1. Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng San Pablo San Pablo City, Laguna, Philippines.
2. VPAA – Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng San Pablo, Laguna, Philippines.

*             Correspondence: marlynmalveda10@gmail.com

Keywords: accountability, Justice System, capacity of the mediator, community participation

1. INTRODUCTION

Community-based systems of justice have emerged globally as vital alternatives to formal court proceedings, especially in contexts where judicial institutions are overburdened, under-resourced, or inaccessible to the public [1]. These localized mechanisms serve not only to decongest formal dockets but also to reinforce social cohesion by resolving disputes in ways that preserve relationships, foster accountability, and reflect cultural values. In the Philippines, this concept is realized through the, or Barangay Justice System (BJS)—a legally mandated process rooted in community engagement and restorative justice [2]. The was institutionalized through Presidential Decree No. 1508 in 1978 and later reinforced under Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code of 1991. This legislation requires every barangay to establish a Lupon Tagapamayapa, composed of respected community members tasked with mediating and conciliating disputes among residents. The system’s primary objectives include promoting amicable settlement, fostering community harmony, and reducing the number of cases brought before formal courts [3]. In line with international movements toward restorative justice—which emphasizes repair over punishment—the BJS embodies a culturally attuned approach to conflict resolution. It allows individuals and communities to collaboratively address harm, hold offenders accountable, and facilitate healing for all parties involved [4]. However, despite its legal mandate and cultural compatibility, the actual implementation of the remains inconsistent and, in many cases, underperforming. Numerous barangays across the country face persistent challenges in operationalizing the BJS effectively. Common issues include inactive Lupon members, absence of regular conciliation meetings, and lack of procedural knowledge among barangay officials, inadequate documentation, and weak public engagement [5]. Studies by [6] and the Ateneo Human Rights Center (2023) highlight how limited public awareness and training deficits contribute to diminished confidence in the system. Moreover, technological backwardness—manifested in the continued use of manual records despite calls for digital integration—hampers transparency and efficiency [7,8]. To improve and incentivize local justice performance, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) has institutionalized the Lupong Tagapamayapa Incentives Awards (LTIA). This program sets benchmarks and recognizes outstanding Lupong Tagapamayapa based on their operational efficiency, effectiveness in dispute settlement, innovation, and community participation. However, not all barangays meet these standards. While some consistently qualify for the awards, others fail due to resource limitations, poor documentation practices, lack of coordination, and inadequate capacity building [9]. These disparities raise critical questions about what systemic, institutional, or contextual factors hinder full compliance and optimal functionality. Thus, there is a pressing need to evaluate how the is actually implemented across different barangay contexts. Doing so will help identify barriers to effective performance, examine how national policies such as the LTIA are localized, and propose data-driven strategies to strengthen the justice delivery system at the grassroots level [10]. Ultimately, such efforts aim to restore public trust, enhance access to justice, and empower local governance through culturally grounded and community-responsive mechanisms. As the City of Sto. Tomas in Batangas continues to expand administratively and demographically, the demands on barangay-level governance—particularly in terms of conflict resolution—have grown significantly. Barangays are now expected not only to deliver essential services but also to administer quasi-legal mechanisms that enable the peaceful settlement of disputes. The, institutionalized through Presidential Decree No. 1508 and reinforced under Republic Act No. 7160, is the cornerstone of these efforts. Yet, its full potential remains unrealized in many areas [11]. Despite having clear mandates, some barangays in Sto. Tomas operates under minimal compliance, with policies and practices driven more by formal compliance than by genuine commitment. Reports revealed that many Lupons do not conduct regular meetings, and some barangay officials lack a firm understanding of their roles within the framework [12]. The lack of consistent training, irregular submission of reports, and poorly maintained documentation further weaken the system’s effectiveness. Compounded by low community awareness and insufficient public legal education, the mechanisms of mediation, conciliation, and arbitration are often bypassed or underutilized [13,14]. A key performance evaluation mechanism for barangays is the Lupong Tagapamayapa Incentives Awards (LTIA), initiated by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). The LTIA assesses barangays on various indicators, including efficiency in case handling, timeliness of settlement, maintenance of accurate records, and coordination with stakeholders. It also rewards innovation and community engagement in dispute resolution. While some barangays in Sto. Tomas have qualified for the LTIA, many have not. This disparity raises important questions about the causes of uneven performance. Preliminary observations suggest that several barangays fall short of the LTIA standards due to limited budget allocations, low awareness of proper procedures, lack of capacity-building programs, and inconsistent implementation of the law. For instance, failure to meet documentation standards, delays in issuing summons, and the absence of secure filing systems are among the common gaps. These operational issues reflect broader structural challenges that merit closer investigation [15]. This study was bound to two theories based on the execution and evaluation of: Restorative Justice Theory and Braithwaite’s Dispute Resolution Theory. Theories, in general, helped explain the relation between mediation, conciliation, and arbitration within the barangay system, with special emphasis on southern devices for dealing with conflicts that are fundamentally relational, participatory, and community-based. Restorative justice theory defines a crime as an offense against an individual or a community rather than the state. Healing can occur only when all parties, including victims and offenders, take part in the process. Therefore, restorative justice repairs the damage done by a crime [16]. Restorative justice is grounded on the core