AI in Justice and Governance: Make the System Faster, Fairer, and Safer
Each major shift in human work has forced the law to adapt. Agriculture brought land and food rules, industry brought labor and commerce codes, and the information era brought data and behavior regulations. AI raises the stakes. It doesn't just assist-it decides, predicts, and acts. That demands legal responses with speed, clarity, and accountability.
Where the Judiciary Is Going
The Supreme Court's Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations (SPJI) is entering its third year of a five-year push to make courts efficient, accessible, and tech-enabled. Expect more research, transactions, and even hearings conducted electronically in real time. That's more than digitizing paperwork-it's a shift in how the justice system operates day to day.
The SPJI also presses for responsible AI adoption in the justice sector. The core task is not just deploying tools, but measuring their impact on due process, bias, privacy, and public trust. Speed matters, but so does integrity.
Private Sector, Public Sector, Judiciary: Shared Stakes
AI is remaking business models, redefining government service delivery, and testing court workflows. The private sector is automating decisions and services. The public sector is rolling out e-governance to improve service quality and transparency. The judiciary must keep pace to deliver fair, speedy, and accessible justice-without sacrificing standards of proof, reasoning, and independence.
Risks You Need to Manage Now
Digital platforms widened access-and introduced new exposure. In a data-rich market, trust is the core asset. Every action leaves a trail that can secure systems or compromise them.
Consider telesurgery made possible by AI, 5G, and robotics. It saves lives across borders, but it also raises questions about liability, jurisdiction, informed consent, device safety, and audit trails. These issues are no longer hypothetical.
Anchoring Policy: Data, Cybercrime, and IP
Progress must be matched with protection. The Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) and the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) serve as twin guardrails for digital activity, from data processing to incident response. Meanwhile, the Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293) faces fresh tests: authorship of AI-assisted works, model training on copyrighted datasets, and ownership of outputs.
These statutes are only the floor. AI systems need governance mechanisms that trace decisions, log model versions, explain outputs, and allow challenge and review-the same values courts apply to human decision-makers.
E-Governance Needs People, Not Just Platforms
With the E-Governance Act (RA 12254) approved, agencies are moving services online to make them more convenient, affordable, efficient, and transparent. Hearings in the Senate on blockchain for budgeting and procurement hint at stronger accountability if implemented with the right controls. But tools don't fix culture. People do.
There's a talent crunch. Many skilled IT professionals are drawn abroad or into higher-paying private roles. Courts and agencies need to recruit, train, and retain digital frontliners with the same urgency we've given to medical frontliners during the pandemic.
Court-Ready AI: Guardrails and Good Habits
Projects like CALESA Digital and an AI Governance Framework for courts are steps in the right direction. They must target practical risks: hallucinated case citations, inaccurate summaries of law, leakage of confidential data, and opaque vendor models. Legal professionals need repeatable processes that favor verifiable sources over confident guesses.
Practical To-Do List for Legal Teams
- Adopt an AI usage policy: define approved tools, banned inputs (e.g., client secrets in public models), and required human review before filing or advising.
- Mandate source verification: use citators and official repositories; require pin cites and docket numbers; preserve research trails for audit.
- Set model accountability: keep model/version identifiers, prompts, and outputs tied to matters; require explainability where AI influences decisions.
- Run Data Protection Impact Assessments for AI projects; map data flows and retention; enforce encryption, access controls, and breach reporting.
- Strengthen e-discovery: document chain of custody for digital evidence, validate metadata, and ensure tool outputs are reproducible.
- Upgrade contracts with vendors: add data processing terms, audit rights, security baselines, incident notification windows, and IP/indemnity clauses.
- Clarify remote proceedings: standardize authentication, recording, and exhibit handling; define remedies for disconnections and disruptions.
- Address IP in engagements: state ownership of AI-assisted work, training rights for models, and restrictions on dataset use.
- Train your team: legal research with AI, prompt discipline, bias spotting, and citation hygiene; simulate failure modes and review drills.
For Courts and Agencies
- Create an AI registry: list all tools in use, purpose, data categories, risk levels, and contact officers.
- Use sandboxes for high-risk pilots (e.g., triage, scheduling, fraud detection); require pre-deployment testing and external review.
- Publish guidance on acceptable use in pleadings and filings; sanction fake citations and undisclosed AI reliance.
- Coordinate with the bar and law schools on curriculum updates tied to privacy, cybercrime, digital evidence, and AI ethics.
Bottom Line
AI will move faster than statutes. That's the reality. The response has to be governance-led, ethically grounded, and people-centric. Build systems that are fast, but don't compromise on transparency, due process, and human judgment.
Justice gains legitimacy when outcomes are explainable and evidence-based. With clear policies, strong talent, and targeted safeguards, AI can help the legal system protect liberty and grow economic confidence in a wider digital space.
Your membership also unlocks:
