We have talked about law. We have talked about compliance. This time, we focused on technology.
The third session in our NotarizeIT series, Tech-Enabled Notarization Across Regions, examined how electronic notarization is unfolding abroad and what lessons we can apply locally. I had the privilege of hosting Atty. Kennedy Espina, whose background in both computer science and law provides a unique perspective on how technology and legal practice converge.
Atty. Espina shared how jurisdictions such as the United States and China have already implemented electronic notarization. Their models differ—some permit principals and witnesses to appear from anywhere in the world, while others remain restricted by geography. What unites them is a recognition that digital processes can expand access and reduce delays.
In the Philippines, the Supreme Court has already issued a comprehensive framework. The rules are in place. What remains is the question of implementation. Reliable identity verification, secure digital signatures, and robust infrastructure are the real requirements. Without them, the potential of electronic notarization cannot be realized in daily practice.
The discussion also addressed blockchain. Atty. Espina cautioned that it should only be adopted if it solves a real problem. Introducing new layers of complexity without a clear purpose will not strengthen the system.
Identity verification emerged as a central issue. A video call and an ID scan do not guarantee authenticity if the ID itself is forged. Linking directly with government databases such as LTO or PSA would enhance trust, but until such integration is possible, the responsibility remains with the electronic notary to apply diligence.
Most importantly, accreditation is non-negotiable. Both the platform and the notary must be accredited before any act gains legal effect. Anything less risks misleading the public and undermining confidence in the system.
This session underscored that the Philippines is not lagging behind. In many respects, we are positioned to leapfrog. By entering later, we can avoid missteps made abroad and adopt practices suited to our own context.
Technology will remain an enabler, not a substitute. Digital signatures, biometric checks, and tamper-proof logs can reinforce trust, but they must always align with the law and with cultural acceptance. Adoption will succeed only when legal frameworks, technological standards, and public readiness progress together.
I thank Atty. Espina for sharing his insights, and I thank our participants for their thoughtful questions. The discussion reinforced both the opportunities and the responsibilities ahead. We will continue this series on technology’s role in legal practice, and I invite you to join us as we move forward.