Supreme Court Acting Chief Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen said artificial intelligence (AI) can assist the legal profession and the Judiciary, but its use must remain critical, human-centered, and subject to human judgment.

This was the key message of the then Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) during a special lecture on “The Critical Use of AI: Challenges for the Philippine Legal Profession and the Judiciary” held on 20 August 2026, at the Supreme Court (SC) Session Hall in Baguio City.

The activity gathered trial court judges, lawyers, and law students from across the Cordillera region.

Leonen’s lecture aimed to encourage members of the legal profession and the Judiciary to use AI critically and responsibly through verification, protection of sensitive information, keeping a log of AI use, and preserving independent legal and analytical judgment.

As chair of the Court’s Committee on Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence, ACJ Leonen also discussed the Judiciary’s “Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary,” which was approved by the SC En Banc on Feb. 18, 2026.

It advances the objectives of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), which promotes technological innovation in court operations and the administration of justice.

Leonen discussed the capabilities and limitations of AI during the lecture, particularly its implications for the legal profession.

He acknowledged AI as a useful tool, particularly for its ability to generate fluent language and provide relevant context.

However, he stressed that these capabilities do not make AI equivalent to human intelligence, which is shaped by lived experience, perception, and emotion.

He said: “An AI model can parse a contract; it can analyze it, but it cannot tell you whether these two parties understood the words the way the words read.

A classifier used by a tech company can label a statement positive or negative, but it cannot hear irony, cannot hear a regional idiom, and cannot measure the distance

between what a witness says and what a witness truly means.”

He also drew a distinction between digitalization and AI, stressing that the difference between the two is critical.

Leonen explained that digitalization involves moving court records, filings, summonses, raffles, and hearings from paper onto a digital platform.

It enhances the Judiciary’s speed, accessibility, transparency, and resilience by streamlining case processing, expanding access to court proceedings, enabling public tracking, and protecting records from the risks associated with physical filing systems.

AI, on the other hand, involves systems that predict, classify, and generate, going beyond the “how” toward the “what” and the “who.”

ACJ Leonen said that while AI may continue to evolve and improve, it cannot fully replicate the way human beings think, perceive, and exercise judgment, as human intelligence is rooted in lived and embodied experiences.

“The difference of human thinking from that of AI can never be covered by an update or the next release note,” he said.

He also cautioned that fluency is not the same as understanding, and that the seeming confidence of AI systems can make their errors dangerous.

He further emphasized that practical wisdom is developed through human experience and is felt rather than merely computed.

This, he said, is also what makes human intelligence cultural. “Human intelligence is cultural. Intelligence dwells inside language, relationship, and shared meanings. Evidence, credibility, and honor

are built between people in a form of life. Kapwa names the identity shared before one distinguishes. Loob names the relational will a person is answerable for. A machine has not independent access to any of these.”

ACJ Leonen also distinguished four approaches to the use of AI: use, responsible use, ethical use, and critical use.