Global Index Score
32.98
Philippines's index score lands +0.0 against the Asia and Oceania average (33.0) and +6.0 against Lower middle income peers (27.0). It scores ahead of 50% of the 135 countries and jurisdictions assessed this edition. The profile rests on 32 documented evidence items spanning policy frameworks, government initiatives and civil society activity.
GIRAI evaluates countries across five core dimensions that capture the social, ethical, and institutional impacts of artificial intelligence.
AI Policy
25.46
Avrg. Score
25.65
Enabling Conditions
54.41
Avrg. Score
55.27
Civil Society Engagement
13.76
Avrg. Score
17.68
29.41
Index Score
33.21
Avrg. Dimension score
Philippines runs -3.8 against the regional average (33.2) on Inclusion and Diversity. Strongest indicators: Gender Equality (37.9), Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (20.4). Weakest: Children's Rights (19.7). This dimension ranks 64th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (68th). 6 evidence items on file, including "House Bill No. 807 or the 'Take It Down Act of 2025' (Philippines)" and 1 other documented items.
33.74
Index Score
31.00
Avrg. Dimension score
Philippines runs +2.7 against the regional average (31.0) on Ethics and Sustainability. Strongest indicators: Transparency and Explainability (62.1), Fairness and Non-discrimination (40.9). Weakest: Environmental Impact (18.9), Human Oversight and Determination (22.7). This dimension ranks 64th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (68th). 7 evidence items on file, including "Policy Note on AI".
30.69
Index Score
36.03
Avrg. Dimension score
Philippines runs -5.3 against the regional average (36.0) on Labour and Skills. Strongest indicators: AI Literacy (31.1), Labour Protections (19.7). Weakest: Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives (19.7). This dimension ranks 81st globally — behind the country's overall position (68th). 8 evidence items on file, including "DepEd to revise curriculum to include responsible AI use Angara".
37.39
Index Score
38.45
Avrg. Dimension score
Philippines runs -1.1 against the regional average (38.4) on Trust and Safety. Strongest indicators: Impact Assessments (22.7), Access to Redress and Remedy (22.0). Weakest: Safety and Security (5.4), AI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence (21.0). This dimension ranks 66th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (68th). 8 evidence items on file, including 5 documented items (documented frameworks and initiatives).
33.65
Index Score
30.02
Avrg. Dimension score
Philippines runs +3.6 against the regional average (30.0) on AI Use in Public Service. Strongest indicators: Public Procurement (65.9), Public Sector Skills Development (5.7). Weakest: Public Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems (0.0). This dimension ranks 51st globally — ahead of the country's overall position (68th). 3 evidence items on file, including 2 documented items (documented frameworks and initiatives).
Explore how country performance, scores, and governance indicators have changed between GIRAI editions.
14 indicators
| Indicator | 2024 Edition | 2026 Edition |
|---|---|---|
| Gender Equality | Non-Binding Framework | Non-Binding Framework |
| Children's Rights | No Framework | Draft |
| Cultural and Linguistic Diversity | No Framework | Draft |
| Fairness and Non-discrimination | No Framework | Non-Binding Framework |
| Transparency and Explainability | Draft | Non-Binding Framework |
| Human Oversight and Determination | Draft | Draft |
| Labour Protections | No Framework | Draft |
| Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives | No Framework | Draft |
| Safety and Security | Draft | Draft |
| Access to Redress and Remedy | Draft | Draft |
| Impact Assessments | Draft | Draft |
| Public Sector Skills Development | No Framework | Draft |
| Public Procurement | No Framework | Binding Framework |
| Government Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance | No Framework | Draft |
Indicator definitions changed between editions; this table compares evidence presence and status, not directly comparable scores. A — indicates the item is not applicable or was not assessed for that edition.
Explore how countries and regions perform across GIRAI's governance dimensions, scores, and structural indicators.
| Indicator | Philippines | Asia and Oceania |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusion and Diversity7 | ||
APGender Equality | 37.9 | 24.5 |
APChildren's Rights | 19.7 | 27.8 |
APCultural and Linguistic Diversity | 20.4 | 25.9 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Inclusion and Diversity | 0.0 | 15.4 |
ECEgalitarian Democracy | 18.5 | 33.2 |
ECDevice Affordability | 19.6 | 49.2 |
ECGender Gap in Mobile Internet | 100.0 | 78.0 |
| Ethics and Sustainability7 | ||
APFairness and Non-discrimination | 40.9 | 26.1 |
APTransparency and Explainability | 62.1 | 33.5 |
APHuman Oversight and Determination | 22.7 | 26.2 |
APEnvironmental Impact | 18.9 | 18.0 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Ethics and Sustainability | 30.8 | 20.8 |
ECLow-Carbon Energy Share | 20.5 | 40.9 |
ECRule of Law | 39.3 | 48.2 |
| Labour and Skills6 | ||
APLabour Protections | 19.7 | 7.7 |
APReskilling/Upskilling Initiatives | 19.7 | 41.4 |
APAI Literacy | 31.1 | 39.0 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Labour and Skills | 20.5 | 18.6 |
ECLabour Rights & Compliance | 29.5 | 39.0 |
ECSkills & Literacy | 67.5 | 71.3 |
| Trust and Safety10 | ||
APSafety and Security | 5.4 | 33.8 |
APAccess to Redress and Remedy | 22.0 | 23.2 |
APImpact Assessments | 22.7 | 27.9 |
APAI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence | 21.0 | 25.5 |
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Trust and Safety | 8.8 | 13.6 |
ECData Protection and Privacy | 100.0 | 56.4 |
ECData Sharing and Access | 87.5 | 68.3 |
ECConsumer Protection | 90.9 | 72.3 |
ECCybersecurity | 93.2 | 76.8 |
ECGlobal Peace | 59.1 | 68.4 |
| AI Use in Public Service7 | ||
APPublic Sector Skills Development | 5.7 | 32.0 |
APPublic Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems | 0.0 | 11.1 |
APPublic Procurement | 65.9 | 14.8 |
CSOGovernment Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance | 8.8 | 20.0 |
ECCivil Society Accountability | 65.2 | 47.9 |
ECPublic Service Delivery | 79.6 | 76.9 |
ECAccess to Public Information | 39.8 | 39.6 |
| Score adjustment | ||
URAIUnacceptable Risk AI Systems | No penalty | ×0.98Regional average |
A breakdown of the structural factors shaping this country's score.
National AI strategies, laws, and oversight mechanisms that establish formal governance structures.
Contribution to overall score
46%
Participation of academia, advocacy groups, and non-state actors in shaping governance and ensuring accountability.
Contribution to overall score
4%
Institutional capacity, rule of law, digital readiness, and labour protections that enable effective governance.
Contribution to overall score
50%