The policy that the government is trying to push through is impossible at best, and

dangerous at worst. We, in the opposition, believe that even if such technology exists, the use
of Artificial Intelligence should not be used to operationalize the entire criminal justice system.
Lest the opposition be labelled as anti-technology or anti-progress, we would like to
clarify two points early on in this debate. FIRST, we in the opposition see the proper integration
of AI as extremely beneficial to the improvement of the criminal justice system. Utilizing AI in
aspects such as the clerical work, optimizing the schedules of courts, determining jurisdiction,
and the quick-indexing of case law, among others, are tasks that can be delegated to Artificial
Intelligence. This harmonious relationship between man and machine will create a more
efficient criminal justice system, thus relieving courts of their logged dockets and allowing for a
speedy disposition of cases, as the Rules of Court mandate.
SECOND POINT--opposition concedes to the status quo presented by the government, in
that our current criminal justice system is rife with corruption, inefficiency and error. We in the
opposition are not blind to the shortcomings of our system. Going back to our first point, this is
why we in the opposition believe that integrating AI in various aspects of the criminal justice
system will best serve the interests of our constituents, without compromising our Constitution
and the freedoms provided by it.
However, this is where the similarities of Government and Opposition end. We believe
that AI should not operationalize the entirety of the criminal justice system, to the point that a
program will collate data, and hear and decide cases based on the data, as government so
proposes.
We will ground our arguments on these points: I will tackle the unconstitutionality of
Government’s proposition. Our deputy speaker, Donna, will tackle how Government’s
proposition is an invalid exercise of Police Power, and how it violates our substantive as well as
procedural laws, among others.
Before I go into my substantives, I will rebut the points given by the government on why
such a setup will better out criminal justice system.
FIRST, Government asserts that AI will create a “perfect” system, which is infallible in
every way that human intervention need not be present. What Government failed to consider
is how complex the criminal justice system is—it is not only a matter of submitting pleadings
and deciding upon cases. Rather, it starts from the initiatory complaint, up to the promulgation
of sentence and even appeal.
This is a delusional reliance on the technology we assume to have, as Artificial
Intelligence can only do so much. It cannot determine the admissibility of evidence, it cannot
know if a person under oath is lying, it cannot decide if there is no case precedent, among
others. These are all things that the human mind is best at. To rely on a machine to handle such
a complex process in its entirety is a disservice to those who rely on the system.
Next, government also asserts that with Artificial Intelligence, there will be a less
corrupt justice system. We rule that in the negative. A program, no matter how independent in
purports to be, is still made by people—people who can be bribed, coerced and made to cater
to the interests of those who can pay their way through the system. The practice of bribing
judges and fiscals will simply be replaced by bribing technicians, programmers, and IT
personnel. Government’s assertion does not stand.
Lastly, Government posits that judges will be safer, and that their families will be more
protected if AI were to decide cases. We will argue this point in two levels. First level-- assuming
but not conceding to government’s proposition, the security of those involved in the creation of
AI will definitely be at risk of being compromised. As we explained before, Government is
simply deflecting the gun from one group of persons and pointing it to another. There is no
systemic change in their paradigm. Second level of argumentation is that with such a grand,
autonomous model that they propose, what is the role of judges anyway?
This brings us to our first substantive argument, regarding the constitutionality of the
use of AI in the criminal justice system’s entirety.
Article VIII, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution states that “no person shall be appointed
Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and
must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of
law in the Philippines.” An AI cannot possibly fulfill these requirements, as in the first place, it is
not even a person by any stretch of our imagination. Furthermore, the Constitution requires
that “a Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.” An AI cannot possibly possess these traits as it is a mere program.
Government’s cited advanteges of AI—impartiality, disconnection from emotion and lack of
bias—cannot therefore appreciated vis a vis the requirements of the Constitution.
As jurisprudence has held over and over again, a court must be two things—impartial
and competent. While AI can be impartial in some aspects, in no way can AI fulfill the
competencies required by the Constitution. We should not be swayed into thinking that
technology is the panacea of our justice system—rather, we should see it as something to
complement and enhance the human resources that we already have. For all this and more, we
are proud to oppose.