CRITICS of government tend to dismiss what they do not fully understand. The Philippine government’s move to engage Iran and secure safe passage for Philippine-bound oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz has been treated by some as unnecessary, even theatrical. The argument goes that since the Philippines imports most of its fuel from regional suppliers such as Singapore, South Korea, China and Japan, the Hormuz chokepoint thousands of kilometers away would not be that significant. It is a comforting narrative. It is also dangerously wrong.
The Philippines is almost entirely dependent on imported oil. Whether crude or refined, our energy system is structurally tied to global supply chains anchored in the Middle East. Oil refined in Singapore or South Korea originates in the Persian Gulf and almost invariably passes through the Strait of Hormuz. This is not incidental. It is structural.
The misunderstanding lies in focusing on where we buy fuel rather than where the crude comes from. Even refined products sourced from regional hubs rely heavily on Middle Eastern crude that has already passed through Hormuz. Disruption at that point cascades forward, affecting refinery output, export availability and ultimately the fuel that reaches countries like the Philippines. What appears distant is in fact embedded in the supply chain.
The strait itself is one of the most critical arteries of the global energy system. A significant portion of the world’s oil supply flows through it daily. When tensions rise, it becomes more than a passage. It becomes a point of control that translates directly into leverage.
Iran’s decision to restrict passage and subject vessels to screening and approval mechanisms has effectively turned the strait into a managed corridor. Access is no longer automatic. It is conditional, selective and political. This is the context within which the Philippine government chose to act.
In such a system, what matters is not simply where a shipment is purchased, but whether it can be credibly identified as part of a country’s supply chain. The designation of cargo as Philippine-bound at some point in the transaction through a buyer, consignee or allocation becomes crucial. It need not be direct from origin to destination. What matters is that there is a recognizable Philippine stake. This does not guarantee passage, but it improves the probability.
Critics point to our reliance on regional refineries, but these depend on Middle Eastern crude. When shipments through the strait are disrupted, the impact cascades across the entire supply chain. Refineries cannot operate without crude inputs. If they cannot refine, they cannot export. Countries like the Philippines feel the effects almost immediately.
What is at stake is not merely the flow of oil. It is the stability of an entire system upon which our economy depends. Transportation, electricity generation, agriculture and industry all rely on fuel. A disruption in supply is a direct threat to economic continuity and social stability.
In this light, the government’s decision to engage Iran becomes necessary. Diplomacy here is not about grandstanding. It is about securing access where access is no longer guaranteed. By obtaining assurances that Philippine-linked cargo and vessels with Filipino crew will be allowed safer passage, the government has reduced the risk of disruption.
But these assurances must be properly understood. They do not grant automatic clearance. The presence of Filipino seafarers does not guarantee passage. Given that Filipinos make up a large portion of the global maritime workforce, such a rule would be meaningless. Instead, their presence adds a layer of diplomatic consideration, reducing the likelihood of harassment, though not eliminating it.
The same applies to Philippine-flagged vessels. The fleet is small, and if coverage were limited to these ships, the benefit would be minimal. The value lies in broader coverage, which includes ships with cargo destined for the Philippines, shipments linked to Philippine buyers and vessels with identifiable Philippine economic stakes.
Another dimension often ignored is the human factor. Thousands of Filipino seafarers operate in volatile waters, including the Strait of Hormuz. While reports of stranded Filipinos highlight immediate risks, the larger concern is exposure. Filipinos comprise a substantial share of the global maritime workforce, many deployed along Middle East-Asia routes. A prolonged disruption would therefore have exponential consequences, not only for supply but for dollar remittances, livelihoods and safety.
The criticism that Iran cannot know whether a shipment is truly destined for the Philippines misses the point. Perfect verification is not the basis of the system. What exists is a combination of documentation, tracking and political judgment. Ships declare cargo, destination and ownership. Routes are monitored. Affiliations are assessed. Decisions are made based on what is credible. It is not foolproof, but it is controlled, and in such a system, diplomatic recognition matters.
What ultimately determines access is not just the movement of goods but the political relationships that underpin it. Countries seen as non-hostile, which now include the Philppines, that engage constructively and signal their intentions clearly are more likely to be granted passage. Chokepoints are not merely geographic features. They are instruments of power.
In this context, the Philippines’ engagement with Iran reflects strategic pragmatism. It acknowledges our vulnerability as an energy-importing country and seeks to navigate it through dialogue rather than confrontation. It prioritizes continuity over rhetoric and stability over ideological posturing.
Diplomacy is not a substitute for long-term solutions. The Philippines must diversify its energy sources, invest in renewables and strengthen strategic reserves. But these take time. In the interim, ensuring the uninterrupted flow of fuel remains critical.
The issue is not whether the government’s move solves everything. It does not. The more accurate question is whether it improves our position within a constrained environment. By shifting the Philippines from uncertain access to preferential, though not guaranteed, treatment, the government has increased the probability of supply continuity.
There is a difference between reacting to a crisis and anticipating one. In securing assurances for safe passage, the government has chosen the latter. It has acted not in response to a shortage, but to prevent one. That is foresight, and it deserves recognition, not dismissal.
Disclosure: The author is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of state-run PTVNI.
