Philippines’ draft guidelines on AI: unpacking the key points as consultation held

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Philippines’ draft guidelines on AI: unpacking the key points as consultation held

Sponsored by

hechanova-400px.png
Philippines flag with overlay of AI on globe with networks and digital image of a human head
Shutterstock

Editha R Hechanova of Hechanova Group outlines how the guidelines clarify human creative contribution, disclosure requirements, and the registrability of AI-assisted and AI-enhanced works

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) hosted a public consultation on its draft Guidelines on the Registrability of AI Systems and AI-Related Works on September 10 and 11 2026.

The Philippines has a National AI Strategy that recognises the need to maximise its benefits but at the same time address possible risks by way of policies and governance frameworks for the responsible use of AI. These guidelines are intended to clarify the registrability of works involving AI and ensure the consistent application of the requirements of copyright protection and registration.

The Philippines is a member of the Berne Convention, and under Republic Act 8293 (the IP Code), copyright protection is automatic from the moment of creation; hence, registration is optional but desirable, particularly when filing a suit for infringement, because it is prima facie evidence of ownership of the work.

The salient points of the guidelines are as follows.

  • Applicability of the IP Code – the Copyright Registration Rules and its prescribed forms under the IP Code shall apply to applications covered by the guidelines.

  • Disclosure of AI use – the applicant shall disclose the use of generative AI in the creation of the work.

  • Human creative contribution and originality – a work involving the use of an AI system shall be registrable only to the extent that it contains original expression attributable to human creative contribution satisfying the originality requirement under prevailing jurisprudence. The mere provision of a prompt, instruction, or other input to an AI system shall not, by itself, establish sufficient human creative contribution.

  • Evaluation of AI-related applications – in evaluating whether the claimed expression satisfies the requirements of human authorship, originality, and the minimum degree of creativity, the IPOPHL may use the following factors, which shall be considered in their totality:

    • The nature and extent of the human creative contribution;

    • The nature and extent of the AI system’s role in the creation of the work;

    • The manner in which AI-generated elements were selected, modified, arranged, or incorporated into the work; and

    • The information and materials submitted by the applicant.

  • Who shall be considered authors? The human person who contributed the original expression in the following works: AI-assisted, AI-enhanced, hybrid, or AI-generated output. There must be sufficient original human expression in the creative work.

  • AI system – where an AI system embodies a copyrightable computer program, the author and copyright owner shall be determined in accordance with the IP Code and applicable law. The AI system itself shall not be considered an author or copyright owner. Registration of an AI system shall cover only the copyrightable expression embodied in the computer program. Registration shall not confer copyright in:

    • AI training data;

    • Works or materials used as AI training data;

    • AI outputs; or

    • Material that does not form part of the copyrightable computer program.

  • Examples of registrability for AI-assisted and AI-enhanced works – as indicated earlier, an AI-assisted work may be registrable to the extent that it contains original expression resulting from human creative contribution satisfying the originality requirement under the IP Code and Philippine jurisprudence:

    • AI-assisted literary work – an author uses an AI system to suggest alternative wording or organise portions of a manuscript but selects, revises, and creatively arranges the resulting text; and

    • An AI-enhanced work may be registrable to the extent that the underlying work and the human-created additions or modifications contain original expression satisfying the originality requirement under prevailing jurisprudence.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, ELTEMATE
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
The chief technology officer remit, which has been created as the firm is building its litigation team, will include expanding the use of AI in patent and legal work and automating manual processes
Former Hoyng Rokh Moneiger partner Laura Alonso, who brought her team to ECIJA in March, discusses plans to expand further and why ECIJA’s ‘IP DNA’ is helping broaden her work
Amita Haylock discusses building an integrated Asia practice as clients increasingly demand that firms combine IP, technology and data expertise
François Pochart, Grégoire Desrousseaux and Lionel Martin, long-standing figures in the firm’s patent litigation team, are set to help launch a Paris-based litigation offering
The Unitary Patent has passed 100,000 registrations, but new data raises the question of whether 30% uptake is a ceiling or a staging post for further growth, say Michael Nielsen and Darren Smyth of EIP and Andrew Samm at Patently
The new generation of in-house IP leaders want commercial judgment, accessibility and flexibility, with AI raising expectations around both fees and delivery
Gift this article