Leonen pushes graft rulings by 2027
Leonen said lengthy proceedings and corruption cases that end without convictions were troubling, but he could not automatically conclude that these outcomes represented a failure of the judiciary.
Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen has proposed resolving at the trial-court level all major corruption cases filed by the Office of the Ombudsman before the end of 2027.
Leonen made the proposal during his panel interview with members of the Judicial and Bar Council on Thursday as part of his broader plan to address judicial delays and restore public confidence in the justice system.
He also called for an independent study of major corruption cases that have reached the Supreme Court since 1986 to determine why some prosecutions have taken years or decades to resolve and identify reforms to prevent similar delays.
Leonen said lengthy proceedings and corruption cases that end without convictions were troubling, but he could not automatically conclude that these outcomes represented a failure of the judiciary.
“I cannot make that conclusion,” he said, noting that delays could stem from judicial lapses, prosecution failures, problems in presenting evidence and waning public attention after cases initially draw scrutiny.
The proposed study should examine what happened to major corruption cases rather than assume that every prosecution or judicial outcome represented either success or failure, he said.
Leonen said the proposal to resolve cases at the trial-court level by the end of 2027 aligned with the target horizon of the judiciary’s strategic plan. He added that the Supreme Court’s own cases should be included in efforts to measure judicial performance.
Reform agenda
The proposal forms part of his reform agenda, outlined in a paper titled “The Rule of Just Law: Toward Live Social Justice,” which calls for a judiciary that is accessible, accountable and responsive to ordinary Filipinos.
He identified three broad measures to address delays: studying the causes of stalled major cases, improving case management through digitalization and carefully governed artificial intelligence, and encouraging judges to remain attentive to the human consequences of prolonged litigation.
Digital systems could help courts organize large volumes of cases, classify records and identify issues requiring attention, Leonen said. Artificial intelligence could assist in these tasks, but only with appropriate safeguards and human oversight.
Machines may help process information, he said, but must never replace judges in deciding cases.
He also proposed setting timetables for cases before the Supreme Court and informing litigants when decisions are expected. If a deadline cannot be met, the parties should be told why before it passes.
“Delay is itself a denial and a betrayal,” Leonen said.
He stressed that efficiency must not come at the expense of the quality of judicial deliberations, with decisions remaining grounded in the law, evidence and reason.