Amendments to Guidelines on Videoconferencing
Under the amended guidelines, videoconferencing may be availed of by party litigants in both civil and criminal cases upon written or oral motion.
Text size
Under the amended guidelines, videoconferencing may be availed of by party litigants in both civil and criminal cases upon written or oral motion.
In its continuing effort to make justice more accessible and responsive to present realities, the Supreme Court approved the Amendments to the Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing, which will take effect on 16 February. The amendments reflect not merely a technological shift but the Court’s institutional learning from years of adapting judicial processes to evolving conditions.
While the judiciary had already begun modernizing court procedures, the need to institutionalize videoconferencing became urgent when the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted traditional in-person hearings. What initially began as a necessity has since proven to be a viable and effective mode of conducting hearings without compromising fairness or due process.
Drawing from this experience, the Supreme Court promulgated Administrative Matter No. 24-11-02-SC to guide the bench and the bar on the proper, consistent and principled use of videoconferencing in judicial proceedings.
Under the amended guidelines, videoconferencing may be availed of by party litigants in both civil and criminal cases upon written or oral motion. In criminal cases, however, such motion must be accompanied by a waiver of the accused’s constitutional right to confront witnesses face to face. Videoconferencing is likewise designated as the preferred mode for Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) and Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL), a recognition of the need to minimize the risks, costs and logistical burdens associated with transporting vulnerable individuals from detention facilities to courtrooms.
In cases where the presence of the accused is not required, videoconferencing is also preferred. This policy acknowledges the realities faced by litigants who may otherwise incur additional expenses, lose income, or abandon personal and professional responsibilities simply to appear physically in court.
Once approved, a scheduled videoconference hearing may no longer be cancelled except for meritorious grounds, reinforcing predictability and efficiency in judicial proceedings.
All videoconference hearings shall be recorded, with the recordings kept and stored by the court as part of the official records of the case, except for proceedings conducted during Court-Annexed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution. Parties may request access to these recordings for viewing, but unauthorized recording of videoconference proceedings is strictly prohibited.
The public nature of judicial proceedings is also maintained. Members of the public who wish to attend videoconference hearings may request access from the court, subject to approval. Confidentiality must be observed, and unauthorized sharing of access links is prohibited. As in physical hearings, the court retains the authority to deny public access in appropriate cases.
Participants in videoconference hearings are expected to observe proper courtroom decorum. To ensure the orderly conduct of proceedings, the rules require parties to log in and remain in the virtual waiting lobby of the platform at least twenty minutes before the scheduled hearing.
The court may suspend or discontinue videoconferencing in cases of technological or technical issues that affect the fairness and regularity of the proceedings or, in criminal cases, when the rights of the accused may be compromised. In such instances, the court may schedule the hearing to proceed in person.
During the presentation of evidence, counsel may present documentary evidence and judicial affidavits through the screen-sharing feature of the approved platform. To prevent coaching, the court may require a witness to pan the camera to confirm that no other person is present in the room. Object evidence may likewise be presented through videoconferencing if it can be properly exhibited, examined or viewed within the full view of all participants.
Consistent with in-person proceedings, the court must be afforded the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying. Accordingly, witnesses must remain within the court’s view throughout their testimony.
Subject to applicable bilateral and multilateral treaties, the appearance of parties from authorized overseas venues through videoconferencing is also permitted upon proper motion and approval by the court. All expenses incidental to such overseas appearances shall be borne by the movant.
As a safeguard against abuse, the rules expressly prohibit acts such as the intentional disruption of digital communications, coaching of witnesses and the knowing presentation of falsified digital images or evidence. Any person who commits these acts may be held in direct contempt of court.
Oliver Wendell Holmes famously observed that “the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” The amended Videoconferencing Guidelines are a product of that experience—refined through years of adaptation, tested by necessity and shaped by practical realities. In institutionalizing these lessons, the Supreme Court reaffirms its commitment to a judicial system that is timely, fair, transparent and accessible to all.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.
