Maximalism and the 100-Percenter Problem: Lessons from U.S.–Iran Negotiations and Philippine Discourse
By Karl Garcia
Abstract
Modern geopolitical conflict is increasingly shaped not by the absence of solutions, but by the inability to accept partial ones. This essay argues that a central obstacle in both global diplomacy and Philippine political discourse is the rise of the “100-percenter” mindset”—a maximalist approach that frames demands entirely in its own favor and leaves little room for compromise.
Using the conflict between the United States and Iran as the primary case, and the Philippine West Philippine Sea debate as a secondary illustration, the essay demonstrates how unbounded maximalism leads to deadlock, while disciplined minimalism enables progress—even amid escalating regional tensions involving the Red Sea and Iraq.
1. The Core Problem: When Everyone Demands Everything
The defining feature of modern conflict is no longer just rivalry—it is totalization.
Across negotiations, actors increasingly behave as 100-percenters:
- They frame demands as non-negotiable principles, not bargaining positions
- They treat compromise as strategic defeat rather than tactical adjustment
- They expand disputes to include historical grievances, ideology, and sovereignty in full
This transforms negotiation from a process of convergence into a contest of absolutes.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the long-running standoff between the United States and Iran.
2. The U.S.–Iran Case: Maximalism vs Maximalism
The breakdown of nuclear diplomacy illustrates a structural collision of maximalist positions.
American Maximalism (Variable Across Administrations)
U.S. policy has varied, but at different points has included demands such as:
- Strict, long-term limits on uranium enrichment
- Intrusive verification and inspection regimes
- Constraints on Iran’s missile program
- Reduction of Iran’s support for regional armed groups
While not always framed identically across administrations—from Barack Obama to Donald Trump—these positions have often functioned as high-bar negotiating benchmarks.
Iranian Maximalism
Iran’s core positions have included:
- Comprehensive sanctions relief
- Recognition of its right to enrich uranium under international frameworks
- Non-interference in its regional relationships
- Assurances against regime-change efforts
At times, more hardline rhetoric has also included calls for:
- Reduced U.S. military presence in the region
- Compensation for sanctions-related economic damage
These positions often function as political signaling, even when not formal negotiation preconditions.
3. The Result: Negotiation Without Convergence
When both sides adopt 100-percenter tendencies, negotiations follow a predictable cycle:
Proposal → Rejection → Escalation → Reset
Even when agreements are reached—such as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—they remain fragile.
- The agreement succeeded because it narrowed the problem to manageable terms
- It balanced constraints with sovereignty and sanctions relief
Its unraveling—following the United States withdrawal from the JCPOA—demonstrated the vulnerability of partial agreements in a maximalist political environment.
The aftermath was predictable:
- Iran expanded enrichment activities
- Compliance mechanisms weakened
- Mutual trust eroded rapidly
4. Regional Spillover: Expanding Arenas of Maximalist Signaling
The 100-percenter dynamic is no longer confined to bilateral negotiations. It increasingly plays out across the wider region.
Red Sea Escalation
The Houthi movement, after initial weeks of indirect involvement, intensified attacks on maritime targets in the Red Sea:
- Commercial shipping routes were disrupted
- Insurance and transport costs increased
- Vessels rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope
The result has been significant—though not total—disruption of global trade flows, illustrating how secondary actors use escalation to amplify strategic relevance.
Iraq as a Multi-Layered Conflict Space
Iraq continues to function as a complex arena where:
- Iran-aligned militias exert influence
- U.S. forces maintain a presence
- The central government balances competing pressures
Periodic strikes and counterstrikes underscore how localized actions are embedded in broader strategic rivalries, complicating de-escalation.
Emerging but Fragmented Diplomatic Alignments
Countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey have engaged in diplomatic coordination on regional issues, reflecting attempts by mid-tier powers to:
- Hedge between major blocs
- Expand strategic autonomy
- Shape outcomes without full alignment
These efforts remain fragmented and informal, rather than a coherent alternative diplomatic architecture, but they signal a gradual diversification of geopolitical alignments.
5. The Structural Insight: Maximalism Becomes Self-Defeating
Maximalism appears strong, but it contains a built-in flaw:
- It raises the threshold for agreement beyond reach
- It redefines compromise as failure
- It extends conflicts indefinitely
This is the essence of the 100-percenter problem.
The result is not decisive victory—but persistent instability.
6. The Philippine Parallel: A Domestic Version of the Same Logic
This same dynamic plays out—at a smaller but significant scale—in the Philippines’ discourse on the West Philippine Sea.
Minimalist Anchor
Antonio Carpio emphasizes a minimalist, legally grounded approach:
- Centering arguments on the South China Sea Arbitration ruling
- Anchoring claims in enforceable international law
- Preserving diplomatic maneuverability
Maximalist Expansion in Public Discourse
Scholars such as Melissa Loja broaden the discussion with constitutional and historical arguments.
However, in wider public discourse, this can evolve into 100-percenter tendencies:
- Expanding claims beyond enforceability
- Rejecting engagement perceived as concession
- Framing negotiation as capitulation
Media platforms such as Philippine Daily Inquirer illustrate how complex debates can become binary and polarized.
7. Minimalism vs Maximalism: What Actually Works
The contrast is instructive:
Minimalism
- Focuses on achievable objectives
- Preserves negotiating flexibility
- Produces durable, if incomplete, outcomes
Maximalism (Unbounded)
- Expands demands without limit
- Eliminates space for compromise
- Produces deadlock or escalation
Disciplined Maximalism (A Practical Middle Ground)
- Retains long-term strategic ambitions
- Breaks them into sequenced, negotiable steps
- Accepts interim agreements without abandoning ultimate goals
8. The Real Lesson from U.S.–Iran
The U.S.–Iran case reveals a fundamental truth:
Both sides seek:
- Security
- Influence
- Domestic legitimacy
Yet both often pursue these through maximalist framing, producing a paradox:
The more each side insists on total outcomes, the less either side achieves.
9. Conclusion: The Cost of the 100-Percenter Mindset
From the Persian Gulf to the West Philippine Sea, the pattern is consistent.
The greatest obstacle to national interest is not only external opposition—it is internal rigidity.
The 100-percenter mindset:
- Turns diplomacy into performance
- Frames compromise as weakness
- Converts manageable disputes into prolonged crises
The lesson—drawn from the U.S.–Iran conflict and its regional extensions—is clear:
What works is not surrender, but discipline:
- Define core interests precisely
- Distinguish essentials from aspirations
- Treat partial gains as foundations, not failures
Because in practice, national interest is not secured by total victory.
It is secured by what can be sustained over time.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
Prior to the events culminating in the present Middle East situation (starting when Trump unilaterally left the JCPOA in 2018) I would not call the American position as “maximalism.” The JCPOA was a multinational agreement, including the Iran (and including tacit approval by the Arab GCC despite domestic political situation not allowing the GCC to formally take part).
See, in 2013 the Iranian regime was increasingly geriatric, the “Islamic Revolution” fell away to a theocratic mafia state, and an Iranian population whose median age was under 30 increasingly opposed the existent regime’s oppression. The “Great Satan” felt far away for most Iranians at that time. The Iranian theocracy had no choice but let reformers within the regime try a different direction, which resulted in the 2015 JCPOA and sanctions relief. But “maximalist” would not be a good description of what resulted in the JCPOA.
One may argue that the present Iran War has to do with the Israeli far right’s expansionary ambitions, American Christian Nationalist Rapture-fetishists, Sunni Arab goading behind the scenes, Anglo-French cavalier drawing of straight lines rather than tribal lines during the Mandate System (let’s not also forget the Russians were supposed to be part of the Mandate System and had equal imperial ambitions before they got mired in the Russian Civil War), the latest phase in a 1,400 year Islamic Civil War since the First Fitna between the Sunni and Shia, or even a continuation of the series of Epstein Files distractions. All the above may be true, and probably are to varying degrees.
Whatever the reason, the result is that the Iranian regime, which is a millenarian Islamist cult in similar fashion to the Israeli far right and many Trump aides being millenarian Jewish cultists and millenarian Christian cultists, respectively, can now wave around the threat of the “Great Satan” again. An elites’ three-way religious war to bring on their version of Armageddon and heralding their messiahs some say. Also true to a certain degree.
