0 Comments
Table of Contents
A proposed nuclear power plant in Western Pangasinan has ignited strong opposition from religious leaders, raising questions about safety, environmental integrity, and moral responsibility. While proponents tout economic growth and energy security, bishops from six dioceses have issued a united call to prioritize human life and the common good.
The debate underscores the delicate balance between development and safeguarding communities and the environment.
Church leaders sound the alarm
Leaders of the metropolitan archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan and its five suffragan dioceses issued a pastoral letter opposing the proposed facility. They pointed to the region’s proximity to the East Zambales Fault Line, describing any nuclear project there as “an unacceptable risk.”
“Not in Pangasinan! Not anywhere else!” the bishops asserted, emphasizing the need for officials and citizens to prioritize human life and the public good over financial gain. Citing the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, they warned of the “insoluble dangers” of nuclear power, stressing its capacity to inflict permanent damage on lives, communities, and the natural environment.
Their position was shaped by Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si’, which advocates for careful decision-making, solidarity across generations, and a shift toward renewable energy to protect the well-being of future populations. The Filipino bishops recognized the guidance of the late Pope, who “stressed the paramount importance of safety, prudence, and stewardship for future generations.”
Rather than nuclear energy, the bishops advocated for solar and wind, as well as other eco-friendly developments. “We are blessed with an abundance of renewable energy potential… the solution is not in building dangerous technologies which would bring more profit to private corporations, but put our people in harm’s way,” they declared.
Mirroring Japanese bishops’ concerns, they pointed out, “We must prioritize the protection of all life,” noting that the threat of nuclear disaster far exceeds any short-term advantage.
Moreover, Japanese church leaders emphasized that “nuclear power generation is fundamentally incompatible with the vision of a ‘symbiotic society’ that respects all life without exception.” In solidarity, bishops from Japan and Korea also voiced opposition to releasing “treated” radioactive water into the oceans, highlighting the long-term environmental risks.
The pastoral letter was signed by Archbishop Socrates Villegas of Lingayen-Dagupan and his auxiliary bishop, Fidelis Layog, along with Bishops Daniel Presto of San Fernando, La Union, Napoleon Sipalay of Alaminos, Jacinto Jose of Urdaneta, Prudencio Andaya of Cabanatuan, and Fr. Getty Ferrer, diocesan administrator of San Jose, Nueva Ecija.
(Also read: Rushing Offshore Wind Could Spike Power Bills for Filipino Households)
Economic promise meets safety concerns
Supporters of the project, however, emphasize the economic benefits for Labrador, Pangasinan. Marcos Juan Bruno O. Cojuangco, 2nd District representative, said the town could become the richest in the Philippines if the plant were built.
“Can you imagine if not only 1,000 megawatts of nuclear (power) is built in Labrador, but maybe 4,000 or even 6,000 megawatts? I think Labrador will become the richest town in the entire Philippines,” he said.
According to Cojuangco, each 1,000-megawatt facility could supply the town with twice its total electricity consumption per year for 80 years, lower generation charges, attract investors, and create thousands of jobs. The lawmaker added that the plant’s cost is estimated at P225 billion and would occupy roughly 120 hectares.
He noted that the nuclear facility would be engineered to withstand the maximum earthquake intensity of the nearby fault line, saying that the proposed plant will be located clear of the fault line.
The Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI) and the newly created Philippine Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority (PhilATOM) are tasked with ensuring the project’s safety. PNRI provides technical guidance and scientific expertise, while PhilATOM oversees licensing, inspections, and enforcement of nuclear and radiation safety. PNRI also led this year’s Atomic Energy Week from December 9 to 12, showcasing recent nuclear technologies developed by Filipino scientists.
Despite these assurances, church leaders remain steadfast. They called for urgent action to implement renewable energy alternatives, noting, “We must invest heavily in renewable energy infrastructure that ensures safety, resilience, and true long-term development of our people.” They concluded, “Pangasinan is not ours. We owe it to future generations to keep Pangasinan safe from a nuclear catastrophe. The risks are greater than the benefits.”
(Also read: Alba Renewables to Launch Ilocos Norte’s First Hybrid Clean Energy Plant)
Achieving a delicate balance
The debate over Pangasinan’s proposed nuclear plant captures a broader struggle facing the Philippines: balancing economic development with safety, morality, and environmental stewardship. While government and industry see the project as a pathway to energy security and prosperity, religious and civil leaders stress caution, advocating instead for the rapid deployment of renewable energy technologies that promise sustainability without existential risk.
As discussions continue, Labrador stands at a crossroads, embodying the tension between immediate economic incentives and long-term responsibility. For the bishops, the message is clear: the welfare of communities, protection of the environment, and prudence for future generations must guide any energy policy, ensuring that progress never comes at the cost of safety or life itself.
Sources: