The Supreme Court’s adoption of the Rules on Electronic Notarization (A.M. No. 24-10-14-SC) marks a turning point for Philippine legal practice. For the first time, notarization can move from being a purely paper-based, jurisdiction-bound process into a digitally enabled framework. This comprehensive guide to electronic notarization in the Philippines gathers insights from three dedicated info sessions hosted by UNAWA: the May 14 explainer led by Atty. Gino Jacinto (Expanding Rules of the Supreme Court on E-Notarization), the July 16 roundtable with five practicing lawyers (Lawyers’ Roundtable: Navigating the Supreme Court’s Rules on E-Notarization), and the August 20 fireside chat with Atty. Kennedy Espina (Tech-Enabled Notarization Across Regions). Together, these conversations reveal how the rules work, what lawyers must prepare for, and where challenges remain.
Electronic notarization in the Philippines comes in two forms: in-person electronic notarization, where the notary and signatory meet physically but use a secure digital platform, and remote electronic notarization, where appearance is conducted over accredited video conferencing.
Atty. Gino Jacinto stressed during the May 14 session that this shift does not lessen the gravity of the process:
“The electronic notarial act must preserve the same solemnity as its paper counterpart. The fact that you are online does not mean you rush the process.”
This framing sets the stage. While technology introduces efficiency, it cannot diminish the solemn nature of notarization. Lawyers must remain faithful to their role as officers of the court even in a digital space.
The sessions consistently underlined accreditation as the foundation of legitimacy. Jacinto reminded participants that premature attempts would be invalid:
“Electronic notarization is not yet valid in the Philippines. Both the platform and the notary must be accredited. That is a key point I want everyone to keep in mind.”
The July 16 roundtable elaborated that accreditation mirrors traditional commissioning but with added safeguards. Lawyers must still present Integrated Bar of the Philippines certificates, clearances, and undergo hearings before an executive judge. The difference lies in the requirement to use only Supreme Court–accredited electronic notarization facilities (ENFs).
Atty. Rheland Servacio emphasized that this also expands the compliance role of lawyers:
“It’s no longer just about legal requirements. We carry digital compliance duties now. Data privacy, tech audits, regulatory standards—these are part of our practice.”
From the technology side, Atty. Espina added during the August 20 discussion that accreditation will depend heavily on whether ENFs comply with identity verification standards already set by regulators like the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Accreditation, in other words, is legal, procedural, and technological all at once.
The new framework requires both Electronic Notary Publics and technology platforms to undergo a formal accreditation process. The Supreme Court has already approved the Guidelines on the Accreditation of Electronic Notarization Facility Providers. It has established the Office of the Electronic Notary Administrator (ENA) to manage this process. However, the official application period for accreditation has not yet begun. A transitional period is underway to build the necessary infrastructure, including the Supreme Court Central Notarial Database, before the official accreditation process can commence. As a result, no official list of accredited facilities is currently available.
Perhaps the most visible change is the removal of geographic limits. Espina explained in August that:
“It spans the entire country and it allows for notarization even outside the Philippines, with the limitation that you are supposed to be in a Philippine consular office.”
Under the new rules, an electronic notary public may notarize anywhere in the Philippines, not just within their commissioning court’s jurisdiction. Filipinos abroad also benefit, though only if they appear physically inside an embassy or consulate.
This caveat surfaced during the July 16 roundtable, when Atty. Marie Christine A. Duran-Schulze described her clients’ experiences:
“A lot of clients that are based outside of the country are asking if we can notarize their documents even when they’re abroad. And I’ve just recently read the rules and it says yes, but you have to be at the consulate. So it’s still constricting.”
The gain is clear: wider reach without undermining control.
The info sessions presented situations that lawyers are likely to face once electronic notarization Philippines becomes operational:
These scenarios show how lawyers must manage both expectations and risks as clients adjust to the system.
The August 20 session with Espina provided a deep dive into technology. He praised the rules as comprehensive but admitted that implementation remains the challenge:
“From the perspective of the rules put out by our Supreme Court, there’s little left to improve. But technology wise, absolutely—there’s more work to be done.”
Identity Verification
Espina pointed out that most current systems use ID upload, selfies, and liveness checks. While useful, these are not enough to stop fake or tampered IDs. He explained:
“How can we make sure that the ID isn’t fake? We might need direct verification with the issuing agencies. That’s not yet in place.”
Until government databases are integrated, ENFs will carry the burden of ensuring accuracy.
Blockchain Debate
He also discussed whether blockchain should be used for record storage:
“If we’re going to use a blockchain for this, it should solve a problem that isn’t solvable yet by the usual structure. Otherwise, it only makes things more complicated.”
This pragmatic stance suggests that technology should serve the legal purpose, not complicate it.
Handling Interruptions
During Q&A, lawyers asked what happens if internet connectivity drops mid-session. The July 16 discussion confirmed that notarization must be paused and rescheduled to protect integrity.
Despite concerns, participants agreed on the benefits of electronic notarization:
The impact is twofold: greater convenience for clients and broader reach for lawyers.
The three sessions highlighted obstacles that will determine how smoothly electronic notarization Philippines will be adopted:
These risks underscore the need for vigilance.
Espina also compared the Philippine rules to other countries. China allows worldwide e-notarization, while the U.S. regulates state by state. He concluded that the Philippines now has one of the more comprehensive national frameworks, though he acknowledged its limitations—particularly the requirement for overseas Filipinos to still appear in consulates.
The lawyers consistently warned against casual use. Espina described how some may think notarization was successful when it was not. Duran-Schulze reminded peers that liability in high-value transactions is too large to take risks. Jacinto noted that offering services before accreditation is outright invalid.
The underlying lesson is clear: failure to follow procedure can damage both clients and the profession.
Electronic notarization Philippines stands as one of the most significant reforms in recent legal history. It expands jurisdiction, introduces secure technology, and promises faster and more accessible services. But as this comprehensive guide to electronic notarization in the Philippines shows, it also adds new compliance duties, technological hurdles, and the risk of misuse.
The three info sessions revealed a profession both cautious and hopeful. Lawyers must prepare to educate clients, master new tools, and protect the solemnity of notarization. In the words of Atty. Jacinto, the shift must not lead to rushing the process but to elevating it. Trust, after all, is what gives notarization its power—whether on paper or online.