ARTIFICIAL Intelligence (AI) is ubiquitous, and its use permeates across various fields, including the legal sector. With this in mind, legal practitioners are reminded that AI is merely a tool; lawyers must refrain from relying on it to draft their documents and make sound, legal decisions.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines recognizes that AI may be utilized ethically in the legal field. In the Preamble of the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability (CJCA), the Court said that apart from online presence in social media, artificial intelligence has impacted the work of justices and judges.
The same Code implements guidelines on proper use of AI in the administration of judicial work. Section 5, Canon IV (Competence and Diligence) states that “A judge may utilize [AI] tools only for research of relevant legal authorities, but must always verify the sources before properly citing them in their decisions.” This provision is a caution for judges who may rely on AI to make legal decisions. Furthermore, they are reminded that AI may have the tendency to hallucinate data; therefore, judges are reminded that they should always take resources from AI research with a grain of salt and verify the truthfulness of the resources.
This is also aligned with Section 1, Canon IV of the CJCA, which states that “a judge shall be faithful to one’s official duties and maintain the highest standard of professional competence and diligence.” One way of exercising this competence and diligence is through careful analysis of one’s legal sources.
Section 6, Canon IV of the CJCA states that “A judge’s use of technological tools and innovations shall be in accord with the fundamental rights of court users and court personnel, as well as ethical and professional standards, as may be promulgated by the Court. A judge shall exercise care and prudence in the use of technology and artificial intelligence, keeping in mind that these are merely tools to aid them in the exercise of their judicial duties, and must never substitute the judge’s own discernment and discretion, especially in the writing of decisions and resolutions.” This provision reiterates the importance of non-reliance on AI in creating sound, legal decisions. They are useful tools but must never substitute the Judge’s legal knowledge and decision making. The use of AI must also be in accord with the rights of people.
On the other hand, the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel also provides guidelines on ethical AI use with almost similar provisions. Court officers are also reminded to exercise restraint in using AI.
Since AI is a relatively new technology, there are no laws passed on its regulation; however, there are several AI-related Bills pending.
In the legal perspective, AI is a useful tool because it allows easier search of legal materials. With the right prompts, it can summarize a lengthy legal document into a digestible format. It can skim the internet for resources on a specified legal issue.
Despite this, legal practitioners must remember that there is no substitute for their discernment and knowledge, most especially by a machine. After all, the administration of justice is a nuanced and human experience; reliance on AI will only lead to abandonment of one’s duties to uphold the law.
About the author: Khrystyn Andaya is a Content Producer under the Marketing Department of The Manila Times. At a young age, she had been enamored in different ways of storytelling and dreamt of being the voice for people whose stories needed to be heard. She graduated from the University of Santo Tomas (UST) with an AB Journalism degree. At UST, she also participated in organizations such as the Tiger Media Network as a News Writer for its weekly broadcast show. Currently, she is also taking a Juris Doctor at the University of the Philippines – Diliman.