Now is the time to protect the weak!

According to DOE’s forecast today, gasoline prices will rise by a significant P13 per liter, or P75.55 per liter. If the anticipated large increase of P23 per liter is carried out, diesel will reach P79.24 per liter. These are only the first price shocks. Now, imagine the Strait of Hormuz being permanently blocked by fighting, tankers sitting idle, refineries being shut down, and crude oil based in Dubai reaching between $100 and $140 per barrel (our government bases its fiscal operations at only $80 per barrel).

Today, fears and shock are already on the weary faces of our heads of family, and mothers anticipating rationed kerosene. Jeepney, taxi, bus, motorcycle-taxi and tricycle drivers are figuring out how much more a fare increase would cost them, and market vendors watching vegetable prices soar due to expected doubled transportation costs. This is a terrible and agonizing reality, not melodrama. 

History ought to infuriate us. The 1973 oil embargo (during martial law) and the 2008 price spike due to the world financial crisis were human tragedies rather than just economic occurrences. They imparted the same harsh lesson twice: the poor and households that depend on transportation suffer the most when energy supplies are cut off or prices rise. 38 million Filipinos in 1973 had a clear picture of scarcity due to the Saudi oil embargo: long lines at gas stations, rationing, and some households switching back to using wood and charcoal. Due to the shortage of diesel, public transportation became unreliable; many operators ran fewer trips, which decreased driver incomes while raising commuter costs and travel times. As transportation and input costs increased, food prices skyrocketed, forcing families to reduceconsumption and modify daily routines.

During the 2008 world financial crisis and oil shock , around 90 million Filipinos suffered in a different way, as consumers were hit almost immediately by skyrocketing fuel price increases. Although there were fewer supply shortages, real incomes were squeezed by the quick pass- through of rising pump prices. Operators of jeepneys and tricycles had extremely thin profit margins due to fuel expenses. The value of daily wage earners’ earnings decreased. Although governments relied more on focused social programs than on general price controls, market shocks still outpaced safety nets in many areas in terms of both reach and speed.

The pattern is the same in the1973 and 2008 episodes. Households that rely on transportation and are poor suffer the most. People with narrow profit margins, such as small transportation operators and informal workers, are immediately affected at the gas stations. Rural households must pay more even if they cook with biomass; urban commuters must endure longer and more expensive commutes. A spike in oil prices is practically equivalent to a pay cut for families that spend a large portion of their income on transportation and food.

Since these past two crises , the government’s response has all too frequently been piecemeal and reactive. Following 1973, the nation accelerated the development of geothermal energy and established the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC). The Renewable Energy Act and biofuels initiatives advanced after 2008. Although those actions were essential, they were never sufficient. With a population of 115 million Filipinos today (triple that of 1973), we are reminded that elites and policymakers need to treat energy insecurity as a humanitarian and strategic crisis rather than a technical issue for economists.

The poorest citizens bear the risk when our country’s energy security is largely reliant on the Strait of Hormuz or any other international issue. Dependency on oil from far-off sources and geopolitically vulnerable choke points is an abdication of responsibility and a distorted policy. The Marcos administration and next leaders must aggressively pursue domestic resilience, regional cooperation, and supply diversification.

Social protection for our citizens is consistently inadequate. Only after the fact, do governments scramble to provide ad hoc, delayed relief that doesn’t reach the most vulnerable. Every government safety net needs to be triggerable and pre-funded. Extend and automate emergency and conditional cash transfers, as well as food assistance that kicks in when food or fuel prices rise. They ought to flow instantly and automatically. Lives are saved by speed. 

For informal transportation, emergency funding and assistance must be provided. To help jeepneys, taxis, TNVs, tricycle operators, and motorcycle taxis weather the shock, offer working-capital loans with deferred repayment and targeted subsidies. 

Give food supply chains top priority. Use cold-chain investments, transportation vouchers, and input subsidies to safeguard and assist regional producers. To avoid localized scarcity turning into a national emergency, keep supply chains and markets open.

Protect markets and apprehend hoarders and profiteers right away. Enforce anti-hoarding policies, keep an eye on retail and wholesale margins, and punish price-gouging in times of crisis. During a humanitarian crisis, opportunism and speculation are crimes of social harm.

