The Manila Times
AS the Philippines moves to incorporate nuclear energy into its power mix by 2032, debates over proposed plants have revealed deep divisions, rooted not only in technology but also in public trust, governance and regulatory confidence. A roundtable discussion last March, convened by Climate Conflict Action and the Just Transition Forum at the University of the Philippines Diliman, brought these challenges into sharp focus, with community representatives, experts and advocates outlining the barriers to the country’s nuclear ambitions. The coastal town of Labrador, long considered a potential nuclear site, has emerged as a flashpoint. Opposition voices, including long-time residents, challenged claims by Pangasinan 2nd District Rep. Mark Cojuangco that 70 percent of residents had endorsed the project. Participants said no formal public hearings were held at the barangay level. A 93-year-old local leader described the supposed community approval as manufactured, citing written responses from barangay officials confirming that no consultations had taken place. “Therefore, there is widespread ignorance among the people about this project,” the resident said. The official added that outreach activities tied to government assistance, such as aid distribution, were reportedly used to gather attendance signatures later presented as proof of support. “We do not believe that 70 percent of the people of Labrador actually approved the nuclear plant,” the town elder said. Critics argued that there was no meaningful public engagement, with discussions surfacing only during election campaigns rather than through structured consultations. This mistrust indicates system-wide governance concerns. While officials note a multi-stage licensing process that could take up to 15 years, skeptics cite past lapses in enforcing environmental and safety regulations — from mining incidents to policy reversals — as evidence that safeguards on paper may not translate into protection in practice. Residents also criticized claims that the plant would make Labrador the richest town in the country and attract massive investment, calling such promises unsubstantiated. Two major concerns emerged. The first is procedural, with locals describing hurried visits by Cojuangco to several villages distributing aid before the matter reached the Senate as potentially politically motivated. The second is technological and regulatory. Residents questioned the government’s capacity to manage nuclear technology safely, citing prior failures in flood management and other infrastructure projects. “If government agencies cannot properly address existing issues, such as flooding, how can they be trusted with a new technology? Which agencies can we rely on to enforce safety and regulatory measures?” a community representative said. Beyond procedural issues, nuclear technology itself presents another layer of concern. Participants questioned whether a proposed independent nuclear regulator could operate free from political or corporate influence. The private sector’s role also drew scrutiny, with observers asking whether profit motives might compromise safety standards. Experts stressed that operators would be fully liable for accidents and would be required to follow strict international protocols, including insurance and regulatory compliance. Proponents highlighted nuclear energy’s efficiency and ability to provide reliable baseload power, potentially replacing coal-fired plants. Advances in reactor design and containment systems were cited as mitigating risks. Opponents raised concerns over long-term radioactive waste management, the catastrophic potential of rare accidents, and the geological suitability of sites like Labrador, noting fault lines and seismic activity. Despite the controversies, the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to advance policy development and engage potential investors. DOE Director Patrick Aquino said several firms, including Meralco and Prime Infrastructure Capital Inc., have expressed interest in nuclear projects. However, they are awaiting developments under the Philippine Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority (PhilAtom), the newly established independent nuclear regulator created under Republic Act 12305, or the Philippine National Nuclear Energy Safety Act — before submitting their applications. “We have to take extra care in choosing the proper partners, especially in areas where these plants may be constructed in the future,” he said, adding that local government units must be “willing and ready” to participate. The DOE also cited public sentiment. A 2024 Social Weather Stations survey found that over 70 percent of Filipinos support the inclusion of nuclear energy in the country’s power mix, while 76 percent want to learn more about the technology. Sixty-six percent favor rehabilitating the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, and 45 percent support building new facilities. While technical groundwork, regulatory frameworks, and investor interest continue to advance, Labrador’s experience underscores a central challenge: nuclear energy in the Philippines cannot succeed on engineering alone. Deanne Capiral, advocacy manager of Climate Conflict Action, said the divide points to a deeper issue. “This RTD highlighted the gaps in energy governance based on the experience of communities. Conflicts will arise if we do not address this at the onset,” she said. “Much more is needed in bringing together communities, experts, authorities, and other stakeholders to surface concerns, clarify information, and come up with possible solutions.”
Go to News Site