Philippines AI Development and Regulation Bill

Overview

House Bill No. 9601 proposes a national framework combining artificial intelligence development with regulatory oversight in the Philippines. Congressman Steve Chiongbian Solon, Representative of the Lone District of Sarangani, introduced the measure in the House of Representatives, Twentieth Congress, First Regular Session. Its official title is An Act Promoting the Development and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in the Philippines. Section 1 gives the proposed short title, Artificial Intelligence Development and Regulation Act of the Philippines. The official House bill bears a June 1, 2026, 4:34 pm timestamp. The instrument is proposed legislation, and its institutional arrangements and obligations are conditional on enactment.

Sections 2 and 3 link AI development to national priorities, social responsibility, human rights, economic growth, social welfare and national security. The objectives include research, entrepreneurship, infrastructure, human capital, fairness, transparency, accountability and international cooperation. The explanatory note identifies opportunities across industries alongside concerns about job displacement, privacy risks, cyberattacks, deepfakes and misinformation. These concerns provide the rationale for the proposed framework. Its central mechanism is a dedicated authority responsible for development programs, standards, registration arrangements and implementation.

Definitions and Scope

Section 4 describes artificial intelligence in terms of machine or computer-program capabilities associated with reasoning, learning, perception and problem-solving. An AI system is a computer system or software application using AI technologies and techniques to perform a task or make a decision. Examples include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing and robotics. An AI developer includes any person, entity or organization developing AI software or hardware, with development extending to design, development, testing or deployment. An AI user includes government agencies, companies and individuals utilizing or benefiting from AI systems. These definitions connect the proposed framework to both the creation and use of AI.

An AI regulator is a government agency or regulatory body overseeing AI development and deployment. Access encompasses instructions, communication, storage, retrieval and other use of computer-system or network resources. Alteration means changing existing computer data or programs in form or substance. The definitions of computer and computer system cover data-processing devices, mobile phones, associated hardware and software, networks and storage media. Critical infrastructure includes digital systems and assets whose incapacity, destruction or interference would seriously affect the national interests specified in Section 4(k). Cybersecurity includes protective tools, policies, risk-management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies. Transparency is the quality or state of being open, accountable and easily understood.

Governance and Institutional Framework

Section 5 would create the Artificial Intelligence Development Authority, or AIDA, under the administrative supervision of the Office of the President. Its Board of Trustees would include five permanent members: the Executive Director of DOST-ICTO as Chairman; the head of DICT-IIDB as Vice-Chairman; the head of the National Computer Center; one private-sector representative; and one academic representative. The private-sector and academic representatives must have relevant expertise in information technology specializing in AI, law, ethics, social science or other pertinent disciplines. These office designations form part of the bill's proposed institutional structure.

Ex-officio participation would include the National Privacy Commission, DOJ Office of Cybercrime, National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, AFP Cyber Command, PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group, National Telecommunications Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission, together with other necessary offices, agencies or units. Agency heads or their deputies, assistants or next-in-rank may serve. The Board would meet once a week or as necessary at the Chairman's discretion or at the call of three other members. A majority of permanent members and a majority of ex-officio members would constitute a quorum. The membership brings privacy, justice, intelligence, defense, policing, telecommunications, securities, business and academic perspectives into AI governance.

Secretariat and Implementation Powers

Section 6 would establish a Secretariat as the Board's implementing arm, responsible for efficient and effective enforcement of the Act. It would be headed by an Executive Director and two Deputy Executive Directors, respectively responsible for administration and operations. The President would appoint these officials on the Board's recommendation. Each must possess the stipulated knowledge and training and at least seven years of relevant experience. The Executive Director would also serve as Board Secretary and executive officer, exercising direct control and supervision of AIDA.

The Secretariat leadership's compensation is connected to the Salary Standardization Law and their positions as Career Service Officers. The Salary Standardization Law, Republic Act No. 6758, provides the relevant statutory context for government compensation. AIDA's operational framework would combine presidential appointments, Board governance, Secretariat administration, national strategy development and secondary regulatory requirements. Section 12 directs the AI regulatory authority to promulgate implementing rules and regulations in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Section 10 directs government funding for implementation, including establishment and operation of the regulatory authority or commission and promotion of AI research and development.

Strategy, Standards and Registration

Section 7(a) directs AIDA to formulate a national AI development and regulation strategy aligned with national priorities and international standards. The strategy would include requirements concerning AI impact assessments, data protection and transparency in AI decision-making. These elements link development policy to the evaluation of AI effects and responsible use. Section 7 also gives the authority research responsibilities, supporting the knowledge and capabilities needed for the national framework. The proposal combines an industrial-development mandate with public-interest oversight.

Section 7(d) would authorize AIDA to establish and enforce legal, ethical and responsible standards for AI development, use and deployment, investigate violations and impose penalties. Section 7(e) directs licensing and certification requirements for developers and deployers and requires their registration with AIDA. Failure to register or comply with the referenced regulations and guidelines would constitute a violation subject to applicable administrative penalties and sanctions. The broad developer definition includes design, testing and deployment activities, making an organization's role in the AI lifecycle relevant to the proposed authorization framework.

Section 7(e) uses the term Council, while Section 5 establishes AIDA. Sections 10 and 12 also use generic regulatory-authority terminology. These terminology differences occur within the proposed institutional and implementation provisions. Licensing, certification, registration and standards would be administered through the regulatory framework established under the Act and its implementing rules.

Privacy, Security and Transparency

Section 7(f) directs AIDA to ensure that personal data collected, used and processed by AI systems are protected in accordance with Republic Act No. 10173, the Data Privacy Act of 2012, and other relevant laws and regulations. The bill connects AI-related personal-data oversight to the existing privacy framework rather than replacing it. The Data Privacy Act of 2012 is the expressly named substantive privacy statute. Organizations processing personal data through AI systems would therefore need to consider their existing privacy obligations alongside any requirements established under the proposed AI framework.

Section 7(g) directs AIDA to establish data-security and cybersecurity standards protecting AI systems against cyberattacks and hacking. The Section 4 definition of cybersecurity encompasses organizational measures as well as technology, including risk management, training, best practices and assurance. Transparency also appears in the bill's objectives and national-strategy mandate, connecting openness, accountability and understandability with AI decision-making. Together, privacy, cybersecurity and transparency provide safeguards for responsible AI development and deployment.

Monitoring, Complaints and Enforcement

Section 7(i) assigns AIDA responsibility for monitoring and evaluating AI development and deployment in the Philippines. It requires regular public reporting on the state of AI development and its societal impact, except when national security and interest is involved. Public reporting would provide a means of accountability and sector-wide observation. The Board's weekly meeting rule is a governance requirement distinct from the requirement for regular public reports. AIDA's research responsibilities and development programs would complement monitoring by building knowledge about AI capabilities and effects.

Section 7(h) requires a mechanism for reporting and addressing complaints and grievances concerning AI deployment. Section 7(d) supports that oversight through powers to investigate violations of AI ethics principles, standards and guidelines and to penalize them. Complaint handling, monitoring and investigation would together provide channels for scrutiny of harmful practices and regulatory noncompliance. The Secretariat would support implementation of these functions as the Board's enforcement arm.

Section 11 provides that any person or entity violating the Act, including AI ethics principles and guidelines, would be penalized in accordance with penalties under existing laws and regulations. Section 7(e) separately connects registration and regulatory noncompliance to applicable administrative penalties and sanctions. The bill's penalty framework therefore operates through existing legal provisions and the administrative arrangements contemplated for AIDA. The applicable legal basis would determine the sanctions associated with a particular violation.

Development, Cooperation and Related Laws

Section 8 promotes AI development through research funding, partnerships among academic institutions, industry and government, and adoption in the public and private sectors. It also provides for incentives encouraging responsible practices and for education and training. These measures support entrepreneurship, infrastructure, human-capital development and practical use of AI while linking assistance to responsible development. Section 10 reinforces the development agenda through government funding for implementation and AI research and development.

International cooperation is an objective under Section 3(e) and an operational mandate under Section 9. AIDA would pursue partnerships with other countries, international organizations and the private sector in AI development and use. It would participate in international efforts to develop global norms and standards and work to ensure their consistency with Philippine laws, regulations and values. Section 7(a) also links the national strategy to international standards, including AI impact assessments, data protection and decision-making transparency. These provisions establish a basis for international engagement within the domestic legal framework.

The bill's main express statutory connections concern the Data Privacy Act of 2012, existing laws and regulations governing penalties, and the Salary Standardization Law for Secretariat leadership compensation. Section 13 would preserve unaffected provisions if another provision were declared unconstitutional or invalid. Section 14 would repeal, amend or modify inconsistent laws, decrees, orders, rules, regulations or parts thereof. These clauses address the proposed Act's relationship with the wider legal system while preserving its remaining provisions following partial invalidation.

Implementation Timeline

Compliance and Preparation Checklist

Sources and References