News
Photo Releases
Benchmarks
Bids & Awards
Annual Reports
Lawyers' List
Downloads
Welcome to the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Trial Court Locator

Welcome to the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Trial Court Locator

Welcome to the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Trial Court Locator

Twitter X Logo PNG Vector (AI, EPS, PDF, SVG) Free Download READ: Snapshots from the 2024 Shari’ah Bar Examinations (SBE) testing centers at the University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City and Ateneo de Davao University, Davao City on May 2, 2024, Day 2 or the last day of SBE. #2024ShariahBar (2 of 3)
READ: Infographics on Bar Bulletin No. 2-2023 Re: Application Requirements for the 2023 Bar Examinations sc.judiciary.gov.ph/files/bar-2023 #WeCanDoIt #HernanDoIt #Bar2023

Phone

JPAS Hotline:
+63 2 8552-9644

Contact Email

JPAS Email:
chiefjusticehelpdesk@judiciary.gov.ph

Working Hours

Monday to Friday:
07:30 - 16:00

CONTACT US
E-Library
CONTACT US

For the Year 2022

CASEFLOW INVOLVING WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2023
REGION NUMBER OF PENDING CASES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2022 CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW NUMBER OF PENDING CASES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2023
NUMBER OF NEW CASES FILED/
RAFFLED		 NUMBER OF CASES REVIVED NUMBER OF CASES RECEIVED FROM OTHER COURTS/
STATION		 NUMBER OF CASES DECIDED/
RESOLVED		 NUMBER OF CASES ARCHIVED NUMBER OF CASES TRANSFERRED TO OTHER COURTS/
STATION
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN (R.A. 9262) NCR 2,034 1,404 386 31 1,823 350 20 1,670
REG 1 402 386 91 52 505 48 1 346
REG 2 630 258 46 2 418 28 2 492
REG 3 1,506 904 164 56 1,192 143 15 1,284
REG 4 1,480 903 202 51 1,106 228 14 1,286
REG 5 572 430 92 18 496 55 21 543
REG 6 572 317 62 7 373 53 3 519
REG 7 794 466 95 72 630 94 38 654
REG 8 251 134 24 0 185 32 0 165
REG 9 460 81 26 1 151 31 0 576
REG 10 586 443 87 7 540 43 6 465
REG 11 582 444 98 78 592 120 53 479
REG 12 388 205 15 2 256 23 0 337
TOTAL 10,257 6,375 1,388 377 8,267 1,248 173 8,816
RAPE (WITH MINOR VICTIM AND/OR ACCUSED) NCR 2,605 2,206 221 133 1,410 569 149 3,000
REG 1 1,298 898 76 153 1,043 150 27 1,203
REG 2 1,184 620 39 7 464 166 9 1,206
REG 3 3,048 1,701 92 47 1,219 483 35 3,144
REG 4 3,866 2,073 228 76 1,365 494 25 4,283
REG 5 2,199 1,438 197 46 1,252 286 54 2,282
REG 6 1,114 693 154 16 571 261 10 1,111
REG 7 1,232 822 88 93 733 201 62 1,247
REG 8 753 356 50 1 354 117 0 658
REG 9 1,172 226 73 1 182 98 1 1,856
REG 10 1,250 920 65 8 826 96 2 1,251
REG 11 1,416 1,206 123 266 1,188 349 193 1,335
REG 12 561 349 30 0 247 14 0 698
TOTAL 21,698 13,508 1,436 847 10,854 3,284 567 23,274
RAPE CASES (R.A. 8353) NCR 624 455 47 16 411 115 16 602
REG 1 694 165 74 56 245 23 40 622
REG 2 453 264 32 9 292 87 13 356
REG 3 824 435 92 98 454 74 45 797
REG 4 3,125 1,154 223 15 894 348 45 3,208
REG 5 482 238 67 24 269 47 38 459
REG 6 1,274 744 60 10 429 132 8 1,553
REG 7 1,188 183 35 25 266 34 36 976
REG 8 536 200 34 13 219 69 11 424
REG 9 253 53 10 1 72 8 0 327
REG 10 687 442 68 12 472 98 7 652
REG 11 1,278 477 55 20 464 64 98 1,138
REG 12 540 382 58 5 257 104 6 653
TOTAL 11,958 5,192 855 304 4,744 1,203 363 11,767
CHILD ABUSE (R.A. 7610) NCR 3,206 2,595 267 67 2,083 586 134 3,341
REG 1 855 629 33 73 636 57 12 833
REG 2 692 366 25 2 397 23 10 652
REG 3 2,931 1,572 147 56 1,580 294 23 2,899
REG 4 2,789 1,655 283 51 1,440 399 15 3,025
REG 5 1,656 727 114 42 895 161 18 1,484
REG 6 1,166 578 40 9 494 71 3 1,202
REG 7 1,377 836 68 40 872 206 20 1,230
REG 8 628 265 30 0 272 62 0 508
REG 9 621 164 22 4 119 26 3 1,055
REG 10 1,007 620 50 7 587 60 9 1,022
REG 11 1,207 932 78 122 829 240 114 1,236
REG 12 433 259 13 0 229 9 2 464
TOTAL 18,568 11,198 1,170 473 10,433 2,194 363 18,951
DRUGS CASES (INVOLVING MINORS) NCR 821 369 24 41 623 14 34 552
REG 1 26 28 1 6 35 0 0 25
REG 2 60 12 1 0 30 2 1 39
REG 3 273 91 17 28 158 15 19 208
REG 4 265 160 10 12 163 16 7 249
REG 5 21 15 3 2 17 0 0 26
REG 6 88 40 8 3 61 3 2 84
REG 7 164 245 6 21 284 5 18 129
REG 8 16 3 0 0 7 2 2 8
REG 9 123 10 0 0 19 0 0 107
REG 10 82 49 5 23 55 2 7 76
REG 11 226 150 4 50 218 2 33 185
REG 12 34 3 2 2 11 1 0 29
TOTAL 2,199 1,175 81 188 1,681 62 123 1,717
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS NCR 384 386 52 4 400 64 9 360
