By Myrna M.Velasco The Philippine Institute of Petroleum (PIP), the organization of the country’s major oil firms along with some independent players, had filed a petition for declaratory relief with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) before the Makati regional trial court (RTC) to stop the “fuel cost unbundling” policy instituted by the Department of Energy (DOE). The oil firms’ group, which also included PTT Philippines, Total and Isla LPG Corporation, similarly prayed for an injunction to prevent the energy department from enforcing the price unbundling rules while the merits of the case is still being decided by the court. The itemization of fuel price components had been enforced via DOE Department Circular Number DC 2019-05-0008 that was signed by Energy Secretary Alfonso G. Cusi on May 28 this year. Under the DOE-underpinned policy, it requires oil firms to submit reports on its segregated price components, including details on profit margin. In the costs unbundling prescribed upon the oil firms, the DOE wants four components to be segregated, including: international cost; taxes and duties; the biofuels component in fuels; and then the “oil company take” fraction. For the international price bit, the itemized components shall be import cost for both crude and finished products; freight cost, insurance and foreign exchange rate; while on taxes and duties, such shall rope in import duties, excise taxes, value-added tax and other imposts. The biofuel cost shall be the price impact of either the coco methyl ester/biodiesel or the ethanol being blended into diesel and gasoline products, respectively. The fourth element and this was viewed most contentious by the oil companies would be the “oil company take” component, which requires them to divulge their profit margin; along with port charges, refining cost, storage cost, handling cost, marketing cost, and transshipment cost. The DOE Circular is deemed effective June 29 this year following its compliance to publication requirements. This is a policy that the department had been in a tug-of-war on against industry players since the time that it was broached to them last year. On the mandated report submissions, the first one will be due two months after the effectivity of the department’s Circular and the next reports shall be reckoned on their quarterly operations. The Circular similarly expounds on the manner how pricing adjustments must be carried out on a weekly basis, including the process of advisory that the oil companies must comply with relative to the department’s mandate. Apart from that, the DOE is also advancing another requirement for the oil companies to come up with display boards on the scale of price adjustments they have been implementing weekly. Laban Konsyumer, Inc., one of the advocacy groups that had thrown full support into the DOE’s policy, was disappointed by the move of the oil companies stressing the unbundling of petroleum pricing components is good for consumers as this opens pricing transparency as to what they have been paying for every time they fill up at gasoline stations. With the legal hurdle now thrown this policy’s way, LKI President Victorio Mario Dimagiba asserted that such development “is disheartening,” as he considers the fuel cost unbundling edict as “a good start and good news for consumers.”