Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo led the contingent of SC magistrates that welcomed Khan who described the meeting as “inspirational”. Also present were Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F Leonen and Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Japar B. Dimaampao, Jose Midas P. Marquez and Marial Filomena Singh.

On the other hand, DOJ Undersecretary Raul Vasquez disclosed that Khan inquired about accusations of red-tagging against the government.

“We explained that there is no policy of red-tagging from this government,” Vasquez said, apparently referring to the current leadership of President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos. Jr.

On the other hand, Undersecrertary Jesse Andres assured Khan that government will file charges against government and private individuals who will resort to red-tagging.

Legitimate organizations, particularly those critical of the government, have raised alarm over the red tagging issue especially during the time of former President Rodrigo Duterte.

In her opening statement at the Supreme Court, Khan emphasized that human rights cannot exist without the rule of law and highlighted the Judiciary's role in setting the tone and implementing it.

The justices then proceeded to discuss various legal issues that the judiciary had resolved, including the Supreme Court's Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), the Court's blueprint for judicial reform.

The SPJI outlines the ongoing system-wide judicial reforms aimed at addressing institutional challenges using guiding principles—Timely and Fair Justice, Transparent and Accountable Justice, Equal and Inclusive Justice, and Technologically Adaptive Management—and targeting three critical outcomes—Efficiency, Innovation, and Justice.

Gesmundo assured the UNSR that the Philippine kudiciary is highly cognizant of the universal principles of freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Philippine Constitution and international laws.

He emphasized that the courts actively strive to strike a balance between such freedoms and the state's right to protect itself.

For his part, Leonen cited recent Supreme Court decisions that addressed the freedom of speech and expression.

Examples include the St. Anthony v. COMELEC case (G.R. No. 258805), which affirmed that COMELEC cannot remove privately-owned campaign materials on private property. He also mentioned ABS-CBN v. Ampatuan (G.R. No. 227004), where the Court protected the media's right to report on cases pending in courts, and the case of In Re: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon’s viral video against Raissa Robles (A.C. No. 13521), where the Court unanimously resolved to disbar Atty. Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon for making profane remarks against journalist Raissa Robles in a viral video.

With regards the much-criticized Anti-Terrorism Act, Khan received a copy of The Supreme Court’s Rules on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and Related Laws.

Gesmundo stated that these rules were established to ensure proper and effective handling of anti-terrorism prosecutions while protecting people's rights.

Leonen discussed the case of Calleja v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 252578), where the Court declared certain provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 unconstitutional, focusing on aspects that clearly violated freedom of expression.