senseneres

Wednesday, February 04, 2026

WHOLE OF SOCIETY SUPPORT FOR ALL COOPERATIVES

Cooperative ideals are woven deep into Philippine history. Did you know that as early as 1896, Dr. José Rizal founded La Sociedad de los Abacaleros—an agricultural marketing cooperative—while in exile in Dapitan? That fragile seed has sprouted. Today, almost 130 years later, the cooperative movement has grown substantially. Still, I believe it could grow far more—and grow deeper.

The Current Landscape: Strong, but Undercapitalized

Recent data shows that there are around 18,000–20,000 registered cooperatives in the Philippines, with about 10 to 11 million members. These numbers represent roughly 10% of our population. Many cooperatives are micro- to small-sized: in fact, most are micro-cooperatives (assets ₱3 million or less), with relatively few having large asset bases.

Cooperatives control a sizable asset base (hundreds of billions of pesos), yet compared to national totals their share is still modest.

So yes, there is cause for both optimism and ambition.

My Dreams and Goals: Not Just What Is, But What Could Be

Let me share what I dream for cooperatives:

That half of all Filipinos become cooperative members. Not a whim—just imagine what that would mean for grassroots ownership, collective bargaining, and local empowerment.
That cooperatives hold at least 10% of the total assets of the country’s economy. Right now they have much less; to reach 10% would require both scaling up existing coops and creating many more viable ones.

These are big dreams. But based on what cooperatives already do—and what laws allow—I don’t think they are impossible.

Legal Foundations: We Have the Tools

We are not starting from zero. The Philippines already has laws that support cooperatives quite substantially:

Republic Act 9520, the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008, which provides the legal framework for cooperative registration, types, rights, governance, etc.
Cooperative Development Authority (CDA), which regulates, accredits, and supports cooperatives.

These legal instruments allow cooperatives to operate in multiple sectors—finance, agriculture, housing, transport, even memorial and infrastructure coops. Many cooperatives are granted privileges, including preferential rights for government procurement under certain conditions, access to donations/grants, etc., subject to compliance.

What Needs Doing: A Whole-of-Society Push

If cooperatives are to move from “good but modest” to “powerful engine of inclusive growth,” here are some of my suggestions and questions:

Government leadership plus private sector, civil society collaboration
The CDA must play its regulatory and promotional role, but LGUs, national government agencies, NGOs, even private businesses should support cooperatives as partners—not just beneficiaries. Technical assistance, training, finance, infrastructure: all required.
Scaling up micro/small coops
Many coops are stuck in micro size. We need programs that help them graduate to small, then medium, then large. That means access to capital, better governance, transparency, better business practices. Oversight must be robust but enabling.
Ensure inclusivity and equity
Coops should especially reach marginalized sectors—farmers, fisherfolk, Indigenous Peoples, women. Support must adapt to their needs: distance, lack of initial capital, lack of technical knowledge.
Clarify procurement, donation, and government contracting
Laws allow cooperatives to receive government grants/donations and to participate in government procurement under certain exemptions. But many coops and LGUs don’t seem to know how to navigate them. Simplify procedures; clarify which cooperating coops are eligible; build trust so that cooperatives are awarded government contracts fairly.
Legal & regulatory support for barangay-level coops / community coops
Think barangay burial coops, local memorial parks, aquaculture coops, energy coops, circular design coops. Legal framework (CDA, local ordinances), financial support, technical training—all needed. What’s needed is a model coop framework that is donation-ready, procurement-ready, accredited, and locally governed.
Strengthen cooperative education and values
Many cooperatives struggle with governance, transparency, and member participation. Basic cooperative education (on rights, responsibilities, governance, financial literacy) must be scaled up. Member engagement must be real, not perfunctory.
Monitoring and national metrics
We need up-to-date, reliable data. How many coops are active vs dormant? How many submit annual reports? What is the volume of business, net surplus, employment created? What is their contribution to key sectors (housing, transport, energy)? Only if we measure can we plan, hold accountable, and improve.

Questions That Deserve Discussion

Should the goal of “half the population as coop members” be institutionalized in our national cooperative development plan? What policy levers would be needed to achieve that?
How can we ensure that scaling up doesn’t lead to concentration or abuse? Cooperatives must not lose their democratic control, their non-profit or social mission as they grow big.
What role should LGUs play? Could there be village/barangay coop incubators? Could barangays have incentive funding to support coop formation and growth?
Can we adopt “coop procurement zones” or special procurement windows where coops are given priority, or streamlined bidding, especially for small/medium contracts, while maintaining transparency and fairness?

Closing Thoughts

Cooperatives are more than member companies—they are social institutions, bastions of shared ownership, democracy, local empowerment. If all parts of society—government, business, civil society, communities—give cooperatives real, consistent support, I believe they can reach that level of influence I dream about: 50% membership, 10% of assets.

It’s not just about numbers; it’s about what kind of society we want: one where people pool their strength, share in ownership and benefit, and build resilience together. We have the legal foundation. We have examples, history, grassroots energy. What we need is courage, policy coherence, investment, education, and trust.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-05-2026

Tuesday, February 03, 2026

A GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ETHICAL USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic dream — it's part of our daily lives. Even if we don’t realize it, we are already using AI whenever we interact with social media algorithms, mobile apps, recommendation engines, or smart assistants. What’s new, however, is the growing sense that AI must be bounded by ethical principles — ideally, through a global framework that ensures accountability, fairness, and safety across borders.

That aspiration is laudable. But it also compels us to ask: Do we even have a national framework for the ethical use of AI here in the Philippines?

The gap at home: no binding national AI law yet

Logically, one would expect that before widespread AI adoption, a country should put in place guardrails to guide its ethical use. In the Philippines, we are still lagging in that respect. According to UNESCO, the Philippines has yet to enact legally binding rules or a national framework governing AI.

We do have promising legislative proposals. In May 2023, House Bill 7913—“Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation Act”—was introduced to define guiding principles (accountability, transparency, human-centered values) and even establish an “AI Bill of Rights” for citizens. There’s also House Bill 7396, which would set up an AI Development Authority (AIDA) to license AI developers. Several other bills are pending in Congress (HB 7983, HB 9448, etc.).

On the executive‐policy side, the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) recently released a Policy Note on Artificial Intelligence aiming to embed AI into the national development agenda—while flagging challenges such as data governance, infrastructure, and regulatory fragmentation. DEPDev has also envisioned a unified national AI strategy that includes a national data governance framework under the Philippine Statistics Authority. Meanwhile, the government’s Innovation Council approved a think tank to help shape AI policy.

Yet none of these are yet laws. In the interim, the National Privacy Commission issued an advisory in December 2024 on how the existing Data Privacy Act would apply to AI systems that process personal data. That’s a useful stopgap—but hardly sufficient protection for complex and powerful AI systems.

So we find ourselves in a limbo: discussions, bills, policy notes — but no enforceable national standard.

Learning from India: a potential model

We could learn some lessons from India, which has positioned itself as a front-runner in articulating a national AI framework. Its model is not perfect, but it is more advanced than ours in many respects.

India’s National Strategy for AI (via NITI Aayog) was published as early as 2018, and expanded in supplementary documents, notably Part 1: Principles for Responsible AI. These principles draw on the familiar “FAT” framework — Fairness, Accountability, Transparency — as well as philosophical foundations such as “Person Respect, Beneficence, and Justice.”

India is also implementing a “whole-of-government” approach, recommending an interministerial AI coordination committee, a technical secretariat, and an AI incident database. There’s also discussion of a voluntary code of conduct for AI companies focusing on data labeling, ethical practices, and stakeholder engagement.

