Judiciary

Judiciary FY2027 original proposal and FY2026 GAA comparison: PHP 86.271 billion was the Judiciary's original fiscal year 2027 proposal carried in the National Expenditure Program (NEP), compared with PHP 70.611 billion under the fiscal year 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA). Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta presented these totals for the Supreme Court and lower courts, PET, CA, Sandiganbayan and CTA. The original proposal and NEP amount matched as presented; a separate original request to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) was not identified.

2026 GAA and 2027 NEP Judiciary allocations: For the 2026 GAA versus the 2027 NEP, the five comparable components were: Supreme Court of the Philippines and lower courts, PHP 60.489 billion to PHP 73.837 billion; Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), PHP 179.87 million to PHP 193.43 million; Court of Appeals, PHP 6.092 billion to PHP 7.605 billion; Sandiganbayan, PHP 2.723 billion to PHP 3.282 billion; and Court of Tax Appeals, PHP 1.127 billion to PHP 1.354 billion. She gave corresponding increases of PHP 13.347 billion (22%), PHP 13.56 million (8%), PHP 1.513 billion (25%), PHP 559 million (21%), and PHP 227 million (20%), respectively, and an overall PHP 15.66 billion (22%) increase.

Budget composition, capital projects and additional requests: For the Supreme Court and lower courts, the presenter described personnel-spending growth, a PHP 3.246 billion increase in Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), and a PHP 3.758 billion capital-outlay decrease. She explained that the 2026 GAA included an allocation for the Manila Hall of Justice, while the 2027 proposal included PHP 200 million for the Cebu and Cagayan de Oro Judiciary Complexes. She then described further project needs: PHP 500 million for Cagayan de Oro and PHP 4.541 billion for Cebu, PHP 5.041 billion in total, and said she hoped these would be carried in the 2027 GAA. The judges' hazard pay had been carried in the original proposal, but sheriffs' hazard pay had not; she proposed PHP 303 million for sheriffs and said the Judiciary was augmenting the original proposal by a further PHP 5.344 billion. For PET, she cited increases of PHP 11.239 million in personal services and PHP 2.320 million in MOOE. For the Court of Appeals, she cited increases of PHP 522.731 million in personal services, PHP 849.167 million in MOOE and PHP 140.890 million in capital outlay. For Sandiganbayan she cited a PHP 27.659 million personal-services recomputation/decrease in other personal benefits, while saying the overall budget was not actually a decrease and would not violate the constitutional provision concerning the previous year's budget; she also cited PHP 183.264 million more for MOOE and PHP 403.994 million for capital outlay. For the Court of Tax Appeals she cited PHP 123.052 million in personal services, PHP 108.158 million in MOOE, and a PHP 4.528 million capital-outlay decrease. Against a prior capital-outlay appropriation of PHP 50.862 million, she said current funding covered machinery and equipment while solar panels were already carried in the 2026 GAA.

Lower-court case flow, MOOE and personnel upgrading: Rep. Renee Louise M. Co asked how much of the Judiciary's cited PHP 4.3 billion increase in Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) would support backlog clearance and faster lower-court processing. Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta described performance targets, case-load and disposal data gathered through the Court Management Office, and development of an administrative case-flow system. Co understood that information and communications technology (ICT) upgrades would improve digital calendaring, and Gomez-Estoesta agreed. Co then asked about measures beyond ICT, including additional personnel or rules, after describing days when 30 cases were calendared and only about four finished. Gomez-Estoesta said a lower-court budget increase would support personnel upgrading and reclassification; she explained that salary grades had not been upgraded and that a salary grade 1 utility worker received PHP 15,000.

Vacant judicial posts and unorganized courts: Co said the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) listed seven vacant positions open for application as of June 30, 2026. She asked how many judge and court-personnel plantilla positions remained unfilled and how staffing for new courts would be funded. Gomez-Estoesta explained that a court cannot be organized for staffing until the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issues a Notice of Staffing and Classification Action (NOSCA); she reported 463 vacant judge positions, or 16.7% of authorized judicial positions. She agreed to submit lists of unorganized courts and judge and personnel positions, while clarifying that the list of future unorganized courts would identify their branch numbers and territorial locations.

Fiscal-autonomy implementation and funding for newly created courts: Presiding Vice Chair Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez pressed the Judiciary to implement Republic Act No. 12233, the Fiscal Autonomy Act, and asked when DBM's 120-day period for acting on staffing requests would permit the Judiciary to proceed. Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez said the Act's provisions were understood to permit the Judiciary to program staffing and seek congressional funding even as its implementing rules and regulations were under review; Marquez said the justices would push for approval in October after the September recess. Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Budget and Management Bureau-D Director Carlos M. Castro said the Judiciary's proposal already included, among other posts, 46 family courts costing PHP 541.103 million, and that about three position-creation requests remained pending with DBM's counterpart bureau; he said the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund could provide funding as posts were filled. Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva later said the Judiciary had requested NOSCAs for 135 courts requiring funding, an additional PHP 1.4 billion. Rodriguez asked the Judiciary to provide the committee with the requests on which the 120-day period had elapsed and their funding details, while cautioning that requests not yet submitted to DBM should first allow DBM its review period. Villanueva agreed to submit a breakdown separating submitted requests from those not yet requested. The committee requested an additional funding submission.

Judiciary Marshal staffing needs: Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta said the Office of the Judiciary Marshals (OJM) was still filling its positions. Without sufficient personnel, the office could not fully develop its programs and remained reliant on the Philippine National Police (PNP) and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). She sought support for filling the OJM plantilla so it could rely on its own personnel for security and investigative work.

Davao del Sur Hall of Justice: Representative John Tracy F. Cagas asked the Judiciary to address a Hall of Justice building in Davao del Sur, where the district already has land. He described the building request as about PHP 150 million. Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta said the indicative cost for a Hall of Justice on a 5,000-square-meter property was PHP 500 million. Cagas clarified that Davao del Sur wanted a one-story building and considered PHP 150 million sufficient; he asked that the request be revised accordingly. Gomez-Estoesta agreed to include it in the request. Presiding Vice Chair Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez said the Committee on Justice would be strongly urged to recommend it, and Gomez-Estoesta said the Judiciary would look for funding and realign funds if the amount remained PHP 150 million. This was a request and funding undertaking, not an approved appropriation.

Justice Sector Convergence Program funding: PHP 227,063,000 was the current Justice Sector Convergence Program proposal, compared with PHP 150 million under the previous General Appropriations Act (GAA). Responding to Representative Sarah Jane I. Elago, Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta corrected her initial figure and described the earlier amount as the last GAA level. She said the current proposal ideally should be in the National Expenditure Program (NEP). Elago sought implementation details and emphasized the need for substantial funding for the convergence effort.

DBM review and the proposal's intended coverage: Representative Antonino B. Roman III asked about whether the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) had sent comments on the 2027 proposal appended to the National Expenditure Program (NEP). Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta said that, as of the previous day and still at the time of the hearing, the Judiciary had not received DBM's comments. Roman confirmed that the amount shown in the presentation was the Judiciary's proposal; Gomez-Estoesta agreed. Asked whether the increase would allow the Judiciary to pursue its planned programs, she said they hoped so and that this was the goal.

Conditional support and measurable court performance: Rep. Jan "Atty. JP" Padiernos manifested support for the proposed Judiciary budget, saying adequate funding should fill vacancies, reduce backlogs, speed proceedings and make courts accessible nationwide. He qualified that support: a larger budget was not a blank check and should produce measurable results, including fewer delayed cases, shorter waits, stronger digital systems and greater transparency. He said judicial independence and fiscal accountability must go together and, subject to those commitments, supported the proposed budget. Rodriguez thanked him and described the statement as support.

Unified Legal Aid Service office funding: PHP 139.098 million was allocated to the Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) office, ULASO, to monitor covered lawyers' compliance. Representative Dadah Kiram Ismula asked both how much had been allocated and spent; Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta supplied the allocation, without a separate expenditure amount.

Sharia Court access, FY2027 programs and training allocation: PHP 104.635 million was identified for Sharia courts, particularly training, in response to Representative Dadah Kiram Ismula's question about fiscal year 2027 programs and Muslim women's access to family-law services. Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta said qualified judges were scarce and positions needed filling. She said Circuit Court applicants must be members of the bar and knowledgeable in Islamic law and jurisprudence; the stated minimum for District Court applicants was two years' knowledge of Islamic law and jurisprudence. The expanded program was intended to increase the number of applicants and fill vacancies.

