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 (¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ). 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.

But let’s not pretend this is just about economics.

The defining lesson of the ongoing global tensions is this: wars are no longer won by weapons alone. They are won by logistics, industrial depth, and the ability to sustain conflict over time. Supply chains, not slogans, determine outcomes.

That is why these “Economic Security Zones” matter. They are not ordinary economic zones. They are strategic assets—forward platforms designed to support and sustain operations in the Indo-Pacific.

And that raises a critical question:

Are we positioning ourselves to benefit from this shift—or merely to serve it?

Ěý

The Risk We Don’t Talk About

Much has been said about the upside: jobs, capital inflows, and infrastructure. These are real and necessary. But they are also the least complicated part of the equation.

What is far less discussed is the risk.

If these zones evolve—as they likely will—into hubs supporting military logistics, defense manufacturing, and supply chain resilience, they will not be seen as neutral economic spaces. In any conflict scenario, they will be viewed as integral components of a broader strategic network.

In plain terms: they become targets.

This is not alarmism. It is the logical consequence of geography and function. The Philippines moves from the periphery to the map. And once on the map, exposure follows.

The question, therefore, is not whether we gain.

The question is whether we are being compensated enough for what we are putting at stake.

Ěý

From Resource Supplier to Industrial Power

There is a deeper, more consequential risk—that we repeat a familiar pattern: exporting raw materials while importing finished goods; supporting other nations’ industries while failing to build our own.

This must end.

The Philippines is rich in mineral resources, yet we continue to export largely unprocessed ore. This is not merely an economic inefficiency—it is a strategic failure.

A decisive policy shift—requiring or strongly incentivizing domestic smelters and processing mills—can fundamentally change this trajectory.

Smelters are not just facilities. They are catalysts.

They trigger entire ecosystems:

• Metals refinement and fabrication
• Industrial manufacturing clusters
• Machinery and component production
• Higher-value exports with stronger margins

This is how nations industrialize—by capturing value, not surrendering it.

If defense-related industries are among the likely locators—and all indicators suggest they will be—then the Philippines must demand integration into these higher-value segments.

We must insist on:

• Downstream processing, not just extraction
• Advanced manufacturing, not just assembly
• Technology transfer, not just employment
• Local industry participation, not just foreign enclaves

Otherwise, we risk becoming a service corridor in someone else’s supply chain.

Reclaiming Our Strategic Role: The Indo-Pacific Maintenance Hub

There is also a strategic advantage we already possess—but have not fully reclaimed.

At its peak, Subic Bay served as one of the most important logistics and repair hubs for U.S. operations in the Pacific. Ships, aircraft, and equipment depended on facilities in the Philippines for maintenance, repair, and rapid turnaround.

That role is now within reach again.

If we are to host Economic Security Zones, then we must deliberately position the Philippines as the primary Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) hub for U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific—across land, sea, and air.

But we must think beyond routine servicing.

In times of conflict, forward repair capability becomes indispensable. Damaged ships and aircraft cannot wait for long-haul return to the U.S. They must be restored quickly and regionally.

This is where the Philippines has a decisive advantage.

We should insist on:

• World-class ship repair yards and drydock facilities
• A robust aerospace maintenance and repair ecosystem
• A highly trained and certified Filipino technical workforce
• Long-term integration of local firms into maintenance supply chains

These are not peripheral activities. They are central to operational capability—and they carry strong civilian and commercial spillovers for shipping, aviation, and industry.

Building a Middle Class Is a Strategic Objective

Economic transformation is not an abstract goal—it is about people.

A strong manufacturing and industrial base creates stable, high-quality jobs. It raises incomes, builds skills, and expands the middle class.

This is the foundation of long-term national strength.

But there is also a broader implication.

A stronger Philippine middle class strengthens not only the country, but its alliances. A more prosperous and stable Philippines becomes a more reliable partner for the U.S. and for the wider community of nations committed to open markets and regional stability.

In this sense, helping build a Filipino middle class is not simply an economic outcome—it is a shared strategic interest.

A stronger Philippines strengthens the alliance—and contributes to the resilience of the broader free world.

Negotiation Is Where Nations Rise—or Settle

Too often, we approach foreign investment with a mindset of accommodation rather than strategy.

That must change.

The Philippines today has leverage. Geography, alliances, and timing are on our side.

We must use it.

We must negotiate not as a passive host, but as a nation that understands its value:

• Binding, enforceable commitments—not vague assurances
• Industrial upgrading anchored on smelting and manufacturing
• Full MRO capability development for land, sea, and air systems
• Technology transfer and workforce development
• Local supply chain integration
• Defense and security support proportionate to the risks assumed
• Dual-use infrastructure serving both strategic and civilian needs

If we carry the risk, we must secure the reward.

Anything less is not partnership—it is imbalance.

Transparency Is Non-Negotiable

Finally, there must be transparency.

These are not ordinary investments. They carry long-term economic and strategic consequences. The public deserves clarity—not on sensitive details, but on the fundamental terms, benefits, and safeguards.

Transparency builds trust and gets the citizenry behind the idea. It ensures accountability. And it strengthens the legitimacy of decisions that will shape the nation’s future.

A Defining Choice

The Philippines is at a crossroads.

We can choose the easier path—welcome investment, accept standard terms, and gain incrementally.

Or we can recognize this moment for what it is: a rare convergence of strategic importance and economic opportunity.

We can remain a host.

Or we can become a force.

The difference will not be decided by external powers.

It will be decided by how we negotiate—and what we demand—for the Filipino people.

[The author is member of the Agribusiness Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines or ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ.Ěý He is the Chair and President of BNL Management Corporation. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <romeogdavid@gmail.com>].

The post Hosting Power or Becoming Powerful? The Philippines at a Strategic Crossroads appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

We drive this transformation through the Performance Governance System (PGS), a discipline that aligns strategy, operations, and budget to produce validated, high-impact results for the public. Originally adapted from the Harvard Business School’s Balanced Scorecard, the framework was deeply contextualized for the Philippine public sector and has since evolved into a distinctly homegrown discipline. While we proudly acknowledge its academic roots, today’s PGS is far from its original form. It is not a mere compliance exercise or documentation burden, but a discipline that aligns strategy, operations, and budget to produce validated, high-impact results for the public. It strengthens governance by embedding discipline in how strategy is designed, deployed, and sustained.

The system operated on three pillars: establishing clarity of direction, enforcing the discipline of execution, and ensuring the sustainability or reform. When an organization lacks clear direction, aligned targets, and regular performance reviews, decisions become reactive, accountability weakens, and fragmentation occurs. Over time, this creates space for inefficiency and potentially corruption to thrive.

To counter this, organizations through increasing levels of maturity across four stages – Initiation, Compliance, Proficiency, and Institutionalization – which are validated by strict audits. True institutionalization requires installing eight specific governance elements, including Basic Governance Documents, the Office of Strategy Management (OSM), and the Multi-Sector Governance Council (MSGC). Furthermore, under the modernized PGS 2.0, an organization’s strategy is no longer a scattered list of projects; it is anchored strictly on “Big Bets and Bold Moves” (BBMs). This BBMs are broken down into multi-year roadmaps and annual Strategic Commitments (SPCs), limited to a maximum of three critical initiatives per BBM.

To equip public sector leaders for this rigorous journey, ISA provided targeted interventions, including strategy formulation, cascading, OSM capacity building, and MSGC management.

We conduct Public Revalidas and Public Governance Fora, which are democratic, panel-evaluated presentation where organization through their leadership heads, must publicly validate their progress to advance to the PGS stage. We also offer Governance Boot Camps to equip participants with essential leadership skills, the 24-hour intensive EDGE (Empowered Development for Governance Excellence) certificate program, and 7-hour skills Labs focused in specific needs like government-mandated systems harmonization, agile leadership, and date management.

However, the crown jewel of sustainability in any transforming institution is the MSGC. The MSGC is a critical PGS element comprised of external stakeholders who provide independent advice and accountability support to the organization. To ensure diverse and holistic oversight, an MSGC is typically composed of distinguished sectoral representative from outside the agency, such as leaders from the academe, the church, the business sector, and the civil society.

This cross-sectoral input is vital because sustainable transformation cannot occur in an echo chamber. When a governance is weak, corruption thrives; engaging external stakeholders ensures that reforms are sustained and continuity of direction is maintained despite internal leadership changes. The MSGC helps institutions refine their strategy, identify emerging systemic risks, and foster external collaborations. It acts as the ultimate external accountability mechanism to ensure long-term goals survive internal leadership changes. Furthermore, MSGC meetings are highly efficient; they are anchored exclusively on the BBMs and are strictly prohibited from devolving into operational reporting or administrative updates.

Nowhere is the power of this shared governance more evident that in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Both the Philippine Navy and the Philippine Army have achieved global recognition, earning their places in the Palladium Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame for executing strategy. This was not achieved in a vacuum. As AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Romeo Brawner Jr. recently noted, the evolution of the AFP into a professional force that commands the people’s trust was a result of a deliberate, 15-year strategy known as the AFP Transformation Roadmap. Anchored on the discipline of the PGS, this roadmap required the military to set clear goals, measure performance relentlessly, and subject themselves to external validation.

A significant pillar of this global excellence is their engagement with their respective MSGCs. As Gen. Brawner emphasized, while soldiers carried out reforms within ranks, the participation of those outside it was equally vital. The civilian councils – composed of leaders from civil society, academe, business, and faith-based groups – serve as the transparency and governance partners of the AFP. They provide a external check that holds the institution accountable to the public, ensuring that the goals of the AFP Transformation Roadmap reach practice, not just paper.

This brings us to a critical lesson in public sector management: in governance, isolation breeds stagnation.

There is occasionally a temptation within massive bureaucracies to view advisory councils as administrative distractions, or to restrict their meeting in the name of internal efficiency. This is a severe miscalculation. Under the disciplined framework of the PGS, MSGC meetings are highly efficient as they are anchored exclusively on the institution’s BBMs and are strictly prohibited from devolving into operational reporting.

To prohibit these councils from convening, or to retreat into isolation eventually surrender to the very inefficiencies they fought to defeat. Engaging external stakeholders is no mere administrative courtesy, as it is the armor that protects long-term reform from vulnerabilities of short-term transitions. Building our Dream Philippines is a relentless, shared pursuit, and shutting the door on cross-sectoral collaboration dismantles the very bridges that brought our institutions to world-class standards. We must not merely “allow” these councils to convene; we must fiercely defend their space, for they are the indispensable guardians of the nation we aspire to build.

