By: Atty. Edsel F. Tupaz, Atty. Gabriel G. Tabeta, & Danica S. Escobiñas
March 25, 2025
Summary
The Philippine National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) released a Policy Note on Artificial Intelligence, highlighting the country’s lag in AI governance compared to neighboring Southeast Asian nations and suggesting alignment with advanced jurisdictions like the EU and US. The AI Policy Note recommends a unified national AI strategy, focusing on digital infrastructure, data governance, and human capital development, while addressing fragmented data practices. It complements the Department of Trade and Industry’s National AI Strategy Roadmap 2.0, which emphasizes practical implementation and ethical standards. Various government agencies, including the National Privacy Commission and Commission on Elections, have issued AI-related guidelines, underscoring the need for a comprehensive AI governance framework to manage AI’s transformative potential across sectors.
NEDA’s AI Policy Note outlines the Philippines’ AI landscape, recommending a unified strategy and aligning with international practices.
The Philippine National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) released, on February 7, 2025, the Policy Note on Artificial Intelligence (the AI Policy Note), which serves as the agency’s primer on artificial intelligence (AI). It describes the Philippines’ current AI landscape and provides for potential directions to ‘maximize AI’s transformative potential.’ In this Insight article, Edsel F. Tupaz, Gabriel G. Tabeta, and Danica S. Escobiñas, from Gorriceta Africa Cauton & Saavedra, discuss NEDA’s AI Policy Note and its interplay with otherAI policies in the Philippines.
NEDA’s AI Policy Note
The AI Policy Note presents the state of AI integration within the Philippine development strategy and a brief comparative analysis of AI policy-making progress among neighboring Southeast Asia nations. NEDA finds the Philippines lagging behind Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia, all of which have developed or are actively formulating comprehensive AI governance frameworks. However, NEDA sees an opportunity for the Philippines to follow the lead of other more advanced jurisdictions, such as the EU and the US, with regard to their approaches to AI regulation.
Philippine government bodies have sporadically issued specialized rules on AI, as shall be discussed. Following the AI Policy Note, Philippine businesses and investors can anticipate further action on the part of the Executive Department to issue regulations on the use and governance of AI. These issuances will likely take inspiration from existing risk-based AI governance frameworks, such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (the EU AI Act) and the UNESCO Recommendation on AI Ethics. A number of existing and draft regulations have already taken this approach, such as the National Privacy Commission’s Advisory No. 2024-04, which took cues from the OECD Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence, and the Department of Information and Communication Technology and Civil Service Commission’s Draft Joint Memorandum Circular on the Principles and Guidelines for an Ethical and Trustworthy Use of AI in the Government, which aligns with the ASEAN AI Guide on Governance and Ethics. The Philippine Government may also call upon sectoral councils to provide insights on sector-specific AI regulations, which the NEDA hopes to be flexible and considerate in assessing the needs of the Philippines’ nascent state of AI adoption. The NEDA envisions a unified national AI strategy to set the direction of AI regulations in the years ahead.
Aside from regulating aspects of AI systems, the AI Policy Note recommends prioritizing measures that enable the adoption of AI in the Philippines. These include measures for expanding digital infrastructure, strengthening data governance, and developing human capital. Of particular interest is the AI Policy Note’s recommendation to remedy what may appear to be fragmented and inconsistent data practices in the Philippines. The AI Policy Note envisions the creation of a national data governance framework under the leadership of the Philippine Statistics Authority and the standardization of data generation, collection, storage, processing, and sharing across the public and private sectors. This is particularly important considering AI’s implications on the state of Philippine data privacy and protection, which require frameworks for sharing and processing of personal data to comply with general data privacy principles such as accountability.
NEDA Policy Note vis-à-vis the Department of Trade and Industry’s National AI Strategy Roadmap 2.0 and Center of AI Research
The NEDA AI Policy Note complements the Department of Trade and Industry’s (DTI) National AI Strategy Roadmap 2.0 (NAISR 2.0), announced in mid-2024. Although the official text of NAISR 2.0 remains pending, early insights from DTI’s official speaking engagements and information decks reveal a focus on practical implementation strategies to harness generative AI, ethical standards alignment, and economic sector-specific opportunities.
While the NEDA AI Policy Note provides high-level policy guidance and a foundational framework for legislative and regulatory actions, NAISR 2.0 presents detailed operational frameworks and interventions for immediate industry and government agency adoption. Notably, NAISR 2.0 prioritizes industry-specific AI integration and ethical governance frameworks to manage potential risks.
An important development linked to NAISR 2.0 is the transfer of the Center forAI Research (CAIR) from DTI to the Department of Education (DepEd), now renamed the Education Center forAI Research (E-CAIR). This move recalibrates the center’s focus from broad industrial AI applications toward educational challenges. According to E-CAIR Managing Director Erika Legara, E-CAIR is now concentrating on real-world educational challenges, leveraging AI for optimizing resource allocation, improving assessment methods, and applying predictive analytics to inform education policies.
Although this reassignment underscores the importance of educational integration, it may raise valid concerns about potential delays or de- prioritization of industrial and commercial AI applications. The original CAIR aimed to position the Philippines as an attractive hub forAI-driven investments and commercial AI applications. The DepEd’s educational mandate may naturally incline E-CAIR toward education-centric AI use cases – notably, only primary and secondary education – which may possibly de- emphasize industrial and economic innovation initially envisaged by CAIR under DTI.
