SC resolves 4,294 cases in record year

Inquirer file photo

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court is closing the year with 4,294 resolved cases highlighted by its landmark decision in Deduro vs. Vinoya, which declared that Red-tagging, vilification, labeling and guilt by association threaten a person’s right to life, liberty and security.

According to data as of Sept. 30, the high court achieved a clearance rate of 87 percent, which indicates the ratio of resolved cases to newly filed ones.

The Supreme Court also accomplished a disposition rate of 22 percent, which is an improvement from 21 percent in 2023 and 19 percent in 2022.

READ: Chief Justice vows to further improve PH judicial system

Among its notable rulings involved G.R. No. 254753, which provided a legal definition of Red-tagging, or branding activists and dissenters as communist rebels or sympathizers. It was promulgated on July 4, 2023 and made public in May.

The Supreme Court en banc stated in its 39-page decision that such an act is a threat to the life, liberty and security of the victims, which could warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo.

In defining Red-tagging for the first time, the high court cited the UN Human Rights Council’s observation of the practice in the Philippines, where organizations on the political left are often labeled as “front organizations of anti-democratic groups.”

It also cited a 2020 report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which found that such labeling often leads to surveillance, harassment and even death threats, with some victims facing physical harm.

The high tribunal issued its ruling in connection with a petition filed by Siegfred Deduro, an Iloilo-based activist and former representative of the Bayan Muna party.

In another case involving the right to life, liberty and security, the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 269249 granted a petition by two environmental activists seeking protection against state authorities allegedly responsible for their abduction last year.

Roque vs. Quad Committee

Amid the controversy surrounding Philippine offshore gaming operators and congressional inquiries into the matter, the Supreme Court in “Roque vs. House of Representatives Quad-Committee” denied former presidential spokesperson Herminio “Harry” Roque Jr.’s request for a writ of amparo.

The Supreme Court ruled that amparo was not the proper remedy for congressional contempt and detention orders.

It also clarified the scope of amparo is limited to extralegal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats thereof, none of which were present in Roque’s case.

Guinto vs. DOJ

In ensuring fair prosecution and adherence to due process, the high tribunal, in Guinto vs. Department of Justice (G.R. No. 249027), ruled the DOJ exceeded its power of subordinate legislation when it excluded some convicted criminals as beneficiaries of Republic Act No. 10592, or the New Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law.

The ruling prompted the DOJ to revise its implementing rules, making all persons deprived of liberty, including those convicted of heinous crimes, eligible for GCTA benefits.

In Togado vs. People, the Supreme Court came up with guidelines for presenting confiscated firearms in court, emphasizing that, in cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 10591 (the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act), the absence of the actual confiscated firearm cannot be overlooked.

Gross misconduct, bribery

In cleansing the bench and the bar, the high court, in A.M. No. RTJ-20-2579, dismissed a judge for gross misconduct after finding messages on his laptop requesting bribes from lawyers and litigants in exchange for favorable rulings.

The Supreme Court also enlisted the National Bureau of Investigation’s help in A.M. No. 24-05-21-SC after an anonymous tip indicated that a court employee and judge were engaged in bribery.

Following an entrapment operation, the Supreme Court ordered the preventive suspension of a Pasay City judge and an acting branch clerk of court to ensure an uninterrupted formal investigation.

In A.M. No. 23-05-05-SC, the Court imposed a fine on Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) chief Persida Rueda-Acosta for conduct that was deemed grossly undignified and harmful to the justice system.

Her actions were related to her opposition to a new conflict-of-interest rule for the PAO.

In A.C. No. 13842, the Court found previously disbarred Lorenzo Gadon guilty of gross misconduct for perjury and making accusations based on hearsay.