Inquirer file photo/Niño Jesus Orbeta
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court is looking into using artificial intelligence (AI) to speed up the drafting of decisions and improve operations in the judiciary.
Court Administrator Raul Villanueva told members of the Senate finance subcommittee during Wednesday’s hearing on the judiciary’s P63.57-billion proposed budget for 2025 that the high tribunal was already developing voice-to-text transcription.
“Hopefully, we can come up with an AI that can translate testimonies in one dialect … into, for example, Ilocano to English … that’s something we’re already looking into,” he said.
READ: Turn to tech, AI to reform the judiciary
“In fact, we are doing something with respect to some programs that we are conducting … We’re using AI to translate some messages, some speeches that are being given in the vernacular … into English,” he added.
At the moment, Villanueva said they were using AI for research and monitoring of cases.
“Because the Supreme Court would like to make sure that our judges and, of course, eventually our justices, would be able to monitor the progress of their cases so that aging cases can be given priority as well,” he explained.
Villanueva said that aside from providing data for policy and decision-making, AI could also help draft decisions.
Word of caution
Sen. Grace Poe, who presided over the budget hearing, cautioned against relying too much on AI, although she said it could be used “just to countercheck also the human side of the decision.”
Associate Justice Mario Lopez assured the Senate the court was not totally dependent on AI because “there is some humanity involved in the disposition of cases.”
“As the good senator has said, there is also some iniquitous consideration in the decision. There are decisions which should not be left to the control of AI because courts are not only courts of law but also courts of equity. There is humanity involved in the disposition of cases,” he stressed.
Lopez cited the conduct of the previous bar exams in which the use of AI proved to be inadequate.
“There were some insinuations that AI [would] do the correction of the booklets but that is totally false. In fact, I am the bar chair for 2024. Indeed there were some questions referred to AI and I reviewed [them], they are not exactly correct. So that means the human mind is still better. The humanity will still prevail [over] AI,” he said.