The newly elected PJA officers are Judge Pia Cristina B. Bersamin-Embuscado, President; Judge Maria Paz R. Reyes-Yson, Executive Vice-President; Judge Divina Gracia Lopez Peliño, Senior Vice-President; Judge Elisa R. Sarmiento-Flores, Vice-President for Administration; Judge Caridad Villegas Galvez, Vice-President for External Affairs; Judge Pablo C. Formaran III, Vice-President for Internal Affairs; Judge Maria Teresa E. De Guzman-Alvarez, Vice-President for Finance; Judge Abraham Joseph B. Alcantara, Vice-President for Legal Affairs; Judge Mary Jane B. Dacara-Buenaventura, Vice-President for Research and Judicial Education; Judge Tarcelo A. Sabarre, Jr., Vice-President for  Special Projects; Judge Mary Catherine O. Noblejas-Garcia, Secretary General; Judge Ira Fritzie C. Cruz-Rojo, Treasurer General; Judge Giovanni E. Vidal, Auditor; Judge Maria Gilda T. Loja Pangilinan, Public Relations Officer; and Judge Jose Rene G. Dondoyano, Business Manager.    

The PJA’s newly elected Regional Directors, Deputies, Presidential Assistants, and Presidential Advisers also took their oath of office before the Chief Justice. The PJA is the only association of Regional Trial Court judges that is duly recognized by the SC.   

Also present during the oathtaking were SC Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa and Rodil V. Zalameda. (Press release courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson) 

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo administers the oath of office to newly elected national officers of the Philippine Judges Association, led by its President Judge Pia Cristina B. Bersamin-Embuscado (next to Chief Justice Gesmundo), on January 15, 2026, at the Supreme Court (SC) Session Hall in Manila. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office) 

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo administers the oath of office to newly elected regional directors of the Philippine Judges Association on January 15, 2026, at the Supreme Court (SC) Session Hall in Manila. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)   

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo administers the oath of office to newly elected deputies of the Philippine Judges Association on January 15, 2026, at the Supreme Court (SC) Session Hall in Manila. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)  

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo administers the oath of office to newly elected presidential assistants and presidential advisers of the Philippine Judges Association on January 15, 2026, at the Supreme Court (SC) Session Hall in Manila. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)  

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

Jhenroniel Rhey Timola Sanchez, a graduate of the University of the Philippines, clinched the top spot in the 2025 Bar examinations with an overall rating of 92.70%.

The exams, held on September 7, 10, and 14, 2025, in 14 local testing centers (LTCs) nationwide, marked the 123rd professional licensure tests for aspiring lawyers in the Philippines.

Justice Lazaro-Javier thanked all those who contributed to the success of the Bar examinations, including the Justices who visited the LTCs, court officials and personnel, volunteers, law school deans, and the 14 schools that served as testing centers. She also acknowledged the University of Santo Tomas – Manila, which served as the 2025 Bar general headquarters, and gave special recognition to the members of the 2025 Bar Chairperson’s Office, led by Bar Head Atty. Maria Michaela Billones-Vitug.

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Chairperson of the 2025 Bar Examinations, announces that 5,594 out of the 11,420 candidates passed the examinations during the release of the results on January 7, 2026, at the SC Courtyard in Manila. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)

Justice Lazaro-Javier also acknowledged and introduced the examiners for the six Bar subjects: Retired Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III, Atty. Blessilda B. Abad-Gamo, Atty. Eduardo S. Nachura, Jr. (Political and Public International Law); Retired Court of Tax Appeals Associate Justice Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, RTC Judge Cherry Chiara L. Hernando, Atty. Prudence Angelita A. Kasala, Atty. Amado E. Tayag, (Commercial and Taxation Laws); Retired SC Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, Atty. Carla E. Santamaria-Seña, Atty. Philbert E. Varona (Civil Law); Retired CA Presiding Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo, Retired CA Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, CA Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, Retired Assistant Solicitor General Renan E. Ramos (Labor Law and Social Legislations); CA Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, Assistant Solicitor General Marissa B. Dela Cruz-Galandines, Atty. Fe Tengco Becina-Macalino (Criminal Law); CA Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, RTC Judge Myra B. Quiambao, RTC Judge Virgilio V. Macaraig, and Atty. Edwin M. Carillo (Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics with Practical Exercises).

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (seated, sixth from right) and Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (seated, fourth from right), Chairperson of the 2025 Bar Examinations, led the release of the Bar Examinations results on January 7, 2026, at the SC Courtyard in Manila. With them are (seated, from left) SC Associate Justices Raul B. Villanueva, Jhosep Y. Lopez, Samuel H. Gaerlan, Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Ramon Paul L. Hernando; Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen; Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Rodil V. Zalameda, Ricardo R. Rosario, and Jose Midas P. Marquez. They are joined by the Examiners of the 2025 Bar Examinations. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)

Justice Lazaro-Javier shared a heartfelt message to all the examinees whom she affectionately calls her Bar Babies:

“Whatever happens in the next few minutes, I want you to know. I am proud of you. I see you—all your hard work, your perseverance, and your spirit. You have made me the proudest Bar Mom I could ever be. If I could only pass all of you, I would. But as it was, all I could do was give you as much guidance as I could, ensure that the questions were reasonable, and your answers, graded fairly and objectively. I gave you the best fighting chance I could ever muster, without compromising the integrity of the bar examinations.”