principles of restoring balance in the aftermath of conflict. It operates on several core principles: accountability of the offender, the right for victims to voice their experiences and needs, and acceptance of the offender back into society through dialogue and restitution [17]. The so-called father of restorative justice, Howard Zehr, popularized the concept by bringing the shift from punitive justice to the restoration of relationships as the focus through foundational work that underscored respect, inclusion, and decision-making [18]. The work of John Braithwaite defined reintegrative shaming theory, which differentiates between shaming a person and shaming their actions, encouraging accountability while supporting reintegration [19]. One of the core foundations of modern restorative justice practices was derived from Braithwaite’s Dispute Resolution Theory [20]. It stressed the importance of repairing harm rather than punitive measures, consistent with Braithwaite’s work. Both supported requiring community involvement in administering justice in order to foster responsibility and healing [21]. Restorative justice and non-stigmatizing accountability were also visible in Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming. Central to both frameworks were voluntary participation and the resolution of issues through dialogue [22]. Restorative Justice Theory and Braithwaite’s Dispute Resolution Theory were used to create a unified framework for this research. While Restorative Justice Theory examined justice from a moral, social, and cultural standpoint, Braithwaite’s Dispute Resolution Theory focused on implementation, institutionalization, and operational frameworks. Using both frameworks, the study was able to evaluate as a whole community rehabilitation system that includes trust, culture, and restorative processes, rather than just a systemic infrastructural approach to disputes. To sum, this study evaluated how the is being implemented in selected barangays of Sto. Tomas, Batangas. It specifically seeks to explore the levels of awareness among barangay officials and residents, examine the extent of procedural compliance, and identify the administrative challenges that hinder effective operation. By situating these findings within the context of the LTIA framework, the study seeks to provide actionable recommendations that could bridge performance gaps and improve community-level justice systems.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This particular study used a descriptive quantitative design. Data regarding the use of Katarungang Pambarangay were obtained from a structured survey questionnaire. This tool aided in obtaining relevant data with respect to the evaluation of KP system processes, its efficiency, challenges, and results in its implementation. In total, this study had three groups of respondents: (a) 30 barangay officials, (b) 60 members of the Lupon, and (c) 230 selected barangay residents, with a total of 320 respondents. This participant feedback was expected to be meaningful enough to satisfy the expectations of the study’s aim. These groups include barangay officials, particularly the Chairpersons, together with active members of Lupong Pangkapayapaan, who gave constructive comments on the degree to which the barangay complies with the implementation of the Barangay Justice System. Also included are community members who played an important role in assessing the degree of awareness of community officials and the barangay in general about Katarungang Pambarangay and its functions relative to the major roles defined under the law and the Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991- to mediate, conciliate, and arbitrate. This study applied a mix of stratified random sampling and purposive sampling to enable an appropriate representation of the participants who were involved in the implementation and execution of the Katarungang Pambarangay. For the first set of such participants, which is the barangay officials, stratified sampling was be applied. The strata were according to the official ranks such as Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawads and also include those in subordinate roles like the barangay secretary and Lupon members so that all levels in the hierarchal system of the barangay are appropriately represented. Purposive sampling was used for the second set of respondents, which is the barangay residents. A sample that constitutes five percent (5%) of the total adult population of the intentionally selected four barangays was sampled on the basis that they were or will be participants in the Barangay Justice System (e.g., litigants, witnesses, or people who have seen the conduct of the mediation proceedings). With this strategy, respondents who have sufficient information regarding the actual impacts of the system’s design and functionality are selected. This sampling strategy allows the study to collect both sweeping institutional views and specific community narratives related to the implementation and experience of the Katarungang Pambarangay, enhancing the analysis. This study utilized a questionnaire that is consisted of four sections. The first section profiles the respondents in terms of demographic data and any challenges they face. The second section sought to assess the awareness level of respondents about the Katarungang Pambarangay, while the third section assessed the respondents’ compliance with it. The final section identified the challenges faced in the execution of the Katarungang Pambarangay. This study was framed using a quantitative research design, aimed at assessing the implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay through structured data collection and statistical analysis. Participants were divided into two main groups. The first group included barangay officials such as the Punong Barangay, Barangay Secretary, and members of the Lupon Tagapamayapa, selected through stratified sampling to ensure representativeness. The second group consisted of purposively sampled community residents who had prior exposure to the Barangay Justice System. Data collection occurred over the course of one month.  Data collected during the study underwent the following processing: The demographic profile of the respondents and the challenges they faced were measured by frequency count and percent. The respondents’ level of awareness of Katarungang Pambarangay and compliance was assessed using mean and standard deviation. The Kruskal Wallis H-test was used to determine if there is a difference in the level of awareness of Katarungang Pambarangay concerning the respondents’ profiles. To assess the respondents’ level of awareness and the extent of compliance with Katarungang Pambarangay, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was applied to identify the significant relationship.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 01: Profile of the Respondents

Profile	Frequency	Percentage
Age
18–30	36	11
31–45	90	28
46–60 yrs	118	37
61 yrs and above	76	24
Sex
Female	202	63
Male	118	37
Highest Educational Attainment
Elementary Level	14	4
High School Level	100	31
College Level	124	39
Vocational/Technical Graduate	82	26
Previous Work Experience
Government	94	29
Private Sector	94	29
Self-Employed	67	21
Unemployed	45	14
Others	20	6
Role
Lupon Member	61	19
Punong Barangay	31	10
Resident/Complainant/Respondent	228	71
Years as a Barangay Official
Less than 1 year	17	5
1–3 years	84	26
4–6 years	39	12
7–10 years	38	12
More than 10 years	48	15
Not Applicable	94	29

The demographic profile of the respondents helps to understand better the people engaging with the Katarungang Pambarangay system in Sto. Tomas, Batangas. Among the various age cohort respondents, the highest percentage, 37%, was in the 46 to 60 years age bracket, while the lowest, 11%, came from the 18–30 age group. This suggests increased participation by middle-aged and older individuals in the local governance of the community owing to exposure to community matters and prior community leadership roles. Younger age groups not engaging may illustrate unassisted community outreach education programs designed targeted towards that age group. Moreover, [23] observed that older people are more active in barangay politics and governance due to their accumulated respect and experience. On the contrary, youths are presumed to be inactive in most local dispute resolution activities, and this is often attributed to inadequate education and apathy. An author [24] express that male respondents tend to be more active in the visibility of a dispute resolution process due to dominant patriarchal notions of leadership. On the other hand, women are sociocultural empowered albeit passive participants in the community’s disputes and, therefore, tend to be missing from formal positions of authority. This raises a greater concern as women’s empowerment is sociocultural, which leads to a lack of formal authority over conflict resolution systems. These concerning aspects of gender relations are essential in relation to the participation gap and the need to create policies that offer fuel inclusion to women.

Table 02: Level of Awareness on in terms of Community participation

Indicator	Mean	Standard Deviation	Interpretation
I am aware that… (Alam ko na…)
1.      Residents are encouraged to attend barangay assemblies where matters are discussed. (na hinihikayat ang mga residente na dumalo sa mga pagpupulong ng barangay kung saan tinatalakay ang mga usapin ng .)	3.43	0.73	Highly Aware
2.      The system relies on community cooperation to effectively resolve local disputes. (ang sistema ng ay umaasa sa pagtutulungan ng komunidad upang epektibong maresolba ang mga lokal na alitan.)	3.42	0.67	Highly Aware
3.      Community members can volunteer or be nominated to serve as part of the Lupon Tagapamayapa. (ang mga miyembro ng komunidad ay maaaring magboluntaryo o maitalaga bilang bahagi ng Lupon Tagapamayapa.)	3.25	0.77	Aware
4.      The success of the depends on the active involvement of both complainants and respondents from the community. (Ang tagumpay ng ay nakasalalay sa aktibong pakikilahok ng parehong nagrereklamo at inaakusahan mula sa komunidad.)	3.51	0.63	Highly Aware
5.      The barangay justice system promotes transparency and inclusivity by involving community members in dispute resolution. (isinusulong ng sistemang Pangkatarungan ng barangay ang pagiging bukas at inklusibo sa pamamagitan ng pagsasali sa mga miyembro ng komunidad sa pagresolba ng mga alitan.)	3.29	0.75	Aware
Overall	3.38	0.60	Highly Aware

Table 03: Level of Awareness on in Terms of Capacity of the Mediator

Indicator	Mean	Standard Deviation	Interpretation
I am aware that… (Alam ko na…)
1.      The Lupon Tagapamayapa members are trained to mediate disputes fairly and impartially. (ang mga miyembro ng Lupon Tagapamayapa ay sinanay upang mamagitan sa mga alitan nang patas at walang kinikilingan.)	3.45	0.68	Highly Aware
2.      The barangay mediator must possess good communication and listening skills to resolve conflicts effectively. (Ang tagapamagitan ng barangay ay dapat may mahusay na kakayahan sa pakikipag-usap at pakikinig upang epektibong maresolba ang mga alitan.)	3.55	0.63	Highly Aware
3.      I am aware that the mediator is expected to maintain confidentiality and neutrality during the mediation process. Ako ay may kaalaman na ang tagapamagitan ay inaasahang panatilihin ang pagiging kumpidensyal at walang kinikilingan sa proseso ng pag-aayos.	3.55	0.63	Highly Aware
4.      The effectiveness of the Katarungang Pambarangay depends on the competence of the mediator. (ang pagiging epektibo ng ay nakasalalay sa kakayahan ng tagapamagitan.)	3.48	0.64	Highly Aware
5.      Barangay mediators are guided by legal and ethical standards in handling disputes. (ang mga tagapamagitan ng barangay ay ginagabayan ng mga legal at etikal na pamantayan sa paghawak ng mga alitan.)	3.44	0.66	Highly Aware
Overall	3.50	0.59	Highly Aware

The most extensive awareness was exhibited in the statement, “The barangay mediator must possess good communication and listening skills to resolve conflicts effectively,” with a mean score of 3.55. This means respondents strongly believe that interpersonal relations have a bearing on the successful resolution of disputes. Communication competence is vital in restorative justice mechanisms where the resolution process hinges on the ability of the practitioners to show empathy, articulate issues, and engage in active dialogue. Mediating requires several important competencies. According to [25], effective communication is one of the most salient skills that barangay officials must have as they perform mediation since it helps reinforce confidence that both sides are listened to and understood during the sessions. In contrast, the statement “Barangay mediators are guided by legal and ethical standards in handling disputes” recorded the lowest mean score of 3.44. While still categorizing as “Highly Aware,” this detail demonstrates respondents’ understanding of the legal and ethical considerations underpinning mediation is lacking. This may be due to the scant visibility of formal training and capacity-building framework at the grassroots level. Many barangay mediators operate within a certain understanding of their responsibilities, but [26] emphasize the absence of proper orientation regarding ethical and legal boundaries, which leads many to arbitrarily apply mediation guidelines.

