[OPINION] Pax Silica and the Philippines: Will we build the future or simply build it for others?

The Philippines’ participation in Pax Silica has been welcomed as a significant step toward integrating the country more deeply into the global technology economy. By strengthening cooperation in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, and other strategic industries, the initiative promises new investments, better jobs, and expanded opportunities for economic growth. These are worthwhile objectives. But before celebrating Pax Silica as an unqualified success, Filipinos should ask a more fundamental question: Will this initiative help the Philippines become a creator of advanced technology, or merely reinforce its role as a supplier of labor, resources, and manufacturing capacity? That question lies at the heart of the principal criticism of Pax Silica. The Philippines already occupies an important place in the global semiconductor industry through electronics manufacturing, assembly, and testing. These activities provide employment and generate valuable export earnings. Yet, the greatest economic rewards continue to accrue elsewhere: to the countries and companies that own the patents, design the chips, develop artificial intelligence, and control the intellectual property that drives the digital economy. Value chain Unless Pax Silica is accompanied by meaningful technology transfer, advanced manufacturing, research partnerships, and support for Filipino innovation, the country risks remaining at the lower end of the value chain. We may assemble tomorrow’s technologies without helping to invent them. This concern is neither theoretical nor anti-investment. It reflects a long-standing challenge faced by many developing economies: attracting foreign capital without acquiring the knowledge, capabilities, and institutions needed to compete at the highest levels of innovation. Investment alone does not guarantee development. Sustainable progress requires building domestic expertise and creating industries that Filipinos can eventually lead rather than merely support. Environmental stewardship must also form part of the national conversation. Semiconductor fabrication plants and AI data centers require substantial amounts of electricity and water. In a country where electricity costs remain among the highest in Southeast Asia and water security is an ongoing concern in many regions, large-scale industrial expansion must be carefully planned. Responsible environmental regulation, renewable energy investments, efficient water management, and transparent environmental impact assessments should be treated as prerequisites, not afterthoughts. Genuine consultation Equally important is protecting the interests of local communities. Industrial development should not come at the expense of farmers, Indigenous Peoples, or other residents whose livelihoods may be affected by major infrastructure projects. Genuine consultation, fair compensation, and long-term community benefits are essential if technological progress is to remain socially sustainable. Pax Silica also has geopolitical implications. Because it is widely viewed as part of a broader effort to build trusted technology supply chains, the Philippines must ensure that participation strengthens rather than constrains its national interests. As a trading nation with diverse international relationships, the country should continue pursuing a foreign policy that safeguards both its economic opportunities and its strategic autonomy. None of these concerns suggests that the Philippines should reject Pax Silica. On the contrary, the initiative could become a catalyst for national transformation, provided the government negotiates from a position of confidence and long-term vision. Three priorities deserve particular attention. First, every major investment should contribute to building Philippine technological capability. Agreements should promote technology transfer, research collaborations with Philippine universities, workforce development, and opportunities for Filipino firms to participate in higher-value segments of semiconductor and AI industries. The objective should not simply be to host factories but to cultivate an ecosystem of innovation. Second, the government should ensure that economic growth remains responsible and inclusive. Strong environmental safeguards, transparent regulatory processes, and meaningful engagement with affected communities will help ensure that development benefits the nation as a whole rather than a select few. Third, the Philippines should define success not by the amount of foreign investment it attracts but by the capabilities it develops. Policymakers should measure progress through indicators such as Filipino engineers trained, research partnerships established, patents generated, local technology enterprises supported, and the increasing participation of Philippine companies in advanced manufacturing, chip design, software development, and artificial intelligence. Pax Silica should not be viewed simply as an investment program. It is a test of the country’s long-term economic strategy. The real opportunity is not merely to manufacture the technologies of the future but to participate in creating them. If the Philippines negotiates wisely, invests in its people, and insists on genuine technology transfer, Pax Silica could become a turning point in the nation’s technological development. If it settles for being only a production site within someone else’s innovation ecosystem, however, the promise of Pax Silica will remain only partially fulfilled. The challenge before the Philippines is therefore clear: not simply to help build the future, but to help shape it. – Rappler.com Raul F. Borjal is an alumnus of Ateneo de Manila University. He held senior executive positions in various domestic and multinational companies, culminating in his retirement as vice president and corporate secretary of a Filipino-owned group of companies.