by the International Framework
for Court Excellence (IFCE), utilizing a continuous improvement process to fit the
varying needs of the institution.

The survey deduced from the study can also be utilized by other tribal
councils in the country. Since, the IFCE survey was adapted by the MBCC, other
tribal councils of similar nature to the MBCC, may learn to adapt the IFCE as
well. These other tribal councils conduct mediation and conciliation amongst their
tribe members as well. These tribal councils are the Sinabadan Tribal Council,
Malasag Higaon Tribal Council, and Council of Timuay.
Indigenous Political Structures are when, organizational and cultural
leadership systems and structures are determined by Council of Elders, Council of
Timuay, Bodong Holders or anything similar to this nature. The organization of
the MBCC, is supported by various laws like the Indigenous People’s Rights Act
and the United Nation’s Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People. It is stated in
article 11 of the UNDRIP that “Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and
revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain,
protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures,
such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies,
technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.”
Mediation and conciliation amongst tribes is also a way of preserving their
practices hence, in accordance with the UNDRIP, tribes similar to the MBCC can
use the survey to improve how they conduct mediation and conciliation amongst
member of their tribes. Once, their tribe members are satisfied with how they
conduct mediation and conciliation it will lessen the risk of decay of these
councils. Continuous improvements for these councils will equate to preservation
of their culture through continuous practice of these councils.
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT
Name:____________________________________
Contact no:_______________________________
Address:_________________________________
Sub-tribe:________________________________
Greetings in the name of St. Thomas Aquinas! We are fourth year AB Legal
Management students from the University of Santo Tomas currently researching
on our thesis on Assessing the Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council
(MBCC) Using the Principles Underlying the International Framework for
Court Excellence (IFCE) as Standard. We are in need of your response as
regards to the effectiveness and the efficiency of the Matagoan Bodong
Consultative Council (MBCC). Thank you!
Instruction: Please read carefully and check ( ✓ ) the corresponding boxes for
your answers.
SA- Strongly Agree
A- Agree
D- Disagree
SD- Strongly Disagree
A. MBCC Management and Leadership
SA A D SD
A1. We set an annual report describing their objectives,
roles, functions, duties and the values they adhere to.
A2. They set time standards and targets for case
settlement/management.
A3. We keep data on our performance against these
standards and target.
A4. We hold meetings with the clients at least twice each

year.
A5. We review our performance data and feedback.
A6. We use data and feedback to plan improvements in our
performance and procedures.
A7. We regularly provide information to MBCC users and
the community.
A8. We use the feedback to improve our
processes/procedures monthly and anytime as need arises.
A9. We provide continuing professional education including
management training and capability building to our
mediators/conciliators and management staff.
A10. We have developed a settlement culture consistent
with our indigenous values.
B. MBCC Planning and Policies

SA A D SD
B1. We have a strategic plan that identifies the settlement’s
values, target and plans.
B2. We have a process for monitoring and reviewing the
strategic plan.
B3. We have MBCC policies to support our values, targets
and plans.
B4. We publish and disseminate via IEC (Information
Education Campaign) /assembly our policies and monitor
compliance.
B5. We review our policies regularly to ensure settlement
quality and efficiency.
C. MBCC Resources (Human, Material and Financial)

SA A D SD
C1. We manage the workload of mediators/conciliators and
management staff so cases are settled in a timely and quality
manner.
C2. We predict and manage our resources to meet anticipated
workloads.
C3. We have a professional development program for
settlement and for mediators/conciliators.
C4. Our mediators/conciliators and management staff learn
from, and communicate with each other.

C5. We provide mediators/conciliators with the information
necessary to make for settlements.
C6. We have identified the training needs of management
staff, mediators/conciliators and our training program meets
those needs.
C7. We have sufficient venues to permit the timely
processing of case settlements.
C8. Parties in a case settlement feel safe in our settlement
venues.
C9. We manage our financial resources efficiently and
effectively.
C10. We allocate resources for actions identified in our
strategic plan.
D. Mediation / Conciliation Proceedings

SA A D SD
D1. We comply with established benchmarks of timely case

settlement processing.
D2. We manage case settlements against those time standards
and we meet them.
D3. We have a policy on the filing of cases, imposing of
penalties, waiver, postponement and
implementation/enforcement of the settlement.
D4. MBCC settlements are enforced in cases of non-
compliance.
D5. MBCC staff, mediators and conciliators are committed
to quality of work.
D6. We review the role of MBCC staff, mediators and
conciliators to ensure efficiency of processes.
D7. We regularly review our processes and procedures.
D8. MBCC records and case settlement files are complete,
accurate, and able to be retrieved quickly and maintained
safely.
D9. Settlements by the MBCC are written clearly and
accurately.
E. Client Needs and Satisfaction

SA A D SD
We use feedback (including survey, focus groups, IECs,
Assembly and dialogue sessions) to measure clients’
satisfaction of:
E1. Staff services
E2. Mediators/Conciliators’ capability in facilitating
negotiations and settlements
E3.Witness and settlement proceedings
E4. Filing of cases by office users
E5. We report publicly on changes we implement in
response to the results of surveys.
E6. We communicate clearly to complainants, defendants,
their leaders, and elders.
E7. Clients assess the MBCC’s actions as fair and
reasonable.
E8. We listen to clients and treat them with respect.
E9. We analyze surveys and adjust policies and procedures.
F. Affordable and Accessible MBCC Services

SA A D SD
F1. We produce and distribute information to the public
and business about the MBCC.
F2. People are able to get their business with the MBCC
done in a reasonable time.
F3. We make it easy for people to find the relevant venue
in which a hearing or settlement is taking place.
F4. We provide people with disabilities with support and
easy access to the MBCC and our services.
F5. Our hours of operation make it easy for users to get
their business done.
F6. Our office is easy to negotiate and contains relevant
information.
F7. Our office is useful to clients.

F8. We treat the whole constituency equally or the same as
everyone else.
F9. We provide information to assist parties in a settlement
without representation.
G. Public Trust and Confidence

SA A D SD
G1. We actively distribute information about the MBCC
and its operations to the public and to the clients.
G2. We publish our performance against time standards
and other benchmarks.
G3. We respond promptly to requests for information
from clients.
G4. We can demonstrate that people leaving MBCC
understand its programs and services they have
experienced.
G5. We have a policy that outlines the process for
making and dealing with cases filed and make
transparent to parties the result.
G6. We publish information on MBCC procedures and
our settlement policy.
G7. Our accounts / expenditures are transparent and
audited annually.
Our annual accomplishment report includes:
G8. Performance data and survey
G9. Information on settlement reforms / improvements
G10. Information on MBCC settlement procedures is
available is available to the public and communicated in
a way they can easily understand.
APPENDIX
CURRICULUM VITAE
Ma. Kiana M. Abella was born and raised in the
province of Aklan. She went to high school in
Regional Science High School for Region 6. She
is currently taking up Bachelor of Arts in Legal
Management at the University of Santo Tomas.
She plans to go on to law school after college, to
become a lawyer and to practice environmental
law in her home province of Aklan.

Lexi Dei G. Falgui is a Tagalog-Ilocana from
Kalinga, Cordillera. She went to St. Theresita’s
School—Tabuk in high school and elementary
where she was the valedictorian of her batch. She
also became the Vice-President for DPeer
Counseling at her district. She is currently the
Assistant Head for Academic Affairs at the UST
Legal Management Society. She was a consistent
Dean’s Lister and a Santo Tomas academic scholar until the previous semester.
Ironically, despite being shy, she is currently the Public Relations Officer of her
class for two consecutive years now. Lexi lives by the principle that she’d rather
fail than cheat. She believes in the saying, “Life may not be the party we hoped
for, but we should dance while we’re in it.”

Bibliography
Angngad, K. (2010). The Kalinga Bodong system of justice (Unpublished
master's thesis). University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines.
Bertran, M. (n.d.). The Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts: New Jersey's
Court Leaders Respond. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/files/pdf/education%20and%20careers/cedp
%20papers/2009/bertran_purposesandres.ashx
Caseflow Management | National Association for Court Management. (n.d.).
Retrieved from
https://nacmnet.org/CCCG/cccg_3_corecompetency_cfm.html
National Center for State Courts. (2008). International framework for court
excellence. Paper presented at the meeting of the International
Consortium for Court Excellence, USA.
National Center for State Courts. (2014). Thinking of implementing the
Internation Framework for Court Excellence? , USA.

Outstanding local governance programs for 2009. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/eropa/unpan04206
2.pdf
Sharman, J. M. (1996). Judicial ethics: Independence, impartiality, and integrity.
Retrieved from Inter-American Development Bank website:
http://www.iadb.org/wmsfiles/products/publications/documents/991625.p
df
Sipes, L. L. (1980). Managing to reduce delay. Washington, DC: National
Conference of Metropolitan Courts.
Tamangen, A. (2011). Effectiveness of Bodong system in alternative dispute
resolution on crimes committed in the province of Kalinga (Unpublished
master's thesis). National Police College, Taguig, Philippines.
Bjork, R. (1994, January 15). Self-Confidence and Performance | Learning,
Remembering, Believing: Enhancing Human Performance | The National
Academies Press. Retrieved from
https://www.nap.edu/read/2303/chapter/13
Beardsley, L. (2010, November). Human resource management for
courts [PowerPoint slides].
Johnston, K. (2011, October 11). The Difference Between Efficiency &
Effectiveness in Strategic Management. Retrieved from

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-efficiency-
effectiveness-strategic-management-31117.html
Kalinga's bodong. (2015, May 29). Retrieved from
https://.wcbnasiaprayercenterordpress.com/2015/08/12/kalingas-bodong/
Preston, B. J., & Gray, J. (2016, January 28). Achieving Court Excellence: the
need for a collaborative approach. Retrieved from
http://www.lec.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Speeches%20and
%20Papers/PrestonCJ/PrestonCJ%20Achieving%20Court%20Excellence
%20280116.pdf
Kiefer, P. C. (2016, May). The Role of Strategic Planning and Strategic
Management in The Courts. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/files/pdf/education%20and%20careers/cedp
%20papers/2016/role%20of%20strategic%20planning%20and
%20strategic%20management%20in%20the%20courts.ashx
Richardson, E., Spencer, P., & Wexler, D. (2016, May 19). Retrieved from
http://www.courtexcellence.com/~/media/Microsites/Files/ICCE/Richards
on%20Spencer%20Wexler%20JJA_v025_pt03.ashx
Redmond, B. (2016, October 10). Self-Efficacy and Social Cognitive Theories -
PSYCH 484: Work Attitudes and Job Motivation - Confluence. Retrieved
from https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/7.+Self-
Efficacy+and+Social+Cognitive+Theories
International Consortium for Court Excellence. (2017, July). Global measures of
court performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the International
Association for Court Administration (IACA) and National Association
for Court Management (NACM), Washington. Retrieved from
http://www.courtexcellence.com/~/media/Microsites/Files/ICCE/GLOBA
L%20MEASURES%20Advance%20Review%20Copy%20Jun
%202017.ashx
Hyderabad, N. (2017, November 5). A STUDY ON COURT MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF
SUBORDINATE COURTS. Retrieved from
http://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/Final%20DOJ%20Report_Revised
%20%281%29.pdf
Goh, G. (2018, February 9). The Difference Between Effectiveness and
Efficiency Explained. Retrieved from
http://www.insightsquared.com/2013/08/effectiveness-vs-efficiency-
whats-the-difference/

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Arts and Letters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Arts and Letters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Arts and Letters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS PAGE 1

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE

Tribal wars have been a practice among indigenous people of the

researchers utilized a quantitative descriptive comparative research design to

globally renowned International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE). The

survey of this study be used by the council in a continuous improvement process.

are satisfied with the MBCC’s performance.

Keywords: Bodong, Matagoan, Matagoan Bodong Consultative Council

(MBCC), International Framework for Court Excellence, effectiveness, efficiency,

success of the study:

scope, the significance and the reliability of this study;

Mr. Heriberto Barila, head of the Matagoan Bodong Consultative

tools in treating the data corresponding to the nature of this study;

Atty. Sedfrey Candelaria and Atty. Melissa Bautista for accommodating

Dr. Liz Richardson, Secretariat of the International Framework for Court

even non-courts like the MBCC may use the IFCE;

The previous MBCC clients for participating in the study’s survey;

from whom all wisdom, hope, and blessings flow.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE

3.2 Sample Size and Sampling Design.........................................................43

Data Collection Instrument……………………………………………………….75

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Clients by Tribe/Sub-tribe.............................47

Table 24. Planning and Policies Overall Effectiveness.........................................66

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

The mountainous province of Kalinga used to be known for tribal warfare

resolved through physical atrocities; a tribe would rather go to war than to

Bodong Consultative Council, anOF

is regarded for resolving conflicts and restoring harmonious co-existence among

Kalinga tribesmen (Estanislao, 2011). Certainly, it helps Kalinga maintain its

“Matagoan” or “peaceful zone” appropriation.

residents in resolving tribal disputes (Estanislao, 2011). As a matter of fact, it has

(35) tribal wars in Kalinga from 2002 to 2007.

binodngans or non-indigenous people living in the locality. Thus, the MBCC

standard of assessing its management’s effectiveness and efficiency over the

currently is, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The underlying principles of

the adaptation of an assessment survey that could be modified to render it suitable

for the setting of such court.

In an interview with Secretariat for IFCE Liz Richardson, the researchers

specifically for courts, by courts. In addition, the mediation/conciliation council

In another interview with the Office of the Court Administrator of the

commends the globally-renowned IFCE and agrees that the framework’s

underlying principles could well be used in assessing the MBCC.

The MBCC has been of wide acceptance in the province of Kalinga. To

efficiency of the council.

1.2 Theoretical Framework

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE

The Theoretical Framework is composed of Richardson’s Framework for

dissected and segregated based on their effectiveness and efficiency to make

and also as a tool to be able to segregate them.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.A Main Objective

excellence using the underlying principles of the IFCE

1.3.B Specific Objectives

A. To determine if there is a significant difference between the perception

of the staff and that of the clients to such effectiveness

B. To determine which area of performance and management MBCC is

B.1 In the perception of clients

B.2 In the perception of the staff