The Philippines

Prosecutors

As at September 2026, there are no reported cases of prosecutors in the Philippines making use of AI. There is, however, a growing emphasis on technological development in the Philippine prosecution services, with the Department of Justice announcing that it planned to secure upgraded technology to assist prosecutors with handling emerging cybercrime trends.

Moreover, the Supreme Court of the Philippines’ Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022–2027 (‘SPJI’), launched in October 2022, outlines the roadmap for the reform and digitalisation of various aspects of the Supreme Court of the Philippines (‘Supreme Court’), led by the constitutional mandate of the judiciary to deliver ‘speedy and equal justice for all’. It is anchored in four guiding principles – timely and fair justice, transparent and accountable justice, equal and inclusive justice, and technologically adaptive management – to inform the SPJI’s attainment of the outcomes of Efficiency, Innovation, and Access.

Courts

Courts in the Philippines face backlogs of over 700,000 pending cases nationwide, many of them stuck in procedural stages. Against this background, AI tools have been developed and tested in the Philippines to improve court efficiency.

Case management

Following the Strategic Plan, the Supreme Court aimed to modernise court processes and outcomes. The Supreme Court reported that eCourt PH, a unified and intelligent case management system, was formally launched on 30 October 2025. The system digitalises aspects of the court process by enabling digital filing and service, a digital appeals process, and digital criminal and special proceedings. This allows part of the engagement between the Supreme Court and parties to occur online, especially in the preparatory stages of legal proceedings, and indicates the Supreme Court’s shift towards harnessing the power of digital capabilities to improve its services.

This modernisation effort has also extended to the use of AI to promote the Access outcome of the Strategic Plan by assisting parties to navigate proceedings through the Supreme Court’s Judiciary Information and General Support System (JIGSS) released in June 2024. JIGSS is a chatbot on Messenger that instantly replies to queries regarding legal assistance, trial court information, and online payment of court fees. As at September 2026, there is no public information indicating whether JIGSS uses AI.

The Supreme Court has engaged in the use of AI in accordance with the SPJI to enhance, not replace, court functions further as follows:

Courts in the Philippines are increasingly making use of AI transcription software, such as Scriptix. It has been suggested that transcription tasks that previously took junior court staff three days to summarise, could be completed in under a minute by the transcription systems.  On 26 May 2025, it was reported that participating courts had an average 50% reduction in transcription time, although some courts experienced up to an 80% reduction. The accuracy of the platform also improved from 70% to 90-95%, particularly with continued use. On 30 September 2025, Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez of the Supreme Court of the Philippines noted that the AI-powered transcription tool, Scriptix, ‘cut transcription time from two weeks to just three to four days, with an accuracy rate of 80–90%, depending on audio quality and content complexity’. The use of Scriptix has now been made mandatory since 27 March 2026 in all first- and second-level courts nationwide and ‘remains the sole AI-powered tool that the [Supreme Court] is utilizing pursuant to its Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Philippine Judiciary’.

Legal research, analysis and drafting support

Courts in the Philippines are making use of AI-assisted platforms designed to help court personnel and legal researchers with preliminary legal research. Such systems are being trialled in several Supreme Court offices and judicial support units, though they are not yet fully deployed as standard systems across all courts. There is limited information on whether the platforms are being developed by third-party commercial entities or inside the Court itself. However, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen emphasised in November 2024 that ‘while the Court is aware of advanced AI tools such as GPT, it has yet to adopt these technologies’. In September 2026, Senior Associate Justice Leonen announced that the ‘Supreme Court’s AI committee [was] reviewing possible applications and considering pilot programs’, which may indicate consideration of at least some AI platforms developed by commercial providers.

Defence

Legal research, analysis and drafting support

As at September 2026, there are no reports of a specific AI tool for defence counsel in criminal proceedings in the Philippines. However, it is suggested that AI is being used by legal practitioners in the Philippines in legal research, automation of repetitive tasks, and workflow management.

Defence counsel may use legal AI tools for research assistance, such as Lex Pilipinas, an AI-powered legal research assistant trained on Philippine law, statutes, and jurisprudence to assist lawyers in finding relevant legal authorities and summaries. Similar tools in use in the Philippines include Anycase.ai and Digest AI, helping lawyers quickly search, summarise and cite Philippine cases and statutes. Other tools include ClickUp and Lexagle.

