2PRIME MINISTER

Ladies and gentlemen, honorable judge, esteemed members of the opposition, and fellow
citizens,

Today, we convene to deliberate on the motion: "The Electric Vehicle Industry

Development Act or EVIDA is a sufficient and effective measure to reduce dependence on fossil
fuels." As the Prime Minister, I stand before you to affirm this motion, demonstrating that
EVIDA is both a necessary and impactful initial step toward a sustainable and energy-secure
future for our nation.

To engage in this discourse, we must first define our key terms:

Sufficient: EVIDA provides comprehensive and adequate measures to significantly decrease our
reliance on fossil fuels.
Effective: EVIDA's provisions yield tangible, measurable outcomes in reducing fossil fuel
consumption.
and
Reduce dependence on fossil fuels: Achieving a substantial shift from fossil fuel-based energy
sources to renewable and sustainable alternatives.

With these definitions in place, let us explore how EVIDA embodies these principles.

The Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act (EVIDA) serves as a pivotal framework
for advancing the electric vehicle (EV) sector in the Philippines. A cornerstone of EVIDA is the
development of the Comprehensive Roadmap for the Electric Vehicle Industry (CREVI), which
aligns EV adoption with national policies such as the Philippine Energy Plan and the National
Transport Policy. CREVI sets clear targets, including the electrification of industrial,
commercial, public transport, and government fleets, starting with a 5% electrification rate and
progressing over time. It also mandates the designation of dedicated parking slots and the
installation of charging stations in public and private establishments to support EV users.
 To stimulate industry growth, EVIDA offers incentives such as tax exemptions under the
TRAIN Law and registration fee discounts for Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Hybrid
Electric Vehicles (HEVs), as well as fiscal benefits for local production of EVs, batteries,
charging stations, and related components. Addressing a critical barrier to EV adoption, EVIDA
ensures the nationwide deployment of charging stations across urban and rural areas, with clear
guidelines for construction and operation, thereby ensuring convenient access to charging
facilities.

Complementing national goals for renewable energy, EVIDA promotes the use of
renewable energy sources in conjunction with EV adoption to reduce fossil fuel dependency in
both transportation and electricity generation. By fostering a green economy, EVIDA supports
the growth of local EV manufacturing, creating jobs, and enhancing technological capabilities,
while collaborating with institutions like TESDA to provide training in EV assembly,
maintenance, and related fields, ensuring a skilled workforce. Correspondingly, EVIDA pushed
for a more reformed national energy system that can support its endeavors sustainably and
economically, pivoting the country’s direction energy-wise towards more sustainable sources.

Finally, EVIDA promotes a collaborative approach by involving government agencies,

private sector entities, financial institutions, and consumers in the transition to EVs, and
encourages banks to offer concessional loans for EV-related activities, making financing
accessible for manufacturers and consumers alike. These initiatives collectively aim to establish
a sustainable and robust EV ecosystem in the Philippines, contributing to energy security,
environmental protection, and economic development.

The Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act (EVIDA) has significantly accelerated
the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) in the Philippines. In the first quarter of 2023, EV sales
reached 2,536 units—a nearly 500% increase from the 426 units sold throughout 2022. This
surge is largely attributed to EVIDA's incentives, such as dedicated parking slots, green routes,
and exemptions from traffic coding schemes. The government's commitment is further
demonstrated by the electrification of public fleets, aiming to reduce fuel consumption.
Additionally, the Department of Energy's initiatives, like mapping active EV charging stations,
enhance the convenience of EV ownership.

These developments underscore EVIDA's effectiveness in promoting sustainable

transportation and reducing fossil fuel dependence.

The Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act (EVIDA) provides a comprehensive

framework to reduce fossil fuel dependence in the Philippines; however, its successful
implementation necessitates addressing several challenges: ensuring that the increased electricity
demand from widespread EV adoption does not strain the national grid requires modernizing the
energy infrastructure, integrating renewable energy sources, and implementing smart grid
technologies to manage load effectively. Coordinating the rapid expansion of charging stations
with urban planning is essential to prevent congestion and ensure equitable access, necessitating
strategic placement and development of charging infrastructure. Additionally, mitigating the
environmental impact of battery production involves adopting sustainable manufacturing
practices and establishing efficient recycling programs to handle end-of-life batteries responsibly.

Addressing these concerns through coordinated efforts among government, industry, and
consumers is crucial for the sustainable advancement of EV adoption in the country. EVIDA is
an initial step that, by its very framework, also encompasses the reforming of current national
energy systems to better suit sustainability and supply the demands of growing vehicle
electrification.

In conclusion, the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act stands as a pivotal measure
in our nation's quest to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Through strategic planning,
incentivization, infrastructure development, and renewable energy promotion, EVIDA addresses
the multifaceted challenges of energy consumption and environmental sustainability. As we
navigate the complexities of energy transition, let us recognize that while EVIDA provides a
comprehensive framework, its success hinges on collaborative implementation, continuous
innovation, and adaptive policies that respond to emerging challenges and opportunities. EVIDA
entails not just vehicle electrification, but energy system reforms.
 Therefore, I submit that the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act is not only
sufficient but also effective in steering our nation toward a sustainable, energy-secure, and
environmentally responsible future.