[The author is Past President of the Management Association of the Philippines or ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ.Ěý He is also a former President of the Development Bank of the Philippines, former Undersecretary of the Department of National Defense, Chair of ISA and Chair of the AFP-MSGC. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <delrosariofjr@icloud.com>].

The post Governance System: The Importance of Civilian Participation in the AFP appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

Did you know that waste water is being monitored by DENR-EMB, and there are about 17,000 industries around the country that they look after, to ensure that all effluent water is managed and treated? That ensures we can then have clean water for everyone to use. It was so interesting to know the different classes of water – from “safe to drink” to “safe to just bathe in” and “safe just to float a boat in.” Imagine the agency trying to monitor these businesses even if all they have is a single toilet facility or one water closet. For as long as you discharge water, you are in the purview of Engineer Sibunga’s department.

She walked us through the challenges of her work because of errant companies, who may just pay the penalty but still not comply fully with waste water laws. She gave the extreme example of a restaurant that simply washed knives, and had no toilets. But when you wash, you still have waste water and you have to ensure you find a way to treat it. But the big offenders are really the extractive industries, like mining and electronics manufacturing. Asked what the most dangerous substances are in our waste water, and she mentions heavy metals, like cadmium, lead and mercury. And those are toxic for humans and all forms of life.

And this is why we need to prevail upon industry owners and leaders to understand how their business operations can affect our water supply. It is not enough to be able to afford the penalty.Ěý What is required is that we attend a Pollution Control seminar as executives—even for just 8 hours—to know that our business is responsible enough to treat our waste water. It sounds simple and we actually had her laymanize all the scientific tables which we understood after her brief explanation during the webinar.

There are many laws to protect the environment and it takes a lot to enforce because even Local Government Units (LGUS) are involved in the inspection and implementation of the law. But what if the local executive is involved in the errant company? She smiled and said she may have to get the Philippine National Police (PNP) to help as DENR has no police power. DENR simply has the parameters and knowledge of the law and the danger these errant companies can cause to pollute the environment.

Further, some fines have been overtaken by inflation and are now too affordable for companies who do not comply with the law. The laws need review so fines and penalties can be more onerous and painful for offenders. Using the carrot and stick method, other than the “stick” of fines and penalties what are the “carrots”?Ěý What are the incentives so companies will comply? There used to be tax incentives when the law was passed, but it was only good for ten years. That has long expired and nothing compels companies to try and comply to clean the water they discharge. Except the moral obligation that CEOs must abide by. If your industry is a pollutant or prospective pollutant because of the nature of your business (manufacturing, electronics, mining, etc.) you should be mindful of the waste water you produce and ensure that you return the “cleaned up” or treated water back to the system.

But what we do not know won’t hurt us. So we ask executives, CEOs and COOs to attend the enlightening 8-hour seminar of the DENR-EMB along with their Pollution Control Officers (PCOs) so they have a better understanding and moral suasion to prevent damage to the environment. This way, our companies will not only be compliant, we can be a more responsible company that sets the example for others. It could also be a competitive advantage once our consumers find out we are not a polluting business, but a caring one.

Engineer Sibunga is hopeful that if more company leaders understood the Water Quality regulations, the more companies will comply and the DENR will achieve their goal of making sure there is clean water for everyone. We call upon our legislators as well to look into the penalties which have been rendered affordable by inflation. They are too cheap compared to the damage dirty water can cause to agricultural crops, water that goes through our water distributors and even our drinking water. We looked at each other during the webinar because what we had infront of us was bottled water, and why do we drink bottled water? Because we are unsure about the safety of our tap water, and oftentimes establishments need to install filters to make sure our tap water is safe to consume.

We have the laws. In fact, we have a lot of good laws to protect the environment, but its enforcement is the challenge for many agencies, including DENR-EMB. There seems to be a lack of personnel and budget to monitor the growing number of firms whose activities affect our water systems. Maybe with the use of AI and advancement in technology, we may just be able to monitor better and reward those who care and punish those who don’t. In the meantime, take a look at your company and have the moral suasion to do something about it. Remember, the damage you cause may just end up in your own drinking water.

(This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ.Ěý The author is Co-Chair of the ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ Environment Committee. She is also the Chair of Philippine Coffee Board Inc. and Slow Food Manila (www.slowfood.com). Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <pujuan29@gmail.com>).Ěý

The post What’s in your drinking water? appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

Recent research highlights a shift from targeted persuasion—communication aimed at convincing specific people—to information saturation and disruption, in which the goal is to overwhelm people with excessive information. The RAND Corporation calls this the “firehose of falsehood,” a model that uses high-volume, rapid messaging—often with inconsistent or conflicting statements—to flood audiences and make it hard to determine what is true.

For Boards and senior executives, the nature of the threat has shifted. The risk is no longer just a single false story but the erosion of a shared factual reality. This complicates crisis response and investor relations. These risks are real—they are documented globally and are especially relevant in the Philippines, one of the world’s most active social media environments. The challenge stems from information saturation and disruption, the “firehose of falsehood” model: high-volume, rapid, and often contradictory messaging that overwhelms rather than persuades. For Boards, the primary threat is not a single false narrative but the loss of a shared factual baseline. This makes both crisis response and stakeholder communication harder. This context frames the tactics behind modern disinformation.

The Three Pillars of Disruption

Modern disinformation campaigns, whether driven by state or decentralized actors, typically pursue three main objectives:

• Confusion: Flooding the information space with conflicting narratives reduces the public’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction.
• Division: Messaging exploits social and political divisions, pitting stakeholders against each other.
• Erosion of Trust: Ongoing exposure to manipulated content erodes public trust in institutions, including corporations.

Why the Philippines is “Patient Zero”

Corporate leaders in the Philippines face heightened exposure. Researchers call the country “patient zero” for large-scale social media manipulation. The Philippines has some of the world’s highest rates of social media use. It is also a “fake news factory,” where coordinated campaigns, influencer networks, and “troll farms” precisely shape public perception.

In this environment, brand reputation is not just about performance; it is a target of coordinated narrative attacks. We are now seeing the rise of several new tactics:

• Synthetic Media (Deepfakes): AI now enables the creation of hyper-realistic fabricated content. This includes fake CEO statements or false evidence. Such content can be used to blackmail or undermine real corporate communications. Deepfakes also make it easier to create false evidence or to undermine real evidence (“liar’s dividend”).
• Memetic and Viral Content: Short, emotionally charged content spreads faster than factual information. Content that triggers anger or fear often bypasses analytical reasoning.
• Narrative Framing: This technique presents factually correct information in a way that still deceives. By emphasizing some details and omitting others, communicators can mislead stakeholders.
• “Insider” Leaks: Disinformation often appears as content claiming to be privileged or suppressed knowledge. These so-called “leaks,” which are unverified information from anonymous sources, can quickly gain traction during corporate crises.

These narratives can gain traction quickly during corporate crises, especially when official information is limited. Emotionally charged content spreads more widely and influences judgment. Anger and fear reduce analytical processing, and high emotional arousal increases sharing behavior.

The Philippine environment presents unique amplifiers:

• High Social Media Penetration: The country ranks among the highest globally in time spent on social media, increasing exposure to viral misinformation.
• Influencer and Networked Campaigns: Political messaging, influencer marketing, and entertainment now blend, blurring the line between organic and coordinated content.
• Trust Dynamics: Public trust in institutions can shift quickly, making narratives—positive or negative—more volatile. According to the World Economic Forum, misinformation and disinformation erode trust and exacerbate societal divides.

Quantifying the Enterprise Risk

This is not merely a social problem. It is a systemic enterprise risk with tangible impacts:

• Financial and Market Risk: Disinformation can trigger sudden market swings that can affect stock prices and erode partner confidence.
• Operational and Internal Risk: External narratives can trigger internal polarization. This can fracture workforce cohesion and hinder decision-making.
• Regulatory Risk: Governments are watching as the EU and UK increase scrutiny of how companies manage their roles in the information ecosystem. Various countries have implemented some form of “truth in content”. Failing to address these risks can result in significant political and regulatory exposure.

A Deliberate Response for the Boardroom

Given the speed and scale of these threats, Boards must act decisively. Move beyond reactive measures: establish a dedicated information risk committee at the Board or executive level. Implement regular scenario planning and tabletop simulations to strengthen readiness and crisis response. Require periodic briefings on emerging manipulation tactics and annual reviews of information risk management policies to ensure alignment with evolving threats. Take these concrete steps now to embed a strategic mandate in practical governance.

• Integrate information risk into Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). Disinformation is false or misleading information spread to deceive. It should be recognized as a formal category within enterprise risk governance, not merely a public relations issue. Boards can formalize this by including information risk in the enterprise risk register. Establish clear reporting lines for relevant risk committees or the Board. Ensure that regular risk reports specifically address information threats. Assign Board-level or executive oversight of information risk to ensure accountability and integration across business functions.
• Invest in Narrative Tracking. Boards should use social listening tools to detect coordinated activity and emerging narratives early. When selecting tools, Boards should consider several criteria, including the ability to scale enterprise needs, comprehensive coverage of relevant platforms, support for local languages, advanced alerting, and compliance with data privacy requirements. Tools with intuitive dashboards and customizable reporting also enhance Board-level oversight. Assess vendors on these points to catch issues before they reach a tipping point.
• Build Resilience through Literacy. Leaders and employees should receive media literacy training to help them recognize misinformation, including synthetic media, misleading narratives, and manipulative content. Key goals include critically evaluating digital content, understanding viral dynamics, identifying sources, verifying claims, and practicing accurate messaging during incidents. A 2025 study identified effective and ineffective corrections, provided practical insights for social media platforms, and suggested designs for more effective interventions.

Expanding Threat Landscape: Beyond State Actors

While state-sponsored campaigns often attract attention, similar tactics are also used by political actors, activist groups, competitors, and opportunistic bad actors. Social media manipulation by political actors is now an industrial-scale problem, prevalent in over 80 countries. We must recognize that information risk is persistent and multidirectional, not limited to geopolitical conflict.

Key Takeaways for Directors

• Information risk is now a core strategic risk, not merely a communications issue.
• Modern propaganda often aims to confuse and divide, not merely persuade.
• The Philippines presents a high-exposure environment because of high digital literacy and consumption levels.
• Emotional and viral dynamics can quickly escalate reputational crises.
• Proactive governance and preparedness are essential for mitigating the impact.

