Philippines: the Supreme Court says a lawyer cannot blame the AI tool

The instrument

• 18 Feb 2026Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc adopting the framework. The document states no separate effective date.
• WhoMembers of the Judiciary, court officials and employees, court users, and vendors building AI tools for the Judiciary. Court users are defined to include members of the Philippine Bar and Shari’ah Bar.
• WhatFor court users, all dealings and submissions with the courts, “including the preparation and submission of court-bound documents, and presentation of evidence in any matter”.
• The BarThe Integrated Bar of the Philippines is to monitor the legal profession’s use of AI tools and report its findings to the Supreme Court regularly.

The three lines that reach lawyers

A user of an AI tool, including a court user, is

“personally responsible for the output the tool produces and its consequences.”

Every output must be reviewed and approved by human beings, and the use of AI

“shall neither excuse the responsibility of the user for the consequences of such use, nor become a ground to mitigate or justify any liability or penalties imposable under law or codes of ethical conduct.”

And, in terms:

“A member of the Judiciary, court official or employee, or a member of the Bar shall not evade responsibility for any violation of law, regulation, or code of conduct including but not limited to the CJCA, CCACOP, or CPRA, or for any breach of legal or judicial ethics, with a claim that the violation or breach was the fault of or caused by an AI tool.”

What the framework does not say about lawyers

Its detailed disclosure requirement, which names the tool, the extent of its use and the human oversight applied, is written for judges and court staff when they use AI. Its list of prohibited AI systems, and the rule that no AI tool is used in the Judiciary without the Court’s authorisation, govern the courts’ own use. Neither is a filing rule for lawyers, and this page does not present them as one.

Why the Philippines matters

This is a national supreme court speaking to the whole Bar, not one judge’s standing order. Ireland’s HC 142 requires the verification. The Philippine framework takes the tool away as an excuse when the verification fails. Neither says how anyone would show, on the day it matters, that a person reviewed the output.

Sources

• Supreme Court of the Philippines, A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, Resolution of 18 February 2026 and framework, full text

Related

• AI rules for lawyers, country by country · Ireland · India
• Verification is becoming a duty. Evidence of verification is the missing layer.
• The sanctions record

Checked 13 September 2026. A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC read in full at source. Information, not legal advice.

Common questions

Does the Philippines have rules on lawyers using AI?

Yes. On 18 February 2026 the Supreme Court En Banc adopted A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, a framework on the use of human-centered augmented intelligence in the Judiciary. It applies to court users, a term the framework defines to include members of the Philippine Bar and Shari’ah Bar, in all their dealings and submissions with the courts, including court-bound documents and the presentation of evidence.

Can a Philippine lawyer blame an AI tool for an error?

No. The framework says a member of the Bar shall not evade responsibility for any violation of law, regulation or code of conduct, or for any breach of legal ethics, with a claim that the breach was the fault of or caused by an AI tool. Using AI is also not a ground to mitigate any liability or penalty.

Does the framework require lawyers to disclose AI use?

The framework’s detailed disclosure requirement applies when members of the Judiciary and court officials and employees use AI tools. It is not written as a disclosure duty for lawyers. Lawyers are reached by the accountability provisions: personal responsibility for the output, review and approval of every output by a person, and no reliance on the tool as an excuse.