The Supreme Court (SC) has issued a landmark decision written entirely in Filipino, underscoring its commitment to making justice more accessible and understandable and responsive to ordinary Filipinos.

The High Court said the ruling in G.R. No. 210480, Mel V. Velarde and Angeline Macasaet v. Honorable Court of Tax Appeals, Third Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Department of Justice, reflects the judiciary’s continuing effort to bring the law closer to the people.

Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh for the Supreme Court’s Third Division, the decision emphasized that language is a vital tool in ensuring access to justice, noting that judicial rulings affect not only lawyers and judges but also litigants, institutions, and ordinary citizens.

The SC said the use of Filipino helps bridge the gap between complex legal doctrine and public understanding. 

As one of the country’s official languages and one widely spoken by Filipinos, Filipino allows citizens to better understand court rulings without the barrier of translation or highly technical legal language.

The SC also stressed that using Filipino in judicial decisions does not compromise legal precision. 

According to the High Court, the ruling’s doctrinal discussions, legal citations, and dispositive portions were carefully crafted to preserve the substance and accuracy of the law while remaining clear and comprehensible.

The SC described the initiative as part of its broader effort to build a justice system that is not only efficient, independent, and fair, but also understandable to the public.

“Access to justice requires more than the availability of courts. It also requires that the people be able to understand the law, the reasons behind judicial action, and the consequences of court rulings on their lives,” it stated.

The Court added that allowing the law to “speak in a language that people can understand” strengthens public trust, promotes inclusivity, and advances the constitutional principle that justice must be accessible to all.

In the case itself, the SC dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Mel V. Velarde and Angeline L. Macasaet for being moot and academic.

The petition questioned proceedings before the Court of Tax Appeals involving a criminal tax evasion case tied to the alleged undervaluation of a property transaction.

However, while the case was pending before the SC, the Court of Tax Appeals dismissed the criminal case after granting the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration regarding the denial of their demurrer to evidence. 

The dismissal later became final and executory.

Because of this development, the SC ruled that there was no longer an actual controversy requiring resolution and that none of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.