3 hours ago
2
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
Cristina Chi - Philstar.com
May 26, 2026 | 5:11pm
MANILA, Philippines — A senior US State Department official has taken to X (formerly Twitter) to push back against reports that the US sought diplomatic immunity at a planned artificial intelligence hub in the Philippines.
US Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg, in a post on Monday, May 25, accused the press of distorting his earlier remarks on the Pax Silica initiative, a US-led coalition the Philippines joined in April. The planned 4,000-acre hub in New Clark City, Tarlac is its flagship project.
"We never said our goal was to maintain diplomatic immunity," Helberg wrote. "Our position has always been that markets and investors need certainty and predictability in order to deploy large pools of capital over a 5-10 year time horizon."
"That viewpoint was taken out of context and turned on its head by the press to suggest we were seeking diplomatic immunity which is patently untrue," he said.
The planned industrial hub, according to a State Department fact sheet, is "part of a broader strategy to surge production for inputs vital to U.S. supply chains."
Helberg said the agreement is "posted online for anyone to look up and read for themselves."
Request for immunity
Helberg's post came a week after Joshua Bingcang, president and chief executive of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, told reporters during the US official's May 18 site visit, that the Philippines had denied a US request to place the zone under American law and grant diplomatic immunity to US personnel.
"That's their request, but we did not agree to that," Bingcang said on May 18 in an interview with reporters. "No special arrangement to be accorded to the US government."
Bingcang's confirmation followed a Wall Street Journal report that the hub would operate under US jurisdiction.
The binding legal terms governing the site are currently being negotiated and both sides have cited a two-year window to finalize them.
In a Reuters report on May 21, Helberg was quoted as saying he expected the two countries to reach a deal on the long-term framework "sooner rather than later."
'Capitalist' project
In his Monday reply to a post criticizing the economic zone under Pax Silica, Helberg described the initiative as more of a private-sector-led move rather than one led by the US government.
"It's fundamentally a capitalist project that's a lot more about partnerships between private companies than it is about government programs," he wrote.
The US official also assailed critics calling Philippine participation in Pax Silica a form of ceding ground to Washington.
"The U.S. is home to the world’s largest technology companies—a fact I’m sure deeply irritates you. The idea that being part of their supply chain is 'subservience” is an ignorant loser mentality," he said.
Helberg traveled to the Philippines and Singapore from May 17 to 21, accompanied by representatives from more than a dozen US firms.
What the agreements say
Two documents underpinning the Philippines' membership in Pax Silica are publicly available on the Philippines' Board of Investments website.
The first is the Pax Silica Declaration, signed on April 16 by Trade Undersecretary and Board of Investments Managing Head Ceferino Rodolfo on behalf of the Philippines.
The two-page document commits signatories to coordinating on critical minerals, semiconductors, AI infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, energy, and logistics. It says supply chain security depends on "mobilizing the immense creative and financial power of private industry and entrepreneurship."
The second document is an April 9 letter from Bingcang to Helberg, proposing the establishment of a "Pax Silica Coordination Office" on a 4,000-acre site within the Luzon Economic Corridor.
Neither the Pax Silica Declaration nor the BCDA's April 9 proposal letter to Helberg addresses diplomatic immunity or US jurisdiction, though a separate "Supplemental Agreement" governing the site's operating terms has yet to be signed.
According to the BCDA letter, under the proposal, the first two years of the lease are rent-free, described as the Philippines' "offer of in-kind contribution" to the partnership.
Annual rates from Year 3 onward are listed as "to be discussed."
Renewal at the end of the lease requires the "mutual written consent of both Governments."
On termination or expiration without renewal, the letter states, the property and any permanent improvements "shall revert to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines."
The proposal cites two Philippine laws: Republic Act 7916, or the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995, and Republic Act 7277, or the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992.
Personnel arrangements at the site are to be consulted on "consistent with the provisions of Republic Act No. 7916 . . . and other relevant laws of the Philippines."
According to the letter, that agreement will set out "the precise location, boundaries and legal description of the property," along with other operating terms.
Mounting criticism. The Philippine chapter of the International League of Peoples' Struggles last week called on Malacañang and Washington to "disclose the true nature" of Pax Silica.
Left-leaning Makabayan bloc lawmakers also expressed their opposition to Pax Silica and said in a statement it was "a sellout of Philippine sovereignty."
"A foreign official is coming to firm up an industrial and technology agenda that will reshape land use, public incentives, environmental policy, labor conditions, and even national security decisions, yet the Filipino people are kept in the dark," they said in a statement.
