24-month deadline for SC to resolve cases mandatory, says applicant for high court seat

Supreme Court (SC) justices should follow the deadline set by the 1987 Constitution in resolving cases, Deputy Court Administrator Raul Villanueva said Thursday.

Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution provides that a case must be decided by the SC within 24 months after it is submitted for resolution.

The same provision mandates the lower collegiate courts to resolve a case within 12 months while trial courts have three months.

“It’s mandatory,” Villanueva said during a public interview organized by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

Villanueva added justices and judges belong to the same class, thus all of them must be bound by the rule.

“There is a distinction with respect to the rank Your Honor but not to the class,” he said when told by JBC member and retired SC justice Jose Mendoza that some think justices and judges do not belong to the same category given their different functions.

The SC earlier ruled the constitutional provision was not mandatory.

In 2019, the high court dismissed a complaint against former Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro, who was accused of not resolving some petitions on time.

Penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the decision stated that the Court should be given an “ample amount of time” to deliberate on pending cases.

“This Court notes that all matters brought before it involve rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. It would be at the height of injustice if cases were hastily decided on at the risk of erroneously dispensing justice,” the SC said.

“While the 24-month period provided under the 1987 Constitution is persuasive, it does not summarily bind this Court to the disposition of cases brought before it. It is a mere directive to ensure this Court's prompt resolution of cases, and should not be interpreted as an inflexible rule.”

Sandiganbayan Justices Geraldine Econg and Rafael Lagos, also applicants for the SC post, found the 24-month deadline directory, citing the SC ruling.

Private practitioner Benedicta Du-Baladad, meanwhile, said it would be reasonable not to meet the deadline especially in cases that require extensive study.

“The justices are just human. They are not machines,” she said. — RSJ, GMA News