More than five decades separate the Philippines’ responses to two global oil shocks — both of which unfolded under a Marcos presidency — the 1973 energy crisis and the 2026 energy emergency linked by a political lineage shaped by evolving strategies for energy security.

In 1973, amid the global upheaval triggered by the Yom Kippur War, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. faced soaring oil prices and supply instability. His administration responded with a long-term push to reduce dependence on imported fuel, combining conservation measures with state-led interventions in the energy sector.

Central to this approach was the creation of the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) in 1973 to secure supplies and strengthen government participation in energy markets. The administration also pursued nuclear power as a stable baseload source, most notably through the construction of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.

The 621-megawatt facility, contracted with Westinghouse in 1976, was completed in 1984 at a cost of $1.9 billion but never went into operation due to safety concerns, including its location in an earthquake-prone area.

Global nuclear scrutiny intensified after the Chernobyl disaster and the plant was mothballed by succeeding administrations. It also became the subject of legal disputes involving alleged corruption in the contracting process. Philippine courts eventually cleared Marcos Sr. and First Lady Imelda R. Marcos for lack of evidence, while ruling that intermediary Herminio Disini received $50 million in commissions and influenced the deal.

Despite never being activated, the plant reflected a broader 1970s strategy focused on long-term energy independence through infrastructure and expanded state involvement.

In contrast, the 2026 response to the energy emergency under President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. has centered on immediate supply stabilization amid global uncertainty linked also to Middle East tensions.

On Tuesday, Marcos declared a national energy emergency following warnings of disruptions in the oil supply and the economic impact on the country.

The one-year declaration authorizes government agencies to procure fuel — including advance purchases if needed — coordinate distribution, and implement measures to secure supply.

Officials estimate the country has around 45 days’ worth of fuel based on current consumption, prompting efforts to build buffer stocks of up to one million barrels.

Alongside supply management, the government has activated enforcement against hoarding, profiteering, and manipulation of fuel markets, while rolling out mitigation programs such as transport subsidies and free bus services in select areas. Fuel prices remain market-driven, with interventions focused on coordination and targeted assistance rather than rationing.

Both crises were framed as externally driven shocks tied to geopolitical conflicts, prompting conservation measures and adjustments in government operations, including efforts to reduce non-essential fuel and electricity use.

The differences lie in the tools and time horizons of response.

The 1973 crisis led to structural, capital-intensive initiatives — such as the creation of a national oil company and investment in nuclear energy — aimed at reshaping the country’s energy landscape over the long term.

The 2026 response prioritizes rapid intervention, emergency procurement, and short-term economic cushioning.

Still, a common thread runs through both periods: the Philippines’ continued reliance on imported fossil fuels and its vulnerability to global supply disruptions.

Across more than half a century, two energy crises — each experienced under a Marcos administration — highlight how the country’s strategies have shifted from long-term transformation to immediate stabilization, while confronting the same underlying challenge.