Generative AI and Academic Integrity in Philippine Higher Education: A Documentary Analysis of Institutional Policy Mechanisms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52562/jdle.2026.1968Keywords:
generative AI, academic integrity, higher education policy, document analysis, PhilippinesAbstract
Philippine universities have issued guidance on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) since 2023, but comparisons of what the adopted texts require remain limited. This documentary analysis examined seven institutional policies and three scholarly or advisory proposals located through database and website searches between September and December 2025. A codebook of 19 provisions, organised under Chan's governance, pedagogical and operational dimensions, was applied to each document. All seven policies name institutional values and require attribution of GenAI use, and six ask for student or course-level declarations. Four redesign or restrict assessment, three limit the weight of detector evidence, and three name a responsible body. No re-read policy bans GenAI outright. Institutions can pair declarations with structural assessment changes, written evidence standards for detection tools, and a review cycle.
Downloads
References
Cacho, R. (2024). Integrating generative AI in university teaching and learning: A model for balanced guide-lines. Online Learning, 28(3), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i3.4508
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3
Corbin, T., Dawson, P., & Liu, D. (2025). Talk is cheap: Why structural assessment changes are needed for a time of GenAI. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(7), 1087–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2503964
Dalglish, S. L., Khalid, H., & McMahon, S. A. (2020). Document analysis in health policy research: The READ approach. Health Policy and Planning, 35(10), 1424–1431. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa064
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gaševi?, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 100348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns, 4(7), Article 100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779
Lisao, B. C. G., Pal, R. C. M., Tejero, C. B., & Bacasmot, J. B. (2025). Academic integrity in peril: Teachers' experiences towards generative artificial intelligence. European Journal of Education Studies, 12(9). https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v12i9.6162
Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y. (2023). Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities. Computers and Education Open, 5, Article 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A framework for ethical integration of generative AI in educational assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(6). https://doi.org/10.53761/q3azde36
Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479366
Turingan, V. T. (2025). Exploring students' perspectives on utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) writing tools through sequential explanatory mixed method study. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 10(4), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijels.104.37
Villanueva, M. C. (2025). Towards national standards: Comparative analysis of AI governance models in Philippine higher education. Ignatian International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 3(4), 543–565. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15212683
Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popoola, O., Šigut, P., & Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kelvin O. Rufin, Joana Melissa P. Dungog, Sheena Mae D. De Vera, Felmark S. Levara, Glenne B. Lagura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
