Ex-Senate president faults policy gaps behind fuel crisis

By Rjay Zuriaga Castor

The country’s worsening fuel crisis stems from policy gaps across successive administrations that failed to build durable solutions to energy challenges, former Senate President Franklin Drilon said.

Drilon said Tuesday, April 14, that any administration would have struggled to handle the impact of what economists have described as one of the largest supply disruptions in the history of the global oil market.

Better preparation, however, could have eased its effects, he stressed.

“It would be hard because there are factors that are beyond your control. My only comment is that we are so poor in anticipating things, events like this, and that applies not only to Marcos but all the presidents before,” he said.

Successive governments should have prioritized energy security, particularly through diversification of power sources and greater investment in renewable energy, he said.

He cited a past proposal involving solar energy development in Tigbauan, Iloilo, which he said did not push through due to regulatory and land conversion issues, as well as corruption.

Such missed opportunities reflect broader systemic issues that have hindered the country’s preparedness for energy shocks, Drilon said.

“These are the kinds of practices that contribute to our inability to prepare for events, episodes like what we see today,” he said.

Greater investment in alternative energy sources could have reduced the country’s vulnerability to global oil price volatility, he added.

“The matter of alternative sources of energy was not properly supported. We do not have oil, but we also did not prepare for this eventuality,” he said.

“This is not just the fault of Marcos; he shares the blame but so do all other presidents in the past,” he added.

Drilon also weighed in on proposals to revive the Oil Price Stabilization Fund, a mechanism established in 1984 under the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos through Presidential Decree No. 1956. The fund was originally designed to reimburse oil companies for cost increases.

While acknowledging its intent to cushion fuel price shocks, he warned that such mechanisms ultimately rely on public funds.

“Sounds nice to hear, but remember that whatever you allocate in the OPSF is being taken from somewhere else. Whatever money you place in OPSF, you remove from the others, like health, education, infrastructure,” he said.

He described the mechanism as a “zero-sum game,” noting that government resources remain limited and must be carefully distributed across sectors.

Drilon also cautioned that the Oil Price Stabilization Fund concept is “very populist,” as it may distort market signals and disproportionately benefit higher-volume fuel users rather than the most vulnerable sectors of society.