Supreme Court Mandates Human Control Over AI in Judiciary, Releases Ethical Framework
The Philippine Supreme Court has formally recognized artificial intelligence (AI), referred to as "augmented intelligence," as a tool that can assist but never replace the critical thinking and judgment of judges, lawyers, and court personnel. To ensure this principle is upheld, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a landmark resolution on February 18, 2026 (A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC), establishing a comprehensive guide for the responsible deployment of "human-centered augmented intelligence" within the judicial system.
A Governance Framework for Modernization
This new directive, titled the "Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary," represents a significant step toward modernizing court operations and enhancing the delivery of justice through innovative technologies. The framework is anchored on three core ethical principles: fairness, accountability, and transparency. These principles are fundamentally based on the promotion of the rule of law, social justice, and robust privacy and data protection measures.
According to the Supreme Court, these three pillars support the "ethical and responsible use of human-centered augmented intelligence tools in the Judiciary" and are designed to strengthen public trust and confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judicial system.
Pilot Testing Shows Promising Results
Courts across the Philippines have already begun studying and pilot-testing various AI tools over the past three years, focusing on applications like transcription and legal research. Notably, the Sandiganbayan and various first-level and second-level courts reported a dramatic reduction in transcription time—between 50 percent and 80 percent—following their pilot-testing of Scriptix, an AI transcription system, from 2023 to 2024.
In June 2025, the Office of the Court Administrator directed court stenographers to utilize Scriptix for their transcription duties after the Supreme Court authorized the procurement of this AI system, marking a practical integration of the technology.
Human Discernment Remains Paramount
The 25-page governance guide emphatically states that "Human control must be paramount in any use of AI." It clarifies that while human-centered augmented intelligence aims to approximate aspects of human intelligence and cognition, it must never be understood as a replacement for human discernment. Human understanding and reasoning remain central to the nation's judiciary, even as it pushes for the modernization of court processes.
The Supreme Court mandates that the use of any AI tool must be implemented in a phased manner, starting with pilot testing, and requires approval from the Supreme Court En Banc, in line with its rule-making authority and supervisory power over all courts.
Transparency and Accountability Requirements
The framework also imposes strict transparency requirements. The use of AI tools in processing court documents—such as voice-to-text transcription, translation, compilation, summarization, processing, copyediting, proofreading, or citation generation—must be disclosed. When a member of the judiciary, court official, or employee employs AI, this must be communicated in the simplest, clearest, and most understandable language to foster public trust and confidence.
Furthermore, comprehensive documentation of AI usage and the human review process is required to establish clear lines of accountability. The Supreme Court asserts, "Responsibility ultimately falls on the designer, developer, or user of an AI tool. As such, a user of an AI tool ... is personally responsible for the output the tool produces and its consequences." This underscores that while AI can augment efficiency, ultimate legal and ethical responsibility remains firmly with human actors within the judicial system.
