THE Philippines grapples with significant obstacles in establishing a robust and coherent data governance framework, a challenge underscored by the recent D4DAsia Synthesis Report.
The study, involving LIRNEasia, Disini Law, and other partners, paints a picture of a fragmented landscape where a unified, overarching data governance law remains absent. Instead, the country relies on a patchwork of laws, creating gaps and inconsistencies that hinder both innovation and the beneficial use of data.
Oliver Xavier Reyes, from the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law, told reporters that a core problem is the lack of a single law covering all types of data, public and private. While the Data Privacy Act (DPA) is vital for protecting individual rights, its practical application has ironically become a major impediment to data sharing.
Due to a ‘lack of confidence and clarity in interpreting the law,’ Reyes said concerns about data privacy are frequently invoked by both public and private sectors as a veto against sharing. When in doubt, he added organizations and individuals often err on the side of caution, withholding data even when its sharing would be legally permissible and beneficial for public good.
‘Data is an asset and robust data governance is a key advantage in policy-making, especially in the public sector where decisions could impact one way or the other people’s lives and their livelihood,’ Reyes said.
Further complicating matters is the restricted access to public data. Essential public databases, such as those held by civil registrars, are often unnecessarily restrictive, demanding that only the data subject can access their own information, according to Reyes.
Professor Jesus M. Disini, an associate professor at UP College of Law and managing partner of Disini and Disini Law office, said the absence of a strong, statutory Freedom of Information (FOI) law-as the current mechanism is an Executive Order-has been identified as a critical gap. He pointed out that a strong FOI law would be instrumental in clearly defining public records and opening these databases for wider research and analysis.
Moreover, Disini said the government has missed opportunities to leverage its regulatory power to facilitate data access for public benefit. When licensing public services like ride-hailing or telecommunications, Reyes said the state has not consistently included conditions that would grant it access to valuable, anonymized data. ‘This regulatory oversight means proprietary data, which could be instrumental for social and economic analysis, remains siloed within private companies,’ he pointed out.
Reyes said there is a consensus that a critical need exists for a broader national conversation to balance individual rights protection with the promotion of innovation. He noted the utility of data often lies not in individual-level information but in the large-scale patterns and trends that anonymized datasets can reveal-insights crucial for poverty analysis and developing new services. ‘To spearhead this crucial dialogue, a centralized leadership is required,’ he said.
While the newly enacted E-governance law may initiate discussions, Disini said a clear convener, such as the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), must take a leading role in fostering a multi-stakeholder strategy involving government, civil society, and the private sector.
‘Our report presents gaps in our country’s strategy on data governance. In highlighting them, we hope to encourage policy-makers and data managers to influence our political leaders to make the necessary legislation to plug these holes soonest. Addressing these challenges requires not just new legislation, but a fundamental shift in perspective to embrace a modern, cohesive data governance framework,’ Disini stressed.