The contemporary information environment moves quickly and operates on a vast scale. Disinformation campaigns, whether state-driven or decentralized, exploit this speed and complexity to influence perception, behavior, and trust.

Call to Act

Today’s information environment is complex and contested. Managing disinformation cannot be confined to corporate communications. Information risk is now a core strategic threat that can destabilize stock prices, polarize workforces, and erode customer trust.

Boards must ensure that information integrity is a core part of enterprise risk management. Institutional strength in the “post-truth” era depends on leadership. Leaders must understand both the company’s messaging and how the broader information environment is manipulated. Boards need to build institutional resilience. This is not just about responding to incidents but about protecting information integrity in a contested landscape. To support effective governance and clear accountability, oversight of information risk should be formally assigned to the Board. Ideally, this responsibility would be given to the Risk Committee, or, if not already established, to a dedicated Information Risk Committee or to a designated Board officer, such as the Chief Risk Officer, who would ensure that strategies and controls are in place and regularly reviewed. This explicit assignment clarifies ownership and supports strong follow-through on mitigation and preparedness.

A disciplined, research-informed approach, paired with local market awareness, will be critical to navigating this evolving risk landscape.

(The author is Governor and Secretary of the Management Association of the Philippines or ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ.Ěý He is a retired banker and Globe and Ayala executive, and a member of the Analytics and AI Association of the Philippines and the Institute of Corporate Directors. He is an Independent Director at GT Capital Holdings, Puregold Price Club and Megawide Construction. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <iamgilgenio@gmail.com>).

The post The “Firehose of Falsehood” in the Boardroom: Navigating Information Risk as a Strategic Imperative appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

Innovation is not defined by technology alone, but by the people who know how to apply it meaningfully. Across industries, organizations are rethinking how they operate in response to rapid advances in artificial intelligence and digital platforms. For students preparing to enter this environment, the ability to translate theory into practice at an early stage is becoming increasingly important.

The Academic Innovation Challenge (AIC), an initiative of R.G. Manabat & Co. (KPMG in the Philippines), was established with this in mind. Now in its third year, the AIC provides college students with a platform to explore emerging technologies, experiment with real-world scenarios, and build solutions that reflect how businesses operate today. It is designed not only to develop technical skills, but also to develop their creativity, problem-solving abilities, and digital transformation capabilities using modern AI tools.ĚýĚý What distinguishes the AIC is its focus on applied learning. Students are encouraged to work with tools that are already being used in the workplace. At the same time, they gain exposure to the expectations and challenges of real-world problem solving, preparing them for the demands of a digital-first economy.

In 2025, the Academic Innovation Challenge brought together 211 students from 28 universities across the Philippines.

In the first round, the challenge was to find an easier way to identify relevant books and resources for conducting research. The students had to build a Smart Search and Book Recommendation application using Microsoft Copilot Studio, designed to retrieve and process information from dynamic sources such as open-access libraries, research databases, and online catalogues, while providing recommendation and citation support.

For the final round, the challenge focused on helping students get clear and timely academic information, such as course registration, scheduling and campus services. They were tasked to develop a help desk or support platform using Microsoft Copilot Studio, designed to improve how students access and engage with academic information and enhance overall user interaction with academic systems.

Students from the Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Sta. Mesa emerged as winners with their solution titled “Sol and Luna,” which addressed challenges in navigating academic processes by streamlining access to information, services, and support through an integrated platform. The solution applied AI-enabled tools through a conversational interface supporting key functions such as enrollment, appointments and information access. Notable features included seamless navigation across platform sections, including the ability to direct users to specific sections following chatbot interactions, alongside integrated workflow capabilities. The solution was supported by clear execution, strong usability and a focus on delivering practical value in a real-world context.

Students from De La Salle University Manila and another team from Polytechnic University of the Philippines – Sta. Mesa got second and third places, respectively.

Beyond these results, all participants demonstrated their ability to move from concept to execution, translating business requirements into working solutions. They also exhibited structured thinking, effective communication, and the ability to present ideas with clarity and purpose.

This year, the Academic Innovation Challenge continues with the theme of “Building Intelligent Platforms Using Agents,” focusing on agentic AI and intelligent platforms powered by AI agents.

Students will explore how AI agents can be designed, orchestrated, and applied within digital platforms to support end-to-end workflows, enhance user interactions, and enable more adaptive and responsive systems.

This hands-on approach, coupled with mentoring from industry professionals, will give students insights into how technologies are applied in practice, as well as the challenges that organizations face in implementing them. These interactions provide valuable context and help students better understand the environments they will eventually enter.

As the boundaries between education and real-world application continue to evolve, initiatives like the AIC play an important role in preparing the next generation. By equipping students with the tools, experience, and mindset needed to navigate complexity, the AIC lays the foundation for a workforce ready to lead in a rapidly changing environment.

(This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ.Ěý The author is a Member of the ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Committee. She is also the Chair and CEO of R. G. Manabat & Co. (KPMG in the Philippines). Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <sdayoan@kpmg.com>).Ěý

The post Academic Innovation Challenge: Where Students Build Intelligent Platforms with AI Agents appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

We need a system where a person’s creditworthiness is assessed not only through the existence of a bank account, credit card, or loan, but across the full range of their financial life. Responsibility and capacity to pay show up in many places: utility bills paid on time, prepaid mobile top-ups, subscription payments, remittance inflows, e-wallet transactions, gig platform earnings, loyalty programs, even rent payments. These everyday behaviors reflect financial discipline. They should count.

Imagine applying for a loan and being able, with your consent, to authorize the lender to access relevant financial data beyond traditional bank records, such as utility payments, mobile subscriptions, remittance history, e-wallet transactions, etc. Through secure application programming interfaces (APIs), the same technology that powers mobile apps, this data could be transmitted directly to financial institutions for credit evaluation.

With more complete information, lenders gain a fuller and more accurate view of an applicant’s financial behavior. For responsible borrowers, sharing more data could mean better outcomes: higher approval rates, larger loan amounts, and lower interest rates. Applying with limited information, by contrast, often leads to conservative credit decisions.

Without meaningful data sharing, lenders assess risk based on partial visibility. When individual risk cannot be measured accurately, pricing reflects the average risk of a broader pool. As a result, responsible payers effectively subsidize those whose risk profiles are unclear. Lenders price defensively. More granular data allows risk to be differentiated more precisely, so disciplined borrowers are not penalized by a system that cannot fully see them.

The Philippines has already laid much of the groundwork. In 2021, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued Circular No. 1122 adopting an Open Finance Framework built on consent-based data portability and inter-operability. In 2023, BSP launched the Open Finance PH Pilot to explore API-enabled services and governance standards. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced regulatory sandbox mechanisms to encourage financial innovation. The Credit Information Corporation continues expanding access to credit data and strengthening reporting obligations.

These are critical building blocks. But they remain largely within traditional financial silos. Full Picture Credit means going further by recognizing alternative data that are evidence of responsible transacting and creditworthiness. In a modern digital economy, responsible non-bank behavior should matter.

The urgency is clear. According to the BSP’s 2024 Financial Inclusion Annual Report, 56% of Filipino adults now have an account, up from 29% in 2019. That is significant progress—but it still means roughly 44% remain unbanked. Of those with accounts, many rely on e-money rather than traditional banks, and most accounts are used primarily for payments rather than savings.

Globally, 76% of adults had an account in 2021, according to the World Bank’s Global Findex. The Philippines is catching up, but access to an account does not automatically translate into access to credit. Many Filipinos, especially informal workers and MSMEs, have steady incomes yet lack traditional credit histories. They are “thin file” borrowers: economically active but practically invisible to formal credit systems.

This is where alternative data becomes transformative and thankfully, international experience offers guidance.

In the United Kingdom, Open Banking allows consumers to authorize access to transaction histories for credit assessment. Lenders increasingly use cashflow-based underwriting to evaluate affordability in real time, particularly for thin-file borrowers. Open Banking has facilitated new market entrants and strengthened competition. Evidence shows meaningful entry effects and lower financing costs for certain borrowers, especially SMEs that benefit from improved data access.

Brazil has scaled this approach even further. Its Central Bank built a national Open Finance infrastructure designed to increase competition and improve credit allocation. Millions of consumers have provided consent for data sharing, enabling standardized exchange of account, credit, insurance, and investment data. The Central Bank reported average reductions in interest rates for borrowers whose scores improved with expanded data. Better information translated into better pricing.

Cambodia offers a different lesson. Through the National Bank of Cambodia’s Bakong digital payment system, millions of inter-operable digital transactions now occur daily. While alternative data is not yet fully integrated into credit scoring, the digitization of everyday payments creates the transaction records necessary for new credit models to emerge. Once payments become visible, they can become meaningful.

The connection between better credit data and financial literacy is crucial. When consumers can see that paying a utility bill on time strengthens their credit profile, financial literacy becomes tangible. Responsible behavior generates measurable benefits. This feedback loop reinforces budgeting, timely payment, and prudent subscription management.

Financial literacy is not just about knowledge. It is about visible consequences. If the system ignores responsible non-bank behavior, it discourages engagement. If it recognizes that behavior, it rewards discipline.

The Philippines is uniquely positioned for this reform. We are a mobile-first society. Mobile connections exceed the national population. Filipinos spend among the longest hours online globally, and most access the internet through mobile devices. E-wallet penetration is high. Remittances are increasingly digital. MSMEs transact through QR payments and online platforms. Every day, Filipinos generate rich digital financial footprints, yet most of this data remains unused in formal credit assessment.

Full Picture Credit would allow Filipinos, with explicit consent and strong safeguards, to share their broader financial footprint across regulated institutions. It would enable lenders to price risk more accurately, reduce overreliance on collateral, and compete for underserved borrowers. Most importantly, it would create a system where financial responsibility translates directly into financial mobility.

This reform aligns with the Philippines’ Data Privacy Act, modeled heavily on the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. The law enshrines the rights of data subjects: the right to be informed, to access, to object, and critically, the right to data portability. Full Picture Credit does not weaken these protections, rather it activates them. It gives Filipinos the practical ability to direct where their data goes and for what purpose.

This is not about forcing data to move. It is about empowering individuals to decide when and how their data works for them.

The Philippines has already built the regulatory scaffolding. The next step is to expand the spectrum of usable data in a safe, responsible, and inclusive manner.

If we want genuine financial inclusion, we must reform credit assessment to reflect how Filipinos actually live and transact. It is time to move beyond narrow banking reform and enable our citizens to exercise their data, their rights, for their credit.

