By Beatriz Marie D. Cruz, Senior Journalist
MANILA has dropped seven places in the 2026 Smart City Index by the Switzerland-based Institute for Management Development World Competitiveness Center (WCC), as residents continue to complain about corruption and traffic congestion.
The capital of the Philippines is ranked 132n.d out of 148 countries, down seven places from 125th place last year.
The study examines how cities use technology and infrastructure to improve the lives of their residents.
Manila was also ranked last among Southeast Asian cities by Singapore (9th); Kuala Lumpur (65th); Bangkok (90th); Hanoi (97th); Ho Chi Minh City (105th); and Jakarta (106th).
According to the WCC, a smart city “achieves a good balance between its economic capacity (eg, jobs and business), use of technology, environmental concerns, and integration to enable its citizens to have a higher standard of living.”
It surveyed 120 residents per city based on key indicators such as health and safety, mobility, jobs, opportunities, and governance.
According to the survey results, 71% of Manila residents saw corruption/transparency as the most pressing issue in the city; followed by health services (51.6%); traffic congestion (49.2%); security (44.4%); and unemployment (41.1%).
In a Monday evening briefing, WCC Director Arturo Bris said Manila’s low ranking is related to citizens’ concerns about corruption.
“Corruption prevents any further development of the city. In the Manila survey, we see that people are not willing to give information to the authorities,” he said.
Mr. Bris said that corruption is a national problem rather than a city issue.
“As long as the country solves the corruption and government problems, the cities will do the same,” he said.
Manila residents also expressed concern about air pollution (39.5%): affordable housing (37.9%); basic services such as water and waste (37.1%); public transport (36.3%) and satisfactory work (29%).
Other issues were related to school education (19.4%); green areas (15.3%); recycling (13.7%); citizen engagement (3.2%); and social mobility/inclusion (3.2%).
In the city’s availability of health and safety technology, Manila scored the highest (67 out of 100) in scheduling medical appointments online, and in the availability of CCTV cameras (65.8). It received the lowest score for the presence of a website or application to monitor air pollution (42.5).
In terms of transportation, Manila scored 61.9 points for the online system and public transport ticket sales, and scored 46.3 points for the availability of apps that can guide residents to available parking space.
With the availability of transportation infrastructure, Manila received its lowest traffic score of 11.7. It also received low scores for city official corruption (14.9) and air pollution (15.3).
Manila scored 78.9 points in the activity index, especially in the availability of online platforms for easy purchase of tickets for sports and museums.
Under job and school opportunities, Manila scored the highest (76.6) in the availability of job listings on the Internet; but scored low (55.8) for internet speed and reliability.
In terms of governance, Manila scored 68.5 points in online ID processing, which residents say has helped reduce waiting time. The city also had a low score in online voting (53.6), and the provision of an online platform (50.8) where they could propose ideas to improve the city’s health.
Manila scored 40.5 on public access to the internet in the city’s finances, which respondents thought should reduce corruption.
However, the city scored high in job creation through businesses (69.2) and the presence of cultural activities (66.9).
According to the survey, 78.2% are comfortable using facial recognition technology to reduce crime; and 71% are willing to provide personal data to improve traffic.
“The most developed urban centers, where residents feel the most happy, are not necessarily those that are distinguished by topian skylines, virtual networks of sensors, or clean technologies,” said Mr. Bris.
“Instead, they stand out in how they successfully interact with governance structures, sustainable priorities, public investment decisions, and perhaps most importantly, instilling citizen trust.”
