MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) cited a bar review coach in indirect contempt and ordered his name removed from the list of 2016 Bar passers after he spread false information claiming that artificial intelligence would check the 2023 Bar Examinations.
In a Per Curiam Decision, the SC En Banc found Edgar S. Dizon, administrator of the Facebook group Bar Law for Dummies, liable for indirect contempt, fined him ₱30,000, and warned him against further unauthorized practice of law.
Dizon’s post, which went viral on Facebook on Sept. 21, 2023, claimed that the Bar exams would be “sorted, checked, and corrected” using AI and told examinees to “ALWAYS START WITH YES or NO” because this would supposedly be the first thing AI would look for in checking answers.
The post sparked anxiety among examinees who were in the final stretch of their preparations and forced Bar officials to investigate and issue an immediate clarification.
The Office of the 2023 Bar Chairman, then headed by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, stressed that the exams would be checked by four human examiners for each subject, all experts in their respective fields.
The Court said Dizon’s post unlawfully interfered with the conduct of the Bar examinations and undermined public confidence in both the exams and the Supreme Court, which supervises the legal profession.
As a Bar passer himself, Dizon should have known that the exams were evaluated by a committee of examiners appointed by the Court, the high tribunal said, stressing that the examiners are “all warm bodies” and are neither powered nor guided by AI.
The misinformation also forced Bar officials to divert time and resources to trace the source of the post, coordinate with government agencies, issue clarifications and respond to inquiries, according to the Court.
The Court said the post also distracted examinees already under intense pressure.
Dizon denied spreading misinformation, arguing that his post merely said AI would be used “to help” in the examination process. The Court rejected his explanation.
The Court also took issue with Dizon’s response after the controversy erupted. Instead of taking down the post or acknowledging the harm caused, he gave a media interview, threatened to sue the Court, demanded a public apology within 24 hours and sought a statement retracting the Court’s advisory.
The Court further found Dizon liable for unauthorized practice of law for conducting Bar review coaching sessions and preparing review materials covering various Bar subjects.