The weekly ritual of fuel price announcements has returned with unsettling force to the dismay of Filipinos. Motorists brace themselves for another adjustment at the pumps, transport groups threaten fare hikes, and businesses quietly recalculate the cost of moving goods across our archipelago. For a country whose lifelines are roads, ports and shipping lanes, the price of oil is not a distant economic indicator; rather, it is the pulse of the national economy.

Recent developments have shown just how volatile the global energy market has become. Oil companies warned of increases reaching as much as P17 to P24 per liter in a single week, prompting government agencies to scramble for mitigating measures. The spike is largely attributed to renewed geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, a region whose instability has historically sent shock waves through the world’s energy markets.

Energy Secretary Sharon Garin acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding global prices. As she admitted in a recent interview: “On our calculations… it’s still not going down as we hoped.” The volatility of the market, she added, makes forecasting extremely difficult — not a good sign coming from our chief official for energy.

In response, the government has begun implementing temporary relief measures. Among these is the adoption of a four-day workweek in certain government offices, designed to reduce commuting and fuel consumption. But it must be said plainly: This is a stopgap measure. It is a bandage, not a cure.

The Philippines operates under Republic Act 8479, the Oil Deregulation Law of 1998. The intent was to encourage competition and ensure an adequate petroleum supply. Yet deregulation was never meant to translate into regulatory passivity. Even within the current framework, the Department of Energy, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Philippine Competition Commission retain authority to monitor price movements and investigate possible anti-competitive behavior.

Secretary Garin has also signaled openness to revisiting the law itself, even suggesting amendments that would allow the government to exercise “a little police power” over oil companies during extraordinary circumstances. That conversation is worth having.

Transparency in pricing formulas should likewise be strengthened. When prices rise in near-perfect synchronization across different firms, regulators must have the tools to determine whether market forces or coordinated behavior are at work.

Another immediate lever lies in the excise tax provisions of the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law, which allow the suspension of fuel taxes when global crude prices breach certain thresholds. Exercised judiciously, this mechanism can provide relief without dismantling the broader fiscal framework.

But the deeper challenge is long-term resilience. If geopolitical conflict in the Middle East continues to disrupt supply chains, the Philippines must be better prepared. Strategic petroleum reserves, diversified fuel sourcing and accelerated development of alternative energy sources should form part of a coherent national strategy.

International diplomacy has its place. Yet the hardships felt by Filipino commuters and transport operators are not eased by speeches delivered across oceans before international bodies. They are eased by the quiet but decisive work of governance — enforcing the law, policymakers anticipating crises and institutions acting with foresight.

When oil prices surge, leadership is measured not by words spoken abroad, but by policies crafted and executed here at home.