I understand the fear. But I think the fear is aimed at the wrong target.

Schools teach information. But information is now ubiquitous, freely available, instantly searchable, endlessly generated. What made education valuable in the past was access to knowledge that was scarce. That scarcity no longer exists. What remains scarce, dangerously and increasingly scarce, is the human capacity to think, feel, and lead.

Look at history. Humans have proven to be remarkably adaptive creatures. We navigated the Renaissance, which upended how we understood art, science, and the self. We survived the Industrial Revolution, which replaced muscle with machine and reorganized entire civilizations around factories. We are still navigating the Digital Age, which rewired how we communicate, consume, and connect. Every era brought disruption. Every era produced humans who adapted and led.

But here is where I diverge from the optimists. The threat of the AI Age is not that machines will replace us. It is that we will allow ourselves to become dependent on them before we have fully developed ourselves. I am not afraid of AI. I am afraid of a generation that outsources its thinking to AI, its creativity to AI, its judgment to AI, and arrives at adulthood having never built the inner architecture that leadership requires. Imagine a world where the most powerful tool ever built is operated by people who have forgotten how to be human. That is the real risk.

So when my friend asked me what he could do, I gave him five concrete answers. Not app subscriptions. Not coding camps. Five fundamentals, executable at home, starting tonight.

First: Read with your child every night, with a book. Not a tablet. A physical book. The ritual of a parent reading aloud builds vocabulary, comprehension, attention span, and the experience of sustained, linear narrative. Children who are read to learn to follow an argument, absorb a story arc, and sit with ideas long enough to understand them. That is the foundation of critical thinking.

Second: Have your child read aloud. Loud. With confidence. Reading aloud builds fluency, diction, and the courage to occupy space with one’s voice. Communication is not a soft skill. It is the primary skill of leadership. Every great leader, in every field, has been able to articulate a vision, move a room, and persuade another human being. That begins with a child learning to project their voice across the living room.

Third: Learn a musical instrument, any instrument. Even cymbals. Or a guitar. Music is not about performance. It is about activating the creative hemisphere of the brain that logical training tends to neglect. Playing an instrument builds pattern recognition, discipline, and the ability to translate abstract feeling into structured expression. These are exactly the capacities that AI cannot replicate.

Fourth: Learn a second language, any language. A regional dialect. Spanish. Even Latin, though it has been dead for centuries. Acquiring a second language opens neural pathways that a single-language existence leaves dormant. It builds cognitive flexibility, the ability to hold two conceptual frameworks in the mind simultaneously and move between them. That is precisely what you need in an AI world, where the ability to reframe a problem and think in multiple registers will separate leaders from followers.

Fifth: Play a sport, any sport. Chess counts. Swimming counts. Even a backyard game counts. Sport builds the inner competitive spirit, the will to improve, to persist through failure, to measure oneself honestly. It teaches a child that outcomes are not guaranteed, that effort matters, that losing is survivable and instructive. In a world increasingly optimized for frictionless experience, children need the friction of competition to develop resilience.

These five things develop what matters most in an AI world: critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and adaptability. These are not supplementary virtues. They are the core operating system for human leadership in any era, and they are built at home, not in a classroom.

Many parents today are waiting. Waiting for schools to teach AI. Waiting for the right curriculum, the right program, the right government policy. That wait may never end. Schools are still figuring it out, and the curricula being written today will be obsolete before your seven-year-old finishes high school.

But here is what I know for certain. AI learning, real AI readiness, begins long before your child ever sits in a tech classroom. It begins at home, in the early years, through the fundamentals. And it does not begin with a screen. It begins with a parent.

We are also seeing the consequences of neglecting these fundamentals in real time. Student suicides are rising. Young people are struggling to manage pressure, failure, and uncertainty in ways that previous generations, for all their disadvantages, seemed better equipped to handle. This is not a school problem. It is a foundation problem. Children who read develop inner worlds rich enough to process difficulty. Children who play sports learn that losing does not end you. Children who make music find an outlet for what they cannot yet put into words. These are not academic exercises. They are mental health interventions, preparing them for life’s battle ahead.

Your presence in these activities is not optional. It is the variable that makes the difference. A teacher can introduce a concept. Only a parent can build a foundation. The most advanced school in the world will always be secondary to a parent who shows up, consistently and intentionally, in the small daily moments that shape a child’s character.

So read the book. Not the tablet. The book.

That is where AI readiness begins.

(The author is President of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). He is also President and COO of DITO CME Holdings Corporation. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <donaldpatricklim@gmail.com>).

The post Preparing your Child to Lead in AI appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

While the insights from the presentation are valuable to the conference participants who were mostly made up of audit practitioners and financial and accounting senior executives, from my perspective as independent director, they are even more critical for corporate boards, especially of listed and regulated entities.

As management responds to weaker demand, cash constraints, tariffs, higher costs, and, in some cases, restructuring, accounting consequences arise quickly. Contract changes can affect revenue recognition, lease modifications may require reassessment, higher credit risk can increase expected credit losses, and covenant pressure can change the classification or measurement of liabilities. Assets may need impairment testing, deferred tax assets may no longer be recoverable, and inventory may require write-downs. Boards therefore need early visibility into the areas of greatest exposure and the likely reporting impact before quarter-end and year-end.

