In a crisis, timing is policy

The solution seems simple: suspend taxes, subsidize fuel prices, invest in diversified energy and distribute aid to those who need it the most.

Unfortunately, it’s never that simple.

What has stood out in the past week is not just the persistence of the crisis. It’s the fact that we continue to move at a pace that does not match the urgency of the moment; agency representatives coming to our hearings unprepared, private sector hesitant to make commitments and solutions discussed and still waiting to be implemented. But the point isn’t to shame anyone. We are all doing our part, we just need to do it FASTER. From the fishing and farming communities in Pangasinan, to the transport sector in QC, I have felt the weight of every stakeholder consultation. That’s why I show up every hearing, my questions come directly from them.

Over the course of the Legislative Energy Action and Development (LEAD) joint committee hearings this week, bringing together 13 House committees, economic managers and key stakeholders, we heard no shortage of ideas. In fact, there was an abundance of proposals, many of which are now being considered to refine the proposed Kalinga Framework.

For those who aren’t familiar, at its core, the framework seeks to institutionalize a more predictable and targeted response. By identifying vulnerable sectors such as transport workers, farmers, fisherfolk and low-income households, the system ensures that assistance is directed where it is most needed – and when it is most needed. This includes potential tools such as temporary subsidies, calibrated tax adjustments and direct support mechanisms designed to cushion the immediate impact of rising fuel costs.

Equally important is the framework’s emphasis on coordination and preparedness. It envisions a whole-of-government response that integrates energy security planning, supply management and economic stabilization measures into a single, coherent strategy. This is a departure from fragmented responses that we’re currently seeing.

Ultimately, the Kalinga Framework is an attempt to move from crisis management to crisis readiness. It acknowledges that external shocks are recurring realities. The challenge for policymakers is not simply to respond, but to anticipate. In that sense, the framework offers a structured way to protect both livelihoods and economic stability, while reinforcing the government’s capacity to act decisively in times of uncertainty.

What we saw over the past few hearings is that agencies came in with their own data, their own programs and their own timelines, but these often did not align. This is not a minor administrative gap, but a reflection of how fragmented our systems remain. What makes this more frustrating is that the ideas themselves are not lacking. The DOST presented a range of sustainable initiatives that include electric public transport systems, solar-powered technologies, biomass gasifiers and biogas digesters that convert agricultural waste into usable fuel. These are proof that we knew what changes had to be made, but we waited for a crisis to hit before seriously considering them. We saw this same pattern in past disruptions and more recently during the pandemic. We identify vulnerabilities only when they become unavoidable and respond only when the cost of inaction is already high. By then, the room to maneuver is smaller and the solutions more difficult to implement.

There are also policy levers that remain underutilized. One of the most immediate is on fuel taxation. Taxes account for roughly 20 percent of pump prices, and there have been repeated calls from various sectors since the start of the war to suspend or reduce taxes on fuel. Based on estimates, a full suspension could provide relief of several pesos per liter, yet economic managers have remained hesitant. Economic managers have consistently raised concerns over revenue losses and the potential impact on funding for social services and infrastructure. These are valid considerations, but they also reflect a broader tension between fiscal prudence and immediate relief. We need to make a decision.

The Maharlika Investment Corporation managing the country’s sovereign wealth fund, which could serve as a source of strategic investment now, remains in the stage of exploring options. Their working capital facilities are expected within 30 to 45 days. Even the proposed fuel storage farm is still in its earliest stages, with discussions limited to the creation of a technical working group. In the context of a debilitating crisis, we simply don’t have the luxury of time.

Meanwhile, the private sector has also been trying to help the public respond to the crisis. Most notably, ride-hailing platforms, after repeated calls for consideration for their riders, have finally begun reducing their commissions and are distributing fuel vouchers to their riders. Angkas being the first, with a strong commitment from no less than Angkas owner George Royeca. This was later followed by Joyride MCTaxi and JoyRide Car. This is on their own initiative and we are grateful for their consideration. These efforts matter, but they also have limits. While we can ask these businesses to do their part, we must also do ours. Private initiatives cannot substitute for a coherent national response, nor should they be used as a stand-in for it.

Ultimately, the responsibility to lead rests with the government. The people are saying our movement has been too slow. These are not signs of inaction, but they are signs of a response that is finding its footing when it should already be in full stride. The burden is compounding, settling on households, on drivers, on workers who have no choice but to absorb the cost of every delay. However, when the government moves with clarity and urgency, it can change the direction of that burden. It can lift pressure and create momentum that will carry the Filipino people forward from mere survival to actual progress.