Angeline Chrisette C. Olegario
The Supreme Court, through an En Banc Resolution dated 18 February 2026, adopted the Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary (“Framework”), as implemented through Office of the Court Administrator (“OCA”) Circular No. 47-2026 dated 11 March 2026. The Circular took effect immediately upon issuance.
The Framework applies to members of the Judiciary, court officials and employees, court users, which include members of the Bar, and vendors or third-party contractors or organizations that develop, deploy, or provide AI systems for or on behalf of the Judiciary.
A key feature of the Framework is the adoption of a human-centered approach to artificial intelligence, emphasizing that human-centered augmented intelligence (“AI”) systems are intended to augment, and not replace, human judgment. The Framework expressly provides that human control must always remain paramount, and that AI tools must not supplant or override judicial reasoning or discretion. In line with this, the Framework prohibits reliance on AI as the sole, primary, or determinative basis for any adjudicatory outcome, and requires that all legal reasoning and conclusions be independently formed by the human decision-maker.
The Framework also sets out guiding principles for the responsible use of AI within the Judiciary, including human-centered use, respect for human rights and harm avoidance, transparency, accountability, human oversight, and continuous monitoring. It likewise incorporates considerations relating to data protection, risk management, and sustainability, to ensure that AI systems are deployed within the Judiciary in a manner that is fair, secure, and aligned with the constitutional mandate of the Judiciary.
In addition, the Framework recognizes the broader societal risks associated with artificial intelligence, including the proliferation of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information, as well as its potential environmental impact. It underscores that the adoption of AI must be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the integrity of judicial processes and promotes responsible and sustainable use of technology.
The Framework further emphasizes that the use of AI must respect intellectual property rights and the contributions of human creators. In this regard, it requires that AI systems be utilized in a manner that does not infringe upon or undermine existing intellectual property protections.
The Framework likewise highlights the importance of traceability and auditability in the use of AI systems. AI-assisted outputs must be capable of being traced, reviewed, and verified, thereby ensuring transparency in how such outputs are generated and enabling accountability for their use in judicial and legal processes.
Corollary to this, the Framework imposes obligations on developers and providers of AI systems utilized within the Judiciary. Third-party developers are required to disclose material information relating to the AI tools, including their underlying logic, limitations, safeguards, and data models, in order to enable proper evaluation of their reliability, risks, and suitability for judicial use.
The Framework also establishes an institutional governance structure to support its implementation, including the creation of a Committee on Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence. The Committee is tasked to assist the Supreme Court in evaluating, approving, and monitoring the use of AI tools within the Judiciary, including in relation to policy development, risk assessment, procurement, and capacity-building initiatives.
Further, the Framework places AI adoption and use under Supreme Court En Banc supervision, with the Court determining and approving, on a case-by-case basis, the allowable extent of utilization of AI tools within the Judiciary.
The Framework also introduces disclosure requirements for the use of AI in appropriate instances. At a minimum, such disclosure must indicate the AI tool used, including its version, the purpose for which it was used, the extent or degree of such use, the level of human control and oversight exercised, confirmation that the AI-generated output has been preserved for possible inquiry or review, compliance with the principles of the Framework, and a statement that ultimate responsibility for the output remains with the human user.
A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC may be accessed through: https://tinyurl.com/yyfynv9f
The Framework is expected to guide the responsible adoption of artificial intelligence within the Judiciary, while preserving judicial independence, accountability, and public trust.