The Board response should be practical and continuous. Directors should require clear support for key judgments, use forward-looking information where appropriate, and ensure that decisions are well documented. They should also expect timely, plain-language communication with investors, regulators, lenders, and other stakeholders so that disclosures remain credible and surprises are minimized.

For listed and regulated entities, this means moving beyond a year-end review. The audit committee should stay engaged throughout the year through regular discussions with management on major estimates, emerging risks, and disclosure changes, with clear escalation when assumptions shift materially. This gives the Board time to challenge management early and avoid last-minute surprises.

A first priority is stronger oversight of major judgments and estimates. In volatile periods, management assumptions become more subjective, so directors should ask which assumptions matter most, what external evidence supports them, and what has changed since the last reporting period. This includes assumptions used in expected credit losses, impairment testing, going concern, and tax recoverability. A quarterly dashboard showing key assumptions, movements from the prior quarter, and related external indicators can help the committee focus on the areas that need attention.

Boards should also require scenario analysis rather than rely on a single forecast. Management should present at least a base case, a downside case, and a severe but plausible case, showing the effect of each on cash flow, liquidity, covenants, impairment, expected credit losses, and deferred tax assets. Directors should ask whether assumptions are consistent across these areas and whether liquidity and covenant headroom have been stress-tested. This strengthens the Board’s assessment of going concern and readiness for downside outcomes.

Some areas warrant especially close attention. Revenue recognition becomes more judgmental when contracts change through discounts, incentives, cancellations, or revised terms. Boards should ask whether controls over contract changes are working, whether collectability is reassessed promptly, and whether standalone selling prices remain appropriate. Management should surface unusual transactions and significant contract changes early so the audit committee can address issues before year-end.

Liquidity and financing risks require the same discipline. Boards should require early warning indicators, such as minimum cash thresholds, covenant headroom, debt maturities, and refinancing milestones, supported by regular updates on cash flow forecasts, lender discussions, and funding options. Where there is a risk of breach or refinancing delay, contingency plans and accounting implications should be addressed early.

Impairment reviews and useful life assessments should also be revisited more often in a fast-changing environment. Boards should challenge management on cash flow forecasts, discount rates, growth assumptions, and the reasonableness of useful lives, especially where technology may shorten asset lives. Management should identify triggering events each quarter and explain how these were reflected in impairment testing and depreciation or amortization policies.

Restructuring and discontinued operations require equally careful governance. Boards should ask management to explain the business case, timeline, cost estimates, and expected savings, and to show how these plans affect impairment, provisions, and disclosures. Audit committees should confirm that restructuring provisions meet the applicable standards and that any discontinued operation is supported by evidence that a sale or disposal is highly probable.

All of this requires strong coordination among management, the audit committee, and the external auditors. That coordination should happen throughout the year, not only near audit completion. Periodic deep dives on high-risk areas, early discussions with auditors on emerging issues, and clear timelines for papers, judgments, and disclosures can improve reporting quality and reduce pressure late in the audit cycle.

Effective oversight also depends on management having the right resources. Finance teams need timely input from operations, sales, procurement, treasury, tax, risk, legal, and technology so that reporting judgments reflect what is happening across the business and among customers. Boards should ask whether management has the people, systems, data, and internal reporting needed to monitor customer behavior, supply chain changes, pricing pressure, regulatory developments, and technology shifts. If gaps exist, they should be addressed quickly through clearer accountability, better tools, or added capability.

Boards should also recognize when external advice is needed. In periods of rapid change, management may need support from specialists in valuation, tax, restructuring, treasury, cyber risk, regulation, or sector developments. External advisers can help test assumptions, benchmark practices, and assess complex transactions or unfamiliar conditions. Their role is not to replace management’s judgment, but to strengthen it and improve the quality of analysis and disclosure.

In a period of continued uncertainty, the Board’s role is not only to challenge assumptions and require timely disclosures, but also to ensure that management is equipped with the people, data, systems, and specialist support needed to respond well. Strong oversight, grounded in reliable information and timely action, is essential to protecting the integrity of financial reporting and maintaining stakeholder trust.

[The author is a member of Tax Committee and Education Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). She is Independent Board Adviser of Alternergy Holdings Corporation (AHC) and former Chair of P&A Grant Thornton. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <mcespan5@outlook.com>.]

Ěý

The post Financial Reporting in an Era of Economic Volatility: What Boards and Audit Committees Must Do appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

The first part of this piece noted what House Bill 8389 prohibits: simultaneous holding of elective office by close relatives at the same level of government. This part examines how the bill proposes to enforce that prohibition — and why the mechanism raises questions that go beyond mere implementation.

Section 7 of the bill addresses the scenario where two relatives have both filed certificates of candidacy, creating what it calls a “potential political dynasty relationship.” COMELEC notifies them within five days. They then have 48 hours to submit a joint written agreement identifying which of them will assume office if both win. If they cannot agree in 48 hours, COMELEC draws lots.

The provision deserves careful study. Philippine voters do not elect families. They elect individuals. The right of suffrage under Article V is the right to choose a specific person for a specific office. A mechanism that randomly removes a duly nominated candidate from contention — before a single vote is cast — substitutes chance for the sovereign choice of the electorate. It invites a serious constitutional challenge that COMELEC and the courts will eventually have to resolve.