By some conservative estimates the Iranian regime killed over 50,000 opposition in the January 2026 Iran protests. Such was the magnitude of Illini that the mass graves and black body bags were able to be imaged from satellites orbiting in space. A regime run by 80-something year olds on its last legs that would’ve died a natural death is now reinvigorated with even more insane and messianic leaders who crucially are 40 years younger. There will probably not be a Free Iran in my lifetime, the Iranian people sufficiently cowed and with any infrastructure that could support a new democratic Iran destroyed daily. The world will have the Iranian terrorist problem for another 40 years, thanks to Trump, Netanyahu and MBS.
Now even if we zoom into the Strait of Hormuz issue, I’m not even sure that can be “maximalist.” The SoH was open before the war, and Trump is essentially demanding it be opened again as a condition of the cease fire, a return to status quo antebellum. If winning consisted of extracting political concessions, going back to back to where things were 30-odd days ago does not seem like “winning” to me. Again, hardly maximalist.
What the Iranian regime *has* realized now though is with those Sunni Arab sheikhs not lifting a finger, wagging Arab fingers at the Americans and the Israelis in public while begging for defense in private, Iran de facto controls the SoH. Whatever happened to half of the Persian Gulf being technically Arab? Oman is more interested in being the “Switzerland of the Middle East,” while the UAE wants to be the luxury vacation destination, Saudi Arabia builds modern cities yet the rest of the country lives in poverty (though they can surely afford to hire OFW maids with oil stipends despite being poor lol). The Iranian position is the definition of maximalism.
As I think about these events and how it relates to the Philippines, I think about how impossible it is to have global effect without reliable allies. Something Trump’s MAGA stupidly forgot when they superficially admire the Roman Empire without realizing the Roman armies had many more allied Auxiliaries than actual Roman legions. What “maximalism” means can be debated but one thing’s for sure is if a country is not willing to commit 100%, preferably together with allied support, that country cannot extract maximum demands.
P.S. For those watching the Iran War much more closely, like some I follow for first-source information, the rule of thumb is to believe Trump’s actions not Trump’s words, with the corollary of the inversion of Trump’s statement is what they are actually thinking. This whole war and Trump’s daily statements are essentially a criminal scheme for Trump and his inner circle to fleece the American taxpayer of as many billions as they possibly can. Americans are waking up to this as more feel economic pain and are paying closer attention. And the enemy will be held accountable, starting this November 2026. From Fmr. Congressman Denver Riggleman, retired USAF Intelligence, retired NSA, and someone I highly respect:
https://denverriggleman.substack.com/p/the-trump-military-industrial-monarchy
https://denverriggleman.substack.com/p/the-trump-military-industrial-monarchy-472
Trump calls 80 year old replaced by 40 year old regime change. Actions speak louder than. words.
if successful and there is indeed a regime change, trump will most likely go for 3rd term in office.
I cant believe that trump is scheming to fleece american taxpayers for billions of dollars as regard the iran war. but if trump does, it would not exactly mount to billions but mostly like dollars and cents only.
trump would be hard pressed to spend billions maybe trillions just to replenish the super advanced military hardware like those airplane refuelers shoot down by the iranians, produce massive stockpile of ammunition once more and ensure there is enough supply for the war effort, refurbish the american bases in the middle east hit by drone attacts, compensate the americans armed personnel who lost their lives, and set aside massive funds for the continued rehab of wounded american soldiers.
so you see, trump cannot just hoard money for him and his mates. he would have to spend big and sign budget to ensure united states is better, secure, and economically stable than when he came into power.
To the chagrin of Micha,US has the largest debt in the world it could not sustain.
39 trillion debt, kaya ng united states yan, it has ample maybe endless resources and massive alliances, the strong willpower, the technology and the wizardry to get on top of things. it is not afraid to hedge bullishly, things that we filipinos can only dream about.
The best dreams in life are free
There’s always been degree of pay-to-play in US politics. The US is not immune to corruption though corruption has always existed at the VP or below — let’s just say Nixon was a choirboy compared to what’s going on now.
