On February 16 2026, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued the Amended Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing (Administrative Memorandum No. 24-11-02-SC). The amended rules apply to first-level and second-level courts, the Court of Appeals, the Court of Tax Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan, a special anti-graft (anti-corruption) court.
The Compendium of Videoconferencing Practices Among ASEAN Member-States, prepared by the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices Working Group on the Conduct of Videoconferencing Hearings in 2024, revealed that most countries in the region have adopted videoconferencing in court cases, even after the COVID pandemic. Only Cambodia and Laos have not yet allowed videoconferencing. In the case of Myanmar, while it has no express rules on videoconferencing, its Evidence Act and a 2021 Supreme Court directive allow all the courts and judicial officers to take evidence from witnesses through videoconferencing hearings in civil and criminal cases.
Summary of the rules
The Philippine rules apply to both civil and criminal proceedings, and cover all stages of the trial process. The amended rules provide that videoconferencing is the preferred mode for arraignments, bail hearings, minor incidents, clarificatory hearings, and compliance hearings. However, for cases involving persons deprived of liberty, or children in conflict with the law, videoconferencing is the preferred mode for all stages of the proceedings. The salient points of the memorandum are as follows:
Policy – the court shall at all times control the videoconferencing proceedings, which shall closely resemble in-person proceedings, with remote locations treated as an extension of the courtroom.
Process of initiating videoconferencing – by oral or written motion. In criminal cases, the accused must also submit a waiver of the right to meet the witness face to face. The minimum internet bandwidth should be 4Mbps, and proof of technical readiness should be presented. The court shall send out the invitation or link to the email addresses of the participants, which must be treated as confidential.
Recording of the videoconferencing – the minutes shall indicate the respective locations of the participants. All recordings of the videoconferencing shall be made by the court, except the mediation portion. Unauthorised recording by any means of the videoconferencing or any portion thereof is prohibited. Litigants and their counsel shall be allowed to view the recording, upon approval of the court. In the event of an appeal, the videoconferencing proceedings shall form part of the records elevated to the higher court.
Public access to the videoconferencing – any individual who wishes to attend the videoconferencing must seek the approval of the court at least two days before the hearing and submit the required personal information. The court may deny access if the information given is erroneous or fictitious, or if the evidence to be presented requires the exclusion of the public.
Additional provisions for videoconferencing from overseas locations – litigants, witnesses, and counsels who are overseas may file the necessary motion to participate through videoconferencing, and the venue shall be authorised by the Supreme Court. The hearing must be scheduled during the working hours of the Philippine courts and shall be given priority in the calendars. The court cannot compel any litigant or witness to participate or testify through videoconferencing from overseas venues. In addition to Philippine embassies or consulates, the hearing may take place in Philippine government offices overseas, venues allowed under treaties with the Philippines, or other approved venues.
Final thoughts
Videoconferencing is certainly a welcome move from the Supreme Court since it gives the people broader access to justice and makes it easier and less costly for litigants and for witnesses or counsels to go to court, especially those in remote or geopolitically marginalised areas, or overseas locations.
However, there are also drawbacks with virtual proceedings. The monitoring of the remote technology used during hearings could be an added burden on the judge and the court personnel, particularly when there are technological disruptions. The geography of the Philippines – an archipelago of about 7,600 islands – makes it complicated and expensive to establish the necessary internet structure. While the memorandum would allow court personnel to bring the necessary devices to these internet-deficient locations, this could prove expensive and time-consuming. Even in cities covered by Metro Manila, internet disruption is nothing unusual.
The amended rules are not perfect, and room for improvement exists. Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction for the Philippine judiciary, and should prove useful in a country that records around 20 tropical storms per year.