She welcomed the Bar passers into the legal profession, reminding them to carry the privilege of the calling with humility, the responsibilities with resolve, and the public’s trust with unwavering integrity.

To those who did not make the list, she said:

“My heart goes to you. I know what it is like to give it your all and still fail. There is nothing shameful about failing. Do not allow yourself to believe otherwise. So, when I tell you that this setback is not the end of the world, you have to believe me. Mothers know best, after all. I will never stop being your Bar Mom despite the results today.

Joining the Chief Justice and Justice Lazaro-Javier in announcing the results were Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Rodil V. Zalameda, Samuel H. Gaerlan, Ricardo R. Rosario, Jhosep Y. Lopez, Jose Midas P. Marquez, and Raul B. Villanueva.

The Justices also announced the Top 20 examinees, with two examinees tied at sixth place:

A press conference followed at the SC Dignitaries’ Lounge, where Justice Lazaro-Javier clarified that the total number of examinees was reduced from 11,425 to 11,420 after five were disqualified for failing to submit the required documents on time. She also thanked the media for helping disseminate news on the Bar Examinations and for highlighting inspiring stories of the examinees’ perseverance and the unwavering support of their families.

The press conference was facilitated by SC Spokesperson Atty. Camille Sue Mae L. Ting.

Justice Lazaro-Javier also announced that the oath-taking and roll signing ceremonies for successful Bar examinees will be held on February 6, 2026, at the Philippine Arena in Bulacan.

Complete details on the 2025 Bar Examinations are available at the Bar 2025 SC microsite. (Press release courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (sixth from right) and Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (fourth from right), Chairperson of the 2025 Bar Examinations, lead the release of the Bar Examinations results on January 7, 2026, at the SC Courtyard in Manila. With them are (from left) SC Associate Justices Raul B. Villanueva, Jhosep Y. Lopez, Samuel H. Gaerlan, Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Ramon Paul L. Hernando; Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen; and Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Rodil V. Zalameda, Ricardo R. Rosario, and Jose Midas P. Marquez. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)

The number of passers is shown on the LED wall during the announcement of the 2025 Bar Examinations results on January 7, 2026, at the Supreme Court (SC) Courtyard in Manila. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro- Javier (seated, seventh from right), Chairperson of the 2025 Bar Examinations, leads the release of the Bar Examination results on January 7, 2026, at the SC Courtyard in Manila. With her are the members of the 2025 Bar Chairperson’s Office, led by Bar Head Atty. Maria Michaela M. Billones-Vitug (seated, sixth from left), Deputy Bar Head Atty. Lloyd Danielle V. Javier (seated, fifth from left), and Deputy Judicial Staff Head Atty. Michelle Karla C. Manese-Corpus (seated, sixth from right). (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)

Successful examinees together with their loved ones and supporters erupt in cheers, tears, and celebration during the release of the 2025 Bar Examination results on January 7, 2026, at the SC Courtyard in Manila. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)

Successful examinees and their well-wishers celebrate following the release of the results of the examinations on January 7, 2026, at the SC Courtyard in Manila. (Photo courtesy of the SC Communications Office)

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (at podium), Chairperson of the 2025 Bar Examinations, answers questions from the media in a press conference following the release of the Bar examination results on January 7, 2026, at the SC Dignitaries’ Lounge in Manila. (Photo courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

The FSL Rules apply to all court proceedings involving d/Deaf Filipinos in the Judiciary, at any litigation stage, with the right to choose their preferred mode of communication.

The Rules define “deaf” (with the lowercase “d”) as Filipinos with hearing loss who may or may not use sign language or identify with the Deaf community. “Deaf” (with the uppercase “D”) are those who use FSL and collectively identify as a community. This is to emphasize that all Filipino Deaf are deaf, but not all deaf Filipinos are Deaf.

Courts must appoint accredited FSL Interpreters and Deaf Relay Interpreters (interpreters). FSL interpreters translate spoken language into FSL and/or vice versa, while Deaf Relay Interpreters (DRIs) are Deaf persons who relay communication between linguistically isolated deaf persons and hearing non-signers. A linguistically isolated deaf person is a deaf with little or no exposure to sign language, resulting in limited communication skills. A hearing non-signer is a person who can hear but does not know or use sign language.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) must provide all courts with an updated list of accredited interpreters every year. Courts shall refer d/Deaf parties or witnesses, within three calendar days upon receipt of request or on its own initiative, to the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF) for a Visual Communication Assessment for the Deaf (VCAD) if the Court finds that the d/Deaf individual is not proficient in FSL. The purpose of the VCAD is to determine the d/Deaf person’s primary language and communication needs.  The VCAD report must be submitted to the court within 10 calendar days from receipt of the referral order.

However, if the d/Deaf individual manifests proficiency in FSL, they must execute a waiver and the court shall directly appoint an FSL interpreter from the list furnished by the OCA.  To ensure impartiality, the Rules prohibit courts from appointing interpreters who have conflicts of interest, such as relationship, financial, or professional ties to the d/Deaf party or witness.

If a d/Deaf party declines the court-provided interpreter due to unavailability, conflict of interest, or other justifiable reasons, they may hire interpreters at their own expense, with the other party’s consent, provided the interpreter is accredited.

To ensure effective communication, the Rules prescribe courtroom guidelines on the physical position of the interpreter relative to the d/Deaf party or witness during hearings, their access to case records, and video recording of d/Deaf testimonies.  Remote interpreting is allowed when no accredited on-site interpreter is available, when the proceeding is brief and does not involve testimony, or when the case involves sensitive matters that may pose safety risks to the interpreter. The court must also meet technical standards for video and audio quality during proceedings. However, in-court interpreting remains mandatory for complex proceedings, cases involving d/Deaf children or multiple d/Deaf participants, when equipment is impaired by noise or poor lighting, or when videoconferencing is not feasible. 

In cases of interpreting errors or ambiguities, the court shall consult with counsel and interpreters to assess if the error is substantial. If it is, the court will hold a hearing to determine the correct interpretation.

The FSL Rules set interpreting protocols for court proceedings. Interpreters may use consecutive or simultaneous interpreting. To review case materials in advance, they may request access to documents that will be used during the proceedings. If unfamiliar or critical terms arise, interpreters shall inform the court through counsel, and the court may allow clarification, repetition, or time to verify terms. Interpreters must relay responses exactly as given, even if the answer is non-responsive. When an objection is raised, they shall interpret up to that point and signal the d/Deaf to pause until the judge rules on the objection.

Interpreters must act professionally and responsibly, provide accurate interpretation, remain impartial, maintain confidentiality, and respect the d/Deaf person’s identity, language, culture, status, and personal characteristics, and beliefs.

Courts may remove interpreters for incapacity, fraud or dishonesty in performing duties, breach of confidentiality, failure to appear without good cause, or willful violation of prescribed rules and policies. Courts shall appoint a replacement from the official list provided by the OCA and furnish both the OCA and the KWF with a copy of the removal order.

The OCA grants accreditation to FSL court interpreters. Applicants must submit a verified application with proof that they are Filipino citizens and residents, of legal age, and of good moral character. They must also present valid certification from the KWF confirming that they have completed basic orientation training and passed the basic court sign language interpreter examination. Applicants must also show proof that they have either completed formal interpreter training or have served as interpreters in at least three court proceedings. They must also affirm that they have not been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty. All required documents must accompany the application.

However, until the KWF establishes a national system of standards, accreditation, and procedures for FSL interpreting, the certification, training, and examination requirements mentioned above shall not yet be mandatory. In the meantime, applicants may submit proof of interpreter training conducted by a sign language training institution or association, or certificates of court appearances in at least three instances.

The certificate of accreditation is valid for three years from the date of approval of the application unless revoked.

To maintain accreditation, interpreters must complete at least 24 hours of continuing education every three years and submit official documentation of attendance to the OCA for accreditation renewal.

The OCA, on its own or upon recommendation by the KWF, may revoke an interpreter’s accreditation if they no longer meet the qualifications or if any grounds for removal exists.

The Rules were drafted by the Technical Working Group headed by SC Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao as Chairperson and Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez as Vice Chairperson.

The Rules shall take effect on December 15, 2025 following its publication in two newspapers of general circulation on November 29, 2025, and on the SC website. (Press release courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

Caleda acted promptly by sending demand letters and filing a claim within two years of discovering the school’s occupation. Although the Supreme Court’s findings are provisional, addressing only possession recovery, they don’t prevent the State from pursuing expropriation separately.

The legal disputes arose when Caleda bought the land in 2014 and discovered its occupation by DepEd’s Solana Fresh Water Fishery School. Despite sending multiple demand letters, the DepEd did not vacate, prompting Caleda to seek legal action. The trial court, followed by the Court of Appeals, ruled in Caleda’s favor, dismissing DepEd’s claim based on an unrelated 1965 deed of sale.

DepEd contended that public policy protects its occupancy and suggested exercising eminent domain, but the Supreme Court found no evidence supporting ownership transfer to DepEd. Furthermore, it critiqued DepEd for altering its defense strategy from ownership claims to eminent domain during the appeal process, stating the appeal could not become an expropriation proceeding.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division ordered UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. (UCPВ) to pay Wilfrido C. Wijangco (Wilfrido) for the loss of his stolen Jaguar.

Wilfrido’s son, Andrew, was held at gunpoint in a parking lot.  The armed men threatened him and drove away with the car.  The theft was reported to the police, and Wilfrido filed an insurance claim with UCPB, submitting all required documents.  

UCPB later informed Wilfrido that the vehicle had been recovered by the  Traffic Management Group (TMG). UCPB put his claim on hold and said it would close it unless he submitted a TMG investigation clearance. With no progress, Wilfrido filed a case against the insurer.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the insurance claim, holding that the theft triggered UCPB’s liability regardless of recovery. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the ruling, but the case eventually reached the SC.

The SC reinstated the RTC’s decision.  It emphasized that theft is complete once the vehicle is unlawfully taken. Recovery does not erase the fact of theft. 

Section 249 of the Insurance Code requires insurers to pay claims within specified periods after receiving proof of loss. Once this period lapses and before the insured vehicle is recovered, the insurer’s payment for the loss becomes final, and the insured cannot be compelled to accept the recovered vehicle. Insurance would lose its purpose if the insured had to wait indefinitely for recovery or was forced to buy a replacement only to have the original vehicle returned later.           

In this case, Wilfrido filed his proof of loss on October 10, 2006, but UCPB informed him of the recovery 162 days later – well beyond the 90-day legal limit.  Even when recovered, Wilfrido’s Jaguar was unserviceable, missing several parts and showing heavy damage, making the loss effectively permanent.

The SC ordered UCPB to pay Wilfrido PHP 1.8 million in insurance proceeds, plus double interest on the amount. UPCB was also directed to pay PHP 180,000 in attorney’s fees and PHP 200,000 in damages. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 257086 (Wilfrido C. Wijangco, represented by his son, Andrew C. Wijangco v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.) April 23, 2025.

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

The training was led by Associate Justices Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and Jhosep Y. Lopez, Co-Chairpersons of the SC Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ). It aimed to strengthen gender awareness and encourage gender-responsive practices among judges and court personnel in the province.

Justice Inting, a proud Boholano, emphasized in his opening remarks the SC’s ongoing effort to embed gender mainstreaming in the Judiciary. He said,

“We are moving towards creating a judiciary that is inherently more inclusive, more compassionate, and truly responsive. This effort transcends simple policy adjustments or procedural changes; it is a profound reaffirmation of our core responsibility: to ensure that justice is not just administered, but genuinely experienced by everyone.”

He encouraged the participants to view the training as a catalyst for change that sparks dialogue, challenges old mindsets, and inspires lasting action. He added that these steps will help the Judiciary uphold dignity, promote equality, and respond to society’s changing needs.

Justice Inting also noted that the GST forms part of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022–2027 (SPJI), instituted by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo.

 “The SPJI envisions a Judiciary that is ‘modern, transparent, efficient, and accountable’ – one that responds effectively to the evolving needs of our society. In line with that vision, gender sensitivity is not a peripheral concern, but a central pillar of judicial excellence. It affirms that justice must be rooted not only in law, but in fairness, empathy, and inclusion.”   

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Co-Chairperson of the SC Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ), delivers the opening remarks during the Gender Sensitivity Training for the Judiciary, held on July 31, 2025 at the Modala Beach Resort in Panglao, Bohol. (Photo courtesy of the SC CGRJ Secretariat)     

Justice Lopez took a pioneering role as the first SC Justice to serve as a resource person for the GST initiatives under the SPJI. On the last day, he gave a lecture on “Gender-Fair Language in the Judiciary and Gender-Fair Courtroom Etiquette,” a key feature of the Revised GST Module of the CGRJ.

 “[T]his training goes beyond refining language or correcting behavior. It is about cultivating a deeper understanding of respect, inclusion, and dignity for all individuals, regardless of sex, gender identity, or expression.”

Justice Lopez emphasized that gender sensitivity is not a passing advocacy but a permanent and principled commitment—both a constitutional mandate and an ethical responsibility that supports justice, fairness, and equality.    

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, Co-Chairperson of the SC Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ), delivers a lecture on “Gender-Fair Language in the Judiciary and Gencer-Fair Courtroom Etiquette” during the Gender Sensitivity Training for the Judiciary, held on August 1, 2025, at the Modala Beach Resort in Panglao, Bohol. (Photo courtesy of the SC CGRJ Secretariat)  

Retired SC Associate Justice and PHILJA Vice Chancellor Edgardo Lao Delos Santos opened the first day by urging participants to approach gender sensitivity with awareness, empathy, and the courage to challenge norms. He expressed hope that they would leave the training better equipped to address gender-based disparities and promote respectful, inclusive environments.

Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega, Chairperson of the Technical Working Group on the Revised GST Module of the CGRJ, lectured on gender-fair language and courtroom etiquette on the first two days of the training and delivered the closing remarks on the third.    

Retired Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice and Philippine Judicial Academy Vice Chancellor Edgardo Lao Delos Santos delivers the opening remarks during the Gender Sensitivity Training for the Judiciary, held on July 30, 2025, at the Modala Beach Resort in Panglao, Bohol. (Photo courtesy of the SC CGRJ Secretariat)    

Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega delivers the closing remarks during the Gender Sensitivity Training for the Judiciary, held on August 1, 2025, at the Modala Beach Resort in Panglao, Bohol. (Photo courtesy of the SC CGRJ Secretariat)     

The three-day training also featured sessions on Fundamental Gender Concepts, Gender Images in Relation to Gender Concepts; Sexual Harassment, Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI), and Safe Spaces Act; and Recognizing and Handling Gender-Related Issues; and an open forum for individual reflections on gender-sensitive behavior in and out of the workplace.

Lecturers included Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose Lorenzo R. Dela Rosa; Presiding Judge Ana Teresa T. Cornejo-Tomacruz, Branch 157, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City; Presiding Judge Kirby G. Javier, Branch 166, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay City; Presiding Judge Mark Anthony D. Polonan, Branch 8, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City; Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program Administrator Atty. Laura C.H. Del Rosario; and SC Office of the Chief of Service Senior Chief Staff Officer Atty. Antonio Y. Ocampo, Jr., Procurement Management Services. 

Since the rollout of the revised GST in Baguio last March—followed by sessions in Albay and now Bohol—over 450 court employees have been trained. This milestone, under the SPJI, highlights the SC’s strong and sustained commitment to building a Judiciary that is both inclusive and compassionate.

Other SC gender-related initiatives include: (1) the HerStory: Gender Award of Distinction, honoring inspiring stories of female justices; (2) the Legal Feminism Study, which reviewed how courts apply gender-responsive laws; (3) the Guidelines on the Use of Gender-Fair Language in the Judiciary, Gender-Fair Courtroom Etiquette, and the Victim-Sensitive Guidelines, which are now mandatory in all courts; and (4) the development of additional materials on managing women in conflict with the law, writing gender-sensitive decisions, and promoting gender mobility in the Judiciary.

For more information, please refer to the official press releases on the launch of the Gender Sensitivity Training for Court Personnel and succeeding SC GST training SC Holds Second Gender Sensitivity Training for Albay Courts. (Press release courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)   

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (seated, center), Co-Chairperson of the SC Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ), during the Gender Sensitivity Training (GST) for the Judiciary held on July 31, 2025 at the Modala Beach Resort in Panglao, Bohol. With him are (seated, from left): SC Office of the Chief of Service Senior Chief Staff Officer Atty. Antonio Y. Ocampo, Jr., Procurement Management Services; Presiding Judge Ana Lesa S. Radaza, Branch 9, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bato-Matalom, Leyte; Presiding Judge Ana Teresa T. Cornejo-Tomacruz, Branch 157, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City; Atty. Laura C.H. Del Rosario, Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program Administrator, SC Program Management Office; Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega; Presiding Judge Maria Belinda C. Rama, Branch 14, RTC, Malolos City, Bulacan; Presiding Judge Ester M. Veloso, Branch 6, RTC, Cebu City; Presiding Judge Mark Anthony D. Polonan, Branch 8, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City; and Presiding Judge Kirby G. Javier, Branch 166, Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay City. Joining them are members of the CGRJ Secretariat and GST participants. (Photo courtesy of the SC CGRJ Secretariat)

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

The visit is part of the SC’s ongoing efforts to improve the Philippines’ maritime justice system. In 2019, it issued the Rules of Procedure for Admiralty Cases to provide parties in cases in maritime disputes fast, reliable, and efficient access to Philippine courts. The Rules also aim to build judicial expertise in handling admiralty and maritime cases. Several Regional Trial Courts have since been designated as special admiralty courts.

Chief Justice Gesmundo emphasized the Judiciary’s commitment to aligning Philippine maritime procedures with international standards. These reforms are part of the SC’s Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), which includes improving access to maritime justice. They discussed potential partnerships on specialized training for Philippine judges, participation in WMU’s postgraduate programs, and technical support to modernize admiralty court systems.

WMU President Professor Maximo Q. Mejia Jr., the first Filipino to lead the university, welcomed the delegation and introduced WMU’s academic programs. Professors Dr. Aref Fakhry, Dr. George Theocharidis, and Dr. María Carolina Romero Lares shared insights on emerging trends such as the use of digital evidence (e.g. electronic logs and satellite imagery) and virtual hybrid hearings to improve efficiency.

The experts also highlighted the growing use of alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and arbitration in maritime disputes, noting their flexibility, confidentiality, and potential for quicker and more cost-effective outcomes.

The visit also addressed reforms to the Philippine ship registry and ways to prevent fraudulent entries. WMU experts discussed international legal standards on flag state responsibilities and how courts can respond to modern challenges such as technology, climate change, and global regulations. They stressed that admiralty court jurisdiction is a dynamic field vital to protecting the Philippines’ maritime interests and the welfare of Filipino seafarers.

Chief Justice Gesmundo thanked WMU for its support and emphasized the importance of continued global collaboration to strengthen the Philippines’ admiralty court system.

Joining the Chief Justice and Justice Marquez were Atty. Antonio Ceasar R. Manila, Deputy Chief Justice Staff Head, and Atty. Anna Lea A. Barron, Court Attorney VI from the Office of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao.

WMU is a global academic institution founded by the International Maritime Organization. It offers advanced and short-term programs in maritime law, governance, and policy, and promotes sustainable maritime development worldwide. (Press release courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson) 

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

“There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time.  This is what the Rule of Just Law means.  This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.” (Leonen, SAJ. Duterte v. House of Representatives)

In a 13-0-2 Decision, with the Justices present voting unanimously, and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa inhibiting and Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh on leave,* the Supreme Court En Banc on July 25, 2025, declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to due process enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the Senate could not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings.

However, the Court said it is not absolving Vice President Duterte from any of the charges against her. But any subsequent impeachment complaint may only be filed starting February 6, 2026.

The case stemmed from four impeachment complaints against Vice President Duterte. The first three were filed before the House of Representatives (HOR) by private individuals and different groups on December 2, 4, and 19, 2024.

A fourth complaint was lodged by a resolution approved by more than one-third of the HOR members of the 19th Congress on February 5, 2025, which was transmitted as the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate on the same day.

This was followed by two petitions filed before the Supreme Court challenging its constitutionality.

The Decision, written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, ruled that all legal issues involving impeachment proceedings are subject to judicial review, “considering the nature of the offices and the institutions that are subject to impeachment, its effect on the independence of constitutional departments and organs, and its nature as a constitutional process.”

“The impeachment process is primarily a legal and constitutional procedure but with political characteristics. It may be sui generis but it is not a purely political proceeding. This means that the Bill of Rights, especially the due process clause and the right to speedy disposition of cases, applies to the entire impeachment process,” it said.

Although the Court does not determine whether an impeachable officer may be removed or disqualified from political office, it emphasized that “it has the duty to construe the process mandated in the Constitution.”

In declaring that the Articles of Impeachment were barred by the one-year rule, the Decision differentiated the first three complaints from the fourth complaint. The first three, it said, were filed under Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution which allows any citizen to file a verified complaint with an endorsement by any HOR member. The fourth one was through Article XI, Section 3(4) of the Constitution through a verified complaint or resolution filed by at least one-third of the HOR members.

The Court took note that the HOR in the 19th Congress did not act on the first three endorsed complaints, which were considered “terminated or dismissed” upon the adjournment of the HOR.

“[T]he three impeachment complaints were archived and therefore deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025. Therefore, no new impeachment complaint, if any, may be commenced earlier than February 6, 2026,” it held.

Under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, “[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.” According to the Decision, the one-year bar is reckoned “from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or no longer viable.” 

A key issue in the petitions is whether the HOR complied with the ten-session-day requirement under the Constitution for including a verified impeachment complaint in the Order of Business of the HOR. The Court ruled that the HOR was able to comply with the requirement by “putting the three endorsed impeachment complaints in the Order of Business of the House of Representatives” since a session day is not equivalent to a calendar day. “It is a period that starts from a call to order until the session is adjourned, regardless of the passage of time.”

However, the Court reminded the HOR that Article XI, Section 3(2) of the Constitution “clearly requires that a verified impeachment complaint be immediately put in the Order of Business within ten session days from its endorsement.” The Constitution does not grant either the Secretary General or the Speaker of the House “any discretion to determine when this period commences.”  Consequently, the House of Representatives is not granted any discretion “except to refer these matters to the proper committee within three session days.” However, the House may opt to “consolidate all impeachment complaints properly commenced and endorsed” within these periods.

The Court also determined that due process applies to the impeachment process. It laid down the following due process requirements in impeachment proceedings.

1. The Articles of Impeachment or resolution must include evidence when shared with House members, especially those who are considering its endorsement.
2. The evidence should be sufficient to prove the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.
3. The Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence should be available to all members of the House of Representatives, not only those who are being considered to endorse.
4. The respondent in the impeachment complaint should have been given a chance to be heard on the Articles of Impeachment and the supporting evidence to prove the charges prior to its transmittal to the Senate, despite the number of endorsements from House members.
5. The House of Representatives must be given a reasonable time to reach their independent decision of whether they will endorse an impeachment complaint. The Court, however, has the power to review whether this period is sufficient, but petitioner—who invokes the Court’s power to review—should prove that officials failed to perform their duties properly.
6. The basis of any charge must be for impeachable acts or omissions committed in relation to their office and during the current term of the impeachable officer. For the President and Vice President, these acts must be sufficiently grave amounting to the crimes described in Article XI, Section 2 or a betrayal of public trust given by the majority of the electorate.

For the other impeachable officers, the acts must be sufficiently grave that they undermine and outweigh the respect for their constitutional independence and autonomy;

7. To ensure that respondent in the impeachment complaint is heard under the requirement of due process in the procedure under Article XI, Section 3(4), the House of Representatives is required to:

(a) Provide a copy of the Articles of Impeachment and its accompanying evidence to the respondent to give him/her an opportunity to respond within a reasonable period to be determined by the House rules. The Constitution only requires an opportunity to be heard. It is up the respondent to waive this fundamental right and opt to present his/her evidence at the Senate trial; and

(b) Make the Articles of Impeachment, with its accompanying evidence and the comment of the respondent, available to all the members of the House of Representatives. It is the House—not one-third of the House—that has the sole prerogative to initiate impeachment complaints. Thus, there must be some modicum of deliberation so that each member representing their constituents can be heard and thus convince others of their position. The transmittal however will only take place upon the qualified vote of one-third of the House.

We quote from the final note of the unanimous Decision:

“It is not our duty to favor any political result. Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the Rule of Just Law.

We cannot concede the sobriety of fairness inherent in due process of law to the passions of a political moment. Our fundamental law is clear: The end does not justify the means. 

We understand our history. We have learned that in the past, momentary desires to do what is convenient and concede means to ends have inadvertently created precedents that weaken the succor of law for those who dissent, or those at our society’s margins, or those who may have fallen out of grace from the powers that be. We have learned that the clash of political interests in the past, often disguised by noble intentions, has obscured the need to address the real problems of corruption, inequality, poverty, and disempowerment faced by our people.

We will not allow that to happen again. We will not hesitate to declare what is legal, just, and right for our people.

There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time.  This is what the Rule of Just Law means.  This is what fairness or due process of law means, even for impeachment.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling is immediately executory. It shall be deemed served on the petitioners and released upon publication in the Supreme Court website and receipt of the parties of their digital copy in accordance with A.M. No. 25-05-16-SC or the Guidelines on the Transition to Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court.

We urge everyone to read the full text of the Decision and the concurring opinions.

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

Joining Justice Lazaro-Javier were other members of the SC Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns: Court of Appeals Associate Justice Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale; Judge Sita Jose Clemente, Branch 16, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City, Bulacan; Judge Maria Josefina G. San Juan-Torres, Branch 79, RTC, Morong, Rizal; Judge Sittie Laarni R. Umpa, Branch 9, RTC, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur; SC Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program Administrator Atty. Laura C.H. Del Rosario; and SC lawyers Atty. Marchellene B. Caday-Atitiw and Atty. Edrea Jean V. Ramirez.

4^th IHNJ Global Meeting

The Philippine delegation attended the 4th Global Meeting of the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ), held in Singapore from May 19 to 21, 2025. They joined more than 50 judges from 34 member countries of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) to share updates and best practices on protecting children in cross-border cases.

The meeting had 18 sessions with expert presentations from 20 countries, including the Philippines.

Judge Clemente highlighted key Philippine developments, including Department of Justice Circular No. 010 issued in February 2022 to speed up the return of children wrongfully taken or kept abroad. It outlines the roles of agencies and encourages mediation and voluntary return. The SC also issued A.M. No. 22-09-15-SC in October 2022 to implement the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, ensuring quick judicial action in these cases.

The SC also updated its Rule on Family Mediation in November 2024 to include international child abduction cases among those that can be resolved through family mediation. The Rule also mandates mediation in cross-border cases involving child support, custody, visitation, guardianship, and other civil matters related to children between Filipinos and citizens of other ASEAN countries.

Justice Quimpo-Sale co-moderated a session on the various roles of IHNJ judges, alongside Judge Hiram Puig-Lugo of the United States. Topics included direct communication between judges of different countries and how to handle simultaneous asylum and return proceedings.

HCCH Judicial Roundtable, 3^rd ASEAN Family Judges Forum

On May 22, 2025, the Philippine delegation also attended the HCCH Judicial Roundtable and the 3^rd ASEAN Family Judges Forum, held at the Supreme Court of Singapore. It was the first joint forum between IHNJ judges and ASEAN family court judges, with 65 participants.

Justice Lazaro-Javier, Co-Chairperson of the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices (CACJ) Working Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children (WG CBDIC), presented alongside Justice Teh Hwee Hwee, Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts of Singapore. They gave an overview of the Working Group’s initiatives.

Justice Lazaro-Javier explained that the CACJ had adopted a common set of values and principles for resolving cross-border child cases in ASEAN, which support international standards, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.

