Supreme Court designates 21 Regional Trial Courts as Anti-Graft Courts

On Nov. 15, the Supreme Court (SC) announced that it was designating an initial batch of 21 Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) as special courts to handle anti-graft cases that arise from infrastructure projects.1

This initiative aligns with the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations of the SC which aims to introduce reforms to the judiciary to promote efficiency, transparency, and accountability.

Specifically, the SC has designated five RTCs in the National Capital Judicial Region and Region III, and four RTCs in Regions IV-A, V, VII, and XI. For areas without designated RTCs, cases shall be referred to the nearest judicial regions with designated RTCs. However, the SC has professed that it aims for all judicial regions to eventually have these designated RTCs.

Under Republic Act (RA) No. 10660, the RTCs possess exclusive original jurisdiction over graft cases under RA No. 3019 that do not allege any damage to the government or any bribery, or when it involves damage to the government or any bribery that does not exceed P1 million. Additionally, for graft cases, RTCs possess jurisdiction over public officers provided that their position is lower than Salary Grade 27.

As early as October in A.M. No. 25-10-24-SC, the SC already expressed its interest in establishing special courts to hear and decide corruption-related cases that are connected to infrastructure projects. Hence, it directed the Office of the Court Administrator to monitor the corruption cases filed in the RTCs.2

The judges of these RTCs will receive training from the Philippine Judicial Academy and lectures from the Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan. Pertinent topics of these lectures will revolve around RA No. 3019 and RA No. 7080, and the nuances of these laws. Moreover, the scope of these lectures shall include topics such as the rules on bail in plunder cases, rules on cyber warrants, and the like.

The designation of these RTCs is a welcome development in promoting institutional transparency as these cases may help reveal gaps in existing legislation with respect to public infrastructure projects — from their bidding to implementation. This measure may likewise improve the competitiveness of public infrastructure procurement systems as the looming threat of prosecution and conviction for violation of prevailing laws may encourage more qualified stakeholders to participate and repel less capable entities. Consequently, the exclusion of these less capable entities may lead to better quality public infrastructure works and may even optimize public fiscal allocation.

Further, the selection of these courts may aid in de-incentivizing rent-seeking actions by public officials, thereby creating a more stable regulatory environment. In turn, this regulatory predictability may attract foreign investment as the country’s risk profile will be significantly parried. This belief may be bolstered by the desire of the SC in establishing more of these kinds of RTCs as it may signal the country’s resolute commitment to structural reform and good governance.

The designation of these courts may also prove to be a significant effort in decongesting existing court dockets due to the fact that these cases on public infrastructure anomalies will now be heard by these specialized courts and judges who are equipped with the subject-matter expertise to dispose of these cases in a forthwith manner. Relatedly, the assignment of these courts may work synergistically with the existing mandate of the Sandiganbayan (the country’s premiere anti-graft and corruption court) in the speedy disposition of anti-graft and corruption cases.

After all, these RTCs will possess exclusive original jurisdiction over graft cases that do not allege any damage to the government or any bribery, or when it involves damage to the government or any bribery that does not exceed P1 million. Hence, these RTCs will have the first opportunity to examine the factual milieu of these cases and scrutinize the often-voluminous evidence — thereby reducing existing constraints on the Sandiganbayan.

In all, these judicial reforms must be celebrated as significant and timely milestones that advance accountability, efficiency, and responsiveness — critical goals in the legal field and overall socio-economic landscape.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.

1 Of f ice of the Spokesperson, SC Designates RTCs as Anti-Graft Courts under RA 10660, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Nov. 15, 2025, at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-designates-rtcs-as-anti-graft-courts-under-ra-10660/ (last accessed Nov. 21, 2025).

2 Office of the Spokesperson, Press Brief, Supreme Court of Philippines, Oct. 29, 2025, https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/PRESS-BRIEFER-October-29-2025.pdf (last accessed Nov. 21, 2025).

Louise Michiko B. Lokin is an associate of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution department of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).

(632) 8830-8000

lblokin@accralaw.com