Supreme Court (File photo) MANILA - The Supreme Court (SC) disposed of a record number of cases this year -- more than the new cases filed -- for a clearance rate of 110 percent, according to data provided by the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc and the Divisions Clerk on Tuesday. There were 3,603 new cases and one reinstatement filed, but the SC managed to resolve 3,975 cases, including those from the backlog. The SC also resolved 1,176 administrative cases and bar matters cases out of 1,116 new cases for a 105-percent clearance rate. SC's clearance rate last year was at 95 percent. "The 110-percent clearance rate posted by the SC for 2021 comes as a ray of light in a year that has been marred with work suspensions, limited movement, and restrictions due to the pandemic, and speaks volumes of the Court's strength in staying true to its commitment of service to the nation and its people," Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo said in a statement. When he assumed his post in April, Gesmundo emphasized that he would focus on two things: decongestion of the Court's dockets and make the Judiciary technology-driven. "I have resolved to decide all petitions, cases, or matters that have been filed before the Supreme Court after April 5, 2021 strictly within the said 24-month period from the date of submission pursuant to Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, and to strictly observe requirements for the proper exercise of its power of judicial review," he said then. Anti-Terror law The year also saw the SC resolve a number of controversial cases, including the more than three dozen suits challenging Republic Act (RA) 11479 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The high court said aside from portions of Sections 4 and 25, all the other challenged provisions of RA 11479 are constitutional. Section 4 deals with excluding mass actions and similar exercise of civil and political rights from the definition of terrorism while Section 25 is about requests by foreign agencies to designate persons or organizations as terrorists. Petition vs. PRRD policy on territory In June, the SC also affirmed the presidential prerogative in choosing the best course of action in handling territorial disputes with other countries, particularly in the West Philippine Sea (WPS). In a nine-page decision by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the high court dismissed "for utter lack of merit" the petition of lawyer Romeo Esmero, who accused President Rodrigo Duterte of "inaction/failure" to perform his duties in connection with the WPS dispute with China. Esmero said the filing of diplomatic protests against China is "not a defense", saying the proper way for the Philippines to act is to ask the United Nations to send patrol boats, sue China before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and demand payment and damages for taking Kalayaan Island. The SC said no law justifies the action sought by the petition for the President to go to the UN or the ICJ to sue China nor is there any law that prescribed specifically how the President is to respond to any threat from another state. The SC noted that a decision in the case against China before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea had been handed down on July 12, 2016, but "If President Duterte now sees fit to take a different approach with China despite the said ruling, this does not mean that he has unlawfully abdicated his duty to protect and defend our national territory". "Being the head of state, he is free to use his own discretion in this matter, accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience," the court added. Legal ed requirements clarified In November, the SC upheld the jurisdiction of the Legal Education Board (LEB) but affirmed as unconstitutional its requirement for students to pass the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) before being allowed to pursue a Law degree. The SC struck down in its entirety LEB Memorandum Order (LEBMO) No. 7-2016 on the PhiLSAT requirement for being "unreasonably exclusionary, restrictive, and qualifying". The Court explained that LEB's requirement for prospective students to take the PhiLSAT does not per se render it unconstitutional for as long as the results will only be recommendatory, with the law schools retaining the discretion to accept the applicant based on their policies and standards. However, as an eligibility requirement, PhiLSAT is not a lawful method to attain the lawful subject of the State. The ruling affirmed the 2019 decision, which declared unconstitutional paragraph 9 of the LEBMO which provides that all college graduates or graduating students must pass the PhiLSAT to gain admission to any law school in the Philippines. Indigenous peoples group get a break At the start of the year, the SC ruled on a petition questioning the conviction of members of a Mindoro-based indigenous peoples group for violation of Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. 705 of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines. The SC acquitted the group on January 5, ruling that the Iraya-Mangyan tribe is a publicly known indigenous cultural community that can inhabit areas within Oriental Mindoro. The case stemmed from a March 2005 incident in Barangay Calangatan, Municipality of San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro when the IP group, without authority, knowingly cut a dita tree with an aggregate volume of 500 board feet. In defense, they said the dita tree is planted within their ancestral domain and they cut it to construct a community toilet as instructed by their leaders. What to expect In 2022 and beyond, Gesmundo said the country's courts must be "consistently efficient and accountable havens for the disadvantaged, the wronged, the injured". Reforms are also necessary to keep in step with the changing times. "The Filipino people deserve a judiciary possessed of competence, integrity, probity, and independence," he stated. (PNA) }