Pax Silica is a U.S.-led initiative launched in late 2025 to establish a trusted network of partner countries across the artificial intelligence (AI) and semiconductor value chain, from critical mineral extraction and energy infrastructure to semiconductor manufacturing, data centers, and AI technologies. Named from the Latin word pax ("peace" or "stable order") and silica (silicon dioxide, the primary source of silicon used in semiconductor chips), the initiative envisions a stable international economic order built on secure and resilient technology supply chains. Designed to strengthen resilient technology supply chains and reduce dependence on geographically concentrated production—particularly in China—it seeks to secure critical minerals, ensure reliable energy, expand trusted semiconductor manufacturing, strengthen AI infrastructure, diversify supply chains, and coordinate strategic investments among partner economies. 

Pax Silica has also emerged as one of the more controversial policy initiatives following President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.'s endorsement of the project in his 2026 State of the Nation Address. While the administration has presented the initiative as a transformative opportunity to position the Philippines as a regional hub for artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and advanced manufacturing, it has also sparked public debate over its long-term implications. Supporters view Pax Silica as a strategic pathway to attract high-value investments, accelerate industrialization, and strengthen the country's role in global technology supply chains. Critics, however, question whether the initiative could deepen foreign influence over the Philippines' strategic minerals, energy resources, and critical infrastructure, while raising concerns about environmental impacts, indigenous communities, national security, and whether Filipinos will capture a fair share of the economic value created. These competing perspectives underscore that the success of Pax Silica will depend not only on the scale of investment it attracts but also on the legal, regulatory, and governance frameworks that ensure the country's natural resources and strategic industries advance long-term national interests. 

The Philippines has emerged as a key prospective participant in the initiative. The Philippine and U.S. governments are working toward a framework agreement, with Foxconn expected to become the first locator at the AI and semiconductor hub in New Clark City. The initiative has also attracted support from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, Amazon Web Services, and the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation through proposed investments in digital infrastructure, energy security, and the Luzon Economic Corridor. These developments reinforce the country's ambition to become a regional hub for AI, semiconductor manufacturing, and advanced digital infrastructure. 

For the Philippines, Pax Silica has profound implications for the mining and energy sectors, which supply the critical minerals and reliable power required by the digital economy. The country's abundant nickel, copper, gold, chromite, and renewable energy resources—particularly geothermal energy—position it to become an important participant in global technology supply chains. However, realizing these opportunities will require policies that promote domestic value addition, responsible resource management, environmental sustainability, and long-term national development rather than simply facilitating foreign investment. 

The Strategic Importance of Philippine Mining 

Mining has traditionally been viewed as an extractive industry supplying raw materials to foreign manufacturers. Under Pax Silica, however, mining assumes a strategic dimension because critical minerals have become essential inputs to the global digital economy. 

Nickel, for example, is no longer merely an industrial metal. It is now fundamental to battery technology, data center energy storage systems, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and electric vehicles. Likewise, copper is indispensable for electrical transmission, semiconductor fabrication equipment, renewable energy systems, and AI infrastructure. As demand for these technologies expands, so too does the strategic importance of countries capable of supplying these resources. 

For decades, the Philippines has largely exported raw nickel ore, much of which is processed overseas before being incorporated into higher-value products. Consequently, the country captures only a small fraction of the total value generated throughout the technology supply chain. Pax Silica presents an opportunity to reverse this historical pattern by encouraging domestic mineral processing, refining, precursor chemical production, and integration into semiconductor manufacturing. 

Instead of remaining merely an exporter of mineral resources, the Philippines could participate in multiple stages of the technology value chain. Such industrial upgrading would generate higher incomes, increase technological capabilities, and reduce dependence on commodity exports whose prices fluctuate significantly in global markets. 

Industrial Transformation Rather Than Resource Extraction 

Perhaps the greatest opportunity presented by Pax Silica lies in shifting Philippine mining policy from extraction toward industrialization. Historically, many developing economies have experienced what economists describe as the "resource curse," wherein abundant natural resources generate export revenues without fostering sustainable industrial development. The Philippines risks repeating this pattern if mining expansion merely increases exports of unprocessed ore. 

Participation in Pax Silica should therefore be conditioned upon policies that require greater domestic value addition. Mineral processing facilities, battery precursor plants, high-value semiconductor material manufacturing, and advanced metallurgical industries should accompany expanded mining activities. These downstream industries create significantly more employment, generate higher tax revenues, stimulate research and development, and encourage technology transfer. 

Without such industrial policies, Pax Silica could merely reinforce existing patterns in which foreign firms extract Philippine resources while capturing most of the economic value through overseas manufacturing and intellectual property ownership. 

The Energy Sector as the Foundation of Pax Silica 

While mining supplies the raw materials, energy provides the foundation upon which the entire Pax Silica ecosystem depends. Modern semiconductor fabrication plants require uninterrupted electricity twenty-four hours a day with exceptionally high-power quality. Voltage fluctuations lasting only milliseconds may destroy millions of dollars' worth of semiconductor wafers. Likewise, AI data centers consume extraordinary quantities of electricity for computing and cooling systems. 

This presents both opportunities and challenges for the Philippine energy sector. The country's substantial geothermal resources offer a significant competitive advantage. Unlike solar and wind generation, geothermal energy provides stable baseload electricity independent of weather conditions. Such reliability is particularly attractive for semiconductor manufacturing and AI facilities that cannot tolerate interruptions in power supply. 

Consequently, Pax Silica could substantially increase demand for geothermal development, creating opportunities for additional steam fields, power plants, and associated transmission infrastructure. Long-term electricity requirements may also increase demand for sophisticated steam supply agreements and project implementation arrangements that provide investors with contractual certainty over several decades. 

While geothermal energy offers a natural competitive advantage, nuclear energy may also become an important component of the long-term energy mix required to support Pax Silica. Semiconductor fabrication plants and hyperscale AI data centers require continuous, high-capacity baseload electricity that intermittent renewable sources alone may not consistently provide. The Philippine government's renewed interest in nuclear energy—including the possible deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs)—could therefore complement geothermal generation by providing reliable, carbon-free electricity capable of supporting energy-intensive industries. If implemented under robust safety, environmental, and regulatory frameworks, nuclear power could strengthen the country's energy security while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels and helping achieve its decarbonization objectives. 

Hydrogen, particularly white (natural) hydrogen, also represents a potentially transformative energy resource for the future Pax Silica ecosystem. Unlike green hydrogen, which is produced through electrolysis using renewable electricity, white hydrogen occurs naturally in geological formations and can potentially be extracted directly from the subsurface with significantly lower production costs and carbon emissions. Although commercial development remains at an early stage globally and the existence of economically recoverable deposits in the Philippines has yet to be established, ongoing exploration suggests that naturally occurring hydrogen could emerge as a strategic energy resource. If viable deposits are identified, white hydrogen could provide low-carbon fuel for industrial processes, backup power generation, hydrogen fuel cells, and future clean manufacturing applications associated with semiconductor production and AI infrastructure. Given the Philippines' active tectonic setting and extensive geothermal systems, the country may warrant further geological assessment to evaluate the potential occurrence of natural hydrogen resources. 

Risks of Rising Energy Costs 

Despite these opportunities, significant risks remain. The Philippines already has some of the highest electricity prices in Southeast Asia. Energy-intensive industries such as semiconductor manufacturing require globally competitive electricity prices to remain economically viable. If generation capacity does not expand sufficiently, increasing industrial demand could place additional pressure on electricity prices for households and other industries. 

Moreover, the substantial public investment required for transmission networks, substations, industrial parks, and power generation may impose significant fiscal burdens if not carefully planned. Policymakers must therefore ensure that investments serving strategic industries also strengthen the broader national electricity system rather than creating isolated infrastructure benefiting only a limited number of multinational corporations. 

Environmental Sustainability and Responsible Mining 

Any expansion of mining inevitably raises environmental concerns. Critical mineral extraction can generate deforestation, biodiversity loss, watershed degradation, sedimentation, acid mine drainage, and increased greenhouse gas emissions if environmental safeguards are inadequately enforced. Many mineral deposits are located within environmentally sensitive regions and indigenous ancestral domains, further complicating project development. 

Consequently, environmental governance must become an integral component of any Philippine participation in Pax Silica. Mining companies should be required to implement internationally recognized environmental management systems, progressive rehabilitation programs, transparent monitoring mechanisms, and comprehensive mine closure plans. Likewise, the principles of Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) should be rigorously observed whenever projects affect indigenous communities. 

Semiconductor fabrication plants and hyperscale data centers are also among the most water-intensive industrial facilities in the world. Semiconductor manufacturing requires ultra-pure water (UPW) for wafer cleaning, chemical processing, and contamination control, with a single fabrication plant consuming millions of liters of water daily. Likewise, large data centers require substantial volumes of water for cooling systems, particularly in facilities that rely on evaporative cooling technologies. As Pax Silica encourages the development of semiconductor manufacturing and AI infrastructure in the Philippines, policymakers must recognize that water security will become as strategically important as energy security. Industrial expansion should therefore be accompanied by integrated water resource management, including sustainable groundwater regulation, watershed protection, wastewater recycling, rainwater harvesting, and investments in advanced water treatment and reuse technologies. Without careful planning, increased industrial demand could intensify competition for water among households, agriculture, and industry, particularly during periods of drought or in water-stressed regions. Ensuring reliable and sustainable water supplies will thus be essential not only for maintaining industrial competitiveness but also for protecting environmental sustainability and safeguarding the country's long-term water security. 

Failure to maintain high environmental standards risks undermining the social legitimacy of Pax Silica while imposing long-term ecological costs that exceed short-term economic gains. 

Legal and Regulatory Challenges 

Successful participation in Pax Silica will require significant reforms across multiple legal sectors. Mining legislation may need revision to encourage downstream processing while maintaining environmental safeguards. Investment regulations must balance foreign participation with protection of strategic national assets. Energy regulation must facilitate long-term infrastructure investments while preserving affordability and reliability. 

Equally important are legal frameworks governing data protection, cybersecurity, competition policy, indigenous peoples' rights, and environmental compliance. Since AI infrastructure and semiconductor facilities constitute critical national infrastructure, regulatory agencies must coordinate economic development objectives with national security considerations. 

Contractual arrangements will likewise become increasingly important. Long-term mineral supply agreements, power purchase agreements, steam supply contracts, infrastructure concessions, and investment agreements must allocate commercial risks fairly while protecting the public interest. Excessively generous incentives or inflexible stabilization clauses may constrain future governments and reduce policy flexibility. 

Economic Governance and Technology Transfer 

One of the greatest concerns surrounding Pax Silica is the possibility that the Philippines may remain confined to lower-value activities while advanced manufacturing, intellectual property, and AI innovation remain concentrated abroad. To avoid this outcome, government policy should prioritize technology transfer, workforce development, domestic research, and local supplier participation. 

Investment agreements should include measurable commitments to develop Filipino human capital and domestic industrial capabilities through the training of local engineers and geoscientists, collaboration with Philippine universities, research partnerships, procurement from domestic suppliers, support for small and medium enterprises, and, where appropriate, technology licensing and transfer. These commitments help ensure that foreign investment strengthens national capabilities and long-term industrial competitiveness rather than merely utilizing Philippine labor and natural resources. 

Conclusion 

Pax Silica offers a rare opportunity to reshape the Philippine economy—advancing industrialization, strengthening energy security, reinforcing semiconductor supply chains, creating high-value employment, and positioning the country at the forefront of the global digital economy. Yet these benefits are far from inevitable and will require deliberate policy choices and strong institutional governance to be realized. Without sound policy and effective governance, the country risks remaining primarily a supplier of critical minerals and low-cost labor while foreign firms capture the greatest value through advanced manufacturing, technology ownership, and intellectual property. Expanding industrial activity also brings challenges, including greater geopolitical exposure, environmental pressures, rising energy and water demand, and substantial infrastructure and fiscal requirements. 

The issue, therefore, is not whether the Philippines should participate in Pax Silica, but how it can do so on terms that promote long-term national development. Achieving this objective will require strong institutions, clear legal and regulatory frameworks, responsible environmental stewardship, competitive and reliable energy systems, meaningful technology transfer, and a coherent industrial policy that fosters domestic value addition. If these conditions are met, Pax Silica could transform the Philippine mining and energy sectors from traditional resource industries into strategic foundations of the country's digital and industrial future. 

 

Fernando “Ronnie” S. Penarroyo specializes in Energy and Resources Law, Project Finance and Business Development. He is also currently the Chair of the Professional Regulatory Board of Geology, the government agency mandated under law to regulate and develop the geology profession. For any matters or inquiries in relation to the Philippine resources industry and suggested topics for commentaries, he may be contacted at fspenarroyo@penpalaw.com. Atty. Penarroyo’s commentaries are also archived at his professional blogsite at www.penarroyo.com 

Diwata-Women in Resource Development, Inc. marked its 14th anniversary not by looking inward, but by reaching outward, bringing together communities, institutions, and partners in the spirit of compassion and solidarity. 

On 17 July 2026, in partnership with the South African Embassy, Diwata commemorated Nelson Mandela Day through a community outreach at Magata-Manggahan Elementary School in Sitio Manggahan, Barangay Daraitan, Tanay, Rizal. The initiative reflected the values that defined Mandela’s life and legacy of compassion, equality, dignity, and service to others. 

Nelson Mandela Day is of profound significance for both South Africa and Diwata. Nelson Mandela was the first democratically-elected President of South Africa and is regarded as a hero and a symbol of freedom, peace, and equality.  He put an end to discrimination based on race or skin color in South Africa. This is why we chose to establish Diwata on 18 July 2012, Nelson Mandela Day: because we believe in, and want to live out and uphold, the ideals he fought for. 

In her opening remarks, South Africa Ambassador Bartinah Ntombizodwa Radebe-Netshitenzhe said that more than a celebration of his life, Nelson Mandela Day is a global call to action and a reminder to all that we have the power and responsibility to make a positive change or difference in the lives of others.     

In South Africa, people mark the occasion by performing 67 minutes of service, representing the 67 years that Nelson Mandela dedicated to public service, human rights, and the fight against apartheid. Even simple acts of kindness like mentoring a young person, visiting the elderly, or supporting a neighbor count toward the 67 minutes. 

Set against this backdrop, the outreach at Barangay Daraitan on Nelson Mandela Day became a living expression of what can happen when government, the diplomatic corps, private institutions, development organizations, and civil society come together. 

The event was graced by Rizal Governor Nina Ynares and Tanay Mayor Rex C. Tanjuatco, whose presence underscored the importance of partnerships between local leadership and civic initiatives. We were also joined by representatives from the Embassy of Angola, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, and the Consulate of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in Davao, bringing a strong sense of international solidarity. 

Diwata also received invaluable support from the administrators and faculty of Magata-Manggahan Elementary School, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), local government volunteers, and many other collaborators on the ground.  

The South African Embassy rallied together an extraordinary network of donors and supporters. Through the South African Embassy’s leadership and commitment to Nelson Mandela’s enduring ideals, assistance poured in from a wide range of institutions, including ICTSI Foundation, Reel Steel Corporation, DigiPlus Foundation, GoTyme Bank, Ethiopian Airlines, Food Access PH, RCBC Realty Corporation, the Department of Foreign Affairs-Office of Middle East and African Affairs, Aspen Philippines, the Philippine Mine Safety and Environment Association, Federated Distributors, Incorporated, Fly Ace Corporation, Liwayway Marketing Corporation, SM Retail, and the United Nations Development Programme. 

Diwata’s leaders based in Rizal, led by Annie Dee and Lita Lee, provided vehicles, manpower and a venue to pack the donated goods. 

These contributions benefitted more than 700 individuals, including Dumagat-Remontado families and schoolchildren of Magata-Manggahan Elementary School.  More than providing material support, the project partners expressed care and solidarity, reminding us that development is not only measured in infrastructure, investment, or policy, but also in the strength of human connections. 

For Diwata, the anniversary celebration was not simply about marking another year. It was about affirming what it stands for: empowering indigenous communities, fostering partnerships, and advancing inclusive, sustainable, and people-centered development. 

In an era that calls for deeper collaboration and more purposeful leadership, Diwata’s anniversary outreach is just one example of how compassion, partnership, and shared responsibility can create lasting impact. 

 

 

Photo 1: 

 

Photo 2: Diwata’s trustees with South African Ambassador to the Philippines Bartinah Ntombizodwa Radebe-Netshitenzhe, Rizal Governor Nina Ynares and other project partners. 

The Middle East conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran remains active but has entered a period of unstable ceasefires and intermittent confrontation. Since its escalation in early 2026, the conflict has been marked by intermittent maritime incidents, shipping disruptions, and persistent geopolitical tension. While diplomatic negotiations continue, the situation has stabilized into a prolonged standoff characterized by recurring risk rather than decisive military confrontation. 

The most consequential effects of the conflict have been economic rather than military. Energy markets have absorbed a sustained geopolitical risk premium, resulting in elevated oil prices, increased shipping costs, and heightened volatility across global supply chains. These changes affect not only energy-importing countries but also industries dependent on international trade and transportation. 

For import-dependent economies such as the Philippines, the conflict has introduced a structural shift in economic risk. Even if hostilities diminish, uncertainty surrounding energy supply routes and shipping infrastructure is likely to persist. Governments and industries must therefore adapt to an operating environment defined by sustained volatility rather than temporary disruption. 

Mining remains one of the most strategically significant sectors of the Philippine economy, serving as a major source of export revenue, regional employment, and industrial raw materials for global manufacturing and energy systems. The country is among the world’s leading producers of nickel and an important supplier of copper and gold, positioning it as a critical participant in international mineral supply chains. Because mining operations depend heavily on energy, transportation, and global commodity markets, the sector is highly sensitive to geopolitical developments that affect fuel prices, shipping routes, and industrial demand. 

Implications for the Philippine Mining Industry 

The Philippine mining industry faces a complex set of consequences from the Middle East conflict. While geopolitical instability supports higher commodity prices, rising operating costs reduce profitability. 

Periods of geopolitical instability often support higher prices for safe-haven and industrial metals particularly gold, while supply disruptions and industrial demand can influence prices for minerals such as nickel and copper. This improves export revenue potential for mining companies. However, higher fuel, electricity, and transportation costs increase the cost of extracting and delivering minerals. 

The resulting economic environment is characterized by constrained profitability, where revenue gains are offset by cost inflation. Long-term competitiveness will depend on operational efficiency, cost control, and supply chain resilience. 

Nickel mining is one of the most strategically significant sectors in the Philippine mining industry. Disruptions in global supply chains—particularly those affecting inputs used in mineral processing—have increased production costs in competing jurisdictions. This dynamic has supported higher global nickel prices and strengthened demand for Philippine exports. However, the benefits remain conditional because mining operations remain highly sensitive to energy costs. Rising fuel and power prices can offset gains from higher commodity prices. 

Copper and gold producers occupy a relatively resilient position in the mining sector. Gold serves as a financial safe-haven asset during periods of geopolitical uncertainty, while copper demand remains linked to infrastructure development and industrial growth. These commodities are therefore likely to maintain stable demand despite market volatility. However, rising operating costs continue to place pressure on profit margins. 

Coal producers may benefit indirectly from higher global energy prices as utilities seek alternative fuel sources. However, increased diesel and equipment costs offset part of this revenue advantage. The net effect on the coal mining sector is moderate rather than transformative, with incremental revenue gains balanced by rising operating expenses. 

Industrial and Logistics Implications for the Mining Supply Chain 

Energy-intensive industries such as cement manufacturing are among the most negatively affected sectors. Rising fuel and electricity costs increase production expenses, while competitive market conditions limit the ability of companies to pass these costs on to consumers. This imbalance results in margin compression and increased financial risk. Over time, firms may invest in energy efficiency and alternative fuels, but these adjustments require capital investment and implementation time. 

Shipping and logistics infrastructure plays a critical role in the competitiveness of the mining industry. Geopolitical instability increases insurance costs, fuel expenses, and transit times for cargo vessels. These changes raise the cost of transporting minerals and reduce delivery reliability. The primary risk facing the logistics sector is cost escalation rather than physical supply disruption. Transportation efficiency has therefore become a key determinant of mining profitability and export performance. 

Structural Exposure to Imported Energy 

The Philippine energy system relies heavily on imported fuels, including crude oil and coal. The Philippines is becoming increasingly increasingly reliant on liquified natural gas (LNG) as domestic natural gas supply declines. The country is currently in a transition phase from domestic natural gas to imported LNG, which means reliance is rising and will likely become significant within the next decade. 

This dependence creates a systemic vulnerability to geopolitical instability in major energy-producing regions. Because domestic energy resources remain limited relative to national demand, changes in global fuel markets rapidly affect electricity prices, industrial production costs, and household expenditures. 

The immediate consequence of the Middle East conflict has been rising costs rather than supply shortages. Energy deliveries continue, but transportation risks and insurance premiums have increased significantly. These additional costs propagate through the energy supply chain—from fuel importation to power generation and distribution—ultimately reaching consumers in the form of higher electricity and fuel prices. 

The Philippine energy sector is therefore transitioning from a relatively stable cost environment to one characterized by sustained volatility. Energy planning and investment decisions must now incorporate uncertainty related to fuel prices, shipping costs, and exchange rates. 

Five operational effects define the current risk landscape for the Philippine energy sector. First, rising global oil and gas prices have increased operating costs for power plants, transportation systems, and industrial facilities. These increases contribute to inflationary pressure across the economy. 

Second, generation costs have risen significantly, particularly for facilities dependent on imported fuels. Price volatility complicates operational planning and increases financial risk for electricity producers. 

Third, the conflict has intensified pressure on national energy security policy. Government agencies have prioritized fuel supply stability, infrastructure resilience, and strategic reserve management. 

Fourth, renewable energy has become more economically attractive as fossil fuel costs rise. This shift will accelerate investment in renewable generation, storage systems, and grid modernization. 

Fifth, currency fluctuations have amplified the cost of energy procurement because most fuel imports are denominated in foreign currency. 

Together, these developments signal a fundamental transition in the Philippine energy sector—from a system focused primarily on supply adequacy to one increasingly centered on risk management and resilience. 

Sectoral Impacts Across the Philippine Energy System 

The oil importation sector remains the most immediately exposed to geopolitical instability. Because the Philippines relies heavily on imported petroleum products, disruptions in international shipping particularly in the Strait of Hormuz directly increase procurement costs and financial risk. Even when supply volumes remain stable, higher transportation and insurance costs increase the total cost of fuel imports. 

The power generation sector is structurally vulnerable to fuel price volatility because the Philippine electricity system depends heavily on imported energy sources. Rising fuel costs increase electricity production expenses and create pressure for higher consumer tariffs. 

Utilities operating under regulated pricing frameworks in the Philippines generally remain financially stable because fuel and power procurement costs are allowed to be passed through to consumers. However, increases in electricity prices often trigger regulatory review and public scrutiny, creating reputational and policy risks for utilities. Independent power producers face greater financial exposure, particularly when operating under fixed-price contracts or merchant market conditions where revenues may not fully offset rising fuel and operating costs. Key sector risks therefore include sustained increases in generation costs, tariff pressure, intensified regulatory oversight, and operational uncertainty. 

The LNG sector represents both vulnerability and opportunity. In the short term, rising global gas prices increase generation costs and supply risk. In the long term, LNG infrastructure development is expected to expand as policymakers seek to diversify energy sources and improve supply reliability. LNG therefore plays a transitional role in strengthening energy security while supporting the shift toward a more diversified energy mix. 

Renewable energy is the primary structural beneficiary of sustained geopolitical instability. Unlike fossil fuel-based generation, renewable energy relies on domestic resources and is less vulnerable to international supply disruptions. As fossil fuel prices become more volatile, renewable energy projects become increasingly competitive in operating cost and energy security terms. Governments and investors should prioritize renewable energy as a strategic component of energy security and economic stability. Over time, renewable energy is expected to transition from a supplementary energy source into a core pillar of the Philippine energy system. 

Probable Future of the Conflict and Strategic Outlook 

The most probable future trajectory of the Middle East conflict is a prolonged period of geopolitical tension rather than a decisive military resolution. While large-scale escalation remains unlikely, underlying strategic rivalries are expected to sustain recurring instability. 

This environment creates three enduring conditions: persistent energy price volatility; increased maritime transportation risk; and sustained supply chain uncertainty. These conditions represent a structural transformation in the global risk landscape. 

The prolonged nature of geopolitical instability will reinforce the vulnerability of the Philippine energy system while accelerating structural changes in energy policy and investment. Three major trends are expected to define the sector’s evolution: sustained cost volatility; increased pressure for energy diversification; and accelerated renewable energy  investment. Energy planning will increasingly focus on resilience, flexibility, and risk management rather than solely on supply expansion. 

On the other hand, the Philippine mining industry is expected to benefit from sustained global demand for critical minerals while facing rising operational costs. Three structural trends are likely to shape the sector: stable demand for strategic minerals; increasing production and logistics costs; and growing strategic importance in global supply chains. In periods of global instability, mining can simultaneously benefit from rising mineral prices while facing increased operating costs, creating a complex economic environment in which opportunity and risk coexist. 

Conclusion 

The Middle East conflict will not derail the development of the Philippine mining and energy industries but it will permanently reshape the rules under which they operate. Energy will become costlier and more strategically sensitive to global events, while mining will become increasingly critical to international supply chains even as sustaining production grows more expensive. 

The deeper implication is structural. Geopolitical risk is no longer episodic; it has become embedded in the global economic system. For the Philippines, this means planning for volatility rather than stability. Investment decisions, infrastructure development, and resource policy will need to be designed around resilience, diversification, and long-term risk management. In this new environment, uncertainty is not a temporary challenge; it is the baseline condition. 

Fernando “Ronnie” S. Penarroyo specializes in Energy and Resources Law, Project Finance and Business Development. He is also currently the Chair of the Professional Regulatory Board of Geology, the government agency mandated under law to regulate and develop the geology profession. For any matters or inquiries in relation to the Philippine resources industry and suggested topics for commentaries, he may be contacted at fspenarroyo@penpalaw.com. Atty. Penarroyo’s commentaries are also archived at his professional blogsite at www.penarroyo.com 

For years, discussions surrounding mining in the Philippines have largely focused on permitting, environmental concerns, social acceptability, and the perennial question of whether we are deriving sufficient value from our mineral resources.  

Today, however, the conversation has evolved to highlight the role of critical minerals in the development of the Philippine mining industry. Critical minerals are progressively regarded as strategic assets: essential not only to economic development, but also to energy transition, technological innovation, and even national security. 

Nickel, copper, cobalt, and rare earth elements have become central to the global transition toward electric vehicles, renewable energy, battery storage, and advanced technologies. 

For the Philippines, this shift presents both an opportunity and a challenge. 

Recent months have seen a number of developments positioning the Philippines more prominently within global critical minerals supply chains. 

Most significant was the signing in February 2026 of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Philippines and the United States on cooperation in critical minerals supply chains. The agreement seeks to strengthen cooperation on responsible mining, mineral processing, investment, and supply chain resilience. This reflects a growing recognition among major economies that secure and diversified mineral supply chains are now matters of strategic importance. 

This aligns with the initiatives of other mining jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada to work with the Philippines in prioritizing critical minerals as strategic and national security assets rather than merely commodities.  These efforts have also been referred to as “mining diplomacy”. 

Meanwhile, global demand for nickel and copper continues to rise as countries accelerate renewable energy initiatives. For mineral-rich countries such as the Philippines, this creates pressure to reconsider the longstanding export-oriented model. 

The real value of critical minerals lies not merely in exporting ore, but in participating in higher-value activities such as refining, precursor manufacturing, battery materials processing, and associated industrial ecosystems. Whether the Philippines can successfully move into these areas remains one of the defining policy questions facing our mining industry. 

Increasingly, this conversation on critical minerals also intersects with innovation and intellectual property. 

The race to secure critical minerals is not limited to access to mineral deposits. It also involves competition over the technologies used to process minerals more efficiently, reduce environmental impacts, improve battery performance, and develop alternative extraction and recycling methods. In many respects, the future value of critical minerals may depend as much on technology and know-how as on geology itself. 

Countries that succeed in downstreaming are often those that build ecosystems supporting research, technical capability, and technology transfer alongside extraction activities. Patents, proprietary processing technologies, licensing arrangements, and collaborative research partnerships are becoming increasingly important components of the global critical minerals landscape. 

Innovations come not just from the mining companies themselves, but other companies in the ecosystem, including those that specialize in mining equipment, technology and services (METS) which use IP to pursue their internationalization strategies.  

As examples, Australia and Canada are using innovation and intellectual property strategies to move beyond traditional extractive mining models and capture greater value from the critical minerals supply chain. In both jurisdictions, mining companies are investing heavily in proprietary mineral processing technologies, environmentally sustainable extraction methods, recycling systems, and advanced metallurgical processes. Companies are also actively securing patents and exclusive licensing arrangements covering new recovery technologies for critical minerals and rare earth elements, recognizing that future competitiveness will depend not only on access to mineral deposits, but also on control of the technologies used to process and refine them. 

A notable element in both countries is the strong collaboration among mining companies, universities, government research institutions, and technology developers. In Australia, mining innovation is increasingly driven by partnerships with institutions such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization or CSIRO [the equivalent of our Department of Science & Technology (DOST)] and leading universities, with technologies later commercialized through licensing and joint venture arrangements. Locally, DOST’s Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology Research and Development (DOST-PCIEERD) focuses on strengthening the local mining and minerals sector through research, development, and value-addition initiatives, including transforming raw mineral resources into higher-value, sustainable products. 

Canada, meanwhile, has placed particular emphasis on IP commercialization and integrating mining into broader EV, battery, and clean technology supply chains. Canadian initiatives likewise focus on helping mining companies identify, protect, and monetize valuable IP assets arising from mining innovation. 

For the Philippines, critical minerals, IP and innovation present an important but often overlooked opportunity. 

The country’s participation in the critical minerals economy should not be viewed solely through the lens of extraction and processing. There is also space to develop local expertise in mining technologies, environmental solutions, mineral processing innovations, and sustainability practices adapted to Philippine conditions. 

Several examples already demonstrate that innovation within Philippine mining is possible. 

Some Philippine mining companies have adopted real-time environmental monitoring systems that allow continuous monitoring of water quality, rainfall, slope movement, and tailings facilities. These technologies improve risk management while also strengthening transparency and regulatory compliance. 

Other companies have invested in progressive mine rehabilitation techniques, including the use of native species propagation, biodiversity mapping, and drone-assisted monitoring of rehabilitation areas. In a country highly vulnerable to climate and biodiversity risks, innovations in rehabilitation and watershed management may become increasingly valuable forms of mining expertise. 

Digitalization is also beginning to reshape Philippine mining operations. The use of geographic information systems, drone surveying, automated fleet management, and remote sensing technologies has improved operational efficiency and safety in several large-scale mining projects.  

As artificial intelligence and predictive analytics continue to evolve, opportunities abound for Philippine mining companies and local technology providers to develop solutions tailored to the country’s unique geological and environmental conditions. 

Beyond operational technologies, the Philippines may also have opportunities in mineral processing innovation itself.  For example, research into more energy-efficient nickel processing methods, low-carbon mineral refining, mine waste recovery, and circular economy technologies could become increasingly relevant as global industries seek more sustainable supply chains. The country’s extensive experience with lateritic nickel ores may also create opportunities for specialized technical expertise in processing ore types commonly found in tropical environments.  In time, Philippine-developed technologies or environmental management practices may themselves become exportable expertise. 

Strengthening intellectual property awareness within the mining sector will therefore become increasingly important. Mining companies often focus primarily on permits, operations, and production targets, yet proprietary technologies, software systems, environmental processes, and technical solutions may also represent valuable intellectual assets. 

As the Philippines mining industry evolves, our competitive advantage will increasingly depend not only on who possesses critical minerals, but on who develops the knowledge, systems, and technologies surrounding them. 

The Writ of Kalikasan is a bell in the storm. But not every noise is a fire, and not every fire is visible from the courthouse steps.

That is the difficult wisdom running through two recent Supreme Court decisions: Batan v. MGB and Altai Philippines Mining Corporation, decided on Nov. 4, 2025; and Protect Manicani Island Society (PROMISI) v. DENR and Hinatuan Mining Corporation, decided on Jan. 28, 2026. One case feared the scarring of forests and seas; the other, the slow drowning of protected island ecology in silt, pollution, and unrehabilitated mines. Both involved island communities. Both invoked the country’s most dramatic environmental remedy. Both petitions failed.

It would be easy to misread the cases as a judicial cold shoulder to environmental protection. They are better understood as an attempt to tune the instrument: to make the bell sensitive enough to detect real danger, but precise enough not to ring at every shadow.

The writ was born from the Supreme Court’s 2010 Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. It gave procedural muscle to the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. It may be invoked when an unlawful act or omission causes or threatens environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice life, health, or property in two or more cities or provinces. The petition must be supported by relevant and material evidence, including scientific or expert studies.

That design was both bold and cautious. Bold because it allowed citizens, communities, and public-interest groups to bring large-scale ecological harm directly to the higher courts. Cautious because it did not make every environmental dispute a constitutional emergency.

The need for such a remedy is hardly academic. The Philippines ranked first among 193 states in the 2024 World Risk Index, with a score of 46.9. The World Bank has warned that, without action, climate change could reduce Philippine GDP by as much as 13.6 percent by 2040, with the poorest households hit hardest. These figures are not decorative footnotes. They are the country’s weather forecast in legal form.

But environmental law has always had a timing problem. It is asked to act before harm becomes ruin while still demanding proof before harm becomes obvious. It must hear the crack in the dam before the flood, but not mistake every creak for collapse.

In Batan, the difficulty was geography. The petition involving Sibuyan Island in San Fernando, Romblon, failed to satisfy the rule’s requirement that the harm affect inhabitants in “two or more cities or provinces.” In PROMISI, the Court found the petition lacking in proof. Allegations of ecological harm on Manicani Island in Guiuan, Eastern Samar, could not substitute for substantial evidence showing damage of the required magnitude. Together, the cases expose the writ’s double lock: scale and science.

Both locks serve a purpose. Without scale, courts could be asked to resolve every localized environmental dispute as if it were a national catastrophe. Without science, the writ could become an all-purpose injunction, allowing anxiety to disguise itself as evidence.

Yet locks can also keep out the very people they were built to protect.

The two-city-or-province threshold is sensible on a flat map. The Philippines, however, is not a flat map. It is an archipelago of ecological singularities. A reef, watershed, island forest, or mountain ecosystem may be irreplaceable even if it lies within one province. A wound can be local and still be fatal. A small island can carry a large truth.

This is why Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen’s concurrence in both cases matters. He accepted the outcome under the present rules but proposed an “ecosystem approach”: courts should not measure environmental magnitude only by political boundaries, but also by the gravity of harm to a distinct ecosystem. That insight points the writ toward a more mature future — one that looks beyond the map without abandoning the microscope.

That middle ground is where the hard cases live.

The country cannot pretend that development is a dirty word. The clean-energy transition itself is mineral-hungry. The International Energy Agency projects that, under stated policies, lithium demand could grow fivefold by 2040, while graphite and nickel demand could double. Demand for cobalt and rare earth elements is also expected to rise strongly. The Philippines, meanwhile, is a leading producer of nickel and a significant producer of gold and copper, even if mining remains a relatively small share of GDP.

What Batan and PROMISI invite, then, is not a sermon to one side or a victory lap for another. They invite a common grammar.

Communities should not have to translate lived fear into impossible science before they are heard. But courts cannot decide based on fear alone. Regulators should be accorded technical respect. But expertise cannot be treated as a black box with a government seal.

Permitted enterprises need not be crippled by suspicion or slogans. But they must still bear the weight of scrutiny.

The better path is not more litigation or less litigation. It is better environmental truth.

That means petitions supported by baseline data, hydrology, biodiversity inventories, geohazard analysis, reef surveys, water-quality results, and causal pathways. It also means public access to environmental information that often exists but remains buried in agency files: impact assessments, Environmental Compliance Certificate conditions, monitoring reports, compliance audits, and inspection findings. The courthouse should not be the first place where environmental facts see daylight.

The brilliance of the Writ of Kalikasan was that it understood environmental harm as different from ordinary injury. It can be dispersed, delayed, cumulative, and intergenerational. Its victims may not yet be born. Its proof may arrive like rainwater in a jar: drop by drop, until suddenly the measure is full.

The next stage is to make the writ more intelligent. Keep it extraordinary, because ordinary disputes should not summon constitutional thunder. But do not let extraordinariness become blindness to extraordinary ecosystems. Demand science, but do not make science a dialect spoken only by the powerful. Respect boundaries, but remember that rivers, reefs, sediment, wind, and risk do not stop at provincial borders.

That is the challenging work of calibration. If tuned too loosely, the writ becomes noise. If tuned too tightly, it becomes silence.

And silence, in environmental law, is rarely neutral. Sometimes it is only the sound a forest makes after the last tree has fallen, the sound of a reef after the fish have left, the sound of a promise still beautiful in doctrine but disappearing in the tide — writ, finally, in water.

In the nickel provinces along the Pacific coast, the day begins with a quiet defiance of tradition. Before sunrise, a woman heads to a mine site carved into the laterite hills. By first light, she is already in the field—examining rock faces and collecting samples, reading the earth like a story that may reveal whether the deposit holds promise.

At six in the morning, another woman, helmeted and gloved, leads a toolbox meeting before the first haul truck rolls out. As the sun climbs, a planning engineer traces the contours of the pit, imagining haul roads and benches taking shape in the early light. Farther down the haul road, a heavy equipment operator sets tens of tons of ore in motion.

Each of them is a woman.

Not long ago, that fact would have been remarked upon—perhaps even celebrated. Today, it passes without comment, at least on site. Beyond the perimeter of the mine, however, the numbers tell a different story.

For all its fluency in measurement, mining remains strikingly imprecise about one of its most consequential variables: who, exactly, is allowed to do the measuring.

The global gap that refuses to close

Across the global mining industry, women remain a statistical minority. A 2024 joint report by the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation estimates that women make up just 14–15% of the workforce in large-scale mining operations worldwide—a figure that has barely shifted in over a decade.

There are signs of progress, particularly among the largest corporations. The International Council on Mining and Metals reported in 2024 that its member companies—some of the world’s most influential mining firms—have increased female participation to around 20% of their workforce, alongside public commitments to reach gender parity by 2030. In some operations, women are increasingly visible in roles once considered off-limits, including equipment operators, pit supervisors, and metallurgists.

At the leadership level, the picture is cautiously improving. A 2024 McKinsey & Company analysis found that women now occupy roughly 18–20% of senior leadership roles in major mining firms, with board representation rising to about 25%, up from approximately 15% a decade ago.

However, progress has a geography. It is most visible in boardrooms and corporate headquarters, far removed from the dust and noise of extraction. At the operational core of mining—the pit floor, the underground shaft, and the machine yard—the industry remains overwhelmingly male.

A country shaped by extraction

In the Philippines, the imbalance is both familiar and uniquely consequential.

Mining contributes less than 0.5% of total national employment, accounting for roughly 200,000 direct jobs, according to government labor data. By urban economic standards, that is marginal. But mining does not operate on urban terms.

Its footprint is spatial, not statistical. A single mine can redraw the fiscal and physical map of a municipality—reshaping roads, water systems, and local economies, often within ancestral domains where questions of land, identity, and governance intersect. In such places, mining is not merely an industry. It is an architecture of influence.

And who participates in that architecture matters.

Within Philippine mining operations, women remain underrepresented. According to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Mines and Geosciences Bureau (2024), women account for roughly 10–15% of employees in large-scale mining, concentrated in geology, environmental management, laboratories, compliance, and community relations.

Figures from the Philippines Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (2023) suggest an even narrower participation rate of about 12% overall, with women comprising only 9–11% of the workforce in metallic mining operations.

The metaphor often used for gender barriers—the glass ceiling—feels misplaced here. In mining, the ceiling is sedimentary. It is layered over time, compacted by culture, and resistant to sudden change.

The quiet business case

For decades, gender inclusion in mining was framed as a question of fairness. Increasingly, it is understood as a question of performance.

A growing body of research suggests that gender diversity strengthens governance and operational outcomes in extractive industries. According to UN Women’s 2023 analysis, companies with greater female representation tend to exhibit stronger environmental and social governance performance, particularly in areas such as community engagement and compliance.

The financial case is equally compelling. A 2023 study by White & Case, examining large mining companies globally, found that firms with at least 40% female board representation recorded, on average, a 6% higher return on capital employed than their less diverse counterparts.

In a sector where investment horizons stretch across decades and capital expenditures run into billions, six percentage points is not a rounding error—it is a structural advantage.

Operational metrics tell a similar story. Research by the Responsible Mining Foundation, in collaboration with Harvard Kennedy School (2025), found that gender-diverse mining teams reported 12–15% higher safety compliance rates, along with lower injury incidents and improved employee retention.

In mining, where safety culture can determine not just productivity but survival, those differences are consequential.

The absence of women is not neutral. It carries a cost.

Beneath the numbers: culture and constraint

Part of the explanation lies in the pipeline. For decades, women represented only a small fraction of mining engineers in the Philippines—historical estimates place the figure at around 1.5% of registered professionals, reflecting longstanding barriers in technical education and industry entry.

But pipelines do not explain persistence. Culture does.

A 2022 survey by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy found that 67% of women in mining reported experiencing sexual harassment, 70% reported bullying, and 85% identified gender inequality as a significant barrier to advancement.

Investigations in multiple jurisdictions have uncovered systemic misconduct in remote mining operations, particularly in fly-in, fly-out environments where isolation, hierarchy, and informality can converge into vulnerability. The details vary by site. The pattern does not.

In these environments, the cost of participation is not evenly distributed.

Hyper-masculine work cultures do not merely exclude—they recalibrate ambition, quietly and persistently, often invisibly.

What the women say

In Philippine mine sites, these dynamics are often expressed with restraint rather than protest.

“Some people still ask if I can handle the job,” one engineer said. “But when you’ve done it every day and done it well, performance answers for you.”

A heavy equipment operator offered a different perspective: “People think women are absent more,” she said. “But when you manage the household budget, you know what one day’s pay means. You show up.”

A senior executive pointed to a subtler calculus: “If a man is assertive, he’s seen as decisive. If a woman is assertive, she can be labeled difficult. That double standard—that’s one of the hardest layers to break.” These are not complaints. They are field notes.

Redrawing the silhouette of power

There are, however, signs of change—quiet, but unmistakable.

Geologist Nympha R. Pajarillaga now serves as chief operating officer of Apollo Global Capital, bringing decades of exploration and environmental expertise into executive leadership. Atty. Joan D. Adaci-Cattiling leads OceanaGold Philippines as president and general manager, shaping the direction of one of the country’s most visible mining operations. At Global Ferronickel Holdings Inc., Mary Belle D. Bituin serves as chief finance officer and head of human resources, influencing both fiscal discipline and organizational strategy.

These roles are not ornamental. They alter the lines of authority. Power in mining has always been visible in physical terms—who directs, who decides, who signs. Increasingly, it is being reconfigured in ways that are less immediately apparent but no less significant.

Law as scaffold, culture as structure

The legal framework for gender equality in the Philippines is already in place.

The Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act No. 9710) and the Women in Development and Nation-Building Act (Republic Act No. 7192) establish the state’s obligation to eliminate discrimination and promote equal participation across all sectors, including those historically dominated by men. But legislation alone rarely reshapes institutions.

As researchers such as Heimann and Johansson (2021) argue, meaningful change in mining requires structural redesign: transparent promotion systems, pay equity monitoring, flexible work arrangements, and workplace infrastructure that accommodates a diverse workforce. Inclusion cannot be decorative. It must be engineered.

Some companies have begun that work—retrofitting facilities, expanding cadetship programs, and embedding diversity metrics into governance systems. These are not trivial adjustments; they are foundational shifts. But they remain incomplete.

The coming expansion

Global demand for critical minerals—nickel, cobalt, and copper—is accelerating as economies transition toward renewable energy and electrification. The Philippines, already one of the world’s largest nickel producers, sits at a strategic inflection point.

The question is not whether mining will grow. It is whether that growth will replicate the past—or revise it.

Mining has always prided itself on uncovering what lies beneath the surface. Geologists read landscapes the way historians read archives. Engineers transform hidden deposits into tangible value. Investors speak, with practiced ease, of unlocking potential.

But the industry’s most underutilized reserve is not geological. It is human. It is present in the laboratory before sunrise, in the safety briefing before the shift begins, in the compliance office where permits are negotiated, in the boardroom where strategy is set, and in the cab of a truck waiting at the edge of the pit.

Women are not waiting to be included in mining’s future. They are already shaping it.

As the Philippines continues to pursue economic growth through the development of its natural resources, the relevance of laws, policies, and regulatory institutions has never been more critical.

The 2025 Geological Convention (GeoCon 2025), held in celebration of the Geological Society of the Philippines’ 80th Oak Jubilee, brought together geoscientists, policymakers, and industry practitioners to reflect on this challenge under the theme “Forged by Time, Strengthened by Integrity, Driven by Professionalism.”

The convention underscored a pressing national question: how well do existing legal and policy frameworks respond to evolving industry practices, societal expectations, and sustainability goals?

This article draws from the context of GeoCon 2025 and my plenary discourse on 02 December 2025 focusing on the continuing relevance of laws and policies in natural resource development, examining the need for stronger governance, updated regulatory frameworks, and deeper stakeholder collaboration to ensure responsible and equitable resource management in the Philippines.

Collectively, these policy instruments serve as the foundation for a resilient, low-carbon, and technologically adaptive economy aligned with international sustainability commitments.

Critical Minerals

The Philippines is positioned to play a major role in the global clean energy transition due to its large deposits of nickel, copper, cobalt, and other strategic minerals. These materials are essential for manufacturing electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines, solar technologies, and energy storage systems.

However, the country currently captures only a small portion of the value chain, as most minerals are exported in low-value form. To shift toward value-added processing, the government must establish stable fiscal terms, investor certainty, and a clear industrial strategy that supports mineral processing, refining, and associated manufacturing.

This strategy also depends on energy affordability and infrastructure readiness. Processing plants require continuous, cost-effective, and preferably low-carbon electricity, which aligns mineral development with national decarbonization goals. In parallel, mining operations must uphold strict environmental safeguards, including responsible tailings management, watershed protection, progressive rehabilitation, and transparent monitoring systems.

Market rules should strike a balance between allowing mineral exports and encouraging domestic processing. A milestones-based export policy can help—letting new mines export early to recover costs and generate cashflow, while gradually shifting toward local value-added processing as capabilities develop.

At the same time, requiring transparent and fair off-take agreements ensures that pricing and supply arrangements are clear, competitive, and aligned with national development goals.

Petroleum Exploration (Natural Gas)

Natural gas remains a critical element of the Philippines’ power generation mix, providing stability, flexibility, and reliability as the share of intermittent renewable energy increases.

However, the Malampaya field is entering maturity, and without new discoveries or efficient management, the country may face supply shortages and volatility in electricity prices. To avoid this, policies must encourage exploration in frontier basins, provide predictable contract terms, and reduce regulatory risks that slow project development.

At the same time, the Philippines is expanding LNG import capability to supplement domestic gas. To manage this dual-source system effectively, government must clearly define quality standards, interconnection rules, tariff structures, and coordination mechanisms among gas suppliers, pipelines, power plants, and storage facilities. This prevents operational bottlenecks and ensures that both domestic and imported gas can be dispatched efficiently and competitively.

Strengthening midstream access rules—particularly for pipeline connections and terminal capacity—will reduce commercialization risk for new gas discoveries. Combined with transparent market operations and coherent energy planning, these reforms preserve reliability while supporting the gradual transition toward a cleaner power generation mix.

Renewable Energy

The Philippines has high potential for solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal, but slow permitting, unclear land access, and transmission bottlenecks continue to delay project development. A one-stop, time-bound permitting system can greatly reduce administrative burden while maintaining environmental and social safeguards. Clear land acquisition and zoning rules are critical, especially for large-scale solar and onshore/offshore wind developments.

Geothermal energy offers continuous, baseload renewable power, which is especially valuable in balancing variable solar and wind generation. However, exploration and drilling are expensive and risky. Government-backed risk mitigation measures—such as drilling insurance, cost-sharing funds, or exploration guarantees—would encourage increased private participation and accelerate geothermal expansion.

Renewable energy growth also presents opportunities to build domestic industries, including manufacturing components, assembly of battery systems, and clean-energy-powered mineral processing. Tying renewable deployment to local supply-chain development ensures that job creation and economic value remain in the Philippines, not solely in imported equipment or foreign-operated generation assets.

Nuclear Energy

As the Philippines seeks long-term grid stability and low-carbon baseload power, nuclear energy is being considered as part of the future energy mix. However, this requires careful and comprehensive regulatory preparation. The Philippine nuclear regulatory authority must finalize licensing standards for both large reactors and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), define inspection and safety protocols, and adopt international best practices on operational transparency and personnel qualification.

Nuclear development also requires public trust and robust emergency planning. This includes transparent siting studies, seismic and coastal safety assessments, evacuation and medical response planning, and ongoing community engagement. Additionally, clear long-term strategies for spent fuel storage, eventual decommissioning, and financial liability are crucial to ensure intergenerational safety and accountability.

To make early nuclear projects economically viable, government may need to establish long-term power purchase frameworks, capacity market recognition, and risk-sharing mechanisms with the private sector. Simultaneously, the national grid must be reinforced to integrate nuclear facilities and ensure system reliability.

Hydrogen

Hydrogen has the potential to support industrial decarbonization, long-duration storage, and clean transport, but the market is still emerging and requires policy support. To move from feasibility studies to pilot projects, the government should implement targeted incentives such as tax credits, preferential financing, and demand-side programs in refineries, industrial facilities, and bus or truck fleets.

A national Hydrogen Code must define standards for safety, blending with natural gas, pipeline transport, storage, fueling stations, and worker training. Establishing a Guarantee of Origin (GO) certification ensures hydrogen can enter international supply chains, especially where buyers require proof of low carbon emissions.

Native hydrogen development requires a clear resource governance framework that defines legal ownership, tenure terms, exploration work obligations, data reporting, and environmental safeguards.

Building on the early awards in Zambales and Pangasinan, regulations should ensure transparent exploration results and responsible operational practices. At the same time, a structured pilot-to-commercial pathway is needed—establishing safety protocols, community engagement requirements, and decommissioning plans for pilot sites, with a streamlined process for scaling up to commercial production if technical and environmental performance thresholds are met.

Artificial Intelligence, Data Privacy & Digital Governance

Open and standardized geoscience data can significantly reduce exploration risk and accelerate the identification of new mineral and energy prospects. By adopting an open-file data-sharing system, the government can ensure that geological maps, drill results, and resource assessments become accessible after reasonable confidentiality periods.

However, this openness must be paired with clear privacy and sovereignty safeguards, ensuring that sensitive information is handled responsibly and used to support—not undermine—local and national interests.

A modern exploration data governance framework should require companies to submit exploration results in structured, digital formats that can be quickly integrated into national geoscience databases. This allows new information to immediately improve the understanding of an area’s resource potential, supporting transparent decision-making for future exploration licenses and contract awards.

Such a system helps attract credible investors, reduces duplication of effort, and promotes more efficient, evidence-based resource development.

Data governance for digitalized operations should ensure that information generated from sensors, monitoring systems, and predictive maintenance tools is handled in line with national privacy regulations and emerging AI oversight frameworks. This means energy and resource companies must adopt secure data-handling practices, maintain clear audit trails, safeguard operational and customer information, and ensure that automated systems support—not replace—responsible human decision-making.

Grid Connection and Transmission

Many planned renewable and clean energy projects cannot proceed because transmission lines are insufficient or delayed. To unlock investment, grid expansion must be planned ahead of energy development, not after. This includes new transmission corridors, substation upgrades, and inter-island connectivity.

The grid must also be modernized to handle more variable renewable power, energy storage systems, hydrogen-to-power facilities, and eventually nuclear plants. Updating grid codes, reserve market rules, and system flexibility arrangements will enable a stable, resilient, and future-ready power system.

Geoscience Profession Action Points

The geoscience profession plays a pivotal role in the Philippines’ modernized energy and resources framework by ensuring that exploration, extraction, and resource management are grounded in scientific integrity and sustainability.

Geoscientists lead in mapping, evaluating, and managing critical minerals such as nickel, copper, and rare earth elements under the Enhanced Fiscal Regime for Mining, while also advancing subsurface studies for renewable, geothermal, and hydrogen energy development. Their technical expertise supports environmentally responsible extraction and provides a foundation for data-driven investment and policy decisions.

Beyond exploration, geoscientists are increasingly involved in advisory and regulatory roles—helping shape standards for environmental protection, carbon accounting, and geological safety.

By combining technical capability with governance and ethical responsibility, the geoscience profession strengthens national energy transition efforts, ensuring resource development that is sustainable, transparent, and beneficial for communities and investors alike.

Conclusion

The Philippines’ evolving energy and resources landscape demonstrates a powerful convergence of policy modernization, technological innovation, and sustainability-driven governance.

With forward-looking reforms spanning critical minerals, renewable energy, nuclear development, hydrogen, and digital transformation, the nation is laying a solid foundation for long-term energy security and economic competitiveness.

These efforts are not merely reactive responses to global trends—they represent a proactive commitment to reimagining national development through cleaner, more resilient, and inclusive systems of energy and resource management.

Ultimately, success will hinge on effective implementation, consistent regulatory clarity, and the meaningful integration of science, policy, and industry expertise.

By fostering collaboration among geoscientists, engineers, policymakers, and investors, the Philippines can ensure that each reform translates into real progress—empowering communities, preserving ecosystems, and reinforcing the country’s position as a regional model for sustainable energy governance.

Days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court did something deceptively old-fashioned: it reminded a president that tariffs are not a vibe, not a threat, not a negotiating posture — but a tax, and taxes belong to Congress.

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (decided Feb. 20, 2026), the Court held 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Chief Justice’s opinion opens with the Constitution’s blunt allocation of power: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The government, the Court noted, conceded the President has no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs, so everything depended on whether IEEPA’s phrase authorizing the President to “regulate … importation” could bear the weight of a worldwide import tax. 

It could not. The Chief Justice described the administration’s theory as resting on “two words separated by 16 others” — “regulate” and “importation” — to claim “independent power to impose tariffs” of essentially unlimited reach. That is not interpretation so much as alchemy. And because tariffs are an instrument with “major” economic and political consequences, the Court insisted on what it called “clear congressional authorization” before the Executive may claim such a power. 

That doctrinal move matters for the world beyond the courthouse. A tariff is not merely a cost; it is a signal that reorders investment and logistics. When the United States can impose a near-universal duty by emergency proclamation, every export-dependent country is forced to price in presidential volatility. When the Court narrows that pathway, it does not end uncertainty — but it changes its shape. 

The first proof came immediately. After the decision, President Trump moved to a new legal hook: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits a temporary import surcharge (up to 15%) for a limited period without prior congressional approval. Reuters reports the administration is also pointing toward other trade tools (like Section 301 investigations) that can still generate significant duties, though with more procedure and predicates. In short: the ruling weakens the President’s ability to impose instant, global tariffs under IEEPA — but it does not abolish the tariff state. It forces the White House to use narrower statutes, take more steps, and accept more legal vulnerability. 

What about tariffs “imposed on other countries”? If those duties were justified solely under IEEPA, the Court’s holding means they lack statutory authority and cannot be sustained on that basis. But a critical caveat is that many U.S. tariffs can be re-anchored to other laws — and the dissent itself practically supplied the roadmap. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. His argument is a study in executive pragmatism: if IEEPA allows the President to impose quotas or embargoes — even to block imports altogether — why would it forbid the “lesser” tool of tariffs, which merely condition importation on payment? Kavanaugh also criticized the majority’s reliance (in part) on the “major questions” canon and warned that, in foreign-affairs cases, courts should not apply that doctrine as “a thumb on the scale against the President.” Yet even he acknowledged the practical reality that “numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs,” including Section 232 and Sections 122, 201, and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The dissent’s bottom line is revealing: today’s decision is wrong, but the tariff machine can keep running — it will just run on different tracks. 

Now place Manila in that picture.

The Philippines is not a spectator to American tariff drama; it is one of the countries that absorbs its tremors. The U.S. is a major trading partner, and Philippine exporters — especially in electronics and related supply chains — are exquisitely sensitive to across-the-board U.S. duties that act like a tax on access. For an economy where trade in goods and services is roughly two-thirds of GDP by World Bank measures, tariff uncertainty is macroeconomic uncertainty. A “temporary” U.S. surcharge can become permanent in business planning, because factories and contracts do not turn on judicial syllabi. 

Here is the comparative twist: the Philippine Constitution anticipated this problem more cleanly than the American statute fight did. Article VI, Section 28(2) expressly allows Congress to authorize the President, “within specified limits” and “subject to … limitations and restrictions,” to fix tariff rates and related imposts. Delegation is not smuggled in through an emergency law; it is written in the constitutional design. 

And the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (R.A. 10863) operationalizes that design with guardrails. Its “Flexible Clause” (Section 1608) empowers the President — upon recommendation and subject to stated limits — to increase, reduce, or remove existing import duty rates, and even impose an additional duty (not exceeding 10% ad valorem) when necessary, among other measures. It also makes the delegation politically reversible: the power may be withdrawn or terminated by Congress through a joint resolution. That is what “agility with accountability” looks like in statutory form. 

So the Supreme Court’s lesson is not simply “Trump lost.” It is that tariff power, when exercised at scale, is governance at its most invasive: it reaches straight into prices, jobs, and the cost of living — “access to the pockets of the people,” as the Court quotes Madison. In the United States, the Court has now insisted that Congress must clearly hand over that key before the President may use it. In the Philippines, Congress already can hand it over — but only with limits, procedures, and the ever-present possibility of taking it back. 

The deeper point is democratic ownership. When tariffs become a president’s improvisational instrument — raised, lowered, announced, threatened, relabeled — trade partners learn to treat policy like weather. The Court’s decision tries, in its own lawyerly way, to make trade policy political again: debated, enacted, and answerable. 

In an era when a “national emergency” can be declared as easily as a press conference, that is not judicial fussiness. It is constitutional hygiene. 

Noel B. Lazaro is general counsel of Global Ferronickel Holdings, Inc., a two-time Asian Legal Business In-House Counsel of the Year finalist, and a Top Tier In-House Counsel awardee of the In-House Community. He is also a law professor and columnist.

By Noel B. Lazaro and Reeno E. Febrero

There are moments in geopolitics when the choreography matters less than the quiet exchanges behind it. In late October in Busan, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping staged one of those scenes: a handshake, a photo-op, and a declaration that the rare-earths dispute was “settled.” In reality, the settlement was transactional. Washington agreed to ease a tranche of tariffs and reopen the door to large U.S. soybean shipments to China, while Beijing pledged a one-year pause on its threatened export restrictions on rare-earth minerals and magnets to the United States. Markets exhaled. Analysts sifted through tone and subtext. But the real story—the underlying logic of power at play—remained unchanged. The agreement did not reorder the world; it merely clarified the minerals that now anchor it.

For a century, great-power politics pivoted on barrels of oil. Then, at the height of the digital boom, it seemed the future would be written in bytes. But the energy transition—and the militarization of supply chains—have rearranged the hierarchy. The building blocks of modern life are no longer fossil fuels or data streams but the atoms embedded in things: lithium in batteries, cobalt in electronics, neodymium in magnets, gallium in chips. The periodic table has become a map of twenty-first-century geopolitical anxiety.

The world according to minerals

Rare earth elements—17 metals with names that sound like they belong to speculative fiction—are geologically abundant but industrially elusive. They rarely occur in high concentrations, and separating them from ore requires complex, hazardous processing. This is why the world’s dependence on China is not an accident but the result of decades of strategic investment.

Today, China mines about 70 percent of global rare earths, refines over 90 percent, and manufactures nearly all high-performance magnets, the essential cores of electric vehicles, wind turbines, and precision-guided weapons. In 2024, it exported 58,000 tonnes of magnets—a volume not just of trade but of leverage.

Even when Beijing loosened export licenses earlier this year, it did so after demonstrating a simple lesson: it can constrict supply at will. Goldman Sachs estimates that diversifying refining capacity will require a decade of massive capital outlay, assuming geopolitical conditions remain stable—which they will not.

The Busan announcement, then, was a strategic feint. A temporary pause is not a policy shift; it is a warning shot. Scholars call this “deterrence by demonstration”: wield the weapon once, then sheath it. The world will remember who holds the handle.

The global scramble to escape gravity

In Washington, the truce buys time for the Pentagon’s magnet stockpile and for chipmakers to secure alternative sources. In Brussels, it reinforces the urgency behind the EU Critical Raw Materials Act, which limits reliance on any single supplier to 65 percent. Canada has launched a Critical Minerals Alliance. Japan quietly expanded its Strategic Metals Reserve. The G7 is building buffers, offtake contracts, and recycling mandates.

Yet progress is uneven. According to the International Energy Agency, global demand for critical minerals will triple by 2040; demand for rare earths used in EV motors could grow sevenfold. But outside China, refining capacity is thin, fragmented, and vulnerable to political risk. The United States may have copper, but it lacks separation plants. Australia excels at mining but not processing. Europe has technology but few deposits.

“Security of supply,” once a term of art, has become the central preoccupation of ministries and militaries.

A Philippine story hiding in plain sight

The Philippines is rarely mentioned in rare-earths analyses—yet it should be. The archipelago sits atop one of the world’s richest mineral belts, including nickel, cobalt, and copper, the backbone metals of the energy transition. Geological surveys have also identified rare earth occurrences in Palawan and Nueva Vizcaya, comparable in concentration to deposits in China and the United States.

In 2024, the country produced ₱94 billion in nickel despite global price softness. But the economic story is incomplete. The Philippines exports raw ore—low value, high volume. The higher-order value, the conversion of ore into materials and components, continues to accrue to other economies. Only two hydrometallurgical processing plants operate nationwide—Taganito and Coral Bay—with a third planned in Leyte.

The result is a familiar trap: a resource-rich nation earning the smallest share of value.

A sector meeting its inflection point

In September 2025, a Philippine Mining Club luncheon on “green mining technologies” set the tone. There, Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Undersecretary Sancho A. Mabborang underscored that under the Harmonized National R&D Agenda 2022–2028, DOST has earmarked about ₱300 million for a critical minerals R&D roadmap for 2026–2028, with the long-term goal of positioning the Philippines as a hub for critical minerals and green technology applications, especially for electric vehicles.

A month after, at the Mining Philippines 2025 conference in Taguig, the conversation widened from laboratories to innovation. Speaking at a plenary session, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Undersecretary Carlos Primo David explained that new regulations and the auctioning of idle mineral assets aim to lift mining’s share of GDP from about 0.5 percent to roughly 2 percent and revive long-stalled tenements.

By November 21, at the StratBase ADR Institute’s Pilipinas Conference in Makati, the agenda had become explicitly strategic. DENR Secretary Raphael Lotilla announced that the agency is finalizing an executive order to establish a national framework for developing a critical minerals industry, stressing that “the goal is not simply to mine more, but to mine better, process smarter, and govern with integrity” so that the Philippines becomes a reliable contributor to the clean-energy transition.

In substance, that framework rests on three pillars: responsible exploration and extraction aligned with modern ESG standards; downstream processing and circular value chains that reduce dependence on ore exports; and domestic manufacturing that links minerals to industries—batteries, electronics, renewable energy, and defense. Lotilla has also signaled that environmental safeguards will be modernized to keep pace with innovation, climate realities, and market demand, a quiet rebuke to past eras when rules were either weakened or ignored.

Laws are evolving, but the challenge is coherence

Legal reforms point in the right direction. The Philippine Mining Fiscal Regime secures a fairer return for the State, the Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises to Maximize Opportunities for Reinvigorating the Economy (CREATE MORE) Act directs incentives toward value-added processing, and the amended Investors’ Lease Act lengthens leases for foreign investors to support more sustained investment.

But these instruments need to hold together. Policy remains siloed. Agencies pull in different directions. The DENR cannot build a critical-minerals industry without synchronized work from the Departments of Trade, Science and Technology, Energy, Foreign Affairs, and, increasingly, Defense.

The reality is stark: China’s advantage is not mineral abundance but metallurgical mastery. If the Philippines desires a place in the global value chain, it must build capacity not just to extract but to transform.

ASEAN’s moment—and a door for the Philippines

The geopolitics of minerals is shifting toward Southeast Asia. ASEAN produces nearly half the world’s nickel and over a third of its tin. Indonesia has used export bans to force domestic processing, with significant success. Vietnam is entering the magnet industry. Malaysia and Thailand house advanced electronics clusters. The region is becoming a manufacturing basin searching for secure inputs.

The Philippines could be the bridge: a mining powerhouse on the supply side, linked geographically and economically to manufacturing hubs.

The U.S.-led Minerals Security Partnership is looking for “second-source” jurisdictions—reliable alternatives to China. Regional manufacturers—from Japan to South Korea—seek diversified supply chains anchored in ESG compliance.

Recognizing the fluidity of global supply chains, the StratBase ADR Institute observes that Manila could strengthen its position by securing a long-term commitment from Washington, ensuring relevance within the U.S.-led critical-minerals network.

But they will only invest where institutions are predictable.

