For many Filipinos, the idea of attending court from a computer or mobile phone once seemed temporary - an emergency solution during the pandemic. That is no longer the case.
On 4 November 2025, the Supreme Court approved A.M. No. 24-11-02-SC, which formally amends and strengthens the Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing in Philippine courts. These rules, circularized under OCA Circular No. 20-206 dated 30 January 2026, will take effect on 16 February 2026, or 15 days after their posting on the Supreme Court and Office of the Court Administrator websites.
This is not a mere procedural tweak. It is a structural reform that permanently changes how justice is accessed and delivered in the Philippines.
Though reading the entire administrative matter is a must for those intending to avail of videoconferencing under this rule, here are some of the points in brief:
What Courts and Cases are Covered?
The Guidelines apply to all levels of courts, including the:
a) First and Second Level Courts
b) Court of Appeals
c) Sandiganbayan
d) Court of Tax Appeals
They cover all actions and proceedings, at any stage, including trials, bail hearings, arraignment, mediation, consultation, deliberation, and even the promulgation of decisions and resolutions when conducted via videoconferencing.
In other words, online hearings are no longer the exception - they can now be part of the normal court process.
Rights of Accused are Preserved in Criminal Cases
One of the strongest safeguards in the new rules is the protection of constitutional rights of the accused in criminal cases. The Supreme Court clarified that the accused's right to be present, to testify and to confront witnesses is deemed satisfied even when done through videoconferencing - so long as the witness's demeanor can be clearly observed, cross-examination is effective, and an informed written waiver is executed when a witness is confronted remotely. This ensures that technology does not weaken due process, but rather supports it.
Preferred Mode for PDL and CICL Cases
Under the videoconferencing guidelines, videoconferencing is now the preferred mode in cases invovling Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) and Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL). It is also favored for arraignments, bail hearings, and minor or ancillary matters where physical presence is unnecessary. This reform reduces transport risks, lowers costs, and minimizes delays while still preserving the integrity of the judicial process. Note, however, that the guidelines makes videoconferencing merely a "preference", not mandatory for all cases.
Privacy, Evidence, and Court Control
All videoconference hearings are recorded by the court and form part of the official case records. The solemnity of online proceedings are also expected to be no different from actual court hearings. Thus, unauthorized recording or sharing of hearings links is considered contempt of court and may lead to civil, criminal, or administrative liability.
Courts may also suspend or discontinue videoconferencing if technical issues or fairness concerns arise, and may order in-person proceedings whenever necessary.
Access for the Public and Overseas Participants
The Guidelines also recognize transparency. Members of the public may request access to observe videoconferencing hearings, subject to court approval and strict identity verification.
Witnesses, parties, and Philippine lawyers abroad may now testify via videoconferencing from authorized overseas venues such as Philippine embassies or consulates, subject to court permission. Note, however, that the guidelines also make specific reference to restrictions that may be imposed by multilateral or bilateral treaties or agreements. Hence, there may be foreign countries which may not allow videoconferencing within its territory (even if held within the premises of a Philippine embassy or consulate).
Final Thoughts
This reform signals a judiciary that is faster, more accessible, and more technologically responsive. Justice may now travel through the internet, but its authority, seriousness, and binding force remain exactly the same.
(Aaron Jarveen O. Ho is the Managing Partner of HG LAW. For comments or questions, he may be reached at aoho@hglaw.ph)