Thank you.

LEADER OF OPPOSITION

Good afternoon to the honorable judges, esteemed members of the House, and members
of the floor. Before we proceed with our case, allow me to clarify the scope of the motion. This is
not merely about whether RA No.11697, also known as EVIDA law, is a well-intentioned or
promising initiative. Rather, it asks a more critical and practical question whether it is enough on
its own to significantly restrain the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.
We accept the definitions provided by the Government that “sufficient” implies EVIDA
provides adequate measures to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and that “effective” means that it
delivers tangible benefits. EVIDA's provisions may initially shift fossil fuel consumption from
direct vehicle use to electricity generation, potentially offering limited net reduction in overall
fossil fuel dependence in the short to medium term, given the Philippines' current energy mix.
With that, we contest that the EVIDA is neither comprehensive in reach nor transformative in
impact.
We, on the side of the Opposition, respectfully yet resolutely disagree, recognizing that
while EVIDA is a breakthrough, it is by no means sufficient and effective. In the context of the
Philippines, the Bench will prove how and why this Act falls short in addressing the substantial
shift away from fossil fuel dependence.
Primarily, while EVIDA may appear to be a commendable initiative, we must confront
the stark economic and infrastructural reality. Despite claims of affordability, electric vehicles
remain financially out of reach for the average Filipino. Electric vehicle prices in the Philippines
vary widely, with cars ranging from Php 588,000 to Php 10.4 million, scooters from Php 34,000
to Php 895, 000, and smaller EVs like e-bikes and trikes from Php 20,000 to Php 100,000.
Government-distributed e-trikes cost around Php 455,000. However, considering workers’
average wage which costs around Php 15,000 to Php 25,000 monthly and the poverty incidence
remains significant at 22.4% from 2023. The excessive costs of EVs still outweigh the perceived
benefits for most households and small-scale transport operators.
These barriers are moreover compounded by the availability of batteries and charging
stations, which are simply prohibitive. As of March 2025, the Department of Energy reported
that nationwide there are 912 publicly accessible charging stations, most of which are
concentrated in the National Capital Region. But, this availability has a grossly uneven
distribution, highly concentrated only in major urban areas, leaving rural and provincial areas
unsupported. Another important aspect to consider is the currently limited local production of
EV batteries, which could have reduced both manufacturing costs and carbon emissions. First
EV battery plant was only reported to have opened in October 2024. If we are to support the
projected growth of EV, especially anticipating the increase in demand over the coming years,
we will likely continue importing batteries from major producers like China, which still heavily
rely on fossil fuels for energy.
Although the Law states providence for incentives and there have been pilot initiatives of
EV rollouts, such as e-jeepneys, these remain limited to selected urban areas, often not even the
most densely populated provinces and cities. This reveals the lack of nationwide implementation,
ultimately making the widespread adoption of EV unrealistic and unsustainable under current
conditions.
In addition, a sudden transition to EVs for transportation will unavoidably put a huge new
burden on the Philippines' electricity generation and transmission grids, which are already under
stress. As seen in China (Qiu, Y et al., Nature Communications, 2024), an increase in EV
adoption can result in higher electricity demand, increasing the risk of power outages and
blackouts as a result of inadequate supply or grid inadequacies. In 2023, EVs accounted for
approximately 0.5% of global electricity consumption, using around 130 terawatt-hours (TWh)
and by 2035, EV electricity consumption in the U.S. could reach 721 TWh under optimistic
scenarios.
To support EV adoption, the government aims to deploy 7,300 EV charging stations by
2028, with 912 already operational as of March 2025. The existing Philippine power grid, with a
total installed capacity of 26,250 MW, which is already prone to system losses and inefficiencies,
might not withstand a much higher demand caused by mass EV charging without major upgrades
and the possibility of instability. Redirecting fossil fuel consumption from transportation to
electricity generation, especially if the energy mix relies heavily on fossil fuels, does not
inherently solve environmental concerns and instead risks exacerbating existing power reliability
issues and potentially driving electricity costs even higher.
While studies like the ADB's e-trike project indicate potential fuel savings with EVs
(around PHP 200 per day), these benefits are significantly negated by the Philippines'
exceptionally high electricity prices, which rank among the highest in Asia. This contrasts
sharply with countries like Norway, which boasts some of the lowest household electricity costs
globally and correspondingly has achieved over 85% EV adoption for new cars as of 2024. The
economic advantage that drives EV adoption in nations with affordable electricity simply does
not translate effectively to the Philippine context.
Non-fiscal incentives under Sec. 25, while ostensibly beneficial, may yield unintended
consequences. Priority registration and number coding exemptions risk being utilized for
convenience rather than environmental objectives, potentially leading to increased traffic
congestion and vehicle ownership, thereby undermining emissions reduction and sustainable
transport goals.
In view of the foregoing, we do not deny that EVIDA is a well-intentioned policy.
Nevertheless, in its current form, EVIDA Law is incomplete, exclusive for favoring private car
owners, inaccessible with EVs’ high upfront costs, and environmentally inconsistent.
Thank you.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

