Philippine Performance for the Past Five Years

Indicator 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Voice and Accountability 47.89 48.83 52.71 51.23 51.23 48.77
Government Effectiveness 58.77 59.24 61.06 57.21 51.92 51.92
Control of Corruption 35.07 43.60 40.38 39.90 36.60 39.90
Rule of Law 38.97 42.25 43.75 43.27 39.42 37.02
Regulatory Quality 51.66 50.24 52.40 52.40 53.85 55.77


In general, the country has improved its internal efficiency and systems, but strategies must be strengthened to improve public perception on rule of law and quality of governance. These can be addressed by fully implementing the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018 (RA 11032), the Philippine Identification System (RA 11055) and the Build, Build, Build program.

The latest report reflects the Philippines’ standings on each dimension as follows:

  • Voice and Accountability. The country’s rank decreased from 51.2 pctl to 48.8 pctl. This may be attributed to the seemingly fragile relationship between the government and media especially with the portrayal of media on the quality of governance by the current administration.
  • Government Effectiveness. The indicator stagnated at 51.92 pctl. The same issues in 2016 beset the government in 2017 such as delays in infrastructure and bureaucratic government processes.
  • Control of Corruption. This indicator has returned to its 2015 levels at 39.9 pctl, which indicates benefits are being reaped in terms of anti-corruption initiatives resulting from the implementation of the Office of the Ombudsman’s 7-Year Roadmap.
  • Rule of Law. The country registered lower in this sub-indicator for 2017 (37.0 pctl) compared to 2016 (39.4 pctl). This could be attributed to questions on the validity and integrity of police operations regarding the anti-illegal drug campaign.
  • Regulatory Quality. This indicator has maintained its upward trajectory since 2013 which could be a result of LGUs’ push for policies related to ease of doing business in their respective localities as well as efforts on streamlining as directed by the President.

 Philippine vs. ASEAN Performance for the Current Year

Country Voice and Accountability Government Effectiveness Control of Corruption Rule of Law Regulatory Quality
Brunei 22.66 84.13 75.00 74.52 75.48
Cambodia 15.76 25.48 8.65 13.46 32.21
Indonesia 50.74 54.81 48.08 40.87 51.92
Lao PDR 4.43 38.46 15.87 18.27 25.48
Malaysia 34.48 76.44 58.17 64.90 74.52
Myanmar 23.65 13.46 32.21 16.83 19.23
Philippines 48.77 51.92 39.90 37.02 55.77
Singapore 41.38 100.00 97.60 96.63 99.52
Thailand 21.18 66.83 42.79 54.81 59.62
Vietnam 10.84 52.88 31.73 55.77 36.54


Similar to 2016, Singapore topped all indicators except Voice and Accountability where Indonesia took over the Philippines’ reign. Singapore’s performance is closely followed by Brunei as it achieved the 2nd highest percentile rankings across all indicators except Voice and Accountability as well.

The Philippines was slightly edged out by Indonesia in Voice and Accountability but remains in the upper 1/3 for this indicator. The country was also able to enter the upper half of the rankings vs. our neighbors in terms of our Regulatory Quality score. For the rest of the indicators however, the Philippines remains in the lower 1/3. The country must improve its anti-corruption strategies, administer swift and fair justice and address government effectiveness.

Indicator Overview

World Governance Indicators (WGI) is a research dataset summarizing the views on the quality of governance provided by a large number of enterprises, citizens and expert survey respondents in industrial and developing countries. These data are gathered from a number of survey institutes, think tanks, non-government organizations, international organizations and private sector firms. The WGI is a research project of the World Bank (WB) since 1996 and covers 211 countries.

The WGI is an aggregate of six dimensions:

  1. Voice and Accountability: reflects perceptions of the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media
  2. Government Effectiveness: reflects perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government’s commitment to such policies
  3. Control of Corruption: reflects perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as “capture” of the state by elites and private interests
  4. Rule of Law: reflects perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence
  5. Regulatory Quality: reflects perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development
  6. Political Stability and Absence of Violence/ Terrorism: measures perceptions of the likelihood of political instability and/or politically-motivated violence, including terrorism


The Philippine Development Plan has adopted all indicators except Political Stability as this is related to peace and security rather than governance.

For Chapter 5, the WGI indicators monitored are Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Control of Corruption and Regulatory Quality.

For Chapter 6, the adopted indicator is for Rule of Law.

Further Information

Frequency of update: Yearly

Publication of update: 20 September 2017

Period of study: Previous year of data release (i.e. WGI 2014 released on Q4 2015). Note: According to World Bank, it is hard to determine the exact reference period since the data are gathered from various individual sources with different reference periods

Link to the main site:

Historical data: