International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 9 • No. 6 • June 2019 doi:10.30845/ijhss.v9n6p9 71 The Three-Dimensional Case Disposition in the Philippine Justice System: An Interface Mario A. Garcia Kalinga State University Tabuk City, Kalinga Philippines Abstract This research intends to look into the performance of the three levels of Justice Processes in the Philippines taking Tabuk City, Kalinga as the model. As a result of the study, it reveals that the first level system the Barangay Justice performs better than the regular court in terms of settling disputes and maintaining peace to the community. It was also revealed that the Indigenous justice processes of Kalinga known as the “Bodong” performs more than enough in settling disputes since it covers all crimes provided the parties thereto decided to settle it through the intervention of the tribal larders “pangat”, its resolution is recognized by the regular court as a jurisprudence. Hence, it shows that the effect of mediation, conciliation and arbitration are deemed more effective because it does not only settle dispute but it carries with it a restorative effect towards the parties. In these systems, resolution is easily attained due to the voluntary nature on the part of the parties to settle their differences without any further cost. Under these circumstances, its effect to the community is more understanding and consideration. Keywords: Barangay Justice System, the regular court, indigenous Kalinga Pagta, Mataguan Bodong Consultative Council, jurisdictions 1. Introduction Justice system in whatever form has only one end in view and that is to attain justice on both parties involved whether on personal level to institutional level. Another objective of justice system is to avert the act of others to the disadvantage of another where there will be injustices that may cause change in a person or even the entire community behavior just to protect their welfare and interest. The instrument of the justice system is no less than the court that is armed with ethical standards of fairness and out of biases. Hence, in the Philippine setting, there are three forms of court which the laws and constitution recognized. 1.1. First level court is at the Barangay level as given authority by the local government code (RA 7610) and PD 1508 which create the office of the katarungangpambarangay manned by the Lupongtagapamayapa and lupongtagapagkasundo with an end in view of settling disputes at the barangay level. The main guide of the barangay justice is derived from the concept of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) law, RA 9285. Per legal opinion of Atty. Persida Acosta in Pang-et vs. Manacnes (G.R. No. 167261, March 2, 2007), that: “What is compulsory under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law is that there be a confrontation between the parties before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat and that a certification be issued that no conciliation or settlement has been reached, as attested to by the Lupon or Pangkat Chairman, before a case falling within the authority of the Lupon may be instituted in court or any other government office for adjudication. In other words, the only necessary pre-condition before any case falling within the authority of the Lupon or the Pangkat may be filed before a court is that there has been personal confrontation between the parties but despite earnest efforts to conciliate, there was a failure to amicably settle the dispute. 1.2. The second level court is called the Regular Court as the third pillar of the criminal justice system. The regular court is the arm of the formal government tasked to conduct check and balance between parties of a dispute. Since the regular court is a statutory agency, it is strictly guided by the rules of court where the civil procedures are designed to settle civil disputes and the criminal procedures designed to address problems of civil, criminal and all other matters which creates disputes. The tendency of the regular court by following its court procedures makes the case tedious to the agony of the parties. Taking a case decided by the Municipal Trial Court, San Felipe, Zambales (MTC), in February 4, 2009. In the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, thru Private Complainant BRIAN VICTOR BRITCHFORD, Petitioner vs. SALVADOR ALAPAN, Respondent. The final decision comes only in January 10, 2018 where the supreme courts presided by Chief Justice Maraia Lourdes Serono states its decision Indeed, Administrative Circular No. 13-2001 provides that "should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment."