The Stratbase Institute on Monday said it “firmly rejects” proposals for joint energy exploration with Beijing, citing China’s track record of “consistently acting in bad faith.”

“A state that persistently disregards international law and violates Philippine sovereign rights cannot be expected to honor any agreement. Entering into such a partnership would expose the country to unnecessary risk,” said Stratbase President and CEO Victor “Andres” Manhit.

Instead of pursuing joint exploration with China, Manhit called on the government to adopt “clear and decisive measures” to strengthen the country’s position in the West Philippine Sea (WPS). These include the full implementation of Executive Order No. 111, which assigns Philippine names to 131 features in the Kalayaan Island Group—an assertion of sovereignty.

He also urged the government to prioritize energy development through partnerships with “like-minded states” and credible Filipino private sector players with proven expertise.

The statement comes after the Marcos administration signaled openness to joint gas exploration with China, particularly in the western portion of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, as global energy concerns intensify.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. earlier said the ongoing crisis in the Middle East—triggered by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global oil route—could serve as an “impetus” for potential agreements on joint exploration in disputed areas of the South China Sea.

However, Manhit stressed that energy security must not come at the expense of sovereignty.

“No crisis should be used to justify compromising the Philippines’ legal position or ignoring the lived realities of Filipino fisherfolk and frontliners who continue to bear the consequences of China’s actions in the WPS,” he said.

He emphasized that any discussions on energy cooperation must be anchored in international law, particularly the 2016 Arbitral Award that invalidated China’s sweeping claims over the South China Sea.

China, however, continues to reject the ruling and assert its “nine-dash line” claim, with Chinese Coast Guard vessels frequently accused of restricting access to areas such as Scarborough Shoal through what Philippine officials describe as “illegal, coercive, and aggressive actions.”

Manhit also cited repeated incidents involving damage to Philippine vessels and risks posed to Filipino personnel and civilians, describing these as part of China’s continued efforts to assert unlawful control over Philippine maritime territory.

“These rights are non-negotiable,” he said. “All resources must remain under full Philippine ownership, control, and supervision. Any arrangement that creates ambiguity or undermines these rights is unacceptable.”

The war in the Middle East may be out of Manila’s hands, but what happens at the gas stations here is not.

Motorists woke up on Tuesday to a painful reality: local oil firms began imposing fuel price hikes ranging from ₱17 to ₱24 per liter. Those who commute were surprised that the prices of Grab, Joyride, InDrive, and other TNVS services had nearly doubled during rush hour.

According to the Department of Energy, the increases will be implemented through staggered adjustments between March 10 and 16 to mitigate the impact. Yet, however “soft” the government wants it to be, these price hikes hit hard as a bat in the face.

The numbers alone are staggering. A ₱20 increase in diesel does not just burn a hole in the pocket — it is an economic earthquake. Fuel sits at the heart of the entire supply chain. When transport costs rise, the price of vegetables from the provinces rises. Delivery trucks charge more, and I believe truckers have already increased operational costs by 30 percent.

If they haven’t as of this writing, grocery shelves will reflect the difference soon enough. In the end, it is the Filipino household that absorbs the shock.

That much is unavoidable. The Philippines imports roughly 80 to 85 percent of its fuel. As former energy secretary Jericho Petilla bluntly describes it, the country is a “price-taker.” Global oil shocks inevitably dictate how hard a hit we take, and we have no choice.

But here is the part we can control: opportunism.

Even before the official adjustments take effect, the DOE has already issued show-cause orders against 54 gasoline stations nationwide suspected of hoarding supply or prematurely raising pump prices.

One station allegedly raised diesel by more than 54 percent overnight. Another reportedly increased prices by more than 40 percent ahead of the scheduled adjustment. That is not market volatility. That is price manipulation.

Gas stations in the provinces report that their supplies are dry. The DOE has to check that. Energy Secretary Sharon Garin has said the country has enough fuel supply for about eight weeks and warned that stations refusing to sell while waiting for higher prices are violating government directives.

The response must, therefore, be decisive.

The DOE should not simply monitor these stations — it should revoke the operating permits of those proven to have exploited the situation and pursue administrative or criminal cases where warranted. Naming violators publicly would also send a strong signal that profiteering during a national crisis will not be tolerated.

The Philippine National Police (PNP) has already been ordered to assist in monitoring roughly 14,000 gasoline stations nationwide and to check warehouses for hoarding. That is a good start.

As for the President, well, Bongbong Marcos has to act speedily and decisively. Let him secure emergency powers from Congress to temporarily reduce excise taxes on petroleum products. Hopefully, that will cushion the blow where it can.

