Philippines - AI Regulation Act (HB 7913)

Overview

House Bill No. 7913 establishes the Philippines' first comprehensive rights-based framework for artificial intelligence governance, centering individual protections as the foundation of AI regulation. Introduced on May 2, 2023, the bill creates an 'AI Bill of Rights' enshrining five fundamental protections: safety from unsafe AI systems, protection against algorithmic discrimination, privacy safeguards, transparency rights enabling individuals to understand AI affecting them, and remedy rights ensuring recourse for AI-related harms. The institutional architecture includes the Philippine Council on Artificial Intelligence (PCAI) coordinating policy development and multi-stakeholder governance, and the Artificial Intelligence Board (AIB) providing supervisory oversight, investigation, and enforcement. The bill reflects recognition that AI's transformative power across health, finance, education, employment, and governance creates profound risks to human rights, dignity, and autonomy requiring dedicated protective frameworks. By establishing explicit rights and enforcement mechanisms, House Bill 7913 aims to ensure AI serves human flourishing rather than enabling exploitation, discrimination, or dehumanization. The framework coordinates multiple government agencies—DOST, DTI, DICT, NPC, DOLE, and sector regulators—creating coherent governance while respecting agencies' specialized expertise. The bill remains pending in Congress, with enactment uncertain amid competing legislative priorities and the approaching 2025 midterm elections.

Definitions

Artificial Intelligence System means any machine-based system capable of performing tasks requiring human-like intelligence including learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and decision-making. AI Developer refers to entities creating, designing, or substantially modifying AI systems. AI Deployer means entities implementing AI systems in operational environments affecting individuals or society. High-Risk AI System encompasses AI applications with significant potential to cause harm including medical diagnostics, financial credit decisions, law enforcement, employment decisions, and educational assessments. Algorithmic Discrimination means AI-generated outcomes that systematically disadvantage individuals based on protected characteristics. Unsafe AI System refers to AI posing unreasonable risks to health, safety, or fundamental rights without adequate safeguards. Personal Data retains Data Privacy Act definitions as information identifying or relating to individuals. Transparency means the degree to which AI operations, data uses, and decision factors can be understood by affected individuals. Remedy encompasses mechanisms for contesting AI decisions, obtaining corrections, and receiving compensation for harms.

Governance and Institutional Framework

House Bill 7913 establishes dual institutional pillars. The Philippine Council on Artificial Intelligence (PCAI) serves as the primary policy coordination body with responsibilities including developing national AI strategy, conducting societal impact evaluations, establishing governance frameworks and ethical guidelines, coordinating across government agencies, providing public education on AI opportunities and risks, fostering international cooperation, and establishing an AI developer code of ethics. PCAI operates through multi-stakeholder representation including government, industry, academia, civil society, and technical experts. The Artificial Intelligence Board (AIB) functions as the supervisory and enforcement body with powers to investigate complaints regarding AI rights violations, conduct compliance audits of high-risk AI systems, impose administrative sanctions including warnings, fines, and operational suspensions, coordinate with sector-specific regulators, maintain a registry of high-risk AI systems, and publish enforcement decisions and guidance. The two-tier structure separates policy development and coordination (PCAI) from enforcement (AIB), preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring checks and balances. Multiple agencies coordinate under this framework: DOST leads research and innovation; DTI addresses economic development; DICT provides digital infrastructure and cybersecurity; NPC ensures data protection compliance; DOLE addresses workforce impacts; and sector regulators maintain domain authority while implementing cross-cutting PCAI/AIB standards.

