FOR the past 20 years, the Philippine judiciary has been struggling with mounting case backlogs, clogged dockets, and aging cases that have severely affected its efficiency in delivering justice to individuals seeking it.
Litigants have had to endure manual processes of filing cases, delayed and prolonged litigations, slow release of decisions, resolutions, and orders, as well as limited access to courts that usually result in extended detention for individuals awaiting trial.
For more than a century, law graduates have shouldered the financial and logistical burdens of traveling from their provinces to Metro Manila just to apply for and take the Bar examinations.
These challenges may be attributed to the judiciary’s slow adoption of digital infrastructure and tools that could have significantly improved court operations and promoted a transparent, efficient, and accessible judicial system.
But the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the judiciary to hasten the implementation of the 2022-2027 Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations (SPJI)-a five-year blueprint for judicial reform spearheaded by Chief Justice Gesmundo.
A key initiative under the program is the development of the eCourt PH app, which is available on the Philippine Judiciary Platform (PJP), a unified online portal for court services.
eCourt PH aims to digitalize court processes, including the electronic filing of cases and real-time tracking and monitoring of cases. Through eCourt PH, both the judges and parties can readily access the pleadings online.
The SC has also launched the Judiciary e-Payment Solution (JEPS) for online payment of court fees.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez considers ‘digitization and automation’ as the most ‘game-changing’ reforms in the judiciary over the last two decades.
Marquez is a ‘homegrown justice’ of the High Court, where he began his career in 1991, or 34 years ago.
In an interview with BusinessMirror, Marquez said he considers hearings conducted through videoconferencing as the most significant judicial reform in the past 20 years. It marks the integration of modern technology in the country’s judicial processes.
Due to security and logistical considerations, VCH has enabled remote participation of parties in court cases, including those based outside the Philippines.
‘Today, however, long after the pandemic, the courts continue to use VCH and have even expanded its coverage beyond our shores to allow Filipinos and court users abroad to appear online before our courts in real time,’ Marquez noted
‘All they have to do is go to our embassies and consulates abroad. This has enabled cases to move faster.’
VCHs have also been beneficial for persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) under the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) and the Bureau of Corrections. They no longer have to appear in court for their hearings, unless required by the judge.
This system has reduced the risk of escape during the transport of inmates to court, lessened transport costs for BJMP and BuCor, and allowed courts to save resources.
‘More than 1.6 million VCHs have been recorded recently with a success rate of 91 percent,’ according to Justice Marquez. ‘
‘From manual processes with practically every step arising from human intervention, legal and court processes are now automated, have become more efficient, and are less prone to misconduct,’ Marquez added.
‘The courts have also become much more accessible to the court users, who do not have to go to court anymore. They can go online,’ he added.
In 2022, the SC pioneered the digitalized and regionalized professional licensure examination geared towards promoting accessibility and equal opportunity.
The digitalization and regionalization cover both the regular and Sharia bar examinations for aspiring lawyers.
The system includes the online submission of applications through the Bar Applicant Registration Information System and Tech Assistance (BARISTA), the Court’s new online application platform. It also includes the release of the results directly to the examinee on their digital devices.
Through BARISTA, there is no need for bar examinees to troop to Manila during the Bar exams because they can now choose from 15 to 20 bar sites across the country where to take the exams.
The Court is also currently pilot testing eCourt v.2, a management tool that enables the online monitoring of the progress of cases from the first-level court all the way up to the SC.
‘A much-improved version of v.1, eCourt v.2 is expected to be fully implemented by next year,’ Marquez noted..
Artificial intelligence (AI) has already been integrated into judicial processes with the rollout of Scriptix, an AI-powered voice-to-text transcription platform.
An assessment conducted by the SC on Scriptix showed an average transcription accuracy rate of 80-90 percent, which takes into consideration the audio quality, speaker clarity, and the complexity of the content. Scriptix has also reduced the entire transcription process from two weeks to just three to four days.
Marquez said the Court is currently searching for other AI technologies that can do plain language translation.
‘Many of our fellow Filipino citizens struggle to fully understand the legal processes that affect them. By translating legalese into accessible language, AI can help bridge this critical gap to ensure that people know what happened in their case and what further steps they can pursue next,’ he said.
‘Thus, we are looking to see if Scriptix can also cover real-time transcription and translation from English to Tagalog and other prominent languages in our jurisdiction,’ he announced.
Scriptix, according to Marquez, would not only improve courtroom efficiency but also give litigants a clearer understanding of what is being said and decided during proceedings, through the elimination of apparent language barriers and misunderstood legal jargon.
Chief Justice Gesmundo has assured that no one would lose their job because of these innovations.
‘This modernization is not a disruption, but a direction. It is a move toward a Judiciary that is responsive, inclusive, and sustainable,’ he said
20 landmark decisions over the past 20 years
Over the past 20 years, the Court has also issued landmark decisions that shaped the country’s social, political, judicial, and economic landscape.
1 On February 15, 2008, the SC distinguished between content-neutral and content-based restrictions on speech, holding that the latter are presumed unconstitutional and must be evaluated against the clear and present danger rule.
The Court further explained that this rule applies to all forms of media, including broadcast media.
The decision, penned by former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, stemmed from the alleged destabilization plot against the administration of then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo following the release of the so-called ‘Hello Garci’ audio tapes.
The late Solicitor General Francisco Chavez filed a petition against the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) over their issuances that threaten to prosecute media practitioners for violation of the anti-wiretapping law should they publish or air the tapes.
Chávez argued that the issuances constitute a violation of the freedom of expression and of the press.
The SC pointed out that any government action ‘that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on content is given the strictest scrutiny, with the government having the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by the clear and present danger rule.’
It further held that not every violation of a law will justify ‘straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press.’
2 In the case of The Secretary of National Defense v. Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo, the Court exercised its expanded power for the first time to promulgate rules that would protect constitutional rights under the 1987 Constitution.
In its ruling issued on October 7, 2008, the SC affirmed the Court of Appeals’ grant of the privilege of the writ of amparo to the Manalo brothers, who were survivors of enforced disappearance.
The SC emphasized that ‘the writ of amparo is a tool that gives voice to the prisoners of silent guns and prisoners behind secret walls.’
3 In De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, the SC issued a ruling on March 17, 2010, which held that the prohibition on midnight appointments under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution does not apply to judicial appointments.
The Court held that the process by which judicial appointments are made (e.g., involvement of the Judicial and Bar Council) eliminates the danger that appointments to the judiciary can be made for the purpose of buying votes in a coming presidential election.
4 In Greco Belgica v. former Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, et al., the Court declared on November 19, 2013, that the ‘pork barrel system’ is unconstitutional due to its violation of the principle of separation of powers and delegating the power to decide how public funds should be spent to individual legislators, among others.
5 In the case of Maria Carolina Araullo v. former President Benigno Aquino, the Court ruled on July 1, 2014, to invalidate several practices under the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which allowed for transfers of savings from one office or branch to another, such as from the Executive to the Judiciary.
The SC also held that the DAP system impermissibly allowed the premature identification and use of ‘savings’ from ongoing projects.
6 In a ruling issued on November 10, 2015, in the case of Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals, the SC abandoned the condonation doctrine, which held that a public officer’s re-election precludes administrative liability for offenses committed during a previous term.
However, the Court held that its abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in application.
7 The Court made another landmark ruling in April 5, 2016 in the case of People v. Jugueta, when the High Tribunal set out the proper amounts to be awarded by courts by way of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties, rape, complex crimes, special complex crimes, and rebellion.
The Court also held that when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in court, the amount of PHP 50,000.00 should be awarded in temperate damages.
8 In its ruling issued on November 8, 2016, in the case of Ocampo v. Enriquez, the Court denied the petitions seeking to stop the burial of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani (LNMB).
The Court held that the issue was a political question and that there was no law or rule prohibiting the burial of President Marcos at LNMB.
9 On July 4, 2017, the Court ruled in the case of the late Rep. Edcel Lagman et al. v. former Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea et al., the Court dismissed the petition assailing the constitutionality of then President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for up to 60 days.
The SC declared that while the Constitution authorizes it to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of a declaration of martial law, which must be based on what was known by the President at the time of the declaration, there was sufficient factual basis for Duterte’s declaration.
10 In the case of Estipona v. Lobrigo, the SC ruled on August 15, 2017, that Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 was unconstitutional for violating the Court’s rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
The invalidated provision prohibited plea bargaining in drug cases, and the Court held that plea bargaining is a rule of procedure within the Court’s sole jurisdiction.
11 In the unprecedented case for quo warranto filed by the government against thenSC Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428), the Court distinguished between quo warranto and impeachment as remedies to remove impeachable officers, holding that quo warranto may be availed of when the subject act or omission relates to an official’s qualifications to hold office such that the appointment or election is invalid. Such an act or omission was committed before or at the time of appointment or election.
On the other hand, acts or omissions committed by the impeachable officer during his or her incumbency as a validly appointed and/or validly elected official cannot be the subject of a quo warranto proceeding, but rather impeachment if the act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense.
The SC ruled to grant the quo warranto petition, which invalidated Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice.
12 In a decision issued on July 31, 2017, in the case of Cagang v. People, the High Tribunal provided guidelines for analyzing claims of violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial.
Among others, the Court held that the right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to a speedy trial, which may only be invoked in a criminal case. In addition, malice on the part of the prosecution warrants automatic dismissal of the case.
13 In the case of Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communication, the SC ruled on March 12, 2019, that the doctrine of transcendental importance does not permit parties to bring factual questions before the Court.
14 In the case of Lara’s Gifts and Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc., the Court clarified, in a decision dated August 28, 2019, the rules on interest previously laid down by the Court in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals (1994).
The decision distinguishes between conventional and compensatory interest and held that ‘interest on interest’ is fixed by law and therefore not subject to the standard of ‘unconscionability.’
The Court provided a table setting out the applicable interest for different obligations, along with the relevant reckoning dates.
15 In Madera v. Commission on Audit, the Court provided guidelines regarding the refund of amounts disallowed by the Commission on Audit, as well as the persons liable for such refund.
It ruled that approving and certifying officers are liable to return disallowed amounts if they acted in bad faith, along with recipients, unless the latter can show that the amounts they received were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered.
16 Meanwhile, on May 11, 2021, in the case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, the Court held that the term ‘psychological incapacity’ under Article 36 of the Family Code is ‘neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion.’
Moreover, not being an illness in a medical sense, psychological incapacity is not something that can be analyzed from the perspective of whether it is curable or not.
17 In another landmark ruling issued on December 7, 2021, the Court in Calleja v. Executive Secretary, resolved several petitions that assail the validity of Republic Act No. 11479, or the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
While the Court upheld the validity of the law for the most part, it held that the proviso ‘which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create serious risk to public safety’ in the definition of terrorism under Section 4 is unconstitutional.
18 In Sula v. Commission on Elections (Comelec), the SC ruled on January 10, 2023, that the Court dismissed the petition assailing the validity of the plebiscite conducted by the Comelec regarding the creation of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region, as required under Republic Act No. 11054, or the Bangsamoro Organic Law.
19 Meanwhile, in the case of Macalintal v. Comelec, the Court on June 27, 2023, declared Republic Act No. 11935 as unconstitutional.
R.A. 11935 postponed the holding of the Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE), from its initial schedule of December 5, 2022, to the last Monday of October 2023.
The Court held that the free and meaningful exercise of the right to vote, as protected and guaranteed by the Constitution, requires the holding of genuine periodic elections which must be held at intervals which are not unduly long, and which ensure that the authority of government continues to be based on the free expression of the will of electors.
It added that Comelec does not have the power to postpone elections on a nationwide basis, especially since such power lies with Congress.
20 On February 25, 2025, in the case Filipino Society of Composers and Publishers v. Wolfpac Communications, Inc., the Court applied the four-factor test for determining whether use of a copyrighted work qualifies as fair use, i.e., it examined (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is for profit or non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the work; (3) how much of the work is used; and (4) the effect of the use on the value of the work.
Thus, the Court ruled that letting customers listen to a short 20-second sample of a ringtone before buying it does not violate copyright laws.
The SC also said the previews do not harm the composers or replace the value of the copyrighted work.
According to the Court, the samples are not for entertainment and cannot be downloaded. Thus, they do not substitute for the paid ringtones.