Authored By: Baron Benedict V. Anasarias
De Montfort University
I. Introduction
A legislative proposal concerning Pax Silica is presently under debate in the Philippine Senate. Pax Silica is a project led by the United States of America and launched in December 2025, with an initiative to establish data centres for Artificial Intelligence (AI), alongside the gathering of silicon and minerals for the creation of the chips that will be used in those data centres.1 The Philippines has allocated an estimated 1,600 hectares of land and will be targeting areas in cities such as Tarlac, Pampanga, and Nueva Ecija to build its data centres. It has also been made public that the estimated budget for the project is around 40 to 70 billion USD in investments, or roughly 2.47 to 4.32 trillion PHP.2
Under this framework, the analysis of the Pax Silica project evaluates three central points. First, the energy demands of Pax Silica and the concerns they raise. Second, a statutory review of the government’s role in protecting the quality of life, together with a review of the project’s alignment with the Electric Power Industry Reform Act 2001 (EPIRA 2001 or Republic Act No. 9136).3 Lastly, a discussion of the realities of the project’s effects on the livelihood of Filipino citizens. In addition to these main points, the paper tackles a subsection on the ongoing misuse of public funds within the Philippine government, which relates to the main concerns about the project.
II. The Challenges Posed by Pax Silica
A. Energy Requirements
The first concern to be addressed is the set of requirements for completing Pax Silica. Before identifying the needs of the project, however, it is necessary to recognise the quantity of land that will be used for its data centre, the estimated amount of resources the data centre will use, and the mandatory requirements and documentation needed to proceed with the project in accordance with Philippine law. The project’s main concern stems from the energy that the data centres will use.
Although the data centre in the Philippines has yet to be constructed, it is important to identify the measurements needed for its build. A medium-sized data centre is estimated to occupy about 10,000 to 50,000 square feet and can consume up to 110 million gallons of water per year. Based on a continuous power usage of 500 kW to 2 megawatts (MW), the estimated annual energy consumption ranges from 4,380,000 to 17,520,000 kWh.
The project aims to construct a data centre of 500 to 1,600 hectares (approximately 53,819,552 to 172,222,567 square feet),4 making it a very large facility. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1586 (PD No. 1586) provides that projects which may be environmentally critical must not operate without an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). Under Proclamation No. 2146, environmentally critical undertakings fall into two categories: Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs) and Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs). The Pax Silica project is considered an ECP because it plans to mine minerals and manufacture technology for the data centres. In addition, assuming that the project is approved and obtains the ECC, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) would be expected to ensure that the project complies with the energy laws of the Philippines, notably EPIRA 2001 and the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 (Republic Act No. 9513).
Moving forward, the Philippines can generate only a limited amount of energy due to high demand. Pax Silica’s data centre will require an estimated 3 gigawatts (GW) of power, which translates to 16 percent of Luzon’s power grid.5 To calculate, 1,600 hectares can generate up to 160 MW of solar power only, whereas 1 GW of solar capacity requires roughly 10,000 hectares of land. Thus, the allocated land is considered insufficient to meet the minimum energy needed to run the data centre.6
To ensure that 3 GW of solar capacity can be obtained, an interesting point was made that the Philippines would need to operate through nearby provinces such as Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, and Tarlac.7 However, the issue is that the required energy could potentially go against EPIRA 2001, which sets the limit at only 30% of the installed generating capacity of the grid. Additionally, the Philippines is already dealing with constant power outages, as in the recent issues involving MERALCO.8 Assuming that the project integrates solar plants to meet the minimum energy requirements of the data centre, this risks exposing Filipino citizens to blackouts through grid instability caused by the data centre, since it could exceed the statutory limit.
Thus, given the lease of 1,600 hectares of land, the project would need to request further funds to proceed, could run contrary to the laws of the Philippines, and could cause further complications for the people living in the country.
B. Statutory Review
The second concern in this discussion is the set of statutes that do not align well with the Pax Silica project. As established earlier, PD No. 1586 sets out what a person, business, or other entity must obtain before operating a project: an ECC, which affirms that the project can find a way to reduce harm to the environment.9 EPIRA 2001 states that the power limit for the grid is 30%, and if the Pax Silica project were to proceed with its operations, further difficulties would arise concerning the protection of the quality of life and compensation for the owned land that would be lost to the project.
Article 2, Section 16 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Art 2 s.16) states that “The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature,” which indicates that the State should protect citizens’ quality of life by protecting nature, making it a top priority.10 In the case of the Pax Silica project, if this provision were applied upon the acquisition of the ECC, the State must ensure that the department facilitating the project (DENR) enforces it and finds common ground in order to prioritise the citizens. In Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 33 I.L.M. 173 (1994),11 the case not only highlights the constitutional grant to protect the ecology but also allows citizens to invoke Art 2 s.16 against projects that may hinder the ecology, and treats a failure to meet statutory requirements by the department facilitating the operations as a breach.
