The race against AI-driven job disruption
At a recent Senate hearing, Sen. Bam Aquino warned that without faster, better-coordinated action the country’s information technology and business process management (IT-BPM) sector is in danger of losing ground over the growing threats posed by artificial intelligence (AI) and cybersecurity risks. In line with his concerns, Aquino filed Senate Resolution No. 253 to force a comprehensive review of the sector’s readiness to deal with AI-driven disruption. The Senate hearing convened industry leaders, regulators, and educators to consider how to “future-proof” livelihoods that now supports millions of Filipino families.
Aquino stressed that swift action is needed to protect the IT-BPM sector because the scale of what’s at stake is concrete. The IT-BPM sector is a key pillar of the Philippine economy that employs around 1.9 million Filipinos, contributes 8.2 percent to the country’s gross domestic product, and generated over $40 billion in revenue in 2025. Those numbers and the threat posed by AI disruption that could potentially undermine the Philippines’ position as a global hub for IT-BPM services makes this issue a broad national problem and not just some niche corporate headache. This disruption and the resulting losses in jobs alone would ripple through wages, urban commercial real estate, and local economies that depend on millions of business process outsourcing workers.
Additionally, macroeconomic and investor sentiment can amplify the shock via rapid repricing of global outsourcing firms. The fear of structural decline can also dry up investment and slow hiring even before technology replaces roles. These are not Philippines-only problems as similar concerns are being raised across Asia and among global outsourcing buyers and investors.
The industry and public sectors are already taking a range of adaptive steps. Trade bodies and firms in the Philippines have committed resources to retraining and capability-building: associations are pushing talent programs, enterprise-based education, and targeted upskilling to move workers into mid-to-high-value roles and AI-augmented workflows. At the same time, government programs—notably Department of Information and Communication Technology-led upskilling frameworks and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority training pathways created under recent digital workforce legislation—are intended to scale retraining and certify new competencies. These public-private efforts aim not only to save jobs but to shift the industry’s value proposition from low-cost scale toward domain expertise, governance, and regulated services that are harder to automate. Regulators and legislators are also being asked to craft complementary policies: funding for reskilling, incentives for firms that invest in human capital, clearer data-protection rules for AI use, and social safety nets for displaced workers.
While these measures are generally considered as necessary and the first right moves, the crux of the issue isn’t just about the sufficiency of the response but also the speed by which it is carried out. Given the rate by which AI technology is advancing, the battle to address or even just mitigate the impact of AI disruption isn’t just a matter of having the right policies and measures, it is also a race against time.
An article in The Atlantic titled “America Isn’t Ready for What AI Will Do to Jobs” argues that AI could compress years of labor market change into months, meaning slow, incremental programs will likely be outpaced by technology and market reorganization. If adoption accelerates, conventional retraining and policy responses will not scale fast enough to prevent mass dislocation. The article stresses the uncertainty of labor statistics today and warns policymakers that speed and not only scale matters. The window to act is narrow. If AI transformation plays out hurriedly, the sector faces not just job losses but an irreversible loss of market share to suppliers who automate faster.
The Senate hearing and Senate Resolution No. 253 were the right wake-up calls; whether they become a turning point depends on whether policy, industry, and educators convert urgency into coordinated, large-scale action now. If policymakers and industry treat the recent hearings as ceremonial, the following years will be measured in lost contracts and shuttered career ladders, but if they treat them as an emergency blueprint, those years can be a pivot to higher-value services and resilient careers.
The Philippines needs to act with urgency on this issue as the country risks not just isolated job losses but an irreversible loss of market share in global outsourcing and higher long-term unemployment. If it runs the race well, however, the nation can convert disruption into an upgrade—shifting millions of workers from routine tasks into AI-augmented roles, governance, and higher-value services. Time, in short, is the scarcest resource; policy must match that tempo.
—————-
Moira G. Gallaga served three Philippine presidents as presidential protocol officer and was posted at the Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles and the Philippine Embassy in Washington.
