§ Technology
This page documents KARTILYA.PH’s bounded retrieval and source-checking architecture. General Ask is under maintenance. Cases, Statutes, and source-bounded Passage Ask remain available through the public research desk. The system is an automated research aid, not legal advice or a substitute for professional judgment.
The statutory corpus contains 8,297 provisions across 57 instruments: the 1987 Constitution, major Codes, and selected statutes and rules. Most instruments are third-party reproductions published by the Arellano Law Foundation; procedural rules were sourced separately. A deterministic pipeline parses the material into addressable provisions and preserves instrument, chapter, and section context as structured metadata. Some base texts are enacted versions rather than current consolidated editions; the relevant reading pages carry currency notes.
The jurisprudence catalog contains 4,181 records in a dated, incomplete snapshot from 2019 through July 29, 2026. Links between a decision and a statute record extracted citations; they do not by themselves establish a holding or application. Jurisprudence retrieval remains separate from the statutory synthesis described below.
Statutory provisions and retained opinion-text chunks are embedded for semantic retrieval, so candidate materials can be matched by meaning rather than exact phrase. At query time the question is embedded and compared by cosine similarity with the statutory provisions. The question is also rewritten into denser statutory terminology, and the original and rewritten searches are interleaved. Thus, “can an arrested person stay silent?” can retrieve the custodial-investigation clause even though the question uses different terms.
The statutory synthesis model receives retrieved provisions, not related-decision metadata. It is instructed to use only the supplied statutory text, divide the answer into discrete points, and attach the cited provision to each point. A separate case-analysis path works only from bounded retained-opinion excerpts: it screens relevance and selects a concise verbatim holding passage. Where the retrieved corpus does not address the question, the response reports that coverage limit. The resulting answer remains automated research output and can be incomplete or wrong.
Each statutory citation is resolved against the corpus, and every cited answer point is checked against the corresponding corpus passage. Case holding excerpts pass a separate boundary: the selected text must be found verbatim in the retained opinion; deterministic source-role checks reject quoted-authority blocks; then an independent check must confirm that it is the decision's relevant majority holding or application. The displayed holding is constructed from the canonical source passage, not separately generated. A failed, malformed, incomplete, or misattributed excerpt is omitted; the already-screened case card may remain without one. These checks concern source support and relevance, not completeness, currentness, or the application of law to a person’s facts.
§ See it work
This fixed example illustrates a statutory answer whose two cited points completed the source-text check and were reported as verified. It is an illustration, not a legal opinion; other results may be flagged or unavailable.
§ Can an arrested person stay silent?
A fixed example for illustration. General Ask is under maintenance. Browse Statutes →
§ Why source checks matter
A general-purpose AI model can produce a confident legal answer while missing an exception, relying on an outdated rule, or misstating a citation. KARTILYA.PH narrows the task by supplying retrieved provisions and reporting source checks. That reduces some common failure modes, while leaving the need to check the law and the facts of the matter.
The source check assigns each cited statutory point a reported status after comparison with its corpus passage: verified, flagged, or unavailable. Failed and incomplete checks remain unavailable rather than receiving a verified status. Case holding excerpts are separately grounded in exact passages located in a retained opinion excerpt, then independently checked against those passages. These statuses describe the check performed; they do not guarantee the whole answer or its application to a particular matter.
Statutory and case synthesis remain separate: each uses its own retained source material and independent verification boundary. Review the cited source and consult a licensed Philippine lawyer for advice about a specific matter. Search case records →