FINDING ANSWERS
Two recent episodes of the Kapihan sa Manila Hotel spotlighted the Philippines’ response to the global oil crisis triggered by the US-Israel war on Iran.
One featured Sen. Rodante Marcoleta on fuel pricing accountability. The other guested Employers Confederation of the Philippines President Sergio Ortiz-Luis, Jr. on business survival and resilience, and Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary and Spokesperson Arnel de Mesa on food security.
Both episodes converged on a single truth: the crisis driven by the closure and blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is exposing deep structural weaknesses the country can no longer ignore. The Philippines is now paying for long-standing policy gaps laid bare by global turmoil.
Sen. Marcoleta issued a blunt challenge: prove the numbers or return the profits. With high prices of fuel, the suspicion of overcharging resonates. He estimated that oil firms may be earning ₱2.7 to ₱3 billion in gross income daily since the crisis began.
He called for the identifying the exact point when replacement cost pricing was adopted, arguing that profits earned before that shift, while companies were still selling stock purchased at old, lower prices, could constitute unjust enrichment.
"If they used replacement cost pricing before it was warranted, they must refund the excess. That is the most practical and just solution," he said.
Fuel pricing is shaped by global benchmarks, freight, insurance, exchange rates, and replacement cost pricing—the practice of basing pump prices on the cost of replenishing supply rather than on existing stock. In volatile markets, this is standard.
Yet it is also where the problem begins.
Applied too early, replacement pricing allows firms to pass on higher costs before they are actually incurred. Consumers pay more now for costs that may come later. It might be legal, but it can edge into opportunism.
This is why Marcoleta’s challenge matters. Not because it proves wrongdoing, but because it forces a question that regulators have failed to answer clearly: are Filipinos paying fair prices?
He urged the Department of Energy to fulfill its mandate under RA 8479, the Oil Deregulation Law, to monitor and publish pricing data. "Wala pong nagmo-monitor (no one monitors)," he said. "If you cannot determine the precise point of replacement cost adoption, abuse becomes possible, and may already have occurred."
Sen. Marcoleta is right to call for transparency. Open the books. Audit pricing timelines. Explain the system in plain terms. If abuse occurred, act. If not, prove it.
But even as this transparency issue unfolds, another crisis is tightening—one that cannot be simply fixed by a pricing formula.
The government insists there is no food shortage. But the more urgent reality is this: food is becoming harder to afford. A full market means little if families cannot buy what they need.
At the other Kapihan episode, the ECOP head and the DA official outlined the chain reaction. Fuel underpins every stage of food production—irrigation, harvesting, transport. When fuel price rises, everything follows.
Add rising fertilizer costs and the looming threat of El Niño. The DA has called it a “three-shock” scenario. It is already evident in higher vegetable prices and strained supply chains.
Farmers are squeezed. Consumers are squeezed. The system tightens at both ends. Government responses—fuel subsidies, transport support, financial aid—are necessary. But they are stopgaps. They ease pressure without fixing the structure.
Beyond agriculture, micro and small enterprises are also under strain. Fuel price hikes erode already thin margins. Unlike large firms, they have little capacity to absorb shocks. As costs rise, closures and job losses become real risks.
Calls for stronger interventions like fuel tax relief, stricter monitoring, and tighter oversight are growing. These are not radical proposals but are emergency responses. Yet they all confront the same underlying constraint: structural dependence.
The Philippines relies heavily on imported fuel, leaving it exposed to shocks it cannot control. The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz makes this clear. The country absorbs the shock—but does not shape it. It is a recurring problem.
For years, energy diversification has lagged. Renewable investments remain low. Regulatory bottlenecks persist. Long-term planning yields to short-term fixes. And so each global disruption triggers the same cycle—price spikes, public anger, reactive policy.
That cycle is no longer sustainable. Energy independence is not an abstract goal. It is an economic safeguard. Accelerating renewable energy, modernizing infrastructure, and streamlining approvals are now urgent priorities.
Equally important is communication. Without clear explanations, technical issues become political flashpoints. Every price increase invites suspicion. Trust erodes.
And those who suffer most are those least able to absorb the shock: farmers, fisherfolk, small entrepreneurs. They are already paying the price.
If this crisis is to mean anything, it must force change, greater transparency, faster reform, and policies that protect the most vulnerable.
Because while the Strait of Hormuz is beyond the country’s control, the response to its consequences is not. And for millions of Filipinos on the brink of deeper poverty, that response can make all the difference. (finding.lina@yahoo.com)
