MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine government is looking to create a Philippine Council on Artificial Intelligence (PCAI), with multiple concurrent bills filed in both chambers starting in the second half of 2025.

The Council is being legislated under Senate Bill (SB) 852, and a number of House Bills (HB) — HB6920, HB13, HB1920, HB3195, and HB5158. 

Here’s what’s being proposed:

The Council will be made up of a body of experts that will assist in policy-making and advising the government on the use of artificial intelligence in all sectors that may be affected. 

It will be composed of individuals in various fields of expertise including an AI researcher, robotics specialist, a machine learning expert, a data science specialist, a technology expert, ethicist, sociologist or anthropologist, psychologist, public health expert, security analyst, legal scholar, human rights advocate, a citizens’ representative, and other experts who may be appointed by the President. 

What would it be responsible for?

The PCAI will be tasked with conducting evaluation of AI systems as they may relate to the development of the country’s economy, and develop a “governance framework” based on “fundamental guiding principles on the development, application and use of AI.”

The framework will put consideration on proper use, and the PCAI will be developing a code of ethics for AI developers, and identify rules that will prevent abusive and harmful applications of AI, including the algorithms that may impact business models. 

The council will be relied upon for guidelines relating to penalties to be levied on “indiscriminate and non-rights respecting applications of AI.” 

What are these rights? 

The bill also proposes an AI bill of rights, and included in these are the following, including abridged descriptions:

• Right to Protection from Unsafe and Ineffective AI Systems – Consultations will be held with all stakeholders about the potential unsafe effects of AI systems. Prior to the deployment, tests must be done to scope out potential harms.
  
• Right against Algorithmic Discrimination – Systems must be evaluated for algorithms that are discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity, sex, related medical conditions, gender identity, religion, age, national origin, disability, genetic information, or any other classification protected by law.
  
• Right to Privacy – Basic data privacy rules apply but also the bill suggests alternative privacy by design safeguards where applicable, and that users shouldn’t be burdened with defaults that are “privacy-invasive.” AI systems must comply with the requirements of Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
  
• Right to Know – Users should be notified that an AI system is in use, and that there are “explanations of outcomes that are clear, timely, and accessible.” Something to note here is that AI systems currently have a “black box” problem wherein even developers have difficulties explaining how a system produced a certain output.
  
• Right to Remedy – There must be a human alternative that can be consulted “if an automated system fails or produces an error.” 

Education will also form part of the Council’s responsibilities, tasked with helping the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Department of Education (DepEd), Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) and other education stakeholders to “revitalize the teaching of humanities” in institutions.

For emerging business models spurred by AI, the PCAI must “ensure an efficient balance in the regulation of AI and consumer protection.” Too much regulation risks choking innovation, so guardrails must be thoughtful. 

For the workforce, the PCAI is proposed to establish “appropriate mechanisms to protect workers and professionals from potential job losses brought about by automation and AI.” 

One key difference between the current Senate bill and the House bills is that the latter already has more specific provisions regarding the loss of jobs due to AI. 

The House bills propose a mandate for the Department of Labor and Employment to create a specific Job Displacement Program to immediately assist and re-employ affected workers. Workers that are made redundant due to AI are to be given separation pay at a rate that scales according to their length of tenure, along with unemployment benefits from the Social Security System or Government Service Insurance System.

Another difference is that the Senate bill proposes putting the Council under the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), while the House bills propose putting it under the Department of Information and Communications Technology.

While the PCAI is tasked with policy making and advisory duties, the bills’ proposed AI Board will serve as the active regulatory and enforcement arm, which can investigate potential violations and hand out fines. 

Congress was scheduled to hold a technical working group meeting on the bills, along with a host of other similar AI bills, last Thursday, March 12. 

The Council is among the pillars of the bill, which also include the National AI Strategy approved by the President in May last year, and the recently launched National AI Center for Research and Innovation (NAICRI) under the DOST. – Rappler.com