According to Article 3, Section 9 of the Philippine Constitution (Art 3 s.9), “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”12 This indicates that if the Pax Silica project were to request further land (i.e., take more space in the Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, and Tarlac lands allocated for the project), proper compensation should be in place for land owned by indigenous peoples (IPs) before proceeding. As stated earlier, the lease of 1,600 hectares is not enough to meet the requirement to power the data centre; hence, the project could possibly need an estimated 20,000 or more hectares to fulfil the minimum operating requirement. The specific IP group that could be most affected are the Aytas, an indigenous group that has long resided in Luzon, farming the land and keeping their ancestral graves there.13 These groups have raised concerns about their livelihood since the land lease for the project.14 The concern is the security and protection of their land while a project is under way to repurpose these lands for solar farms.
Although the indigenous groups are concerned about displacement through the project’s potential need for more land, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA 1997) serves as a form of protection and ensures that indigenous groups will not face displacement, the disruption of their traditional ways of life, or the marginalisation of their voices.15 A similar project, the Kaliwa Dam Project, was challenged for allegedly violating IPRA 1997 by potentially displacing certain indigenous groups, hiding documents from indigenous people, and failing to consult the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).16 In the case of Pax Silica, these statutes protect indigenous peoples’ rights, and the State must acknowledge and ensure that protection.
To conclude the second point, there are specific laws in place that allow the people of the Philippines to be protected during the formation of such projects. The Pax Silica project creates a controversial argument regarding the necessity of this work and whether it is environmentally safe for the land and its people. Given the existing drawbacks in the government’s accountability for protecting its people and in its ability to provide complete transparency, doubts arise within the community about the repercussions of the Pax Silica venture.
C. The Reality of the Political State in the Philippines
This leads to the final issue: the reality facing Filipino citizens. The people face prolonged legislative proceedings, problems in the justice system, growing climate change and uncertain weather, constant debate over the education system, the misuse of public funds meant to improve quality of life, and continuing corruption among politicians who thrive off Filipino taxpayers. Pax Silica is yet another issue that Filipinos encounter, one that needs to be addressed considering that the Philippines could improve these matters by investing in other areas that deserve priority.
To highlight one issue concerning government accountability and the quality of life in the Philippines, consider the alleged misuse of public funds in the case of Vice President Sara Duterte and the funds that were meant for the Department of Education (DepEd). Public discussion and records state that she requested confidential funds apart from the allocated 2 billion PHP (an estimated 32.4 million USD) for the education system, and it was not confirmed whether they were used for their original purpose.17 Taking this into account, the government’s competence is questioned in terms of its capability to lead and to be transparent with the tax funds collected to finance community and public services.
Another similar issue arose at the beginning of the year, when the flood control projects labelled as ghost projects came to light. Specifically, an estimated 421 projects (as of January 19, 2026) were deemed by the courts to be ghost projects owing to invalid filed cases and the lack of actual evidence of completion.18 Certain entities in charge of these projects were summoned to court to be questioned about their involvement, and some were found guilty of misusing tax funds for personal gain and of failing to prove that the funds were actually used to construct the said projects.
The reason corruption must be addressed in this ongoing issue with the livelihoods of Filipino citizens is that poor decision-making by government officials has undoubtedly harmed citizens, who are forced to cope with these decisions in order to survive. The Philippines is considered a victim of climate change, as per the 2017 World Risk Report,19 and frequent typhoons and floods overwhelm the country without proper mitigation plans to avoid massive casualties. According to Cleo Anne Calimbahin’s article on the flood control projects, “The Philippines has lost an estimated 42.3 to 118.5 billion Philippine pesos (US$713 million to 2 billion) a year from flood control corruption since 2023.”20 The billions that have been misused by the public and private sectors are the reason why projects of priority end up becoming ghost projects.
Thus, this section circles back to the citizens, who demand true accountability for the actions (or inaction) of the government in order to truly impact the betterment of the country. There is no denying that the Pax Silica project, which could end up being unprecedented given the lack of transparency and the incomplete requirements of the project, can cause imbalance and instability within the country. The article “Flood-Control Fiasco: A Policy Reckoning for Accountability in the Philippines’ Climate Risk Governance” by Weena Gera analyses the flood control scandal as evidence of the systemic failure of the government to hold itself accountable for the projects it mismanages.21
III. Conclusion
The Pax Silica project aims to allow the Philippines to further develop its technological capability; however, the pathway to its successful and complete realisation is blurry and indefinite. It cannot responsibly proceed on its present terms without confronting four unresolved problems. First, its projected three-gigawatt requirement cannot be met from the land it has been offered, and every route to closing that gap (off-site solar, LNG, or nuclear) carries costs that have not been publicly allocated between the investors and the Filipino consumer. Second, the project would need to abide by the existing laws (EPIRA 2001, PD No. 1586, and IPRA 1997) set by the government to protect the people and the land they own, and to meet the energy prerequisites while maintaining the financial budget and the land allowance provided. Third, there are numerous demands in the Philippines that require public funds, notably flood control, the education system, and the justice system, and these should take priority over a data centre that could destabilise the electrical grid of Luzon. Fourth, each of the problems mentioned in this paper is aggravated by a governance record that gives citizens weak grounds to assume that they will be protected and that safeguards will be enforced simply because laws exist on paper.
However, this paper does not conclude that the project should be rejected, but instead calls for complete transparency in the plans for its accomplishment. Until the Senate determines the absolute requirements of Pax Silica (the land, water, power, and compensation for the by-product of producing solar plants), it should commission further research to reduce the potential harm to the quality of life and maintain balance in the ecosystem. The constitutional and statutory framework already provides the instruments needed to insist on this. What remains uncertain is whether they will be used before the commitment becomes irreversible.
Footnote(S):
1 Pax Silica, ‘Pax Silica – An initiative to secure supply chains for the AI Era’ (Pax Silica Forum, August 2026) https://paxsilica.org accessed August 16, 2026
2 VCMP Law Offices, ‘Pax Silica and the Philippines: Legal, Economic, and Regulatory Implications of the Proposed AI and Advanced Manufacturing Hub’ (VCMP Law Offices, August 10, 2026) https://vcmplaw.com/pax-silica-and-the-philippines/ accessed August 16, 2026
3 Electric Power Industry Reform Act 2001 (EPIRA 2001)
4 Data Centre Asia, ‘How Much Power Does a Data Center Use?’ ( Data Centre Asia, August, 2024) https://www.datacenter-asia.com/blog/how-much-power-does-a-data-center-use/ Accessed August 16, 2026
5 Dr. Teodoro C. Mendoza PhD, ‘Powering Pax Silica: Can 3 GW be delivered without nuclear?’ Inquirer (Philippines, August 08, 2026) https://business.inquirer.net/604774/powering-pax-silica-can-3-gw-be-delivered-without-nuclear Accessed August 16, 2026
6 ibid
7 Dr. Teodoro C. Mendoza PhD, ‘Powering Pax Silica: Can 3 GW be delivered without nuclear?’ Inquirer (Philippines, August 08, 2026) https://business.inquirer.net/604774/powering-pax-silica-can-3-gw-be-delivered-without-nuclear Accessed August 16, 2026
8 Joann Villanueva ‘Meralco cuts outages to 2K customers, vows swift restoration’ Republic of the Philippines Philippines news agency (Philippines, August 18, 2026) https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1282150 Accessed, August 20, 2026
9 Presidential Decree No.1586 [1978] (PD No. 1586)
10 Philippine Constitution Article 2 Section 16 [1967] (Art 2 s.16)
11 Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources 33 I.L.M 173 (1994)
12 Philippine Constitution Article 3 Section 9 [1967]
13 National Commission of Indigenous Peoples ‘IP Group’ (GOVPH) https://ncip.gov.ph/category/ip-group/ Accessed August 20, 2026
14 Madelle Calayag ‘Bamban exec lobbies for public hearing on Pax Silica in Tarlac’ Inquirer (Philippines, August 17, 2026) https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2286592/bamban-exec-lobbies-for-public-hearing-on-pax-silica-in-tarlac Accessed on August 20, 2026
15 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA 1997)
16 Mariejo S. Ramos ‘Kaliwa Dam opponets cite lack of indigenous people’s consent’ Inquirer (Philippines, April 11, 2019) https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1105506/kaliwa-dam-opponets-cite-lack-of-indigenous-peoples-consent Accessed on August 20, 2026
17 Minerva Jane San Miguel ‘Sara Duterte’s corruption case, a crushing blow to education’ IBON (Philippines, June 13, 2025) https://www.ibon.org/en/sara-dutertes-corruption-case-a-crushing-blow-to-education/ Accessed August, 21, 2026
18 Wilnard Bacelonia ‘DOJ confirms 14 flood control ‘ghost’ projects’ Republic of the Philippines Philippines news agency (Philippines, January 19, 2026 ) https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1267277 Accessed August 21, 2026
19 National Integrated Climate Change Database and Information Exchange System ‘Climate Change Impacts’ (National Integrated Climate Change Database and Information Exchange System) https://niccdies.climate.gov.ph/climate-change-impacts Accessed August 21, 2026
20 Cleo Anne Calimbahin ‘Accountability washed away in Philippine flood control corruption’ East Asia Forum (Philippines, 02 December 2025) https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/12/02/accountability-washed-away-in-philippine-flood-control-corruption/ Accessed August 21, 2026
21 Weena Gera ‘Flood-Control Fiasco: A Policy Reckoning for Accountability in the Philippines’ Climate Risk Governance’ University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Developmental Studies (Philippines, October 2, 2025) https://cids.up.edu.ph/flood-control-fiasco-a-policy-reckoning-for-accountability-in-the-philippines/ Accessed August 22, 2026
IV. References and Bibliography
Primary Sources
Cases
Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 33 I.L.M. 173 (1994).
