MANILA, Philippines — This year, the Supreme Court promulgated decisions that not only made headlines in 2024, but will also serve as precedents for future cases.
As of December 13, the Supreme Court said its case disposition rate was up to 22%, resolving 4,294 cases. This is higher than the 21% disposition rate in 2023.
Article 8 of the Civil Code states that the Supreme Court's decisions become part of the Philippine legal framework.
Below is the list of cases promulgated by the high court in 2024 that either made headlines or set a new precedent for future cases.
This list includes decisions released last year but released to the media in 2024.
Deduro vs Maj. Gen. Vinoya: The one on red-tagging
The Supreme Court has issued a writ of amparo, a legal protective order, in favor of Siegfred Deduro, a former Bayan Muna Partylist lawmaker, following allegations linking him to the communist insurgency.
The case arose in 2020 when military officers, led by Maj. Gen. Eric C. Vinoya, alleged that Deduro and others as part of the leadership of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA).
Bombo Radyo Iloilo and the state-run Philippine News Agency reported on these allegations, and posters labeling Deduro and other activists as CPP-NPA members were displayed in various locations in Iloilo.
The Supreme Court also noted that unidentified men frequently followed the former lawmaker.
The case was promulgated on July 4, 2023, but was only released to the media on May 8, 2024.
The decision: This is the Supreme Court's first decision recognizing red-tagging as a threat to life, liberty and security.
The high court said the petitioner should not have to wait for his abduction, death or a direct admission of responsibility from those allegedly threatening his constitutional rights before the courts can act on his petition and request for protective writs.
It further noted that threats to life, liberty, or security, as well as acts such as abduction or killing, could be addressed through appropriate administrative or criminal proceedings.
Why it matters: What’s at stake in this case is whether or not Deduro should been granted the writ of amparo due to red-tagging.
A writ of amparo protects individuals whose right to life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by unlawful acts of public officials, employees, or private entities.
The causes of action for this writ are for extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances or threats made thereof.
What happened next: A Quezon City Regional Trial Court on December 14 ruled in favor of journalist Atom Araullo in a case against red-taggers Lorraine Badoy and Jeffrey Celiz.
In the decision, the court ruled that Badoy and Celiz’s statements, linking Araullo and his mother, physician Carol Araullo, to communist groups, were defamatory and beyond the bounds of free speech.
The decision cited the case of Deduro vs. Vinoya, saying that the “act that threatens fundamental rights” through red tagging “inherently carries malice.”
The Regional Trial Court ordered Badoy and Celiz to pay jointly and severally damages totaling P2 million.
RELATED: Atom Araullo wins P2M damages in red-tagging case vs Badoy, Celiz
Smartmatic TIM Corp. and Smartmatic Philippines vs Comelec: The one on procurement
The case centered on Smartmatic TIM Corp., the country’s former automated election service provider, as it challenged the Commission on Elections (Comelec) resolution disqualifying it from participating in all future election procurements.
The Supreme Court ruled that Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Smartmatic from the 2025 automated election system bid. The court found that the disqualification was premature, as it occurred before Smartmatic had submitted any bid and without reference to the eligibility requirements set by the Bids and Awards Committee.
RELATED: Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Smartmatic — SC
Effects: Despite this finding, the court did not void Comelec's agreement with Miru Systems Joint Venture, a Korea-based automated election provider. It cited "considerations of equity, justice, practicality, and the doctrine of operative fact." Under this doctrine, while a law or act may be invalidated, its effects remain to avoid disrupting actions already taken under it.
The case was also referenced in Rio vs. Comelec, which will be discussed below.
What happened next: The ruling spurred a lawsuit by a former lawmaker seeking to void the agreement between Comelec and Miru Systems. Additionally, the same lawmaker filed a graft and corruption complaint against Comelec Chairman George Garcia.
Causing vs People of the Philippines: The one on cyberlibel's coverage period
The Supreme Court has ruled that the prescription period for the crime of cyber libel is one year, not 12 or 15 years as previously held under earlier interpretations.
For the high court, cyber libel is not a new crime but is essentially traditional libel, as defined under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), extended to cyberspace. Therefore, the one-year prescription period for libel under the RPC applies to cyber libel as well.
“RA 10175 simply recognizes a computer system as ‘similar means’ of publication and makes the use of information and communications technology in the commission of Libel as a qualifying circumstance,” the court’s decision read.
RELATED: SC: Prescription period for cyber libel is 1 year, not 12,15 years
Precedent involved: In this decision, the Supreme Court abandoned the *Tolentino vs. People* doctrine, which previously set a 15-year prescription period for cyber libel by classifying it as an "afflictive penalty."
The earlier precedent had been cited in cases such as the conviction of Rappler CEO Maria Ressa for cyber libel over a 2012 article.