This Iran-US-Israel war is more than a geopolitical or a global market development, it is a governance and moral dilemma for our nation’s decision makers.. The ability of our state to safeguard the most vulnerable during such shocks is one way to gauge its legitimacy. Elegant economic models and platitudes about market discipline will not save the poor. Policy decisions, such as whether cash transfers are available, whether emergency credit is available, whether renewable energy is accelerated, and whether the state forbids opportunistic profiteering, will either save them or abandon them.

These episodes are not new to us. We learned about physical scarcity and the social repercussions of rationing in 1973. We learned about the limitations of postponed social assistance and the quick transmission of prices in liberalized markets in 2008. Our crisis today is a combination of oil supply shortage and skyrocketing prices. The burden falls first and heaviest on poor and transportdependent households, then ripples through the entire economy and risks social unrest.

For those who choose to ignore history, it is harsh. There is no justification for making the samemistakes in the current crisis. Government, the private sector, and civil society must movequickly, fairly, and resolutely. Now is the time to protect the weak.

QC Mayor Belmonte’s response to fuel shock: a must playbook for all LGUs

As global fuel prices climb amid renewed geopolitical tensions, local leadership matters. Quezon City Mayor Joy Belmonte’s swift, anticipatory measures—urging residents to use the QC E‑Services portal, expanding free bus rides through the QCity Bus Libreng Sakay program, and strengthening bike‑friendly infrastructure—are exactly the kind of practical, humane steps that save money and dignity for ordinary families. Her actions deserve praise not as mere public relations, but as a replicable blueprint every local government unit (LGU) should adopt immediately.

Put simply, Belmonte has taken the right priorities: protect the poor, reduce unnecessary travel, and keep essential services accessible. For low‑income households and transport‑dependent workers, fuel shocks are not abstract price lines on a screen. They translate into skipped meals, lost work hours, more expensive fares and impossible tradeoffs. By encouraging QCitizens to use the city’s QC E‑Services portal—now offering over 160 services across 34 programs (qceservices.quezoncity.gov.ph)—the city government removes the immediate need to spend on transport just to transact with local authorities. For families at the margin, that is real, measurable relief.

Equally important is the city’s direct intervention on mobility costs. The QCity Bus Libreng Sakay program—serving commuters across eight routes—does more than offer a free ride. It sustains livelihoods by ensuring workers can get to jobs affordably and reliably, and it stabilizes urban mobility when private fares begin to spike. Complemented by an expanding network of protected and shared bike lanes, Quezon City is offering residents safer, healthier and cheaper alternatives to motorized travel.

This combination of digital services, decentralized in‑person assistance, free public transport and infrastructure for active mobility is a coherent strategy. It reduces immediate out‑of‑pocket transport spending, supports low‑income and informal workers, and lowers the risk that rising fuel prices will spiral into broader food and livelihood crises. It is also the humane face of fiscal policy: targeted, fast, and designed to reach those who hurt first when fuel costs soar.

Mayor Belmonte’s approach also underscores a governance principle too often missing in crises: act early, act where people feel the pain, and design measures that are simple to use. Pre‑emptive actions—like reminding citizens of digital services and expanding free transit—cost less and deliver more than emergency relief deployed after suffering has already deepened. This is not just efficient governance; it is moral governance.

Finally, Quezon City’s example highlights the role of local governments as first responders to global shocks. National policy and international diplomacy matter in preventing and managing fuel crises, but when prices spike, it is cities and municipalities that see the immediate human costs. Leadership like Belmonte’s turns that local responsibility into tangible protection.

Quezon City has shown a path forward: pragmatic digitization, accessible frontline offices, subsidized public transport and active‑travel infrastructure. If other LGUs adopt similar, targeted measures with the same urgency, we can limit the human cost of fuel shocks—and demonstrate that good governance still makes the difference between hardship and resilience.

Belmonte’s example is not just an argument for praise. It is a call to action. Mayors and governors across the Philippines should take note, act quickly, and put the welfare of their poorest residents before political convenience. In times like these, speed, empathy and practical planning are not optional. They are the difference between survival and suffering.