PhilippinesA.M. No. 25-11-28-SC makes AI-use disclosure mandatory for judges and court staff preparing court-issued adjudicatory documents: tool and version, purpose, extent of use, degree of human oversight, preservation of the output, and a responsibility statement. Court users' submissions are within scope but there is no separate lawyer certification rule yet.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Asia-Pacific
Philippines
Extensivemixedupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
The Philippines went from nothing to one of Asia's most comprehensive judicial AI instruments in February 2026, when the Supreme Court En Banc adopted A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, its Governance Framework on Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence. It binds judges, court staff, court users including the Bar, and AI vendors, and is reinforced by AI provisions in the 2025 conduct codes.
As of 2026-09-04, the Philippines has 11 binding rules, official guidance in 1 category, 2 proposals and 1 position set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover disclosure of AI use in filings, duty to verify AI output, judges' use of AI, AI barred from deciding cases, self-represented litigants, client data in AI tools, technological competence, supervision of AI work, courts' own AI deployment, data protection and legal AI, vendor due diligence. In 4 categories we found nothing; in 1 the position is not yet determined.
How to read this page
- Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
- Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
- Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
- Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
- Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
- Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.
The rules, category by category
Canon VI, Section 5 of the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability permits a judge to use AI tools only for research of relevant legal authorities and requires the sources always to be verified before citation. Canon III, Section 6 of the court-personnel code mirrors this.
- A.M. No. 25-04-04-SC: The 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability 2025-11-11
- A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC: The 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel 2025-10-28
- A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC: Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary 2026-02-18
- A.M. No. 25-04-04-SC, 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability
- A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC, 2025 Code of Conduct for Court Officials and Personnel
Canon VI, Section 6 of the CJCA governs the ethical use of technology and AI; the Framework provides that AI is an aid that must never substitute the judge's own discernment and discretion, especially in writing decisions and resolutions.
The strongest formulation in the region: under the Framework, AI tools or their output must under no circumstance serve as the sole, primary or determinative basis of any adjudicatory outcome; CJCA Canon VI, Section 3 requires a judge personally to write all decisions and resolutions.
By scope rather than by dedicated rule. Court users under the Framework expressly include members of the public, whether appearing for themselves or others, for all submissions and evidence presentation, and users are personally responsible for the output.
Framework Part II.6: no AI tool shall be used to process confidential, privileged, sensitive or secret information without express authority and under the strict supervision of the Court. Reinforced by CPRA confidentiality duties and NPC Advisory No. 2024-04.
- A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC: Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary 2026-02-18
- NPC Advisory No. 2024-04: Application of the Data Privacy Act to AI Systems Processing Personal Data 2024-12-19
- A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)
- NPC Advisory No. 2024-04 (official PDF)
Generic only. The 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability contains no reference to AI; competence rests on Canon IV, Sections 1 and 8. The Framework tasks the AI Committee with studying AI literacy and competency standards for lawyers and law students.
The Framework provides that a lawyer shall not evade responsibility by claiming that a violation or breach was the fault of, or caused by, an AI tool. CPRA Canon II, Sections 34 to 35 on supervising paralegals and non-delegable legal tasks apply by analogy.
No AI tool may be used unless authorised by the Supreme Court En Banc, with a phased pilot-then-rollout process. Scriptix voice-to-text was piloted from July 2023 to September 2024 in the Sandiganbayan and 41 trial courts, cutting transcription time by 50 to 80 per cent, with full rollout procured in 2025; eCourt PH 2.0 continues.
- A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC: Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary 2026-02-18
- A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC: The 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel 2025-10-28
- SC — Chief Justice Gesmundo highlights AI-powered transcription success
- SC — SC adopts framework for the judiciary's use of AI (19 Mar 2026)
NPC Advisory No. 2024-04 (19 December 2024) applies Republic Act 10173, its IRR and NPC issuances to AI systems processing personal data across development, training, testing and deployment. NPC Advisory No. 2026-01 covers scraping of publicly available personal data.
Unusually strong. Vendors and third-party contractors are expressly within the Framework's scope; developers must disclose a tool's logic, limitations and safeguards, trade-secret claims limiting disclosure must be justified, and the AI Committee supervises procurement and may require ethical impact assessments, adversarial red-teaming and bug-bounty testing.
The Framework directs PHILJA to run AI certificate training for the Bench and encourages the IBP to use continuing legal education for AI training; the AI Committee is to study AI competency standards. MCLE under Bar Matter No. 850 has no AI-specific unit requirement.
No IBP-issued AI guidance exists. The Framework directs the IBP to monitor the profession's engagement with AI tools and report regularly to the Supreme Court, and gives the new AI Committee a mandate to direct ethical AI use in the practice of the legal profession.
No enacted AI statute. Senate Bill No. 25 of the 20th Congress (Cayetano) proposes risk-based AI regulation modelled on the EU AI Act; House Bill No. 3462 (Pleyto) would create a Philippine Artificial Intelligence Commission. Under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution, regulation of the Bench and Bar is the Supreme Court's alone.
- Senate Bill No. 25 (20th Congress): An Act Regulating the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems 2025-07-02
- House Bill No. 3462 (20th Congress): creating the Philippine Artificial Intelligence Commission 2025-10-02
- Senate Bill No. 25, 20th Congress (official PDF)
- House Bill No. 3462, 20th Congress (official PDF)
Thin and unpublished. In a Sandiganbayan Seventh Division minute resolution promulgated 7 August 2025 (People v Cunanan), counsel was reminded to fact-check AI-generated research and observe proper citations under the CPRA after non-existent authorities and wrong docket numbers appeared in AI-drafted motions. Warning only; no official URL, as minute resolutions are unpublished.
No Philippine rule requires client notice of, or consent to, a lawyer's use of AI. CPRA Canon IV, Section 6 on the duty to update the client is generic and predates the issue.
No rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work; the CPRA's fee provisions are silent on technology.
CPRA Canon II, Section 35 bars delegating legal advice or opinions to a non-lawyer including a paralegal, but is drafted for persons; no Supreme Court ruling or rule extends it to AI systems.
No AI rules from the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center Inc., the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution, or the wider ADR framework; the PDRCI Arbitration Rules (2015) predate the issue.
No AI or deepfake-specific evidentiary rule; the 2001 Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) still govern. The Framework only flags judicial training on litigants' use of AI tools or outputs as evidence.
Official documents recorded for Philippines (6)
- A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC: Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary
Supreme Court of the Philippines · revised 2026-02-18 · verified 2026-09-04
- A.M. No. 25-04-04-SC: The 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability
Supreme Court of the Philippines · revised 2025-11-11 · verified 2026-09-04
- A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC: The 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel
Supreme Court of the Philippines · revised 2025-10-28 · verified 2026-09-04
- House Bill No. 3462 (20th Congress): creating the Philippine Artificial Intelligence Commission
House of Representatives · revised 2025-10-02 · verified 2026-09-04
- Senate Bill No. 25 (20th Congress): An Act Regulating the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems
Senate of the Philippines · revised 2025-07-02 · verified 2026-09-04
- NPC Advisory No. 2024-04: Application of the Data Privacy Act to AI Systems Processing Personal Data
NPC Philippines · revised 2024-12-19 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Philippines
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Philippines" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ph (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.
- A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC — Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary (18 Feb 2026)
- A.M. No. 25-04-04-SC — 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability
- A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC — 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel
- A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC — Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (contains no AI provision)
- NPC Advisory No. 2024-04 — guidelines on the Data Privacy Act and AI systems
- Supreme Court — SC adopts framework for the judiciary's use of AI