She also discussed the Country Profile tool, which maps out each country’s mediation options and processes—from the time a child is taken abroad to the final court decision. The country profiles enable the WG CBDIC to identify areas where member countries may require assistance or training. Additionally, the Resource Page for Mediation helps parents and legal representatives find qualified mediators in ASEAN countries and understand each country’s mediation process.

Justice Lazaro-Javier then highlighted the Code of Ethics for Mediators under the Working Group, which ensures that mediation is done with fairness, competence, and the child’s best interests in mind. It promotes trust, confidentiality, and neutrality in cross-border cases.

She underscored the Philippines’ support for the CACJ’s initiatives, noting the country’s contribution to the Compendium of Agreed Frameworks, which outlines the ethical and procedural standards for cross-border family cases. She shared that accredited family mediators in the Philippines will also be listed on the ASEAN Judiciaries’ Portal so they can be quickly appointed when such disputes arise.

Justice Lazaro-Javier expressed confidence that the participants’ combined expertise and commitment will help build a better, more responsive justice system for children facing cross-border family disputes.

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Co-Chairperson of the ASEAN Chief Justices Working Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children (WG-CBDIC), delivers a report on May 22, 2025, at the HCCH Judicial Roundtable and 3^rd ASEAN Family Judges Forum at the Supreme Court of Singapore. (Photo courtesy of the Office of SC Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier)   

11^th Meeting of CACJ Working Group on the Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children

On May 23, 2025, Justice Lazaro-Javier and Justice Teh presided over the 11th Meeting of the CACJ WG CBDIC, held at the Family Justice Courts of Singapore. The members discussed possible topics for the 4th ASEAN Family Judges Forum on Therapeutic Justice, such as restorative approaches to improve family relationships, sharing of best practices from member countries, and case studies on how these best practices and restorative approaches are applied.

They also proposed developing a shared, non-binding ASEAN perspective on therapeutic justice to guide future work on cross-border family disputes. (Press release courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)  

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (front row, sixth from right) and Court of Appeals Associate Justice Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale (front row, fourth from right) with other ASEAN representatives at the 11^th Meeting of the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices Working Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children, held on May 23, 2025, at the Family Justice Courts of Singapore. (Photo courtesy of the Office of SC Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier)  

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (center), together with Justice Teh Hwee Hwee, Presiding Justice of the Family Justice Courts of Singapore (second from right), presides at the 11^th Meeting of the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices Working Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children, held on May 23, 2025, in Singapore. (Photo courtesy of the Office of SC Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier)   

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

In a per curiam decision, the SC En Banc dismissed Dwight Aldwin S. Geronimo (Geronimo), Sheriff IV of Branch 121, Regional Trial Court, Imus City, Cavite, revoking all his retirement benefits and permanently banning him from government employment.

The case stemmed from a complaint by Antolyn Dones Gonzales (Gonzales), who said Geronimo asked her for PHP 200,000 in exchange for helping speed up the drug case of her friend, Monib Saadoning Amatonding (Monib). Geronimo claimed the judge handling the case was his aunt and promised that Monib would be granted bail.

Gonzales paid Geronimo PHP 115,000 initially, with the remaining amount to be paid after Monib’s case was settled. They kept in touch via Facebook Messenger, where Geronimo repeatedly promised results and even visited Gonzales at her home. But when Monib’s bail was denied, Geronimo disappeared – blocking Gonzales on Facebook and changing his phone number.

In his defense, Geronimo gave different stories. First, he said the money was just a personal loan. Later, he claimed he was pretending to go along with Gonzales to expose alleged corruption in the court. 

The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) found Geronimo guilty of gross misconduct and recommended his dismissal. The SC agreed.

Under Section 1, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (Code), court personnel should not use their position for personal gain. Section 2 of the same Canon forbids them from accepting gifts that could influence their official actions.

The SC stressed that court employees should never take money from litigants for any reason. Such actions are considered gross misconduct, defined as unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer coupled with elements of corruption, or willful intent to violate the law or disregard established rules.  Corruption, as an element of gross misconduct, involves an official unlawfully or wrongly using their position to obtain personal benefits.

Geronimo admitted to receiving money from Gonzales as a personal loan. The SC ruled that this still violated Section 2 of the Code because accepting money from someone with a pending case is prohibited, making his explanation irrelevant.

The Facebook Messenger messages, which Geronimo did not deny sending, support the claim that the money he received was related to a pending case.

Due to the seriousness of Geronimo’s actions, as well as a previous record of misconduct, the SC imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal.

The SC also reminded all court employees to be role models of responsibility, competence, and efficiency. They are expected to do their jobs with the highest level of care as officers of the court and agents of the law. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the SC Office of the Spokesperson as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. The full text of the Decision in JIB FPI No. 21-071-P (Gonzales v. Geronimo), July 9, 2025, shall be uploaded to the SC website once available.  

Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.