A more defensible approach would apply disqualification after the election: the relative who receives fewer votes steps down. This preserves voter expression while enforcing the prohibition. It is also more consistent with how COMELEC handles other disqualification scenarios. The lot-drawing provision reflects an unresolved policy choice rather than a considered constitutional design.

A stronger Anti-Dynasty Law must be measured against established legal and international standards. Philippine jurisprudence already supports this direction. In Sema v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 177597 and 178628, the Court affirmed the state’s compelling interest in limiting political monopolies. A more robust statute could build on that principle by prohibiting not only simultaneous office-holding, but also successive office-holding — a familiar tactic for evading term limits. Brazil and Costa Rica, for example, use candidacy-ineligibility rules that bar immediate relatives from succeeding incumbents, treating public office as a finite public trust rather than an inheritable family estate. Indonesia’s legal efforts have likewise increasingly targeted vertical succession to prevent party capture, offering a model that moves beyond a narrow focus on simultaneity.

Section 6 compounds the concern. Every candidate must file a sworn statement declaring no prohibited dynastic relationship. But the bill specifies no penalty for a false declaration beyond whatever general perjury law might provide. A candidate who conceals a family connection, wins, and is later exposed faces no dynasty-specific sanction. COMELEC is given no investigative authority, no verification timeline, and no enforcement tool specific to this Act — unless the implementing rules supply what the text omits. The sworn statement becomes a formality rather than a safeguard.

It is important to distinguish between a law crafted to function effectively and one intended merely to exist on paper. While HB 8389 contains substantive provisions, broad coverage, and a clear constitutional foundation in Article II, Section 26, it lacks a genuine enforcement framework. Without concrete mechanisms for implementation and accountability, the bill risks becoming a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful tool for reform.

For these reasons, HB 8389 should not advance in its present form. Its limited prohibitions create the appearance of compliance while leaving untouched the practices that allow dynastic control to endure. The Senate should withhold approval; if the bill reaches Malacañang, the President should return it with a veto.

The more credible path is citizen-led reform. When Congress has strong incentives to preserve family-based power, the People’s Initiative offers voters a constitutional route to define, for themselves, the boundaries of public office. That is why the “Dapat Isa Lang” campaign of the People’s Initiative Coalition Against Dynasties deserves broad public support.

Its core reforms respond directly to the loopholes HB 8389 leaves open:

• one family member, up to the fourth civil degree, may hold a national position, and one may hold a local position, at any given time; and
• succession and office-switching are barred as means of keeping power within the same family.

When Congress is unable or unwilling to legislate against entrenched family interests, direct legislation by the people becomes not only appropriate but necessary.

On its face, HB 8389 is constitutionally permissible. It rests on a valid enabling provision and does not, by itself, violate equal protection or suffrage rights. But permissibility is not the same as fidelity. The framers of the 1987 Constitution did not write Article II, Section 26 to allow one family one seat per level, per jurisdiction, at the same time. They wrote it to dismantle rotational dynasties, cross-level dynasties, and dynasties that simply wait their turn.

A law that leaves those practices intact may satisfy the letter of the constitutional mandate, but it betrays its spirit.

[The author is a member of the Governance Committee of Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). He is a lawyer, industrial engineer, and the President of Justice Reform Initiative (JRI). He is former Chair of Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD) and National Renewable Energy Board, a senior policy adviser to the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities, and Chair Emeritus of Energy Lawyers Association of the Philippines (ELAP). Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <phmaniego@gmail.com>.)

The post An Anti-Dynasty Law that Permits Dynasties appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

For the Philippines, this presents an opportunity to strengthen competitiveness, enhance productivity, and position itself within an increasingly AI-driven global landscape. The Department of Economy, Planning and Development (DEPDev) has noted that AI is expected to contribute up to 18 percent of ASEAN’s gross domestic product by 2030, underscoring its potential to drive growth and economic transformation across the region. As the Philippines expands its digital economy, efforts are underway to strengthen workforce capabilities through upskilling and reskilling initiatives while fostering closer collaboration among the government, the private sector, and the academe.

AI Governance and Public Policy

As AI adoption accelerates, governance is becoming just as important as innovation. Recognizing the need to balance technological advancement with accountability, the Philippine government is strengthening its policy framework for responsible AI development.

In April 2026, DEPDev announced that the country’s first AI Governance Framework is being finalized, with the goal of promoting a trusted, inclusive, and ethical AI ecosystem supported by sound governance, AI-ready data systems, enhanced capabilities, and expanded infrastructure. The framework complements the National AI Strategy, which serves as the country’s roadmap for AI development across infrastructure, talent, research, governance, and sector-specific applications. These efforts come as the Philippines works to address readiness gaps, with figures showing that developing economies, including the Philippines, scored below 0.11 in the International Monetary Fund’s AI Preparedness Index, while the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 2025 Digital Government Index gave the country a score of 0.28 out of 1.00, below the Southeast Asian average of 0.37.

These broader governance efforts are also being reinforced through legislative and institutional initiatives. Several AI-related bills have been filed in the 20th Congress, covering areas, such as AI governance, regulation of AI-generated content, and the establishment of frameworks to guide the responsible use of AI technologies.

As the Philippines seeks to attract AI investments, strengthen its digital economy, and position itself as a competitive player in the global technology landscape, responsible governance and effective public policy will be essential to ensuring that AI delivers long-term value while maintaining public trust.

How AI is Transforming the Private Sector

One sector where AI transformation is highly evident is the Philippine Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry. While concerns about job displacement persist, recent industry data suggests that AI is being used primarily to enhance operations and support business growth. The contact center and business process management industry grew to 1.68 Million employees in 2025, a 4 percent increase from the previous year, while revenues rose by 6.9 percent to US$33.9 Billion (B).

In addition, the application of AI in improving operational performance, strengthening decision-making, and creating new sources of value in the Philippine private sector is continuously being explored. Recent AI applications range from fraud detection in financial services and AI-powered customer support to predictive analytics in logistics and route optimization, as well as AI-assisted tools in healthcare and research.

As AI adoption expands, workforce readiness is emerging as a key priority, and the focus is increasingly shifting from technology deployment to operational readiness. In an article by the United Nations Development Programme, it was highlighted that by 2030, it is expected that AI adoption across key industries in the Philippines could unlock an additional US$50.7B in economic value highlighting the significant opportunity AI presents for businesses seeking to enhance productivity, improve decision-making, and strengthen competitiveness.

Realizing this potential, however, requires organizations to strengthen the foundations that support AI at scale. As intelligent systems become more deeply embedded in business processes, the ability to govern, secure, and manage data effectively is becoming just as important as the technology itself.

AI in Data Governance and Cybersecurity

As AI becomes more deeply embedded across organizational operations, the volume of data being generated, processed, and shared continues to grow, exposing organizations to higher data governance, cybersecurity, and privacy-related risks.

Recent cyberattack incidents in both the public and the private sectors have renewed calls for stronger cybersecurity measures, highlighting the importance of continuously reviewing security protocols and digital defenses. Given this, cybersecurity experts warn that while the methods used by threat actors may not be entirely new, AI is significantly accelerating activities, such as vulnerability discovery, attack path evaluation, and social engineering, shortening the time between identifying a weakness and attempting to exploit it.

In response, both government and private sector organizations are increasingly focusing on cyber resilience, workforce development, governance frameworks, and AI-enabled security capabilities to strengthen their ability to detect, respond to, and recover from evolving threats. These efforts are reflected in ongoing initiatives, like the creation of the Office of the Undersecretary for Information Systems and Cybersecurity, as well as in the 2026 Strategic Investment Priority Plan (SIPP), which identifies AI, data science, cybersecurity, and digital resilience among the country’s priority investment areas.

These are just some of the conversations that will take place at the 2nd ĚÇĐÄ´«Ă˝x KPMG Technology Summit on 30 June 2026, where business leaders, policy-makers, technology practitioners, and innovators will examine how AI is transforming industries and institutions, and what it takes to scale its benefits responsibly. As AI continues to reshape industries and institutions, the ability to balance innovation with trust may ultimately determine which organizations — and economies — are best positioned to thrive in the years ahead.

[The author is Co-Vice Chair of the Technology Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). He is Partner and Head of Technology Consulting of R. G. Manabat & Co. (KPMG in the Philippines). Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <jsmanrique@kpmg.com>].

Ěý

The post Beyond Adoption: Building an AI-Ready Philippines appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

Thirty-eight years. That is how long Congress sat on Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, which directed it to prohibit political dynasties “as may be defined by law.” The framers wrote it expecting action within a legislature or two. Instead, every Congress found reasons to defer — committee referrals that went nowhere, substitute bills that died on second reading, and the quiet solidarity of incumbents who understood, without saying so, that the status quo served them well.

I wrote in “Enabling the Anti-Dynasty Mandate,” Inquirer, Dec. 27, 2025, that the numbers explain why. Studies consistently show that 75 percent of district representatives, 85 percent of governors, and nearly 67 percent of mayors are dynastic, with dynastic candidates winning by larger margins than non-dynastic counterparts. From 1988 to 2019, the share of families controlling multiple positions simultaneously rose from 19 to 29 percent, with roughly 170 positions added per election year. A legislature so constituted has limited institutional incentive to legislate itself out of existence.

House Bill 8389 finally breaks that silence. Approved by the House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms last March 9, it carries over a hundred authors, consolidates seventeen predecessor bills, and bears the formal title “An Act Prohibiting Political Dynasties in National and Local Elective Offices.” On paper, it is the anti-dynasty law the Constitution has been waiting for since 1987.

However, on closer reading, it functions less as a barrier to political dynasties and more as a regulatory framework for their management. The bill’s operative rule is simultaneity. It prohibits spouses and relatives within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity from concurrently holding elective office at the same level of government. A husband and wife may not both sit in the Senate at the same time. Two siblings may not simultaneously hold positions in the same provincial government. The logic is clean, the coverage is nationwide from barangay to Senate, and the definition of dynasty — second-degree relatives, legitimate or illegitimate, full or half-blood — is precise enough to survive a constitutional challenge.

So far, so good. The problem is what the simultaneity rule does not reach.

The classic Philippine political dynasty does not operate through simultaneous holding. It operates through rotation. A patriarch serves three terms as governor, then steps aside for his wife, who serves her three terms, then yields to a son or daughter. Nobody holds office at the same time. The succession does not violate HB 8389. But the family never leaves. This scenario is a description of how power has actually been transmitted across decades in many local government units. The constitutional directive was written precisely to address this pattern. A law that leaves it untouched is a law that has defined the problem narrowly enough to avoid solving it.