In the financial sector, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) recently proposed a FREE-AI (Framework for Responsible and Ethical Enablement of AI) for financial institutions. This framework is structured along infrastructure, governance, policy, protection, and assurance — attempting to balance innovation with risk mitigation.

India likewise invests heavily in flagship AI projects under its “Safe & Trusted AI” pillar, tackling bias, deepfake detection, forensic robustness, and more.

The cumulative effect: India is not just debating moral principles — it is actively building infrastructure, institutional capacity, and pilot systems.

What should we do in the Philippines?

This is where my own suggestions and questions come in. If I were designing a roadmap for the Philippines, here’s where I’d start — and where I’d call on your feedback.

1. Choose a lead department or body
Which agency should take charge of drafting the national AI ethical framework? My top contenders:

DICT (Department of Information and Communications Technology) — because AI is in many ways an ICT issue (connectivity, digital services, infrastructure).
DOST (Department of Science and Technology) — because R&D, innovation, and science are its domain.
DEPDev /National Innovation Council — because the ethical use of AI is ultimately a development policy issue. In fact, the National Innovation Council (part of DEPDev) is already a body under which innovation policy is coordinated.

If no line department steps up, the Presidential Management Staff (PMS) could serve as convener (especially for issuing interim Executive Orders).

2. Use executive orders or administrative issuances as interim tools
Just as we have the Freedom of Information EO, the President could issue an EO or memorandum directing agencies to adopt key AI ethics principles, establish oversight committees, and pilot “AI sandboxes.” That gives us something to act on while Congress deliberates.

3. Enact a “Philippine AI Bill of Rights”
Borrowing concepts from HB 7913, the basic rights should include:

Protection from unsafe or discriminatory AI systems
Right to explanation / algorithmic transparency
Right to privacy and data protection
Right to remedy or redress
Accountability mechanisms, audit trails, and appeal channels

4. Risk-based, modular regulation
Instead of a one-size-fits-all law, we should adopt tiered regulation: low-risk AI (e.g. recommender engines) get light oversight, but high-impact AI (e.g. credit scoring, health diagnosis, criminal justice) require stronger standards, audits, and oversight. We must avoid stifling innovation for startups and small players.

5. Build institutional capacity & incident reporting
An AI incident reporting system (to log errors, biases, misuse) should be a core part of governance. Also, we need dedicated regulatory units with technical capacity — auditors, algorithmic forensics, ethics officers.

6. Localize the global framework to barangay / community level
You raised an intriguing idea: a barangay-level adaptation of ethical AI governance. Imagine:

A local “bias audit toolkit” for barangay-run decision systems (e.g. in aid distribution)
Voice authentication modules for local cooperative transactions
Deepfake detection protocols for local media or misinformation
Modular AI for waste sorting, aquaculture forecasting, or local planning (circular design)

7. Promote public literacy and stakeholder engagement
Ethical AI frameworks cannot just be top-down. We need citizen engagement, civil society input, and public awareness campaigns — so people understand their rights and the risks of AI systems.

Some caveats and tensions

Overregulation can suffocate innovation. We must keep regulation principle-based and flexible (not excessively prescriptive).
Developing countries must balance ethical guardrails with capacity constraints: regulatory agencies may lack staff or technical know-how.
AI governance must be interoperable globally—but also flexible to local contexts (language, culture, social norms).
Privacy laws like ours (Data Privacy Act) must dovetail with AI regulation — not contradict or undermine them.
Startups and innovators should be involved, to avoid “regulation by bureaucrats” that lock out new ideas.

Closing reflection

A global ethical AI framework is a necessary but insufficient goal if nations like ours don’t first build their own national foundations. For the Philippines, the path is clear: pick a lead institution, issue interim EOs, pass a guiding law, and pilot community-level systems.

Let me leave you with these questions:

If you were in charge, which agency would you pick to lead the ethics-AI drafting effort?
How would you design a barangay-level AI sandbox that is safe yet empowering?
What safeguards would you insist must always stay non-negotiable in any law or EO?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-04-2026