Artificial Intelligence and Constitutional Justice: Keeping the Human Person at the Center of the Salvadoran Judicial Process

By: Carlos E. Castillo, partner & director

Comments on Constitutional Challenge Decision No. 57-2025

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in legal practice is no longer a future or hypothetical phenomenon. Today, it forms part of the everyday reality of litigation, legal research, and, increasingly, the development of legal arguments in judicial proceedings. In this context, the recent decision issued in Constitutional Challenge Case No. 57-2025 marks a turning point in the Salvadoran legal debate.

Beyond the immediate discussions and opinions it has generated, the decision exhibits a particularly significant feature: it may be understood as the constitutional court’s organic response to a new form of legal reasoning and legal drafting influenced by artificial intelligence. In other words, the judgment not only resolves a constitutional dispute; it also engages, albeit indirectly yet unmistakably, with a technological phenomenon that has already become part of the legal landscape, even though it formally addresses a constitutional challenge.

The decision in Constitutional Challenge Case No. 57-2025 represents one of the first instances in which a constitutional court (the Constitutional Chamber) has provided a judicial response to the emergence of artificial intelligence in legal practice. This aspect makes the decision a significant precedent in the evolution of Salvadoran constitutionalism.

The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence in Litigation

For decades, the legal profession has incorporated technological tools to improve its operations, including legal research databases, case management systems, electronic case filing platforms, and other digital solutions. Artificial intelligence, however, introduces a fundamental shift. Rather than merely organizing information, it is now capable of generating legal texts, proposing interpretations, and structuring legal reasoning. This development raises unprecedented questions for our judicial system.

To what extent can these tools influence the development of legal arguments? A careful reading of the decision reveals that this was precisely what exposed the use of artificial intelligence and became the central issue the Constitutional Chamber was called upon to resolve.

How should a constitutional court respond when technological developments become integrated into the judicial process? The law is not reacting against technology; rather, it is learning how to engage with it.

Where should the line be drawn between technological assistance and judicial decision-making? Constitutional Challenge Decision No. 57-2025 emerges precisely at this moment of transition.

The significance of this decision lies in the fact that the Honorable Constitutional Chamber, composed of five Justices, addresses a constitutional challenge arising in a context where artificial intelligence has already become part of legal practice. In this respect, the decision may be understood as one of the first instances in which the Salvadoran Constitutional Chamber has been confronted—albeit indirectly—with the presence of generative AI systems in the dynamics of litigation.

This is not a conflict with technology, but rather an institutional response to its presence.

The Court's Response: Limits and Human Responsibility

Viewed from this perspective, the decision reveals that the Court makes three pivotal legal determinations.

First, the Court implicitly acknowledges that artificial intelligence has become part of the current reality of legal practice. Technology is no longer external to the judicial system; it is now embedded within the ecosystem of legal reasoning and legal production.

Second, it establishes clear limits on the role that artificial intelligence may play. The judicial function cannot be delegated to automated systems or depend on them in any decisive manner. The act of adjudication requires constitutional interpretation, legal judgment, and institutional responsibility.

Third, it reaffirms a fundamental principle of the constitutional state: judicial decision-making is, and must remain, a human act.

This final point is particularly significant. The legitimacy of the judicial function does not derive solely from the technical correctness of a decision, but also from the deliberative process that underpins it and from the personal responsibility and constitutional authority of those who render it. See the constitutional requirements for serving as a judge or justice under Articles 176, 177, 179, and 180 of the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador.

In other words, justice is not measured solely by the efficiency of an algorithm, but is grounded in human reason, judicial deliberation, and the protection of fundamental rights.

The Centrality of the Human Person in Judicial Decision-Making

In contemporary legal tradition, there is a principle widely recognized in both human rights law and humanist thought: the centrality of the human person (Article 1 of the Constitution). This principle holds that scientific, technological, and institutional development must always be directed toward the protection of human dignity. The current debate, however, introduces a new dimension.

The question is no longer merely how technology affects society, but how it influences decision-making within judicial proceedings—even from the very formulation of legal claims and arguments.

From this perspective, Constitutional Challenge Decision No. 57-2025 may be understood as a reaffirmation of that principle within the judicial sphere. Artificial intelligence may assist in legal analysis, the organization of information, and even the formulation of preliminary legal arguments. However, the final decision—the one that affects constitutional rights, freedoms, and guarantees—must remain within the realm of human responsibility.

This does not constitute an obstacle to technological progress. On the contrary, it establishes the framework that enables technology to be used responsibly and in a manner consistent with the constitutional order.

The issue is not the existence of intelligent technologies, but the risk that human responsibility may become diluted in the decision-making process.

A New Chapter in the Evolution of Salvadoran Constitutionalism

Upon closer examination, the decision may be interpreted as one of the first steps toward the development of a national doctrine on artificial intelligence and constitutional justice.

The case reveals a phenomenon that is likely to become increasingly common in the years ahead: courts will increasingly be called upon to adjudicate cases in which artificial intelligence has played, directly or indirectly, a role in the preparation of legal arguments, analyses, or legal documents.

This does not mean that courts are adjudicating disputes between humans and machines. Rather, what is unfolding is something far more complex: the law is learning to respond to a new form of legal production shaped by technology. As noted above, the law is not reacting against technology; it is learning how to engage and interact with it.

In this context, the role of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Chamber) assumes even greater significance. Its responsibility extends beyond interpreting the Constitution in relation to statutes or acts of the State; it must also interpret it in the face of structural transformations in the way legal knowledge is generated. Constitutional Challenge Decision No. 57-2025 may therefore be regarded as an early milestone in that evolving process.

The Justice of the Future: Technologically Advanced, Yet Human

The presence of artificial intelligence in the legal field will undoubtedly continue to expand. It is foreseeable that, in the very near future, these technologies will become more deeply integrated into the work of lawyers, judges, legal researchers, and academics.

Nevertheless, technological advancement does not alter a fundamental principle of the law: judicial decision-making entails institutional, ethical, and ultimately human responsibility. Even in a highly technological environment, the administration of justice remains an inherently human endeavor.

From this perspective, the significance of Constitutional Challenge Decision No. 57-2025 lies not only in its immediate legal implications, but also in the message it conveys about the future of the judicial system. Technology can accompany the law, strengthen its operation, and even transform its methods of practice. It cannot, however, replace the human core that gives meaning and legitimacy to the judicial function.

In that respect, the decision reaffirms a fundamental constitutional principle: at the heart of the justice system, the human person must always remain at the center.