Copying the EU AI Act Would Be a Disaster for the Philippines


The Philippines has a long history of borrowing international regulatory frameworks, the Data Privacy Act drew heavily from the GDPR, and the Cybercrime Prevention Act followed the Budapest Convention. Those decisions made sense at the time: data protection and cybercrime are global problems that benefit from harmonized standards. But artificial intelligence is an entirely different category of technology, one that cannot be copy-pasted across borders without catastrophic consequences.

And yet, some policymakers are now considering using the European Union’s AI Act as a template for Philippine legislation. If adopted wholesale, this would represent not just a poor fit, but a direct threat to the country’s economic engine, workforce competitiveness, and future digital development. AI is not GDPR. It is not cybercrime law. It is deeply intertwined with economic structure, and on this front, the Philippines and the EU could not be more different.

A Ten-Fold Economic Gap That No Policy Can Ignore

The EU AI Act was built for a region with a GDP per capita of around $40,000. The Philippines, meanwhile, sits under $4,100. This gap is not merely academic, it defines regulatory capacity, compliance burden tolerance, and the economic elasticity required to absorb new rules.

The EU can impose €29,000–€52,000 annual compliance costs per high-risk AI system because its companies operate in high-margin, capital-intensive sectors. In contrast, Philippine companies, especially the BPOs and micro-enterprises that power the digital economy, operate on thin margins. The research shows that certification alone could cost €16,800–€23,000 per AI system, and that building a compliance-grade Quality Management System could demand over €300,000 upfront. For Philippine SMEs, this is not regulation, it is extinction.

Even the country’s national AI investments illustrate the mismatch. The Philippine government has allocated PHP 2.6 billion (~$44M) for AI projects through 2028. That entire seven-year budget is equivalent to the compliance cost of fewer than 200 high-risk EU-regulated AI systems. The math simply does not work.

The Core of the Philippine Economy Would Be Hit Hardest

Three workforce pillars, BPO employees, OFWs, and freelancers, collectively generate over $76 billion a year. This is the bedrock of the Philippine economy. And these workers would be disproportionately harmed by EU-style AI regulation.

BPOs, which generate $38 billion and employ 1.8 million Filipinos, face an automation risk of nearly 90%. Adding EU-level compliance obligations, risk assessments, documentation, technical audits, would push global clients to simpler, cheaper jurisdictions. Why outsource to the Philippines if AI-assisted customer service triggers European regulatory requirements? Rational firms would either move to countries with lighter rules or automate away Filipino labor entirely.

OFWs, who send home $38.3 billion annually, would also be collateral damage. Strict domestic rules on AI-based education, credentialing, and training could make Filipino workers appear “over-regulated” or administratively complex for foreign employers. In rapidly AI-augmenting fields like healthcare, Philippine workers could lose competitiveness simply because their country imposed rules divorced from global labor markets.

Freelancers, the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, would be devastated. Individual digital workers cannot shoulder €30,000 compliance requirements for basic AI-assisted tools like content generators, CRM systems, or project managers. Clients seeking cost-effective digital labor would quickly turn to competitors in India, Vietnam, or Pakistan. The gig economy, where nearly 10 million Filipinos participate, would be priced out of global markets.

The Philippines Is an AI Adopter, Not a Frontier AI Developer

The EU AI Act is designed for a region that builds AI systems, including frontier models with systemic risk. Europe hosts Mistral, Aleph Alpha, DeepMind, and dozens of advanced R&D labs. These regulators are governing their own capabilities.

The Philippines has no such ecosystem. It is not training billion-parameter models. It is not exporting AI systems. It is fundamentally a user, an adopter, of technologies created elsewhere. Imposing frontier-AI regulations on an adopting country is like requiring every fishing boat to meet the safety standards of an aircraft carrier.

It is unnecessary, expensive, and misaligned with national capabilities.

The Country’s Competitive Edge Is Human Capital, Not AI Manufacturing

The EU’s economic model is product-based. It builds AI systems and exports them.

The Philippines’ model is service-based. It exports talent.

What the Philippines needs is AI regulation that enhances SKILLS, not compliance costs; that boosts digital competitiveness, not bureaucratic hurdles; and that strengthens the agility of BPOs, OFWs, and freelancers.

Copying the EU AI Act would do the opposite. It would burden Filipino workers with rules written for companies like Siemens and Airbus, not for a Cebu call center or a Cavite medical assistant preparing for overseas deployment.

A Better Path Exists, One Built for ASEAN, Not Brussels

The Philippines should lean into ASEAN-style principles-based regulation and look to Singapore’s Model AI Governance Framework, which emphasizes flexibility, innovation, and proportionate safeguards. Even Singapore, far more advanced in AI readiness, chose not to hard-regulate AI like the EU.

If Singapore won’t copy the EU AI Act, why should the Philippines?

Leadership Means Choosing What Fits, Not What Impresses

The desire to adopt the EU AI Act stems from good intentions: to show global leadership and align with international standards. But leadership requires strategic coherence, not regulatory mimicry.

With millions of Filipino livelihoods at stake, the Philippines must design AI rules that protect jobs, expand opportunities, and reflect the country’s true economic structure. Copying Brussels will not do that. Charting an independent course will.

The Philippines must choose wisely. The future of its workforce, and its competitiveness in an AI-driven world, depends on it.


About Me:

Dominic “Doc” Ligot is one of the leading voices in AI in the Philippines. Doc has been extensively cited in local and global media outlets including The Economist, South China Morning Post, Washington Post, and Agence France Presse. His award-winning work has been recognized and published by prestigious organizations such as NASA, Data.org, Digital Public Goods Alliance, the Group on Earth Observations (GEO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNICEF.

If you need guidance or training in maximizing AI for your career or business, reach out to Doc via https://docligot.com.

Follow Doc Ligot on Facebook: https://facebook.com/docligotAI