Antipolo Mayor Urges Review of Rizal Wind Farm Sites Over Environmental Risks
- February 4, 2026
Table of Contents
Antipolo Mayor Casimiro “Jun” Ynares III has urged renewable energy developer Vena Energy and Environment Secretary Raphael P.M. Lotilla to reassess the location of a proposed 603-megawatt wind power project in Rizal, fearing that parts of the development may overlap environmentally sensitive karst landscapes and critical watersheds.
In separate letters dated January 13 and sent to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Vena Group Philippines, Ynares said some of the proposed turbine sites under the Rizal Wind Energy Corporation (RWEC) project could be located in areas with karst characteristics.
RWEC is a subsidiary of Singapore-based Vena Energy, which secured a wind energy service contract from the Department of Energy in 2018 for the project covering more than 500 hectares in Antipolo City and the municipality of Tanay.
“Construction activities in such locations may present challenges that merit further review to ensure long-term environmental stability and project safety,” Ynares said in his letter.
Key Environmental Concerns
Ynares highlighted the role of Rizal’s forests, watersheds, and unique rock formations in mitigating floods, preventing landslides, and ensuring water security, not only for the province but also for neighboring areas in Metro Manila and nearby provinces.
“These areas are significant not only for Antipolo City and Rizal Province but also for neighboring cities and adjacent provinces as they promote clean water, preserve healthy ecosystems and enhance community safety,” the mayor said.
Karst landscapes are characterized by limestone formations and underground drainage systems and are known to store groundwater. They are also considered fragile and highly sensitive to disturbance. Environmental groups have warned that large-scale infrastructure projects in such areas could weaken natural flood controls and increase the risk of landslides.
Ynares said he supports the expansion of renewable energy but stressed that clean energy projects must adhere to environmental safeguards and science-based planning. He appealed to Vena Energy to explore alternative locations or adopt additional measures to protect sensitive areas.
Environmental Groups Sound Alarm
Environmental organizations, including the Masungi Georeserve Foundation Inc. (MGF), have opposed the project, warning that it may affect portions of the Upper Marikina Watershed, the Sierra Madre mountain range, and the Masungi Karst Conservation Area.
In November 2025, a coalition of environmental groups petitioned the DENR to revoke Vena Energy’s endorsements and application for a special permit required for projects located within or near protected areas. The petition argued that “no industrial project — however branded as ‘green’ — should compromise life-support systems such as the Sierra Madre and Upper Marikina Watershed.”
MGF advocacy director Billie Dumaliang said the issue is not limited to whether wind turbines are placed directly on exposed limestone. “It’s not whether turbines sit on exposed limestone but whether the project footprint overlaps a designated karst landscape — which it does, based on the project’s own ECC,” she said, referring to the environmental compliance certificate issued for the project.
According to MGF, project documents indicate that 16 wind turbines would be located within the Masungi Karst Conservation Area, which spans about 1,600 hectares.
DENR Backs Project
Vena Energy has maintained that the project complies with all environmental regulations and will not affect karst areas. The company said in a statement that it would not construct wind turbines in locations with karst features or fragile limestone formations.
“Vena Energy strictly adheres to all government regulations and environmental standards,” the company said, adding that it has secured all required permits and clearances, including approval from the DENR and consent from affected indigenous communities.
The DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) earlier denied MGF’s request for a cease-and-desist order and the revocation of the project’s ECC. EMB regional director Robert Angelo Metin said an investigation found “no sufficient basis” to conclude that the project would cause grave or irreparable environmental damage that would warrant such action.
MGF has since filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the EMB’s decision.
Source:
https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2026/01/29/2504146/trouble-paradise/amp