Table 04: Level of Awareness on in terms of Support from Local Government Units (LGUs)

Indicator	Mean	Standard Deviation	Interpretation
I am aware that… (Alam ko na…)
1.      LGUs provide financial and logistical support to ensure the effective implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay. (ang mga LGU ay nagbibigay ng pinansyal at lohistikal na suporta upang matiyak ang epektibong pagpapatupad ng .)	3.25	0.76	Aware
2.      LGUs conduct training and capacity-building programs for members of the Lupon Tagapamayapa. (ang mga LGU ay nagsasagawa ng mga pagsasanay at programang pampalakas ng kakayahan para sa mga miyembro ng Lupon Tagapamayapa.)	3.35	0.68	Highly Aware
3.      LGUs monitor and evaluate the performance of the Katarungang Pambarangay in their respective areas. (ang mga LGU ay nagsusubaybay at nagsusuri sa pagganap ng  sa kanilang nasasakupan.)	3.37	0.65	Highly Aware
4.      LGUs help raise public awareness about the role and importance of the Katarungang Pambarangay. (ang mga LGU ay tumutulong sa pagpapalaganap ng kaalaman sa publiko tungkol sa papel at kahalagahan ng .)	3.42	0.67	Highly Aware
5.      LGUs allocate resources to improve the facilities and operations of the Katarungang Pambarangay. (ang mga LGU ay naglalaan ng mga yaman upang mapabuti ang mga pasilidad at operasyon ng .)	3.30	0.73	Aware
Overall	3.34	0.63	Highly Aware

“LGUs help raise public awareness about the role and importance of the Katarungang Pambarangay” received the highest rating with a mean of 3.42. This observation indicates that a number of community members are aware of the education issued by LGUs through announcements, campaigns, or even during barangay assemblies. Such efforts to create awareness are important, as access to justice and participation by citizens in resolving disputes is made possible through the dissemination of information. An author [27] pointed out that information drives of a localized nature—conducted and funded by LGUs—are central to empowering residents to participate in barangay programs such as the Katarungang Pambarangay. The study further noted that legal literacy is enhanced with the active collaboration of LGUs and the barangay units during public seminars and forums. According to [28], barangay justice systems tend to operate more effectively in areas where LGUs integrate justice-related support into their regular development agendas, such as allocating specific funds for training, mediation rooms, and legal resource materials. Their research highlights that institutionalized LGU support not only reinforces administrative functionality but also boosts the morale of Lupon members and enhances public confidence in community justice. Without such embedded support structures, awareness campaigns may raise expectations that barangay systems are not equipped to meet, ultimately weakening public trust.

Table 05: Level of Awareness on in Terms of Accessibility

Indicator	Mean	Standard Deviation	Interpretation
I am aware that… (Alam ko na…)
1.      The Katarungang Pambarangay is easily accessible to all residents of the barangay. (Ang ay madaling mapuntahan ng lahat ng residente ng barangay.)	3.45	0.66	Highly Aware
2.      Individuals can file complaints at the barangay hall without needing legal representation. (maaaring magsampa ng reklamo sa barangay hall kahit walang kinatawang legal.)	3.18	0.81	Aware
3.      The Katarungang Pambarangay provides free services for resolving disputes. (Ang ay nagbibigay ng libreng serbisyo para sa pagresolba ng mga alitan.)	3.45	0.65	Highly Aware
4.      The schedule and procedures of the Katarungang Pambarangay are made known to the public. (ang iskedyul at mga proseso ng ay ipinaaalam sa publiko.)	2.73	1.04	Aware
5.      Persons with disabilities and senior citizens are given assistance when accessing Katarungang Pambarangay services. (Ang mga taong may kapansanan at matatanda ay binibigyan ng tulong sa pag-access ng mga serbisyo ng .)	3.33	0.72	Highly Aware
Overall	3.23	0.58	Aware

An author [29] asserted that barangay justice systems are most effective when constituents are able to see and approach the processes involved. Their study highlighted how familiarity with the location and the community encourages participation and lessens intimidation that is usually experienced in formal court settings. On the contrary, the lowest mean score of 2.73 was recorded for the statement, “The schedule and procedures of the Katarungang Pambarangay are made known to the public.” While still in the “Aware” category, this is suggestive of an operational transparency gap concerning all preceding system public relations issues. This may lead to uncertainty or reluctance among some residents who might want to use the system but do not possess essential procedural information. As emphasized by [30], accessibility must be both spatial and informational. In their study on local governance engagement, they found that even when barangay halls were centrally located, lack of visible procedural guidelines, unclear office hours, and inconsistent announcements prevented effective citizen participation. They argued that accessibility should encompass clear signage, updated bulletin boards, transparent workflows, and regular community briefings to ensure that all residents—not just those familiar with the system—can access justice with ease and confidence.

Table 06: Level of Awareness on in Terms of Education

Indicator	Mean	Standard Deviation	Interpretation
I am aware that… (Alam ko na…)
1.      The Katarungang Pambarangay includes educational efforts to inform the community about their rights and responsibilities. (Ang ay may kasamang mga programang pang-edukasyon upang ipaalam sa komunidad ang kanilang mga karapatan at pananagutan.)	3.36	0.73	Highly Aware
2.      Barangay officials are educated and trained on how to properly implement the Katarungang Pambarangay system. (Ang mga opisyal ng barangay ay tinuturuan at sinasanay kung paano maayos na ipatupad ang sistema ng .)	3.42	0.70	Highly Aware
3.      The community is educated about the importance of peaceful conflict resolution through the Katarungang Pambarangay. (Ang komunidad ay tinuturuan tungkol sa kahalagahan ng mapayapang pag-aayos ng alitan sa pamamagitan ng .)	3.34	0.76	Highly Aware
4.      Information campaigns or seminars are conducted to raise awareness about Katarungang Pambarangay. (May mga kampanya ng impormasyon o seminar na isinasagawa upang mapataas ang kaalaman tungkol sa .)	3.34	0.73	Highly Aware
5.      Educational materials about the Katarungang Pambarangay are available to the public. (may mga materyales na pang-edukasyon tungkol sa  na maaaring makuha ng publiko.)	3.21	0.79	Aware
Overall	3.34	0.66	Highly Aware

Table 07: Extent of Compliance with respect to Community Safety

Indicator	Mean	Standard Deviation	Interpretation
I comply with… (Ako ay sumusunod sa…)
1.      Barangay safety ordinances such as curfews, noise regulations, and anti-loitering policies. (mga ordinansa ng barangay ukol sa kaligtasan tulad ng curfew, regulasyon sa ingay, at pagbabawal sa pag-istambay.)	3.50	0.61	To a Very Great Extent
2.      Community programs that promote cleanliness and disaster preparedness. (mga programang pangkomunidad na nagtataguyod ng kalinisan at kahandaan sa sakuna.)	3.55	0.59	To a Very Great Extent
3.      Reporting suspicious or criminal activities to barangay officials or authorities. (tungkuling iulat ang mga kahina-hinala o kriminal na gawain sa mga opisyal ng barangay o awtoridad.)	3.50	0.61	To a Very Great Extent
4.      Safety practices at home, such as securing doors, proper waste disposal, and fire prevention measures. (mga gawi ng kaligtasan sa bahay tulad ng pagsisiguro ng mga pinto, tamang pagtatapon ng basura, at mga hakbang sa pag-iwas sa sunog.)	3.48	0.61	To a Very Great Extent
5.      The instructions of barangay tanods and emergency responders during patrols or crisis situations. (mga tagubilin ng mga barangay tanod at mga tagatugon sa emerhensiya sa panahon ng pagpapatrolya o krisis.)	3.53	0.59	To a Very Great Extent
Overall	3.50	0.55	To a Very Great Extent

An author [31] noted that programs for the environment and disaster preparedness undertaken by local governments are usually well-observed when there is community participation at the center, and there is an expectation of a clean environment, as well as reduced disaster risk. Involvement of the community in such programs enriches their credibility and effectiveness in governance, as noted in the study. On the other hand, the least appreciated aspect was “Barangay safety ordinances such as curfews, noise regulations, and anti-loitering policies,” receiving an average score of 3.50. While this score is still regarded as “To a Very Great Extent,” it is a step lower than the others. The difference, no matter how little, can be explained by varying enforcement of such ordinances, lack of awareness, or general apathy towards the enforcement of such ordinances. An author [32] noted that residents tend to disregard barangay ordinances when enforcement is arbitrary and when there is a lack of engagement with the governance frameworks. The local governance framework draws emphasis on effective two-way communication, active consultations, and community engagement as essential factors towards compliance.

Table 08: Extent of Compliance with Respect to Competency Development

Indicator	Mean	Standard Deviation	Interpretation
I comply with… (Ako ay sumusunod sa…)
1.      Attending training programs or seminars organized by the barangay or local government. (pagdalo sa mga programang pagsasanay o seminar na inorganisa ng barangay o lokal na pamahalaan.)	3.45	0.69	To a Very Great Extent
2.      Applying the skills and knowledge gained from competency development activities in my daily tasks. (paggamit ng mga kasanayan at kaalamang natutunan mula sa mga aktibidad sa pagpapaunlad ng kakayahan sa aking pang-araw-araw na gawain.)	3.43	0.67	To a Very Great Extent
3.      The requirements set by the barangay or organization for completing development programs. (mga kinakailangan na itinakda ng barangay o organisasyon para sa pagtatapos ng mga programang pangkaunlaran.)	3.40	0.69	To a Very Great Extent
4.      Participating in capacity-building initiatives that aim to improve leadership and community service. (pakikilahok sa mga inisyatibong nagpapalakas ng kakayahan na naglalayong mapabuti ang pamumuno at paglilingkod sa komunidad.)	3.42	0.69	To a Very Great Extent
5.      Sharing what I have learned from training sessions with other members of the community. (pagbabahagi ng aking mga natutunan mula sa mga sesyon ng pagsasanay sa ibang miyembro ng komunidad.)	3.40	0.70	To a Very Great Extent
Overall	3.42	0.65	To a Very Great Extent

Table 09: The extent of Compliance with respect to Accountability

Indicator	Mean	Standard Deviation	Interpretation
I comply with… (Ako ay sumusunod sa…)
1.      Submitting accurate and timely reports or documentation required by the barangay or organization. (pagsusumite ng tumpak at napapanahong ulat o dokumento na kinakailangan ng barangay o organisasyon.)	3.39	0.71	To a Very Great Extent
2.      Taking responsibility for my actions and decisions in community-related tasks. (pananagutan para sa aking mga kilos at desisyon sa mga gawaing may kinalaman sa komunidad.)	3.42	0.67	To a Very Great Extent
3.      Being transparent in the use of resources entrusted to me by the barangay or group. (pagiging bukas at tapat sa paggamit ng mga yaman na ipinagkatiwala sa akin ng barangay o grupo.)	3.43	0.70	To a Very Great Extent
4.      Addressing feedback or concerns raised by community members in a respectful and constructive manner. (pagtugon sa mga puna o alalahanin ng mga miyembro ng komunidad sa isang magalang at makabuluhang paraan.)	3.47	0.67	To a Very Great Extent
5.      The ethical standards and guidelines set by the barangay or organization are used to perform my duties. (sa mga pamantayang etikal at alituntunin na itinakda ng barangay o organisasyon sa pagtupad ng aking mga tungkulin.)	3.43	0.68	To a Very Great Extent
Overall	3.43	0.65	To a Very Great Extent

The indicator that was rated the highest was “Taking responsibility for my actions and decisions in community-related tasks,” with a mean score of 3.42. This denotes those respondents, particularly leaders, possess personal responsibility to a remarkable degree. This shows that stakeholders are voluntarily accepting the responsibility associated with decisions made, which is crucial for the restorative nature of Katarungang Pambarangay. From [33] findings, we learned that personal responsibility enhances leaders’ ethical accountability and governance by barangay officials. Their findings noted that leadership sets the tone around responsibility—it is rife in the governance of barangays.

Table 10: Test of Difference on the Level of Awareness as Grouped According to Profile

Profile Variables	H-Value	P-Value
Age	9.99**	.019
Sex	0.49	.485
Educational Attainment	1.3	.729
Previous Work Experience	1.9	.753
Role	9.96**	.007
Number of Years as Brgy Official	18.47**	.002

The variable “number of years as barangay official” had the highest H-value (18.47), which indicates the greatest difference in awareness. This reflects that more-tenured officials must be far more aware of the processes pertaining to Katarungang Pambarangay due to experience in several cases and training throughout the years. An author [34] noted that the length of time spent in office greatly influences the competency of barangay officials, whereas veteran officials tend to more routinely handle the community justice system and mediation procedures. Likewise, role emerged as a significant factor (p = .007), suggesting that awareness gaps exist among Punong Barangays, Lupon members, and an ordinary resident. As a result, it seems that the implementors of Katarungang Pambarangay, particularly the Lupon members — seem to have a better understanding than the constituents or the complainants. An author [35] explained that officials placed in charge of maintaining peace are frequently taught various modules involving advanced dispute resolution, which enriches their knowledge relative to random system users.

Table 11: Test of Relationship between the Level of Awareness and Extent of Compliance

	Variable	Mean	Standard Deviation	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Level of Awareness
1	Community participation	3.38	0.60
2	Capacity of the mediator	3.50	0.59	0.82**
3	Support from Local Government Units (LGUs)	3.34	0.63	0.73**	0.77**
4	Accessibility	3.23	0.58	0.69**	0.70**	0.72**
5	Education	3.33	0.66	0.73**	0.76**	0.81**	0.75**
Extent of Compliance
6	Community safety	3.50	0.55	0.67**	0.75**	0.66**	0.67**	0.77**
7	Competency development	3.42	0.65	0.73**	0.78**	0.73**	0.71**	0.86**	0.80**
8	Accountability	3.43	0.65	0.74**	0.80**	0.72**	0.71**	0.83**	0.80**	0.91**

 

Table 12: Challenges Encountered

Challenge/s	Frequency
Unfamiliarity with Karunungang Pambarangay or their roles in it.	11
Insufficient Training and Capacity Building for Lupon Members	18
Budget and Resource Constraints (Lack of funding, honoraria, and logistical support)	16
Difficulty in getting parties to attend or cooperate in hearings	12
Issues with process delays, professionalism, and coordination.	9
Difficult cases such as land disputes, family issues, and youth conflicts.	6
Lack of public awareness campaigns and information sharing	7