Material power in a fragile age

The deeper lesson of the Busan truce is that geopolitical rivalry is now embedded in the stuff of things. Nations that control the minerals and manufacturing of the energy transition will shape the century that follows.

But the world also faces a paradox: the clean-energy future requires extracting more minerals, not fewer. Each electric vehicle needs six times more mineral input than a combustion car; each offshore wind turbine needs nine times more rare earths than its fossil-fuel equivalents. The green transition is, in this sense, a mining story.

This raises a fundamental question for resource-rich democracies like the Philippines: will we remain exporters of the past or architects of the future?

To choose the latter will require industrial policy, environmental credibility, social legitimacy, and geopolitical clarity—an alignment of institutions rarely attempted, let alone sustained.

The rarest resource of all

When Trump and Xi posed for cameras in Busan, it was easy to imagine a world on pause. But the clock did not stop. Demand for critical minerals continues to rise. Refining bottlenecks grow sharper. The energy transition accelerates, even as geopolitical tension thickens.

Beneath our feet lie minerals that could define—not merely enrich—the country. They will not wait for us to decide.

In a century shaped by materials more strategic than oil and more enduring than currency, foresight is the rarest resource of all.

---

Noel B. Lazaro and Reeno E. Febrero serve with Global Ferronickel Holdings, Inc. They were recognized at the 2025 Asian Legal Business Philippine Law Awards as finalist for In-House Counsel of the Year and winner of Young In-House Counsel of the Year, respectively. They teach law and write opinion columns.

The Philippines has long been known as one of the world’s most mineralized countries, but continues to grapple with unlocking its full mining potential. For decades, red tape, policy uncertainty, and public distrust have kept investors away, even as the country sat atop the proverbial pot of gold.  

However, this year’s leap in the 2024 Fraser Institute’s Investment Attractiveness Index, from 72nd to 16th place among 82 countries, tells a new story: the Philippines is finally reclaiming its place in the global mining map. 

This turnaround did not happen by chance. It is the result of deliberate policy reforms, sustained regulatory improvement, and a changing mindset within both government and industry.  

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) have, over the past few years, pursued a vision that balances growth with governance, an approach long overdue in a sector often viewed with suspicion. 

According to the Fraser Institute’s 2024 Annual Survey of Mining Companies, the Philippines’ score nearly doubled: from 36.89 in 2023 to 77.11 in 2024. This surge reflects two critical shifts: a stronger geological attractiveness ranking, now 9th globally, and a dramatic improvement in policy perception, from 79th to 25th. Simply put, the country’s potential is finally matched by a more predictable and transparent policy environment. 

 

This progress may be traced to the reforms initiated by former DENR Secretary Maria Antonia Yulo Loyzaga, including streamlined permitting and digital transparency measures, and which are being continued by the current Secretary, Raphael Lotilla. While the aforementioned reforms are largely procedural, they nevertheless translate into predictability and clarity which investors value. 

The numbers tell their own story. In 2024 alone, the mining sector generated ₱253 billion in production value, contributed ₱33 billion in taxes and royalties, and provided nearly 292,000 direct jobs.  

Beyond economics, companies invested billions more in environmental protection, community development, and rehabilitation efforts, proof that responsible mining, once dismissed as an oxymoron, can indeed take root. 

Other signs point to a resurgence in the mining industry.  Aside from the sharp improvement in investment-attractiveness rankings, regulatory, fiscal, and policy reforms have likewise contributed to investor confidence.   

The recent passage of the Enhanced Fiscal Regime for Large-Scale Metallic Mining Act (Republic Act 12253) introduces tiered royalty rates, windfall profit taxes, project-based ring-fencing, and other provisions that aim for fairness, environmental protection, and better revenue sharing.  

Another factor is the rise in production values and asset valuation. Metallic mineral output value has increased mainly due to the “re-entry of projects” [following the lifting of the ban on new mineral agreements in 2021 via Executive Order 130, which allows for new mining projects to proceed]  and strong commodity prices.  The total value of mineral assets rose by 4.6% in 2024 (from ₱460.16 billion in 2023 to ₱481.45 billion) based on Philippine Statistics Authority data.  

The increased global demand, especially for nickel, copper and other “critical minerals,” both from foreign investors and governments (e.g. U.S., China, EU) looking to secure supply chains for technologies like EV batteries, is also a major factor in the renewed attractiveness of the Philippine mining industry.  Since much of the Philippines’ mineral wealth lies untapped, there is a wealth of opportunity for the next wave of responsible mining investment. 

But not everything is rosy. Despite these positive outlook, many challenges remain.  Regulatory enforcement, infrastructure gaps, and inter-agency coordination still need work. Reforms must therefore be sustained to turn optimism into long-term confidence.  

 

The Philippines has the potential to become a leading supplier of critical minerals which are essential for the world’s shift to clean energy, but the government and private sector must continue working together. 

The message from the Fraser Index is clear: investors are noticing. The Philippines is no longer seen as a high-risk frontier but as a credible, emerging hub for mineral development in the Asia-Pacific.   

This is a far cry from 2017-2021 when the Philippines ranked much lower in the Policy Perception Index (PPI), often among the bottom 10 jurisdictions. For example, in the 2021 survey, the Philippines was listed among the worst jurisdictions in the PPI. 

Beyond rankings and reports lies a deeper question: what kind of mining future do we want? A future where resources uplift communities and where the wealth beneath our soil powers not just global supply chains but, more importantly, local progress. If the government can sustain reform and accountability, this renaissance will not just be statistical: it will be structural and sustainable. 

The Philippines has taken a major step forward in mining: the real test is to remain sure-footed in sustaining that momentum. 

Over the past decade and a half, the Philippine mining industry has experienced a dynamic and often turbulent journey shaped by evolving government policies, environmental activism, shifts in global commodity markets, and new technological and economic priorities.  

From 2010 to 2025, the sector has witnessed sweeping regulatory reforms, the rise and fall of major mining projects, highly publicized environmental controversies, and a renewed focus on mining’s role in the green energy transition.  

Your Philippine Resources Journal has witnessed and chronicled these events over the last 15 years, and as we celebrate our anniversary in this issue, this narrative hopes to unpack the key events, policies, and trends that have defined the PH mining landscape during this pivotal period. 

Early 2010s: Industry Ambitions and Rising Tension 

The start of the 2010s saw heightened optimism within the Philippine mining sector. Policymakers promoted mining as a pillar of national industrialization, encouraging value chain development and community-based mining initiatives. The spotlight fell on projects like Xstrata’s Tampakan copper-gold development, which promised to catapult the country into the ranks of leading mineral exporters.  

However, these ambitions quickly ran into strong headwinds. Environmental groups and local communities intensified their campaigns against large-scale mining, culminating in South Cotabato’s enforcement of a provincial open-pit mining ban in 2011, which effectively stalled the high-profile Tampakan project (now under Sagittarius Mines Inc. or SMI). 

National debates over mining’s true social and environmental costs gained traction, with the Senate holding hearings and grassroots campaigns like “No to Mining in Palawan” galvanizing public opinion. 

2012–2015: Regulatory Shift and Industry Slowdown 

In 2012, President Benigno Aquino III issued Executive Order 79 (EO 79), a landmark policy that imposed a moratorium on new mining agreements while calling for stricter environmental regulations and the rationalization of the sector.  

EO 79 signaled a major policy pivot, prioritizing responsible mining practices and environmental safeguards over unfettered industry expansion. The moratorium brought new investments to a halt, and by 2013, the industry’s contribution to GDP had declined, with mining companies facing mounting criticism for pollution, deforestation, and community displacement. 

Despite these headwinds, the sector maintained a degree of resilience. By 2014, metallic mineral production reached ₱138.6 billion, with nickel emerging as the country’s leading export mineral. The mining industry paid ₱21.4 billion in taxes that year and began expanding environmental and social development programs in response to growing scrutiny.  

In 2015, investments rebounded to nearly US$1 billion, and operations at Didipio (under OceanaGold), Toledo (Carmen Copper), and Coral Bay (Rio Tuba) highlighted the sector’s ongoing economic relevance.  

The Philippines also became a candidate member of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), reflecting a new emphasis on accountability and global best practices. 

2016–2017: The Gina Lopez Era and Heightened Environmental Scrutiny 

A dramatic turning point arrived with the appointment of Gina Lopez as Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) under the Duterte administration in 2016.  

Lopez launched an unprecedented nationwide audit of mining operations, prioritizing ecological integrity and community welfare above industry profitability. Dozens of mines were suspended or ordered closed for failing environmental standards, and a national ban on open-pit mining was imposed.  

The reforms, while applauded by environmentalists and many local communities, sowed uncertainty throughout the industry and triggered a wave of legal and political challenges. By 2017, Lopez’s tenure had resulted in the suspension of five major operations and the closure of 23 others.  

While the value of metallic production remained stable due to global price increases, the industry grappled with regulatory unpredictability and the prospect of further interventions. The DENR also mandated full EITI participation, reinforcing the administration’s commitment to transparency. 

However, Lopez lasted only one year in the post -- and died in 2019 from brain cancer. She was succeeded at the DENR by former military general Roy Cimatu, who continued the Duterte government’s holding pattern on mining. 

2018–2020: Recovery, ESG Emphasis, and Pandemic Disruption 

With Lopez’s departure, the regulatory climate gradually stabilized. Year 2018 saw a rebound in mining production, as the sector deepened its commitments to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards in response to both domestic activism and international investor expectations. However, opposition to large-scale mining remained potent, with ongoing protests and calls for stricter oversight. 

By 2019, the moratorium from EO 79 was still in effect, and exploration budgets stayed low. Major projects like Tampakan and Silangan (under Philex) continued to languish in regulatory limbo. The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 dealt another blow, disrupting operations and supply chains. 

Nevertheless, mining still contributed ₱102.3 billion to the national GDP, with nickel maintaining its status as the top export mineral. Notably, Social Development and Management Program (SDMP) funds were redirected to support pandemic relief efforts in mining communities. 

2021–2023: Policy Reversal and New Growth Drivers 

A watershed moment came in 2021, when Executive Order 130 (EO 130) lifted the nine-year moratorium on new mineral agreements, signaling a more investment-friendly posture while retaining environmental safeguards.  

This policy reversal was driven in part by the growing global demand for so-called “green metals” such as nickel and copper, essential for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy technologies. Gold and nickel production surged, and the industry began to recover from years of stagnation. 

In 2022, the government lifted the open-pit mining ban, further encouraging investment. The DENR promoted exploration for critical minerals, and exports soared to US$7.53 billion.  

By 2023, the value of metallic production reached ₱249.7 billion, with 59 operating metallic mines and a strong focus on ESG. The DENR committed ₱387.95 billion to environmental programs, reflecting the sector’s newfound emphasis on sustainability and social responsibility. 

2024–2025: Mining’s Strategic Role in Green Transition 

As President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took office, mining was explicitly prioritized as a key component of economic recovery and the national energy transition. Policymakers emphasized downstream mineral processing, seeking to capture greater value domestically rather than exporting raw ore. 

The Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) under the DENR projected a strong outlook for the sector, buoyed by international demand for minerals critical to decarbonization. By 2025, mining was recognized as essential to the Philippines’ green technology ambitions. Nickel demand soared in response to the global EV boom, and draft fiscal reforms proposed tiered royalty schemes to balance government revenue with investor appeal.  

The long-stalled Tampakan copper project was once again under consideration for launch in 2026, symbolizing the sector’s renewed confidence and strategic importance in a rapidly changing world. 

Key Trends and Lessons Learned 

Throughout this period, several overarching trends defined the local mining sector. Policy volatility—marked by alternating waves of restriction and liberalization—had profound impacts on investor sentiment and project viability.  

Environmental scrutiny intensified, with audits, suspensions, and ESG compliance becoming central to mining operations, especially from 2016 onward. The industry’s role in the global green transition brought renewed focus on nickel and copper, transforming them into strategic assets. 

Finally, post-2021 reforms and global market dynamics triggered a revival in investment and exploration, as the Philippines positioned itself to supply critical minerals for a decarbonizing world. 

The trajectory of the PH mining industry over the last 15 years illustrates a complex interplay between resource development, environmental stewardship, social accountability, and economic opportunity.  

As the sector looks ahead, its continued evolution will depend on the delicate balancing of these priorities in the face of both domestic challenges and global shifts – and your Philippine Resources Journal will be here, ready to chronicle these changes. 

In the intensifying global race for critical minerals—crucial components in electric vehicles (EVs), renewable energy (RE) technologies, advanced electronics, and other strategic industries—the Philippines stands at a pivotal juncture in this global energy transition. With abundant reserves of nickel, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements, the country holds in its soil the keys to the 21st-century economy. Yet, without a strategic critical minerals policy, it risks squandering this opportunity, remaining a mere supplier of raw materials rather than ascending the value chain.

A mineral is considered ‘critical’ if it is vital to a country’s strategically important economic sectors. Many governments have clear lists and strategies to safeguard these resources. An alternative to the term ‘critical minerals’ is ‘transitional minerals’ which may be strategic minerals, but not critical in terms of security and the economy. Unfortunately, the Philippines has to define which minerals are considered critical or transitional, let alone a policy that would protect its own resources and ensure a stable and sustainable supply of those minerals.

Nations worldwide are aggressively securing their critical mineral supply chains. A 2025 White & Case survey shows that geopolitics and economic interests—more than climate concerns—is the driving force shaping mining and metals. For instance, China’s state-backed financial institutions have poured over $57 billion in the past two decades into resource-rich countries to tighten Beijing’s grip on critical minerals. Key examples include copper and cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Peru, nickel from Indonesia, and lithium from Argentina. It now controls roughly 61% of rare earth production and more than 90% of processing capacity, according to the International Energy Agency—power that Beijing has wielded to squeeze its rivals, imposing export controls on a range of critical rare earth minerals, rattling its rival the United States.

Washington has scrambled to respond, imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs and batteries, solar panels, semiconductors, and other products. It has also diversified its supply chains by forging deals far and wide—from securing a mineral deal in war-battered Ukraine to even exploring the purchase of Greenland, to brokering a peace deal between Rwanda and the DRC that could unlock lucrative mineral access to some of the world’s richest deposits of rare earths.

To diversify away from reliance on China and Russia, Canada and Germany signed an accord to deepen cooperation in securing critical mineral supply chains, increase collaboration on research and development, and co-fund new critical mineral projects that support a range of industries—from electric vehicle manufacturing to defense and aerospace.

Other nations are also acting decisively. The European Union’s Critical Raw Materials Act aims to shore up supply chains. In 2024, the EU signed a major agreement with Australia—home to some of the planet’s recoverable critical mineral deposits—to build sustainable and ethical critical mineral supply chains. Australia’s Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive sweetens the deal for investors with generous tax incentives for domestic processing.

Meanwhile, Canada has committed $3.8 billion to its Critical Minerals Strategy, emphasizing sustainability and Indigenous partnerships. The United Kingdom’s own strategy intends to position itself at the forefront of the green industrial revolution, while Brazil’s National Strategic Pro-Minerals Policy has helped it become one of the top lithium exporters. Closer to home, Malaysia even rolled out its National Advanced Materials Technology Roadmap 2021-2030 emphasizing the need to expand the downstream rare earth industry with the goal of creating a new source of wealth.

The Philippines, with its vast mineral wealth, is well-positioned to become a key player in this global landscape. Recent talks about joining the U.S.-Japan critical minerals agreement shows a clear willingness to engage more strategically. A free trade agreement with Canada focusing on critical minerals is in the works, and just this May, the Philippines signed a strategic pact with South Korea on critical minerals and EV development. And then, the EU, in partnership with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), has announced the conduct of a scoping study to identify potential sources of critical raw materials in the Philippines. The study aims to establish a “normative framework” that integrates the best practices of both the Philippines and the EU in promoting sustainable mining and attracting European investment.

However, to truly capitalize on its resources, the Philippines must develop a comprehensive critical minerals policy that addresses supply reliability and resiliency, sustainable and responsible practices, favorable investment climate, and stable regulatory environment.

Indonesia offers a lesson the Philippines cannot afford to ignore. Jakarta’s massive nickel production caused global nickel prices to plummet. For the Philippines, that should be a cautionary tale—highlighting the need to employ price stability mechanisms when striking future trade and investment deals.

If the Philippines wants to entice serious mineral processing investors, it must do more than showcase its mineral wealth—it must build the physical and regulatory infrastructure to move projects from vision to reality. The government has already proven it can cut red tape with the Energy Virtual One-Stop Shop (EVOSS) for energy projects. A similar mechanism could clear the bottlenecks that have long frustrated investors and stalled development.

Beyond economics, critical minerals have become a matter of geopolitics. The U.S., the EU, Japan, and other major economies are racing to secure reliable supply chains that are not dependent on China. This creates a rare window of opportunity for the Philippines to position itself as a trusted and strategic partner in the global transition to clean energy and advanced technologies.

But to truly maximize its potential, the Philippines must move beyond the traditional extractive model. Exporting raw ore captures only a fraction of the value; the real gains lie in downstream industries such as refining, processing, and even component manufacturing for EVs, RE technologies, and electronics. A critical minerals policy that fosters domestic value addition will create jobs, strengthen industries, and insulate the economy from global price shocks.

While the DENR’s issuance of a DAO earlier this year outlining the guidelines for integrating the UN SDGs into the implementation of mining companies’ Social Development and Management Programs is commendable, a critical minerals policy should likewise prioritize sustainable mining practices. Such a policy must craft its own framework that adheres to—and ideally surpasses—international standards on sustainable development in mining, with the twin goals of protecting communities and safeguarding ecosystems.

The effectiveness of any policy will, in large part, depend on the level of trust it is able to build among stakeholders. Investors value regulatory clarity, while communities seek accountability and tangible benefits. Incorporating appropriate safeguards and participatory mechanisms would support the sustainability of the Philippines’ critical minerals policy.

At this pivotal moment, the Philippines cannot afford to remain without a clear roadmap. For the Philippines to claim its rightful place in the global critical minerals supply chain, the time to act—decisively and strategically—is now.

---

Reeno E. Febrero is senior legal officer at Global Ferronickel Holdings, Inc. He is currently pursuing his Master of Laws at the University of the Philippines, with a thesis focused on sustainable mining.

On July 4, 2025, I sat in a crowded forum in Quezon City as the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) hosted the Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ (DENR) policy direction. The atmosphere was subdued. No questions, no applause lines. Yet the rollout deserves a closer look, not for its promises, but for what it might enable.

Signed in February by former Secretary Ma. Antonia Yulo-Loyzaga, DENR Administrative Order No. 2025-10 requires all Social Development and Management Programs (SDMPs) of mining firms to align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

SDMP is a unique legal requirement under the 1995 Mining Act and its implementing rules that compels mining firms to allocate 1.5% of their operating costs to community programs. For decades, this budget has been channeled into community projects—livelihood support here, a classroom repair there—often valuable, but not necessarily transformative. What DAO 2025-10 does is tether those pesos to something more coherent. From receipts to results.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by 193 UN member states in 2015, sets 17 goals and 169 targets—from ending poverty to protecting biodiversity. Yet the UN warns of slow progress. In the Philippines, the MGB acknowledges gains in key areas but gaps in food security, climate action, and sustainability persist. Paragraph 45 of the Agenda calls on governments to work closely with local authorities.

DAO 2025-10 operationalizes that principle. It channels the SDMP budget toward tangible outcomes like access to clean water (SDG 6), better incomes (SDG 1), inclusive education (SDG 4), biodiversity protection (SDG 15), and decent jobs (SDG 8). The UN Development Programme (UNDP) urged similar reforms in its 2016 SDG-mining atlas while the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF) has long supported this pivot.

On paper, we are catching up. But policies don’t succeed on paper alone. In 2023, nickel miners reported spending ₱4.3 billion on SDMPs. They reforested 9,500 hectares, planted 4.3 million trees, and funded education and health projects. Between 2002 and 2027, nearly ₱28 billion in SDMP spending is projected. But impact isn’t just about inputs. Civil society monitors—like Bantay Kita and local Multistakeholder Monitoring Teams—flag weak community involvement, poor tracking of results, and almost zero public transparency.

To make this reform real, four imperatives must guide implementation.

First, targets must be measurable. “Eradicating poverty” or “protecting forests” can’t just be slogans. The DENR must set clear indicators. How many pesos in income raised? How many hectares rehabilitated? Metrics are meaning.

Second, communities must be co-authors, not mere recipients. The 2030 Agenda says people are at the center of sustainable development. That means participatory planning, stronger local monitoring teams, and respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

Third, SDMPs must be audited independently and disclosed publicly. In 2021, The Asia Foundation—a global nonprofit focused on governance in Asia—underscored how transparency builds public trust. A portion of SDMP budgets should be set aside for third-party audits. Results must be published online, accessible to everyone. SDG 16.6 calls for effective, transparent institutions.

Finally, noncompliance must have consequences. DAO 2025-10 is a regulation, not a wish list. Failure to comply should lead to real sanctions. Without teeth, all we have are good manners.

At the core of this shift is a recurring question: Will the mining governance framework finally serve the common good? In their celebrated book Why Nations Fail, 2024 Nobel laureates Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argue that long-term prosperity depends on the nature of institutions. Inclusive institutions share power. Extractive ones hoard it. Mining, for all its potential, is often seen under extractive logics—not only in the physical sense, but in how decisions are made, and for whom.

DAO 2025-10 can change that. Not by spending more, but by spending better—linking community projects to real outcomes, and to a global development framework.

But good rules aren’t enough. It takes leadership to embed accountability into the system. And that falls on the shoulders of DENR Secretary Raphael Lotilla, who is known for his technocratic rigor and institutional calm. He doesn’t need to invent new tools. He just needs to make sure the ones we already have are tried, tracked, and trusted.

---

Noel B. Lazaro is General Counsel of Global Ferronickel Holdings, Inc. He was named among Top 5 In-House Counsel of the Year at the 2024 Asian Legal Business (ALB) Philippine Law Awards and has led his team to multiple regional and national honors.