Key points:
- The U.S.-led Pax Silica initiative promises massive economic and technological development for the Philippines, but faith leaders raised concerns about environmental impacts and who really benefits from the development.
- At two ecumenical events, United Methodist leaders reflected on questions about the development.
- Rather than reducing the issue to a simple choice between supporting or opposing the project, Davao Area Bishop Israel M. Painit said the standard should be whether development is “responsible, sustainable, transparent and accountable.”
The massive initiative to build technology centers in the Philippines promises massive economic development for the country, but Filipino United Methodist faith leaders have raised concerns about environmental impacts and who really benefits from the development.
Pax Silica is a U.S. State Department-led international coalition built around strengthening cooperation on artificial intelligence, semiconductors, critical minerals and other strategic technologies. The global agreement currently includes 23 member countries, with the Philippines joining in April. Under that coalition, the Philippines and the U.S. are now developing a 4,000-acre AI industrial hub in New Clark City, and Tarlac, about an hour north of Manila.
The Philippines government has presented the planned Pax Silica Industrial Hub as an advanced manufacturing and technology ecosystem intended to strengthen the country’s participation in global semiconductor and artificial intelligence supply chains. There are estimates of tens of billions of dollars in investment as well as over 100,000 jobs. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., even highlighted the project during his 2026 State of the Nation Address.
However, just as many U.S. communities have raised concerns about data centers, Filipino United Methodists have urged careful scrutiny of Pax Silica amid the many forums they joined and co-organized.
One such gathering was with other ecumenical church leaders, peace advocates and other groups in Quezon City for the 2026 Day of Prayer for Just Peace in the Philippines, where participants called for renewed peace negotiations and raised concerns over the initiative’s social and environmental risks.
The gathering placed particular attention on the proposed development in New Clark City and its possible implications for communities, Indigenous peoples, natural resources and Philippine sovereignty.
At the gathering, Giovanni Tapang — a scientist and spokesperson of Advocates of Science and Technology for the People — provided a critical background to the initiative, warning that control of critical minerals, semiconductors and artificial intelligence has increasingly become part of global economic and geopolitical competition. He also raised concerns about energy and water needs, environmental risks tied to mineral processing and an economic model dependent on extracting Philippine resources.
“Whoever controls the silicon chain controls the future economy and the next wars,” Tapang said. “It is not Pax Silica that will bring us toward development, but genuine land reform and national industrialization.”
Against this background, United Methodist leaders reflected on three central questions:
- Why should Filipinos critically examine and, where necessary, resist Pax Silica?
- What concrete steps should churches take to understand its consequences?
- And what message should the issue bring to the wider United Methodist Church?
For Mervin Toquero, deputy general secretary of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines and a United Methodist, the concern goes beyond technology and investment. He said projects tied to global strategic competition require Filipinos to ask fundamental questions about who ultimately benefits from development and who bears its costs.
“Who will benefit? Who will be displaced? What will happen to farmers and Indigenous communities? What will be the environmental and social costs?” Toquero asked.
He warned that development must not come at the expense of people’s rights to land, justice, peace and self-determination — particularly amid increasing geopolitical tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.
Davao Area Bishop Israel M. Painit, assigned bishop for Church and Society of the Philippines Regional Conference, brought another dimension to the discussion. He acknowledged that Pax Silica may carry promises of economic modernization and regional development while emphasizing that these must be weighed against its possible environmental and social consequences.
“Saying no does not mean rejecting progress,” he said. “It means protecting our resources and our fellow Filipinos.”
Rather than reducing the issue to a simple choice between supporting or opposing the project, Painit said the standard should be whether development is “responsible, sustainable, transparent and accountable.”
United Methodist deaconess Norma Dollaga questioned an economic model in which natural resources are opened to large-scale foreign investment without sufficient guarantees that communities themselves will experience lasting development.
“Growth for whom, and at whose expense?” she asked.
For Dollaga, economic security must be defined from the standpoint of people and communities, through environmental sustainability, food and water security, decent livelihoods and the development of domestic industrial capacity.
“Our minerals are not merely commodities. Our land is not merely an investment opportunity. Our water is not merely an industrial input. Our Indigenous peoples are not obstacles to development. And our sovereignty is not for sale,” she said.
The issue is particularly immediate in Tarlac, where the proposed development would be located.
The Rev. Egmedio B. Equila Jr., a United Methodist district superintendent in Tarlac City, said concerns over forests, water resources and ancestral lands make the issue more than an abstract debate over economic policy.
“If we remain silent now, we will compromise the future of the next generation,” Equila said.
While church leaders expressed their concerns in different ways, they converged on the need for churches first to understand the issue deeply before responding to it.
Painit called for education and informed conversation, saying United Methodists should learn not only what Pax Silica promises but also its possible implications for water, energy, the environment, public health, livelihoods and local communities.
He urged church boards and agencies, particularly those working on Church and Society concerns, to convene forums and discussions involving experts in technology, economics, environmental science, public health and community development. Where legitimate differences exist, he said, different perspectives should be heard.
Beyond expert discussion, Painit stressed that churches must listen directly to potentially affected communities.
“Informed faith leads to responsible action,” he said.
Dollaga similarly called for a response grounded in faith and evidence. She encouraged churches to undertake analytical studies, visit affected areas, listen to communities, work with civil society and environmental groups and engage policymakers through peaceful advocacy.
“We are stewards of God’s creation,” she said, adding that development and industrialization must serve both people and the natural world rather than becoming instruments of “profit, control, exploitation or preparations for war.”
Subscribe to our
e-newsletter
“We believe in development that serves life, protects creation, respects sovereignty and advances justice and peace,” Dollaga said.
Equila said churches also have a responsibility to bring the discussion closer to ordinary members through orientations, educational forums and community dialogues.
The issue, he said, should not be understood solely as an environmental concern but also as a question of “justice, stewardship of God's creation and protection of life.”
Toquero likewise urged church people to examine the country’s historical economic and political relationships and to consider how major development projects affect national sovereignty, the environment and vulnerable sectors.
“Churches must be instruments of God’s justice and peace,” he said.
Their reflections ultimately turned to the wider United Methodist connection and the kind of witness the church should offer amid questions where technological progress, economics, geopolitics, environmental stewardship and human dignity intersect.
Painit called United Methodists to be “informed, discerning and engaged” and to continually ask “Who benefits? Who may be left behind? Whose dignity must be protected? What are the implications for justice, peace and God’s creation?”
For Dollaga, this is precisely where the church’s prophetic and pastoral roles meet.
“This is the best time when we can share our prophetic witness, even as we do pastoral pronouncements of care,” she said.
Equila brought the concern home to Tarlac, saying United Methodist congregations, including Indigenous Aeta communities, could find themselves directly affected by developments in and around New Clark City.
“This is not just a local issue of Tarlac; this is a concern for our whole connection,” he said. “As stewards of God's creation, we are called to protect the people and the land.”
Toquero framed that wider calling in theological terms. Borrowing from Palestinian theologian the Rev. Prof. Mitri Raheb, he urged the church to pray and work for what he described as a “peace that is decolonized” — a peace in which those who have been wounded and oppressed participate in shaping their own future.
For Toquero, the goal remains a peace “based on justice and abundant life for all.”
Mangiduyos is a communicator in the Philippines.
News media contact: Julie Dwyer at [email protected]. To read more United Methodist news, subscribe to the free Daily or Weekly Digests