The most mentioned issue is “Insufficient training and capacity building for Lupon members,” as stated by 18 respondents. This shows a large gap in the professional training of those who are supposed to be the mediators of conflicts. In the absence of ongoing training, it is possible that Lupon members do not possess the necessary skills to facilitate unbiased community conflict resolution. This also aligns with the findings of [36], who said that a lot of barangay mediators are appointed without proper training, which creates a lot of irregularities and loss of trust in the process. They advocate for the mandatory systematic implementation of capacity-building measures for all Lupon members to ensure that all of them have the required skills and knowledge. Closely following the issue of “Budget and resource constraints” (f = 16) is the absence of funding for honoraria, logistics, and operational support. Inadequate funding not only impedes the training and motivating of Lupon members but also hampers the proper functioning of the justice system, including the availability of the venue and documentation supplies. As [37] pointed out, budget constraints in the operation of barangays often contribute to operational delays, service delivery inefficiencies, and reduced satisfaction among the constituents. Hernandez and Cruz suggested that LGUs should ensure the sustainability of Katarungang Pambarangay by incorporating its funding into local development frameworks. The least cited challenge is “Lack of public awareness campaigns and information sharing,” which only seven respondents considered. Although it may not seem significant, this presents the greatest risk. Lack of awareness can lead to underuse of the system, especially among marginalized groups who might be oblivious to their rights or the system’s role. The issue may be less visible due to a lack of urgency, yet it remains important for improving participation and accessibility. To summarize, the Katarungang Pambarangay system is functioning, but its system has training gaps and lacks resources, which limits its functionality. Addressing these issues at the policy level and enhancing capabilities will improve justice at the grassroots level. Based on the findings of the study, the researcher proposes the development of a program titled KAPASI: Katarungang Pambarangay Strengthening Initiative aimed at enhancing the implementation of the Barangay Justice System in Sto. Tomas, Batangas. This program seeks to address the challenges identified, particularly in the areas of training, public awareness, resource support, and community participation.

The KAPASI program shall include the following core components:

• Capacity-Building Workshops – Regular training sessions for Lupon Tagapamayapa members and barangay officials focusing on mediation techniques, legal procedures, and ethical standards.
• Public Awareness Campaigns – Dissemination of educational materials (e.g., brochures, posters), barangay forums, and digital media content to inform residents of their rights and responsibilities under the Katarungang Pambarangay.
• Documentation and Monitoring Tools – Introduction of standardized case-handling forms, checklists, and evaluation templates to ensure consistent implementation and compliance.
• Inclusive Access Mechanisms – Development of assistance programs for persons with disabilities, senior citizens, and low-literacy residents to ensure equitable access to justice services.
• LGU Engagement Framework – Strengthening coordination with the City Government and DILG to secure sustained financial, technical, and policy support for the Katarungang Pambarangay system.

This enhanced program is designed to reinforce the restorative principles of the Barangay Justice System, promote professionalism and transparency, and ensure that grassroots justice becomes more responsive, inclusive, and community-driven.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents were aged 46–60 years old, indicating that middle-aged individuals are more engaged in barangay governance. Female respondents (63%) outnumbered males. A large proportion had college-level education, while only a few completed elementary schools. Respondents had diverse prior work experiences, with most coming from the government and private sectors. The majority of barangay officials had served for 1–3 years, while a smaller percentage had more than 10 years of service. Community Participation – They recognized the importance of involvement in assemblies and dispute resolution. Capacity of the Mediator – They were aware of the mediator’s role, communication skills, and impartiality. Support from LGUs – Awareness was high regarding the training and advocacy roles of LGUs, although logistical support was perceived as limited. Accessibility – Generally rated as “Aware,” but there were gaps in publicizing procedures and schedules. Education – Respondents acknowledged the value of legal education and training for officials, though access to public materials remained limited. Community Safety – Conflict resolution was seen as contributing to peace and order. Competency Development – Training and skills improvement activities were implemented but could be further institutionalized. Accountability – There was strong adherence to documentation and ethical conduct. The Kruskal-Wallis H test revealed significant differences in awareness when grouped according to age, role, and number of years in service. No significant differences were observed when grouped by sex, educational attainment, or work experience. A strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship was found between all awareness dimensions and all compliance dimensions. The strongest correlation was between overall awareness and accountability (r = 0.91, p ≤ 0.05), suggesting that higher awareness leads to better compliance. Inadequate training and capacity-building activities for Lupon members. Insufficient budgetary and logistical support. Limited resident participation in hearings and dispute settlement. Low public awareness of schedules, processes, and roles. Lack of standardized case handling procedures and accountability tools. Based on the findings of this study, the implementation of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law in selected barangays of Sto. Tomas City, Batangas is generally effective. Respondents demonstrated a high level of awareness regarding the principles and processes of the Barangay Justice System, particularly in areas of community participation, LGU support, peacemaker skills, and public legal education. Likewise, a very high level of compliance was observed, especially in terms of promoting safety, accountability, and capacity development. These indicate that the system is well-integrated and appreciated by both implementers and community members. At the 0.05 level of significance, the study partially accepts the first hypothesis, as awareness levels significantly differed based on age, role, and length of service, but not by sex, educational attainment, or work experience. The second hypothesis is accepted, confirming a strong and positive relationship between awareness and compliance, especially with regard to accountability. However, challenges such as limited training, budget constraints, and weak information campaigns remain, underscoring the need for improved capacity-building programs, increased funding, and enhanced civic engagement strategies to ensure the long-term success of the Katarungang Pambarangay

