Philippines ranks four spots lower in global good governance index
By Beatriz Marie D. Cruz, Senior Reporter
THE PHILIPPINES dropped by four spots to rank 59th out of 133 countries in a good governance index after recording low scores for key indicators like leadership and foresight, global influence, and reputation.
In the 2026 Chandler Good Government Index (CGGI) by the Chandler Institute of Governance (CIG), the Philippines scored 0.533 to place 59th. This was slightly higher than last year’s score of 0.523, which led it to rank 55th out of 120 countries.
Singapore topped this year’s index, followed by Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden.
Among East and Southeast Asian countries, the Philippines was behind Singapore, South Korea (16th place), Japan (17th), China (39th), Malaysia (40th), Indonesia (48th), Vietnam (49th), and Thailand (58th). Meanwhile, it was ahead of Mongolia (71st), Cambodia (91st), and Laos (98th).
The bottom five countries were Lebanon, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, and Venezuela.
The CGGI assesses a country’s governance capabilities and public sector effectiveness by using equally weighted indicators categorized into seven pillars.
Countries are scored for each pillar, with one as the highest and zero as the lowest.
The Philippines’ score for leadership and foresight improved to 0.45 from 0.41 last year, while that for robust laws and policies also went up to 0.51 from 0.49.
For the “helping people rise” pillar, it scored 0.64, edging up from 0.63 last year. The Philippines’ score for global influence and reputation also increased slightly to 0.36 from 0.35 last year.
Meanwhile, the country’s scores were unchanged for three pillars: financial stewardship (0.64), strong institutions (0.51), and attractive marketplace (0.5).
Under the leadership and foresight pillar, the Philippines scored 0.72 for adaptability, 0.63 for long-term vision, 0.33 for innovation, 0.33 for strategic prioritization, and 0.25 for ethical leadership.
For strong institutions, the Philippines scored the lowest on implementation (0.17). Meanwhile, it got 0.47 for coordination, 0.60 for quality of bureaucracy, and 0.80 for data capability.
Under global influence and reputation, the country recorded a score of 0.49 for international trade, 0.45 for nation brand, 0.29 for international diplomacy, and 0.20 for passport strength.
On robust laws and policies, the Philippines was graded 0.63 for transparency, 0.55 for regulatory governance, 0.47 for quality of judiciary, and 0.38 for rule of law.
Meanwhile, it scored 0.81 for spending efficiency, 0.74 for government debt, 0.74 for country risk premium, and 0.25 for country budget surplus under the financial stewardship pillar.
For maintaining an attractive marketplace, the Philippines’ score was at 0.56 for stable business regulations, 0.59 for attracting investments, 0.55 for logistics competence, and 0.30 for property rights.
Lastly, under the “helping people rise” pillar, it scored below one for all indicators, namely, price stability (0.97), gender gap (0.89), satisfaction with public services (0.79), employment (0.76), education (0.74), health (0.63), income distribution (0.63), personal safety (0.58), non-discrimination (0.23), and environmental performance (0.17).
The CIG said the Philippines is among the Asia-Pacific economies expected to benefit from its relatively young population, noting the need to create more jobs and boost productivity to unlock its growth potential.
Across the region, the report said climate change risks are more pronounced and threaten the growth of key sectors like agriculture, fisheries, and tourism.
The United States’ uncertain trade policies and rising protectionism also weigh on key export markets in the Asia-Pacific, including the Philippines, but this could be partly cushioned by intra-Asian trade and new agreements, it said.
Ranjit Singh Rye, an assistant professor at the University of the Philippines, said the index shows existing bottlenecks in the country’s bureaucracy.
“We have the laws and policies in place, but the gap between policy on paper and implementation on the ground remains our greatest hurdle,” he said in a Viber message.
He said the Philippines’ 0.36 score for global influence and reputation is a “red flag” for investors.
“It suggests that despite our economic potential, the international community still perceives significant risks regarding our rule of law and long-term stability.”
The decline in the Philippines’ good government ranking could also mean that state-led reforms have not translated to lasting gains for Filipinos, said Emy Ruth D. Gianan, an economics professor at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines.
She noted that the Philippines ranked low in indicators like ethical leadership (92nd), rule of law (90th), implementation (120th), budget surplus (95th), property rights (106th), passport strength (100th), environmental performance (114th), and non-discrimination (102nd).
“This could mean that over time, the reforms we planted before have been reversed, especially those after the pandemic lockdown, or have not taken full effect since they do not translate to long-term positive change,” she said in a Facebook Messenger chat.
Filomeno S. Sta. Ana III, coordinator of Action for Economic Reforms, said the Philippines’ latest ranking in the CGGI is “not surprising” amid last year’s corruption scandal.
“This is driven by the massive corruption that happened, the political weaponization of institutions, the policy drift and incoherence, the worsening debt, and the growth slowdown,” he said in a Viber message.
