Tensions flared during a House committee on ways and means hearing as lawmakers demanded to know why oil companies are permitted to raise fuel prices instantly, even when their current inventory was purchased before the Middle East conflict drove global rates upward.
Representative Rolando Valeriano and other House leaders questioned the Department of Energy (DOE) on why a massive ₱20 per liter hike for diesel is looming, despite oil firms having a mandatory 15- to 30-day buffer stock of cheaper fuel. Analysts say these developments highlight the public’s growing frustration with the “deregulated” system, which often appears to prioritize industry profit over consumer protection during times of international crisis.
Some legislative observers believe that the current debate may test the limits of the Oil Deregulation Law. While DOE officials argued that immediate price adjustments prevent “discretionary pricing” and ensure that global price drops are also reflected quickly, lawmakers countered that this system places an unfair burden on Filipinos. How the government chooses to redefine these “parameters” could lead to more rigid oversight of how and when local pump prices are adjusted in relation to existing stockpiles.
Fuel pricing has long been viewed as a sensitive national issue, with a direct impact on transport costs and food inflation. Any decision to investigate or amend the current deregulation framework would likely have far-reaching implications for the country’s economic stability, especially with diesel prices projected to potentially hit ₱96 per liter if supply routes in the Strait of Hormuz remain blocked.
Experts say that while the DOE cites a “gentleman’s agreement” for weekly price changes, the rapid surge in costs serves as a reminder of the vulnerability of the domestic market to geopolitical shocks. The push for a legislative inquiry into these pricing practices reflects a broader effort to shield the population from “windfall” profiteering during wartime conditions.
For many policymakers and analysts, the key concern is finding a way to implement price “shock absorbers” that feel fair to the public, preventing a localized energy crunch from eroding trust in government oversight and national economic management.