Supreme Court (SC) senior associate justice Marvic Leonen said government institutions should treat technology as a means of improving public services rather than an end in itself, as he outlined the judiciary’s approach to digital transformation and artificial intelligence (AI).
Speaking at the Microsoft Frontier Transformation Day in Makati City on Sept. 22, Leonen said the judiciary’s digital initiatives are anchored on institutional objectives under the SC’s Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), rather than on specific technologies or platforms.
“Technology is an instrument of institutional reform; it is not the reform itself,” Leonen said.
Leonen said institutions considering new technologies should first identify the problems they are trying to solve instead of starting with a particular product.
He urged institutions to “always begin with the problem, not the product,” noting that some organizational problems may be better addressed through improved processes, training, better data, or clearer rules rather than new technology.
Digital transformation also requires institutions to reconsider established practices, he said. This includes process re-engineering, organizational changes, capability building, and clearer accountability mechanisms.
The judiciary is currently implementing eCourt PH 2.0, which is intended to provide an integrated digital environment for court proceedings.
The system covers electronic filing and service of pleadings, digital court management, electronic appeals, and the expansion of digital tools to other judicial processes.
Leonen cited the use of videoconferencing technology in Tawi-Tawi as an example of how digital tools can address geographical barriers to court access.
The judiciary transported videoconferencing equipment by boat to allow litigants and witnesses in remote areas to participate in proceedings without having to undertake costly and time-consuming travel.
“That, to us, is access to justice,” Leonen said.
Leonen also discussed the SC’s “Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary”, which establishes rules and safeguards governing the use of AI in the court system.
The framework is built around ethical governance and management governance.
“Together, these two components ensure that AI adoption is both ethically grounded and institutionally managed,” Leonen said.
Ethical governance covers the principles, values, and safeguards governing AI use, while management governance deals with the policies, organizational structures, and operational processes needed to implement those principles.
The court uses the term “human-centered augmented intelligence” to emphasize that AI should support human capabilities rather than replace human judgment and accountability in the administration of justice.
Generative AI is currently not allowed in court proceedings and administration. Scriptix, a voice-to-text transcription system used by court stenographers nationwide, is the only AI tool approved by the SC.
The AI Governance Framework also requires users to disclose the use of AI, including for tasks such as proofreading, and preserve AI-generated outputs for verification and accountability.
The restrictions come as courts, lawyers, and other legal institutions worldwide grapple with the use of generative AI, including concerns over inaccurate or fabricated information generated by AI systems.
Leonen said digital and AI literacy should extend to judges, court personnel, lawyers, law students, and other stakeholders.
The SC is conducting an AI Caravan titled “The Critical Use of AI, Challenges for the Philippine Legal Profession and the Judiciary,” while the Philippine Judicial Academy is developing a course for judges on the critical use of AI.
Leonen said training is necessary so users understand both the capabilities and limitations of emerging technologies.
He also said institutions should redesign inefficient processes before digitizing them, establish governance and accountability mechanisms from the beginning, invest in personnel, protect institutional sovereignty, promote inclusion, and maintain human accountability.
Technology adoption itself should not be the measure of successful digital transformation, he said. Instead, institutions should assess whether technology produces better outcomes for the public.
“When we speak of digital transformation, we should not imagine that we are moving away from human institutions. We should be asking how technology can help human institutions become better, more humane at what they are supposed to do. For the Judiciary, our purpose remains: enhanced access to justice. For the whole of government, it is delivering public service transparently and with accountability,” the magistrate concluded.