REFERENCES

1. Alampay, E., & dela Rama, M. (2017). Local Governance and Justice Systems in the Philippines: An Institutional Analysis. Ateneo de Manila University Press.
2. Alpha, R. P., & Tumelo, S. (2024). Conflict resolution in Indigenous communities: A social work perspective. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 13(10), 68–77.
3. Annual Reviews. (2024). The transformative potential of restorative justice. Annual Review of Criminology, 7, 1–25.
4. Asian Development Bank. (2020). Strengthening Access to Justice in the Philippines. ADB Briefs.
5. Ateneo Human Rights Center. (2023). Gap analysis of the Katarungang Pambarangay implementation and training: A human rights-based approach to the implementation of a child-friendly, gender-responsive, and indigenous people-relevant Katarungang Pambarangay.
6. Avram, R., Koepcke, E. J., Moussawi, A., & Nuñez, M. (2024). Do Cure Violence programs reduce gun violence? Evidence from New York City.
7. Beven, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2020). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–149.
8. Beven, J., Dowden, C., Muise, D., & Rutherford, L. (2022). Restorative justice practices: Bridging the gap between offenders and victims effectively.
9. Beven, J., Rutherford, L., & Zakszeski, B. (2021). Mind the gap: A systematic review of restorative practices in schools. School Psychology Review, 50(4), 475–490.
10. Borja, E. J. (2024). Examining conciliation procedures in Barangay Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City: Their efficiency in settling local disputes. PHINMA Cagayan de Oro College Research Journal, 2(1), 78–95.
11. Cabason, R. B., Landasan, A. J. P., Ojeda, Z. P., & Remiticado, L. U. (2024). Examining the conciliation procedure used by the Lupong Tagapamayapa in Barangay Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City. PHINMA Cagayan de Oro College Research Journal, 2(2), 66–82.
12. Cao, O. T., & Vu, T. V. (2024). Proposing restorative justice models as alternative approaches to addressing criminal matters: A case study of judicial systems in civil and common law countries. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 7(4), 93–119.
13. org. (2024). Can restorative justice conferencing reduce recidivism? Evidence from the Make-it-Right program [Report].
14. Chicago Appleseed Center. (2024). Restorative Justice Community Court report [Policy Brief].
15. Council of State Governments Justice Center & University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute. (2024). Restorative justice practices and credible messengers: Promising, innovative approaches for improving outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system.
16. (2023, December 30). Embracing restorative justice in the Philippines’ drug policy reform [Advocacy Paper]. https://csop101.medium.com/restorative-justice-and-drug-policy-reform-2023
17. Daramola, E. J., Alonso, J. D., Marsh, J. A., & Dhaliwal, T. K. (2023). Educators’ beliefs and perceptions of implementing restorative practices. Education and Urban Society, 55(1), 27–50.
18. Darmawan, R. A., Diputra, M. M. R., Rahman, A., & Sutrisno, A. (2024). Analysis of the effectiveness of the application of restorative justice in criminal cases in Indonesia. Journal of World Science, 3(5), 567–572.
19. Department of Justice (DOJ). (2021). Manila: DOJ.
20. Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). (2020). Barangay Governance Performance Review Report.
21. Education and Urban Society. (2025). Emerging adults and restorative justice programs: A landscape study. Education and Urban Society.
22. Gavrielides, T. (2024). Restorative justice and social justice: An international perspective. Restorative Justice: An International Journal, 10(1), 1–15.
23. Gonzales, M. (2022). Assessment of the Barangay Justice System in Calauan, Laguna. Unpublished Thesis.
24. Guinigundo, D. A. G. (2021). A path to restorative justice: Applicability of mental health courts in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Legal Education, 8(2), 205–219.
25. GVSU Human Resources. (2024). Restorative-based conflict prevention & alternative dispute resolution.
26. Herman, R. (2023). Impact evaluation of complementarities between PBIS and restorative justice. National Institute of Justice.
27. Hübschle, A., & Dore, A. (2021). Focus on victims and the community: Applying restorative justice principles to wildlife crime offenses in South Africa. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 4(1), 5–28.
28. Innovations for Poverty Action – Philippines. (2023). Building community trust and conflict mediation capacity: Evidence from the Barangay Justice System in the Philippines.
29. International Center for Transitional Justice. (2024). Transforming social relations: Restorative justice framework in massive human rights contexts [Research Report].
30. (2023). The application of restorative justice in the City of Dasmariñas, Cavite, Philippines [Master’s thesis, Scribd].
31. Macaspac, A. (2019). Community-Based Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and the Rule of Law. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 63(1).
32. National Center on Restorative Justice. (2022). 2021 impact report. Office of Justice Programs.
33. National Institute of Justice. (2022). Evaluability assessments of restorative justice programs for serious and violent harm [Report].
34. Naylor, B., Gang, D., Loff, B., & Kirkman, M. (2024). A call for evaluation of restorative justice programs: A systematic review of sexual and family violence RJ cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication.
35. Nebrida, A. P. (2024). Evaluating the effectiveness of Katarungang Pambarangay in Bacnotan, La Union. International Research Journal of Science, Technology, Education, and Management, 4(2), 45–60. Retrieved from
36. Ngoc, B., & Seering, J. (2025). The design space for online restorative justice tools: A case study with ApoloBot. arXiv preprint.
37. Nguyen, B., & Seering, J. (2025). The design space for online restorative justice tools: A case study with ApoloBot [Preprint]. arXiv.