May AI decide a court case?
In the final analysis, artificial intelligence is not — and must never become — the judge. It is merely a tool, no matter how sophisticated.
Text size
In the final analysis, artificial intelligence is not — and must never become — the judge. It is merely a tool, no matter how sophisticated.
With the proper data, set of facts and accurate prompt, generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology can suggest answers to certain problems. This kind of AI is already being used in the Philippines, and one might wonder if the judiciary allows its use in case adjudication, transcriptions and legal research.
The answer can be found in the recently published A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, or the Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary (AI Governance Framework), where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines on the use of human-centered augmented intelligence in our judicial system. This is applicable not only to the members of the Judiciary and its officials and employees, but also to court users like lawyers and third-party contractors engaged in the development of AI tools by or on behalf of the judiciary.
Guided by the principles of fairness, accountability and transparency, this AI Governance Framework allows the judiciary, court officials and employees to use human-centered augmented intelligence tools in the preparation of court-issued documents in the exercise of their adjudicatory functions such as voice-to-text transcription, translation, automated compilation or generation of structured authorities and citations, legal research, summarization of documents, automated document processing, proofreading and redaction of data from documents in compliance with law.
However, the same AI Governance Framework is quick to qualify that under no circumstances should AI tools or their output serve as the sole, primary or determinative basis of any adjudicatory outcome. It thus remains that legal reasoning and final conclusions that determine the rights and duties of parties before courts must be independently formed by the human decision-maker.
Further, the AI Governance Framework mandates that the use of AI tools must be clearly disclosed and explained in plain and understandable language that is accessible to all concerned parties. Such disclosure must, at the minimum, indicate the AI tool used and the purpose of using it, the extent of use, the degree of human control and oversight in relation to the particular work or task, a statement that the AI tool user preserved the output of the AI tool, compliance with the AI Governance Framework, and a statement that the AI tool user bears ultimate responsibility for the work or output done.
Another salient feature of the AI Governance Framework is the explicit declaration that an AI tool shall neither excuse the responsibility of the user for the consequences of such use nor become a ground to mitigate or justify any liability or penalties imposable under law or codes of ethical conduct. The said AI Governance Framework provides that a user of an AI tool — whether a member of the Judiciary, a court official or employee, or a court user — is personally responsible for the output the tool produces and its consequences.
Other guidelines include the prohibition on the use of an AI tool should evidence show that it presents an equivalent or even greater harm to any person in violation of their rights, the mandate for AI tool users to comply with data privacy regulations, the need to avoid any form of overt discrimination or the creation of new forms thereof in the use of AI tools, and the preference for the most energy-, water- and resource-efficient AI tool, among others.
In the final analysis, artificial intelligence is not — and must never become — the judge. It is merely a tool, no matter how sophisticated. Justice, at its core, is a profoundly human endeavor — guided by conscience and anchored on moral accountability. While technology may illuminate the path, it is the human mind and heart that must walk it. As we embrace the promise of AI in the judiciary, we must do so with vigilance and humility, ensuring that in every decision rendered, it is not the machine that speaks — but the law, through a discerning human voice.
Happy Easter, my dear readers.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.
Hindu immigrants abroad celebrate in either August or September Ganesh Chaturthi, a 10-day festival commemorating the…
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on Tuesday called for women’s greater representation in leadership across Southeast…
The Senate impeachment court on Tuesday denied the prosecution’s bid to compel Vice President Sara Duterte to confirm…
