AI Cannot Replace Human Judges, Says Justice Kho, Citing Lack of Empathy and Moral Judgment
In a world where technology rapidly evolves, questions arise about whether artificial intelligence (AI) could replace lawyers and judges. This debate gains traction as AI systems with vast memory capacity and fast processing become more prevalent. However, legal experts caution that while AI can automate daily tasks, it falls short in critical human aspects necessary for justice.
The Limitations of AI in Legal Settings
AI excels in data analysis speed, but it lacks human qualities such as empathy, the ability to feel and understand others' emotions, ethical discretion, and moral judgment—the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. A major concern is AI reliability, as it may "hallucinate," generating false information or creating fictional legal cases and arguments that require human verification.
Justice Kho's Perspective on Technology and Humanity
Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr. addressed this issue at the San Beda Law Grand Alumni Homecoming on November 15, 2025, in Seda, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City. He acknowledged technological advancements in the legal profession but emphasized that AI cannot replace humans because only humans possess love, feeling, and a moral compass—the guide to morality and justice.
Justice Kho highlighted the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI), which aims to digitalize court processes to build a modern, faster, humane, and accessible judiciary that delivers reliable justice to the public. However, he warned that technology cannot substitute human judgment, compassion, or ethical responsibility—qualities vital for enforcing justice.
"You can teach a computer the law, but you cannot teach it judgment. You cannot teach it compassion. And you certainly cannot teach it the Bedan spirit of fighting tooth and nail for what is right. Our human element—our passion, our empathy, our moral compass—that is our enduring competitive advantage. Don’t ever let technology diminish the humanity you bring to the law," said Justice Kho.
Real-World Implications and Legal Precedents
This discussion resonates with real cases, such as a teacher dismissed for marrying a younger student despite a significant age gap. The Supreme Court overturned the dismissal, ruling it immoral, stating, "If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know." This underscores the need for human emotion in justice, not just legal rules.
In summary, while AI offers efficiency in legal tasks, it cannot replicate the empathy, moral judgment, and compassion that human judges and lawyers bring to the table. As technology advances, preserving these human elements remains crucial for a fair and just legal system.
