Proposed Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing

Published in Daily Tribune on March 5, 2021
by: Alfred H. Campañano

People are learning to adapt in this pandemic and go on with their personal lives, business, or work/career. The government is no exception.

My first article in this column discussed the guidelines issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which allows corporations to conduct their regular or special meetings amid the pandemic via videoconferencing.

The judiciary then followed suit. The Supreme Court issued several administrative circulars that tested the conduct of trials via videoconferencing which culminated in the issuance Administrative Matter (A.M.) 20-12-01-SC (Videoconferencing Guidelines).

The Videoconferencing Guidelines permit hearings to be conducted via videoconferencing where only some or absolutely none of the participants is physically in court.

They may be initiated by the Court when a physical hearing is impossible due to Acts of God, Public Emergencies, or when the litigant or witness is a high-risk detainee or a child in conflict with the law.

In all other cases, it must be by motion of a party served upon the adverse litigant and filed with the court at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing.

The adverse litigant may comment on or oppose the motion which he must do so within five days from receipt of the motion. Afterwards, the Court must resolve the same within five calendar days before the scheduled hearing.

Once granted, the court shall send the link to the videoconferencing at least a day before the scheduled hearing and shall take steps to prevent any technical issues that may arise.

If any issue arises during the conduct of the hearing and continues to disrupt the proceedings, the hearing, upon the discretion of the Court, may be discontinued.

Litigants are obliged to be ready at least 20 minutes before the scheduled videoconferencing. Any member of the general public who wishes to attend the said hearing shall send a request at least three days before the scheduled hearing. All participants must be fully equipped for videoconferencing with a functioning computer, a decent internet connection, a microphone for audio input and a camera for video output.

When the hearing involves the presentation of documentary or physical evidence, the litigant must: 1) For documentary evidence and judicial affidavits ensure that colored and legible electronic copies of these documents are available through email or in the shared repository of the court, which the litigant will be showing the document through screen-sharing functions, while; 2) for object evidence, the litigant will have to display in full view the same.

Interestingly, the Videoconferencing Guidelines now permits, by motion of any of the parties, OFW, Filipinos Residing Abroad or temporarily outside the country and non-resident foreign nationals to participate in the proceedings but may do so only if they access the hearing from an embassy or consulate of the Philippines.

Once the court grants the motion, the concerned Philippine Embassy or Consulate must be furnished a copy of the said order.

The costs and expenses of videoconferencing must be shouldered by the movant.

They may be initiated by the Court when a physical hearing is impossible due to Acts of God, Public Emergencies, or when the litigant or witness is a high-risk detainee or a child in conflict with the law.

There are other nuances in the Videoconferencing Guidelines that may be of particular interest to the reader, so I encourage you to read the same.

I merely highlighted salient features for quick information. The reader must note that in-court hearings are still the primary mode for hearings.

Litigants are advised to talk to their lawyers if they wish to attend remotely bearing in mind that once the Court allows for videoconference hearings, it will closely resemble in-court hearings with remote locations as extensions of the court room.

As such the dignity and solemnity required in court must be strictly observed.