The Supreme Court (SC) resolved 3,975 judicial cases out of the 3,603 new cases filed in 2021 and 8,391 pending cases as of Dec. 31, 2020.
This means that, for the first time since 2017, the SC had achieved, as of Dec. 20, 2021, a 110 percent clearance rate – total disposed cases in relation to new cases filed.
Previous clearance rates were 87 percent in 2017, 99 in 2018, 96 in 2019, and 95 in 2020, SC records showed.
With the 110 per cent clearance rate, the SC said it “succeeded in decreasing the backlog of cases while keeping up with the new cases filed.”
Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, who assumed the post last April 5, said “the 110 percent clearance rate posted by the SC for 2021 comes as a ray of light in a year that has been marred with work suspensions, limited movement, and restrictions due to the pandemic, and speaks volumes of the Court’s strength in staying true to its commitment of service to the nation and its people.”
Upon his assumption as head of the judiciary, Gesmundo vowed to pursue the decongestion of the SC’s dockets and “to move towards a technology-driven Judiciary.”
He pursued vigorously the use of video conferencing in the hearings and resolution of urgent cases before the trial courts.
He said the SC justices “have resolved to decide all petitions, cases, or matters that have been filed before the Supreme Court after April 5, 2021 strictly within the said 24-month period from date of submission pursuant to Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution....”
In administrative and bar matters, SC records also showed that the court achieved a 105 percent clearance rate.
At the start of 2021, there were 2,230 pending administrative and bar matters. There were 1,116 new cases filed and thus, there were 3,346 new and pending cases.
As of Dec. 20, 2021, the SC resolved a total of 1,176 administrative and bar matters corresponding to a 105 percent clearance rate.
Also, the SC -- the records showed – accomplished a 33 percent disposal rate for judicial cases, and 35 per cent for administrative and bar matters.
Some notable SC rulings for 2021
Last Dec. 7, the SC declared constitutional almost all the provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020, except two parts in two sections of the law that was enacted on July 3, 2020 and enforced on July 18, 2020.
Thirty-seven petitions were filed against ATA. The SC conducted oral arguments online due to restrictions spawned by COVID-19 pandemic.
Declared unconstitutional were the proviso in Section 4 of R.A. 11479 – “... which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person's life, or to create a serious risk to public safety" -- for being overbroad and violative of freedom of expression; and the second method of designation in Section 25, paragraph 2 – “request for designations by other jurisdictions or supranational jurisdictions may be adopted by the ATC (Anti-Terrorism Council) after determination that the proposed designee meets the criteria for designation of UNSCR No. 1373."
The SC declared all other provisions in the law as constitutional. It has yet to release copies of its decision that would contain the opinions of the justices.
Several petitions have signified their intention to file their respective motions for reconsideration.
Last Feb. 16, the SC – sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) – dismissed the electoral protest filed by then Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos against Vice President Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo involving the 2016 vice presidential election. Both of them are presidential aspirants in the 2022 national and local elections.
In at least two cases, the SC reminded political candidates that the then condonation doctrine, which had absolved for many decades the administrative liability of elected public officials with their re-election to the same office, cannot be invoked anymore.
In 2015, the condonation doctrine was abandoned by the SC for lack of basis in the Constitution, the Local Government Code, and other laws in the country. It pointed out that the doctrine was inconsistent with the principle that “public office is a public trust” and with the constitutional requirement from public officials of accountability to the people at all times.
The ruling became final on April 12, 2016 but the SC declared it was prospective in application such that the abandonment should be implemented starting the May 2016 elections.
In another case, the SC affirmed the 2013 Court of Appeals (CA) decision which denied the plea of more than 315,000 residents against the P14-billion project that would reclaim 635 hectares of land from the Manila Bay coastline in Las Pinas City, Paranaque City, and Bacoor City in Cavite.
In allowing the reclamation project, the SC said: “No credible, competent, and reliable evidence had been presented to support the allegations that the proposed coastal bay project would cause environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the lives, health or properties of the residents of Paranaque and Las Pinas. These apprehensions had been disproved by objective, expert and scientific studies of reputable entities with vast international experience.”
Last June, the SC awarded in favor of the government P1.01 billion in damages against the estate of the late businessman Herminio T. Disini, founder of the Herdis Group of Companies, in connection with the $2.3 billion mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) in Morong, Bataan.
It affirmed with modification the ruling issued by the Sandiganbayan in 2012. It deleted for lack of basis the Sandiganbayan’s order for Disini to return the $50.56 million he received as commissions and, instead, directed him to pay the government P1.01 billion in temperate and exemplary damages with interests until fully paid.
The construction of the BNPP started in 1975 and was finished in 1984. In 1986, it was mothballed on safety concerns.
Also, last June the SC declared it has no power to compel President Duterte on what specific actions he should do to “defend the national territory, which includes the West Philippine Sea (WPS), against Chinese incursions.”
The decision dismissed the petition filed by lawyer Romeo M. Esmero who named the President as the sole respondent.
Among other allegations, Esmero claimed that “given China’s aggression, the President is not prohibited from (and by implication, should consider) engaging in a defensive war and, in so doing, call upon the people to defend the State against China's aggression.”
He also claimed “the filing of diplomatic protests against China is not a defense by our country on the issue of the West Philippine Sea.”
The SC said it could have dismissed outright Esmero’s petition since the President is immune from suit, regardless of the nature, during his incumbency.
It cited that on July 12, 2016, the United Nations arbitral tribunal issued an award overwhelmingly in favor of claims by the Philippines and ultimately bringing some clarity to the overlapping claims in the area.
“If President Duterte now sees fit to take a different approach with China despite said ruling, this does not by itself mean that he has, as petitioner suggests, unlawfully abdicated his duty to protect and defend our national territory, correctible with the issuance by this Court of the extraordinary writ of mandamus,” the SC said.
It also pointed out that “being the Head of State, he (President Duterte) is free to use his own discretion in this matter, accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience.”
"The Constitution vests executive power, which includes the duty to execute the law, protect the Philippines, and conduct foreign affairs, in the President -- not this Court,” it stressed.
Last November, the SC affirmed its 2019 decision that declared unconstitutional the requirement of the Legal Education Board (LEB) for students to pass the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) for enrolment in law schools in the country.
It’s 2019 decision declared that the LEB’s PhiLSAT requirement was “an act and practice of excluding, restricting and qualifying admissions to law schools in violation of the institutional academic freedom on who to admit.”
“Requiring the schools to accept only those who took and passed the exam amounts to a dictatorial control of the State, through LEB, and runs afoul of the intent of the Constitution,” the SC declared.
On nullity of marriage, the SC ruled that the testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist “is not mandatory in all cases” involving petitions for nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity.
The SC said: “Psychological incapacity is not a medical but a legal concept. It refers to a personal condition that prevents a spouse to comply with fundamental marital obligations only in relation to a specific partner that may exist at the time of the marriage but may have revealed through behavior subsequent to the ceremonies.”
It also said: “It need not be a mental or personality disorder. It need not be a permanent and incurable condition. Therefore, the testimony of psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases. The totality of the evidence must show clear and convincing evidence to cause the declaration of nullity of marriage.”
On press freedom, the SC ruled last June that every prosecution for libel “must undergo the rigorous and exacting standard of ensuring that it does not violate the fundamental right to free speech and the press.”
“We regard the vital role that the media plays in ensuring that the government and its officials remain true to their oath in carrying out their mandates in a manner prescribed by law...,” it said.
“Nevertheless, the constitutionally protected freedoms enjoyed by the press cannot be used as a shield to advance the malicious propagation of false information carried out by unscrupulous entities to injure another’s reputation,” it stressed.
The ruling was contained in a decision that reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) as it acquitted tabloid columnist Raffy T. Tulfo, now a senatorial candidate, in six libel cases filed against him and two others in 1999 by a lawyer assigned at the Bureau of Customs.
“Speech that guards against abuses of those in public office should be encouraged. Petitioner Tulfo should be acquitted,” the SC ruled.
What to expect from SC starting 2022
“Once and for all, the Judiciary must deliver its services, both adjudicative and administrative, real time,” Chief Justice Gesmundo declared.
He laid down the SC’s “strategic plan” in the next five years to make the country’s courts “consistently efficient and accountable havens for the disadvantaged, the wronged, the injured.”
He said the Philippine judiciary’s “relevance to society lies in its ability to re-cast itself, to re-shape its traditions, to keep in step with the changing times. Reform is thus a necessity that the Judiciary must embrace for its survival.”
The five-year plan until 2026, Gesmundo said, is founded on four guiding principles, namely:
“The Filipino people deserve a judiciary possessed of competence, integrity, probity, and independence.
“The Judiciary must provide equal access to justice real time.
“Public confidence in the Judiciary is dependent on transparency and accountability.
“Technology must be the platform on which the basic court systems and processes run.”
Gesmundo said:
“We shall also ensure 24/7/365 access to court and case-related information and services. Access to court services should not be limited to face-to-face access, especially in this time of pandemic.
“Free and no expense access through electronic or digital means, including social media, will widen the reach of court services and bridge the gap in information between the public and the courts, and hopefully provide our people with a legitimate source of help when confronted with legal issues requiring court intervention. It is also the fastest and most accessible way to deliver needed instructional details to those who need it.
“We shall launch social media Access to Justice info.sites with layman-friendly and easy to understand information on court services and how to access them.
“In line with promoting transparency and accountability in the Judiciary, the Court shall likewise leverage the eCourt system v.2.0 where litigants can track the status of their cases online and in real-time.
“The eCourt system v.2.0 will also allow the public to access judicial services online, including the filing of cases and payment of court fees, and automate court workflow processes and procedures of the entire Judiciary to eliminate opportunities to commit fraud.
“We shall prioritize the development of the Philippine Judiciary ICT Governance Framework, the ICT Strategic Plan (EISP), and the MIS Operations Manual to ensure that we are able to properly manage our ICT resources, align strategic objectives, optimize attending risks, deliver value services, and design new systems that are court user-centric.
“Truly, technology plays a very significant role in the administration of justice. Change and technological evolution shall shape our society, that is why we must be ready to adapt and better ourselves.”