ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AC OF 2004

It came into law for the purpose of promulgating the prescribed procedures and guidelines for
its implementation along with the policy of the state which are:

 To promote party autonomy in the resolution of disputes or the freedom of the parties to make
their own arrangements to resolve their disputes
 To encourage and actively promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution “ADR” as an
important means to achieve speedy and impartial justice and to unclog court dockets
 To provide means for the use of ADR as an efficient tool and alternative procedure for the
resolution of appropriate cases
 To enlist active private sector participation in the settlement of disputes through ADR

Applying the principles governing alternative dispute resolution will provide the opportunity for
the parties involved to settle the issue at their own expense with the support of the local
community, authorities of the law, and responsible social organizations with the aim of restoring
interpersonal relations thereby contributory to the public safety and promotion of peace in general.
 AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

It was formally institutionalized in order to help relieve the courts of such docket congestion
and thereby enhance the quality of justice dispensed by them. In this premise, the context of
restorative justice has served to reference the objective of amicably settling disputes at the
elementary level within the Barangay Justice System, primarily with the objective of restoring
personal relations and initiating efforts from those that are mainly affected.

In this part, learners will be able to understand the purpose and goal of alternative dispute
resolution, apply the procedure therein, and identify the factors contributory to the success of its
implementation. Moreover, the learners will be able to realize based on a practical exercise on how
the mechanism of settling disputes can be applied while tracing diligently the limitations of its
application.
 CONFLICT

 is a struggle between people. It may be physical, or between conflicting ideas.

 came from the Latin word “conflingere” which means to come together for a battle.

 it can either be within one person, or they can involve several people or groups.

 it is a natural disagreement arising between two or more people.

 it exists when they have incompatible goals and one or more believes that the behavior of the
other prevents them from their own goal achievement.
 These are perspectives in sociology and social psychology that emphasize a materialist
interpretation of history, a dialectical method of analysis, a critical stance toward existing social
arrangements, and a political program of revolution or at least a reform.

 These draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast
historically dominant ideologies. It is therefore a macro-level analysis of society.

 Certain of these sets out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought, while
many of these perspectives hold parallels.

 It does not refer to be unified school of thought and should not be confused with.

 Karl Maxx is the father of the social conflict theory, which is a component of the four major
paradigms of sociology.
 Conflict theory is most associated with Marxism, but as a reaction to functionalism and
positivist method, it may also be associated with several other perspectives, including:

 Critical Theory - a social theory that aims to critique and change society. It attempts to find the
underlying assumptions in social life that keep people from fully and truly understand how the
world works.

 Feminist Theory – an approach that recognizes women’s political, social, and economic equality
to men.

 Postmodern Theory – an approach that is critical of modernism, with a mistrust of grand

 Postcolonial Theory - a critical approach that deals with literature produced in countries that
were once, or are now, colonies of other countries.

 Queer Theory – a growing body of research findings that challenges the heterosexual bias in
Western Society.

 World Systems Theory - a multidisciplinary approach to world history and social change that
emphasizes the world system (and not nation-states) as the primary (but not exclusive) unit of
social analysis.

 Race-Conflict Theory – a point of view that focuses on the inequality and conflict between people
of different racial and ethnic categories.
 CONFLICT RESOLUTION

 It is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of
conflict and retribution.
 It may also be used interchangeably with dispute resolution, where arbitration and litigation
processes are critically involved.
 Its concept can be thought to encompass the use of nonviolent resistance measures by
conflicted parties in an attempt to promote effective resolution.
 Dimensions of resolution typically parallel the dimensions of conflict in the way the conflict is
processed.
 There are 3 types of resolution of conflicts:
Cognitive Resolution is the way disputants understand and view the conflict with beliefs,
perspectives, understandings, and attitudes.
Emotional Resolution is the way disputants feel about the conflict, the emotional energy.
Behavioral Resolution is reflective of how the disputants act, their behavior.
 KENNETH THOMAS and RALPH KILMANN

They are the ones that developed the five conflict resolution strategies that people use to
handle conflicts, including Avoiding, Competing, Accommodating, Collaborating, and Compromising.

This assumes that people choose how cooperative and how assertive to be in a conflict. It
suggests that everyone has preferred ways of responding to conflict, but mot of us use all the
methods under various circumstances.
 STRATEGY #1: AVOIDING

It is when people just ignore or withdraw from the conflict. They choose this method when the
discomfort of confrontational exceeds the potential reward of resolution of the conflict. While this
might seem easy to accommodate for the facilitator, people aren’t really contributing anything of
value to the conversation and maybe withholding worthwhile ideas. When conflict is avoided,
nothing is resolved.
 STRATEGY #2: COMPETING

It is used by people who go into a conflict planning to win. They’re assertive and not
cooperative. This method is characterized by the assumption that one side wins and everyone else
lose. It does not allow room for diverse perspectives in a well-informed total picture. Competing
might work in sports or war, but it’s rarely a good strategy for group problem-solving.
 STRATEGY #3: ACCOMMODATING

It is a strategy when one party gives in to the wishes or demands of another. They are being
cooperative but not assertive. This may appear to be a gracious way to give in when one figures out
that he or she has been wrong about an argument. It’s less helpful when one party accommodates
another merely to preserve harmony or to avoid disruption. Like avoidance, it can result in
unresolved issues. Too much accommodation can result in groups where the most assertive parties
commandeer the process and take control of most conversations.
 STRATEGY #4: COLLABORATING

It is the method used when people are both assertive and cooperative. A group may learn to
allow each participant to make a contribution with the possibility of co-creating a shared resolution
that everyone can support.
A great to collaborate and overcome conflict is to reach out and touch them.
 STRATEGY #5: COMPROMISING

It is where participants are partially assertive and cooperative. The concept is that everyone
gives up a little bit of what they want, and no one gets everything they want. The perception of the
best outcome when working by compromise is that which “splits the difference”.
Compromise is perceived as being fair, even if no one is particularly happy with the final
outcome.