SC fines bar coach for false AI claims
It emphasized that the examiners are ‘all warm bodies’ and are neither powered nor guided by AI.
Text size
It emphasized that the examiners are ‘all warm bodies’ and are neither powered nor guided by AI.
A bar review coach was slapped a P30,000 fine by the Supreme Court for spreading false information about the 2023 Bar Examinations on Facebook, with the Court ruling that his post interfered with the conduct of the exams and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
In a decision made public this week, the Supreme Court En Banc found Edgar S. Dizon, administrator of the Facebook group Bar Law for Dummies, guilty of indirect contempt. The Court also ordered the removal of his name from the list of 2016 Bar passers.
On 21 September 2023, a post from the Facebook group and the account Tsidkenu Dizon went viral. Among other claims, it said the 2023 Bar Examinations would be “sorted, checked, and corrected by means of artificial intelligence (AI).”
It also instructed examinees to “always start with yes or no,” claiming that this was what “AI Checking” would first look for in sorting correct answers.
The Court said the post caused anxiety among examinees who were in the final stages of preparing for the examinations and disrupted Bar operations.
The Office of the 2023 Bar Chair, headed by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, investigated the source and impact of the post.
To counter the claims, the office immediately issued an advisory clarifying that four human examiners would check each subject and that all examiners were experts in their respective fields.
Instead of removing the post, Dizon gave a media interview in which he threatened to sue the Court and demanded a public apology “within 24 hours.” He also sent emails to the Supreme Court Judiciary Public Assistance Section, claiming the advisory had a chilling effect on him.
Dizon denied spreading misinformation and asked the Court to issue a statement correcting the advisory.
In his explanation, Dizon admitted owning the Facebook account and acknowledged that he had passed the 2016 Bar Examinations but had not taken his lawyer’s oath because of pending criminal cases.
He also said he authored review materials used in the Bar Law for Dummies training program and was surprised by the public reaction to his post. He denied claiming that AI would check the examinations, arguing that he had used the words “TO HELP” in his post.
The Court rejected his explanation.
Under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, unlawful interference with court processes outside the courtroom, conduct that degrades the courts or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and unauthorized practice of law may constitute indirect contempt.
The Court ruled that Dizon’s post unlawfully interfered with the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations and undermined the integrity of both the exams and the Court, which exercises supervision over the legal profession.
The Court said Dizon, as a Bar passer himself, should have known that the examinations are evaluated by a committee of examiners appointed by the Court. It emphasized that the examiners are “all warm bodies” and are neither powered nor guided by AI.
The Court also found that the misinformation caused confusion and alarm and forced Bar officials to divert time and resources to tracing the source of the post, coordinating with government agencies, issuing clarifications and responding to inquiries.
The post also distracted examinees from their preparations. The Court stressed that Dizon should have known that Bar examinees were under significant pressure and would likely be concerned by any information about the examinations.