Digital infrastructure funding need and requested breakdown: Representative Julius Cesar "Jay" V. Vergara asked how much Judiciary funding was allotted for digitalization. Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta relayed a Management Information System Office figure for the Supreme Court digital infrastructure: PHP 5,208,182,274.71 in total funding needed. She confirmed that the amount included personnel training and cybersecurity. She offered to provide specific figures, and Vergara asked that they be sent to his office. Vergara also asked whether digitalization had improved performance; the exchange did not give an outcome measure.

Nueva Ecija Hall of Justice facility request and support for the Judiciary budget: Vergara said Hall of Justice space was cramped in many provinces, including for Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). For Nueva Ecija, he pointed to a 32-hectare government center in Cabanatuan City and asked that a facility be considered if funding was unavailable this year, including in a later year. He then expressed full support for approval of the Judiciary's proposed budget.

Budget utilization, GAD program and minority support for an increase: Representative Roberto Nazal from the minority commended the Judiciary's budget execution, saying it obligated almost 99 percent of its available allotments in 2025, with disbursements closely tracking obligations. He argued that responsible use of an existing budget should be considered when Congress weighs an increase. He also praised the Judiciary's Gender and Development (GAD) program: after prior hearings when GAD utilization had been near zero, the Judiciary was now implementing programs and had published its GAD accomplishment report. Citing both budget utilization and improved GAD implementation, Nazal said the minority supported an adequate increase in the Judiciary's budget.

Iloilo City Hall of Justice augmentation and relocation request: Presiding Vice Chair Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez noted that several members who would not ask further questions had signaled support for the Judiciary budget and additional augmentation, then recognized Vice Chair Representative Julienne "Jam" L. Baronda. Baronda said she had joked that she would not support the Judiciary budget because construction for an Iloilo Hall of Justice was not included. She recalled that the Hall of Justice opened in 1992, underwent major retrofitting in 2012, and was discussed as unsafe to occupy in 2025, yet remained occupied. She asked that construction of an Iloilo City Hall of Justice be included in the augmentation request and urged due diligence in choosing a relocation site to avoid repeating the earlier site's problems. She asked Rodriguez and the chair to help secure funds and to include the Iloilo City Hall of Justice among priority programs in the Judiciary proposed budget.

Veloso expresses support for the proposed Judiciary budget: Presiding Vice Chair Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez said the Speaker had instructed the committee to terminate proceedings but gave Representative Girlie E. Veloso a brief opportunity to speak. Veloso said she had no further question and, given the opportunity, manifested her full support for approval of the proposed 2027 Judiciary budget.

Judiciary augmentation requests for review: Vice Chair Rufus B. Rodriguez said the chairperson was ready to receive four letters of augmentation from four courts, after asking the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals to submit items they believed should be augmented. Chairperson Mikaela Angela B. Suansing described the House Committee on Appropriations' Budget Amendments Review Subcommittee process: institutional amendment requests from branches and agencies would be deliberated publicly, with allocations reviewed line by line. Because plenary was approaching, she asked the courts to submit their additional-funding items by Wednesday before lunch. Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta agreed, saying the courts were ready to submit. Suansing said the House would do its best to accommodate items for consideration, subject to limited fiscal space. The request was for submission and review; no additional appropriation was approved in this exchange.

Case-disposition performance: The presenter described case disposition as the Judiciary's major final output under its institutional transformation program. For the Supreme Court she reported a 95% accomplishment rate in 2024, 85% in 2025 against a target of 6,000 cases, and for January-June 2026 a target of 3,000, actual disposal of 2,662 and an 89% rate. She then reported 2024, 2025 and January-June 2026 accomplishment rates for regional trial courts (117%, 111%, 81%), family courts (140%, 142%, 91%), metropolitan trial courts (166%, 129%, 95%), municipal trial courts in cities (153%, 162%, 79%), municipal trial courts (137%, 157%, 69%), municipal circuit trial courts (120%, 133%, 65%), Sharia circuit courts (117%, 187%, 67%), Court of Appeals (108%, 124%, 130%), Sandiganbayan (290%, 220%, 178%) and Court of Tax Appeals (196%, 167%, 197%). She defined the rate as actual disposal divided by target disposal times 100, and gave metropolitan trial courts' January-June 2026 actual disposal of 46,033 against a target of 48,313.