The drafters were not unaware of this. Regulating successive holding — penalizing a candidate because of what a family member did in a prior term — raises harder equal protection questions. A candidate is an individual. Disqualifying her because her husband was governor ten years ago requires a constitutional justification that courts have not yet been asked to provide. The simultaneity approach is the more defensible legislative choice. It is also the more limited one.

There is a second gap that must receive equal, if not more, attention. HB 8389 allows relatives to hold office simultaneously across different levels of government within the same territory. A congressman and a governor from the same family, representing the same province, are not prohibited. The bill’s restriction is level-specific: no two relatives in the same provincial government, but a relative in the provincial capitol and another in the congressional district it overlaps — that is permitted. The concentration of influence is real, but the prohibition does not apply.

These are not drafting oversights. They reflect the outer boundary of what a legislature composed significantly of political families was willing to enact. That boundary deserves to be clearly defined and delineated.

(To be continued)

[The author is a member of Governance Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). He is a lawyer, industrial engineer, and the President of the Justice Reform Initiative (JRI). He previously served as Chair of the Institute of Corporate Directors and National Renewable Energy Board and is a senior policy adviser to the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities, and Chair Emeritus of the Energy Lawyers Association of the Philippines. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <phmaniego@gmail.com>.)

The post An Anti-Dynasty Law that Permits Dynasties appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

When I built a communications consultancy from the ground up, the raw material was never just strategy or capital; it was creativity. The ability to craft narratives, design messages that move people, and translate ideas across cultures and markets is what creates real value. That experience shaped a conviction I bring into every boardroom and policy conversation: creativity is not a soft skill; it is an economic force. This is precisely why the endorsement of the ASEAN Center of Excellence for Creative Industries (ACE-CI) by ASEAN Economic Leaders is significant for the region’s business community.

I write this from my perspective within the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) and ongoing private sector discussions shaping the 2026 ASEAN Chairship. The role of business is not merely to observe, but to actively help design and deliver initiatives that generate measurable economic outcomes. ACE-CI is one such initiative, one whose value proposition is grounded in real opportunities for enterprise growth, market expansion, and investment.

The Numbers Behind the Narrative

Let me put this in terms any CEO would appreciate. The global creative economy is valued at over US$2.25 Trillion and continues to outpace many traditional industries in growth. Across ASEAN, creative sectors—including film, animation, gaming, design, fashion, digital media, and music—are emerging as significant and rapidly expanding contributors to national economies.

The Philippines offers a powerful case in point. According to the latest data from the Philippine Statistics Authority, the country’s creative industry-related activities reached PhP2.12 Trillion in 2025, up 6.9% from the previous year, and now account for 7.6% of national GDP—the sector’s largest share on record. That trajectory—from 7.2% in 2018 to 7.6% in 2025, with gross value added nearly doubling over the same period—is not incremental growth. It is a sector coming into its own as a major economic pillar.

The Philippines, through R.A. 11904 (the Philippine Creative Industries Development Act), is among the first in the region to institutionalize a comprehensive, sector-wide framework for creative industry development. This positions the country not only to compete, but to help shape the direction of the region’s creative economy.

As Senior Adviser on the Creative Economy of the ASEAN Business Advisory Council Philippines, in collaboration with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), I helped shape the Concept Note that underpinned the Philippines’ positioning as host of the ACE-CI, articulating its vision and value proposition at the regional level.

Yet the region’s creative potential remains under-utilized. As reflected in MAP’s policy recommendations to ASEAN-BAC Philippines, the Philippine private sector is already well-positioned and ready to act. What has been lacking is a regional mechanism to facilitate co-production, cross-border IP commercialization, and market integration. ACE-CI is intended to help address this gap. Its proposed core functions, a Policy and Research Hub, a Creative Incubation and Technology Lab, and a Market Development Platform, would help establish the enabling infrastructure for businesses to scale creative enterprises across ASEAN’s market of over 700 million consumers. While the Center’s institutional framework continues to be refined following the recent ASEAN-UK Symposium, its strategic direction is taking shape, supported by growing regional alignment and momentum.

Empowering the Enterprises that Drive ASEAN

I have long held the view that the true engine of any economy lies in its entrepreneurs. Across ASEAN, MSMEs account for 97% of all enterprises and play a central role in driving growth and innovation. In the creative sector, these enterprises, independent game studios, fashion designers, content creators, and craft cooperatives, are uniquely positioned to benefit from ACE-CI’s cross-border infrastructure. They possess world-class talent, yet often face constraints in accessing regional markets, navigating IP protection, and securing financing tailored to creative industries.

The programs being developed for ACE-CI are designed to address these barriers. Through start-up incubation, B2B match-making, export readiness programs, and partnerships with impact investors and development finance institutions, ACE-CI is positioned to function as a practical marketplace and accelerator, rather than a purely research-driven platform. I have seen too many regional initiatives that are long on vision but short on execution. This one is being designed with delivery in mind.

For ĚÇĐÄ´«Ă˝members and Philippine corporations, the opportunities are immediate and actionable: sponsorship of regional creative expos and trade missions, co-investment in creative technology ventures, partnerships with ASEAN content platforms, and participation in a proposed ASEAN-wide benchmarking framework for creative industry competitiveness, intended to track policy readiness, talent density, innovation output, and market access across the region.

Our Greatest Asset: People

In three decades of building businesses, I have never encountered a competitive advantage more durable than talent. The Philippines’ edge in creative industries rests on its people—a young, English-proficient, digitally literate, and culturally diverse workforce that has powered our BPO industry, animation studios, and music exports to global audiences. ACE-CI’s proposed initiatives on talent development and innovation, including capacity-building programs, regional exchanges, and support for creative entrepreneurship, digital skills, and IP commercialization, can build directly on this human capital advantage.

For the business community, this translates into a deeper and more capable talent pipeline. ĚÇĐÄ´«Ă˝has consistently advocated for skills development and workforce readiness across the six sectors identified in its ASEAN Chairship policy paper. ACE-CI can support this agenda by enabling regional pathways for upskilling creative professionals—equipping them with the digital, commercial, and managerial competencies that modern enterprises demand. This is particularly significant in sectors where Filipino talent has already demonstrated global competitiveness, including animation, game development, music production, and digital services.

From Chairship Rhetoric to Economic Results

ACE-CI aligns closely with the ASEAN-BAC Philippines Strategic Pillars, People, Planet, Platform, and Productivity, and supports MAP’s policy recommendations across key priority sectors, particularly Trade and Creative Industries; ICT and Digital Transformation; and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Rather than a peripheral initiative, ACE-CI represents a strategic platform that contributes directly to the broader economic agenda being advanced under the Philippines’ ASEAN Chairship.

MAP’s policy paper is clear: the 2026 Chairship must “turn themes into pilots” and “measure and communicate quick wins.” I appreciate that language because it reflects a strong commitment to accountability. ACE-CI has the potential to be exactly that kind of deliverable. ASEAN leaders are expected to endorse its establishment at the November 2026 Summit, and with the institutional framework currently being finalized, the Center could be operational by 2027, generating early, tangible outcomes, such as MOUs, initial incubation cohorts, regional creative expos, and the development of benchmarking tools.

I did not build a company, engage in public service, and invest years in MAP’s work to see the Philippines settle for ceremonial wins. ACE-CI is not an abstract policy construct; it is emerging as an investable and actionable platform that can convert ASEAN’s creative potential into real business value: jobs, enterprises, exports, and shared prosperity across a region of over 700 million people. The business community must step forward now, while the architecture is still being shaped, and our voice can help define it. Because when the creative economy thrives, enterprises grow, talent flourishes, and ASEAN’s promise of inclusive prosperity moves from aspiration to reality.

(The author is Chair of ĚÇĐÄ´«Ă˝Trade, Investments and Tourism Committee, Vice Chair of the ĚÇĐÄ´«Ă˝International Relations Committee and Chief Executive of The EON Group. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <junie.delmundo@eon.com.ph>).

The post Creative Industries as an Engine of ASEAN Economic Growth: The Business Case for ACE-CI appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

“Ilaw ng Tahanan”

In the Philippines, women are considered the “Light of the Household” or “Ilaw ng Tahanan”. The responsibility for household care—healthcare, domestic work, and childcare—is borne by women, in addition to jobs outside the house. Household care work can be paid or unpaid, but women usually bear the burden of unpaid care work. As women are disadvantaged when it comes to care work, geopolitical events and disasters exacerbate their difficulties.

It is the women who are compelled to maintain a sense of normalcy and shield the family from further impacts. Women also carry a heavier burden as social gender norms require self-sacrificing behavior from women. Women forego food to make ends meet and prioritize the family before themselves. This means that external shocks expose vulnerabilities and place women in even more precarious situations. While they may appear to be resilient on the outside, this does not imply that it is not a pressing issue that should be addressed by the whole of society.

The impact is even worse on women who are living on the economic margins. Their everyday lives are affected by rising prices of food, fuel, and other basic commodities. Economic crises not only reveal class disparities but accentuate gender inequalities within households and reduce opportunities for social empowerment. As geopolitical events seem to have no end in sight, how long must women be resilient before families, communities, and nations share the burden that they carry?

Redefining Women’s Resilience

Resilience is not just a buzzword that is meant to uplift women and make them feel better despite the weight they carry. Resilience should mean women’s ability to anticipate, mitigate, adapt, and recover from aftershocks in a way that reduces their vulnerability. Empowering women is crucial to strengthening nations’ resilience to disasters and conflict.

My experience working with women in multiple sectors has only emphasized the need to equip and empower women financially and economically. It is better for a nation for women to be economically empowered, whether it is through their own enterprises, in their workplaces, or in their households. While women’s contributions to the economy is already significant in spite of the many challenges they face, what more if they are given the opportunity to reach their full potential.

To build more resilience, women need financial assistance and support, strong networks for knowledge sharing, and access to capacity-building. Above all, policies need to be created with a “gender lens” with women in mind, acknowledging the gendered differences they face. While women’s leadership already exists informally, it is time for them to be represented and acknowledged in decision-making processes. When women lead, they reinvest their time in sectors that benefit the community and the nation, such as in health and nutrition, education, and care.

Women and girls should not be viewed as after-thoughts during crisis; rather they should be considered as driving forces in creating more inclusive and resilient policies. Women continue to be outwardly resilient even when conflicts, policies, and geopolitical events impact them severely. Is that good enough? Why should we be satisfied with this outward resilience? It is time that this resilience is made permanent with lasting economic and financial policies designed by men and women for women.

(The author is a member of ĚÇĐÄ´«Ă˝Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) Committee and ĚÇĐÄ´«Ă˝Education Committee. She is Founding Chair and President of Philippine Women’s Economic Network (PhilWEN) and Chair of the Governing Council of PBCWE. She was the first female Chair of the Bases Conversion & Development Authority (BCDA).Ěý She is President of Mageo Consulting Inc., a company providing corporate finance advisory services. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <magg@mageo.net>.)

The post Redefining Resilience: Women in Times of Crisis appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

The official theme of the Philippine chairship, “Navigating Our Future, Together,” is well chosen. Its three priorities—Peace and Security Anchors, Prosperity Corridors, and People Empowerment—capture what ASEAN must become to remain relevant: not merely a diplomatic forum but a platform for practical regional action. ASEAN is home to nearly 700 million people and is the world’s fifth-largest economy, with aspirations to become the fourth-largest by 2030. That scale gives ASEAN weight, but scale alone will not produce influence. Influence must be earned through results.

For the Philippines, this chairship should be judged not by the number of meetings hosted, declarations issued, or photographs taken, but by whether ASEAN can move from aspiration to implementation. In my view, the central task is clear: turn peace, prosperity, and people empowerment into concrete outcomes that Southeast Asians can feel in their daily lives.

ASEAN’s value has never depended on becoming a Southeast Asian version of the European Union. That was never its design. Its strength lies in consultation, consensus, flexibility, and convening power. But these strengths must now be matched with a stronger bias toward execution. ASEAN centrality cannot simply be claimed; it must be demonstrated through relevance, credibility, and performance. That is also the thrust of the interview responses I recently prepared: ASEAN integration must become more practical, people-centered, and implementation-driven.

Peace and security anchors

The first priority—peace and security anchors—goes to the heart of ASEAN’s original purpose. Southeast Asia has prospered because, despite conflict and rivalry, the region has broadly preserved conditions for stability, commerce, and dialogue. Today, however, that stability is under greater stress. The South China Sea remains a persistent flashpoint. Myanmar continues to test ASEAN’s unity and credibility. Cyber threats, transnational crime, terrorism, natural disasters, and external conflicts increasingly affect the lives of ordinary citizens.

The recent ASEAN Summit in Cebu underscored this reality. Regional leaders had to address the economic consequences of the Middle East crisis, including risks to energy supplies, shipping routes, and the welfare of Southeast Asian nationals overseas. Reports noted ASEAN’s push to accelerate the development of a regional fuel-sharing framework and the Philippine proposal for an ASEAN maritime center, while also acknowledging the coordination challenges that still constrain regional action.

This is precisely why peace and security cannot remain abstract. ASEAN should use the Philippine chairship to strengthen crisis-response mechanisms, maritime cooperation, humanitarian coordination, and adherence to international law. The Philippines is well-positioned to underscore that regional peace must rest not on silence or avoidance, but on dialogue, restraint, rules, and practical cooperation. ASEAN need not speak with one voice on every issue, but it must be able to act credibly when regional stability is at stake.

Prosperity corridors

The second priority—prosperity corridors—is equally important. ASEAN integration should no longer be understood primarily in terms of tariff reductions or formal trade agreements. The next generation of integration will be built on logistics connectivity, digital trade, inter-operable payments, common standards, recognition of skills, energy cooperation, resilient supply chains, and sustainable industrial development.

I would emphasize that integration must be meaningful for firms, especially micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). A small business in Davao, Cebu, Penang, Surabaya, or Ho Chi Minh City should find it easier to sell, source, pay, deliver, innovate, and partner across ASEAN. Integration must reduce the practical frictions that keep our entrepreneurs from participating in regional value chains.

ASEAN has already recognized the urgency of this agenda. Its economic strategy calls for deeper integration, stronger supply chains, improved transport connectivity, energy security, freer movement of businesses and people, and improved regulatory practices. However, the same reports have also noted that implementation has often been slow because of wide differences in development levels, political systems, and institutional capacity among member states.

The Philippine chairship should therefore focus on a few key deliverables: faster trade facilitation, customs modernization, digitalization of cross-border processes, regional MSME platforms, supply chain resilience, and standards that help ASEAN firms meet global market requirements. Prosperity corridors should not be understood merely as infrastructure corridors. They should be corridors of trade, data, talent, finance, technology, and trust.

People empowerment

The third priority—people empowerment—may ultimately determine whether ASEAN integration gains public legitimacy. ASEAN cannot remain a project understood only by diplomats, officials, and economists. It must be felt by students, workers, professionals, consumers, farmers, fisherfolk, start-ups, and families alike.

I believe ASEAN’s future will depend heavily on human capital and knowledge networks. Student mobility, credit transfer, research collaboration, technical and vocational education, professional recognition, and digital skills development should be central to integration, not peripheral. A young Filipino, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Thai, or Timorese should see ASEAN not as an annual Summit but as a space of opportunity.

People empowerment also requires inclusion. ASEAN integration will be incomplete if it benefits only large corporations and capital cities. It must reach secondary cities, rural producers, women entrepreneurs, informal workers, and vulnerable communities. It must also support climate resilience, disaster preparedness, public health cooperation, and food security. In a region repeatedly exposed to typhoons, floods, droughts, pandemics, and commodity shocks, resilience is not a slogan. It is a development imperative.