RELATED: In rejecting Ressa appeal, CA says cyber libel can be filed over 15-year-old posts
Why it matters: This ruling is significant in a country where libel laws have been criticized for being weaponized against journalists and free expression. Media workers and advocates have long called for the decriminalization of libel, arguing that such laws suppress press freedom and discourage investigative reporting.
By shortening the prescription period to one year, this decision provides some relief to journalists and others accused of cyber libel, reducing their prolonged exposure to legal threats.
Province of Sulu v. Executive Secretary et.al: The one that excludes Sulu from BARMM
The Supreme Court ruled that Sulu is not part of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) due to the province's rejection of the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL) during the 2019 plebiscite.
The court declared unconstitutional the provision in the BOL that required all provinces and cities in the former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to vote as a single geographical unit, as it violated Article X, Section 18 of the Constitution. This provision mandates that only areas voting favorably in a plebiscite should be included in an autonomous region.
Given Sulu's rejection of the BOL, the court ruled that its inclusion in BARMM was improper. The decision, issued on September 9, 2024, is immediately executory and final.
Effects: Following this ruling, both the Senate and House of Representatives moved to postpone the BARMM parliamentary elections originally scheduled for May 2025.
On Dec. 19, 2024, the House approved a bill resetting the elections to May 11, 2026, citing unresolved issues stemming from Sulu's exclusion.
House Speaker Martin Romualdez stated that this postponement was necessary to address legal and logistical concerns arising from the Supreme Court's decision.
Why it matters: The BARMM was established after decades of peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), culminating in agreements like the 2012 Framework Agreement on Bangsamoro and the 2014 Comprehensive Agreement on Bangsamoro.
Sulu's exclusion raises significant concerns about governance, fiscal stability and inclusivity within BARMM. Bangsamoro Parliament Deputy Speaker Nabil Tan warned that this decision could lead to governance challenges and instability in Sulu, as unclear responsibilities may allow government agencies to evade accountability.
The exclusion also underscores broader issues about unity within BARMM. Chief Minister Ahod Ebrahim reaffirmed BARMM’s commitment to inclusivity and expressed hope for eventual reconciliation with Sulu, emphasizing its historical and cultural importance to the Bangsamoro identity.
Questions remain, however, about how this decision will impact BARMM’s vision for meaningful autonomy and sustainable development.
RELATED: Supreme Court: Sulu not part of BARMM | ‘Reconsider Sulu removal from BARMM’
Rio vs. Comelec: The one that limits a mandamus
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for mandamus filed by Eliseo Mijares Rio Jr. and others, which sought to compel the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to conduct a recount of ballots from specific regions following the May 2022 elections.
The court clarified that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that can only be used to compel government officials to perform a specific duty that is purely ministerial—one that does not involve discretion or judgment.
In this case, the court ruled that conducting a ballot recount requires the Comelec to exercise its discretion and judgment, making it beyond the scope of mandamus.
The petitioners also failed to establish a clear and specific legal right to a recount, as no law mandates such an action for the 2022 elections.
Oversight by Comelec: While dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court noted that Comelec failed to act on the petitioners’ requests within the timeframe prescribed by its own rules.
This inaction was deemed a serious oversight, though it did not change the outcome of the case.
Why it matters: The decision underscores the limited applicability of a mandamus. It also stresses the importance of adherence to procedural timelines by government agencies.
RELATED: ‘Mandamus cannot compel Comelec to do recount’
Bohol Wisdom School et.al v. Mabao: The one on premarital pregnancy
The Supreme Court ruled that premarital sexual relations resulting in pregnancy do not constitute immoral conduct and cannot be used as grounds to suspend an employee.
This decision stemmed from a case involving Miraflor Mabao, a grade school teacher at Bohol Wisdom School (BWS), who was indefinitely suspended without pay after becoming pregnant outside marriage. The school demanded that she marry the father of her child before being allowed to return to work.
The decision: The court upheld the Court of Appeals' finding that Mabao’s suspension was illegal, emphasizing that consensual sexual relationships between unmarried adults are not inherently immoral.
It noted that no law in the Philippines prohibits such relationships, nor do they contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution.
The court further clarified that morality in legal contexts must be based on public and secular standards, rather than religious beliefs. Public and secular morality refers to conduct prohibited due to its harm to society, not actions deemed immoral based on religious doctrine.
Effects: The Supreme Court ordered BWS to pay Mabao back wages, 13th-month pay, and other benefits for the period of her suspension.
It also highlighted the school’s failure to follow procedural due process, as Mabao was suspended without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
Why it matters: The ruling reinforces legal protections for employees against unjust disciplinary actions rooted in subjective or religiously influenced moral judgments.
RELATED: Supreme Court: Pregnancy out of wedlock not grounds for suspension