Legislation
Electric Power Industry Reform Act 2001 (Philippines).
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (Philippines).
Philippine Constitution Article 2 Section 16 [1967] (Philippines).
Philippine Constitution Article 3 Section 9 [1967] (Philippines).
Presidential Decree No. 1586 [1978] (Philippines).
Secondary Sources
Cleo Anne Calimbahin ‘Accountability washed away in Philippine flood control corruption’ East Asia Forum (Philippines, 02 December 2025) https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/12/02/accountability-washed-away-in-philippine-flood-control-corruption/ Accessed August 21, 2026
Data Centre Asia, ‘How Much Power Does a Data Center Use?’ (Data Centre Asia, August, 2024) https://www.datacenter-asia.com/blog/how-much-power-does-a-data-center-use/ Accessed August 16, 2026
Dr. Teodoro C. Mendoza PhD, ‘Powering Pax Silica: Can 3 GW be delivered without nuclear?’ Inquirer (Philippines, August 08, 2026) https://business.inquirer.net/604774/powering-pax-silica-can-3-gw-be-delivered-without-nuclear Accessed August 16, 2026
Joann Villanueva ‘Meralco cuts outages to 2K customers, vows swift restoration’ Republic of the Philippines Philippines news agency (Philippines, August 18, 2026) https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1282150 Accessed, August 20, 2026
Madelle Calayag ‘Bamban exec lobbies for public hearing on Pax Silica in Tarlac’ Inquirer (Philippines, August 17, 2026) https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2286592/bamban-exec-lobbies-for-public-hearing-on-pax-silica-in-tarlac Accessed on August 20, 2026
Mariejo S. Ramos ‘Kaliwa Dam opponets cite lack of indigenous people’s consent’ Inquirer (Philippines, April 11, 2019) https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1105506/kaliwa-dam-opponets-cite-lack-of-indigenous-peoples-consent Accessed on August 20, 2026
National Commission of Indigenous Peoples ‘IP Group’ (GOVPH) https://ncip.gov.ph/category/ip-group/ Accessed August 20, 2026
National Integrated Climate Change Database and Information Exchange System ‘Climate Change Impacts’ (National Integrated Climate Change Database and Information Exchange System) https://niccdies.climate.gov.ph/climate-change-impacts Accessed August 21, 2026
Minerva Jane San Miguel ‘Sara Duterte’s corruption case, a crushing blow to education’ IBON (Philippines, June 13, 2025) https://www.ibon.org/en/sara-dutertes-corruption-case-a-crushing-blow-to-education/ Accessed August, 21, 2026
Pax Silica, ‘Pax Silica – An initiative to secure supply chains for the AI Era’ (Pax Silica Forum, August 2026) https://paxsilica.org accessed August 16, 2026
VCMP Law Offices, ‘Pax Silica and the Philippines: Legal, Economic, and Regulatory Implications of the Proposed AI and Advanced Manufacturing Hub’ (VCMP Law Offices, August 10, 2026) https://vcmplaw.com/pax-silica-and-the-philippines/ accessed August 16, 2026
Weena Gera ‘Flood-Control Fiasco: A Policy Reckoning for Accountability in the Philippines’ Climate Risk Governance’ University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Developmental Studies (Philippines, October 2, 2025) https://cids.up.edu.ph/flood-control-fiasco-a-policy-reckoning-for-accountability-in-the-philippines/ Accessed August 22, 2026
Wilnard Bacelonia ‘DOJ confirms 14 flood control ‘ghost’ projects’ Republic of the Philippines Philippines news agency (Philippines, January 19, 2026 ) https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1267277 Accessed August 21, 2026
