Legal experts lauded the Supreme Court’s (SC) technological advancement efforts to expedite case resolutions but also raised related concerns that must be addressed.
During the 2025 budget hearing, the High Tribunal, through administrator Raul Villanueva, shared that courts already implement artificial intelligence (AI) in court-related works. AI-assisted functions include legal research, case monitoring, and transcription and translation of stenographic notes.
Tarlac State University-School of Law (TSU-SOL) Dean Jose Dela Rama Jr. said using technology is a “good move” as it is inevitable in day-to-day living. According to him, courts have also begun using e-filing, making things faster and easier and discards the need to manually search for folders that have long been decided.
“Whether we agree or not, human brains cannot absorb all the information we need. We tend to forget important matters, and we always refer to Google and AI to refresh our memories,” Dela Rama said.
He added that while courts can be more effective and efficient in resolving some issues, sufficient guidelines and further experimentation must be implemented to secure AI’s efficient use.
Dela Rama also cautioned that inconsistencies might arise because although “computers rely on whatever we feed… AI may also get confused due to two sides of decisions in solving the same facts and issues.” Ultimately, the law school dean noted that a human brain must finally decide a case.
Meanwhile, Tomas Claudio Colleges-College of Law Dean Salvador Moya II said that while these efforts are appropriate for this era, some dangers must be addressed.
“We are already in modern technology… but sometimes it is dangerous, especially if the lawyers belong to the ‘bug law firms,’” Moya said.
For his part, SC Associate Justice Mario Lopez explained earlier this week they “have not [been] totally dependent on AI [as] there are some decisions which should not be left to the control of the AI because the courts are not only courts of but also courts of equity.”
Lopez, also chairperson of this year’s Bar examinations, said he reviewed “some questions that were referred to the AI and are not exactly correct, that means the human mind is still better.”