Philippine lawyers also use generic AI tools, such as ChatGPT and similar services, to assist with drafting contracts or pleadings, generating initial versions of legal text, improving grammar and structure, and brainstorming legal arguments or themes.

Victims

Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000) in the Philippines, the complaint or information of criminal action shall be ‘in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offence involved’ (Rule 110 Section 2) and all criminal actions ‘commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor’ (Rule 110 Section 5). This means that complainants have indirect legal standing as participants in criminal proceedings.

In June 2020, the ‘Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services’ (IDEALS) program for human rights launched Tisya Hutsiaya, which is a live chat on Facebook providing free legal services and education on human rights. It was reported that over 18,200 clients received help from the chat during its first year, with most accessing the chat for domestic violence, labour issues, and human rights violations.

However, as at September 2026, there are no reported cases of complainants in the Philippines making use of AI in criminal proceedings.

TRAINING

AI-related training in the Philippines is more developed for law enforcement than for the legal profession, with specialised courses for police units on AI-facilitated crimes running alongside a growing but still voluntary range of AI training opportunities for lawyers and judges.

For law enforcement, specialised training has been offered by the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research institute to Philippine National Police units (such as the Women and Children Protection Center) on AI and digital forensics. These training units have focused on teaching investigators how to identify AI-generated child sexual abuse and exploitation material, and methods to distinguish real from AI-fabricated content.

A 2025 survey of PNP personnel found that only 20% of respondents reported having received any form of AI training, and 60% of those who received training felt that the training was inadequate, for reasons including outdated information and lack of practical information. 90% of respondents found that there was a need for more formal training programmes, 75% of respondents desired leadership support, 80% of respondents agreed on the need for improved internal communication, and 70% of respondents saw a need for regular awareness campaigns.

Training for lawyers is developing, but not yet institutionalised and mandatory. The Supreme Court Governance Framework (see ‘Regulation’ section below) provides that legal education institutions and academia are ‘encouraged’ to research and offer courses on AI and the law including but not limited to ethics, applications, and regulations. Furthermore, under the Efficiency outcome, the SPJI sets its outlook on enhancing legal education through bar reforms by ‘prioriti[sing] skills training and ethical responsibility in legal education’, which could feasibly include AI training and increasingly so with its proliferation in the legal profession.

Legal practitioner groups such as the Philippine Bar Association and Integrated Bar of the Philippines have hosted events focused on the relationship between AI and law. For example, both organisations held a legal forum entitled ‘AI and the Law’ on 26 July 2024 discussing AI essentials for lawyers and any implications in copyright. Later, on 23 April 2026, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines partnered with Ligala (powered by Munus) to hold a webinar for legal practitioners entitled ‘AI For Lawyers: How AI Enhances (Not Replaces) Legal Work’.

For the courts, the Supreme Court Governance Framework provides that the Judiciary ‘shall promote capacity-building programs against algorithmic bias, automation bias, and other cognitive fallacies and negative effects associated with human-computer interactions.’ The Philippine Judicial Academy is also required to provide avenues for ‘members of the Judiciary, and court officials and employees’ to undertake training and other opportunities concerning the area of AI and the law. In September 2026, it was reported that the Philippine Judicial Academy was developing training for judges on using AI critically.

Legal professionals (including judges) can also access online courses such as UNESCO’s AI and the Rule of Law MOOC, which offers modules on AI’s impact on justice systems, ethical issues, human rights considerations, and responsible implementation.

REGULATION

In the absence of dedicated AI legislation, AI use in the Philippines is currently governed through existing criminal procedure rules, data protection and cybersecurity laws, with several AI-specific bills awaiting passage as of September 2026.

In February 2026, the Supreme Court of the Philippines also adopted a governance framework on the use of AI in the judiciary.

AI Regulations

National AI Strategy (2025)

The Philippines’ National AI Strategy was approved by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in May 2025. The Strategy was developed under the leadership of the Department of Science and Technology and the Office of the President.

The Strategy provides a comprehensive whole-of-government framework and serves as the primary policy instrument for coordinating AI across government until 2028. It is built around five core pillars: (1) infrastructure development; (2) workforce capacity building; (3) innovation ecosystem; (4) ethical policy and data governance frameworks; and (5) strategic deployment in priority sectors.

The Strategy envisions a unified national approach where AI drives inclusive innovation, strengthens governance, uplifts communities, and enhances the country’s global competitiveness. It also emphasises that AI development must remain human-centric and aligned with broader national priorities, including poverty reduction and disaster resilience. According to the Strategy, AI benefits are expected to be decentralised, going beyond major cities and large corporations, to reach provinces, small businesses, and underserved communities. The Strategy encourages international partnerships.

The Strategy is not legislation and has no binding regulatory force. However, it is being implemented through executive agencies, with the Department of Trade and Industry and its Competitiveness and Innovation Group being the responsible actors. The National AI Strategy Roadmap 2.0 (NAISR 2.0) was launched by the two actors in July 2024 following multi-stakeholder consultation. Relevantly, strategic imperatives for NAISR 2.0 include building an AI ecosystem ‘conscience’, improving data access and value extraction, and upskilling and reskilling the workforce. However, the focus of NAISR 2.0 remains ensuring the Philippines’ growth as a country is consistent with technological advancements in AI.

Guidelines for practitioners

Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (2023)

The Supreme Court resolved on 11 April 2023 to issue the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. Relevantly, Canon II, Section 8 provides that a lawyer shall not ‘misquote, misrepresent, or mislead the court as to the existence or the contents of any document, argument, evidence, law, or other legal authority, or pass off as one’s own the ideas or words of another, or assert as a fact that which has not been proven.’ Legal practitioners in the Philippines also shall not make false representations or statements (Canon II, Section 11); must immediately inform a court of any dishonest, deceitful or misleading conduct (Canon II, Section 12); and must provide competent, efficient, and conscientious legal service (Canon IV, Section 1).

Governance Framework on the Use of AI in the Judiciary (2026)

In February 2026, the Supreme Court of the Philippines adopted a Governance Framework on the Use of AI in the Judiciary (AM No. 25-11-28-SC). This Framework targets judges, court personnel, court users (including lawyers), and companies developing or supplying AI systems to the Judiciary.

The Framework permits AI to assist judges and court personnel with certain tasks, such as transcription, translation, legal research, document summarisation and processing, citation compilation, proofreading, and lawful redaction. However, it stresses that AI must remain an assistive rather than substitutive tool. Its use in preparing adjudicatory court documents must be disclosed in plain language, including the tool and version used, its purpose and extent of use, the degree of human oversight, and confirmation that outputs were preserved.

The Framework outlines that ethical governance of AI must be human-centred, which entails awareness of AI’s risks including its effects ‘on cognitive ability, critical thinking, human interpersonal relationships and community-building’. It also requires: compliance with human rights; fairness and non-discrimination; transparency; accountability; human oversight and continuous monitoring; respect for privacy and data protection; be used in line with security, safety, and robustness; and promotion of sustainability and environmental impact.

A permanent Committee on Human-Centred Augmented Intelligence (‘AI Committee’) is also established by the Supreme Court Governance Framework as an advisory body to provide guidance on the use of AI in the judiciary and legal profession.

Through its Governance Framework the Supreme Court of the Philippines is the first ASEAN judiciary to formally endorse the UNESCO Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals (2025).

Criminal procedure rules

Revised Criminal Procedure Rules (2000)

The revised Criminal Procedure Rules in the Philippines were established by the Supreme Court under A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, in October 2000, and set the comprehensive procedural framework governing all criminal cases in all Philippine courts. The Rules cover the entire lifecycle of a criminal action, from the institution and prosecution of offences, preliminary investigation, arrest, bail, arraignment and plea, pre-trial, trial, judgment, new trial or reconsideration, and appeals, through to search and seizure and provisional remedies. The Rules took effect on 1 December 2000, replacing the prior 1985/1988 rules on criminal procedure. The following rules may apply to the use of AI in criminal proceedings:

• Rule 115 Section 1 guarantees rights of the accused in all criminal prosecutions including the right to have a speedy, impartial and public trial. To the extent that AI is used in criminal proceedings, it must not impact any of these rights (especially that of ensuring an impartial trial).
• Rule 120 Section 1 also provides that judgments ‘must be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge’, which places a limitation on the use of AI by judges.
• Rule 122 Section 1 entrenches a right to appeal from a judgment or final order insofar as the accused will not be placed in double jeopardy. This may require that the judgment be sufficiently intelligible and clear in relation to the judge’s reasoning process, such that use of AI (if any) does not affect the right to appeal.

Additionally, the Supreme Court established rules on electronic evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC), approved on 17 July 2001. The rules govern the admissibility, authentication, and evidentiary weight of electronic documents in Philippine judicial proceedings.

