Every September, the nation celebrates Philippine Creative Industries Month as part of the government's support for Republic Act No. 11904, the Philippine Creative Industries Development Act (PCIDA). Government agencies, local governments and the private sector are all enjoined to participate in programs and activities promoting the country's creative industries.

In October 2025, the law acquired a 10-year backbone through the Philippine Creative Industries Development Plan (PCIDP) 2025-34, with milestones staged across the decade: building an ecosystem through capacity-building and digital transformation by 2028, becoming Asia's creative hub by 2030, and achieving a more prosperous, inclusive and resilient society by 2034.

Unfortunately, as these plans are carried out, the economy has limped through recent months. Corruption scandals reduced public infrastructure spending and investor confidence as 2025 ended; energy shocks in the first quarter of 2026 drove inflation above target; and growth has since slowed. Businesses and organizations have spent this year focused on mitigating risk rather than seeking opportunities.

Despite these challenges, the government has continued supporting the creative industries through funding and machinery. The Department of Trade and Industry's Malikhaing Pinoy Program funded over P360 million in its first budget cycle, bankrolling talent training, incubation and market access across nine creative domains. Its Young Creatives Challenge awarded 130 young Filipino creatives this August. The Department of the Interior and Local Government reported 1,637 Local Culture and Arts Councils and 688 local economic development offices fully operating nationwide, with the intent of carrying the national ambition down to the barangay level.

The PCIDP recognizes the importance of building a strong creative workforce and commits the government to instilling arts appreciation and cultural literacy in every Filipino learner — not only those planning a creative career. It also acknowledges that PCIDA separately requires a dedicated education plan for the creative sector, though this has yet to be launched. The Department of Education (DepEd) is likewise building specialized arts high schools as centers of excellence, but those will reach only a select few rather than the vast majority of learners. Under the MATATAG curriculum, art instruction is folded into a broader subject in the earliest grades — a defensible remedy for an overloaded syllabus, but one whose effect on learners' everyday exposure to the arts remains unproven in classrooms lacking retooled teachers. For a sector that relies on both audiences and practitioners, that classroom gap matters because creative policy is not only about financing productions or training a pipeline; it is also about cultivating the habit of participation early enough for demand, appreciation and skills to develop together.

In the PCIDP's own coherence test, the gap is even sharper. The plan carefully considers the other national strategies it aligns with, particularly trade, tourism, innovation and research, and commits to harmonizing national and local government plans alongside the private sector. Regrettably, basic education is conspicuously absent from that list, even though part of the plan's central promise depends on what happens in the classroom and to students years before they reach a creative career track. That omission leaves one of the plan's most practical linkages underdeveloped: the transfer from cultural exposure in schools to broader participation in the creative economy.

The solution already exists on paper. The Philippine Creative Industry Council's own stakeholder map includes the local culture and arts bodies and a committee dedicated to creative workers' welfare. What is missing is the alignment of the education sector with the trade and tourism sectors, so that the institutions meant to nurture talent, build audiences and support livelihoods are working from the same playbook.

None of this argues against fiscal discipline in a difficult year, or against decongesting an overloaded curriculum. It points to a management gap between what the PCIDP promises and what gets delivered.

Two quick fixes merit consideration. First, audience development should receive a budget allocation equal to that of talent scouting. DepEd's school calendar and the local government art councils are available channels for subsidized access to local performances, not just competitions for the gifted. Second, the PCIDP's worker protection commitments should promote an anti-piracy and IP-enforcement agenda. The plan also highlights the welfare committee's explicit role in upholding the broader promise of fair compensation and decent working conditions, given the precarious nature of the creative workforce.

Only once these fixes are applied can we say we are truly building a creative nation — one that protects its makers as much as it promotes them.

Glorife Soberano-Samodio is the associate dean for Research and Graduate Studies of De La Salle University's Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business and head of the Creative Industries Studies Network under the college's Center for Business Research and Development (glorife.samodio@dlsu.edu.ph).