REG 1 108 69 11 0 122 4 0 59
REG 2 70 55 4 2 76 3 0 53
REG 3 263 247 10 16 251 34 1 249
REG 4 382 362 40 11 342 50 4 387
REG 5 111 135 18 4 127 15 1 113
REG 6 70 83 9 1 60 6 0 97
REG 7 99 114 13 0 88 4 1 132
REG 8 65 65 4 1 58 10 3 67
REG 9 45 59 6 1 44 12 1 55
REG 10 58 92 10 0 98 3 1 54
REG 11 172 87 10 4 101 21 11 143
REG 12 35 25 3 0 23 1 0 35
TOTAL 1,862 1,779 190 44 1,790 227 32 1,804
HUMAN TRAFFICKING (INVOLVING MINORS) NCR 279 109 13 22 117 16 21 269
REG 1 15 13 3 8 9 0 0 25
REG 2 42 2 0 0 3 0 1 35
REG 3 115 98 4 11 48 15 8 156
REG 4 109 22 11 1 43 6 1 88
REG 5 27 1 7 0 22 1 0 21
REG 6 32 11 0 0 13 0 0 30
REG 7 49 11 6 11 13 3 11 50
REG 8 36 0 0 0 11 2 1 22
REG 9 35 5 0 0 10 0 0 50
REG 10 57 3 2 0 12 2 3 55
REG 11 49 63 7 6 23 7 3 62
REG 12 8 7 0 0 8 0 0 4
TOTAL 853 345 53 59 332 52 49 867
ALL OTHER CHILD AND FAMILY CASES (CRIMINAL CASES) NCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 1 74 24 2 0 21 4 0 71
REG 2 89 80 6 9 66 4 3 115
REG 3 38 6 0 2 17 5 0 27
REG 4 372 58 4 4 45 8 0 342
REG 5 78 37 6 0 39 11 0 71
REG 6 48 37 1 0 25 4 0 28
REG 7 92 22 2 0 28 2 0 84
REG 8 55 55 9 0 46 4 0 68
REG 9 52 76 3 0 10 0 0 101
REG 10 186 98 5 0 81 4 0 204
REG 11 110 53 4 1 78 11 6 78
REG 12 30 27 1 0 7 0 0 51
TOTAL 1,224 573 43 16 463 57 9 1,240
DECLARATION OF NULLITY/ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE NCR 3,199 1,206 191 14 1,899 21 11 2,719
REG 1 1,422 644 118 121 794 14 12 1,441
REG 2 565 141 15 0 122 3 0 599
REG 3 1,973 568 51 21 797 5 19 1,799
REG 4 1,768 579 47 113 828 6 4 1,647
REG 5 407 125 7 2 173 1 3 369
REG 6 1,328 296 36 2 310 30 3 1,231
REG 7 1,883 447 68 93 794 24 87 1,594
REG 8 403 121 1 0 135 0 0 345
REG 9 391 66 5 0 72 10 0 460
REG 10 639 224 29 5 291 3 4 606
REG 11 299 110 5 22 172 4 8 261
REG 12 147 54 1 0 61 1 0 137
TOTAL 14,424 4,581 574 393 6,448 122 151 13,208
ADOPTION NCR 130 0 3 0 78 0 0 45
REG 1 111 0 18 10 93 0 0 39
REG 2 25 0 1 0 13 0 0 13
REG 3 104 0 0 1 60 1 1 42
REG 4 83 0 0 4 36 0 0 45
REG 5 25 4 0 0 12 0 0 16
REG 6 154 0 1 0 62 3 0 91
REG 7 120 0 7 4 75 2 4 50
REG 8 63 0 0 0 21 0 0 26
REG 9 43 0 2 1 12 5 0 25
REG 10 47 0 0 0 26 0 0 24
REG 11 35 1 2 0 25 0 0 11
REG 12 29 0 0 0 7 0 0 22
TOTAL 969 5 34 20 520 11 5 449
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NCR 2,208 2,480 87 48 2,661 39 46 2,062
REG 1 775 800 85 168 767 28 7 857
REG 2 576 599 11 5 468 8 8 703
REG 3 936 741 23 84 761 9 14 933
REG 4 1,813 1,029 16 39 1,032 13 33 1,771
REG 5 489 512 32 34 576 10 10 419
REG 6 1,077 437 37 16 491 31 20 985
REG 7 1,299 678 41 21 819 10 32 1,180
REG 8 435 386 20 4 338 2 7 493
REG 9 422 148 7 59 146 8 3 484
REG 10 847 510 21 8 565 2 12 784
REG 11 1,001 585 11 12 584 14 67 778
REG 12 525 337 2 0 381 0 1 469
TOTAL 12,403 9,242 393 498 9,589 174 260 11,918
ADULTERY/
CONCUBINAGE		 NCR 151 51 14 1 81 14 0 121
REG 1 84 44 11 0 51 6 0 79
REG 2 53 44 23 1 56 1 1 64
REG 3 139 75 27 6 96 16 1 124
REG 4 148 65 29 7 97 18 6 128
REG 5 57 44 12 2 44 4 4 56
REG 6 48 24 4 0 29 2 0 63
REG 7 73 45 5 1 53 6 0 65
REG 8 16 8 2 0 6 3 0 16
REG 9 27 14 1 0 21 2 0 20
REG 10 30 24 8 0 34 3 1 24
REG 11 77 50 9 2 50 8 1 79
REG 12 14 12 5 0 16 2 0 17
TOTAL 917 500 150 20 634 85 14 856
GUARDIANSHIP NCR 143 77 4 0 98 2 0 117
REG 1 11 30 2 1 23 0 1 23
REG 2 6 2 0 0 4 0 0 4
REG 3 33 33 1 0 32 1 0 33
REG 4 46 40 0 1 41 0 6 40
REG 5 14 10 0 0 15 2 1 8
REG 6 29 17 1 0 18 2 0 23
REG 7 33 17 4 1 31 1 2 24
REG 8 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0
REG 9 6 2 1 0 2 0 0 7
REG 10 18 10 1 0 13 0 0 14
REG 11 19 20 2 5 29 0 3 16
REG 12 4 2 0 0 4 0 0 2
TOTAL 364 261 16 8 313 8 13 311
CUSTODY OF MINOR NCR 118 62 2 6 73 1 3 114
REG 1 29 24 3 2 30 0 0 23
REG 2 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 4
REG 3 38 39 0 0 42 1 1 36
REG 4 44 36 2 0 33 0 2 44
REG 5 12 12 0 0 11 0 0 13
REG 6 20 13 0 2 8 3 1 16
REG 7 31 23 6 3 26 1 5 31
REG 8 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 3
REG 9 9 3 2 0 2 1 0 11
REG 10 12 7 0 1 8 1 1 11
REG 11 13 7 0 2 9 1 5 10
REG 12 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
TOTAL 333 230 15 16 246 9 18 316
PETITION FOR PROTECTION ORDER NCR 100 51 1 3 60 0 4 80
REG 1 6 12 0 0 14 0 0 4
REG 2 8 4 0 0 5 0 0 7
REG 3 24 16 0 0 16 0 0 22
REG 4 11 16 1 0 9 0 1 15
REG 5 15 25 0 0 21 0 2 17
REG 6 35 14 0 0 22 0 0 23
REG 7 40 53 1 1 66 0 0 27
REG 8 28 18 0 0 23 0 0 17
REG 9 6 1 0 0 2 0 0 9
REG 10 13 13 0 0 15 0 0 11
REG 11 22 32 0 4 31 0 5 23
REG 12 6 4 0 0 5 0 0 7
TOTAL 314 259 3 8 289 0 12 262
LEGAL SEPARATION NCR 38 10 2 0 14 0 1 32
REG 1 9 5 0 0 10 0 0 5
REG 2 15 4 1 0 6 0 0 13
REG 3 24 8 1 0 10 0 0 22
REG 4 14 4 1 0 7 0 0 10
REG 5 12 3 0 1 8 0 1 8
REG 6 15 5 2 0 3 0 0 19
REG 7 18 6 1 1 3 0 3 17
REG 8 6 5 0 0 1 0 0 7
REG 9 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
REG 10 14 2 1 0 3 0 0 12
REG 11 6 2 1 3 5 0 1 7
REG 12 31 1 0 0 1 0 0 31
TOTAL 207 57 10 5 71 0 6 187
OTHER FAMILY COURT CASES (CIVIL) NCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 10 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
REG 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 12 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 1
TOTAL 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 1
GRAND TOTAL 98,553 55,280 6,411 3,276 56,680 8,736 2,158 95,944
2023 CASEFLOW OF THE DESIGNATED AND STATUTORY FAMILY COURTS
REGION NUMBER OF PENDING CASES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2022 CASE INFLOW CASE OUTFLOW NUMBER OF PENDING CASES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2023
NUMBER OF NEW CASES FILED/
RAFFLED		 NUMBER OF CASES REVIVED NUMBER OF CASES RECEIVED FROM OTHER COURTS/
STATION		 NUMBER OF CASES DECIDED/
RESOLVED		 NUMBER OF CASES ARCHIVED NUMBER OF CASES TRANSFERRED TO OTHER COURTS/
STATION
DESIGNATED AND STATUTORY FAMILY COURTS NCR 15,379 9,943 1,484 438 10,440 1,841 508 14,442
REG 1 3,718 2,686 381 465 3,294 237 124 3,493
REG 2 2,398 825 96 7 941 92 18 2,271
REG 3 11,902 5,980 590 266 6,363 1,055 231 11,107
REG 4 9,289 5,990 887 360 5,817 1,248 256 9,129
REG 5 4,305 2,702 392 148 2,889 427 118 4,135
REG 6 3,344 1,364 208 40 1,689 257 28 3,021
REG 7 5,601 3,014 362 423 3,649 527 303 4,920
REG 8 961 421 12 2 563 125 5 685
REG 9 2,409 388 123 16 520 114 13 3,421
REG 10 2,500 1,933 195 87 1,986 171 43 2,319
REG 11 3,606 3,057 344 685 3,284 761 424 3,482
REG 12 1,472 522 53 8 559 169 0 1,363
TOTAL 66,884 38,825 5,127 2,945 41,994 7,024 2,071 63,788
DESIGNATED FAMILY COURTS NCR 10,862 6,453 1,211 321 7,164 1,281 369 10,025
REG1 1,777 1,151 297 36 1,574 110 89 1,362
REG 2 2,398 825 96 7 941 92 18 2,271
REG 3 4,608 1,890 308 61 2,647 376 89 3,744
REG 4 3,299 2,135 431 196 2,309 339 180 3,195
REG 5 2,123 1,316 291 42 1,617 183 69 1,926
REG 6 3,344 1,364 208 40 1,689 257 28 3,021
REG 7 2,953 1,522 216 43 2,020 180 214 2,319
REG 8 961 421 12 2 563 125 5 685
REG 9 2,296 246 105 11 468 80 9 3,164
REG 10 2,500 1,933 195 87 1,986 171 43 2,319
REG 11 3,045 2,062 291 164 2,402 480 344 2,345
REG 12 1,472 522 53 8 559 169 0 1,363
TOTAL 41,638 21,840 3,714 1,018 25,939 3,843 1,457 37,739
STATUTORY FAMILY COURTS NCR 4,517 3,490 273 117 3,276 560 139 4,417
REG 1 1,941 1,535 84 429 1,720 127 35 2,131
REG 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 3 7,294 4,090 282 205 3,716 679 142 7,363
REG 4 5,990 3,855 456 164 3,508 909 76 5,934
REG 5 2,182 1,386 101 106 1,272 244 49 2,209
REG 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 7 2,648 1,492 146 380 1,629 347 89 2,601
REG 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 9 113 142 18 5 52 34 4 257
REG 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
REG 11 561 995 53 521 882 281 80 1,137
REG 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 25,246 16,985 1,413 1,927 16,055 3,181 614 26,049
NUMBER OF PENDING CASES INVOLVING WOMEN AND CHILDRED HANDLED BY FEMALE PRESIDING JUDGES
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2023
  NUMBER OF FEMALE PRESIDING JUDGES VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN (R.A. 9262) RAPE CASES (R.A. 8353) RAPE (WITH MINOR VICTIM AND/OR ACCUSED) HUMAN TRAFFICKING (INVOLVING MINORS) DRUGS CASES (INVOLVING MINORS) CHILD ABUSE (R.A. 7610) ALL OTHER CHILD AND FAMILY CASES (CRIMINAL CASES)
NCJR 154 809 263 1,588 153 238 1,743 0
REGION 1 41 123 138 556 2 18 401 25
REGION 2 11 53 61 162 0 1 102 39
REGION 3 77 806 481 2,285 92 138 2,161 0
REGION 4 103 807 1,086 2,369 70 160 1,911 59
REGION 5 19 117 179 719 1 5 544 0
REGION 6 32 261 556 537 14 43 568 23
REGION 7 37 352 185 675 17 73 688 14
REGION 8 13 43 150 269 12 0 175 10
REGION 9 11 9 19 40 1 0 18 3
REGION 10 14 20 338 59 3 1 77 47
REGION 11 34 109 289 605 14 35 300 40
REGION 12 6 41 58 26 0 10 13 0
TOTAL 552 3,550 3,803 9,890 379 722 8,701 260
Note: Cases handled by the Acting Presiding Judges and Assisting Judges are not included in the report.
 
NUMBER OF PENDING CASES INVOLVING WOMEN AND CHILDRED HANDLED BY MALE PRESIDING JUDGES
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2023
  NUMBER OF MALE PRESIDING JUDGES VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN (R.A. 9262) RAPE CASES (R.A. 8353) RAPE (WITH MINOR VICTIM AND/OR ACCUSED) HUMAN TRAFFICKING (INVOLVING MINORS) DRUGS CASES (INVOLVING MINORS) CHILD ABUSE (R.A. 7610) ALL OTHER CHILD AND FAMILY CASES (CRIMINAL CASES)
NCJR 98 563 250 971 81 251 1,093 0
REGION 1 50 194 449 498 19 7 299 46
REGION 2 23 267 277 681 24 22 399 76
REGION 3 50 329 238 604 60 43 535 27
REGION 4 75 458 1,735 1,779 17 88 983 277
REGION 5 32 269 151 945 14 14 532 20
REGION 6 31 217 844 331 16 29 532 5
REGION 7 49 197 461 332 20 55 335 18
REGION 8 19 58 169 199 10 4 221 14
REGION 9 21 261 91 814 36 57 570 4
REGION 10 16 226 182 715 6 46 550 127
REGION 11 22 85 511 231 3 68 228 0
REGION 12 9 52 304 175 0 3 93 5
TOTAL 495 3,176 5,662 8,275 306 687 6,370 619
Note: Cases handled by the Acting Presiding Judges and Assisting Judges are not included in the report.
 

Email Us

Please include your name, contact number, email address, and the subject in your email.

Please read our Privacy Notice for the terms on the collection of your personal information.

CLICK HERE
[formidable id=1]

By using this Query Form, you agree to the collection of personal data. For more information, you may refer to our Privacy Notice.

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila
Philippines 1000

Follow us on Twitter @SCPh_PIO.
Thank you for your continued support and feedback.

Twitter Youtube Facebook Instagram

Contact Info

For queries and comments,
please email us at:

pio.sc@judiciary.gov.ph
chiefjusticehelpdesk@
judiciary.gov.ph

Or call us at:

+63 2 8552-9644 | +63 908 850-0919

Downloads

Other Links

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila
Philippines 1000

Follow us on Twitter @SCPh_PIO.
Thank you for your continued support and feedback.

Twitter Youtube Facebook Instagram

Contact Info

For queries and comments,
please email us at:

pio.sc@judiciary.gov.ph
chiefjusticehelpdesk@
judiciary.gov.ph

Or call us at:

+63 2 8552-9644 | +63 908 850-0919

Downloads

Useful Links

viber_image_2023-10-19_14-05-44-650

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila
Philippines 1000

Follow us on Twitter @SCPh_PIO.
Thank you for your continued support and feedback.

Twitter Youtube Facebook Instagram

Contact Info

For queries and comments,
please email us at:

pio.sc@judiciary.gov.ph
chiefjusticehelpdesk@
judiciary.gov.ph

Or call us at:

+63 2 8552-9644
+63 908 850-0919

Downloads

Useful Links

viber_image_2023-10-19_14-05-44-650
© 2024 The Supreme Court of the Philippines. All rights reserved.
Privacy Notice
© 2024 The Supreme Court of the Philippines. All rights reserved.
Privacy Statement

© 2024 The Supreme Court of the Philippines. All rights reserved.

Privacy Statement
© 2024 The Supreme Court of the Philippines. All rights reserved.
app1

© 2024 The Supreme Court of the Philippines. All rights reserved.

app2
app1

Privacy Notice for the Supreme Court website

Statement of Commitment to Data Privacy and Security

The Supreme Court of the Philippines respects your privacy and your data privacy rights, as well as employs reasonable measures to protect your personal data in accordance with Republic Act No. 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA), its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and the various issuances of the National Privacy Commission (NPC) (collectively, the Data Privacy Regulations).

Brief Service Description and Its General Purpose

Use of the Supreme Court Website

The Supreme Court website serves as the online repository of Supreme Court information, references, and resources accessible to the public. By agreeing to use the Supreme Court website, you agree to the collection, use, disclosure, processing, and storage of your non-personal identification information to enable the Supreme Court to monitor the website’s engagement.

What personal data do we collect?

The Supreme Court website, other than the Email Form (see separate Privacy Notice – Email Form), does not collect personal data or cookies. The following non-personal identification information, however, are collected and stored by WordPress Statistics, a third-party service, to enable the Supreme Court to monitor the website’s performance through its engagement with visitors:

(a) Browser;

(b) Device; and

(c) Internet Protocol address.

The information collected by WordPress Statistics are limited to the foregoing.

For further understanding, please see the brief discussion on WordPress Statistics below.

Why do we collect your non-personal identification information?

The information collected through WordPress Statistics shall be processed to enable the Supreme Court, not only to effectively manage its website, but also to efficiently disseminate information to the public.

How do we process your non-personal identification information?

Where you have provided us with your non-personal identification information, you agree to our collection, use, disclosure, storage, and other processing for the purposes and in the manner set forth in this Privacy Notice.

WordPress Statistics

The Supreme Court website uses a third-party website, WordPress Statistics, to gather anonymous statistical information from site visitors and analyze the web traffic data. Such data is not shared with any other party. WordPress Statistics collects the following:

  • Browser;
  • Device; and
  • Internet Protocol address.

For more information, you may visit: https://wp-statistics.com/2018/08/16/wp-statistics-gdpr/

How do we protect your non-personal identification information?

The foregoing information, which are encrypted, shall be captured, stored, and retrieved by the Supreme Court through the third-party server, WordPress Statistics, solely for the specific purposes stated in this Privacy Notice, i.e., for reference in helping the Supreme Court in effectively managing its website. The data shall be processed and stored with utmost security and confidentiality.

Only authorized website administrators of the Supreme Court have access to the collected data stored and reported in WordPress Statistics as installed in the Supreme Court website, which in turn are subject to strict security protocols.

How long will we keep your non-personal identification information?

The collected information shall be stored in the Supreme Court website database. The Public Information Office (PIO) directly administers and maintains the database and the Supreme Court website. Only the PIO website administrators and authorized personnel shall be granted access to the database of the Supreme Court website. Sharing of any information that are contained in the said database with unauthorized persons is strictly prohibited.

The non-personal identification information collected by WordPress Statistics is stored in its database and is accessible to the Supreme Court at any time via statistics reports until WordPress Statistics is uninstalled.

In all cases, the information will be stored in a secure manner to ensure its confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Upon expiration of the period of retention, the information collected through the Supreme Court website shall be disposed of and discarded in a secure manner that would prevent further processing, unauthorized access, or disclosure of your data.

Changes to our Privacy Notice:

The Privacy Notice may be updated from time to time. If material changes are required, any revisions shall be published on the Supreme Court website under the News and Announcements page for your immediate guidance. Therefore, we encourage you to review this Privacy Notice periodically so that you are up to date on our most current policies and practices.

This Privacy Notice was last updated on February 20, 2024.

How do you contact us?

If you have any privacy concerns or questions about your data privacy rights or our Privacy Notice, please contact us through:

JUDICIARY’S DATA PROTECTION OFFICER
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila
Philippines 1000
+63 3 8552 9566
dataprivacy.sc@judiciary.gov.ph

1987Constitution

The Supreme Court Under
the 1987 Constitution

As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the 1987 Constitution provides that “[t]he judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.” (Art. VII, Sec. 1). The exercise of judicial power is shared by the Supreme Court with all lower courts, but it is only the Supreme Court’s decisions that are vested with precedential value or doctrinal authority, as its interpretations of the Constitution and the laws are final and beyond review by any other branch of government.

Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, however, the 1987 Constitution defines the concept of judicial power. Under paragraph 2 of Section 1, Article VIII, “judicial power” includes not only the “duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable” but also “to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.” This latter provision dilutes the effectivity of the “political question” doctrine which places specific questions best submitted to the political wisdom of the people beyond the review of the courts.

Building on previous experiences under former Constitutions, the 1987 Constitution provides for specific safeguards to ensure the independence of the Judiciary. These are found in the following provisions:

    • The grant to the Judiciary of fiscal autonomy. “Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year, and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.” (Art. VIII, Sec. 3).
    • The grant to the Chief Justice of authority to augment any item in the general appropriation law for the Judiciary from savings in other items of said appropriation as authorized by law. (Art. VI, Sec. 25[5])
    • The removal from Congress of the power to deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 of Article VIII.
    • The grant to the Court of the power to appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law (Art. VIII, Sec. 5 [6])
    • The removal from the Commission of Appointments of the power to confirm appointments of justices and judges (Art. VIII, Sec. 8)
    • The removal from Congress of the power to reduce the compensation or salaries of the Justices and judges during their continuance in office. (Art. VIII, Sec. 10)
    • The prohibition against the removal of judges through legislative reorganization by providing that “(n)o law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members. (Art. VIII, Sec. 2)
    • The grant of sole authority to the Supreme Court to order the temporary detail of judges. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[3])
    • The grant of sole authority to the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure for the courts. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5])
    • The prohibition against designating members of the Judiciary to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function. (Art. VIII, Sec. 12)
    • The grant of administrative supervision over the lower courts and its personnel in the Supreme Court. (Art. VIII, Sec. 6)

The Supreme Court under the present Constitution is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. The members of the Court are appointed by the President from a list, prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, of at least three nominees for every vacancy. This new process is intended to “de-politicize” the courts of justice, ensure the choice of competent judges, and fill existing vacancies without undue delay.

RevolutionaryGovernment

The Supreme Court Under
the Revolutionary Government

Shortly after assuming office as the seventh President of the Republic of the Philippines after the successful People Power Revolution, then President Corazon C. Aquino declared the existence of a revolutionary government under Proclamation No. 1 dated February 25, 1986. Among the more significant portions of this Proclamation was an instruction for “all appointive officials to submit their courtesy resignations beginning with the members of the Supreme Court.” The call was unprecedented, considering the separation of powers that the previous Constitutions had always ordained, but understandable considering the revolutionary nature of the post-People Power government. Heeding the call, the members of the Judiciary—from the Supreme Court to the Municipal Circuit Courts—placed their offices at the disposal of the President and submitted their resignations. President Corazon C, Aquino proceeded to reorganize the entire Court, appointing all 15 members.

On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino, through Proclamation No. 3, also abolished the 1973 Constitution and put in place a Provisional “Freedom” Constitution. Under Article I, Section 2 of the Freedom Constitution, the provisions of the 1973 Constitution on the judiciary were adopted insofar as they were not inconsistent with Proclamation No. 3.

Article V of Proclamation No. 3 provided for the convening of a Constitutional Commission composed of 50 appointive members to draft a new constitution; this would be implemented by Proclamation No. 9. Under the leadership of retired SC Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma as its President, the Constitutional Commission of 1986 submitted its output of to the people for ratification.

By a vote of 76.30%, the Filipino people then ratified the Constitution submitted to them in a national plebiscite on February 2, 1987.

President Aquino, other civilian officials, and members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, upon the announcement of the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, swore allegiance to the new charter on February 11, 1987 thereby putting an end to the revolutionary government.

1973

The Supreme Court Under
the 1973 Constitution

The declaration of Martial Law through Proclamation No. 1081 by former President Ferdinand E, Marcos in 1972 brought about the transition from the 1935 Constitution to the 1973 Constitution. This transition had implications on the Court’s composition and functions.

This period also brought in many legal issues of transcendental importance and consequence. Among these were the legality of the ratification of a new Constitution, the assumption of the totality of government authority by President Marcos, and the power to review the factual basis for a declaration of Martial Law by the Chief Executive, among others. Also writ large during this period was the relationship between the Court and the Chief Executive who, under Amendment No. 6 to the 1973 Constitution, had assumed legislative powers even while an elected legislative body continued to function.

The 1973 Constitution increased the number of the members of the Supreme Court from 11 to 15, with a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. The Justices of the Court were appointed by the President alone, without the consent, approval, or recommendation of any other body or officials.

Ayuntamiento

The Supreme Court of
the Second Republic

Following liberation from the Japanese occupation at the end of the Second World War and the Philippines’ subsequent independence from the United States, Republic Act No. 296 or the Judiciary Act of 1948 was enacted. This law grouped together the cases over which the Supreme Court could exercise exclusive jurisdiction for review on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error.

SupremeCourt

The Supreme Court During
the Commonwealth

Following the ratification of the 1935 Philippine Constitution in a plebiscite, the principle of separation of powers was adopted, not by express and specific provision to that effect, but by actual division of powers of the government—executive, legislative, and judicial—in different articles of the 1935 Constitution.

As in the United States, the judicial power was vested by the 1935 Constitution “in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law.” It devolved on the Judiciary to determine whether the acts of the other two departments were in harmony with the fundamental law.

The Court during the Commonwealth was composed of “a Chief Justice and ten Associate Justices, and may sit en banc or in two divisions, unless otherwise provided by law.”

