Short answer. Only a limited list: petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus; disciplinary proceedings against judges and lawyers; and cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls may be filed originally in the Supreme Court. Everything else must start out in a lower court first, even if it eventually reaches the Supreme Court on appeal or review.
What the law says
Only petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and attorneys, and cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls may be filed originally in the Supreme Court.
Rule 56, Section 1 — Original cases cognizable. Read the full provision →
A short, exclusive list
Rule 56, Section 1 makes clear that the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction — cases it can hear from the very start, without any intervening lower court decision — is limited to a specific enumerated list. This is quite different from the Supreme Court's more familiar role of reviewing decisions already made below; here the case begins in the Supreme Court itself, from the very first filing. The word 'only' at the start of the provision signals that the enumeration is exhaustive rather than illustrative — a case that does not fall within one of the listed categories simply has no basis to be filed originally in the Supreme Court, however important or urgent it may be.
The special civil actions and habeas corpus
The list is anchored by five special remedies: certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. These are extraordinary writs traditionally used to correct jurisdictional errors, compel or restrain official action, test entitlement to public office, or secure release from unlawful detention — matters where speed and the highest court's authority can be especially important. Even so, the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over these writs is generally concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts, and the doctrine of hierarchy of courts ordinarily channels these petitions to the lower courts first. A litigant who files one of these five writs directly with the Supreme Court, bypassing the lower courts without a compelling justification, risks having the petition sent back down under that same hierarchy-of-courts doctrine.
Disciplinary and diplomatic matters
Beyond the writs, the section also covers disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary and against attorneys, reflecting the Supreme Court's own constitutional role in supervising the bench and the bar. It further includes cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, categories carrying international and diplomatic sensitivity that the framers placed directly before the highest court rather than a trial court. Disciplinary authority over judges and lawyers, in particular, is not shared concurrently with any lower court, since it flows directly from the Supreme Court's own constitutional power of administrative supervision over the legal profession and the judiciary. Cases touching ambassadors, ministers, and consuls sit in the same originally-filed category for a related reason: their diplomatic status makes it appropriate for the highest court, rather than a trial court, to handle the matter from the outset.