Barlis wants law students to be force multipliers to improve access to justice

With more than 30,000 law students nationwide, Supreme Court Associate Justice aspirant Jason R. Barlis said law students can be a potential force multipliers in efforts to improve access to justice.

He said even a modest increase in the number qualified to assist in legal aid work could significantly expand the capacity of lawyers, including those handling pro bono cases through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

On access to justice, Barlis, chair of the Legal Education Board (LEB), said he wanted to expand clinical legal education to allow more law students to assist lawyers handling free legal assistance cases.

He cited an LEB study indicating that only 17 percent of law students had Level 2 certification, which authorizes qualified students to appear before courts under the applicable rules.

Barlis said expanding the program could help address the need for legal assistance, particularly among people who cannot afford private counsel.

He told the JBC panel that his interest in pursuing a seat on the Supreme Court stemmed from his desire to extend the legal education reforms he had pursued as LEB chair to the broader justice system.

Likewise, Barlis has proposed using artificial intelligence to make court decisions easier for the public to understand and data analytics to detect potential irregularities in case handling as part of efforts to improve judicial efficiency, integrity and access to justice.

He presented the proposals during his public interview before the Judicial and Bar Council, saying his experience in legal education and government administration could help him contribute to the Supreme Court beyond adjudicating cases.

He said the Court could use its existing electronic case management system to identify unusual patterns in case movement and disposition, allowing the appropriate authorities to examine possible irregularities before they become the subject of formal complaints.

The proposed system would flag transactions or case records that deviate from established patterns, but would not automatically establish corruption or wrongdoing.

“It's not, of course, an indication of corruption. At least there's a flag,” Barlis said, explaining that human reviewers would determine whether the flagged activity warranted further scrutiny.

As an example, he cited a court branch disposing of annulment cases at a rate significantly higher than that of other family courts handling comparable caseloads.

Such patterns could be referred to the Supreme Court's Judicial Integrity Office for further examination, he said, noting that relying solely on periodic audits could leave irregularities undetected between inspections.

Barlis said the approach would use data already available to the judiciary and help make oversight more systematic.

He also proposed exploring the possibility of reorganizing the Supreme Court's divisions to speed up the resolution of cases.

Under the Constitution, the Court may sit in divisions of three, five or seven members, or as a full court. Barlis said the use of three-member divisions could allow the Court to operate more divisions and potentially resolve cases faster.

He acknowledged, however, that a case in a three-member division could be referred to the Court en banc if the required three votes were not obtained.

To address this concern, he proposed examining historical decisions to determine which types of cases were consistently resolved unanimously by five-member divisions and assess whether similar cases could be handled efficiently by three-member divisions.

He said any such arrangement would require data-driven analysis and adjustments based on its implementation.

Barlis also proposed using artificial intelligence to translate lengthy Supreme Court decisions into plain English or local-language explanations so litigants and the public could better understand the Court's reasoning.

He said the initiative could improve public understanding of judicial decisions, particularly among litigants who may have difficulty understanding legal language or obtaining adequate explanations from their lawyers.

Barlis cited his experiment with the decision in Capatira v. Congress, which he described as an 80-plus-page ruling. He said an artificial intelligence tool produced a plain-language version of the decision in about 10 minutes, although the resulting text was still lengthy.

After he asked the tool to condense the material into a five-page summary, it produced the shorter version in about four minutes, he said.

Barlis stressed that the AI-generated material would have to undergo human review before being released.

The proposal would not replace the Court's official decisions but would provide a more accessible explanation of their contents and reasoning, he said.

Asked about judicial activism, Barlis said judges must consider both the letter and the spirit of the law, as required by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

He said the judicial role could not be confined exclusively to either activism or restraint because courts must interpret legal provisions according to their text and purpose.

When the Constitution requires a particular action, the courts must enforce that mandate, he said. But when the Constitution reserves certain powers to other institutions, judicial restraint must come into play.

On allegations of corruption in the judiciary, Barlis said preventive systems could help reduce opportunities for wrongdoing rather than relying exclusively on witnesses or complaints after alleged misconduct had occurred.

He also addressed the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Supreme Court over members of the judiciary.

Barlis said the Ombudsman should handle criminal cases involving judges and justices, including corruption allegations, while the Supreme Court should retain authority over administrative disciplinary matters involving members of the judiciary.

During the interview, Barlis acknowledged that becoming an associate justice would involve a significant transition because he had never served as a judge or appellate court justice.

He said he would rely on guidance from senior justices while drawing on his experience in private legal practice, law school administration and government service.

Barlis said his background as a law school dean and vice president for administration, together with his work as LEB chair, had prepared him for the

He also argued that the Constitution's decision not to restrict Supreme Court membership to members of the judiciary recognizes the value of professional diversity.