In last year’s Philippine Bar examinations, 11,402 law graduates undertook the bar, and about 8,241 or 72% of them passed. The Philippines has a population of 112,353,189 based on projections of the latest United Nations data. The UN estimates the July 1, 2022 Philippine population at 112,508,994 (https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/philippines-population, accessed May 28, 2022). While the high percentage of the bar passing rate is a cause of celebration because there is a need for lawyers, particularly in the underserved provinces of the country, there is also the current reality of technological innovations that have increasingly encroached on, and are threatening to overtake, what were once the exclusive domains of lawyers like legal document drafting, contract reviews, evidence discovery and legal research.
2007 was the first year I participated in the Philippine Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars as a lecturer. My first lecture was entitled “Information Technology Law Updates” for the University of the Philippines Institute of Judicial Administration (UPIJA). From that time forward, I have always tackled legal and ethical issues connected with technological innovations. Then UPIJA Director, Atty. Rowie Daroy Morales gave me permission to lecture on the topic I termed as “Cyberlaw Ethics” in their MCLE seminars. It turned out to be UPIJA’s first MCLE offering on Cyberlaw Ethics. Since then, I have been fortunate enough to be trusted by what is now the University of the Philippines Institute of Administration of Justice (UPIAJ), and its current Director, Atty. Emerson Bañez, and other MCLE providers for lecturing on this matter for 15 years running. One practice I have always followed is to revise all of my Cyberlaw Ethics lectures by including new matters, because technology always outpaces the law, and tweak them to fit the needs of the audience, particularly if they come from any specific government agency or private entity.
When I was given the privilege of lecturing for the Department of Education (DEPED) lawyers last May 24, 2022, I took it as a rare honor to truly engage their attention by focusing on the legal and ethical impact of massive technological advancements over the past decade on the future of lawyering, and also on the DEPED’s Alternative Learning Strategy strands that involves the “Digital Literacy” program for K to 12 students, who may at some time be interested in becoming lawyers.
My lecture titled “Cyber Law Ethics and the Future of Lawyering in I.R. 4.0” was from the perspective of a legal futurist, trying to find some purpose or relevance for those who may want to join the legal profession at a time when A.I. tools and alternative legal service providers can actually do what many junior lawyers, paralegals, legal secretaries and stenographers can do, only better, and at a fraction of the cost.
I told the DEPED lawyers that we are now in the age of the fourth iteration of the Industrial Revolution (I.R.), only this time, more powerful computers, and complex technologies that are self-aware and self-correcting, are the drivers of this revolution. In fact, A.G.I. or Artificial General Intelligence is actually being developed to the extent that it can one day exceed human intelligence. While others posit a longer period, Ray Kurzweil, the famous transhumanist advocate and computer scientist believed that A.G.I. could happen sometime in 2029. One could point to the huge advancements and services made by IBM’s Watson, and the grant of state citizenship to the robot Sophia, to bolster this belief.
I apprised the DEPED lawyers of other technological indicators of this revolution.
There is the Internet of Things (IoT), the vast universe of objects embedded with sensors, software, and other technologies for the purpose of connecting and exchanging data with other devices and systems over the internet, or over any network, which some believe is the building foundation for I.R. 4.0. Cloud computing, which essentially allows one to ‘plug into’ and use computing resources from infrastructure via the internet, without installing and maintaining these onsite, has made possible the storage and analysis of Big Data, from many sources including social media platforms. This in turn has opened so many entrepreneurial models of harnessing the power of information, with certainly the concomitant data security and privacy concerns present. Cybersecurity measures thus weigh in heavily in I.R. 4.0. with advances in cryptography securing fintech, cryptocurrencies, blockchains and distributed ledger technologies.
The third iteration of the Internet, which some companies are pushing for realization as the Metaverse, would consist of the blurring of the physical and real, with the virtual and simulated worlds, with the use of augmented reality technologies. On the manufacturing side, the development of 3D and 4D printing technologies have made headlines with their possibilities of ending scarcity of vital resources, but with attendant intellectual property rights, environment and health issues.
Finally, nanotechnology which is concerned with the science of harnessing very, very, very, very, very small things for curing diseases, for cybersecurity, and even for the cyborgization of human beings, can actually change the way we will live, experience and remember the world around us.
With many of these technologies coming in waves within the first decade of the 21st century, the DEPED’s 2017 “Digital Literacy” K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum for the Alternative Learning System, with its emphasis on basic “Digital Concepts”, “Digital Applications” mainly of Office Applications, “Digital Devices” pertaining mostly to mobile devices and “Digital System Network” that did not mention the deep and dark webs and the IoT, is certainly obsolete and cannot serve the needs of our brilliant elementary to Senior High School students who are digital natives. I gave several recommendations as to how the DEPED should revise this program, and other matters that must be done to make it relevant and conducive for our students to take the technological path in their vocation.
As for lawyers, there is actually no point in competing with A.I. tools, like in e-discovery of evidence. These tools are infinitesimally better than humans in processing millions and trillions of all types of data, be they numbers, information or images, and can analyze them in a very short time, to look for patterns, correlations and possible solutions that may prove elusive to humans. But what humans can excel at is asking the right questions to these A.I. tools, to lead to the best possible solutions. For now, humans are arguably more creative than A.I., so human lawyers can excel at thinking on their feet, particularly in negotiations and trials/hearings, to find the best resolution for their clients’ causes. So, it is in the best interest of human lawyers to familiarize themselves with the use of A.I. technologies which they can use merely as tools, that’s right, as tools, for their practice.
There is also the possibility of human lawyers being actually implanted with neural wires in their brains that are connected to the vast network that make up the known and unknown parts of the internet, or knowledge stored in computing clouds. Their implants can give them the speed like qualities of A.I. to scan and analyze extensive knowledge files that can assist them in serving their clients. There are now several companies and entities like DARPA and Elon Musk’s Neuralink, that are engaging in this type of research and endeavors to address, primarily, health issues concerning the human brain and tissues.
Finally, I stated that the current pedagogical methods of teaching law, and the usual educational foundations for lawyers have to be revised. Human lawyers to stay relevant in the incoming years, have to be very open and must possess interdisciplinary skills and abilities. There should be the opening of new possibilities of linking law with neurobiology, computer engineering, nanoscience and complex mathematics. Lawyers can be managers of A.I. technologies. They can also be the developers of A.I. tools for the law profession.
I closed with the recommendations where DEPED, CHED, the LEB and PRC can address the needs and requirements of students who are going to pursue the path and profession of lawyering in the I.R. 4.0. Deepest gratitude for the DEPED and UPIAJ for making this opportunity for engagement possible, and to all the DEPED lawyers, 171 of them, many of which gave very positive and encouraging comments, and some very interesting questions and insights in the Zoom chat which I addressed at the Q & A portion. It was indeed, an exceptional sharing, and one which I truly desire to continue with those at the helm of the digital and legal education in the Philippines.
Philippine Law Bytes: TheCyberLawyer Issues by Dr. Attorney Noel Guivani Ramiscal 