THE ECONOMY
Review Body Backs Oil Deregulation; for
Fare Deregulation
The arguments raised are
nothing new, and the conclusions and recommendations made are not
surprising. Aside from being overshadowed by the media’s attention to the
current political crisis, this could explain why not much media coverage
was given to the findings of the independent committee tasked to review
the oil deregulation law. However, the obvious still needs to be restated
if only to highlight the government’s unwavering stance to fully support
oil deregulation, even if it means the eventual deregulation of land
transportation fares.
By DANILO ARAÑA
ARAO
Bulatlat
An independent
committee that is supposed to objectively ascertain the impact of oil
deregulation ended up echoing what government officials have been saying
all along: Oil deregulation must continue, socially-sensitive petroleum
products must not be subsidized, price increases are justified and most
oil companies are losing money. In addition, there must be an “automatic
fare setting mechanism or formula that can adjust fares quickly in
response to increases or decreases in fuel prices.”
The six-person
Independent Review Committee (IRC) submitted last June 30 to the
Department of Energy (DoE) its report on the review of Republic Act (RA)
No. 8479 or the Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1988.
In December 2004,
then Energy Secretary Vincent Perez recommended an independent review of
the oil deregulation law because of the public’s perception that “the
deregulation law is largely the cause of higher oil prices." The committee
was formed in March 2005 as a result of the public clamor to analyze the
current deregulated regime in the wake of successive oil price hikes.
Carlos Alindada,
retired chair of SGV & Co. and a former commissioner of the Energy
Regulatory Commission, served as chair of this committee. Its members are
Cedric Bagtas (deputy general secretary of the pro-government Trade Union
Congress of the Philippines), Merceditas Garcia (president of the
Federation of Petroleum Dealers of the Philippines), Jose Leviste, Jr.
(chair of the Philippine Business Leaders Forum, Inc.), Alberto Suansing
(secretary general of the Confederation of Land Transport Organizations of
the Philippines) and Dr. Peter Lee U (dean, University of Asia and the
Pacific School of Economics which has links with the conservative Opus
Dei).
The 60-page report, a
copy of which was obtained by Bulatlat, acknowledged weaknesses in
the implementation of oil deregulation that resulted in “illegal, unsafe
and unfair practices” like smuggling. Despite this, the report said,
“Deregulation brings about market forces such as competition which has the
tendency of reducing prices as against prices produced by a fixed formula
which are not affected by market forces.”
Certain reforms,
however, were identified. The committee recommended that the DoE monitor
oil prices regularly and consequently inform the public of its monitoring.
Given that Petron Corporation still has government representatives in its
board, the oil company can serve as a “price moderator.” The committee
stressed that Petron suits the role since it is both a refiner and market
leader.
As regards price
increases, this was attributed not to oil deregulation but to the
escalating world prices and fluctuations in the peso-dollar exchange rate.
The frequency of such increases was said to be due to the “positive
government suasion for oil companies to spread major price increases over
a longer period rather than in one big jump.”
The committee said
that there is no cartel in the downstream oil industry. “When products are
interchangeable, when market share is the `name of the game’ and
competition is in full swing, we should expect that oil companies’ prices
will seem to rise and fall at the same time.”
Analyzing the findings
Except for a more
explicit support for the deregulation of transportation fares, the
arguments, conclusions and recommendations are nothing new. The DoE and
other government officials have time and again identified the advantages
of oil deregulation and that the negative effects like increased prices
are just “birth pangs” of the policy.
While the report
acknowledged that there are more industry players and that gasoline
stations and LPG dealers have increased in number, it is surprisingly
silent on the fact that most of them are concentrated in urban areas, as
argued by cause-oriented and transportation groups. That petroleum
products remain inaccessible to those living particularly in remote areas
is a situation that the report failed to address.
The same can be said
for the “jeepney lane” in 347 selected stations nationwide that give
discounts on diesel up to one peso a liter. Data from the DoE show that
out of this number, 53 percent (184 stations) are in Metro Manila, while
other parts of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao only account for 29 percent
(100 stations), 7 percent (24 stations) and 11 percent (39 stations).
Given its members’ access to all the data from DoE, one therefore wonders
why such statistics have not been included in the report.
The report also
failed to analyze monopoly pricing in hard-to-reach areas as a result of
oligopolistic practices of oil companies. While it exerted an effort to
research on petroleum prices in other countries, it was with the end-view
of proving that local prices are lower. Such prices were not analyzed in
the context of wages and purchasing power in each of the respective
countries. Had it done so, the public outcry in the Philippines over
increased prices of petroleum products in the country would be better
appreciated given low wages and high cost of living.
Indeed, the committee
members failed to distinguish between accessibility and affordability of
petroleum products.
Deregulated fares as policy reform?
The committee
supports the deregulation of land transportation fares, as may be gleaned
from its argument that “land public transport is currently disadvantaged
because while their fares are regulated, the cost of their key input,
namely fuel, is deregulated.” It noted that public transportation casts
“an envious eye on the oil companies who are able to automatically
translate any increase in international prices to their pump prices.”
This implies that
deregulation of land transportation fares could be a major policy reform
under the Arroyo administration. Indeed, the current debate on what to do
must not only be in the realm of politics, but also in economics, of which
the situation of the downstream oil industry could be a start.
After all, the report
failed to analyze the roots of the problem besetting the downstream oil
industry given that it harped on the assumption that deregulation must be
given a chance to work. Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.