A GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ETHICAL USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

A GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ETHICAL USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic dream — it's part of our daily lives. Even if we don’t realize it, we are already using AI whenever we interact with social media algorithms, mobile apps, recommendation engines, or smart assistants. What’s new, however, is the growing sense that AI must be bounded by ethical principles — ideally, through a global framework that ensures accountability, fairness, and safety across borders.

That aspiration is laudable. But it also compels us to ask: Do we even have a national framework for the ethical use of AI here in the Philippines?

The gap at home: no binding national AI law yet

Logically, one would expect that before widespread AI adoption, a country should put in place guardrails to guide its ethical use. In the Philippines, we are still lagging in that respect. According to UNESCO, the Philippines has yet to enact legally binding rules or a national framework governing AI. 

We do have promising legislative proposals. In May 2023, House Bill 7913—“Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation Act”—was introduced to define guiding principles (accountability, transparency, human-centered values) and even establish an “AI Bill of Rights” for citizens. There’s also House Bill 7396, which would set up an AI Development Authority (AIDA) to license AI developers. Several other bills are pending in Congress (HB 7983, HB 9448, etc.). 

On the executive‐policy side, the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) recently released a Policy Note on Artificial Intelligence aiming to embed AI into the national development agenda—while flagging challenges such as data governance, infrastructure, and regulatory fragmentation. DEPDev has also envisioned a unified national AI strategy that includes a national data governance framework under the Philippine Statistics Authority. Meanwhile, the government’s Innovation Council approved a think tank to help shape AI policy.

Yet none of these are yet laws. In the interim, the National Privacy Commission issued an advisory in December 2024 on how the existing Data Privacy Act would apply to AI systems that process personal data. That’s a useful stopgap—but hardly sufficient protection for complex and powerful AI systems.

So we find ourselves in a limbo: discussions, bills, policy notes — but no enforceable national standard.

Learning from India: a potential model

We could learn some lessons from India, which has positioned itself as a front-runner in articulating a national AI framework. Its model is not perfect, but it is more advanced than ours in many respects.

India’s National Strategy for AI (via NITI Aayog) was published as early as 2018, and expanded in supplementary documents, notably Part 1: Principles for Responsible AI. These principles draw on the familiar “FAT” framework — Fairness, Accountability, Transparency — as well as philosophical foundations such as “Person Respect, Beneficence, and Justice.” 

India is also implementing a “whole-of-government” approach, recommending an interministerial AI coordination committee, a technical secretariat, and an AI incident database. There’s also discussion of a voluntary code of conduct for AI companies focusing on data labeling, ethical practices, and stakeholder engagement. 

In the financial sector, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) recently proposed a FREE-AI (Framework for Responsible and Ethical Enablement of AI) for financial institutions. This framework is structured along infrastructure, governance, policy, protection, and assurance — attempting to balance innovation with risk mitigation.

India likewise invests heavily in flagship AI projects under its “Safe & Trusted AI” pillar, tackling bias, deepfake detection, forensic robustness, and more. 

The cumulative effect: India is not just debating moral principles — it is actively building infrastructure, institutional capacity, and pilot systems.

What should we do in the Philippines?

This is where my own suggestions and questions come in. If I were designing a roadmap for the Philippines, here’s where I’d start — and where I’d call on your feedback.

1. Choose a lead department or body
 Which agency should take charge of drafting the national AI ethical framework? My top contenders:

  • DICT (Department of Information and Communications Technology) — because AI is in many ways an ICT issue (connectivity, digital services, infrastructure).

  • DOST (Department of Science and Technology) — because R&D, innovation, and science are its domain.

  • DEPDev /National Innovation Council — because the ethical use of AI is ultimately a development policy issue. In fact, the National Innovation Council (part of DEPDev) is already a body under which innovation policy is coordinated.

If no line department steps up, the Presidential Management Staff (PMS) could serve as convener (especially for issuing interim Executive Orders).

2. Use executive orders or administrative issuances as interim tools
 Just as we have the Freedom of Information EO, the President could issue an EO or memorandum directing agencies to adopt key AI ethics principles, establish oversight committees, and pilot “AI sandboxes.” That gives us something to act on while Congress deliberates.

3. Enact a “Philippine AI Bill of Rights”
 Borrowing concepts from HB 7913, the basic rights should include:

  • Protection from unsafe or discriminatory AI systems

  • Right to explanation / algorithmic transparency

  • Right to privacy and data protection

  • Right to remedy or redress

  • Accountability mechanisms, audit trails, and appeal channels

4. Risk-based, modular regulation
 Instead of a one-size-fits-all law, we should adopt tiered regulation: low-risk AI (e.g. recommender engines) get light oversight, but high-impact AI (e.g. credit scoring, health diagnosis, criminal justice) require stronger standards, audits, and oversight. We must avoid stifling innovation for startups and small players.

