MANILA, Philippines — Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen of the Supreme Court outlined the Philippine judiciary’s digital transformation and its cautious approach to artificial intelligence (AI) during Microsoft Frontier Transformation Week in Makati City on Tuesday.
Speaking before business leaders, technology practitioners and public-sector representatives, Leonen said the judiciary’s modernization must be measured not merely by technological capability but by its impact on the administration of justice.
“Public service can't simply adopt technology because it is new, available, and impressive. Technology must always serve a purpose,” Leonen said.
He said this principle was particularly important for the judiciary because courts deal with matters involving liberty, property, family, livelihood, dignity, human rights and social justice.
“Any transformation of the justice system must therefore be measured, not simply by whether a system is faster or more sophisticated, but by whether it delivers justice more fairly, more efficiently, and more inclusive,” he said.
Leonen said the Supreme Court’s modernization efforts are guided by its Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027, which is built around four principles: timely and fair justice; transparent and accountable justice; equal and inclusive justice; and technologically adaptive management.
“Technology is an instrument of institutional reform. It is not the reform itself,” he said.
From these principles, the judiciary has identified efficiency, innovation and access as key outcomes. Leonen stressed that these concepts should remain connected to the people the courts are intended to serve.
“This is one of the first lessons I will offer to those leading the transformation in their own institutions: always begin with a problem, not the product,” he said.
Leonen also drew a distinction between digitalization and AI, saying the two are related but involve different institutional questions.
Digitalization changes how information and processes move, including the conversion of paper records into electronic files, digital filing and service of court documents, virtual hearings and electronic access to case information.
He said all civil cases in the Philippines are now filed digitally, while pleadings, motions and orders before the Supreme Court are processed through the Philippine Judiciary Platform.
The platform also allows the public to access pleadings and annexes in certain cases, including documents submitted to the court in recent proceedings.
AI, meanwhile, can classify, predict, recommend, summarize, translate or generate information. But Leonen said the judiciary is not yet prepared to rely on AI-generated output for consequential judicial decisions.
“Asking a machine to summarize that reading is another. Asking it to identify the legal issues raised by a litigant is of another order. Relying on an AI generated output in making a consequential decision presents the greatest risk and responsibility which we are not yet willing to consider,” he said.
The distinction is reflected in the Supreme Court’s approach to e-CourtPH 2.0, which Leonen described as one of its most ambitious modernization initiatives.
The current system builds on lessons from e-Court 1.0, which Leonen said lacked adequate change management, feedback mechanisms and cybersecurity measures and created inefficiencies such as redundant data entry.
The new system is intended to be more secure, integrated and user-centered, with digital processes extending from filing through adjudication and appeals.
The modernization program includes electronic filing and service of court documents, digital case management in trial courts, expansion of electronic filing to the Supreme Court and appellate courts, digital appeals, and eventually the expansion of digital tools to criminal cases and special proceedings.
Leonen said the judiciary has also placed emphasis on the people who will use and operate the systems.
“Most importantly, we learned that successful digital transformation is not just about technology. Our end users must always be part of the process. They must be heard. They must be properly informed, adequately supported, and trained,” he said.
He said the Supreme Court has committed to upskilling court personnel and has assured employees that digitalization would not result in redundancies.
The modernization effort also aims to address geographical barriers to justice. Leonen cited a demonstration in Tawi-Tawi in which the judiciary used video conferencing to conduct a hearing involving litigants on Simunul island.
Rather than requiring the litigants to spend money traveling to court, the judiciary brought a laptop, generator and internet equipment to the area.
“That to us is access to justice,” Leonen said. He added that the judiciary is looking at geographically marginalized areas where it could bring technology closer to witnesses and parties.
On AI, Leonen said the Supreme Court has adopted a governance framework for the use of “human-centered augmented intelligence,” establishing safeguards for its application within the judicial system.
The framework is based on principles including human privacy, explicability, auditability, equal access, institutional sovereignty and continuous learning.
Under the framework, AI may assist in research but not adjudication itself. AI-assisted outputs used in judicial proceedings must be explainable, while AI systems must undergo regular and independent bias audits.
Leonen also said the rules were intended to prevent the development of a two-tier justice system in which litigants with greater financial resources have access to AI tools unavailable to others.
For now, the judiciary permits only one AI-related application: Scriptix, a voice-to-text transcription tool integrated with the Microsoft ecosystem used by stenographers across the Philippine judiciary.
“No generative artificial intelligence may be used in our courts,” Leonen said. “Nothing filed us and nothing produced by us should be drafted with the use of artificial intelligence platforms until the entire court embarks on the recommendation of an AI committee permits it.”
He said the Supreme Court’s AI committee is reviewing possible applications and considering pilot programs, while the Philippine Judicial Academy is developing training for judges on the critical use of AI.
Leonen said the judiciary was also conducting an AI caravan focused on the challenges AI presents to the Philippine legal profession and judiciary.
The broader objective, he said, was to ensure that technological development remains subordinate to the principles underlying the justice system.
“The question is not only what is possible, but what is proper,” Leonen said. “The use of AI, therefore, demands not just skill, but a lot of character, a conscious commitment to ensure that technology narrows rather than widens the gap between law and justice.”
Microsoft Philippines Managing Director Caroline Foo, in her opening remarks at the event, said trust would be a central consideration as organizations move from experimenting with AI to embedding it across their operations.
For the judiciary, however, Leonen’s presentation framed digital transformation as more than an exercise in adopting new technology. It is an institutional process aimed at improving access, efficiency and accountability while retaining human judgment in decisions affecting rights and justice.
