SC punishes Bar coach for fake AI exam post, strikes his name from 2016 passers
The Supreme Court has found a Bar review coach guilty of indirect contempt for spreading false information about the 2023 Bar examinations on Facebook, including a claim that artificial intelligence would be used to grade the tests. The Court fined him PHP30,000 and ordered his name removed from the list of 2016 Bar passers.
In a per curiam decision, the SC en banc held Edgar Dizon, administrator of the Facebook group Bar Law for Dummies, liable for indirect contempt. The ruling came after a September 21, 2023 post from the group and the account Tsidkenu Dizon claimed the 2023 Bar Exams would “be sorted, check, and corrected by means of artificial intelligence.”
The post also advised examinees: “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).
What did the Bar Chair's office do about the false post?
The Office of the 2023 Bar Chair, headed by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, investigated the source of the post and assessed its impact on the examinations. The office issued an advisory clarifying that four human examiners would check the examinations for each subject, all of them experts in their fields.
Instead of removing the post, Dizon threatened to sue the SC and demanded a public apology “within 24 hours” during a media interview. He also sent several emails to the SC's Judiciary Public Assistance Section, claiming the advisory had a chilling effect on him. He denied spreading misinformation and asked the court to issue a statement correcting the advisory.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against Dizon?
After the SC directed him to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt, Dizon admitted owning the Facebook account but denied claiming AI would check the examinations, arguing he used the words “TO HELP” in his post.
The SC was not convinced. It held him liable under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which punishes unlawful interference with court processes outside a courtroom, conduct that degrades the courts or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and unauthorized practice of law.
The Court ruled that Dizon's post unlawfully interfered with the conduct of the 2023 Bar Examinations and undermined the integrity of both the exams and the SC, which supervises the legal profession. It caused confusion and alarm, forcing Bar officials to divert limited time and resources to tracing the source of the post, coordinating with government agencies, issuing clarifications, and responding to numerous inquiries.
What did the Court say about Dizon's attitude and law practice?
The SC noted Dizon's lack of remorse. Instead of acknowledging the harm caused by his post, he demanded an apology from the court, threatened legal action, refused to take down the post, and sought a statement retracting the advisory.
The Court likewise warned Dizon against the unauthorized practice of law. He conducted Bar review coaching sessions and authored several Bar review materials used in the Bar Law for Dummies training program. Dizon acknowledged that while he passed the 2016 Bar Examinations, he had not taken the lawyer's oath, a requirement to practice law, because of pending criminal cases.
What did Justice Leonen say about free speech and contempt?
In a separate concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen agreed that Dizon must be punished for undermining the integrity of the Bar Examinations. He emphasized the need to balance the court's power to punish for contempt with the constitutional right to free speech, including legitimate criticism of the courts.
Frequently asked questions about the SC contempt ruling
What is indirect contempt under Philippine law?
Indirect contempt, under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, covers unlawful interference with court processes outside a courtroom, conduct that degrades the courts or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and the unauthorized practice of law.
Can a Bar passer practice law without taking the lawyer's oath?
No. Passing the Bar Examinations is only one step. A candidate must also take the lawyer's oath before being admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines.
What was the penalty imposed on Edgar Dizon?
The Supreme Court fined Dizon PHP30,000 and ordered the removal of his name from the list of 2016 Bar passers.