[This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ. The author is Chair of the ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ Ease of Doing Business Committee. He is Senior Partner at Pozon Recto Petrache and Laiz Law Offices. He previously served as Chief of Staff and OIC Director of the Better Regulations Office of ARTA. He is a Technology, Cyber, Sustainability and Risk Advisory Professional. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <i.pozon@salmon.group>].

The post Your Data, Your Rights: Building Full Picture Credit in the Philippines appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

Today’s generation do not have that patience.Ěý They are used that when they text or chat, they should get a reply within a minute.Ěý If after a few minutes, they don’t get one, they call and asked why they were not replied.Ěý And this is true whether the person is in Manila or halfway around the world.

When I was in college, my dream was to own a bookstore, and most of my allowances went to buying records and books.Ěý Now bookstores are gone, and no musician looks forward to making or selling records anymore.Ěý But the more things changed, some things stay the same.Ěý The artist a hundred years ago make money by doing concerts.Ěý Apparently today, most musicians now make money not by making records, but by doing live concerts.

Today, there is another massive development that threatens millions of jobs – AI or artificial intelligence.ĚýĚý A famous venture capitalist, Vinod Khosla, even ventured that most office jobs might be gone in five years.Ěý Receptionists or telephone operators are no longer required.Ěý People in tech support can be wholesale replaced as machines answer the calls and converse like humans or reply to emails.ĚýĚý Computers can now make powerpoints, and letters, and even dissertations.ĚýĚý They can even draft legal contracts on the fly.Ěý They can analyze businesses and review documents.Ěý They can even make pictures or videos without any actors necessary.

This is particularly threatening to our country, because unlike most of our Asian neighbors, like China, Vietnam, or Thailand, who have become progressive by housing factories, and producing machines, cars, clothes, food, and consumer products sold all over the world.Ěý The Philippines has been left behind in manufacturing, but attracted a different kind of investment – BPO or business process outsourcing.Ěý As of end 2025, it was reported that over US$35 Billion and close to 2 million jobs were generated by these.Ěý The gleaming high rises in Cebu IT Park, and Bonifacio Global City light up at night and is testament that we have been successful in this industry.

The next few years will be crucial to the Philippines.Ěý When the industrial revolution hit England, there were a few hundred people involved in making clothes.Ěý Most of them were afraid to lose their jobs due to industrialization.Ěý After two hundred years, the ability to make clothes is now largely automated, and faster by over a hundred times.Ěý But people went from owning less than 10 pieces of clothes in their lifetime to buying 10 at a time.Ěý Millions of people are now employed in the industry.Ěý If we know how to adjust, our BPO could massively grow, or a million would be out of the job.

Another example can be the banking industry.Ěý A hundred years ago, everything was manual and a bank with a few hundred employees and a handful of branches was already considered big and complex to manage.Ěý Then ĚýĚýinnovations came –ĚýĚý computers, networks, internet, electronic banking, money counters.Ěý Suddenly it took one person to count a few million of banknotes, instead of several people and do it much more accurately.Ěý Suddenly, instead of taking days to send money to another branch, or transfer your money, it took now seconds.Ěý But the same development that fund the massive productivity made more people reliant on banking, and banks grow to thousands of branches all over the world, and millions more become employed.Ěý Would AI do the same?

Another industry is the restaurant industry.Ěý 60 years ago, a trip to the restaurant would mean that you would order, and they would cook.Ěý A restaurant with 20 workers would serve a hundred patrons, and most would stay an hour to enjoy the dinner.Ěý Now a similar size fast-food, with the same number of attendants, could serve over a thousand or two of meals, and many would be served immediately at the counter upon order, and finish and go out in 15 minutes.

What will AI have in store for us?Ěý Will it mean that there are enough of them that we can all now enjoy great living standards and earn even more even if we get to work only 3 days a week?Ěý Or will there be millions unemployed?Ěý It really depends on how we retrain and adjust our way of working and our industries.Ěý It can massively push up to developed status, or it can make us whittle down to even lower depths.

(This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ. The author is a member of the ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ. He is President and CEO of Ng Khai Development Corporation, an ICT systems integrator in the southern Philippines. He also heads various companies in BPO providing service to Japanese and American companies, network cabling, logistics and cold storage warehousing. Feedback at <map@map.org.ph> and <wilson@ngkhai.com>).

The post The Promise of AI – millions of jobs created or destroyed? appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.

These moments are what we may call strategic windows — described in this case as those rare opportunities when countries can convert diplomatic visibility into lasting economic and institutional advantage. The ASEAN Chairship is one of the clearest examples of such a window. Too often, chairing the regional event is seen as largely ceremonial—a year of hosting meetings and summits – but when approached with intent, the Chairship delivers the dual value of advancing national priorities while strengthening regional cooperation.

The Philippines opened that window in 2026 but like all windows, it will not remain open indefinitely. Three out of the 12 months have already passed quickly; and the question before us is simple:Ěý how do we ensure that this moment translates into tangible economic gains for the Philippines, and meaningful progress for ASEAN?

There are strong examples of how this was done within the region. Several ASEAN member-states used their chairship turns not only to host meetings, but to advance strategic economic priorities aligned with their national strengths. For instance,

• Singapore (2018) advanced the digital economy agenda and supported the development of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network.
• Indonesia (2023) emphasized ASEAN as an epicentrum of growth, highlighting digital transformation and sustainable development.
• Vietnam (2020) during the pandemic, strengthened regional coordination on resilience and supply chain continuity.