Judicial reform and digital systems: The presenter situated projects within the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations (SPJI), described as the 2022–2027 blueprint. She listed voice-to-text transcription, information and communications technology (ICT) governance planning and exploration of human-centered augmented AI, a five-year ICT strategic plan and operations manual, software-defined wide-area networking, cloud infrastructure, Wi-Fi and backup connectivity, data-center servers and backup-storage refresh. She also described online learning, Judicial and Bar Council online registration and e-voting, the Judiciary Electronic Payment Solution, continuing legal education information systems, human-resources and financial systems, e-court and e-procurement, a court data hub, courthouse management, BARISTA, the Philippine Judicial Platform and staff collaboration accounts, e-notarization, the Unified Legal Aid Service portal and an interim promulgation application. She closed the presentation by referring to the Justice Sector Coordinating Council as the convergence mechanism. Presiding Vice Chair Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez then acknowledged the budget details and milestones and opened interpellation, recognizing Representative Renee Louise M. Co for five minutes.

138 unorganized courts, reforms and resource needs: Vice Chair Rufus B. Rodriguez presided over the opening remarks. He said that, as of August 31, 2026, 138 newly created first- and second-level courts remained unorganized and non-operational pending notices of organization, staffing and compensation (NOSCA). The courts were created to expand judicial capacity and meet demand for services; delay in organizing and operating them, he said, affects timely justice and the protection and enforcement of people's rights. He asked the committee to support the Judiciary's resources and continued reforms to strengthen the justice system and make it more responsive to the Filipino people. Rodriguez recognized the Judiciary's work under SPJI and said the Supreme Court pursued an independent, modern, efficient Judiciary within reach of every Filipino. He called for resources to fulfill its constitutional mandate, address operational challenges and deliver justice without delay. Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta then opened the presentation on behalf of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, introduced its original budget proposal under the Fiscal Autonomy Act, and acknowledged Rodriguez as the Judiciary budget sponsor.

Judicial security, threats and requested reports: Representative Renee Louise M. Co raised threats and killings affecting judges and lawyers and asked whether the Judiciary independently investigated them, how many judges had been victims, and what security work the Office of the Judiciary Marshals (OJM) performed. Gomez-Estoesta said OJM positions were still being filled and that the office addressed security risks but relied heavily on the Philippine National Police (PNP) and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). She confirmed that investigations were conducted with those agencies because the Judiciary lacked enough staff for independent investigative work. At Co's request, Gomez-Estoesta agreed to submit a report on threats and extrajudicial killings affecting judges covering 2025 through 2026 before plenary deliberations; Co also asked that attacks and threats be included.

Rules for amparo, habeas data and kalayaan writs: Co asked about revisions to the rules for the writs of amparo and habeas data, and when guidelines for the writ of kalayaan would be issued. Gomez-Estoesta said the Supreme Court en banc and its committees were revising those rules, along with other rules, as part of the strategic plan for judicial innovation. She hoped the revisions would be passed before the Chief Justice's retirement on November 6, described that as the next two months, and confirmed that the writ of kalayaan would be included. When Co asked for a draft, Rodriguez said drafts remained internal and could not be demanded; he directed the Judiciary to submit the requested reports and materials to Co once completed.

Court performance and Supreme Court backlog: Representative John Tracy F. Cagas commended the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals for exceeding their case-disposal targets, then raised delays in the Supreme Court and regional trial courts.

Election-case delays and the Supreme Court process: Cagas asked how long status quo ante orders in election cases remain in effect and urged timely resolution, noting that local officials serve three-year terms and that a case may reach the Supreme Court after a Commission on Elections en banc resolution. Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta explained that, in cases under Rules 64 and 65, the parties are required to comment; after pleadings are completed, a case is assigned to a ponente and deliberated by the division. Presiding Vice Chair Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez summarized the request as a procedure to fast-track election cases, and Cagas said he would provide case facts after the hearing. Gomez-Estoesta then relayed that the three Supreme Court members present were aware of the time-bound nature of election protests and hoped cases would be resolved before the next election.

New court staffing status: Cagas said a recently created court still lacked a NOSCA and had remained unfilled and unorganized for about two years. After the discussion, he said he was satisfied that a way forward existed and chose not to pursue the matter in detail.