A pleasant afternoon fellow citizens, honorable judges, and esteemed members of the
opposition, thank you for sharing your point, but don’t you think, ladies and gentlemen,
electricity can now be generated through renewable resources. Although not a hundred percent, it
is still true that a significant portion of the electricity generated in the country is using
renewables. Therefore, the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act (EVIDA) directly
addresses the fossil fuel issue by promoting the transition to cleaner energy sources. Not only
that, this Act also offers tax incentives and other benefits to encourage investments in renewable
energy infrastructure.
 While some may argue that the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) are slow or that EVs
are not yet widely adopted and that their production can have environmental impacts, we firmly
believe that this shift is not immediate but is a critical step to outweigh the present challenges.
Furthermore, the EVIDA plays a crucial role in propelling grid modernization through the
promotion of adopting electric vehicles which relatively requires integration of smarter and
resilient energy infrastructure. Specifically, smart grid technology and energy storage solutions.
Smart grid technology stems from the creation of dynamic and bi-directional energy demand that
can efficiently manage charging loads, prevent grid overload, and enable real-time monitoring.
EVIDA also indirectly supports the deployment of smart meters, demand response systems, and
automated distribution networks to keep up with the evolving energy landscape. Additionally,
EVIDA encourages the development of energy storage systems—such as large-scale batteries
and even vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies—which allow excess renewable energy to be stored
and dispatched when needed. This integration helps balance supply and demand, enhances grid
reliability, and supports the transition to cleaner energy sources. Through these mechanisms,
EVIDA fosters a smarter, more sustainable, and future-ready energy ecosystem while enhancing
the efficiency and reliability making it more viable for widespread use.

As more renewable sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are incorporated
into the energy mix, the carbon footprint of EVs will continue to shrink. Unlike
gasoline-powered vehicles, which are permanently tied to fossil fuels, EVs have the potential to
become almost completely carbon-neutral as the energy sector evolves. By accelerating the
transition to EVs, we ensure a long-term reduction in fossil fuel dependence, making EVs a key
solution in the fight against climate change.

Let’s not overlook the fact that electric vehicles are fundamentally more energy-efficient
than their gasoline counterparts. While critics may argue about the costs or practicality of EVs,
the reality is that electric motors convert over 85% of electrical energy into movement—far
surpassing the 20% to 30% efficiency of traditional combustion engines. That means EVs waste
far less energy, making every kilowatt count. Plus, with fewer moving parts, EVs require
significantly less maintenance, resulting in lower operating costs and reduced energy demands
over their lifespan. So when we talk about sustainability, we’re also talking about long-term
practicality and cost-efficiency.

But the conversation shouldn’t stop at just the vehicles. The EVIDA addresses
system-wide efficiency by promoting local EV production, which not only reduces carbon
emissions from international shipping but also empowers our local industries. Instead of relying
on foreign imports, we’re building a homegrown EV sector that encourages innovation, creates
high-quality jobs, and boosts our economy. This isn't just about clean transport—it’s about
building a self-sustaining, efficient ecosystem that benefits Filipinos at every level.

Moreover, EVIDA is proactive in preparing our infrastructure for this transition. It

supports the rollout of fast-charging stations powered by renewable energy, improving access
and reducing downtime for EV users. And through smart grid integration, it ensures our power
systems evolve alongside increasing EV demand—optimizing energy distribution and
minimizing waste. These aren’t theoretical benefits. They are real, measurable steps toward a
smarter, more efficient, and more resilient energy future. Though the manifestations of EVIDA’s
implementation, as seen in the charging stations and e-jeepney rollouts, may currently be limited
to urban areas, the opposition fails to acknowledge that it is most often urban areas that greatly
require, and in turn, would greatly benefit from the reduction of carbon emissions through the
electrification of vehicles. Urban areas, especially in the Philippines, are heavily congested with
traffic, and would greatly benefit from a reduction in emissions through electrification. First, we
start with the major cities, and eventually, when stable enough, we can fully roll out these
changes nationwide. Correspondingly, EVIDA is in its early stages of implementing monumental
change. Change to the nation’s framework at this drastic of a degree would tacitly have gradual
results – rarely showing results as abrupt as one would wish. EVIDA, as an initial step, is pivotal
in steering the nation’s transportation and energy sectors towards sustainability, and that’s why
dismissing EVIDA’s impact is not only shortsighted—it’s simply inaccurate.

Looking beyond our borders, several developing countries with challenges similar to ours
have successfully implemented electric vehicle laws that we can learn from. For example, Nepal,
despite being a developing nation, achieved an 83% market share for electric vehicles in new car
sales in 2023. This success was driven by strong government incentives and the fact that 91% of
their electricity comes from renewable hydropower. This shows us that, though developing, our
country can eventually reach this point. Though we are currently quite far from it, it is still a
possibility that we will fail to achieve if we don’t start with change. Colombia and Mexico have
also made remarkable progress by integrating EVs into public fleets and providing tax
exemptions and infrastructure support. These examples prove that third world countries can build
effective frameworks for EV adoption, and we can build off their experiences to tailor our own
policies here in the Philippines.