5. Build institutional capacity & incident reporting
 An AI incident reporting system (to log errors, biases, misuse) should be a core part of governance. Also, we need dedicated regulatory units with technical capacity — auditors, algorithmic forensics, ethics officers.

6. Localize the global framework to barangay / community level
 You raised an intriguing idea: a barangay-level adaptation of ethical AI governance. Imagine:

  • A local “bias audit toolkit” for barangay-run decision systems (e.g. in aid distribution)

  • Voice authentication modules for local cooperative transactions

  • Deepfake detection protocols for local media or misinformation

  • Modular AI for waste sorting, aquaculture forecasting, or local planning (circular design)

7. Promote public literacy and stakeholder engagement
 Ethical AI frameworks cannot just be top-down. We need citizen engagement, civil society input, and public awareness campaigns — so people understand their rights and the risks of AI systems.

Some caveats and tensions

  • Overregulation can suffocate innovation. We must keep regulation principle-based and flexible (not excessively prescriptive).

  • Developing countries must balance ethical guardrails with capacity constraints: regulatory agencies may lack staff or technical know-how.

  • AI governance must be interoperable globally—but also flexible to local contexts (language, culture, social norms).

  • Privacy laws like ours (Data Privacy Act) must dovetail with AI regulation — not contradict or undermine them.

  • Startups and innovators should be involved, to avoid “regulation by bureaucrats” that lock out new ideas.

Closing reflection

A global ethical AI framework is a necessary but insufficient goal if nations like ours don’t first build their own national foundations. For the Philippines, the path is clear: pick a lead institution, issue interim EOs, pass a guiding law, and pilot community-level systems.

Let me leave you with these questions:

  • If you were in charge, which agency would you pick to lead the ethics-AI drafting effort?

  • How would you design a barangay-level AI sandbox that is safe yet empowering?

  • What safeguards would you insist must always stay non-negotiable in any law or EO?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

02-04-2026

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES? When we talk about the crime rate in the Philippines, we often assume that the figures we see are accurate reflections of reality. But have we ever paused to ask—how exactly is the crime rate computed? Where does this data come from, and how reliable is it? The computation of the crime rate in the Philippines is officially handled by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The formula itself is straightforward: Crime Rate = (Total Reported Crimes / Total Population) x 100,000 This simple equation gives us the number of crimes per 100,000 people, allowing for fair comparison across regions and time periods. However, the reality behind these numbers is more complex than it appears. Data from the Ground The foundation of our national crime rate is empirical data collected at the grassroots level—from individual police stations scattered across the country. Every reported crime is logged in local police blotters, forming the buil...
Read more

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS Dear Mr. President: May I ask who is going to be the arbiter or referee whenever there are overlaps in functions between two or more government agencies? I imagine that there would be no problem if these agencies would just cooperate and collaborate with each other, but what if they are unable to settle their differences and they would just end up throwing blame at each other or finger pointing at each other? Allow me to cite some examples. Who is supposed to take the lead in waste to energy projects? Is it supposed to be the DENR that is supposed to handle waste? Or is it supposed to be the DOE that is supposed to handle energy generation? Or is it supposed to be the DILG since it is the one that could direct or influence the waste to energy projects of LGUs? Who is supposed to take the lead in producing and promoting the use of biofuels? Is it supposed to be the DA, since the production of biofuels is supposed to be all about planting biofuel ...
Read more

LOCALIZED FREE AMBULANCE SERVICES

LOCALIZED FREE AMBULANCE SERVICES As it is supposed to be, anyone in the Philippines should be able to dial 911, and a telephone operator should be able to dispatch fire, rescue, ambulance and police (FRAP) units as soon as possible, based on acceptable response times. I invented the FRAP acronym for easy recall, and I hope it sticks, if there is no other alternative. Unfortunately, due to a mixture of technical and political reasons, the Philippines has not adopted 911 as a national number, because some LGUs would rather use their own three-digit numbers such as 117 and 168. I actually proposed a technical solution to that problem, but it was not adopted either. For whatever it is worth, my solution is to install a call forwarding system that could route all calls to a central operator, regardless of what number is dialed. It is very sad for me to know that up to now, even if our country is already over one hundred years old, there are still many LGUs that do not have fire trucks. it ...
Read more