Justice in the Machine: The Ethical and Practical Future of AI in the Philippine Legal System
By:Atty. Rhenelle Mae Operario and Atty. Mary Rosarie Sto Tomas
Have you ever imagined talking to a robot... and getting legal advice?
Picture this: You’re on your phone, facing a landlord dispute or a workplace grievance. With a few taps, an AI chatbot listens to your side, then spits out a ready-to-use affidavit that is legally worded, formatted, and ready to go. You didn’t need to find a lawyer. You didn’t have to pay a peso. You didn’t even have to leave the house. Would you like that?
This isn’t some distant sci-fi scenario. It’s already happening in the Philippines. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly finding a home in law offices, courtrooms, and legal aid centers across the Philippines. From AI-powered chatbots that assist clients in drafting legal documents to machine-learning tools that help lawyers predict case outcomes, the legal profession is undergoing a quiet, yet profound, transformation.
And while many hail this as the beginning of a more accessible and efficient legal system, recent events, both here and abroad, have also exposed its potential dangers. So, is AI a modern-day savior for a profession known for paperwork and backlogs, or is it a digital Pandora’s box we’ve barely begun to understand?
Behind the scenes, a quiet revolution is underway in the legal world. In major law firms across Metro Manila, AI is now being used to draft contracts, summarize judicial decisions, comb through thousands of pages of discovery documents, and even generate first drafts of pleadings. What used to take paralegals days can now be done in minutes, with tools powered by large language models like ChatGPT and other similar legal-tech startups.
The Supreme Court has even taken cautious steps in this direction. In 2024, it launched pilot e-Courts with limited AI functionality to help with clerical work like scheduling and document management. While the move was applauded, Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo reminded the public that “technology must serve justice, not supplant it.” It was a forward-thinking message, but one that would soon be put to the test.1
In the United States, a legal debacle made headlines in 2023 when a lawyer submitted a court brief filled with bogus cases, fabricated entirely by an AI chatbot. The judge, fuming, called the incident a “cautionary tale” of relying on unverified tools.2
The Philippines wasn’t far behind in its own version of the drama. Earlier this year, the Sandiganbayan reprimanded Atty. Iryl Boco for submitting pleadings with "non-existent or did not contain the quoted portions cited, and had incorrect docket numbers and dates," after admitting she used an AI tool and failed to verify the output.
The Sandiganbayan’s ruling, which held the lawyer solely responsible for the errors, reinforces a core principle of the Supreme Court's planned governance framework: accountability cannot be outsourced to a machine. As the court stated, "the ultimate responsibility of the misquotations ultimately fell on her shoulders as she signed the same.3
In future submissions of documents before the court, counsel is reminded to fact-check any Al-generated research and to strictly observe proper citations of legal authorities concomitant to her duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability,” the resolution read. 4
By issuing this warning, the court provided a practical example of why the framework must be based on principles of reliability, transparency, and, most importantly, human oversight.
These incidents highlight a critical question: Can a lawyer truly rely on AI-generated legal advice? And if so, to what extent?
The rise of AI has forced the legal profession to confront new and complex questions:
• Who is liable when AI-generated legal advice is wrong?
• How do we safeguard attorney-client confidentiality in cloud-based AI environments?
• At what point does AI cross the line into the unauthorized practice of law?
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has since formed a task force to draft ethical guidelines on AI use among lawyers. Their goal? To ensure that legal practitioners understand AI’s limits and protect core principles like confidentiality, accountability, and client welfare.5
Here’s where things get interesting.
While AI may be risky in courtrooms and law offices, it may also be the very tool needed to help millions of Filipinos who have never had access to legal help in the first place.
In far-flung provinces where lawyers are scarce, AI-powered mobile apps are helping citizens understand their rights, draft documents, and even connect with remote legal aid centers. Some apps already support regional languages and offer templates for everything from barangay complaints to annulment petitions.
So, where does this leave us?
AI is here to stay. That’s not a question anymore. But we have to remember that embracing innovation must go hand in hand with upholding legal ethics, professional responsibility, and judicial integrity.
As the profession stands at this technological crossroads, the question is no longer if AI should be used, but how it can be used responsibly.