Regarding our own renewable energy capacity, while it may be modest now, the
Philippines has ambitious goals to increase this significantly in the coming years. The National
Renewable Energy Program aims to expand renewable power capacity to over 15 GW by 2030
and beyond 20 GW by 2040. This means that as our renewable energy sources grow, the
environmental benefits of electrifying transport will also increase. The implementation of the
electric vehicle law does not need to happen all at once; what matters is that we start making
progress toward environmental sustainability. A gradual, steady approach aligned with our
renewable energy growth is both practical and effective.

In conclusion, the EVIDA is a forward-thinking policy that not only supports the growth
of the EV industry but also contributes significantly to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. As
we move towards a more sustainable future, embracing EVs and renewable energy is essential.
In the face of a global climate crisis and escalating fuel prices, the Electric Vehicle Industry
Development Act is not just a piece of legislation—it is a blueprint for national progress. It
redefines how we think about mobility, energy, and sustainability by championing efficiency at
every level—from production to consumption, from grid management to personal transportation.

This is not a distant dream. It is a practical, scalable solution backed by technology,

policy, and public interest. By investing in electric vehicles today, we are investing in a cleaner
economy, a more resilient energy system, and a healthier planet for future generations. So let us
be clear: the EVIDA is not just a step forward. It is a strategic leap—one that positions the
Philippines at the forefront of clean energy innovation and efficient transport. It answers the call
for climate action with concrete plans, measurable gains, and a vision grounded in both
environmental responsibility and economic opportunity. After all, one small step can be one
giant leap.

Efficiency is no longer optional—it is essential. And with the EVIDA, we are not just
choosing electric vehicles. We are choosing a smarter, cleaner, and more sustainable future.
Thank you.

DEPUTY LEADER OF OPPOSITION

Good afternoon to the honorable judges, esteemed members of the House, and members
of the floor. We, the Opposition, stand firm on the motion that The Electric Vehicle Industry
Development Act is NOT sufficient to effectively reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

The Deputy Prime Minister claims that EVs help because electricity can come from
renewables. But let’s be real—as of 2024, 62% of our power still comes from coal, and Meralco
sources 97% of its electricity from fossil fuels. EVs may be cleaner at the tailpipe, but if the grid
is still dirty, the pollution is just relocated, not reduced.

Next, cost. The Philippines has some of the highest electricity rates in Asia, making EVs
expensive to operate. Incentives exist, but they’re not enough to make EVs practical for most
Filipinos. Without affordability and accessibility, adoption remains limited.

And on infrastructure? EVIDA targets 7,300 charging stations by 2028, but only 912
exist today, mostly in Metro Manila. After three years, that’s only 12% progress—far from
sufficient.

As for emissions, the data speaks for itself: carbon emissions rose from 140.7 to 155.4
million tons from 2021 to 2022. If EVIDA were working, emissions would be going down—not
up.
 Foreign examples like Nepal are not comparable. Nepal gets 91% of its electricity from
renewables. We don’t. Until we clean our grid, EVs won’t deliver the promised benefits.

Ladies and gentlemen, the motion asks if the EVIDA is sufficient to effectively reduce
fossil fuel dependence. The answer, based on current data and realistic outcomes, is a clear no.
The Opposition stands firm in the argument that the EVIDA Law, while well-intentioned, is not
sufficient nor effective in truly reducing our country's dependence on fossil fuels.

To move forward, here are three new and crucial points that further expose the
insufficiency of this Act.

First, EVIDA overlooks the backbone of Philippine transport: public utility vehicles
(PUVs). In a country where most rely on jeepneys, tricycles, and buses, a law aiming to cut fossil
fuel use must start with the biggest users. Instead, EVIDA focuses on private vehicles and
corporate fleets. In 2023, only 7,515 EVs were registered—72.73% of them were SUVs or utility
vehicles, typically for the wealthy or corporations. Only 8.14% were motorcycles and tricycles,
with even fewer PUVs.

As of 2025, there are still 286,306 diesel or gas-powered PUVs on the road, receiving
fuel subsidies. In contrast, only 18,690 electric PUVs were sold in 2024—mostly for commercial
use, not public transport. The law fails to meet people where their actual transport reality lies.

Even with government incentives, EVs—especially e-jeepneys—remain unaffordable for

most. Electric PUVs cost upwards of PHP 2 million, while traditional diesel jeepneys cost PHP
600,000–900,000. Operators earning PHP 10,000–15,000 per month can’t afford this transition,
even with fuel savings of up to PHP 1,300/day (roughly PHP 475,000/year). Euro 4 diesel
engines are still the more practical choice for many due to cost and maintenance.

Second, EV batteries come with major environmental and ethical costs. Producing one
battery requires about 8 kg of lithium, 14 kg of cobalt, and 25 kg of nickel—materials mostly
mined in Chile, Argentina, the DRC, and Indonesia. These operations are carbon-intensive,
water-depleting, and often exploitative. Battery production emits 7–9 metric tons more CO₂ than
gasoline vehicles, according to Verkade and other studies.

Though lithium-iron-phosphate batteries reduce cobalt and nickel needs and cut
emissions by 15–25%, they still require lithium. Worse, battery recycling is limited, and the
Philippines lacks infrastructure for safe disposal—turning clean energy into future toxic e-waste.

Third, EVIDA relies heavily on market incentives—like tax holidays, excise tax
exemptions, and reduced vehicle charges. But these primarily benefit corporations and
high-income earners.

Globally, EV adoption is concentrated among the wealthy. In the U.S., 57% of battery EV
owners earn over USD 100,000/year (about PHP 5.7 million). In the Philippines, EV uptake
remains limited to urban elites and corporate fleets, not ordinary citizens. Without structural
reform, the law risks being a green solution for the privileged few.

To summarize, the opposition does not deny that EVIDA is a progressive gesture. But
gestures are not enough when climate change, energy instability, and economic inequality are
reality. It fails to transform public transportation, where the biggest gains in fossil fuel reduction
could be made; it overlooks the environmental cost of battery production and disposal; and it
relies too much on market incentives, which fail to address the structural barriers faced by the
majority.

Therefore, the opposition strongly contends that EVIDA is neither sufficient nor effective
in significantly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The law is there, the intention is
there—but the execution and scope are shallow. It fulfills a political or procedural goal, but not
the deeper environmental or societal transformation we truly need.

Thank you.
MEMBER OF GOVERNMENT

Building on what has already been established, I now turn our attention to a critical
dimension of the EVIDA Act, its cost-efficiency and structural logic as an investment strategy.
EVIDA is not just a legislative gesture toward green mobility; it is a deliberate, economically
sound framework for accelerating the Philippines' transition to clean transportation without
burdening the government or the Filipino people.

At the heart of its fiscal design is Section 24, which links EV-related activities to the
Strategic Investment Priority Plan (SIPP), thereby qualifying businesses in this sector for
targeted incentives under the CREATE Act. These include income tax holidays, special corporate
income tax options, and customs duty exemptions on capital equipment and raw materials.
Importantly, these incentives are performance-based. Only enterprises that meet measurable
benchmarks—such as job creation, local value-added, and innovation—are eligible, ensuring that
public resources are directed toward initiatives that generate real economic returns.

The downstream effect of these incentives is equally important. Lower production costs
mean lower retail prices, which increase EV adoption. As adoption rises, unit costs fall due to
economies of scale. This is how you build an industry efficiently and sustainably—from the
ground up, with clear cost logic embedded in every layer of the policy.

EVIDA is harmonized with existing tax policy, particularly the TRAIN Law, which
provides excise tax exemptions for fully electric vehicles and reduced tax rates for hybrids. To
give a concrete example: a battery electric vehicle (BEV) priced at ₱2 million can save up to
₱400,000 in taxes and fees over its usable life. These benefits are not temporary—they are valid
for eight years, offering long-term clarity and confidence to consumers and investors alike. This
is not theoretical. According to the Department of Trade and Industry, these incentives helped
boost EV registrations in the Philippines by over 350% between 2021 and 2023. The numbers
speak for themselves: price signals work.
 Beyond fiscal benefits, Section 25 of EVIDA introduces a suite of non-fiscal incentives
that make electric vehicles not only cheaper but practically more appealing than their traditional
counterparts. These include priority registration, exemption from number coding schemes, and
expedited processing for transport franchises using EVs. Each of these measures reduces the
time, effort, and opportunity cost for both private users and commercial operators, pushing
adoption even further.

However, affordability and convenience must be matched with infrastructure. That’s why
Sections 17 to 23 lay out a national EV charging network plan, with detailed guidelines for
planning, construction, and operations. As of 2023, the Department of Energy—working with
private sector partners—has already established over 270 public charging stations. The target is
to reach 10,000 by 2040, and these will be built according to uniform technical standards to
ensure interoperability, safety, and efficiency. Most importantly, EVIDA’s framework promotes
public-private partnerships, reducing the fiscal load on the government while accelerating the
buildup of critical infrastructure.

Now, let’s look at the bigger picture. Operating an electric vehicle in the Philippines costs
approximately ₱1.50 per kilometer, compared to ₱6 to ₱8 per kilometer for gasoline-powered
vehicles. For the average driver, this results in annual savings of ₱15,000 to ₱20,000—more for
high-mileage users or commercial fleets. And according to the Department of Energy, if just 10%
of vehicles on Philippine roads transition to electric by 2030, we could reduce fossil fuel imports
by over $500 million annually, cut 1 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions each year, and
stimulate roughly ₱30 billion in domestic investments and job creation. These aren’t speculative
projections—they are grounded in present trends and backed by government data. So I pose this
question, just because our current energy and infrastructure capabilities are limited, should we
not take steps towards more sustainable alternatives through EVIDA? Just because challenges
exist that hinder the full implementation of EVIDA, can we not address them simultaneously to
its implementation?

May I point out once more that EVIDA calls not just for vehicle electrification, but the
corresponding energy and infrastructure reforms demanded therein. So when we assess EVIDA
from a cost perspective, we don’t see waste—we see a multiplier effect. We see a law that pays
for itself through savings, growth, and resilience. EVIDA is not a luxury policy; it is an
economic modernization plan that leverages smart incentives, invites private capital, and
generates public benefit. In a country where every peso counts, this is not just cost-efficient—it
is cost-intelligent governance.

