(Editor’s Note: The following is a reprint from the opinion piece of Atty. Rafael Tuvera that appeared last May 10, 202t6 at The Manila Times. Tuvera teaches law and political science. He analyzes geopolitics and diplomatic strategy with emphasis on productive approaches with legal and historical context. He is also a contributor to the Integrated Development Studies Institute (IDSI) and other publications. The IDSI is a well-respected organization for development studies founded by businessman and intellectual, George Sy. We are reprinting the article due to uts relevance and with the author’s permission).
THE proposed Pax Silica project in New Clark City in Tarlac has drawn public attention due to its scale and implications. Initial reports describe a 4,000-acre site, or about 1,600 hectares, that will host an artificial intelligence (AI) industrial hub mainly from the United States.
The project is presented as an economic initiative that will attract investments, generate employment, and place the Philippines within emerging technology supply chains. Special arrangements may be granted within the zone, including privileges for foreign entities. These features raise legal questions.
Pax Silica is promoted as part of a broader effort led by the US to develop alternative supply chains in critical sectors, such as AI and semiconductors. It aims to reduce dependence on existing networks dominated by China by building new centers of production among allied partner states.
In this context, the Philippines is being positioned as a site for industrial activity within a larger strategic framework. While this may offer economic opportunities, it also reflects a form of alignment within an ongoing global competition over technology and supply chains, as well as geopolitical, diplomatic and economic alliance.
The first issue concerns the constitutional rule on land ownership under the 1987 Constitution. The Constitution limits ownership of land to Filipino citizens and to corporations that are at least 60 percent Filipino-owned. It is likely that the project would comply with this rule in a formal sense by keeping the legal title in Filipino hands.
However, the more relevant inquiry is whether the arrangement transfers actual control over the entire land to a foreign entity or entities. If the project grants exclusive and long-term use for 99 years, along with operational autonomy, then the distinction between ownership and control becomes less clear. In such a case, the arrangement may operate as a circumvention of the constitutional policy that reserves land to Filipinos.
A second issue relates to sovereignty and jurisdiction. Reports that the US may seek diplomatic immunity over the project site must be viewed in light of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
This treaty grants immunity to diplomatic agents and to mission premises. It does not support the extension of immunity to large-scale industrial zones engaged in commercial activity. If immunity or similar privileges are granted to the 4,000-acre site, this will create an area where Philippine law cannot be fully enforced.
Such a result will be difficult to reconcile with the basic principle that the State exercises jurisdiction over all territory within its borders.
A third issue concerns the proper constitutional process for entering into the agreement. Article XVIII Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution requires that foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall be allowed only under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.
The government may argue that Pax Silica is purely economic and may, therefore, be concluded as an executive agreement. However, this position depends on the actual features of the project. If the arrangement involves a long-term foreign presence, restricted access, or functions that have dual use in character, then it may be viewed as a foreign facility in substance. In that case, Senate concurrence would be required, and the use of an executive agreement would be open to challenge.
A fourth issue is transparency. Article III Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution recognizes the right of the people to information on matters of public concern and adopts a policy of full public disclosure of transactions involving public interest. An agreement of this magnitude clearly falls within this category. Without access to the terms of the project, the public cannot assess whether the arrangement complies with constitutional limits on land, sovereignty, and the foreign facility question.
The absence of this disclosure also limits the ability of institutions, including the Senate, to perform oversight functions.
In sum, the Pax Silica project raises questions that go beyond economic policy. It touches on core constitutional principles relating to land ownership, national sovereignty, and the proper allocation of powers among the branches of government.
These concerns do not require rejection of all forms of foreign cooperation. They do require, however, that any agreement of this nature be examined meticulously, structured within constitutional limits, and disclosed in full to the public.
Only through such measures can the project be assessed in a manner consistent with law and with the national interest.