Human examiners; artificial claims
Beyond the title of ‘attorney,’ a true lawyer carries with it humility, honesty and respect for the very institutions of justice that made that title possible.
Text size
Beyond the title of ‘attorney,’ a true lawyer carries with it humility, honesty and respect for the very institutions of justice that made that title possible.
With the conclusion of this year’s Bar Examinations, examinees now find themselves in the anxious waiting period. This anxiety is certainly not lost on the Supreme Court, whose justices were once bar examinees themselves.
In the recent case of In Re: Social Media Posts of Edgar S. Dizon (B.M. 4734, 15 July 2026), the Court en banc, in a per curiam decision, showed just how seriously it treats attempts to disturb the integrity of the bar examinations and the examinees’ peace of mind.
The case involved the administrator of a Facebook page offering a Bar training program. He was a law graduate and a passer of the 2016 Bar Examinations, but never took the lawyer’s oath because of pending criminal charges.
The trouble began on 21 September 2023 when a post from the Facebook page and the administrator’s personal account went viral. The post claimed that the 2023 Bar Examinations would be sorted, checked, and corrected by artificial intelligence (AI).
Examinees in the final stretch of their review understandably panicked. The Office of the 2023 Bar Chair had to divert resources to trace the post and issue an advisory clarifying that human examiners — all warm bodies, not created or powered by artificial intelligence — would check the examinations.
The Court found that the post unlawfully interfered with a court-sanctioned proceeding, a ground for indirect contempt. As a Bar passer himself, its author should have known better. His claim that he merely meant that AI would “help” was given no weight, as his own words plainly said otherwise.
He was likewise found guilty of the unauthorized practice of law. Though never admitted to the Bar, he conducted paid review sessions and authored dozens of materials, from topical questions to pre-week notes, for his training program. Coaching examinees through actual Bar questions, the Court held, is itself an exercise of legal knowledge and skill reserved for members of the profession.
What ultimately sealed his fate, more than the misinformation itself, was his utter lack of remorse. Rather than own up to the harm caused, he gave a media interview demanding that the Court apologize to him, insisted that its advisory be rectified, and even asked for a photo with the Bar Chair. The Court viewed this not as an isolated lapse, but as a continuing disregard for the institution he had already wronged.
For all this, he was fined the maximum amount of P30,000 for indirect contempt, while the Office of the Bar Confidant was directed to delist him from the roll of 2016 Bar passers. He was likewise sternly warned to refrain from any further unauthorized practice of law.
The case is a timely reminder to all lawyers, present and future, that admission to the Bar is a privilege that the Court alone may grant. It is not — and will never be — a vested right that one may claim, threaten, or demand. It is reserved for those whose academic preparation and character truly measure up.
Beyond the title of “attorney,” a true lawyer carries with it humility, honesty, and respect for the very institutions of justice that made that title possible.
wTo this year’s Bar examinees: well done for finishing. You have done your part. Now comes perhaps the more difficult examination — the test of patience while waiting for the results.
Good luck!
