Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen said artificial intelligence (AI) has a place in the courts: beside the judge to assist, but never on the bench to decide cases.

At present, only Scriptix, the Judiciary's voice-to-text transcription application, is authorized for use. Other AI applications will require approval from the Supreme Court (SC) En Banc.

Leonen made the remarks during the briefing, "Digitalization & Artificial Intelligence in the Courts of Justice," which gathered trial court judges, clerks of court, legal researchers, and court stenographers from across the Cordillera region.

The lecture aimed to guide members of the Judiciary in navigating the rapid development of AI technologies by examining both their proper role and limitations within the adjudicative process.

It forms part of a broader effort to promote and discuss the Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary (AI Governance Framework), which was approved by the SC En Banc on 18 February 2026.

The framework supports the goals of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022–2027 (SPJI), which seeks to modernize court operations and enhance the administration of justice through technology.

Leonen discussed the costs and limitations of a paper-based court system, the benefits of digitalization, and the challenges that accompany technological transition.

He also examined how AI systems operate, the statistical models on which they rely, and the political economy of the prediction process before concluding with a discussion of the AI Governance Framework.

As head of the working group that developed the Judiciary's AI Governance Framework, Leonen underscored that a machine may assist in research, scheduling, drafting, and analytics, "but it may never adjudicate."

He explained that although an automated system can generate polished legal prose, replicate the form of an argument, and produce an output similar to a judge's writing style, it understands "nothing of the law it invokes, the suffering it adjudicates, or the stakes it decides."

Leonen added: "The fabrication we politely call hallucinations are at once plausible but false. So a recommendation in sentencing or in bail substitutes prediction for judgment and dresses the bias of the past in the robe of neutral science. The machine cannot reach the suffering behind the case filed, the credibility written in a witness's silence, or the justice that a mere technicality would defeat."

Turning to digital transformation, Leonen explained that paper-based court processes often result in delays, limited access, and administrative burdens.

He said digitalized systems offer meaningful solutions to many longstanding challenges.

"Remote filing, online hearing, digital records remove the barrier of distance so that a marginalized litigant may participate without ruinous travel," he said.

At the same time, he warned that technology is not without risks, noting that limited internet connectivity can exclude some court users, while digital systems remain vulnerable to tampering and cyberattacks.

"The question is never whether to modernize. It is whether we remain sovereign over the rules that we allow," Leonen said.

He emphasized two central points during the lecture: first, that digitalization—the transition from paper-based to digital platforms—is distinct from AI; and second, that AI, while enabled by digitalization, is ultimately "a machine for prediction" with inherent limitations.