Likewise, I would like to comment on the inaccuracy of the opposition’s suggestion that
batteries produce more carbon than gasoline vehicles. Although batteries emit more carbon from
its production, the overall lifetime of a battery significantly entails lower carbon emissions than a
gasoline powered engine as stated by the US EPA. This encourages a culture of reuse,
maximizing resources and the energy that batteries provide. Suggesting otherwise shows how
blatantly the opposition over-minimizes the positive impact that renewable batteries have over
gasoline powered engines.

More so, I would like to point out as well that we are more like our fellow developing
nations that are currently implementing vehicle electrification laws than we would like to
believe. We can observe that developing countries like Indonesia and India see the benefit in
boosting their electric vehicle industry as seen in their respective legislature, regardless of the
fact that only 19% and 46.3% respectively of their current energy comes from renewable
sources. This is comparable to our very own country’s renewable energy capacity of around
22%. As you see, just because current infrastructure cannot fully support the endeavors of
EVIDA does not mean that we cannot develop EVIDA with existing sustainable energy
legislation in the country like the Philippine Energy Plan, which in actuality is currently being
aligned to be able to accommodate both the Comprehensive Roadmap for the Electric Vehicle
Industry and the National Transportation policy. Evidently, it is not a question of when we can
start with this endeavor, but how willing we are to start now, and I believe the opposition gravely
misses that point.

Thank you.
MEMBER OF OPPOSITION

Good afternoon to the honorable judges and esteemed members of the House.

Today, as we engage in this critical debate about the Electric Vehicle Industry
Development Act (EVIDA), it is essential to recognize that, while EVIDA may present a
well-intentioned framework, it ultimately falls short in providing the necessary measures to
significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The government claims that EVIDA is
designed with cost-efficiency at its core, yet we must confront the stark reality that electric
vehicles (EVs) remain prohibitively expensive for the average Filipino. Despite the promises of
fiscal incentives, the high upfront costs associated with EVs deter widespread adoption and
perpetuate a system where only a privileged few can afford to transition away from traditional
fossil fuel-powered vehicles.

Additionally, the government states that with Section 24 of the CREATE Act, the
utilization of electric vehicles are incentivized. However, these incentives primarily benefit those
private vehicles rather than on public transportation. There is no clear prioritization on the likes
of e-buses, e-jeepneys, or other public transit vehicles which can have a large effect in terms of
reducing carbon emissions and traffic congestion. Without subsidies prioritizing that, the market
will shift toward private vehicles at which the two said issues won’t be mitigated in a long term.
For the non-fiscal policies on the Section 25 on the other hand, individuals might purchase EVs
solely for the priority registration benefits and not necessarily for their environmental
advantages, potentially clogging up the priority lanes without significantly contributing to
emissions reduction. Also, the exemption from Number Coding could incentivize people to
purchase additional EVs just to circumvent number coding restrictions which could potentially
increase the overall number of vehicles on the road and negate the intended traffic management
benefits of the scheme.

Moreover, the government touts the development of a national charging infrastructure as

a cornerstone of EVIDA. However, the current reality is far less promising. With only 912
publicly accessible charging stations scattered across the country—most concentrated in urban
areas—rural and provincial regions are left unsupported. This uneven distribution creates
insurmountable barriers for potential EV users outside metropolitan areas, ultimately rendering
the goal of widespread adoption unrealistic and unsustainable. Without a comprehensive and
equitable rollout of charging stations, the vision of a future filled with electric vehicles remains
merely aspirational.

In addition to affordability and infrastructure challenges, we must consider the

implications of increased electricity demand as more Filipinos transition to EVs. While the
government asserts that shifting fossil fuel consumption from transportation to electricity
generation will yield environmental benefits, this transition raises significant concerns about the
stability of our already vulnerable electricity grid. The anticipated surge in electricity demand
from mass EV charging could lead to power outages and further strain our grid, which is already
prone to inefficiencies and system losses. If we redirect fossil fuel consumption without
addressing the limitations of our energy infrastructure, we risk exacerbating existing power
reliability issues, potentially driving electricity costs even higher.

Furthermore, the government’s comparisons to countries like Norway fail to account for
critical differences in economic context. While Norway enjoys low household electricity costs
and has achieved remarkable EV adoption rates, the Philippines grapples with some of the
highest electricity prices in Asia. This stark contrast significantly undermines the supposed
economic advantages of transitioning to EVs. While studies may indicate potential savings from
EV usage, those benefits are largely negated by our high electricity costs, rendering the promise
of financial relief through EV adoption unconvincing for the average consumer.

With this, while EVIDA may represent a step in the right direction, it lacks the
comprehensive and transformative measures necessary to achieve a significant reduction in fossil
fuel dependence in the Philippines. The opposition’s stance is clear: without addressing the
fundamental issues of affordability, infrastructure, grid stability, and economic feasibility,
EVIDA cannot be deemed an effective solution. While it is agreeable that the EVIDA is a costed
transition, it has a lot of issues in terms of feasibility and effectiveness. The real impracticality
here is forcing this transition without ensuring that infrastructure, affordability, and sustainability
align with it. It is imperative that we seek a more holistic and realistic approach to addressing our
energy challenges, one that genuinely prioritizes the needs of all Filipinos and paves the way for
a sustainable and resilient future for our nation. Thank you.

GOVERNMENT WHIP

Ladies and gentlemen, while it is true that our transportation system has long been
dependent on fossil fuels, history proves that energy transitions are not only possible but
inevitable. Energy transitions have not only occurred throughout history — they have been
necessary responses to innovation, scarcity, and social progress. Saying the transition to electric
vehicles (EVs) is unrealistic dismisses the real and measurable advancements that are already
happening locally and globally. And with these claims, they tend to overlook visible signs of
change; from government legislations supporting clean transportation, companies shifting their
focus, and consumers starting to adopt EVs. Yes, it may be argued that progress is slow, but we
have to start somewhere; and start soon.

First, let us take a look at history. The world has gone through multiple energy
revolutions before. During the Industrial Revolution, for instance, wood gave way to coal due to
deforestation and the invention of the steam engine, which ran more efficiently on coal. Later in
the 20th century, coal itself was replaced by oil and natural gas, driven by the demands of
modern transportation, electricity generation, and urban growth. These transitions were not easy
or immediate but they happened because they made sense economically, technologically, and
socially. The systems we once believed to be permanent gave way to better alternatives, which
though seeming unreliable at first eventually developed to be more sound. So the question is,
why should our transition to electric vehicles be any different just because of the current
limitations we face? We can address these limitations in tandem with our implementation of
legislation like EVIDA. What we can’t address, however, is losing the race against carbon
emissions and global warming just because we were too unwilling to pursue change in the face
of existing yet addressable challenges.
 Now, take a look at your surroundings and observe the progress we are seeing today. In
the Philippines, the shift toward electric vehicles is not just a vision, it’s an ongoing process
backed by legislation and measurable growth. The Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act
(EVIDA), enacted in 2022, is a key driver of this momentum. This law provides fiscal incentives
for EV manufacturing, importation, and utilization, making EVs more competitive with
fossil-fueled vehicles. For example, EV sales grew nearly tenfold between 2022 and 2023, and in
these years from just over 1,000 units to more than 10,000 units are sold in one year. This isn’t
just theoretical, it is happening right now.

In fact, many other developing nations, such as India, Indonesia, and Panama, have faced
similar barriers and yet have taken bold steps forward through EV legislation. India, for example,
is focusing on electrifying two- and three-wheelers and public buses—forms of transport that are
affordable and widely used, just like in the Philippines. Similarly, Indonesia mandates
government fleets to go electric, and Panama is transitioning all public-sector transport to EVs
with timelines and targets very similar to our own.

Government policies have always played a key role in driving energy transitions. Take
the Philippine Public Utility Vehicle Modernization Program as an example, it aims to phase out
outdated jeepneys in favor of cleaner alternatives like electric vehicles. This same approach can
be applied across the transportation sector with EVs. Under EVIDA, businesses involved in EV
production and infrastructure enjoy tax incentives, and tariffs on EV imports have been reduced
or eliminated to make EVs more affordable to Filipino consumers. These are clear signals of the
state’s commitment to clean mobility; and when government, industry, and consumers move
together, real change follows.

Now, let’s address the economic side of this transition. Lithium battery costs, which are
considered the most expensive component of electric vehicles, have dropped by 85% over the
past decade and are projected to decrease another 50% by 2030 despite recent price spikes. This
makes EVs increasingly affordable compared to traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.
In fact, hybrid electric vehicles are already popular in the Philippines, with over 1,400 units sold
in January 2025 alone.
 Globally, we’re seeing a surge in EV adoption due to declining battery costs, improved
infrastructure, and heightened environmental awareness. The Philippines is expected to reach
annual sales of 150,800 EV units by 2032, this shows that we are not isolated from global trends
but part of a larger movement toward sustainable transportation. Change is not only possible, it is
already happening. The question now is not whether the transition will occur, but how quickly
we are willing to embrace it.

EVIDA’s framework does not merely rely on pushing electrification through subsidies. It
encompasses the broader modification of the country’s energy system in tandem with these
electrification activities. It aims to change our country’s energy sources, and in turn our vehicles’
energy sources, fundamentally – from its root. It goes without saying that EVIDA would be
unsuccessful without adjustments to existing systems and frameworks – but the thing is, EVIDA
fundamentally exists in tandem with these said adjustments.

EVIDA is an initial step to sustainability compounded with many other initial steps in the
country’s energy, social, and transportation frameworks. This stresses how EVIDA can reach its
full potential through cooperative change, and this change cannot begin if we don’t partake in
this endeavor just because of existing limitations, which we actually have strategies and plans
put in place to address. It is clear the opposition wishes for immediate and abrupt results from
EVIDA, when in fact this is far from a realistic expectation. Unlike the opposition’s unrealistic
expectations of the speed at which change can be brought about, EVIDA’s framework
realistically encompasses multiple areas that require fundamental change so that this quest for
sustainability becomes technologically, environmentally, and economically feasible. Change is
rarely abrupt and can span the course of multiple years, especially at the national scale; but
purposeful change cannot come from inaction – it can only emerge from decisions and
opportunities taken regardless of existing challenges.

However gradual the results may be, this initial step remains pivotal for our country’s
future directions towards sustainable energy and transportation. Our country cannot stay in its
current state, shackled to fossil fuels, just because of its existing limitations. Though the
opposition’s arguments vividly narrate the nation’s limitations, they unconvincingly narrate how
EVIDA cannot be an agent that helps in overcoming these limitations through its multifaceted
framework. They completely fail at acknowledging that these limitations should not necessitate
the hindrance of innovation, but instead necessitate the addressing of these said limitations
simultaneously to unhindered innovation. Hindering progress due to the limitations we currently
face is like shooting ourselves in the foot – we still have the problems and yet we haven’t
progressed at all. We have to start somewhere with change, and unfortunately, we, globally, are
losing the race against carbon emissions. So we unquestionably have to start with change soon;
and right now, EVIDA poses itself as one of the many initial steps towards change that we as a
nation could take.

OPPOSITION WHIP

Ladies and gentlemen, while the Government side presents a compelling argument in
favor of electric vehicles (EVs), the core issue here is not the value of EVs themselves, but
whether the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act (EVIDA) alone can drive massive shift
required to significantly cut fossil fuel reliance, and in this regard, the Government has not
offered convincing proof.

The Opposition sees the potential of EVs in contributing to cleaner transportation, but
argues that EVIDA, in its current form, is not sufficient or effective enough to achieve this shift.
It overlooks key issues like poor infrastructure, environmental costs of batteries, weak
incentives, affordability, our continued reliance on fossil-fueled power, and the lack of
preparation for full-scale implementation. While EVIDA is a move in the right direction, it falls
short without broader structural reforms and environmental safeguards.

While the government argues energy transitions are inevitable, they overlook key
differences today. Past shifts were driven by cheaper, more accessible energy and happened
gradually in wealthy nations. In contrast, EV adoption requires costly tech and infrastructure the
Philippines currently lacks. Government's analogy is not entirely appropriate, as we are operating
in a significantly different context, specifically the year 2025 rather than the conditions of the
20th century.

The claim that EVIDA makes EVs competitive ignores key issues: high costs and lack of
a well-developed charging network.

EVs and their batteries remain too expensive for most Filipinos, and current incentives
aren’t enough to make it affordable for the general public. Moreover, charging infrastructure
remains scarce. With only 912 charging stations, most of which are concentrated in Metro
Manila shows a great disparity from the proposed goal in the law. Considering the average
Filipino’s income, these vehicles remain a luxury rather than a practical option. This restricts EV
accessibility to a small, urban-based population.

As we consider the EVIDA’s impact on reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, it's crucial
to focus on its limitations from an environmental perspective as well. EVIDA may aim to
promote EVs as a cleaner alternative, but its lifecycle not being zero-emission is truly
overlooked. EV's carbon footprint is substantially imparted during its manufacture, particularly
battery production, which relies heavily on resource-intensive mining for materials like lithium
and cobalt. The Philippines currently lacks the capacity to produce EVs or batteries locally,
making the shift import-dependent and unsustainable. As it stands, EVIDA benefits a narrow
segment rather than enabling nationwide transformation.

EVIDA promotes EVs as cleaner due to their use of electricity, but most of the
Philippines' is generated from non-renewable sources with over 55% coming from coal and
natural gas. Without a shift to renewables, emissions aren’t reduced, just relocated from fuel
tanks to the power grid.

Moreover, there is a lack of attention on the strain this transition presents on the country's
already unstable power infrastructure. If EV usage grows significantly, current energy
infrastructure may be overburdened, potentially leading to more frequent blackouts and rising
electricity costs for all.
 EVIDA is a commendable effort to promote EVs in the country, but it falls short on
discussing the other problems associated with such a drastic societal change. It focuses on
incentives for manufacturers and importers, yet overlooks the affordability of EVs for ordinary
Filipinos. The financial hardships faced by jeepney drivers under the Public Utility Vehicle
Modernization Program highlight the need for consumer subsidies.

To be a viable solution that benefits all, EVIDA must be complemented by more

inclusive initiatives such as a more effective transition to renewable energy, providing consumer
subsidies, and ensuring equitable infrastructure development. By addressing these gaps, the
government can create a comprehensive strategy that supports a meaningful transition away from
fossil fuels.

In conclusion, while the EVIDA aims to promote a greener future, it falls short of
effectively reducing fossil fuel dependence due to its limited scope and failure to address critical
issues such as affordability, infrastructure, reliance on non-renewable energy sources, and the
environmental impact of battery production. EVIDA's focus on manufacturer incentives without
addressing consumer affordability and the need for a transition to renewable energy sources
undermines its potential for large-scale transformation, risking a system where only a select few
benefit while environmental burdens are simply shifted elsewhere.

True independence on fossil fuels particularly on the discussion of transportation vehicles

will only be achieved when the sector is able to address those issues through a comprehensive
shift towards renewable energy sources, advancements in electric vehicle technology, sustainable
infrastructure development, and supportive policies.