Timor-Leste’s membership adds urgency to this point. Its accession affirms that ASEAN is not a closed club but a regional community grounded in geographic and historical logic. However, meaningful membership will require capacity-building, institutional support, regulatory alignment, and patient integration. Timor-Leste’s entry should remind ASEAN that integration is developmental: stronger members must help newer and less-developed members participate effectively. Reuters reported that Timor-Leste formally became ASEAN’s 11th member in October 2025 after a 14-year wait, with expectations of greater trade and investment opportunities.

To turn the Philippine chairship’s priorities into results, ASEAN must also improve its operations. Consensus should remain part of ASEAN’s political DNA because it reflects the diversity and sovereignty of its members. But consensus should not become an excuse for inaction. ASEAN should use flexible mechanisms—where appropriate—to allow willing members to move ahead in specific areas while others catch up. This is especially relevant to digital integration, the green industry, energy cooperation, skills mobility, and supply chain resilience.

ASEAN also needs sharper prioritization. It cannot pursue everything with equal urgency. The Philippine chairship should help ASEAN focus on a manageable set of high-impact initiatives, with clearer timelines, monitoring, and accountability. Declarations matter, but delivery matters more. The ASEAN Community Vision 2045 calls for a resilient, innovative, dynamic, and people-centered ASEAN and explicitly emphasizes timely and effective implementation. The Philippine chairship should serve as a bridge between that long-term vision and near-term action.

The Philippines has a particular stake in ASEAN’s success. We are an archipelagic nation, a maritime state, a major labor-sending country, an emerging manufacturing and services economy, and a democracy in a contested strategic environment. ASEAN is not an abstract foreign policy project for us. It is a platform for peace, trade, investment, education, innovation, resilience, and strategic autonomy.

The challenge is not to make ASEAN perfect. The challenge is to make ASEAN more useful. Its diversity, consensus culture, and limitations will remain. But ASEAN can still become more effective if it is guided by a practical question: what can we do together to make our peoples safer, more prosperous, and better able to shape their own futures?

That is why the Philippine chairship matters. It gives the Philippines an opportunity to help ASEAN move from process to performance, from centrality to credibility, and from declarations to delivery.

If the chairship succeeds, its legacy will be measured not only by communiqués but also by stronger mechanisms for peace, more resilient regional supply chains, deeper digital and economic connectivity, more empowered citizens, and a clearer sense that ASEAN belongs not only to governments but to its peoples.

The future of ASEAN will not be secured by rhetoric alone. It will be secured by implementation. For the Philippines, the task is to help ASEAN demonstrate that peace, prosperity, and people empowerment are not merely chairship priorities. They are the foundations of a region capable of navigating its future—together.

[The author is former President of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). He served as Secretary of Trade and Industry, and President of University of the Philippines (UP) System. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <aepascual@gmail.com>.]

The post The Philippines’ ASEAN Chairship: Turning People, Peace, and Prosperity into Results appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

The company was recognized for its human-centric approach to predictive AI, helping organizations anticipate employee attrition while improving workplace experiences and workforce management.

This year, the GTI Competition is once again looking for the next generation of technology innovators whose ideas and solutions have the potential to transform industries and create meaningful impact.

The GTI Competition in the Philippines will culminate at the 2nd ĚÇĐÄ´«Ă˝x KPMG Technology Summit on June 30, 2026 at Shangri-La The Fort, where the winning teams will be recognized before an audience of business executives, policy-makers, technology leaders, and industry professionals. With the theme “AI at Scale: Driving Value with Governance and Security,” the Summit will explore how artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries, governance, and the broader business landscape through discussions on AI adoption in the Philippines, AI governance and public policy, enterprise and sector applications including the BPO industry, and data governance and cybersecurity.

As AI becomes more deeply embedded across both public and private sector systems, it is reshaping how organizations design policies, manage risk, and deploy technology at scale. This shift underscores the growing need to align innovation with governance frameworks that ensure responsible use, protect data integrity, strengthen cybersecurity resilience, and support sustainable enterprise transformation across industries. At the same time, as organizations increasingly integrate AI into decision-making processes, trust, transparency, and accountability are becoming essential pillars alongside technological advancement.

The Philippines also continues to benefit from a young, digitally connected, and highly adaptable workforce that is contributing to the country’s growing innovation landscape. As more organizations invest in digital capabilities and emerging technologies, there is significant opportunity for Filipino innovators to help shape solutions that are both locally relevant and globally competitive.

With the 2026 GTI Competition in the Philippines, we look forward to seeing the next wave of Filipino companies bring forward innovations that can help shape industries, accelerate digital transformation, and contribute to the country’s growing technology landscape.

As innovation continues to drive the future of business and society, we remain committed to supporting technology entrepreneurs whose ideas and solutions have the potential to create meaningful impact and contribute to a more innovative and resilient future for the Philippines and beyond.

(The author is former Vice President of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). He is the Vice Chair, COO and Head of Global Services Center of R. G. Manabat & Co. (KPMG in the Philippines). Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <ebonoan@kpmg.com>).

The post Global Tech Innovator Competition 2026: Advancing Innovation in the Philippines appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.