10. Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools (Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary [AM 25-11-28-SC]; Principles for the Ethical and Responsible Development, Deployment, and Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Government [DICT-CSC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 003, s. 2026])

Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Concept

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools can assist in research, drafting, organizing information, and other work. In legal and judicial settings, their usefulness does not transfer professional judgment or accountability from the person using them to the tool. The ethical question is not simply whether AI was used, but whether its use preserves accuracy, confidentiality, fairness, and meaningful human responsibility. (A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC) (DICT-CSC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 003, s. 2026)

Governing provisions

The Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, addresses AI use within the Judiciary. The Principles for the Ethical and Responsible Development, Deployment, and Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Government, DICT-CSC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 003, s. 2026, addresses AI in government. Read together, they place technological assistance within an institutional framework of responsible human use, rather than treating an automated output as an independent exercise of official judgment. (A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC) (DICT-CSC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 003, s. 2026)

For lawyers, these instruments operate alongside professional duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA). A government lawyer must observe both the CPRA and the standards applicable to public officials and employees; liability under one set of rules is separate from liability under another. A lawyer’s ethical duties also continue when the lawyer performs non-legal work, which matters when participating in the development or deployment of an AI system. (Art. 28, CPRA)¹ (Art. 10, CPRA)²

Requisites / Rules

• Scope and definitions. First identify the actor, setting, and function: judicial or other government use; development or deployment of a system; or a lawyer’s use of a tool in performing professional work. An AI-generated answer, summary, or draft is an output to be assessed—not, by itself, a verified legal authority or an official decision. (A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC) (DICT-CSC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 003, s. 2026)
• General principles. The next inquiry is how the tool is used: whether a responsible person can evaluate its output, protect information entrusted to them, and remain answerable for the resulting work. The principles guide use across the tool’s development, deployment, and application; professional duties continue to govern the lawyer who uses it. (DICT-CSC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 003, s. 2026) (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC)

Distinctions

Judicial AI governance concerns the Judiciary’s own use of augmented intelligence. Government-wide AI principles address public-sector development, deployment, and use more broadly. Neither setting should be confused with a lawyer’s separate obligation to exercise independent professional judgment. In particular, government employment adds public-service standards; it does not displace the CPRA. (A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC) (DICT-CSC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 003, s. 2026) (Art. 28, CPRA)¹

Bar tip

Begin with scope: who used the tool, for what task, and under which institutional rules? Then test the human user’s verification, judgment, and accountability under the applicable ethical duties. (A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC) (DICT-CSC Joint Memorandum Circular No. 003, s. 2026) (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC)