The ILAW template has a field many teachers see for the first time and stall on: the declaration of AI use. It looks like a legal trap. It is not. It is a one-line statement of what a tool did and what you did, and the teachers who find it hardest are usually the ones trying to write more than it asks for.
This guide explains what the declaration is for under DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2026, what belongs in it, wording you can adapt, and — more importantly — the professional responsibility the declaration does not transfer. The lesson-planning shift sits inside a wider set of changes this year: see the three-term school year.
The 10-second answer: If an AI tool helped produce the plan, say so in one sentence: which tool, for what part, and that you reviewed and adapted it. The declaration does not make AI-written content acceptable — under DO 16 the teacher remains professionally responsible for the plan, and core decisions (objectives, learner context, reflections) must be the teacher’s own.
What the declaration is actually for
DepEd’s position on AI is permissive about assistance and firm about responsibility. Tools may help with drafting, formatting, and language. They may not replace professional judgement, and a plan is not supposed to be something an AI produced and a teacher signed.
The declaration exists so that assistance is visible. It is a transparency statement, in the same spirit as citing a source. It protects you — a documented, honest account of how a plan was prepared is far stronger than a plan whose origin is unclear — and it keeps the record accurate for the school head or observer reading it.
What belongs in it
Three elements, in one or two sentences:
- Which tool. Name it. “An AI lesson-planning tool” is weaker than naming the tool you used.
- For what part. Drafting the flow? Generating practice items? Rephrasing objectives? Formatting? Be specific enough that a reader knows the scope.
- What you did with it. Reviewed, contextualised for the class, edited, and finalised. This is the part that matters most, and it must be true.
Wording you can adapt
Use these as starting points, not as text to paste unchanged — the declaration should describe what actually happened in your case.
- “Initial draft generated with [tool]; reviewed, contextualised for this class, and finalised by the teacher.”
- “[Tool] was used to arrange the teacher’s notes into the ILAW format and to draft practice items. Objectives, learner context, and reflections were written by the teacher.”
- “AI assistance was limited to language editing and formatting. Instructional decisions and content are the teacher’s own.”
- “No AI tool was used in preparing this plan.” — equally valid, and worth writing rather than leaving the field blank.
What not to write
- A declaration that overstates your review. If you did not adapt the plan to your class, do not write that you did. That is the one sentence in the document that could actually be held against you.
- A paragraph. The field is not an essay. A transparent one-liner is enough.
- Nothing at all, when a tool was used. The omission is the problem, not the tool.
The responsibility the declaration does not transfer
This is the part worth reading twice. Declaring AI use does not make a fully AI-generated lesson plan acceptable. DO 16 keeps the teacher professionally responsible for the plan, and certain parts of the ILAW format are yours by definition:
- Intentions — the competencies and objectives must match what your class is ready for, which is something only you know. See writing ILAW intentions that match the competency code.
- Learner context — who is in the room, what they struggled with last week, what accommodations are needed.
- Reflections and ways forward — written after teaching, about what actually happened. A tool cannot produce these honestly, and a reviewer can tell.
A practical test: if an observer asked you why the plan does what it does, could you answer from your own reasoning? If not, the plan is not ready, whatever the declaration says.
How AI assistance fits an honest planning routine
The teachers who get the most out of these tools use them to remove typing, not thinking. A workable division of labour:
| Reasonable to delegate | Keep for yourself |
|---|---|
| Arranging your notes into the ILAW structure | Choosing the competency and the objectives |
| Drafting practice items to review and edit | Deciding what evidence of learning counts |
| Formatting, tables, and layout | Learner context and accommodations |
| Suggesting alternative activities to choose from | The choice among them |
| Language and consistency editing | Reflections after the lesson |
Our wider survey of AI tools for Filipino teachers covers how to judge a tool, and what AI gets wrong when writing test items is worth reading before you trust generated assessment content.
A privacy rule that comes before all of this
Do not put learner personal information into an AI tool. Names, LRNs, addresses, guardian details, health information, photographs of learners — none of it belongs in a prompt, and no declaration makes that acceptable. Plan with competencies, class-level descriptions, and anonymised examples. We cover the practical boundaries in student data privacy when using AI tools.
Frequently asked questions
Do I need a declaration if I only used AI to fix grammar?
Say so — that is exactly what the third example sentence above is for. Declaring light use costs you nothing and is more defensible than deciding on your own that some assistance is too small to mention.
Does assessment content need a declaration too?
If a tool drafted test items, say so wherever your school records how the assessment was built — the same transparency applies. Review generated items properly before they reach learners; the blueprint comes first, as our three-term assessment calendar sets out.
Does the declaration go on every plan?
The field is part of the template, so treat it as part of completing the template. If a plan involved no AI, write that.
Will declaring AI use count against me in an observation?
Assistance is permitted; the expectation is that the professional judgement is yours. A specific, honest declaration on a plan that is clearly adapted to your learners reads as competence. A vague declaration on a generic plan reads as the opposite — and the generic plan is the actual problem there.
What about AI use by learners?
That is governed by your school’s own guidance and the department’s issuances on learner use, which is a separate conversation from the teacher’s declaration on a lesson plan. Ask your school head rather than extending this field to cover it.
Where Skoolari fits
Skoolari’s lesson planner is built around this division of labour rather than against it. You supply the competency, the class context, and the decisions; it arranges your material into the ILAW structure, keeps the required sections in place, and fills in the AI use declaration honestly — describing the assistance it actually gave — for you to review and edit like everything else. The yellow fields that must be yours stay yours: objectives, learner context, and reflections are prompts, not autofill. Plans export as editable Word files, so the final wording is always yours. Start with the ILAW guide, or see the plans.
Check the current wording of the declaration field and your school’s guidance on AI use before submitting. This area is moving quickly, and a division memorandum may be more specific than the national order.