Trump doesn’t give a damn about how much he is stealing, and yes it is quite blatant and in the open. National corporate media doesn’t report on it out of fear of having mergers and media deals blocked (illegally blocked I might add, but who controls the DOJ). Saturday’s rallies had over 9 million protestors yet the media reported “10s of thousands.” The last straw for me before I formally left the Republican Party were the Tea Party lies. Those anti-Obama astroturfed protests were in the low 10s of thousands yet was blasted across corporate media as if it was a revolution.
My point is the US-based corporate media can no longer be trusted. Everything happening is either downplayed or is a downright lie. We here in the US can see with our own eyes, and so can many now former MAGA who left in the last year.
Trump 1.0 was also a criminal enterprise, but they were small time thinkers then making money off of hotel lodgings and golf club memberships. There were still principled conservatives who blocked Trump inside his first administration, albeit quietly. This time there are no guardrails. They learned to put unconfirmed, acting political appointees in key positions as explained by fmr. Congressman Riggleman’s posts I shared. But that’s alright. They will all be held accountable soon enough. Justice in the US does not forget even after decades. Trump may not face criminal liability, but his children and associates will be haunted for the rest of their lives after all is said and done. There won’t be an illegal third term. There are too many guns in this country, and the extremists don’t realize how many liberals and independents have guns.
lest assured, trump will not starve the military of funds, the military being his biggest stick. he has to maintain united states superiority and as the world’s number one superpower where all countries can only fear and accommodate and let pass. if trump can initiate an illegal war, he can initiate an illegal 3rd term. he can even be hero and deserving of a nobel peace award if he can cause regime change in iran, and the karhg island falls to american hands. oil and peace for all.
maybe as you’ve been to EU, you may have heard the basques separatists getting antsy! they had so wanted to separate from spain and aside from the iranians, trump may have given the basques separatists that option too. the catalonians will not have similar chance again. since spain is refusing americans entry to their air space, the catalonians could and may jump at the chance, wrestle their freedom from spain, a deal done with trump. the rain in spain may stay mainly on the plain, but the catalonian skies may well be american friendly.
The War Powers Resolution Act (1973) reigns in Presidential foreign adventuring by 1.) forcing the President to notify Congress of military action abroad within 48 hours and 2.) allows some leeway for short-term action of up to 60-90 days depending on stipulated circumstances 3.) Beyond the limited timeframe the President must ask Congress to authorize further military action. An unfortunate truth: The Iran War is not at all “illegal;” it is very much lawful if Trump does not step over the time limit. In the US military there is a saying: “lawful but awful.” Within that time frame a President can do anything he wants, using as many existing stockpiled weapons he wants, even nuking a country (though previous Presidents have been of the sane and did not). But what the President can’t do is buy new weapons, because he doesn’t control the purse, which is why he is demanding Congress give him a $200 billion military supplemental.
Trump does not control the purse. Just like a Philippines president cannot control the purse. Congress controls funding, and even with majorities in both houses Trump has not been able to pass any major legislation aside from the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which was not a budget act but rather a “continuing resolution” — an extension of a previous budget act with stuff added on. The last true budget passed was by Nancy Pelosi in December 2022, with even smaller majorities than what the Republicans have now, a sign of how better organized Pelosi was. The Republicans have not been able to figure out how to pass any laws and acts even with majorities. If Democrats take even one house, all funding can be shut off.
Reasonable people like us can agree that the Iran regime is bad, and it is. The previous ayatollah got what was coming to him after funding and spreading Shia terrorism around the world for 40 years. What I cannot agree about is using tax dollars to send American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen into a war with no apparent planning. The soldiers who died on the bases died for no reason at all. No air defense was prepositioned, not even a radar to detect incoming drones, because Trump assumed Iran would surrender quickly just like Venezuela did. A regime of religious fanatics always outlasts a regime of greed. And btw Venezuela is being run by the exact same regime as before, just like Iran replaced Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei. That’s not winning.
Trump cannot run for a third term. That is unconstitutional. Well he can try, but he will fail. So far Trump has stayed on the constitutional side of the line, extreme as his actions seem. Though he probes the boundary, he pulls back when the courts and the people say no. The US is not a centralized unitary state like the Philippines where provinces will just go along with it. The US is more like 50 individual countries that have their own interests within a federal system, somewhat like Germany. Suppose even that Trump declared Martial Law illegally before someone was able to stop him. Well Martial Law does not work in the US how it worked in the Philippines under Marcos Sr. who through Martial Law directly controlled then dissolved Congress, ruling by decree.
Another addendum
Here’s a fact‑checked overview of the U.S. legal and international law questions surrounding President Trump’s February 28, 2026 military strikes on Iran (including Operation Epic Fury and related actions), based on reporting and expert analysis:
🇺🇸 U.S. Domestic Law Issues
1. Constitutional authority and war powers
The U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress, while the President is Commander‑in‑Chief — a balance intended to prevent unilateral large‑scale military actions without legislative oversight.
Many legal scholars and constitutional experts argue that launching major combat operations with Iran without congressional authorization violates this balance, especially given the scale of force described by officials.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to consult with Congress “in every possible instance” before hostilities, notify Congress within 48 hours, and limits hostilities without authorization to 60 days. Critics contend the Trump administration did not satisfy these statutory obligations in a timely or substantive manner.
2. Lack of formal authorization
As of now, there has been no formal congressional declaration of war or explicit authorization for the February 28 strikes, and efforts to pass a limiting resolution were unsuccessful.
Some U.S. lawmakers have publicly labeled the operations unauthorized acts of war, underscoring the ongoing domestic political and legal dispute.
Note: U.S. courts historically tend to defer to the political branches on war powers disputes — meaning enforcement or judicial resolution may be limited.
🌍 International Law Dimensions
1. UN Charter and use of force
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against another state except when authorized by the UN Security Council or in legitimate self‑defense under Article 51.
Multiple international legal commentators and human rights advocates contend the U.S. and allied strikes lack credible justification under Article 51 because there was no clear evidence of an imminent attack by Iran — a core requirement for self‑defense.
With no UN Security Council authorization, many experts describe the strikes as a breach of the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggression.
2. International humanitarian law (laws of war)
International humanitarian law (IHL) requires distinction between military and civilian targets, proportionality, and precaution to protect civilians. Human Rights Watch and legal analyses have raised serious concerns about such principles being respected in initial strikes — particularly the reported attack on a school in Minab that killed many civilians.
Independent legal analysis of that specific strike found the school was a purely civilian object, and the failure to take feasible precautions may itself violate IHL beyond broader jus ad bellum (right to war) concerns.
3. Crime of aggression
Under long‑standing definitions (e.g., post‑World War II and the Rome Statute concept of “crime of aggression”), planning, initiating, or executing large‑scale military action without legal justification may itself constitute an international crime. Some scholars classify the U.S.–Israeli campaign in that context — though actual prosecution is highly unlikely absent international court jurisdiction.
🧩 Contextual Clarifications
Targeted killings / leadership strikes: International law scholars note that assassinations of foreign leaders outside recognized wartime contexts are generally unlawful under both domestic and international frameworks unless justified under self‑defense — a point of fierce debate regarding these operations.
Ongoing debate: Some legal scholars (including military and international law professors) emphasize that international law assessments can be nuanced — e.g., civilian harm does not by itself prove unlawful conduct if, at the time of targeting, commanders reasonably believed they were striking military objectives.
🧠 Summary
Domestically:
A substantial number of constitutional and statutory law experts argue Trump’s military actions in Iran exceed presidential authority under the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
Internationally:
Many think tanks, legal scholars, and human rights organizations assert that the U.S. strikes violate the UN Charter’s prohibitions on the use of force absent clear self‑defense or Security Council authorization and raise serious concerns under IHL.
These interpretations remain contested in official circles, and resolution — whether through litigation, legislative action, or international proceedings — is uncertain.
Important to add:
1.) “Consult” and “inform” here mean the same thing constitutionally.
2.) Military action within the 60 days (some circumstances, 90 days) do not require further formal authorization or declaration of war by Congress. The War Powers Resolution Act provides built-in authorization during the time limit.
