Photo: From Supreme Court Publications Office
via TNP | Digital Justice in the Philippines: Midas Marquez’s Reform Proposals | Explore Justice Midas Marquez’s proposed judicial digitalization initiatives include electronic filing, digital court records, AI-assisted information services, and expanded access to justice.
Digital Justice for Every Filipino: How Judicial Modernization Could Improve Access to the Courts
For many Filipinos, accessing the justice system involves more than understanding the law. It can also require traveling to a courthouse, locating the correct office, obtaining documents, understanding procedural requirements, and following up on proceedings.
These challenges can be especially difficult for residents of remote communities, people with limited access to technology, and individuals unfamiliar with court procedures.
Digital transformation offers opportunities to address some of these barriers.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez has proposed expanding the use of technology as part of his Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2.0, a proposed five-year reform program covering 2028–2032.
His proposals include continued digitalization of court records, electronic filing, AI-assisted information portals, help-desk chatbots, and measures to improve public access to finalized court decisions.
The broader objective is to use technology to improve the delivery of judicial services while keeping the needs of court users at the center of modernization.
Why Digital Access Matters in the Philippine Judiciary
The Philippines presents distinctive challenges for judicial administration.
Its geography makes physical access to public institutions more difficult for some communities than for others. Courts also operate in areas with different levels of technological infrastructure and administrative capacity.
For people who live far from a courthouse, even routine inquiries can involve time and transportation expenses.
Others may struggle to determine which documents are required, where to file a pleading, or how to obtain information about court procedures.
These difficulties do not necessarily arise from the law itself. They can result from the practical processes through which people interact with the justice system.
Digital services could make some of these interactions easier by allowing users to obtain information remotely, access available records electronically, and complete appropriate administrative steps without unnecessary travel.
However, digital access must complement rather than replace other channels. People without reliable internet access, suitable devices, or digital literacy must not be excluded from essential judicial services.
The objective should be to broaden access, not simply move existing barriers from physical offices to online platforms.
Building on the Supreme Court’s Existing Modernization Program
The Supreme Court’s Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022–2027 provides the institutional framework for the judiciary’s ongoing modernization efforts.
The program identifies efficiency, innovation, and access as major objectives, supported by improvements in court systems, information and communications technology, and administrative monitoring.
In October 2025, the Supreme Court reported on the program’s progress, including initiatives involving the modernization of the Office of the Court Administrator, regional court management, judicial fiscal autonomy, and court facilities.
The Court’s report on the third year of the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations provides an overview of these developments.
The next phase of modernization must build on existing systems, evaluate their effectiveness, and address the gaps that remain.
In his October 2026 Judicial and Bar Council interview, Marquez proposed a Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2.0 covering 2028–2032.
According to the Daily Tribune’s report on his proposed reform plan, he intends to continue successful reforms while expanding digital services and strengthening public access to judicial information.
These are proposed initiatives rather than a description of programs already fully implemented.
Electronic Filing and Digital Court Records
One component of Marquez’s proposed agenda is the continued modernization of court processes through electronic filing and the digitization of court records.
Traditional paper-based systems can require extensive physical handling, storage, retrieval, and movement of documents.
Digitization can help make records easier to organize and retrieve, provided that appropriate systems are in place.
Electronic filing can also offer a more convenient way to submit documents where the relevant courts and procedures support it.
However, successful digitalization involves more than scanning paper records.
The judiciary must ensure that electronic documents are accurately captured, appropriately indexed, securely stored, and accessible only to authorized users where restrictions apply.
Systems also need reliable backups, clear procedures for correcting errors, and safeguards against unauthorized access.
Court personnel require training, and users need understandable guidance on how to navigate the new processes.
A well-designed digital system should improve administrative efficiency without compromising records integrity, confidentiality, or procedural fairness.
AI-Assisted Information Portals and Help-Desk Chatbots
Marquez has also proposed exploring AI-assisted information portals and help-desk chatbots to help court users obtain answers to routine inquiries.
Such systems could potentially provide guidance on administrative matters, including general filing procedures, office information, and other publicly available court-related information.
For example, a person unfamiliar with court procedures might use an information portal to identify the relevant office or learn where official procedural guidance is published.
A chatbot could help users navigate publicly available information without requiring court personnel to answer every routine inquiry individually.
This could allow staff to devote more time to tasks requiring direct attention and professional judgment.
However, the design of such systems would be critical.
An automated information service should not be mistaken for a judge, a lawyer, or an authoritative ruling on a person’s legal rights.
Its answers would need to be grounded in verified official information, with clear explanations of the system’s limitations and links to authoritative sources.
The system should also be designed to recognize questions it cannot reliably answer and direct users to appropriate human assistance.
Privacy and cybersecurity would be essential considerations, particularly if users were tempted to enter sensitive personal information or confidential case details.
AI should support access to information, not replace judicial decision-making or create the impression that automated responses carry the authority of a court.
Protecting Human Judgment and Due Process
Technology in the judiciary must operate within the principles that govern the justice system.
In September 2026, Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo emphasized the importance of human-centered technology during a presentation at Stanford Law School.
As reported by the Daily Tribune in its coverage of Gesmundo’s remarks on human-centered AI, he stressed that technology should remain a tool serving people while protecting rights, due process, security, and public trust.
The Supreme Court’s modernization agenda has similarly emphasized that technology must support the judiciary’s constitutional responsibilities.
This distinction is especially important when considering AI applications.
Automated tools may assist with information retrieval, administrative tasks, and the organization of documents. But judicial decisions involve legal interpretation, evaluation of evidence, and the application of law to particular circumstances.
Those responsibilities must remain subject to the appropriate human judgment and legal safeguards.
A responsible digital strategy should therefore establish clear boundaries between administrative assistance and judicial decision-making.
Digitalization and the Reduction of Court Backlogs
Digital transformation is also connected to efforts to address court congestion.
Paper-based processes can create administrative burdens when documents are difficult to retrieve, records are dispersed, or case information is not readily available to authorized personnel.
Digital records and improved case-management systems could help courts organize information more efficiently.
Better access to reliable case data could also help judicial administrators identify courts experiencing excessive workloads and determine where assistance is required.
Marquez’s proposed reform agenda includes a nationwide study of court dockets and regular monitoring of caseloads.
These measures could complement digitalization by helping administrators identify the causes of delays and direct interventions toward the courts that need them.
Nevertheless, technology alone cannot eliminate backlogs.
Courts still require sufficient judges, qualified personnel, appropriate facilities, and procedures that allow cases to proceed fairly and efficiently.
Digital systems are best understood as part of a broader administrative strategy rather than a substitute for these other requirements.
Making Judicial Services More Accessible Outside Major Urban Centers
Digital transformation could be especially valuable for communities that face geographic barriers to accessing courts.
Marquez has proposed strengthening information and communications technology infrastructure, improving court facilities, expanding mobile justice services in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas, and making courthouses more accessible and child-friendly.
These initiatives address different aspects of access to justice.
Digital services may reduce the need for certain physical trips, while improved connectivity can help courts communicate and exchange information more effectively.
Mobile justice services may help address circumstances in which online access alone is insufficient.
Accessible facilities remain necessary for people who must attend court proceedings in person.
The most effective approach would combine these measures according to local needs.
A remote community with unreliable internet connectivity may require infrastructure investment before digital services can deliver meaningful benefits. A community with adequate connectivity may benefit more immediately from improved online information and administrative services.
Planning should therefore consider both technological possibilities and the realities experienced by the people expected to use these services.
Digitizing Non-Sensitive Records Through a Rehabilitation Initiative
One distinctive proposal in Marquez’s five-year agenda involves allowing persons deprived of liberty to participate in digitizing non-sensitive court records in exchange for appropriate compensation.
As described in the Daily Tribune’s report on his proposed judicial reforms, he said the initiative could support rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society while contributing to judicial modernization.
The proposal connects an administrative objective with a potential social benefit.
Digitizing eligible records could contribute to the broader modernization of court information systems. Providing structured work opportunities could also support rehabilitation when appropriate safeguards are in place.
Any implementation would require careful controls over confidentiality, information security, access privileges, supervision, and the integrity of official records.
Participation would also need to respect the rights and circumstances of the individuals involved.
The proposal remains an initiative to be evaluated rather than an established nationwide program.
Its implementation would need to demonstrate that the administrative benefits can be achieved without compromising the security or integrity of judicial information.
Public Access to Court Decisions and Judicial Information
Another component of Marquez’s proposed agenda is accelerating the release and online publication of finalized court decisions and resolutions.
Access to judicial decisions can help lawyers, researchers, journalists, students, and members of the public understand how courts interpret and apply the law.
Online publication can also make judicial information easier to consult without requiring physical access to court libraries or offices.
However, effective public access requires more than uploading documents.
Materials must be organized, searchable, and presented in a way that helps users distinguish official judicial information from commentary or unofficial summaries.
Appropriate restrictions and safeguards must also be observed where decisions or records contain protected information.
The objective should be to improve transparency while respecting the legal and privacy considerations governing judicial records.
Measuring Whether Digital Justice Is Working
The success of judicial digitalization should be evaluated through practical outcomes rather than the number of systems introduced.
Potential measures could include:
- The availability and reliability of electronic filing services.
- The proportion of eligible court records that are digitized and searchable.
- The time required to retrieve official records.
- The accessibility of public information portals.
- The reliability and accuracy of automated responses to routine inquiries.
- User satisfaction and the availability of non-digital alternatives.
- The effectiveness of cybersecurity and privacy safeguards.
- The contribution of digital systems to administrative efficiency.
These are suggested evaluation measures, not a claim that Marquez has formally adopted each indicator.
It would also be important to assess whether digital services remain accessible to people with limited connectivity or digital literacy.
A modernization program should not be considered successful merely because it introduces new technology. It should demonstrate that the technology makes judicial services more reliable, accessible, and efficient while preserving the safeguards required by law.
The Road Ahead for Digital Justice in the Philippines
Justice Midas Marquez’s proposed Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2.0 places digital transformation within a wider program of judicial reform.
His proposals include electronic filing, digitized records, AI-assisted information services, improved publication of court decisions, and investments in infrastructure and personnel.
These initiatives build on an existing institutional modernization program and seek to address remaining barriers to efficient and accessible justice.
Their eventual impact would depend on implementation, funding, infrastructure, personnel training, cybersecurity, and the judiciary’s ability to evaluate results.
Digital justice is not simply about replacing paper with screens. It is about making the institutions responsible for administering justice more responsive to the people who rely on them.
For a broader examination of Marquez’s professional background and reform proposals, read the main feature, Justice Midas Marquez: Experience, Institutional Continuity, and a Five-Year Vision for a Modern Philippine Judiciary.
The central challenge is to ensure that technology strengthens the administration of justice while preserving human judgment, due process, confidentiality, and equal access to the courts.
About the Author
