With any POD before or after 1946, make the Philippines have the largest economy in the ASEAN and have in the top five economically in Asia and top twenty in the world economically.
For one thing, have Macapagal defeat Marcos in 1965. During his term the Philippines was well on the way to Second World status. Continued economic liberalization, improving educational opportunities so you can develop the population base needed to create white-collar jobs.
To further your India analogy, while Macapagal might be the Rajiv analogue, who will be the Rao/Singh analogues?
You need to find the political leadership with the will to make it happen, in fact a succession of them so eventually the policy becomes too deep-rooted to overturn. As of this year the Philippines has actually overtaken India as the world's leader in business support functions. Like in India, Arroyo's economic policies were best described as "make the country safe for a hi-tech sector" and posted the numbers to prove it: GDP per capita grew by 19% during her presidency with growth averaging 5% per annum. The country has always had a substantial mining industry. Agriculture is also quite substantial, especially rice, tobacco, etc. The problem is getting that to trickle down to the poor masa, which is where education, health, etc. policy comes into play. I still think it would have to be a Liberal, not Nacionalista presidents.
Something which really didn't help her legacy, in the end. Not to mention all those political scandals.
Though I must say that economically speaking, the fruit didn't fall far from the tree.
You wonder why the recent economic growth done by the previous Arroyo administration was not being felt right now by the bulks of Filipino masses is because of faulty economic policies done by her administration of overemphasizing the service sector while neglecting the manufacturing and agricultural sector considering that most of the Filipino workers lack of tertiary education (a prerequisite to work in the service sector). Lack of reform in the education sector. Inadequate infrastructure. Arroyo's reluctance to control the population growth in order to avoid pressures from the Catholic hierarchy. No wonder why the Philippines has the highest cost of doing business in Asia. 5% percent GDP growth average in 9 years is not enough to curb the poverty rate. 8-10% percent with sensible population control will be better for the Philippines.
Philippines should have focus on manufacturing and agricultural sector in order to compete with the neighbors by emulating the East Asian Tigers and China not imitating the Indian model of "Service sector first policy".
As a professor of mine said, focusing on growth (i.e., numbers) and not on development (human effects of growth) is doing it wrong.
The problem is that Marcos will almost certainly run again in 1969 when Macapagal is term-limited. His position as Senate President (theoretically an analogue of pro tem, practically an analogue of Majority Leader where he was just as skillful as LBJ) gives him a status as de facto opposition leader to Macapagal and unless the Liberals come up with a good candidate it looks likely that Marcos would win again. Easy solution is to kill Marcos.
To further your India analogy, while Macapagal might be the Rajiv analogue, who will be the Rao/Singh analogues? It would have to be a Liberal given Nacionalistas' nationalist economic policies. Maybe Sergio Osmena, Ninoy is too junior at this point (only became a senator in 1967) and too leftist for the job. Maybe FC can suggest someone?