The 7000+ islands of Philippine archipelago hosts over 70 bat species belonging to seven families (Ingle and Heaney, 1992; Heaney et al., 2010) (Fig. 1). Ingle and Heaney (1992) pioneered a comprehensive assessment of bats in the Philippines and developed the first taxonomic key, which has become fundamental to most bat studies in the country. Approximately 32% bat species in the Philippines are frugivorous or nectarivorous and the remainder is predominantly insectivorous (Fig. 1). Insectivorous species include Vespertilionidae (33%, n= 26), Rhinolophidae (13%, n=10), Hipposideridae (11%, n=9), and other insectivorous species (Mollosidae (6%, n=5), Megadermatidae (1%, n=1), and Emballonuridae (4%, n=3) (Heaney et al., 2010). In terms of endemism, 35% (n=27) of species are known to be endemic to the country, with the highest described endemism in the Old-world fruit bats (Pteropodidae), with 60% endemic in the country, and often restricted to Islands or single localities. In contrast to this, insectivorous families have relatively low described endemism (12%), though this is likely due to under-description of species present and large numbers of ‘cryptic’ species i.e., the case of Hipposideros groups (Esselstyn et al., 2012; Murray et al., 2012). A high proportion of Philippine bats rely on primary forests (Heaney et al., 2006; Sedlock et al., 2008). Flying foxes (bats of the genus Acerodon and Pteropus), for example, selectively roost, and forage, in primary to secondary forests (Van Weerd et al., 2003; Mildenstein et al., 2005; Stier and Mildenstein, 2005). While, around thirty species roost in caves and underground habitats (Ingle et al., 2011; Sedlock et al., 2014). However, unprecedented environmental change poses a threat to many bat populations and their habitats (Posa et al., 2008; Wiles et al., 2010). Intensification of agriculture and other land-use changes have also meant ever-increasing pressure on native habitats. The increasing conversion of natural habitats into agricultural areas has driven extensive loss and fragmentation of natural habitats and frequently the degradation of remaining habitats in the Philippines (Carandang, ۲۰۰۵; Posa et al., 2008; Apan et al., 2017). Additionally, land-use change combined with climate change is projected to significantly alter species richness and range of most Southeast Asian bats in the future and have an important implication in the Philippine bat biodiversity (Hughes et al., 2012). Thus, to facilitate future conservation and management, bat research in the Philippines should clearly set its national-level priorities according to gaps and best knowledge available to provide a clear understanding of (1) species diversity, population patterns, and tolerance to varying habitat conditions (2) accurate taxonomy and systematics (3) the role of bats in providing ecosystem services, (4) effects of current environmental changes to design effective conservation measures in the future and avoid mismatch of priorities. Heaney et al. (2002) emphasized that though basic information on the diversity and distribution of Philippine mammals has been collated further information is needed to develop effective priorities and action plans (i.e., species ecology, the extent of distributional range). The most recent and comprehensive review of Philippine bats was detailed in the ‘Synopsis of the Philippine Mammals’ by Heaney et al. (1998) which was updated in 2010. In addition, Ingle et al. (2011) reviewed the status of cave bats including known roosting cave and karst ecosystems. Their reviews have provided essential information on conservation status and threats; however, the reviews largely focus the distribution of species and diversity patterns, and further reviews are needed to identify conservation gaps in Philippine bat biodiversity. The synthesis from this review aims to assess recent bat research directions in the Philippines in order to match priorities according to gaps and guide future bat research and conservation efforts in the Philippines.