Rules on Cybercrime Warrants (2018)

The Supreme Court has also issued rules on cybercrime warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC). These rules include provisions on the issuance and implementation of warrants for search, seizure, and examination of computer data, including data in mobile phones. These rules are relevant in criminal investigations and the custody and destruction of data obtained by cybercrime warrant. They are expected to be complementary to the prosecution of cybercrime offences under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (see below).

Data protection legislation

Republic Act No. 10173 (known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012, or DPA) protects the privacy of individuals while ensuring the free flow of information. The Act regulates the collection, recording, organisation, storage, updating or modification, retrieval, consultation, use, consolidation, blocking, erasure, or destruction of personal data, and ensures alignment with international data protection standards. Under Chapter II, the DPA created the National Privacy Commission (‘NPC’) as the administering and implementing body. Today, the DPA is being applied to AI technologies as a source of enforceable guardrails governing personal data, sensitive personal information, profiling, notifications concerning automated decision-making, lawful bases for processing, proportionality, and accountability.

The UNESCO Philippines AI Readiness Assessment Report (2025) is a diagnostic tool aimed at assisting UNESCO member states (including the Philippines) uphold their commitment to the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence adopted in 2021. According to the report, the Philippines rates highly on the Global Data Barometer. The Barometer measures a country’s strengths and weaknesses in relation to data capabilities, governance, availability, and impact, and the Philippines scored a 45 in the governance pillar, owing to the DPA’s mandate for ‘robust security measures for personal data processing’, collection, and storage.

The NPC has issued several circular and advisory opinions, supplementing the Data Privacy Act framework. Among those instruments, the NPC Circular No. 2022-04 provides the procedural compliance mechanism for automated decision-making or profiling. The NPC Advisory No. 2024-02 provides guidelines on personal data processing, particularly where processing of sensitive personal information or privileged information is necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests in court proceedings, the establishment, exercise, or defence of legal claims, or when data is provided to government or public authority. The NPC Advisory Opinion No. 2024-005 addresses whether a company may rely on legitimate interest as the lawful criterion for personal-information processing in an AI-related activity.

Cybersecurity laws

Republic Act No. 10175, known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act, was enacted in 2012. It is the principal general cybercrime statute in the Philippines. The Act defines and criminalises offences committed through computer systems, including illegal access, data and system interference, online fraud, identity theft, cybersex, child pornography and cyber libel. It also establishes investigative and enforcement powers for the police, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Justice, and provides penalties and mechanisms for international cooperation.

Section 18 states that any evidence procured without a valid warrant or beyond its authority will be inadmissible in court or tribunal proceedings, which reinforces the relevance of the Supreme Court of the Philippines’s rules on cybercrime warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) in the context of offences committed with the use of AI. The Act creates the inter-agency Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Centre (CICC) (see Sections 24, 26, and Chapter VII generally), and establishes their corresponding powers to formulate a national cybersecurity plan, coordinate the preparation of appropriate and effective measures against cybercrime activities, recommend the enactment of appropriate laws and policies, and perform matters including capacity-building. This may present an opportunity for the CICC to develop criminal justice mechanisms or procedures relating to cybercrime offences and AI.

Human rights

Human rights in the Philippines are governed by the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 11 declares that ‘the State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights’. Under Article III, the rights most likely to be involved in the use of AI in criminal proceedings are the right to due process and equal protection by the law (Sections 1 and 14), the right against unreasonable searches or seizures and warrants without probable cause determined by a judge (Section 2), the right to privacy and communication (Section 3), and the right to a speedy disposition of cases (Section 16)

Article XIII, Section 1 states that the ‘Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity’. Article XIII, Section 17 creates the Commission on Human Rights (‘CHR’) as an independent constitutional body empowered to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights, provide legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines and Filipinos abroad, exercise visitorial powers over detention facilities, and recommend measures to Congress.

Courts and legal practitioners should also beware of an improper use of AI or poorly risk-managed implementation of AI infringing on the Republic Act No. 8293 enacted in 1997 (known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines) or even Article III (Sections 1 and 14) of the 1987 Constitution which respectively provide for due process in proceedings affecting a person’s life, liberty, and property, and due process prior to being held in custody for a criminal offence (see above).

As at September 2026, the Philippines is party to several international human rights treaties that impact the use of AI in criminal proceedings. The key treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

Outlook

Several legislative initiatives, still under review as at September 2026, with relevance to the future use of AI in criminal proceedings in the jurisdiction have been introduced in the Philippines:

1. In August 2023, a Senate Bill was filed, proposing the creation of the Philippine Council on Artificial Intelligence (‘PCAI’). The PCAI would be established under the Department of Science and Technology as an advisory and policy-making body, tasked with developing a governance framework, a code of ethics for AI developers, and rules to prevent abusive and harmful AI applications, including algorithms that may impact business models. An AI Board would serve as the active regulatory and enforcement arm, with power to investigate potential violations and impose fines. The Bill would also establish an ‘AI Bill of Rights’ guaranteeing individuals protection from harmful AI, privacy violations, and algorithmic discrimination, and would specifically prohibit AI systems from discriminating ‘based on sex, gender identity, socioeconomic status, and other marginalized identities.’
2. Separately, House Bill (No. 7396, filed in March 2023), proposes the establishment of the Artificial Intelligence Development Authority (‘AIDA’) under the Office of the President to oversee AI development and deployment. AIDA would develop a national AI strategy, establish ethical AI standards, ensure compliance with data protection laws, and create licensing and certification requirements for AI systems. The bill also addresses AI in critical infrastructure, national security, and public services.
3. Senate Bill No. 25 (filed in July 2025) introduces the AI Regulation Act. The proposed Act seeks to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for the responsible development, application, and use of AI in the Philippines. It aims to ‘strike a careful balance between encouraging technological innovation and ensuring that AI systems remain safe, ethical, transparent, and under meaningful human oversight’. The Bill’s key provision is the creation of a National AI Commission, which would serve as a policy-making and quasi-judicial body acting as the national regulator for AI use and development. The Bill also adopts a risk-based approach to AI systems, addressing concerns about ‘algorithmic bias, discrimination, and AI hallucinations, where systems generate false or misleading outputs with confidence’.
4. Senate Bill No. 758 (filed in August 2025), regulates the creation and use of deepfakes, protects individual identity and likeness, establishes disclosure requirements, and provides remedies for victims. The Bill mandates that accounts must clearly disclose when content is AI-generated, with fines for non-compliance. The Bill requires all digital platforms to remove harmful deepfake material within 24 hours upon verified complaint and gives victims the right to receive compensation for emotional and reputational damage. Platforms must maintain anonymised public logs of all takedown actions and reporting data for transparency.
5. House Bill No. 7627 (filed in February 2026) proposes a comprehensive National Artificial Intelligence Code to govern AI development, deployment, and use in the Philippines, including alignment with existing privacy and data protection laws. The Bill would create the Bureau of Artificial Intelligence Systems as ‘the national regulatory, technical, investigatory, and administrative body on matters relating to the governance of Artificial Systems in the Philippines’. The Bill prohibits AI deployment for policing, crime prediction, crowd monitoring, or automated enforcement of public order laws without prior approval. It requires disclosure when individuals interact with AI systems and mandates user consent for processing personal data through AI. Additional provisions address a general liability framework (Section 29) imposing civil, administrative, or criminal liability for violations depending on their nature and gravity, and adaptive governance through periodic review and refinement of provisions to account for emerging technologies.
6. Senate Bill No. 1714 (filed in January 2026) expands the scope of deepfake regulation beyond personal harm to recognise how gendered abuse can operate within public and political spaces. The Bill proposes higher maximum fines for non-consensual deepfakes than Senate Bill 758 (discussed above), requiring platforms to maintain anonymised public logs of takedown actions and reporting data, and provides clearer specifications for mandatory disclosures regarding AI-generated content.

CASES

In August 2025, a Resolution by the Sandiganbayan Court (Justices Gomez-Esoesta, Jacinto, and Villanueva) addressed an attorney’s failure to review documents signed by her, which were drafted by a previous counsel using AI tools to research case law. This resulted in incorrect authority citations, which were either non-existent or did not contain the quotations cited. The attorney was ‘reminded to fact-check any AI-generated research and to strictly observe proper citations of legal authorities’ in discharge of her duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. She did not receive any other consequences, as it was found that no prejudice was occasioned because the incorrect quotes resulting from the AI hallucinations were immediately discovered. The attorney had also acknowledged the severity of her actions, apologised profusely, accepted full responsibility, and committed to upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession in the future.