IN times of crisis, the line between accountability and opportunism becomes dangerously thin. What unfolded in the recent Senate hearing on the country’s energy situation is a case in point. What could have been a sober and strategic interrogation of government preparedness instead descended into a spectacle, one that raises more questions about political motives than about energy security itself.
At the center of this episode was Sen. Loren Legarda and Energy Secretary Sharon Garin. The former publicly castigated the latter over what she framed as a lack of preparedness in the face of a looming oil crisis triggered by escalating conflict in the Middle East. On the surface, such indignation may appear justified.
After all, energy security is not a trivial matter. It underpins economic stability, national resilience and everyday survival.
But context matters. And when we bring context into the conversation, the narrative becomes far less straightforward.
The administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has consistently maintained that the country has sufficient oil reserves to last until the end of April 2026. This is not an empty claim. Existing regulations require oil companies to maintain minimum inventory levels, 15 days for most, 30 days for refiners. The current buffer, estimated at around 45 days, exceeds these thresholds.
Moreover, efforts are under way to augment supply. Additional imports, including millions of barrels secured through alternative channels, and even shipments from nontraditional sources such as Russia, are part of a broader strategy to cushion the impact of global disruptions. These are not the actions of a government asleep at the wheel.
Yet the hearing painted a different picture, one of incompetence, neglect and supposed politicking. The question, then, is whether this portrayal reflects reality, or whether it serves another purpose.
It is difficult to ignore the elephant in the room: the Department of Energy’s recent actions against Solar Philippines Power Project Holdings Inc. (SPPHI), a company linked to Rep. Leandro Leviste, who happens to be Senator Legarda’s son. The DOE did not merely reprimand the company. It canceled service contracts and imposed a staggering P24-billion fine on the company for failure to deliver on commitments to develop renewable energy projects.
This is not a minor administrative issue. The canceled projects reportedly had the potential to contribute up to 12,000 megawatts to the national grid. In a country perpetually grappling with energy insecurity, that is no small loss. It represents not just unrealized capacity, but a missed opportunity to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Seen in this light, the Senate hearing begins to look less like a neutral exercise in oversight and more like a politically charged confrontation. Public perception, as reflected in social media discourse, has not been kind. Many have interpreted the senator’s aggressive posture as retaliatory, an attempt to pressure or discredit a department that has taken action against her son’s business interests.
Of course, perception is not proof. But neither can it be dismissed outright, especially when it aligns with observable facts.
This brings us to a deeper issue: the tendency to simplify complex crises into convenient narratives. One such narrative gaining traction is that the current predicament is the result of the Oil Deregulation Law. This is analytically weak. Deregulation has enabled efficiency, ensured supply continuity and fostered a functional partnership between the state and private sector. The problem is not deregulation per se, but structural dependence on imported fossil fuels.
And this is where accountability must be properly located.
The Philippines remains vulnerable to external shocks because its transition to renewable energy has been uneven and, in some cases, undermined by failures in project implementation. When major players fail to deliver on commitments, the consequences ripple across the entire system. The burden then shifts back to the state, which must scramble to fill the gap, often at significant fiscal cost.
Consider this: Had the P24-billion fine imposed on SPPHI been promptly collected, those funds could have been mobilized to secure additional oil supplies at the onset of the crisis. Instead, the government had to release P20 billion from public funds to bolster reserves. This is not merely a matter of policy; it is a question of responsibility.
Critics also point to the supposed inadequacy of the country’s oil stockpiles. But such critiques often ignore key realities. The crisis was abrupt and externally driven. Even advanced economies struggle to fully anticipate and hedge against geopolitical disruptions. Expecting the Philippines to maintain reserves comparable to those of wealthier nations like Japan is not only unrealistic, it would be fiscally irresponsible.
More importantly, stockpiling is not a purely executive function. It is shaped by budgetary allocations approved by Congress. Calls for greater preparedness must therefore be matched by a willingness to provide the necessary resources. Otherwise, they remain empty rhetoric.
What, then, should be done?
First, regulatory enforcement must be uncompromising. Penalties imposed on noncompliant entities should be collected without delay. Accountability cannot be selective.
Second, the government must continue to diversify its supply sources, even if this requires recalibrating traditional diplomatic alignments. In times of crisis, pragmatism must prevail over ideological rigidity.
Third, collaboration with the private sector is essential. While prices may be dictated by market forces, there is room for innovative policy mechanisms that can align private incentives with public needs.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the public must remain vigilant. Crises create opportunities, not just for policy innovation, but also for political maneuvering. It is in these moments that the true character of leadership is revealed.
The recent Senate hearing could have been an opportunity to elevate the discourse on energy security. Instead, it exposed the fragility of our political culture, and turned into a blaming game.
This is not to say that scrutiny is unwarranted. But scrutiny must be grounded in facts. It must seek solutions, not merely score points.
In the end, the real crisis is not just about oil. It is about governance, how we navigate the intersection of policy, power and public interest. And in that arena, the stakes are far higher than any single hearing.
I am a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of the state-run PTVNI.