Skip to content

Regulation Tracker / Other

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 (En Banc)

last revised 2026-02-18last verified 2026-09-041 versioncountry page →

Court ruleIn forceDisclosureVerification dutyProhibitionConfidentialitySupervisionRecord-keepingCompetence

map categories:Disclosure of AI use in filingsDuty to verify AI outputJudges' use of AIAI barred from deciding casesSelf-represented litigantsClient data in AI toolsSupervision of AI workCourts' own AI deploymentVendor due diligenceMandatory AI trainingBar guidance on generative AI

The Supreme Court of the Philippines' judiciary-wide AI framework, adopted 18 February 2026 and announced on 19 March 2026. It binds justices and judges, court personnel, court users including members of the Bar and the public, and AI vendors, and creates a permanent Committee on Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence.

Applies to
judges, court-staff, lawyers, litigants, providers, all
Effective
18 Feb 2026
Current version
Adopted by the En Banc · 18 Feb 2026
Last verified
04 Sept 2026
Official text
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138

What the document requires

  • AI tools or their output must under no circumstance serve as the sole, primary or determinative basis of any adjudicatory outcome.
  • Mandatory AI-use disclosure for court-issued adjudicatory documents: tool and version, purpose, extent of use, degree of human oversight, output preserved, and a responsibility statement.
  • No AI tool shall be used to process confidential, privileged, sensitive or secret information without express authority and under strict supervision of the Court.
  • No AI tool may be used in the judiciary unless authorised by the Supreme Court En Banc, following a phased pilot-then-rollout process.
  • A lawyer shall not evade responsibility by claiming that a breach was the fault of, or caused by, an AI tool.
  • Developers must disclose a tool's logic, limitations and safeguards; trade-secret claims limiting disclosure must be justified; the AI Committee may require ethical impact assessments, adversarial red-teaming and bug-bounty testing.
  • PHILJA is directed to run AI certificate training for the Bench; the IBP is directed to monitor the profession's AI use and report to the Court.

Version history

VersionDateWhat changedSource
Adopted by the En Banccurrent2026-02-18First version recorded.official

Sources

Cite this record

SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "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 (En Banc), Adopted by the En Banc, 2026-02-18), safelegalai.com/regulation/other/ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.

More official documents in Other