Government’s defining moment as ASEAN chair

The Philippines assumes the chairmanship of ASEAN this year amid a paradox — our power to convene a regional meet is rising just as a domestic scandal threatens to erode the credibility that leadership requires. 

Our ASEAN partners will judge Manila not only by what it convenes, but by what this embodies. 

Restoring their trust, therefore, is not a public relations exercise; it is the chairmanship’s first deliverable. The task before the government is to demonstrate — early and visibly — that the Philippines’ leadership abroad rests on governance that is accountable, transparent and institutionally grounded at home.

Front-loading accountability — with speedy due process — is imperative. Time-bound milestones for investigations and prosecutions — filings, indictments, asset freezes and court calendars — should be set and publicly tracked. 

Early action against high-level offenders (the Big Fish) is not vengeance; it is institutional signaling. It tells Filipinos — and our neighbors — that impunity is ending and that commitments made under the Philippine chairmanship rest on credible governance. Leadership abroad begins with accountability at home, and the faster institutions demonstrate traction, the faster reputational risk recedes.

Radical transparency in chair-year spending must follow. Placing all ASEAN-related procurement, travel and event budgets on a public dashboard open to audit and civil society observation would manifest good governance in practice. Inviting the ASEAN Secretariat to co-verify major chair initiatives would further elevate trust and signal confidence in oversight. 

Sunlight remains the cheapest confidence-builder available to the government, and transparency in the chair year would convert a vulnerability into a visible reform asset.

Diplomacy, in turn, must be firewalled from domestic politics. A cross-party ASEAN Chair Task Force led by the Department of Foreign Affairs, with advisory participation from the ASEAN Business Advisory Council and civil society leaders, can assure the region that Manila’s convening power is insulated from factional churn. 

Staffing should rely on merit-based secondments rather than patronage. Regional continuity demands institutional, not partisan, stewardship — especially in a year when the Philippines must both host and lead.

Early wins in the first semester are essential because leadership is proven by agreements signed, not communiqués issued. Several initiatives are adoption-ready and high-impact: the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement with pilots on cross-border data flows and e-invoicing; expansion of the ASEAN Single Window into services trade and logistics traceability; additional cross-border power-trading arrangements under the ASEAN Power Grid; sustainable tourism corridors with joint visa facilitation; and operational anti-scam cooperation on shared blacklists and asset recovery. 

Securing even two or three ministerial signatures would quickly shift the narrative from scandal to competence and demonstrate Manila’s ability to convert agenda into outcome.

The Philippines can also lead regionally by modeling rule-of-law norms. Proposing an ASEAN peer-learning platform on asset recovery and beneficial-ownership transparency — anchored on the United Nations Convention against Corruption — and voluntarily subjecting Philippine cases to peer observation would transform domestic reform into a regional public good. Credible compliance at home strengthens collective enforcement abroad and positions the chair not merely as convener but as standard-setter.

Capital, after all, follows credibility. An ASEAN-Plus investors roundtable in Manila can announce a clear package: expedited dispute-resolution windows, contract-sanctity assurances, and anti-corruption compliance aligned with OECD guidance. Positioned alongside the ASEAN Business and Investment Summit, time-bound regulatory fixes affecting cross-border investment can be unveiled. Markets reward institutional seriousness, and a credible reform package would translate governance signals into tangible economic confidence.

On the South China Sea, the Philippines can be principled on rights and exemplary on restraint. Advancing incident-at-sea protocols, fisheries cooperation pilots and coast guard hotlines would support a future South China Sea Code of Conduct while demonstrating that firmness and de-escalation are not contradictions but hallmarks of responsible maritime leadership. Regional partners seek assurance that Manila can defend its entitlements while preserving stability — an equilibrium central to ASEAN’s relevance.

Finally, communication discipline is indispensable. Separate weekly updates on domestic accountability and ASEAN deliverables should be issued across platforms, emphasizing institutions over personalities and avoiding defensiveness. Opening ASEAN events to civil society and elevating youth delegates will demonstrate people-centered regionalism in practice, not rhetoric. Transparency in messaging, like transparency in governance, compounds credibility over time.

The Philippines does not need to choose between cleaning house and leading ASEAN — the two are inseparable. Credibility is not an abstract virtue but a policy instrument. If Manila front-loads accountability, institutionalizes transparency, and delivers early regional gains, it can convert a year of risk into a year of restored respect — at home and across Southeast Asia.