I had the opportunity last week in SMX Clark to address 2,000 city councilors from across the Philippines on a subject that I believe will fundamentally reshape local governance: artificial intelligence (AI). My message was straightforward. AI is no longer simply a technological issue for corporations, universities, or National Government agencies. It is now a governance issue, and local legislators must begin preparing for it.
When we discuss AI, we often focus on how it will transform businesses, disrupt employment, or change education. Yet one institution that stands to benefit significantly, but remains relatively unprepared, is local government. Our cities confront the same problems year after year: traffic congestion, flooding, inefficient permitting, garbage collection, public safety, and inadequate healthcare services. Despite investments in infrastructure and technology, many of these problems remain unresolved.
I challenged our councilors to rethink what constitutes a smart city. A smart city is not necessarily one with thousands of CCTV cameras, sophisticated command centers, expensive software, or numerous mobile applications. A city can possess all these technologies and still suffer from inefficient bureaucracy and frustrated citizens. The true measure of a smart city should not be how much technology it owns, but how effectively that technology improves people’s lives.
Smart cities require smart governance, and smart governance requires forward-thinking leadership.
FROM REACTIVE TO PREDICTIVE GOVERNANCE
My first proposal is for local governments to shift from reactive to predictive governance. Traditionally, government responds after problems occur. Roads are repaired after they deteriorate, emergency personnel are deployed after flooding begins, and traffic interventions are introduced after congestion becomes unbearable. This reactive approach is costly, inefficient, and frequently leaves citizens bearing the consequences.
AI offers an opportunity to change this model. By analyzing historical and real-time data, cities can better anticipate flood risks, traffic congestion, fire hazards, disease outbreaks, and infrastructure deterioration. Local governments already generate substantial information through permits, public health systems, emergency services, and administrative functions. Unfortunately, much of this data remains fragmented across departments or underutilized.
I proposed that cities begin integrating relevant government datasets, with appropriate privacy safeguards, and applying predictive analytics to improve planning and resource allocation. We should aspire to build governments that identify potential problems before they become crises. Prevention is not only better than cure. It is better governance.
BUILDING THE AI-POWERED CITY COUNCIL
My second proposal is to introduce AI directly into the legislative process. City councilors review ordinances, evaluate budgets, conduct hearings, and examine policies affecting their constituents. These responsibilities require considerable research and analysis, often with limited technical resources.
Imagine a councilor receiving a lengthy proposed ordinance and using AI to summarize its provisions, identify possible conflicts with existing laws, compare approaches adopted by other cities, and develop questions for committee deliberations. AI could also assist legislative staff in analyzing public submissions and preparing policy research.
This does not mean allowing AI to write laws without scrutiny or make decisions for elected officials. AI-generated legal analysis can contain errors and must undergo proper verification. The objective is to strengthen the ability of councilors to make informed decisions, not surrender their judgment to machines. AI should make legislators more capable while keeping them fully accountable.
A CITY HALL THAT NEVER CLOSES
My third proposal is to rethink how citizens interact with local government. Consumers today can conduct banking transactions, order food, purchase goods, and access services at any hour. Yet many government transactions still require physical visits, complicated procedures, and repeated follow-ups.
Why should government service be less accessible than commercial service?
I proposed that cities explore AI-powered citizen assistance platforms capable of responding to routine inquiries 24 hours a day. Residents could ask about business permits, social welfare programs, evacuation centers, application procedures, or complaint status through accessible digital channels.
The objective is not to eliminate public servants but to free them from repetitive administrative tasks so they can focus on cases requiring judgment, empathy, and personal attention. Digital transformation must also ensure that senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and communities with limited internet access are not excluded.
FOLLOWING EVERY PESO
My fourth proposal focuses on transparency and accountability. Through our Integrity Chain initiative, I have consistently advocated using technology to improve the traceability of government projects and public expenditures. Transparency should not end with publishing budgets or announcing infrastructure projects. Citizens deserve visibility into implementation and results.
Imagine a platform where residents can follow a public project from budget appropriation to procurement, construction, payment, and completion. Blockchain can strengthen the integrity of transaction records, while AI can help identify unusual pricing, duplicate transactions, suspicious procurement patterns, and recurring contractor delays.
These technologies will not eliminate corruption by themselves, but they can make irregularities easier to identify and concealment more difficult. My question to the councilors was simple: What if every citizen could follow every peso from appropriation to implementation?
GOVERNING AI BEFORE AI GOVERNS US
My fifth proposal is perhaps the most important. City councils must begin establishing appropriate policies governing AI within their jurisdictions. While AI can improve public services, it also introduces risks involving privacy, cybersecurity, algorithmic bias, surveillance, and automated decision-making.
Consider an AI system incorrectly determining that a family is ineligible for government assistance, or facial recognition technology wrongly identifying an individual as a suspect. Who becomes accountable? Can citizens challenge these decisions? Is there a human authorized to review and reverse them?
Local governments must establish safeguards consistent with national laws, including the Data Privacy Act. AI procurement should include clear requirements for transparency, security, human oversight, and accountability. My guiding principle is straightforward: AI should assist, but humans must remain accountable.
7 INITIATIVES FOR AI-READY CITIES
To translate these proposals into action, I presented seven initiatives for city councils to consider: local AI governance policies, stronger data governance, AI literacy programs for government employees, AI-powered citizen services, predictive disaster preparedness, AI adoption programs for local MSMEs, and transparent budget and project monitoring platforms.
These initiatives need not begin with expensive technology investments. In fact, I cautioned councilors against rushing into AI procurement without first identifying the problems they intend to solve. Too often, organizations purchase technology and only afterward search for ways to use it.
The correct starting point is not technology but public need. What persistent problem has the city failed to address? What information is needed to understand it? Can AI genuinely improve the outcome, or would a simpler solution work better?
I also proposed a 100-day AI challenge. Each councilor should identify one persistent city problem, examine available data, engage relevant departments, and help initiate one small, measurable pilot where appropriate. Success should be determined by improved public service, not technological sophistication.
LEADERSHIP WILL DETERMINE THE FUTURE
As President of the Management Association of the Philippines, I have consistently emphasized our theme, “Leadership in Action, Lifting the Nation.” Nation-building does not happen exclusively in Malacañang, Congress, or major corporations. It happens in our cities, municipalities, and barangays, places where citizens experience government most directly.
The cities that succeed in the coming decade will not necessarily have the largest budgets or most sophisticated technologies. They will be those capable of learning faster, making better decisions, adapting to change, and delivering more responsive public services.
My challenge to the 2,000 councilors was not to become technology experts overnight. It was to recognize that AI governance is now part of their responsibility as elected leaders. They can shape policies, scrutinize technology investments, protect citizens, and demand better government outcomes.
We should not aspire to have more AI simply for the sake of having AI. We should aspire to have better government. Technology can make institutions faster, data can improve decisions, and AI can expand government capabilities. But none can substitute for integrity, accountability, compassion, and leadership.
The future of our cities will not be built by technology alone. It will be built by leaders who know how to govern it.
Dr. Donald Patrick Lim is the founding president of the Global AI Council Philippines and the Blockchain Council of the Philippines, and the founding chair of the Cybersecurity Council, whose mission is to advocate the right use of emerging technologies to propel business organizations forward. He is currently the president and COO of DITO CME Holdings Corp.