Judicial innovation plan and gender-responsive courts: Representative Sarah Jane I. Elago asked whether the Supreme Court of the Philippines (Supreme Court) Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations (SPJI), covering 2022-2027, remained on schedule in mid-2026. Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta said 2027 would be a critical transition year between the current SPJI and the next Chief Justice, with the Judiciary's budget proposals reflecting the transition and opening the way for the next Chief Justice's projects. Elago also asked how the SPJI integrated gender and development. Gomez-Estoesta described an active Supreme Court gender-responsiveness committee and said it had identified projects. After Presiding Vice Chair Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez recognized Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jennifer Joy C. Ong, Ong described the Committee on Gender Responsiveness in the Judiciary (CGRJ), chaired by three Supreme Court justices, and reported institutionalized gender-sensitivity training for judges and court staff, gender-fair language guidance for court attorneys, gender-neutral comfort rooms, and a legal-feminism study led by a Supreme Court justice. Elago added that the Judiciary had launched a Digital Gender and Development Corner for public access to gender-related laws and jurisprudence, and said her representation would request a report on both budget utilization and compliance with gender and development mandates.

International video hearings for overseas Filipino workers: Elago asked how many overseas Filipinos used international video conferencing under the Supreme Court's amended guidelines, which allow it in first- and second-level courts, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals. Gomez-Estoesta said the courts received many requests from overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), who had to appear at an embassy under the rules, and offered to provide figures through the Court Management Office. Elago then asked whether OFWs paid when using overseas facilities, noting that the guidelines placed video-conferencing costs on the moving party. Gomez-Estoesta said collections at embassies went to the embassies, not the courts. Elago said some migrant workers could not afford the expenses and pointed to assistance-to-nationals funds at the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and Department of Migrant Workers (DMW), urging those programs to cover international video-conferencing costs.

Justice Zones addressing trafficking and child exploitation: Elago asked which six Justice Sector Coordinating Council (JSCC) Justice Zones focused on trafficking and online sexual abuse and exploitation of children (OSAEC), and why those locations were selected. Gomez-Estoesta said there were 20 Justice Zones and listed sites in Luzon (Quezon City, Angeles City, Balanga, Baguio, Tagaytay, Puerto Princesa, Dagupan, Calamba and Naga), the Visayas (Cebu and Bacolod), and Mindanao (Davao, Cagayan de Oro, Iligan, Ozamiz and Zamboanga City). She added the 2025 Tri-City of Tacloban, Ormoc and Calbayog and the newest site, San Fernando, La Union. She said themes differed by zone, noting child-exploitation themes for Tacloban, Ormoc and Calbayog, green environment themes for Tagaytay and Puerto Princesa, and child exploitation and human trafficking for Cagayan de Oro. She also said executive judges often convened or championed the JSCC. The response gives the broader network and examples but does not identify all six zones asked about.

Spousal and child support data and proposed anti-VAWC dialogue: Elago asked for figures on spousal- and child-support cases filed, granted and successfully executed, and how courts ensure regular execution of support orders, to inform Congress's review of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (anti-VAWC) law. Gomez-Estoesta said the Judiciary's data hub could not separately characterize spousal- or child-support cases; they were clustered under violence against women and children cases under Republic Act No. 9262. She reported 8,620 pending cases at December 31, 2025; 3,520 newly filed; 684 revived; 3,751 decided; and 542 archived. Pending cases stood at 8,532 as of June 30, 2026. Elago then said she would propose a dialogue with the Judiciary and seek its participation in the ongoing anti-VAWC law review to strengthen the law. Gomez-Estoesta welcomed the dialogue.

Electronic discovery and access to evidence: Roman asked how the Supreme Court would address information imbalances between individual litigants and companies, including access to company emails and electronic communications, and what protocols would govern disclosure, metadata, production format, volume, custodians and timing. Gomez-Estoesta said discovery procedures had been strengthened in the 2020 Rules on Civil Procedure and that further amendments were pending en banc approval. She said electronic evidence was being considered in revisions to the Rules on Evidence. In response to the protocol questions, she discussed privacy concerns and the difficulty of identifying anonymous senders, forensic evidence, and the need to weigh relevance and materiality. Roman urged timely finalization and promulgation of electronic-discovery rules so ordinary litigants could use the information to assess and support their cases, including whether to settle.

Electronic notarization access: Roman asked about the status and expansion of electronic notarization, citing distance and inconvenience for people seeking notarial services. Gomez-Estoesta said applications for lawyers to become electronic notaries public had opened on August 10, 2026, and that public access to live e-notary services could be commissioned. She said the Supreme Court had established a legal framework for electronic documents. Notaries' documents could be submitted online, and payment could be made through the Judiciary Electronic Payment System (JEPS), reducing paper submissions.

Reliable service of process and notice to defendants: Roman raised reports that complainants in criminal cases gave incorrect respondent addresses, leaving respondents unaware of a case until it reached court and potentially denying them preliminary investigation. He asked what reform would prevent this. Gomez-Estoesta said the Supreme Court requires personal service first for summons in personal actions, so sheriffs or process servers can confirm the defendant's residence. Substituted service may be used only if personal service cannot be completed. She said the minimum requirement is three attempts; returns record the results, and ex parte presentation is avoided unless personal and substituted service have each failed three times. Roman responded that he continued to hear of respondents learning of cases only after a warrant had issued and said implementation needed to address the problem.

Preliminary injunction bond requirement: Representative Elijah Rumbaoa San Fernando said he wanted to understand legal processes from workers' perspective and asked Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta to explain Section 4(b) of Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Gomez-Estoesta described an injunction as an ancillary provisional remedy to a main action and said the movant must post a bond to answer for possible damages to the adverse party if the injunction is implemented. San Fernando asked whether a writ could issue if a petitioner did not post the required bond. Gomez-Estoesta answered that the court could not issue or implement the writ without the bond because it is a prerequisite. San Fernando restated the explanation as "no bond, no injunction" and thanked the Judiciary for clarifying the point.

Remedies when a judge acts without jurisdiction: San Fernando asked what process can correct a judge's decision when the judge lacks jurisdiction or has acted in a way that violates the law. After clarifying that he meant a court without jurisdiction over the matter, Gomez-Estoesta said judges should know whether they have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of an accused; she referred to territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases and subject-matter jurisdiction in civil cases. She said a court decision may be appealed, while an interlocutory order may be challenged through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. San Fernando thanked her for the explanation and said he hoped the answers would guide workers involved in such cases.

Legal aid delivery and regional reach: Representative Dadah Kiram Ismula asked how the Supreme Court's Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS) reached marginalized litigants. Court Administrator Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta described 36 mandatory service hours for covered lawyers, access points organized by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), and judges appointing IBP lawyers to unrepresented litigants. Ismula asked how many indigent Filipinos ULAS had helped since implementation. Gomez-Estoesta said she did not have the figures at the hearing and would submit a report; she noted that the portal tracks lawyer compliance. Ismula also requested a regional breakdown of qualified beneficiaries and identification of regions or provinces with the least access to legal assistance.

Sharia judge vacancies, service coverage and recruitment timeline: Ismula supported filling Sharia Court vacancies and said Muslim communities continued to face access problems. She described a Sharia judge's death in the January MV Trisha Kerstin 3 tragedy as leaving the courts he served without a judge, and named Sulu, North Cotabato, Kabacan, Marawi and Lanao among the places affected. Asked about the plan and timing, Gomez-Estoesta said judge-applicant training was planned for October or, if not, November. The Philippine Judicial Academy had 78 registrants; she cited 41 unfilled Sharia Circuit Court positions and five Sharia District Court positions and hoped the vacancies could be filled faster. She did not commit to an appointment date.

Judge travel safety and Coast Guard transport talks: Gomez-Estoesta recalled the deceased Sharia judge's travel by land, water and air between Tawi-Tawi, Sulu and Zamboanga, and said the Judiciary was negotiating with the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) to help transport judges from their ports to coastal areas such as Zamboanga, Tawi-Tawi or Sulu to make travel faster and safer. The Coast Guard had volunteered to provide transport. Ismula thanked the Judiciary and manifested support for its FY2027 budget.

Termination of the Judiciary budget hearing: After thanking the Judiciary for its performance, Vice Chair Rodriguez moved to terminate the committee hearing on the Judiciary's proposed fiscal year 2027 budget. Representative Julienne "Jam" L. Baronda seconded the motion. Chairperson Suansing stated that it had been duly seconded and declared the motion carried. She then thanked the justices, Judiciary personnel and committee members for their participation.

Suspension of the House Bill No. 10858 hearing: Separately, Representative Jan "Atty. JP" Padiernos moved to suspend the committee hearing in the plenary hall on House Bill No. 10858. An unnamed committee participant seconded the motion. Chairperson Suansing stated that it had been duly seconded and declared it carried.