ArellanoCourt

The Establishment of
the Supreme Court of the Philippines

On June 11, 1901, the Second Philippine Commission passed Act No. 136 entitled “An Act Providing for the Organization of Courts in the Philippine Islands” formally establishing the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands and creating Courts of First Instance and Justices of the Peace Courts throughout the land. The judicial organization established by the Act was conceived by the American lawyers in the Philippine Commission, with its basic structures patterned after similar organizations in the United States.

The Supreme Court created under the Act was composed of a Chief Justice and six Judges. Five members of the Court could form a quorum, and the concurrence of at least four members was necessary to pronounce a judgment.

Act No. 136 abolished the Audiencia established under General Order No. 20 and declared that the Supreme Court created by the Act be substituted in its place. This effectively severed any nexus between the present Supreme Court and the Audiencia.

The Anglo-American legal system under which the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands was expected to operate was entirely different from the old Spanish system that Filipinos were familiar with. Adjustments had to be made; hence, the decisions of the Supreme Court during its early years reflected a blend of both the Anglo-American and Spanish systems. The jurisprudence was a gentle transition from the old order to the new.

VillamorHall

The Judicial System During
the American Occupation

After Spain’s defeat in the Spanish-American War in the late 1890s, The subsequent occupation by the Americans of the Philippine Islands paved the way for considerable changes in the control, disposition, and governance of the Islands.

The judicial system established during the regime of the military government functioned as an instrument of the executive—not of the judiciary—as an independent and separate branch of government. Secretary of State John Hay, on May 12, 1899, proposed a plan for a colonial government of the Philippine Islands which would give Filipinos the largest measure of self-government. The plan contemplated an independent judiciary manned by judges chosen from qualified locals and Americans.

On May 29, 1899, General Elwell Stephen Otis, Military Governor for the Philippines, issued General Order No. 20, reestablishing the Audiencia Teritorial de Manila which was to apply Spanish laws and jurisprudence recognized by the American military governor as continuing in force.

The Audiencia was composed of a presiding officer and eight members organized into two divisions: the sala de lo civil or the civil branch, and the sala de lo criminal or the criminal branch.

It was General Otis himself who personally selected the first appointees to the Audiencia. Cayetano L. Arellano was appointed President (equivalent to Chief Justice) of the Court, with Manuel Araullo as president of the sala de lo civil and Raymundo Melliza as president of the salo de lo criminal. Gregorio Araneta and Lt. Col. E.H. Crowder were appointed associate justices of the civil branch while Ambrosio Rianzares, Julio Llorente, Major R.W. Young, and Captain W.E. Brikhimer were designated associate justices of the criminal branch. Thus, the reestablished Audiencia became the first agency of the new insular government where Filipinos were appointed side by side with Americans.

SpanishRegime

The Judicial System Under
the Spanish Regime

During the early Spanish occupation, King Philip II established the Real Audiencia de Manila which was given not only judicial but legislative, executive, advisory, and administrative functions as well. Composed of the incumbent governor general as the presidente (presiding officer), four oidores (equivalent to associate justices), an asesor (legal adviser), an alguacil mayor (chief constable), among other officials, the Real Audiencia de Manila was both a trial and appellate court. It had exclusive original, concurrent original, and exclusive appellate jurisdictions.

Initially, the Audiencia was given a non-judicial role in the colonial administration, to deal with unforeseen problems within the territory that arose from time to time—it was given the power to supervise certain phases of ecclesiastical affairs as well as regulatory functions, such as fixing of prices at which merchants could sell their commodities. Likewise, the Audiencia had executive functions, like the allotment of lands to the settlers of newly established pueblos. However, by 1861, the Audiencia had ceased to perform these executive and administrative functions and had been restricted to the administration of justice.

When the Audiencia Territorial de Cebu was established in 1886, the name of the Real Audiencia de Manila was changed to Audiencia Territorial de Manila.

Map

The Judicial System of the
Pre-Colonization Filipinos

When the Spanish colonizers first arrived in the Philippine archipelago, they found the indigenous Filipinos without any written laws. The laws enforced were mainly derived from customs, usages, and tradition. These laws were believed to be God-given and were orally transmitted from generation to generation.

A remarkable feature of these customs and traditions was that they were found to be very similar to one another notwithstanding that they were observed in widely dispersed islands of the archipelago. There were no judges and lawyers who were trained formally in the law, although there were elders who devoted time to the study of the customs, usages, and traditions of their tribes to qualify them as consultants or advisers on these matters.

The unit of government of the indigenous Filipinos was the barangay, which was a family-based community of 30 to 100 families, occupying a pook (“locality” or “area”) headed by a chieftain called datu who exercised all functions of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—a barangay was not only a political but a social and an economic organization. In the exercise of his judicial authority, the datu acted as a judge (hukom) in settling disputes and deciding cases in his barangay.

Mobile Menu