Short answer. Yes, in two situations. The judge may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced is offensive to decency or public morals; and on motion of the accused, the judge may exclude the public from the trial except court personnel and the counsel of the parties.
What the law says
The judge may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals.
Rule 119, Section 21 — Exclusion of the public. Read the full provision →
What the law says
He may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial except court personnel and the counsel of the parties.
Rule 119, Section 21 — Exclusion of the public. Read the full provision →
Open trials are the rule; this is the exception
Criminal trials in the Philippines are public by default — openness is itself a protection for the accused, who is entitled to be tried in view of the community rather than behind closed doors. The provision on exclusion of the public exists as a measured exception to that rule, and it recognises exactly two routes to a closed courtroom: one the judge may take on his own initiative, and one that belongs to the accused. Neither route is a general licence to hold secret trials; each is tied to a specific justification the rule itself names.
The judge's own initiative: protecting decency
The first route: the judge may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals. Motu proprio means on the court's own motion — no party needs to ask. The trigger is the character of the evidence: testimony or exhibits of a sexually explicit, degrading or otherwise indecent nature, of the kind that arises in cases involving sexual offences or child victims. Closing the courtroom in that situation protects victims and witnesses from testifying about intimate matters before a gallery of strangers.
The accused's motion
The second route belongs to the person on trial: the judge may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial except court personnel and the counsel of the parties. This inverts the usual logic — publicity is the accused's protection, so the accused may also waive it and ask for privacy, perhaps to limit the humiliation of a trial's details becoming neighbourhood knowledge. Note who remains even then: court personnel and counsel stay, because exclusion of the public never means a trial without a functioning court. Note also the word may — the judge decides; the motion does not grant itself.
What exclusion does not change
A closed courtroom alters who watches, not what the trial is. Every right of the accused — to counsel, to confront the witnesses, to present evidence — continues exactly as in open court, and the proceedings remain on the record. If you are a complainant dreading testimony about intimate matters, raising the possibility of exclusion with the prosecutor before trial is worthwhile, since the judge can act without a motion. If you are the accused weighing a motion to exclude, discuss the trade-off with counsel: publicity can be a shield as well as an embarrassment, and giving it up is a strategic choice, not a formality.