But policy relief alone will not restore public trust. Transparency is just as essential. Consumers deserve to understand how pump prices are determined — and whether increases truly reflect global conditions or simply opportunism by companies that control the supply.

In a volatile world, global oil prices may rise beyond our control. Greed at the pump should not.

• *         *         *

SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View via X app (formerly Twitter). Read current and past issues of this column at https://www.thephilbiznews.com

Sergio R. Ortiz-Luis Jr., chairman emeritus of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, made the appeal during a live radio interview with Brigada News FM Manila on March 4.

Ortiz-Luis said suspending fuel excise taxes would provide immediate relief to businesses and consumers as global oil prices rise due to geopolitical tensions.

He noted that unlike many countries that subsidize fuel and electricity, the Philippines imposes taxes on these sectors, adding to the cost burden.

“Excise taxes can be removed for now,” Ortiz-Luis said, adding that the government has reported progress in recovering funds lost to corruption-tainted public sector projects.

He said suspending fuel taxes would benefit both rich and poor and could be a more effective response than expanding financial assistance or “ayuda” programs.

Ortiz-Luis warned that micro enterprises—accounting for about 90% of businesses in the Philippines—are likely to be the hardest hit by rising fuel costs.

“If we invest in the micro and small enterprises, they can grow and there won’t be a need for dole-outs,” said Ortiz-Luis, who is also president of the Philippine Exporters Confederation, Inc..

For long-term energy security, he urged the government to revisit proposals for domestic oil exploration and consider nuclear energy as part of the country’s future power mix.

The appeal comes amid escalating tensions in the Middle East following military strikes involving the United States and Israel against Iran in late February, which triggered retaliatory attacks across the region.

Analysts warn the conflict could push global oil prices higher and disrupt supply chains, posing risks for oil-importing economies such as the Philippines. It could also affect remittances from overseas Filipino workers based in the Middle East.

In a letter to ERC Chairman Hon. Francis Saturnino C. Juan, the think tank noted that removing bill deposits disrupts regulatory predictability under the Performance-Based Regulation (PBR) framework and introduces costs that utilities would likely recover through higher rates.

Bill deposits provide low-cost working capital and a buffer against credit risk. Abrupt removal could force utilities to borrow commercially, raise bad debt provisions, and increase cost-of-capital assumptions—factors directly affecting electricity rates.

“The result is mathematically certain: rate hikes will surpass the one-time refunds given to consumers, undermining regulatory credibility,” InfraWatch PH Convenor Raymond E. Kahiwat said.

The group highlighted that smaller distribution utilities and rural electric cooperatives would bear the brunt, serving dispersed communities with thin margins. They also noted the absence of a coordinated framework to reconcile consumer protections, such as grace periods and disconnection suspensions under the Magna Carta for Residential Electricity Consumers.

InfraWatch PH recommended publishing a transparent regulatory impact analysis, aligning any policy change with the PBR rate-reset timeline, and implementing transition safeguards for smaller utilities. The ERC should also strengthen coordination with disconnection rules and define alternatives to bill deposits.

The think tank emphasized it does not oppose abolishing deposits in principle but called for a careful, data-driven, and coordinated approach to avoid long-term consumer harm.

“Immediate relief should not come at the expense of sector stability, regulatory predictability, and future infrastructure investment,” Kahiwat concluded.

Senior Citizens Party-list Representative Rodolfo “Ompong” Ordanes has filed House Resolution No. 472 urging the House Committee on Energy to investigate, in aid of legislation, the continued non-implementation of the VAT removal required under Republic Act No. 12120, or the Philippine Natural Gas Industry Development Act.

RA 12120, enacted on January 8, 2025, exempts the sale of indigenous natural gas—and the electricity generated from it—from VAT to help reduce power costs for Filipino households, particularly seniors and low-income consumers.

The Department of Energy released the Implementing Rules and Regulations on April 8, 2025, followed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 11-2025. Both took effect in April.

Despite these, power plants using indigenous natural gas are still being charged 12% VAT, resulting in households consuming around 200 kWh monthly paying about ₱42 per billing cycle—an amount that should have already been eliminated.

Ordanes warned that the delay undermines the law’s objective to ease the financial burden on consumers. He also wrote to DOE Secretary Sharon Garin seeking an update on the implementation status and requesting a time-bound action plan.

House Resolution No. 472 aims to identify bottlenecks, ensure accountability from implementing agencies, and close policy gaps preventing the immediate rollout of the VAT exemption.