Philippine Supreme Court Adopts AI Judiciary Framework
The Philippine Supreme Court En Banc adopted a framework governing human-centered AI in the Judiciary. It requires specified disclosure when judiciary personnel use AI for court-issued adjudicatory documents and imposes scoped transparency requirements on vendors whose tools are procured for the Judiciary. It is not a general Philippine AI Act.
Status: The Court adopted the framework in A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC on 18 February 2026.
Who it covers: Judiciary members, court officials and employees, court users, and vendors or contractors engaged in AI tools used by or on behalf of the Judiciary.
What changes: AI use in specified court-issued adjudicatory documents must be disclosed in plain language. Vendors of tools procured or intended for procurement by the Judiciary must disclose the tool’s logic, limitations and safeguards.
- Authority
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc.
- Instrument
- A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Philippine Judiciary.
- Status
- Adopted judiciary governance framework.
- Primary source
- Supreme Court E-Library resolution and framework.
What did the Court adopt?
The framework governs use of what it calls human-centered augmented intelligence in the Philippine Judiciary. It applies to members of the Judiciary, court officials and employees, court users, and vendors, third-party contractors or organizations involved in the design, development or use of AI tools by or on behalf of the Judiciary.
The framework does not create a generally applicable national AI statute. Its reach is institutional. It should not be read as a new rule for every Philippine lawyer or every private AI developer outside the stated Judiciary context.
What must be disclosed?
When a member of the Judiciary or court official or employee uses an AI tool or its output in a Judiciary process, the framework says that use must be clearly disclosed and explained in plain and understandable language. The listed minimum information includes the tool and version, its purpose, the degree of use, the degree of human control and oversight, preservation of output on inquiry or request, applicable framework principles, and the user’s ultimate responsibility for the work or output.
The framework specifically makes disclosure mandatory when Judiciary members and court officials or employees use AI tools in preparing court-issued documents for adjudicatory functions. Its examples include transcription, translation, authority or citation compilation, legal research, document summarization, OCR, proofreading, and redaction or data sanitization.
The framework says disclosure will accord with Court guidelines to be issued. This update does not infer a filing form, a timing requirement, a case consequence, or a sanction that is not identified in the published framework.
| Question | What the framework supports |
|---|---|
| Is this a national Philippine AI Act? | No. It is an adopted governance framework for the Philippine Judiciary. |
| Does it make all lawyer AI use subject to a universal disclosure rule? | No. The stated mandatory disclosure applies to the specified Judiciary actors and court-issued adjudicatory documents. |
| What do procurement vendors disclose? | For AI tools procured or intended for procurement by the Judiciary, the framework requires disclosure of logic, limitations and safeguards, with fuller information for third-party tools. |
| Does the source set a specific penalty or filing date? | No such penalty, deadline or filing format is stated in the cited framework provisions. |
What does it mean for AI vendors serving the Judiciary?
The framework directs developers of AI tools procured or intended for procurement by the Judiciary to disclose the tool’s logic, limitations and safeguards used to support transparency and accountability. Where the Judiciary procures a third-party tool, the text requires full disclosure of the tool’s nature, processes, data models and other significant components. A trade-secret or confidentiality claim must be justified if it would prevent or limit disclosure of the nature, processes, data use and processing, or results of the tool.
This is not a blanket duty on all AI vendors in the Philippines. It is tied to AI tools procured or intended for procurement by the Judiciary, and the published framework should control any specific procurement analysis.
Human control remains central
The framework states that human control must be paramount. It treats AI as an aid that should support or augment rather than supplant or override human judgment. Its framework also says a Judiciary member, court official or employee, or court user shall not use an AI tool where evidence shows an equivalent or greater harm, or probability of harm, that violates rights or the rule of law.
Some management-governance portions are recommendatory and other details await Court guidelines. Those provisions should not be converted into immediate, detailed external compliance requirements before the Court issues the relevant materials.
What should legal and technology teams do?
Judiciary teams can map which workflows produce court-issued adjudicatory documents, identify AI-assisted steps in those workflows, and preserve the factual information needed for the required disclosure. Vendors pursuing Judiciary work can prepare a source-backed transparency packet describing tool logic, limitations, safeguards, nature, processes and relevant data-model information.
These are readiness measures, not a conclusion that a particular private service or lawyer is covered. The framework’s actor limits, document limits and future Court guidelines remain material.
The Philippine Supreme Court has adopted a scoped AI Judiciary Framework. Its current requirements concern specified Judiciary use and AI tools procured for the Judiciary, especially disclosure and transparency. Keep the boundary clear: this is not a general AI law or a universal rule for Philippine lawyers and private AI vendors.
A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, Supreme Court of the Philippines. Verify the adoption resolution, the scope provision, the transparency section, the mandatory court-issued-document disclosure provision, and the procurement-vendor disclosure provision.
FAQ
Is the Philippine Supreme Court framework a national AI Act?
No. It is an adopted governance framework for human-centered AI use in the Philippine Judiciary. It is not a national AI statute of general application.
When is AI disclosure mandatory under the framework?
The framework makes disclosure mandatory when Judiciary members and court officials or employees use AI tools in preparing court-issued documents for adjudicatory functions. The disclosure must be clear and in plain language, subject to Court guidelines to be issued.
What does an AI vendor disclose to the Judiciary?
For tools procured or intended for procurement by the Judiciary, developers disclose the tool’s logic, limitations and safeguards. For third-party tools, the framework requires full disclosure to the Judiciary of the tool’s nature, processes, data models and other significant components.
Does the framework set a penalty or an AI filing deadline?
No specific penalty, filing date or filing format is stated in the cited framework provisions. The Court will issue relevant disclosure guidelines.