RESIDENTS and barangay officials of Barangay Guba have expressed strong opposition to the proposed P5-billion waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration project in Cebu City, warning that it poses serious health risks, environmental hazards, and potential damage to the livelihood of upland farmers.
On Monday, September 29, 2025, the community held a press conference and public hearing at the Barangay Guba Hall, joined by farmers, barangay councilors, health professionals, NGO representatives, religious leaders, youth organizations, and members of the Save Cebu Movement.
Participants raised concerns about toxic emissions, threats to agriculture, and the lack of genuine public consultation.
Lack of Consultation, Alternative Proposals
Many questioned why consultations were only conducted just this year, when the project had already been approved by the Cebu City Council in 2022.
Instead of pursuing incineration, residents pushed for ecological alternatives: stricter segregation at source, the establishment of functional Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in every barangay, recycling plastics into construction materials like asphalt-mixed cement, and converting biodegradable waste into organic fertilizers to support organic farming.
Farmers warned that emissions from the WTE plant could contaminate their soil and produce, with some fearing acid rain.
Legal and Environmental Concerns
The Save Cebu Movement argued that WTE technology contradicts national environmental laws. They cited:
• Republic Act 8749 (Clean Air Act), which prohibits incineration that emits toxic and poisonous fumes;
• Republic Act 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act), which requires segregation, composting, and MRFs; and
• Republic Act 10068 (Organic Agriculture Act), which promotes and protects organic farming methods that may be endangered by WTE emissions.
Six Guba barangay councilors have already voted against the project, joining other upland barangays Agsungot, Binaliw, and Mabini that also voiced opposition.
Questions on Land, Revenue, and Process
Residents also raised questions about land acquisition, saying they were not informed when the five to seven hectares of property were purchased or who the previous owner was.
They criticized the revenue-sharing arrangement under the joint venture, which allocates only 3 percent to Cebu City, or 5 percent if waste is sourced from other local government units. For them, such a small return cannot justify the risks to health, agriculture, and the environment.
Proponents Defend Project
Councilor Joey Garganera, the project’s most vocal proponent, maintained in earlier briefings that the WTE plant would reduce the city’s garbage by up to 90 percent, curb pollution, and even attract eco-tourism. He pointed to models in Thailand and Singapore where WTE facilities have drawn researchers and visitors.
He argued that Cebu’s landfills already pose hazards, particularly through “leachate” that contaminates soil and water. “Garbage will never run out,” he said, adding that WTE should work “side by side” with recycling and composting.
Mayor’s Neutral Stand
Cebu City Mayor Nestor Archival has so far remained noncommittal. While recalling that he opposed the deal as a city councilor due to lack of site identification and consultation, Archival now stresses the need to recheck facts, review the contract with New Sky Energy Philippines, and respect the opposition of Guba residents.
“Why approve something when you don’t even know where to put it?” he asked, noting that the project was first considered in Sapangdaku before being relocated to Guba.
He advised residents to lodge a formal protest with the City Council, the Office of the Vice Mayor, and the Mayor’s Office.
The Joint Venture Under Scrutiny
Lito Vasquez, senior executive officer & Visayas Policy Advisor of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) Visayas, said in a press release that at the heart of the controversy is the 40-year Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between Cebu City and New Sky Energy Philippines. Signed in December 2022, the deal grants the company rights to construct and operate the WTE facility.
However, critics warn that the JVA is “grossly disadvantageous” to the city. Based on the city’s daily average of 600 tons of garbage, Cebu would spend an estimated P27.73 billion over four decades in tipping and hauling fees nearly six times the private firm’s P4.8 billion investment.
They also pointed out that the JVA provides no clear projection of power generation, leaving potential revenue speculative. Worse, they argued, it could invite an influx of waste from neighboring LGUs, further straining environmental safeguards.
Health and Air Quality Issues
Environmental advocates also questioned the outdated air quality standards used by Philippine regulators. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ National Ambient Air Quality Standards, last updated in 2000, fall short of World Health Organization guidelines and fail to include rigorous monitoring of dioxins cancer-causing chemicals linked to incineration.
Vasquez urged that the project undergo a mandatory Health Impact Assessment under the Universal Health Care Act to ensure risks are properly studied and mitigation measures enforced.
Next Steps
The WTE project has already faced multiple delays, raising questions about its feasibility and compliance with environmental and zoning laws. On October 6, Guba residents are set to file a formal protest before the Mayor’s Office to register their opposition.
As Cebu City grapples with its garbage crisis, the conflict over WTE highlights a deeper policy question: Should the city embrace large-scale incineration with uncertain returns, or double down on ecological solutions that strengthen recycling, composting, and community-based waste management?
For now, the future of the project and the fate of Guba’s upland communities hangs in the balance. (CAV)