At the closing ceremony of the 47th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit, the Philippines assumed the ASEAN chairmanship under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Entering 2026 with the theme “Navigating Our Future, Together,” President Marcos Jr. articulates priorities on peace and security anchors, prosperity corridors, and people empowerment. Yet beyond these familiar pillars lies a deepening governance gap and regulatory fragmentation, which ASEAN has yet to address: the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI).
Equally important, AI is a rapidly developing technology affecting various sectors in ASEAN. Economically, ASEAN projects that AI could boost its GDP by 10% to 18%, potentially adding US$1 trillion by 2030. But experts also note that the economic and technological divide may deepen as member states adopt AI at different paces. For security, ASEAN is mindful that “AI has been increasingly integrated into a broad array of applications in the defense sector, which both offers potential opportunities and benefits, such as increasing precision and accuracy, as well as challenges and risks, such as an arms race, miscalculation, overdependence, and lowering the threshold for conflict.” Socio-culturally, AI remains a double-edged sword, requiring further studies on job displacement, misinformation, marginalization, and public services in the region.
In realizing the importance of AI, President Marcos Jr. himself integrated AI in the ASEAN pillars at the National Launch of the Philippine Chairship of ASEAN: ‘In the area of peace and security, our Chairship will highlight the responsible and ethical use of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI)… In the economic sphere, let us drive ASEAN’s transition into a digitally empowered community. By promoting the safe, ethical, responsible, equitable, and sustainable adoption of AI in all areas… Under the socio-cultural pillar, the Philippines will champion the responsible use of AI to enhance healthcare, education, and youth empowerment…’
With the foregoing, the Philippines cannot set aside the role of AI in ASEAN’s interests. This warrants the Philippines to champion an AI governance initiative that is more impactful for all members, especially for Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and Timor-Leste, being the least AI-ready countries in ASEAN.
ASEAN’s Current AI Governance Architecture
The first formal action and recognition of ASEAN on the growing gaps in AI began with the endorsement of the ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics (2024 AI Guide) in 2024. The 2024 AI Guide outlined principles such as transparency, human-centricity, and accountability. It established policy recommendations at the regional level, including the creation of a Working Group on AI Governance and the compilation of a compendium of AI governance practices. Following the adoption of the 2024 Guide, a Working Group on AI Governance (WG‑AI) was established to coordinate member states’ AI policies, develop guidance for generative AI, and align ethical standards. In January 2025, ASEAN also adopted the Expanded ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics (2025 AI Guide), primarily concerning generative AI and supplementing the 2024 AI Guide. In March 2025, ASEAN also adopted the ASEAN Responsible AI Roadmap (2025-2030).
Despite these guidelines, adoption remains unequal due to financial, institutional, or skill capacity gaps among the member states, leading to imbalanced AI oversight. According to the Oxford Insights Government AI Readiness Index, Singapore remains the leading ASEAN member in AI readiness, while Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos maintain significantly low scores. In this regard, ASEAN should explore a hard law agreement that will seal the gap in AI governance in the bloc.
Why Soft Law May No Longer Be Enough
Currently, AI laws in ASEAN are guided by the long-standing norms of consensus and non-interference. This means that most of ASEAN’s documents cannot impose regulations, sanctions, and obligations on its members, unless they agree through a treaty like the 2002 Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP). Understandably, ASEAN’s AI Guides cannot supersede local laws, and each member has the leeway to adopt the guidelines based on their domestic capacities.
In the same way that ASEAN recognizes the varying capacities and preparedness of the members to regulate AI, there is also an equally important need for the bloc (as a collective body) to explore a comprehensive regulation that will serve as a safety net, given the cross-border nature of AI and the large gap in AI readiness in the region.Through a regulation, ASEAN members will have a collective leverage to prevent AI misuse, protect digital ethics beyond voluntary principles, and most importantly, balance digital growth and AI readiness. Otherwise stated, without binding mechanisms, ASEAN will have difficulty aligning national approaches to emergent AI risks like cross-border data flows, AI-powered disinformation campaigns, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. These issues are current and foreseeable, demanding a timely institutional strategic point for ASEAN.
To achieve this, ASEAN should conduct a regulatory case study and learn from the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act), which was adopted by the European Parliament in 2021. The EU AI Act is the world’s first regulatory framework regulating AI. One feature of the EU AI Act is a risk-based AI classification system that imposes different obligations on AI providers depending on the risks a classified AI poses to users. The idea of risk-based AI systems, for example, is important so that ASEAN does not sweepingly limit or curtail AI technologies that may play a role in certain innovations.
The EU AI Act also included safeguard clauses, legitimate sanctions, technical assistance, and a compliance timeline with phased obligations, which ASEAN could learn from when considering the varying institutional capacities of its members. As a hard law, the EU AI Act has many features that ASEAN can learn from—being a regional experience with a horizontal approach (all-sector application) coupled with a risk-based framework, while maintaining principles.
Moreover, ASEAN can learn from its members, especially Singapore, which is a technologically leading member in terms of AI governance readiness. Over the past years, Singapore has made incremental steps for AI policies with its AI Playbook for Small States, the AI Verify Toolkit, the National AI Strategy 2.0, and the Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI. While Singapore’s toolkits and playbooks reflect ASEAN’s soft law approach, Singapore’s proactiveness and serious attention to AI can play a huge positive role in shaping principles-to-law or the maturation of AI guidelines in ASEAN. Moreover, if a regulation is not finalized during the Philippines’ tenure, it can be continued by Singapore during its 2027 chairship.
Since ASEAN emphasizes economic growth and innovation in tackling AI, Singapore’s position as an AI-ready and economically driven country can be a practical model for ASEAN. Even better if coupled with lessons from the EU AI Act as a regional regulation.
Overall, AI evolves, its risks are intricate, and a comprehensive AI regulation in ASEAN is no longer theoretical but an emerging practical necessity. A hard law will not only minimize the transboundary risks among the members but also balance the maximization of AI benefits in the bloc. A stronger regulatory agreement will further signify that ASEAN’s approach to its interests can be pursued through legally binding mechanisms, different from the broad, principle-based, and soft governance mechanisms the bloc is known for.
Strategic Bonus for the Philippines
In January 2024, former Philippine House of Representatives Speaker Martin Romualdez said that the Philippines will present an AI regulatory framework to ASEAN in 2026: a framework based on the draft legislation in the Philippine Congress. If pursued, this move will benefit the country by priming its diplomatic clout, opening a possible partnership with Singapore, and expanding influence through digitalization. As a top business process outsourcing country, an AI regulation may also attract more investments and companies, as it demonstrates the Philippines’ position on digital transformation and AI governance to protect businesses. As for security, promoting a unified regulation (patterned from Philippine legislation) would mitigate cross-border AI-driven risks such as data misuse and disinformation, which are prevalent in the country.
Beyond its national interests, the upcoming test for the Philippines is to challenge the traditional mode of engagement among the ‘non-legalist’ ASEAN members. If the Philippines wants its regional leadership to leave a long-term contribution, rallying the bloc toward a binding agreement that fosters an inclusive, safe, and responsible digital future, consistent with the theme “Navigating Our Future, Together,” is a glaring path.
