A Facebook post claiming that artificial intelligence would check the 2023 Bar Examinations prompted the Supreme Court to investigate, issue a clarification and eventually cite a Bar review coach for indirect contempt.
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court en banc found Edgar Dizon, administrator of the Facebook group Bar Law for Dummies, liable for interfering with the conduct of the examinations.
The court fined Dizon P30,000 and ordered his name removed from the list of 2016 Bar passers.
Dizon posted on Sept. 21, 2023, through the Facebook group and the account “Tsidkenu Dizon” that the 2023 Bar examinations would “be sorted, check, and corrected by means of artificial intelligence.”
The post further said: “ALWAYS START WITH YES OR NO. Yan ang unang hahanapin ng AI Checking to sort out the correct answers (That is the first thing the AI checking system will look for to sort out the correct answers).”
The Office of the 2023 Bar Chair, headed by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, investigated the source and assessed the post’s potential impact on the examinations.
The office then issued an advisory clarifying that four human examiners would check the examinations for each subject and that all of them were experts in their respective fields.
Instead of taking down the post, Dizon threatened to sue the Supreme Court and demanded a public apology within 24 hours during a media interview.
He also emailed the court’s Judiciary Public Assistance Section, claiming that the advisory had a chilling effect on him and asking the Supreme Court to issue a statement correcting it.
When the court directed Dizon to explain why it should not cite him for indirect contempt, he admitted owning the Facebook account but denied saying that AI would check the examinations. He argued that his post used the words “TO HELP.”
The Supreme Court rejected his explanation and ruled that the post unlawfully interfered with the Bar examinations and undermined the integrity of both the exams and the court, which supervises the legal profession.
The court said the post caused confusion and alarm and required Bar officials to use limited time and resources to trace its source, coordinate with government agencies, issue clarifications and respond to numerous inquiries.
The Supreme Court also cited Dizon’s conduct after the advisory as a factor, noting that he did not remove the post, threatened legal action and sought an apology and retraction from the court rather than acknowledging the harm caused by the misinformation.
The court cited Dizon under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which covers indirect contempt involving unlawful interference with court processes outside the courtroom, conduct that degrades the courts or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and unauthorized practice of law.
The Supreme Court also warned Dizon against unauthorized practice of law in connection with his Bar review coaching sessions and the Bar review materials he authored for the Bar Law for Dummies training program.
Dizon acknowledged that he passed the 2016 Bar Examinations but had not taken the lawyer’s oath because of pending criminal cases. Taking the oath is among the requirements for the practice of law.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen concurred with the ruling, saying Dizon should be punished for undermining the integrity of the Bar examinations.
Leonen also emphasized that the court must balance its power to punish contempt with the constitutional right to free speech, including legitimate criticism of the courts.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia
Comments