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])

b. General Principles

General Principles on the Ethical Use of AI Tools

Concept

AI may help make court operations more efficient, but its use must remain human-centered. The Supreme Court recognizes both its potential to improve the administration of justice and its inherent limitations and risks. Technology assists the work of the judiciary; it does not displace the people responsible for that work. (Preamble, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)1 (Art. 6, CJCA)2

Governing provisions

The preamble to A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC sets out the Court’s concern with AI used without appropriate human oversight and control, or in a manner inconsistent with human values and human rights. Article 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability (CJCA) addresses a judge’s ethical use of technology and AI. Article 35 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) identifies legal tasks that a lawyer may not delegate to a non-lawyer. (Preamble, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)1 (Art. 6, CJCA)2 (Art. 35, CPRA)3

Requisites / Rules

  • A judge must use technological tools and innovations consistently with the fundamental rights of court users and court personnel, and with the ethical and professional standards promulgated by the Court. (Art. 6, CJCA)2
  • A judge must exercise care and prudence when using technology or AI. These tools must never replace the judge’s own discernment and discretion, especially when writing decisions and resolutions. (Art. 6, CJCA)2
  • A lawyer may not delegate to a non-lawyer the acceptance of cases, giving of legal advice or opinions, or performance of duties reserved to lawyers. Nor may the lawyer permit a non-lawyer to act independently without the lawyer’s supervision or direction. (Art. 35, CPRA)3

Distinctions

The judicial rule expressly treats AI as an aid to a judge’s duties, not as a substitute for judicial judgment. The CPRA provision, by contrast, addresses delegation to non-lawyers. Read each provision according to its stated subject rather than treating the CPRA’s non-lawyer rule as a definition of AI. (Art. 6, CJCA)2 (Art. 35, CPRA)3

Key doctrines

Human oversight matters because AI developed, deployed, or used without appropriate control may amplify bias, inequality, and discrimination, and may propagate false or misleading information. The Court’s recognition of AI’s benefits therefore goes together with its acknowledgment of the risks involved. (Preamble, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC)1

Exceptions

Article 35’s restrictions on delegation to non-lawyers do not apply to law student practitioners under Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court. Article 35 also qualifies its restrictions on certain appearances and negotiations by reference to what the law or rules allow and, for negotiations, to supervision or direction. (Art. 35, CPRA)3

Bar tip

Identify whose duty is at issue: for a judge, emphasize careful use without surrendering discernment; for a lawyer, identify the specific task Article 35 prohibits delegating to a non-lawyer. (Art. 6, CJCA)2 (Art. 35, CPRA)3

Authorities

  • Art. 35, CPRA
  • Art. 6, CJCA
  • Preamble, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC