The United Nations Millennium Development Goals fifteen years ago were set out to help motivate and organize international efforts to remove extreme poverty. The goals will soon expire in 2015 and much still remains to be done. In supporting “workable growth with fairness,’ they recognized that the “rule of law” plays a vital role. They found that it requires strengthening the ability of people to use the law to gain access to fundamental necessities of life, including education, healthcare, food and fresh water, and housing.The ability of ordinary citizens is needed to claim their rights and resources peacefully, using the law, and to demand accountability from those who represent them in power. Dictatorial government are wary about this idea, but access to justice works best in partnership with government. Strengthening the rights of citizens makes funding coming from abroad more effective.

The common disasters in Mexico, Guinea, Central and Eastern Europe and other parts of the world is the failure of the rule of law. The disproportionally high percentages of the developing world’s poor, uneducated, and infant deaths are on those conflict affected countries where the rule of law is lacking. As the world works out on how to combat poverty in the next generation of development goals, new strategies are needed. The post 2015 development agenda of the Millennium Development Goals, offers to endorse comprehensive strategies to end extreme poverty. Access to justice can assist communities to secure rights over common land, giving them more control over their livelihoods and greater incentive to preserve their environment. Access to justice helps translate legal guarantees of gender equality into real improvements in the daily lives of women. Access to justice not only help individuals, but is recognized by scholars, practitioners, and governments alike as having a broader positive effect on development.Survey results here in our country showed that in communities with legal support, regulatory reforms resulted in residents with higher levels of productivity, higher income, more disposable income, and more investment in their farms.

Tidbits:

G.R. No. 111002,  July 21, 1997, PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. and CROWN 
SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. vs. NICANOR RANAY and GERARDO RANAY, and NLRC.
(Courtesy of Atty. FidelBorja)

Aside from petitioners' failure to establish the facts constituting the grounds for dismissing private respondents, the Court also takes into account against petitioners their glaring omission to afford private respondents procedural due 
process, the indispensable elements of which are notice and hearing. We observe that the records are devoid of ally proof indicating that the required notices were sent to respondents and a reasonable opportunity accorded them to be heard. The POEA and the NLRC similarly failed to find any, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the dismissal of private respondents was even tainted with procedural infirmity.