Key Focus Areas

First, AI Bill of Rights implementation: The five fundamental rights—safety, non-discrimination, privacy, transparency, and remedy—require operationalization through specific standards and processes. Safety protections mandate pre-deployment testing, ongoing monitoring, and incident response for high-risk AI. Anti-discrimination protections require algorithmic fairness assessments, bias testing, and mitigation measures. Privacy protections build on Data Privacy Act requirements with AI-specific consent mechanisms and data minimization. Transparency rights mandate disclosure when AI affects individuals, explanations of AI logic in understandable terms, and access to information about data usage. Remedy rights establish complaint processes, decision review mechanisms, and compensation pathways. Second, ethical AI development: PCAI develops a code of ethics for AI developers addressing fairness, accountability, transparency, human oversight, safety-by-design, privacy protection, and public benefit orientation. Adherence to the code influences licensing and certification decisions. Third, high-risk AI oversight: AIB maintains enhanced supervision over AI in critical domains through registration requirements, periodic audits, mandatory incident reporting, and rapid intervention when risks materialize. Fourth, public awareness and education: PCAI and AIB provide information enabling individuals to understand AI impacts, exercise rights, and make informed decisions about AI engagement. Fifth, international alignment: PCAI ensures Philippine AI governance aligns with international standards while preserving local priorities, facilitating trade and technology cooperation.

Implementation Framework

Implementation follows phased approach: Phase 1 (Months 1-6): Establishment of PCAI and AIB including leadership appointments, organizational setup, and initial funding allocation. Phase 2 (Months 6-12): Development of implementing regulations specifying rights operationalization, high-risk AI categories, registration procedures, compliance standards, and penalty structures through multi-stakeholder consultation. Phase 3 (Months 12-18): Voluntary compliance period where organizations can register AI systems, adopt ethical frameworks, and implement rights protections before mandatory requirements take effect. Phase 4 (Months 18-24): Mandatory compliance for high-risk AI systems; establishment of complaint and investigation procedures; initiation of enforcement actions. Phase 5 (Year 2+): Full operational governance with ongoing monitoring, annual reviews, and regulatory adaptation to technological evolution.

Monitoring and Evaluation

AIB operates comprehensive monitoring systems including a registry of high-risk AI systems documenting applications, deployers, and risk mitigation measures; complaint tracking documenting violations and resolutions; compliance audits examining adherence to rights protections and ethical standards; incident reporting capturing AI system failures, harms, and corrective actions; and annual reporting to Congress and the public on AI governance progress, enforcement activities, and emerging challenges. PCAI conducts periodic impact evaluations assessing AI's societal effects on equality, employment, privacy, and democratic values, informing policy adjustments.

Penalties, Liability, and Appeals

Penalties include administrative warnings for minor violations; fines scaled to violation severity (anticipated PHP 100,000 to PHP 10,000,000); corrective action orders requiring system modifications or process improvements; suspension of AI operations for serious violations posing immediate risks; and revocation of certifications or licenses for egregious or repeated violations. Criminal liability may arise under existing laws for willful violations causing significant harm. Civil liability enables individuals harmed by AI to seek damages through courts. Appeals processes allow organizations to contest AIB decisions through administrative review within the Board, escalation to PCAI for policy interpretation, and ultimately judicial review through Philippine courts.

Relationship to Other Instruments

House Bill 7913 builds upon the Data Privacy Act of 2012, extending privacy protections to AI-specific contexts. The bill complements House Bill No. 7396 (AI Development and Regulation Act) which establishes AIDA as a general AI regulator; coordination or consolidation of these bills may occur during legislative process. The bill relates to House Bill No. 9448 (Protection of Labor) through overlapping concerns about AI employment impacts and algorithmic decision-making. COMELEC Resolution No. 11064 addresses AI in elections, with House Bill 7913 providing broader rights framework. The bill aligns with pending House Bill No. 10567 (Deepfake Regulation) and House Bill No. 7983 (AI Research Center), potentially forming comprehensive AI governance ecosystem. Internationally, the rights-based approach reflects UNESCO's Recommendation on AI Ethics, OECD AI Principles, and emerging global consensus on human-centered AI governance.

International Alignment

House Bill 7913's AI Bill of Rights mirrors rights-based approaches in the U.S. Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (White House OSTP, 2022) and European Commission discussions on fundamental rights in AI contexts. The five rights—safety, non-discrimination, privacy, transparency, remedy—align with principles in the EU AI Act, UNESCO Recommendation on AI Ethics, and OECD AI Principles. The dual governance structure (policy council and enforcement board) reflects institutional models in EU data protection (EDPB and national authorities) and Singapore's AI governance framework. The bill positions the Philippines among global leaders in legislatively enshrining AI rights, potentially influencing ASEAN regional governance and contributing to international norm development.

Implementation Timeline

Sources and References