The Marcos Jr. administration has not thoroughly explained the options it considered, what the public can expect, why it decided on another “ayuda” option, the suspension of the excise tax on fuel, and the amendment of the mandated addition of biofuels.

During the time of former Secretary Alfonso Cusi, the Department of Energy moved to “unbundle” the pump prices of fuel in order to ascertain the factors that went into the determination of retail prices — a move vehemently opposed and eventually blocked by the oil industry players.

What is certain is that the government stands to lose a considerable fixed income. Without the excise tax on fuel, how will the government fund its ayuda program?

Then there is the move to amend the biofuels law, which was well-intentioned not only to require “cleaner” additives but also to support local industries producing biofuels — particularly the sugar industry. Eventually, it ended up adding more to the final cost of fuel. A long-overdue move but one that didn’t have to be triggered by an emergency.

Many experts say that neither the suspension of the excise tax nor the amendment of the biofuels law will necessarily result in lowering pump prices. The very nature of a deregulated oil industry does not allow for the government to look into why oil is priced as it is. Without a price “unbundling,” how does the government intend to monitor the impact of the non-imposition of the excise tax and the biofuel requirement? For example, fuel that was bought and paid for months ago, excise tax included, is still subject to the movement of global oil prices and may be adjusted at the pump.

Finally, the P5,000 ayuda. So many questions come to mind. Is the financial aid intended to ensure that PUV drivers continue to ply their routes or is it intended to augment their income? And how was the amount arrived at? How many will be covered and how often can the benefit be availed of? How long can the government afford to give out the ayuda? What happens when the money runs out?

When the government has limited resources to spare, each peso spent (or foregone) should be well thought out. A targeted mechanism to offer relief to the most vulnerable sectors affected by the surging oil prices should be designed in such a way that the money spent contributes to the overarching objective: to mitigate the impact.

It seems the Palace thinks the oil industry’s interests far outweigh the welfare of the public and the stability of our nation. The issue here is more than just bringing forth solutions but responsive, practical and least costly ones, considering the dilemma we are in.

The only way to truly mitigate the impact is for the government to take control and regulate the oil industry, i.e., impose price caps or ration supply for as long as the emergency exists — which is allowed under Section 14 (e) of RA 8479, the Oil Deregulation Law. That is precisely why it was provided for under the law.

Is their handling of the oil crisis the Marcos Jr. administration’s way of keeping up the optics of having everything under control by downplaying the seriousness and urgency of the situation?

Or is it more another symptom of a mismanaged government so detached from the daily realities of the poor and middle class that it fails to see the direness and severity of the oil crisis’ impact on the ordinary Filipino.