 My talk today is on forensic DNA technology, a powerful tool for judicial reform. DNA testing is the most powerful tool for human identification. Since its discovery in the United Kingdom in the mid-1980s, DNA profiling had cost a paradigm shift in identification of victims, perpetrators and witnesses in Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and some Asian countries such as Japan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. The identification of segments of DNA that are highly variable in human populations is a major step towards establishment of population databases needed for the statistical evaluation of matching DNA evidence or the identification of repeat offenders. In addition, the chemical stability of a DNA molecule against harsh environments such as hot temperatures and very humid conditions makes DNA more suitable for criminal investigations, which last for months, even years in the Philippines, compared to proteins. Moreover, the fact that we inherit our DNA from our parents provides an investigator with alternative reference samples that can be obtained from a person's relative if he or she is unavailable to provide his or her own reference sample. Recent advances in forensic DNA testing are now paving the way for reforming the manner by which cases are resolved in courts of law. Through to the way suspected offenders are apprehended during a criminal investigation. Firstly, the availability of new and better DNA markers which are more variable across different populations add to the increased power of discrimination once more DNA markers are used. There was a time when DNA testing only involved seven to nine DNA markers to evaluate if crime scene evidence matches a suspect's DNA profile as well as in determining relationships such as paternity or maternity. To date, we use a panel of 21 autosomal DNA markers and 23 male-specific DNA markers in the Y chromosome that is passed on from father to son. This has increased the capacity of our laboratory to differentiate individuals, particularly males, compared to what was available during the early years of DNA testing. The use of automated and computer expert systems for large-scale analysis have also reduced the possibility of manual errors and increased output per unit time. The use of several fluorescent dyes in a single setup which is prepared at one time but already includes more than 20 DNA markers provides more information. This was a major improvement to earlier DNA profiling techniques that targeted only one DNA marker but require the same amount of biological material. More recently, we were able to use a select group of Y-chromosomal DNA called Rapid Limitating Short-Tanim-Repeats or RM-Y-S-T-R that enable us to differentiate paternally related males such as father and son or brother and brother. Prior to this development, it was difficult to differentiate paternally related males because they have identical Y-chromosomal DNA profiles when conventional techniques were used. However, our research which was included in a global study of male volunteers from different countries showed the effectiveness of RM-Y-S-T-Rs in individuating suspects who may also be related paternally. Scientist, including those in the DNA analysis laboratory of the UP Dileman Natural Sciences Research Institute are continuing to search for new and better polymorphic DNA markers for purposes of human identification. This work will be undertaken in collaboration with the program on forensics and ethnicity of the Philippine Genome Center wherein advances in genomics such as next generation sequencing, or NGS, as well as large-scale genomic studies using microarrays will be conducted to accelerate the process of discovery of appropriate DNA regions for forensic applications in the Philippines. The development of more robust chemical reaction mixes have also opened the possibility of free-testing old-case samples which may have yielded negative results such as encode cases. These reactions may also allow us to analyze samples in post-conviction DNA cases wherein the Philippine Supreme Court may order the reopening of old cases that involve prisoners who continue to claim their innocence and relevant biological samples are still available. In 2012, the Innocence Project Philippines Network, or IPPN, was launched at the National Belibid Prison and the Correctional Institute of Women. The network consists of student volunteers in legal aid clinics of the law schools of the University of the Philippines, De La Salle University, and Atinae de Davao. Law faculty, lawyers providing pro-bono work, NGOs, private citizens, and the UPD NSRI DNA Analysis Laboratory who are working together to evaluate prospective wrongful conviction cases. In its initial phase, the volunteers are tasked to find cases that have become final and executory, but that may be reopened for post-conviction DNA testing. Following the rules on DNA evidence that was promulgated by the Supreme Court in 2007, in the Philippines were in DNA testing of cases such as people versus Hubert Webb et al and people versus Pakula Ranyaga et al could have provided answers to many questions and confirm or negate witnesses' testimonies. The use of post-conviction DNA testing that is now recognized by the Philippine Supreme Court remains to be realized. Thirdly, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI, has reported the development of faster and portable DNA analytical systems that would allow investigators to generate DNA profiles on site, thereby increasing the chances of apprehending the real perpetrator almost in real time. The speed and accuracy of this portable DNA systems is crucial in criminal investigations. In the Philippines, where no DNA legislation governing the collection, handling and storage of crimes in evidence, as well as in the establishment and security of criminal databases, the use of these analytical systems will not have its maximum effect. More importantly, as science, particularly genetics, continue to expand its forensic applications, there is an urgent need to revise the curriculum of relevant courses, such as criminology, public administration, political science and law, so as to incorporate relevant science and genetic topics. This will improve the education of our future law enforcement personnel, administrators, politicians, legislators, lawyers and judges. Only with an increased appreciation and recognition of science and its numerous uses at the surface of society, could we maximize the fruits of scientific research that scientists, including Philippine scientists, are devoting our lives to for the good of all.