Are Rizal landfills being primed for waste-to-energy facilities?

2026-02-24 - 07:43

Metro Manila dumps trash in two Rizal landfills: the Rizal Provincial Sanitary Landfill (RPSLF) and the San Mateo Sanitary Landfill (SMSLF) operated by one company, the International Solid Waste Integrated Management Specialist Incorporated. (ISWIMS). If business shifts from landfill to incineration, one firm that manages both landfills stands to benefit. Back in 2023, these two landfills were eyed as among the potential sites for waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) authorities, representatives from a Korean infrastructure firm, and ISWIMS visited areas in Rizal landfills where WTE facilities can be built. Aside from operating the Rizal landfills, ISWIMS provides waste collection and delivery services for Metro Manila and Rizal towns. WTE development in the Philippines is slow, but the Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing to auction WTE contracts. Recent landfill incidents in Cebu and Rizal reinforce the view that waste-to-energy is a practical solution to the mounting solid waste problem. The logic of WTE proponents goes: if landfills are reaching overcapacity and causing issues in communities, then technology that reduces trash volume should be adopted. Landfill volume is down, and energy is produced. It seems a win-win situation. Waste-to-energy plants burn waste, and the steam generated is used to produce energy. The proposition is particularly attractive to a government seeking alternative energy sources as the world gradually shuns coal-fired power plants. MMDA’s 2023 feasibility study found that waste-to-energy facilities could help the agency implement its metro-wide services in health, sanitation, urban protection, and pollution control. The study identified the RPSLF as the “most suitable site for a WTE facility,” noting that it is largely immune to hazards except ground motion. The MMDA recommended that the landfill operator enter into an agreement with the WTE supplier. Given the high costs, the government would then subsidize the private sector. LANDFILL. The San Mateo Sanitary Landfill as seen from a nearby private subdivision in February 2026. Photo by Iya Gozum/Rappler Amid community complaints However, the status quo does not allow WTE, particularly incineration, due to concerns over air pollution, public health, and climate change. Environmental advocates have long opposed WTE development, arguing that the technology undermines recycling and the incineration ban. As landfilling remains the primary waste disposal method, locals have become all too familiar with the hazards of living near the dump. Gerwin Angcaya, a resident of San Mateo, told Rappler about the traffic caused by the constant comings and goings of garbage trucks to and from the landfill. “The C6 road that trucks use is dirty, messy, and stinky. There’s added traffic in the area,” Angcaya, 50, told Rappler in Filipino. “According to the mayor, there’s no profit for our local government, which means there’s no benefit for the residents, especially those from Pintong Bukawe which is the host village.” Angcaya wrote a complaint dated February 20 to the regional office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) about the destruction of the natural landscape, water pollution, fly infestation, and odor nuisance. SITES. Two sanitary landfills cater to Metro Manila’s trash. With the closure of the Navotas landfill, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority ordered Manila to send its garbage to the San Mateo landfill. Graphic by David Castuciano/Rappler ‘May pera sa basura’ San Mateo Mayor Bartolome Rivera has opposed the MMDA’s order directing Manila’s trash to be dumped in San Mateo following the closure of the Navotas landfill. We reached out to San Mateo’s local government on February 3 regarding volume, landfill ownership, inspection protocols, and previously identified environmental violations. On February 9, our inquiry was denied without further explanation. Transferring Manila’s trash to San Mateo could be more costly due to the greater distance between the two municipalities. Manila has already increased its garbage fee by 1,200%, a significant burden on businesses. Costs may rise further across Metro Manila cities once landfill waste is converted to energy, as the infrastructure requires higher capital expenditure. Must Read Manila’s garbage fees surge 1,200%. Who pays? Local governments would have to spend hundreds of millions a year for the collection and disposal of trash. In 2024, environmental and sanitary services contracts in Metro Manila alone cost up to P8.5 billion. The city of Manila, for example, set aside at least P700 million for the garbage and collection services for six of its districts from February to December 2026, according to the city’s bid notice. Another bid notice for Manila’s disposal to San Mateo landfill within the same period is worth around P460 million. Under the law, local governments are supposed to be front and center in solid waste management. In the case of Rizal landfills that absorb Metro Manila’s trash, a private company is handling the logistics of management. Engineer and contractor Dennis Sandil is the chief operating officer of ISWIMS. Sandil is the president and CEO of San Mateo Sanitary Landfill and Development Corporation, according to the firm’s latest general information sheet. ISWIMS also operates the Rodriguez landfill through Green Leap Solid Waste Management Inc. Contracts from 2016 to 2018 that we obtained showed ISWIMS securing billions of pesos’ worth of contracts in Rizal areas such as Antipolo, Taytay, and San Mateo, as well as in Metro Manila cities including Makati, Malabon, and San Juan. Services covered garbage collection and disposal, as well as the rental of equipment for waste management. In recent news, the Sandils formed a consortium that secured contracts worth P437 million to provide garbage services in Bacolod City. The consortium is composed of ISWIMS, D.C. Sandil Construction and Realty Development Incorporated, and San Igmedio Builders Incorporated, whose president is Mario Sandil. Bacolod is looking at the possibility of adopting WTE. Bacolod Mayor Greg Gasataya, according to an update from their communications office, said WTE is a “sustainable and cost-effective” solution. We reached out to ISWIMS via email on February 6 for comment regarding their plans to adopt WTE facilities. We followed up on February 9 but we have yet to receive a response. We will update this story once they answer our queries. DUMP. A chicken stands at a garbage dump filled with plastics in Rodriguez, Rizal province, Philippines, on November 28, 2024. Photo by Eloisa Lopez/Reuters An impending policy shift? Despite the flaunted benefits and what looks like increasing government support, the Philippines has yet to have a fully operational waste-to-energy facility. A P4-billion WTE facility is set to rise in New Clark City. In Manila, Tondo residents are displaced due to a P26-billion WTE project in the former Smokey Mountain dumpsite. Senator Risa Hontiveros has filed a resolution, seeking a probe into the national solid waste management framework. In the adoption of WTE, existing landfills would provide fuel. In good position are waste management firms which, already supported by an increasingly agreeable policy, can establish WTE facilities in landfills they already manage. The Philippine government sees biomass WTE as an opportunity to address both energy insecurity and implementation issues of solid waste management in local governments. As it is, waste-to-energy is banned in the law. But the ongoing shift to renewables had the government allowing in 2008 the adoption of waste-to-energy technologies that convert biodegradable materials to energy (or what’s also referred to as biomass). The DENR hinted about a potential policy change. Environment officials earlier mentioned talking with former president and current lawmaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on amending the law to allow incineration. DENR Secretary Raphael P.M. Lotilla said there are now newer technologies that can be aligned with environmental regulations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted both the benefits and drawbacks of WTE. When properly implemented, the IPCC said these technologies can contribute to clean electricity production, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and decrease water and soil pollution. “[F]or WTE to be deployed more widely, policies would need to be tailored with specific guidelines focused on mitigating emissions, which may have an adverse effect on the environment,” the IPCC said in its report. While capital intensive, IPCC said WTE’s environmental and economic benefits “make its high financial costs justifiable.” Must Read [OPINION] Waste is political. Binaliw shows why zero waste is a matter of justice. While DENR takes care of policy, the Department of Energy is clearing the way for private developers who can bring in the technology. The DOE has said it does not specify the source of feedstock or which landfill to build WTE facilities on. “Such will be decided by the developer,” DOE’s renewable energy management bureau told Rappler. Concerns from advocates Waste-to-energy has been criticized for its greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution it causes, which affect the environment and public health. Jorge Emmanuel, a health expert and adjunct professor at Siliman University, emphasized that WTE incinerators “produce 1.7 times more total greenhouse gases than coal-fired plants for the same kilowatt-hour of energy produced.” Moreover, Emmanuel stressed that “the most toxic chemical pollutant known to science, polychlorinated dioxins and furans” created in incinerators remain in the environment for hundreds of years. This pollutant, Emmanuel said, is linked to cancers, reproductive disorders, birth defects, miscarriages, and development problems. “Unfortunately, given the climate of corruption, a costly technology is more attractive to some government officials than the zero-waste approach,” Emmanuel told Rappler in an email. Shifting to waste-to-energy though does not resolve landfill problems and systemic issues like poor oversight and environmental hazards, said Froilan Grate, executive director of Global Alliance Incinerator Alternatives in Asia Pacific. “It simply changes the technology while locking the province into another high-risk, capital-intensive system that requires a steady stream of waste to remain financially viable,” Grate told Rappler. “I hope our policy makers see that a landfill that can’t handle municipal waste, as shown by this recent tragedy, can’t surely be trusted to handle toxic waste like incineration ash,” he added. – with reports from Vicensa Nonato/Rappler.com