Why do We Pursue Oral Proceedings in Our Legal System?

Abstract

Historically, the value of oral proceeding was found in its two major goals to be advanced:

enhancing transparency and fairness of the judiciary and providing actually opened court-procedure to the public. In these days, however, what makes our judiciary take notice of is that oral argument helps communications between parties and judges in sharing information, leading to harmonious disputesettlements and enhancing the appropriateness of decision-making. Judical adherence to the conventional court practice such as focusing on the case files, minimizing in-court arguments, judges concentrating on writing opinions, has obstructed the communication among the people involved in the case and caused dissatisfaction to them. As a measure to resolve these problems, oral proceeding should mean a judicial effort of making itself accountable to the public: In trial, there must be

arguments over the substantial merits of the case on issue; Trial should be a place of interactive communication between the judges and the parties; Courts managements should secure the pro se partys active procedural participations. Through oral argument proceeding in presenting the case-file contents submitted and communication between the judge and the parties, more alternative dispute resolutions are likely to be and there might be increasing peoples trust in judiciary, leading fewer appeals arising from the parties acceptance of outcome of the trial.

As oral proceedings have been more used, with more court scheduled date, there has been more arguments over the substantial merits of the case on issue, making the parties and the judge share more information. While some have expressed concerns that oral argument could be time wasting in repeating the case briefs already submitted to the court, oral proceeding is a method of hearing where we try to get something more than just reading written pleadings. Since we tried to implement oral proceeding in our court system, the shared belief in the need of strengthening oral proceeding has been widely expanded among the members of the legal communities. We still need more guidelines for a detailed manual and evelopment of supporting programs and facilities.