Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises › Legal and Judicial Ethics › Legal Ethics (CPRA) › 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])

a. Scope and Definitions

Scope and Definitions of AI Use in the Judiciary

Concept

The Governance Framework concerns the judiciary’s use of human-centered augmented intelligence. The Court recognizes that AI can help administer justice and improve court operations, while acknowledging its limitations and risks. Its focus is the use of technology under human oversight and control, not the replacement of human judgment. (Preamble, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)1

Governing provisions

The preamble to A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC explains why governance is needed: AI is increasingly used in the justice sector, legal practice, and courts. Without appropriate human oversight and control, its development, deployment, or use can amplify bias and discrimination, spread false information, and cause other harm. (Preamble, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)1

The supplied extract labeled Section 3 contains definitions of a personal information controller and a personal information processor. These are data-privacy terms relevant when an AI workflow involves personal information; they should not be mistaken for definitions of AI or for a complete statement of the Framework’s scope. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)2

Requisites / Rules

  • Personal information controller: a person or organization that controls the collection, holding, processing, or use of personal information. This includes one that instructs another to process or disclose personal information on its behalf. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)2
  • Personal information processor: a natural or juridical person to whom a controller may outsource the processing of personal data pertaining to a data subject. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)2
  • When considering an AI tool for work involving personal information, identify who determines the processing and who processes data on that person’s behalf. Outsourcing processing does not, by itself, make the processor the controller. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)2

Distinctions

Justice-sector use versus judiciary governance. The preamble observes AI use across legal practice and courts, but describes this issuance as a governance framework for the judiciary. A reference to the broader justice sector does not, without an operative provision, establish that every use of AI by every legal practitioner is governed by the same institutional rules. (Preamble, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)1

Controller versus processor. The controller directs or controls the relevant handling of personal information; the processor handles personal data outsourced to it by the controller. The distinction depends on their functions, not merely on whether an AI product or an outside service provider is involved. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)2

Bar tip

In a scope question, separate the Framework’s stated judiciary focus from its discussion of AI throughout the justice sector. In a data question, identify the controller and processor before assessing an AI-assisted workflow. (Preamble, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)1 (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)2

Authorities

  • Preamble, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC
  • Sec. 3, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC