Davao’s AI Gamble: A Safer City or a Surveillance Nightmare?

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — July 20, 2025

DAVAO City, a pulsing metropolis in the Philippines’ volatile Mindanao region, stands on the cusp of a technological revolution. Councilor Bonz Andre Militar has unveiled an audacious plan: modernizing the city’s emergency response with AI and GPS while deploying facial recognition at border checkpoints. These twin proposals promise to save lives and cement Davao’s reputation as a fortress of safety. Yet, they teeter on a knife’s edge, risking privacy violations, social inequity, and a chilling surveillance state. In a city forged by Rodrigo Duterte’s iron grip, where security often overshadows liberty, Militar’s vision demands scrutiny—especially for the urban poor, Lumad, and Moro communities whose voices are too often silenced.

I. The Shadow of Duterte: Davao’s Safety Legacy and New Ambitions

Davao City, home to 1.8 million across 2,443 square kilometers, is a paradox of progress and peril. Under former Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, whose 22-year reign branded Davao as one of the world’s safest cities, strict policies—curfews, helmet laws, and Task Force Davao’s omnipresent checkpoints—created an aura of order. But this came at a steep cost: allegations of extrajudicial killings and red-tagging of indigenous Lumad and Moro communities as communist or terrorist sympathizers fueled fear and mistrust.

Today, Acting Mayor Sebastian “Baste” Duterte inherits this complex legacy, navigating a transition from brute-force policing to tech-driven governance. Councilor Bonz Andre Militar, a professor and chair of the Information Technology Committee, positions himself as a forward-thinking reformer within the Duterte-aligned machine. His proposals, detailed in a June 15, 2025, privilege speech, build on Davao’s law-and-order ethos but pivot toward AI-driven precision. With initiatives like the DCitizen ID and One-Stop Portal already under his belt, Militar eyes a tech-savvy legacy—potentially a springboard for a 2028 congressional or mayoral bid. Yet, his alignment with Duterte’s brand risks tainting his reforms with the specter of authoritarianism.

II. The Promise vs. The Peril: Weighing Militar’s AI Revolution

A. Turbocharging 911: A Lifeline for Davao?

The Case For: Davao’s Central 911, operational since 2002, is drowning in 1,000 daily calls, 90% of which are pranks (SunStar Davao). AI-driven filters could slash this noise, ensuring operators focus on genuine emergencies. GPS tracking and geotagging promise to locate callers in remote barangays, where narrow alleys and informal settlements thwart responders. The 2022 flash floods, which stranded dozens due to sluggish coordination, highlight the stakes. By integrating the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (CDRRMO), police, and hospitals into a digital platform, response times could drop by 20–30%, potentially saving 150–200 lives annually in a city battered by typhoons and earthquakes.

The Case Against: The price tag is daunting: ₱250–400 million in capital expenditure, plus ₱40–60 million yearly maintenance, threatens to siphon funds from health or housing (Research Materials). The digital divide is a glaring obstacle—36% of Davao’s 182 barangays lack reliable data signals, especially in upland and coastal areas home to Lumad and Moro communities. GPS falters in these zones, undermining the system’s reach. Worse, AI call filters risk misclassifying incoherent but genuine calls—think stroke victims or children—as pranks, with potentially fatal consequences. Unsecured cloud storage of health and location data invites ransomware attacks, a growing threat in a city already targeted by cybercriminals.

B. Eyes Everywhere: Facial Recognition’s Security Promise and Privacy Pitfalls

The Case For: Deploying AI facial recognition at airports, seaports, land borders, and shorelines aims to fortify Davao against Mindanao’s persistent threats—terrorism, drug syndicates, and IS-linked returnees (Wikipedia: Davao City). Real-time flagging of wanted individuals could deter crime, while searchable video evidence boosts prosecution rates. Aligned with the national “Safe Philippines” program, the system could unlock grants and partnerships with tech giants like Huawei or NEC. For a city pitching itself as a BPO and logistics hub, this “safe city” branding could draw investors wary of Mindanao’s volatility.

The Case Against: The privacy costs are staggering. The 1987 Constitution and the 1998 Ople v. Torres ruling protect privacy rights, yet Militar’s plan lacks safeguards on data retention, third-party sharing, or algorithmic bias audits. NIST studies show facial recognition systems misidentify darker-skinned Filipinos at 10–100 times higher rates, risking wrongful arrests of Lumad or Moro residents already scarred by red-tagging. Mission creep looms: cameras meant for crime prevention could morph into tools for political profiling, echoing Duterte-era abuses. Existing PNP “One-ID” checkpoints and canine units already provide robust security, questioning the need for this costly layer. Traders and tourists may shun formal entry points, driving commerce underground and alienating indigenous groups.

III. Ripple Effects: How AI Could Reshape Davao’s Future

Lives Saved vs. Trust Lost: A 20–30% reduction in ambulance response times could save 150–200 lives yearly, a boon for disaster-prone Davao. But AI misclassifications or system outages could spark litigation and erode faith in 911, especially if failures disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

Economic Boom or Bust?: A “safe city” image could lift Davao’s BPO and logistics sectors by 0.5–1%, cutting insurance costs and luring investors. Yet, the ₱1 billion, decade-long cost—likely via public-private partnerships (PPPs)—risks locking Davao into contracts with firms like Huawei, raising sovereignty concerns. Surveillance fears could also deter privacy-conscious tourists, hurting ecotourism.

Equity at Stake: Lumad and Moro communities, long targeted by red-tagging, fear intensified surveillance. Youth activists, inspired by the 1986 Yellow Friday Movement, may stage “mask-wearing” protests, straining police-community ties. The digital divide ensures urban elites benefit most from 911 upgrades, while rural residents without signal access are sidelined.

Governance Under Pressure: Implementing these systems demands 200–300 new technical staff, but low public-sector salaries risk brain drain. Davao’s limited capacity to manage AI systems independently deepens reliance on private contractors. A civilian oversight board, while critical, could add bureaucratic delays.

IV. Peeling Back the Hype: Is Militar’s Vision Grounded or Grandiose?

Militar’s claims—90% prank-call reduction, 150–200 lives saved—are bold but lack hard evidence. Unlike Singapore’s Smart Nation initiative, which thrives on universal connectivity and stringent privacy laws, Davao grapples with a 36% digital divide and uneven terrain. Militar’s projections feel aspirational, not empirical, missing the pilot data or studies needed to validate them.

Conflicts of interest cast a shadow. Militar’s tech advocacy, from DCitizen ID to the One-Stop Portal, aligns with his reformist image, but ties to vendors like Huawei or NEC remain opaque. His 2028 political ambitions amplify the stakes—a data breach or misidentification could derail his career and tarnish the Duterte brand, especially after his mishandling of disinformation issues during the 2024 KOJC standoff.

Ethically, the proposals walk a tightrope. Davao’s history—from the Alsa Masa vigilantes to the 1984 murder of journalist Alex Orcullo—warns of surveillance enabling abuse. Facial recognition risks entrenching a Duterte-style surveillance state, disproportionately targeting marginalized groups. Without ironclad safeguards, Militar’s vision could repeat past mistakes.

V. Charting a Better Path: Recommendations for a Balanced Future

Test Before You Leap: Pilot the AI 911 system in signal-strong districts like Poblacion or Talomo, refining it before citywide rollout to avoid failures in underserved areas.
Guard Privacy Fiercely: Enact an ordinance mandating a civilian oversight board with veto power, 30-day data retention limits, and annual third-party audits to address bias, ensuring compliance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
Show the Math: Publish a five-year cost-benefit analysis, comparing AI upgrades to alternatives like hiring more call-screeners or training barangay responders. Scrutinize PPPs to prevent debt traps.
Listen to the Margins: Hold barangay assemblies, especially in Lumad and Moro areas, to co-design protocols and grievance systems. Inclusion builds legitimacy; exclusion fuels resistance.

VI. A Call to Action: Innovate with Heart, Not Just Code

Davao City faces a defining choice. Militar’s AI proposals could save lives and secure borders, positioning Davao as a trailblazer. But without rigorous safeguards, they risk creating a surveillance state that alienates the urban poor, Lumad, and Moro communities—the very people who bear the brunt of Davao’s past excesses.

Technology must serve, not subjugate. By prioritizing transparency, equity, and accountability, Davao can forge a future that balances innovation with democratic values. The world is watching—will Davao rise as a model of progress, or stumble into a dystopian trap? The answer lies in listening to its people, not just its algorithms.