DOJ Cybercrime Office Calls for Clear Rules on AI-Generated Evidence in Philippine Courts

The Department of Justice is calling for clearer legal standards on how AI-generated and AI-assisted evidence is handled in criminal investigations and court proceedings, the Daily Tribune reported on November 1.

Aris Manguera, director of the DOJ Office of Cybercrime, raised concerns about the authenticity, reliability and admissibility of AI-related evidence at the 3rd INTERPOL Asia and South Pacific Working Group Meeting on Cybercrime, held in Hanoi, Vietnam, from October 27 to 30. The meeting brought together about 70 participants from 22 countries to strengthen cooperation against ransomware, phishing, cryptocurrency-related crime and other emerging threats. Manguera also stressed the need for closer coordination among law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and private-sector organisations so that digital evidence can withstand legal scrutiny and support successful prosecutions.

The concern cuts two ways. Investigators increasingly face material that may have been fabricated with AI, such as synthetic images, cloned voices or altered documents, and must show a court that what they present is genuine. At the same time, police and companies use AI tools to flag fraud, sort through seized data or link suspects to accounts, and defence lawyers can challenge how those systems reached their conclusions if the steps are not documented.

What it means in practice

The Philippine rules on electronic evidence were written long before generative AI, and the courts have moved cautiously on the technology. The judiciary’s own framework bars generative AI in Philippine courts for now, which governs how judges and court staff use the tools but does not settle how AI-touched evidence should be tested. Lawmakers are also starting to deal with questions of responsibility, as in House Bill 11014, which would make principals liable for what their AI agents sign and buy. Banks, e-wallets and other firms that hand AI-flagged fraud cases to investigators may need to keep clearer records of how those flags were produced if the cases are to hold up in court.

What to watch is whether the DOJ follows up with guidance for prosecutors or proposes amendments to the rules of evidence, whether the Supreme Court takes up AI evidence in its own rule-making, and how other countries at the Hanoi meeting respond to the same problem.