Former Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) assistant secretary Allan Cabanlong has questioned secretary Henry Aguda’s claim that the Philippines ranks first or second in Southeast Asia in areas including artificial intelligence policy, governance, skills and capability.
In a Facebook post, Cabanlong, who also served as the first executive director of the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), called on the DICT to identify the study and data supporting the ranking.
He was reacting to an interview of Aguda in Bilyonaryo News Channel as saying the Philippines ranked close to Singapore when AI policy, governance, skills and capability were considered, although the country lagged in infrastructure.
“When we studied the capability and ranking of the Philippines in the area of AI in Asean — when it comes to policy, governance, skills, capability — we ranked close to Singapore, one or two. But when we check the infrastructure ranking of the country, we fall below six or seven,” Aguda said in an interview aired on Business 360.
Cabanlong questioned whether a published international assessment supports such a ranking.
“May I ask, what specific published study establishes that the Philippines is No. 1 or No. 2 in Asean in AI policy, governance, skills and capability?” he said.
“The latest published Oxford Insights, OECD, UNESCO and even Asean documents do not appear to support that broad conclusion. In fact, the official Asean IAI Work Plan V, citing Oxford Insights, places the Philippines behind Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Viet Nam in overall Government AI Readiness.”
Cabanlong said that if the ranking came from a benchmarking exercise conducted by the DICT, the agency should make its methodology and supporting data public.
“If DICT conducted its own benchmarking study, then it should publish the methodology, indicators, weights, reference year, country scores and underlying datasets so the claimed ranking can be independently reproduced,” he said.
He also cautioned against treating different measures of AI development as interchangeable, saying progress in policymaking does not necessarily translate into comparable rankings in governance, skills, technological capability or infrastructure.
“There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that the Philippines has made significant progress in AI policy. But policy readiness, governance, AI skills, technological capability and infrastructure are different metrics. Combining them and then claiming that the Philippines is ‘No. 1 or No. 2’ risks presenting an internal assessment as an established Asean ranking,” Cabanlong said.
“AI policy should be evidence-based. If we claim a ranking, the data and methodology should be open to scrutiny.”
He added: “Let us not exaggerate or distort the facts simply to elevate ourselves. Public credibility is built on evidence, transparency, and truth — not on rankings that cannot be independently verified.”
