Inside a Taguig Law Firm Briefing: Joseph Plazo on the Philippines’ New Criminal Procedure Shifts

At a policy-forward session hosted alongside a taguig law firm, joseph plazo delivered a message that landed with equal force on young litigators: “Substantive criminal law tells you what is illegal. Criminal procedure tells you what actually happens.”

What followed was a clear-eyed walk-through of the latest criminal law procedure updates in the Philippines—not as gossip, not as courtroom theater, but as a coherent story about speed.

Speaking from a taguig law firm vantage—where real clients need risk mapping—Plazo treated procedure as the country’s justice “operating system”: invisible when it works.

Why Criminal Procedure Updates Matter to Everyone

According to joseph plazo, most people assume the “important part” of criminal law is the statute. But statutes don’t run cases—rules do.

“Procedure is where liberty lives,” Plazo noted. “Not in slogans—on calendars.”

He framed criminal procedure updates into a simple triad:

Procedural architecture—how justice is scheduled and enforced

Interpretation—the hidden levers in deadlines and standards

Operationalization—what judges are instructed to prioritize

Rewriting the Playbook: Criminal Procedure Revisions Underway

Plazo began with the “largest” signal in the room: the Supreme Court’s ongoing work toward proposed amendments to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, including writeshops led by the Sub-Committee on the revision of these rules.

“You don’t host writeshops to change commas,” he added. “You do it because the system is demanding modernization.”

From a taguig law firm perspective, this signals direction, even if the final text is not yet fully consolidated in one public narrative.

“Watch this space,” he said, “because when the rules move, every lawyer’s strategy must move with them.”

Update Two: Anti-Terrorism Case Procedure Now Has Dedicated Rules

Next, joseph plazo highlighted a procedural development that is both specialized and consequential: the Supreme Court’s Rules on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and Related Laws (A.M. No. 22-02-19-SC), which the Court announced would take effect on January 15, 2024, governing procedures for petitions and applications tied to matters such as detention without warrant issues, surveillance orders, freeze orders, travel restrictions, designations, and proscriptions.

“Substantive law defines the offense,” he explained. “Procedure defines the process—and process defines legitimacy.”

He emphasized an institutional reality: specialized procedural rules are often designed to standardize handling across courts.

A Faster Track for Certain Cases, With Structured Scheduling

Plazo then turned to reforms aimed at reducing delay in lower courts, referencing the Supreme Court’s discussion of the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts, which replaced earlier summary procedure rules and expanded coverage for certain cases and penalties thresholds, while noting alignment with scheduling under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial.

“Expedited does not mean careless,” he said. “It means structured: fewer delays, clearer steps, tighter calendars.”

For a taguig law firm advising clients, the practical takeaway is that procedural frameworks increasingly reward document discipline, because the system is being shaped to move faster.

Update Four: Continuous Trial Expectations Are Being Re-Emphasized in Practice

Plazo described a trend that any practicing lawyer can feel: the ongoing institutional push toward continuous trial to support the constitutional value of speedy disposition.

He referenced the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (as reflected in judiciary materials) and an Office of the Court Administrator circular reminding that motions for postponement are prohibited check here pleadings under the Revised Guidelines and should be viewed with disfavor except for the most compelling reasons.

“The calendar is now part of the architecture of justice,” joseph plazo said.

From the standpoint of a taguig law firm, this is not a mere internal memo story—it affects how cases are planned:
front-loaded preparation.

Timing Just Changed: When Prosecution Prescription Is Interrupted

Then Plazo pointed to a development that sounds technical but can be outcome-defining: the Supreme Court’s clarification that the prescriptive period for prosecuting crimes can stop running when a complaint is filed with the Department of Justice, not only when it reaches the court—highlighted in People v. Consebido (G.R. No. 258563).

“If you think deadlines are clerical, you haven’t lived through a case that dies by prescription,” joseph plazo said.

He framed it as a reminder that criminal procedure is a world of small levers, big outcomes:
what interrupts time.

A System Trying to Become More Predictable

Rather than presenting the updates as a scattered list, joseph plazo stitched them into a coherent narrative:

Speed is being pursued through structured rules and continuous trial discipline.

Clarity is being strengthened through doctrinal guidance like Consebido.

“The direction is clear: fewer surprises, fewer delays, fewer procedural games,” he explained.

Why Local Practice Feels These Changes First

Plazo emphasized that procedural updates are felt most intensely where cases accumulate: first-level courts.

In Taguig, where a city can contain:
high-value business activity,
criminal procedure becomes a daily stabilizer.

“The justice system succeeds or fails on the ordinary day,” he added, “not the headline case.”

A taguig law firm serving both institutions experiences these shifts as changes in:
expectations of readiness.

Preparation Is Becoming a Competitive Edge

Plazo framed a practical implication: as procedure tightens around speed and structure, the advantage shifts to those who are prepared early.

“The era of ‘we’ll fix it later’ collapses when calendars harden,” he noted.

He suggested—not legal advice, but operational mindset—that lawyers increasingly must:
reduce reliance on postponements.

“Speed doesn’t forgive disorganization,” he added.

Efficiency Cannot Become Injustice

Plazo also emphasized a boundary: speed must not degrade fairness.

“Procedure must be both swift and legitimate,” he noted.

This is why, he argued, the system’s emphasis on rules and structure matters: structure can protect rights by making deadlines known.

A Taguig Law Firm Checklist for Tracking Criminal Procedure Updates

To close, joseph plazo offered a framework—useful for policy teams—for tracking procedural change without chasing noise:

Monitor the judiciary’s “directional signals”

Treat special rules as high-impact signals

Observe how trial courts enforce continuous trial discipline

Read doctrine for “quiet rewrites” in timelines and filing effects

Convert procedure into systems

He ended with a line that sounded tailor-made for Taguig’s blend of civic life and high-velocity commerce:

“In the end,” he added, “procedure is how a country proves it is governed by law, not mood.”

And as the audience filtered out—some toward courtrooms, some toward boardrooms, some toward community work—the message remained: when procedure changes, the justice system’s reality changes with it.