3.) Unratified UN treaties have no legal standing in the US and are a moot point. Just as unratified UN treaties are a moot point with regard to Philippines law. “International Law” means nothing if one or more involved parties did not agree to it. Annoys me to no end that this is always brought up by “human rights” activists, well meaning or nefarious, who would more than often take the Russian, Chinese, or terrorist side just because they are not American or European. Both Russia and China have actual active genocidal campaigns going on (Ukraine, Georgia, Xinjiang, Tibet, many African countries) that apparently no one from these “human rights” groups care about.
4.) UN Article 51 has always been viewed loosely by major powers, not just the US. Actually probably least used by US until now.
5.) Rome Statute has no legal standing in US as it was not ratified. China also never ratified, and Russia ratified then pulled out when they ignored the Rome Statute. Iran never ratified as well.
6.) Characterization of the Iran War as an “unauthorized war” is a political and public opinion matter, as should be the case in the political arena and court of public opinion.
Thanks again Joey.
it is probly not correct, you said no radar to detect incoming iranian drones. even US soldiers who trained with their filipino counterparts here use radar, so I am presuming radars are also widely used in the middle east. kaso, iranian drones fly slow and low that modern radar made to observe the wider sky have great difficulty detecting them.
anyhow, mojtaba khamenie, the successor, has not been seen since the initial bombing. though it has been said mojtaba’s father, the late mullah had created a four tier of succession, so deep that iran will never be without a ruler/successor. even though mojtaba khamenie is presumed badly wounded, maybe deeply comatose too, that he may have to be feed tru a tube and attached to a mechanical ventilator, there is always a proxy.
trump will likely get his 200 billions supplemental fund once americans realize their status as the worlds number one superpower is slipping away and they are in danger of being attacked by an opportunistic rogue power.
The $200 billion supplemental isn’t going to happen. There aren’t even enough Republican votes to get it through a simple majority of the House, much less the Senate filibuster threshold of 2/3 votes. So today Trump’s aides have been talking instead about legislation to raid and re-appropriate already allocated welfare benefits for the poor instead, which also won’t pass. But if that does since it is easier than the former option, I say to them “go for it” because many MAGA are poor Whites (Whites, not Blacks or Mexicans, make up most of the US welfare recipients). Let them suffer for their own choices.
On the other stuff, I pray together for your optimistic view for the sake of American service people, but sadly that is simply just not what is happening at the moment.
cheer up, joey nguyen! god made the world in seven days despite being alpha and omega, and to think that god rested on the sabbath when he could just go on and on and on! the resiliency of the american people is such that legends pale in significance. is what am I talking! but begging your pardon, am probly getting ahead of myself.
pity the american service men and women, if they are not hit by hostile forces, they are being hit by friendly fire, green on green. good thing the american fighter pilot downed by the saudis in the early days of the middle east war, made it to base; pilot and plane both limping and very lucky not to fall into iranian hands.
sometimes, I do wonder what kind of people americans take into their confidences. at 9/11 one of the suicide bomber was also a saudi national.
I am increasingly worried about what I’m hearing and seeing in the Philippines regarding direct and downstream effects of fuel prices. Exasperatingly annoyed Makabayan *AND* DDS-aligned groups are organizing protests against the government.
For what? Oil products are already heavily subsidized in the Philippines. Having a tax holiday on all excise taxes and VAT would not do a thing when the Philippines is 100% reliant on imported petroleum byproducts.
There is some argument that the Philippines is an innocent lamb in all this. Partly the Philippines is not to blame for events happening half a world away. But just like the rice subsidization issue (saw plenty of “bigas” price-related signs too), the onion subsidization issue, and so on, each are not sustainably subsidized by the Philippines government yet to retain political support the subsidies continue on for years and decades without attempting to fix the underlying problem. How much does the Philippines borrow on debt each year just to delay the inevitable? Eyes closed shut, it doesn’t exist, go away…
And even on the rice staple, fixing rice supply isn’t as simple as planting more rice when I’ve seen ripe paddy fields that were harvested too slowly due to lack of mechanization allowing wildlife to eat a portion of rice or to catch rice mold. The inter-island RORO network is insufficient. A RORO network that could at the same time facilitate industrial expansion and the transport of other goods.
Rickety electrical infrastructure built with US, then Japanese grants decades ago that experience brownouts multiple times a week even without fuel shocks could’ve been replaced with new, completely modern electrical infrastructure. If Kenya and Burundi can start building a modern national grid consisting of constituent microgrids of renewable energy generation that create both energy resiliency and energy independence, why can’t the Philippines garner the same political will to start doing the same? Cheap BEVs affordable by a broad social cross-section are all the rage in Kenya nowadays. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it… unless it’s broke-broke then just pray to God…
Until a few days ago I was really hopeful of a Leni-BBM tandem in 2028, with BBM laying down some major legislation in order to build momentum coming into the 2028 general. But that requires immense political capital. Political capital that is actively being attacked by the perennially foolish far left and the PRC-aligned Duterte Nexus. I’m not giving up hope yet, but the surely things will start getting harder from here on out…
Maybe a halfway but not half-baked stabilization fund.
I am worried of a Sara resignation to escape impeachment and run in 2028. Marcoletta gained pogi points by walking out of frustration to the answers he got regarding historical and replacement costs. Appeal to emotion by showing emotion.
I really thought marcoletta just went out for a smoko! or maybe to the WC like what that staffer of robin padilla did, the one who resigned when caught doing the unthinkable. sad, that marcoletta returned, just when I thought he would have joined buddy bato and go into hiding too, haha.
As a supplement .
Here’s a clear summary of why Filipinos are paying higher oil prices than much of the rest of the world (based on the Manila Bulletin article and other trusted reporting — including local news sources, economic analyses, and official explanations):
1. Heavy dependence on imported oil
The Philippines imports nearly all of its crude oil and refined products because it has very limited local supplies and refining capacity. This means domestic prices are directly tied to global prices — whatever the world price of oil is, Filipinos feel it quickly and fully.
2. Deregulated oil market
The country’s oil industry is deregulated under existing laws (not price‑controlled by the government), so market forces and private companies set fuel prices. Government can’t directly cap or control pump prices except under emergency powers.
In contrast, many neighboring countries (e.g., Indonesia, Thailand) subsidize fuel or regulate prices more aggressively, which keeps retail pump prices lower for consumers.
3. Taxes on fuel
Filipino fuel prices include excise taxes and value‑added tax (VAT), which add significantly to the cost at the pump. These consumption taxes (which are among the highest in the region when combined) make fuel more expensive compared to countries with lower tax rates or subsidies.
4. Global price shocks pass through quickly
Because prices are market‑linked, any global oil price surge — for example due to geopolitical crises — is transmitted rapidly to domestic pump prices. Retail pricing systems also price fuel according to replacement cost (what suppliers will pay to restock), so prices rise even if the oil in storage was bought earlier at lower rates.
5. Weaker peso increases import costs
The Philippine peso’s depreciation against the U.S. dollar makes oil imports more expensive in peso terms, further pushing retail fuel prices up.
6. Vulnerability to external oil supply and market volatility
As a net oil importer with limited domestic refining, the Philippines is especially sensitive to geopolitical events and global market disruptions — such as conflicts in the Middle East that push up prices and supply risks — and has less buffer than some economies that maintain strategic reserves or subsidies.
—
What this means in practice
Filipino drivers and transport workers have been paying significantly higher prices relative to some neighboring countries because their pump prices reflect global crude prices + full market pass‑through + taxes without significant official price cushioning.
Protest movements and strikes have emerged because average incomes have not kept pace with these rising fuel costs and because deregulation limits government intervention.
AI Overview:
Petron Corporation owns and operates the only remaining oil refinery in the Philippines, the 180,000 barrel-per-day Bataan Refinery in Limay. Petron is a subsidiary of San Miguel Corporation (SMC), led by Ramon S. Ang, and supplies about 30–40% of the country’s fuel needs.
Key details:
The facility is recognized as crucial for national energy security.
as well, I think our country is in better position than other countries as we have an apparent enough oil supply for 60 days.
as petron process its own oil from crude, petron sells cheaper oil. it is not dependent on prices dictated by oil importers like singapore.
Yes thanks for that perspective
I understand there are people who are happier to scare us out of our sanity and make us all mali-mali! prices of oil at gas stations should not be that dear, if only our govt redouble its efforts to really go after gas price gougers. though some price gougers are related to politicos and therefore protected.