Approaches of the Philippine Government on AI
Beyond the NEDA and DTI initiatives, several Philippine government agencies have proactively issued guidelines addressing AI within their sectors. This regulatory landscape suggests a growing recognition of AI’s pervasive influence, prompting agencies to act independently on the basis of their legislative or constitutional mandates regardless of the timing and passage of national legislation.
The National Privacy Commission (NPC)
The NPC is able to regulate AI systems on the basis of the Data PrivacyAct (the Act) Implementing Rules and Regulations: If AI systems can be considered ‘automated processing and profiling systems’ that use personal data, then Philippine privacy laws can apply to such systems. However, the popularity of AI systems has prompted the NPC to release targeted advisories and rules on AI. Most prominent of these is NPC Advisory No. 2024-04, or the Guidelines on the Application of the Act, its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and the Issuances of the Commission to AI Systems Processing Personal Data (the NPC AI Guidelines). The NPC AI Guidelines provide for the application of the Act to all personal data processing systems, including AI systems that process personal data, and provide specific guidelines on how AI system lifecycle stakeholders may comply with the Act through demonstrable measures of compliance and governance mechanisms.
Other notable NPC issuances include Advisory Opinion No. 2024-005, permitting personal information controllers (PICs) to use AI systems in workplace performance assessments if lawful bases are established, and Advisory Opinion No. 2024-002 which affirms the PIC’s accountability forAI system outputs.
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
In anticipation of widespread use of generative AI in the forthcoming 2025 Philippine elections, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 11064, mandating candidates and political parties to disclose AI usage in propaganda and campaign materials through clear disclaimers meeting COMELEC’s prescribed disclosure standards.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
The BSP is yet to release specific regulations governing the use of AI in the banking and finance industry. However, the BSP has released certain regulations that may be relevant for banking and finance industry players looking to integrate AI into their businesses. BSP Circular No. 1153, Series of 2022 provides for the BSP’s rules for its Regulatory Sandbox Framework, which may allow industry players to test theirAI-powered financial products and services in the Philippine market. The BSP’s Manuals of Regulations for Banks and Non-Bank Financial Institutions (MORB/MORNBFI) provide guidelines on Information Technology Risk Management, which may require industry players to consider how AI systems, both internal and external, may introduce or affect risks to their institution’s operational resilience.
Department of Information and Communication Technology (DICT)
The DICT, as the regulatory agency responsible for formulating and implementing national policies for the development of information and communications technology (ICT), has actively participated in initiatives to promote the growth of the AI industry. The DICT has also drafted regulations concerning AI. Among these is the draft Joint Memorandum Circular on the Principles and Guidelines for an Ethical and Trustworthy Use of AI in the Government (the Joint Memorandum Circular). The Joint Memorandum Circular provides general guidelines for government agencies to adopt, aiming to ensure that theirAI systems are ethical and trustworthy. These guidelines include general principles for cyber safety and security, data privacy and protection, fairness and non-discrimination, and responsibility and accountability, among others.
Future of AI policy: A call for a unified AI governance framework
Currently, the Philippine AI regulatory environment comprises various subject- matter-specific administrative issuances from different executive departments and independent commissions, creating a decentralized regulatory landscape that demands inter-agency coordination and collaboration to effectively manage AI’s transformative potential across social sectors.
While significant groundwork has been set by individual government agencies, the transformative impact may require a more comprehensive approach to avoid policy fragmentation.
The NEDA Policy Note is clearly an opportunity for the Philippines to align itself with international and regional developments, increase inter-agency cooperation, and provide strategic direction. With deliberate policy choices shaped by international emerging practices, the Philippines can accelerate AI policy maturity and be in a better position to capture economic and social benefits through responsible AI adoption.
Edsel F. Tupaz is a Senior Partner, Head of Data Privacy, Cybersecurity and AI Initiatives Practice Group & Head of Special Projects and Infrastructure Group. Edsel is a Dual-qualified under the Philippine and New York Bars, with over 20 years of expertise across data privacy & protection, technology, cybersecurity, AI, infrastructure, government procurement, corporate law, and banking and financial services. Master of Laws from Harvard Law School, holds economics and law degrees from Ateneo (both with honors), served as Managing Technical Editor of the Harvard Human Rights Journal, and listed under the Experts Directory for Philippine privacy law on OneTrust DataGuidance. Certified Information Privacy Professional – Europe (CIPP/E) and Certified Information Privacy Manager (CIPP) under IAPP. Challenger at the Alan Turing Institute’s Data Challenge – Policy Priorities and AI for Sustainable Development Goals (2023-2024). Awarded “Data Privacy & Protection Lawyer of the Year” at the 2023 Philippine Law Awards and is recognized among the Top 100 Lawyers in the Philippines by Asia Business Law Journal.
Gabriel G. Tabeta is a Junior Associate and currently a member of the Data Privacy, Cybersecurity & AI, Tax, and Technology Media & Telecommunications Departments of the Firm. Gabriel is involved in the various data privacy and AI initiatives of the Firm, working with foreign and domestic clients to ensure their projects and operations comply with the country’s data privacy regulations. Gabriel also assists in processing reportorial requirements for businesses looking to make their entry into the Philippine market.
Danica S. Escobiñas is a Junior Associate and currently a member of the Corporate, Technology Media & Telecommunications, Energy, and Real Property departments of the Firm. Her practice includes corporate secretarial and compliance matters before regulatory bodies. She also assists clients in corporate and commercial dealings such as mergers and acquisitions and legal due diligence.
This article was originally published on OneTrust Data Guidance. You may find the full article here: https://www.dataguidance.com/opinion/philippines-nedas-policy-note-ai-light-current-ai