The lesson is clear: Successful Chairs anchor their agenda on areas where they are ready to lead. They recognize that hosting ASEAN requires significant national resources, institutional focus, and public investment. In today’s environment where citizens are increasingly attentive as to how resources are used, outcomes count and impact matters.

The Philippines must approach its 2026 Chairship with the same level of strategic clarity – focusing on sectors where it is already competitive and capable of delivering results. If done well, we can transform a year of meetings into a decade of economic opportunity. Rather than proposing long-gestation initiatives, the focus should be on areas where the Philippines already has strengths — sectors that can be scaled at the ASEAN level and where early, tangible gains can be achieved. Only then can we have a conversion of the cost into investment and real return on investment (ROI).

From the ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ consultations, one central question emerged: What policy directions should the Philippine private sector champion to ensure that ASEAN 2026 delivers tangible gains for business, communities, and regional integration? The answer lies in building on what the country already has. The Philippines is well-positioned in several key areas:

• A young and skilled workforce
• A fast-growing digital economy
• Global strength in creative services
• Leadership in renewable energy transition
• Strategic location in regional logistics and supply chains

From these advantages, six priority sectors emerged, clustered into three strategic pillars:

• Strengthening ASEAN’s productive economy
• Accelerating ASEAN’s Digital and Creative Economy
• Building an Inclusive ASEAN Economy

STRENGTHENING ASEAN’S PRODUCTIVE ECONOMY

ASEAN must continue strengthening the foundations of its productive economy, particularly in food systems, connectivity, and energy resilience.

• Agriculture transformation. Food security remains a critical regional concern. The Philippines has growing experience in climate-resilient agriculture and agri-technology, which can support regional collaboration on food systems innovation.

• Transport and infrastructure connectivity. With established experience in public-private partnerships, the Philippines can contribute to regional efforts in logistics integration and supply chain connectivity.

• Energy transition. With increasing investments in renewable energy, the Philippines is well-positioned to support ASEAN’s push toward energy security and sustainability.

ACCELERATING ASEAN’S DIGITAL AND CREATIVE ECONOMY

The next phase of ASEAN growth will be driven by digital and creative industries. Two sectors stand out.

• Digital economy and technology. The Philippines’ strong digital workforce and IT-BPM sector position it well to support deeper regional collaboration in digital services and innovation.

• Trade and the creative industries. Filipino creativity is globally recognized, especially its capabilities in design, animation, and content creation. They all contribute to positioning ASEAN as a global creative hub.

BUILDING AN INCLUSIVE ASEAN ECONOMY

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in growth. The Philippines has long demonstrated strong participation of women in the workforce and leadership roles. Promoting inclusive growth — particularly for MSMEs, women, and the youth — can expand economic participation and strengthen ASEAN’s long-term competitiveness.

FROM POLICY TO ACTION: Initiatives that can be achieved within the Chairship cycle

To help maximize the 2026 ASEAN Chairship, the private sector proposes the following priority areas for regional collaboration:

• Strengthening regional cooperation on digital services and talent mobility
• Advancing an ASEAN platform for the creative economy
• Deepening collaboration on renewable energy and energy transition
• Enhancing regional coordination on food security and agricultural innovation
• Promoting logistics and infrastructure connectivity initiatives
• Encouraging inclusive workforce participation across ASEAN economies.

These are not entirely new initiatives, but areas where existing ASEAN cooperation can be strengthened, and where the Philippines can contribute more actively. Policy alone will not be enough, however. Regional initiatives succeed only when execution follows diplomacy. The private sector plays a critical role in this process by:

• Providing industry expertise
• Supporting regional partnerships
• Mobilizing business networks
• Translating policy frameworks into real economic activity.

In this context, the support of ASEAN-BAC Philippines and the ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ-proposed ASEAN Management Association Network (AMAN) could help bridge policy direction and implementation.

REALIZING THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Hosting ASEAN requires significant public investment, but the return can be substantial if outcomes are strategic. Potential benefits include:

• Increased foreign investment
• Expansion of regional markets for Philippine services
• Strengthened regional leadership position
• Growth of priority industries
• New ASEAN economic platforms led by the Philippines.

The goal is clear:Ěý we can convert diplomatic hosting into national economic advantage. ASEAN is one of the most dynamic regions in the world – with about 700 million people and a combined economy of about $4 Trillion. The Philippines assumed the Chairship at a time of profound global shifts and regional transformations.

Ultimately, the question is not simply how well we host ASEAN, but how boldly we use this moment to position the Philippines as a leader in the region’s next chapter of growth. If we align policy, enterprise, and execution, the 2026 Chairmanship will not only be remembered as a successful diplomatic year – but as the moment the Philippines stepped forward to lead.

(The author is member of the International Relations Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines or ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ.Ěý She is also Chair of the ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ CEO Conference Committee and Co-Vice Chair of the ¶¶ŇôłÔąĎ Trade, Investments and Tourism Committee.Ěý She is President and CEO of Health Solutions Corporation and former Undersecretary of the Department of Tourism. Feedback at <alma.almadrj@gmail.com> or <map@map.org.ph>.)

The post Maximizing the Philippines’ ASEAN Chairship 2026: Private Sector Policy Priorities appeared first on Management Association of the Philippines.