By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law has imposed sweeping restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in its classrooms after faculty observed what it described as a troubling decline in students’ legal reasoning, argumentation and analytical skills, raising concerns that many have become overly dependent on the technology.
The new policy, approved by the college’s regular faculty and set to take effect in Academic Year 2026-2027, will initially cover first-year Juris Doctor students and is aimed at restoring the fundamentals of legal education by limiting the use of generative AI in classroom learning, research and writing.
In a policy statement released ahead of the opening of classes on Aug. 10, the UP College of Law said the move was prompted by growing evidence that students were increasingly relying on AI for tasks requiring independent thinking and sound legal analysis.
Faculty members said the trend has coincided with a “considerable decline” in the quality of classroom discussions, legal arguments and written work, undermining the rigorous intellectual training expected of future lawyers.
The college also disclosed that feedback from employers pointed to similar concerns, with some newly hired graduates reportedly exhibiting an excessive dependence on AI tools in the workplace.
According to the faculty, legal education must continue to cultivate abilities that technology cannot replace, including interpreting legal language within its social context, developing persuasive legal arguments, and exercising ethical judgment in resolving real-world disputes.
“Even as generative AI seeks to present information in an authoritative and oversimplified manner, we seek to mold students who can navigate the conflicts and confusions within law and legal language,” the college said.
It added that while AI is designed to generate instant responses, legal education demands patience, critical inquiry and the ability to grapple with complex and uncertain issues.
The policy, titled “Philippine Legal Education in the Time of Artificial Intelligence I: Recommitting to the Fundamentals of Legal Analysis,” introduces strict classroom rules for core law subjects.
Under the new guidelines, all foundational courses must be conducted exclusively through face-to-face instruction. The use of mobile phones, tablets, smartwatches, smart glasses and audio recorders inside classrooms will generally be prohibited, including for note-taking.
Electronic devices may only be used for specific instructional activities, such as class presentations, and only with the instructor’s prior approval.
First-year law students will likewise be prohibited from using generative AI in preparing academic papers, legal memoranda and other writing requirements. The restriction covers the entire writing process—from research and conceptualization to drafting, editing and even grammar checking.
Major examinations, including midterm and final assessments for core subjects, must also be administered individually and in person.
Students who violate the policy may face both academic sanctions and disciplinary action.
The faculty clarified, however, that the new rules do not prohibit open-book examinations or require so-called “clean desk” recitations, leaving those teaching methods to the discretion of individual professors.
In explaining the policy, the college cited its own disciplinary records, saying students had developed a “reflexive” tendency to use AI in class activities, examinations and written assignments—even in situations where its use had been expressly prohibited.
The faculty warned that while AI remains a valuable educational tool when used responsibly, excessive dependence threatens to erode the analytical discipline essential to legal practice.
It also cautioned that lawyers who rely heavily on generative AI risk professional errors, potential malpractice, and the broader danger of reducing the practice of law to mechanical outputs devoid of human judgment and ethical responsibility.
The policy aligns with the Supreme Court’s guidelines issued earlier this year reminding judges, lawyers and court personnel that AI should serve only as an assistive tool and must never replace independent legal reasoning or human judgment.
Under the High Court’s directive, legal professionals who use AI for tasks such as transcription, translation, legal research, document summarization, proofreading, citation generation and other document-processing functions are required to disclose its use to ensure transparency and accountability in legal practice.
ia/xf
