Trump’s Tariff Gambit: A Political Win, an Economic Minefield for the Philippines

 

What the circus ringmaster really wants is an iron-clad mechanism – already being developed by his team – that unilaterally imposes whatever level of tariffs Trump may come up with on whatever excuse: could be to circumvent “current manipulation”, to counter a value-added tax, on “security grounds”, whatever. And to hell with international law. For all practical purposes, Trump is burying the WTO—Pepe Escobar  

In this issue

Trump’s Tariff Gambit: A Political Win, an Economic Minefield for the Philippines

I. Introduction: A Tariff with Two Faces

II. Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs: A Policy of Chaos: The Rise of Regime Uncertainty

III. U.S. Stock Market Meltdown Echoes the Smoot-Hawley Era and the Great Depression

IV. The Tariff’s Double-Edged Sword: For the Philippines, Relative Tariffs Represent a Political Win, But a Formidable Economic Challenge

V. Fallout from Tariffs: An Uncertain Future: Tariffs May Deter Investment in the Philippines

VI. Shaky Foundations: Why the Consumer Economy Isn’t Immune

VII. Financial Fragility: Historic Savings-Investment Gap, Record Debt, and Dollar Dependence

VIII. Intertemporal Impact or Short-to-Longer Term Impact on the Philippine Economy

IX. The US Dollar’s ‘Triffin Dilemma’: Global Risks and Philippine Challenges

X. Conclusion: Winnowing the Political Chaff from the Economic Wheat 

Trump’s Tariff Gambit: A Political Win, an Economic Minefield for the Philippines 

Will the Philippines benefit from Trump's sweeping tariff reforms? The realities of the existing economic and political structure suggest otherwise. 

I. Introduction: A Tariff with Two Faces

Figure 1

On April 9, 2025, the United States imposed a 17% tariff on Philippine goods—a lighter burden compared to Vietnam’s 46% or Cambodia’s 49%. The Philippines was listed among the 'worst' tariff offenders against the US. (Figure 1, upper table) 

At first glance, this appears to be a political victory, offering the Philippines a chance to attract investment and outshine its ASEAN neighbors in a global trade war. 

Some experts even argue that because the Philippines is a consumption-driven economy, it would be less affected by the ongoing trade war, potentially insulating it from the worst of the fallout.

However, a closer examination reveals a far more challenging reality.

The Philippines faces deep-seated vulnerabilities: a heavy reliance on trade (42% of its 2024 GDP), a chronic savings shortage that hampers investment, and global risks that could destabilize the U.S.’s dollar dominance.

As the Philippines navigates this turbulent landscape, its ability to transform this political advantage into economic gains hinges on addressing these structural weaknesses amidst an uncertain global economic horizon.

II. Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs: A Policy of Chaos: The Rise of Regime Uncertainty 

On April 3, 2025, President Trump declared a national emergency, citing the U.S.’s $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit in 2024 as a threat to national and economic security. This declaration, invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), allowed the administration to impose reciprocal tariffs without Congressional approval, including a baseline 10% tariff on all countries. 

The Trump administration’s formula for these reciprocal tariffs—(trade deficit ÷ imports) ÷ 2—serves as a proxy for what they deem “unfair” trade practices.

This approach, however, oversimplifies the intricate politics of global merchandise trade. The U.S. trade deficit is not merely a result of unfair practices but a symptom of deeper structural dynamics, including the U.S. dollar’s role in the Triffin Dilemma, global easy money policies, various mercantilist practices by numerous nations and more.

The absurdity of using a one-size-fits-all metric like the trade deficit to define “unfair practices” is starkly illustrated by the Trump administration’s decision to impose tariffs on the remote Antarctic outpost of Heard and McDonald Islands. Inhabited primarily by penguins and seals, and unvisited by humans for nearly a decade, this territory faces tariffs despite a complete absence of economic activity.

Ironically, nations like Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, and Russia were exempted from these tariffs due to the absence of bilateral trade with the U.S., a result of existing sanctions. 

The Trump administration’s aggressive tariff regime has pushed U.S. effective tariff rates beyond those of the Smoot-Hawley era, a period infamous for exacerbating the Great Depression. (Figure 1, lower chart) 

As Cato’s Grabow, Lincicome and Handley recently wrote, "The result appears to be the highest US tariffs since 1909, already ten times the size of those in place before Trump took office and at an average rate exceeding even that imposed by the infamous Smoot-Hawley Act, which is widely blamed for prolonging the Great Depression."  (Cato, 2025) [bold added]        

This drastic policy shift—a potential abrupt reversal of globalization—introduces significant Regime Uncertainty (Higgs 1997), defined as the perceived lack of protection for property rights due to the unpredictability of government policies and institutional frameworks.

Regime uncertainty distorts economic calculations, obscuring the ‘hurdle rate’—the minimum return required to justify investment in viable projects.

Or it discourages investment by creating an opaque economic horizon where businesses cannot reliably predict future costs, revenues, or risks.

Figure 2

Measured as a trade policy uncertainty metric, regime uncertainty has rocketed to an all-time high, signaling a profound shift in the global economic landscape that could have far-reaching consequences for countries like the Philippines. (Figure 2) 

III. U.S. Stock Market Meltdown Echoes the Smoot-Hawley Era and the Great Depression 

It is hardly surprising that last week’s U.S. stock market meltdown—the largest two-day wipeout in history—serves as a stark symptom of these policy-induced uncertainties.

The regime uncertainty plaguing the economic horizon heightens the risk of profound economic weakness, disrupting supply chains, amplifying hurdles for capital flows and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), magnifying credit delinquencies, and prompting path-dependent responses from central banks—involving "policy easing" to counteract economic slowdowns, which could also fuel inflation risks.

In combination, these factors raise the specter of a global recession or even a financial crisis.

Given the historic highs in global debt and leverage—amounting to $323 trillion as of Q3 2024, or 326% of global GDP, according to the Institute of International Finance—a stagflation-induced financial crisis could render the 2008 Global Financial Crisis a proverbial ‘walk in the park.’ 

Is history rhyming? 

David R. Breuhan offers a historical parallel: "The stock market collapse began on Oct. 28, 1929, as news spread that the Smoot Hawley Tariff Bill would become law. The front-page New York Times article read: ‘Leaders Insist Tariff Will Pass.’ Although the tariff bill didn’t become law until June 1930, its effects were felt eight months prior. Markets reacted immediately, as they discount future earnings. Most economists blame the gold standard for the crash, but this analysis misses the forward-looking nature of the human mind, which is the market itself. Markets need not wait for earnings to decrease due to imminent policies that will result in future losses. Hence the rapid nature of the crash. The use of leverage in the 1920s exacerbated the crash. Margin calls were made, further cascading the markets." (Breuhan, 2024) [bold added]

The parallels are striking. Today’s markets, burdened by high leverage and global debt, are reacting to the uncertainty of Trump’s tariff regime, much like they did to Smoot-Hawley nearly a century ago.

For the Philippines, this global financial instability could exacerbate the economic challenges posed by the tariff, as investors may grow wary of emerging markets amid a potential global downturn. 

IV. The Tariff’s Double-Edged Sword: For the Philippines, Relative Tariffs Represent a Political Win, But a Formidable Economic Challenge

Figure 3

A chart of U.S.-Philippines trade from 1985 to 2024 reveals a persistent trade deficit, peaking at $7 billion in 2022, underscoring the high stakes of this trade war for the Philippines. (Figure 3, upper window)

Trump’s reciprocal tariff exposes the country’s vulnerabilities: a heavy reliance on trade (42% of 2024 GDP), a savings shortage that stifles investment, and global risks that could upend the U.S.’s dollar dominance.

The 17% tariff on Philippine goods, part of President Trump’s strategy to shrink the $1.2 trillion U.S. trade deficit, appears to be a political win at first glance.

Compared to Vietnam’s 46% or Cambodia’s 49%, the Philippines seems to have dodged the worst of this trade war. Mainstream analysts have spun this as an opportunity: with a lower tariff, the Philippines could attract investors looking to shift supply chains away from pricier neighbors. 

Philippine Trade Secretary Cristina Roque even called it a chance to negotiate a sectoral free trade agreement with the U.S., potentially boosting market access. For a country eager to stand out in ASEAN, this lighter tariff feels like a rare edge.

But the economic reality paints a far more daunting picture. 

The Philippines faces formidable structural hurdles that could blunt this political advantage.  Here are some examples. 

1. Energy costs, for instance, are among the highest in the region at $0.20 per kWh—double Vietnam’s $0.10—making manufacturing less competitive (International Energy Agency, 2024). 

2. Regulatory complexity adds another layer of difficulty: the Philippines ranks 95th globally in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index, trailing Vietnam (70th) and Indonesia (73rd), with bureaucratic red tape often delaying investments. 

3. Human capital represents another significant hurdle. While the tariff matches Israel’s 17%, the Philippines lacks Israel’s robust R&D ecosystem to export high-tech goods like medical equipment, leaving it reliant on lower-value sectors such as electronics assembly and agriculture. 

Israel invests 6.3% of its 2023 GDP in R&D, one of the highest rates globally, compared to the Philippines’ meager 0.324%, limiting its ability to compete in advanced industries. 

These constraints mean that even a “favorable” tariff doesn’t automatically translate into economic gains—investors may still look elsewhere if the cost of doing business remains prohibitively high. 

The tariff’s silver lining hinges on the Philippines overcoming these challenges, but deeper vulnerabilities lurk beneath the surface. 

High trade exposure and financial-fiscal constraints threaten to turn this political win into an economic missed opportunity, as the country grapples with the fallout of a global trade war. 

V. Fallout from Tariffs: An Uncertain Future: Tariffs May Deter Investment in the Philippines 

The regime uncertainty introduced by Trump’s tariff policy creates an opaque economic horizon, deterring investments even in a country like the Philippines, which some argue is insulated due to its consumption-driven economy (72.5% of its 2024 real GDP). 

However, this narrative overlooks the fundamental economic principle encapsulated in Say’s Law: "supply enables demand" (Newman 2025) or "production precedes consumption." (Shostak 2022) 

The 17% tariff directly threatens this dynamic by reducing demand for Philippine exports, which totaled $12.14 billion to the U.S. in 2024, accounting for 16.6% of total exports. (Figure 3, lower graph) 

Analysts estimate a direct annual loss of $1.6–1.89 billion, cutting income for workers in export sectors like electronics and agriculture, and thus curbing their spending power. 

Nota Bene: These estimates reflect only the direct impact, ignoring the epiphenomenon from complex feedback loops, such as secondary and the nth effects on supply chains, employment, and consumer confidence, which could amplify the economic toll. 

Government data further disproves the notion of immunity.

Figure 4

The share of goods exports and imports in 2024 GDP was 42% (13.8% exports, 28.1% imports), a significant exposure for a supposedly consumer-driven economy. This means trade disruptions hit hard, affecting both production (exports) and consumption (imports of goods like electronics and food). (Figure 4, topmost image) 

Excluded from this discussion are exports and imports of services. If included, exports and imports in real GDP would account for 64.2% of the 2024 GDP! (Figure 4, middle graph) 

AP Lerner (1936) highlighted the mutual dependence of exports and imports in trade economics. A decline in exports limits foreign exchange earnings, which in turn reduces the ability to finance imports. This creates a ripple effect, showcasing the interconnected nature of international trade. 

Even the service sector, a key income source through business process outsourcing (BPO, contributing 8.5% of 2024 GDP), isn’t safe. 

U.S. firms, facing their own tariff costs (e.g., 46% on Vietnam), might cut back on outsourcing to the Philippines, further denting income. 

The opaque economic horizon—marked by unclear earnings projections and obscured hurdle rates—adds to the reluctance to deploy investments. 

Businesses, unable to accurately forecast returns amidst this uncertainty, are likely to delay or cancel projects, from factory expansions to new market entries, exacerbating the Philippines’ economic challenges. 

VI. Shaky Foundations: Why the Consumer Economy Isn’t Immune 

The consumer economy narrative also ignores the role of debt. 

Household debt has skyrocketed to Php 2.15 trillion in 2024, up 24.26% from 2023, with credit card debt alone rising 29.65% year-on-year. But this borrowing isn’t free—high interest rates strain budgets, which comes on top of the loss of purchasing power from inflation. 

Consumer loans as a percentage of NGDP soared to a record 11.7%, while consumer loans relative to consumer NGDP also reached a historic high of 15.32% in 2024. 

In contrast to other developed economies, the Philippine banking sector’s low penetration levels have concentrated household debt growth within higher-income segments. This phenomenon heightens concentration risk, as financial stability becomes increasingly reliant on a limited, affluent demographic. 

Despite this debt-fueled spending, GDP growth slackened to 5.2% in the second half of 2024, down from 6.1% in the first half, while annual core CPI (excluding food and energy) fell from 6.6% in 2023 to 3% in 2024, signaling weak demand. 

Clearly, “free money” hasn’t spruced up the economy. 

Add to this the uncertainty facing export and import firms, which could lead to job losses, and a looming U.S. migration crackdown that threatens remittances—$38.34 billion in 2024, or 8.3% of 2024 GDP, with 40.6% from the U.S. (Figure 4, lowest pie chart) 

If Filipino workers in the U.S. face deportations, remittances could slash household spending, especially in rural areas. 

This could add to hunger rates—which according to SWS estimates—in Q1 2025 have nearly reached the 2020 pandemic historic highs. 

Far from immune, the Philippines’ consumer economy is on shaky ground, vulnerable to both domestic and global pressures. 

VII. Financial Fragility: Historic Savings-Investment Gap, Record Debt, and Dollar Dependence 

The Philippines’ economic challenges are compounded by a chronic savings-investment gap that severely limits its ability to adapt to the tariff. 

Domestic savings are a mere 9.3% of 2024 GDP, while investments stand at 23.7%, creating a staggering 14% gap that forces reliance on volatile foreign capital, such as remittances ($38 billion) and FDI ($8.9 billion in 2024). 

These inflows, however, are increasingly uncertain amid rising global trade tensions. 

This savings scarcity is primarily driven by fiscal pressures. Government spending has soared to 14.5% of GDP, fueled by post-COVID recovery efforts and infrastructure projects, pushing national debt to Php 16.05 trillion (60.72% of GDP) in 2024.

Figure 5

External debt grew 9.8% to USD 137.63 billion, surpassing the country’s gross international reserves (GIR) of USD 106.3 billion—a figure that includes external public sector borrowings deposited with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

The external debt service burden surged 15.6% year-on-year to a record USD 17.2 billion in 2024, pushing its ratio to GDP to the highest level since 2009.  (Figure 5, middle window) 

To finance this ballooning debt, the government borrows heavily, crowding out private investment. 

Banks, holding Php 5.54 trillion in government securities in 2024 (net claims on the central government), prioritize lending to the government while directing credit to riskier private sectors—consumers, real estate, and elite firms—rather than promoting finance to manufacturing or SMEs, which are crucial for adapting to the tariff through innovation or market diversification. 

Not only through deposits, banks have been net borrowers of public savings via the capital markets. In 2024, the banking system’s bills and bonds payable swelled 30.9%, from Php 1.28 trillion in 2023 to Php 1.671 trillion. 

Meanwhile, non-bank sectors, competing for the same scarce savings, also face high interest rates, creating a significant roadblock to investment. 

High fiscal spending also fuels inflation. The Philippine CPI posted 6% in 2023, above the central bank’s 2–4% target. This acts as an inflation tax, eroding household savings as rising costs (e.g., food prices up 20%) force families to spend rather than save. 

Though the CPI dropped to 3.2% in 2024, the fiscal deficit remains near pandemic highs, exacerbating financial pressures.

With banks, the government, and businesses all vying for limited funds, the Philippines struggles to finance the reforms needed to turn the tariff’s political edge into economic gains, such as the CREATE MORE Act’s incentives to lower energy costs and attract investors.

Moreover, uncertainties from the tariffs put at risk the rising systemic leverage (total bank lending + public debt), which rose 11.13% year-on-year in 2024 to Php 29.960 trillion—accounting for 113% of 2024 NGDP! (Figure 5, lowest graph) 

Worse, potential weakness (or a recession) in GDP could spike the fiscal deficit, necessitating more debt, including external financing, which further strains the demand for foreign exchange. 

The Philippines’ dependence on dollars for its external debt and imports makes it particularly vulnerable to global shifts in dollar availability, a risk amplified by the tariff’s broader implications. 

VIII. Intertemporal Impact or Short-to-Longer Term Impact on the Philippine Economy 

The tariff’s impact on the Philippines unfolds over time, with distinct short-term and long-term effects. 

In the short term (0–2 years), the estimated $1.6–1.89 billion export loss, combined with a potential remittance drop, should add pressure on the peso (already at 57.845 in 2024), translating to higher inflation and squeezing consumers. 

Job losses in export sectors like electronics and agriculture, coupled with credit constraints from the savings gap, limit the government’s ability to cushion the blow. GDP growth, already down to 5.2% in the second half of 2024, could dip further, missing the government’s 6–8% target for 2025. 

Over the longer term (3–10+ years), there’s potential for growth if the Philippines leverages reforms like the CREATE MORE Act, which offers power cost deductions and tax breaks to attract investment. 

However, all these take time, effort, and funding, which—unless there is clarity in the economic horizon—could offset whatever gains might occur.

Figure 6 

Philippine trade balance has struggled even in anticipation of the passage of the CREATE Act. (Figure 6, topmost image)

The BSP’s USDPHP implicit cap or ‘soft peg regime’—which subsidizes the USD—has played a significant role, contributing to surging imports and external debt (previously discussed here). This policy, while stabilizing the peso in the short term, exacerbates the trade deficit and increases reliance on foreign capital, making long-term growth more challenging. 

The savings gap and fiscal pressures make this a steep climb. Without domestic capital, the Philippines remains vulnerable to global capital flow disruptions, which could derail its long-term economic prospects. 

The interplay of these factors underscores the need for a strategic, holistic, and sustained approach to economic reform—one that tackles both immediate challenges and structural weaknesses. 

However, given the tendency of popular politics to prioritize the short term, this vision may seem far-fetched. 

IX. The US Dollar’s ‘Triffin Dilemma’: Global Risks and Philippine Challenges 

These disruptions tie into broader global risks, starting with the Triffin Dilemma. 

The Triffin Dilemma, named after economist Robert Triffin, highlights a fundamental conflict in the U.S.’s role as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency. To supply the world with enough dollars to meet global demand, the U.S. must run current account deficits. 

The Triffin Dilemma arises because running persistent deficits to supply dollars undermines confidence in the dollar’s value over time. If deficits grow too large, foreign holders may doubt the U.S.’s ability to manage its debt (U.S. national debt was $34.4 trillion in 2024, or 121.85% of GDP), potentially leading to a shift away from the dollar as the reserve currency. (Figure 6, middle graph)

Conversely, if the U.S. reduces its deficits (e.g., through tariffs), it restricts the global supply of dollars, which can disrupt trade and financial markets, also eroding the dollar’s dominance. 

The U.S. dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency (58% of global reserves) relies on constant U.S. trade deficits to supply dollars globally. (Figure 6, lowest chart)

The U.S.’s $1.2 trillion deficit in 2024 does just that, supporting its “exorbitant privilege” to borrow cheaply and fund military power. 

But tariffs, by aiming to shrink this deficit, reduce the dollar supply, risking the dollar’s dominance. If countries shift to alternatives like the Chinese yuan (2.2% of reserves) or euro (20%), the U.S. faces higher borrowing costs, potentially curbing military spending ($842 billion in 2024), while the Philippines struggles to access dollars for its USD 191.994 billion external debt and trade deficit in 2024. This could weaken the peso further, raising costs and inflation. 

Meanwhile, if other nations like China or the EU liberalize trade in response, alternative markets could emerge. 

The Philippines might redirect exports to China (which posted a $992 billion surplus in 2024) or leverage the EU-Philippines FTA, but this risks geopolitical tensions with the U.S., its key ally, especially amid West Philippine Sea disputes. 

An “iron curtain” in trade, investments, and capital flows looms as a worst-case scenario, further isolating the Philippines from the global capital needed to bridge its savings gap. The potential erosion of the U.S.’s military presence in the Indo-Pacific, due to financial constraints, could also embolden China, complicating the Philippines’ strategic position. 

X. Conclusion: Winnowing the Political Chaff from the Economic Wheat

While the 17% U.S. tariff on Philippine goods seems to offer a political edge, the economic reality tells a different story.

The regime uncertainty from Trump’s bold tariff regime exposes internal fragility brought about by high trade exposure, a savings-investment gap, and fiscal-financial constraints.

The consumer economy isn’t immune, as export losses, rising debt, and remittance risks threaten investments and spending power.

Global risks, like the erosion of the U.S.’s dollar privilege through the Triffin Dilemma, could further limit the Philippines’ adaptability.

Over the long term, reforms like the CREATE MORE Act could unlock growth, but only if the Philippine government acts swiftly to boost savings by further liberalizing the economy, reforming exchange rate policies, and supporting these efforts with a material reduction in fiscal spending.

Trump’s tariff is a wake-up call: though the drastically shifting tides of geopolitics translate to the need for flexible policymaking ideally, the sunk cost of the incumbent economic structure operating under existing policies hinders this process.

‘Resistance to change’ that works against vested interest groups—such as entrenched political and business elites who benefit from the status quo—will likely pose a significant obstacle too.

As such, drastic changes in the economic and financial climate raise the risk of a recession or a crisis, particularly given the Philippines’ high systemic leverage and dependence on foreign capital.

The next step may be to throw a prayer that Trump eases his hardline stance, offering a reprieve that could buy the Philippines time to adapt to this new global reality. 

___

References 

Colin Grabow, Scott Lincicome, and Kyle Handley, More About Trump’s Sham “Reciprocal” Tariffs, April 3, 2025 Cato Institute 

Robert Higgs, Regime Uncertainty, 1997 Independent.org 

David R. Breuhan A Brief History of Tariffs and Stock Market Crises November 4, 2024, Mises.org 

Frank Shostak, Government “Stimulus” Schemes Fail Because Demand Does Not Create Supply, July 26, 2022, Mises.org 

Jonathan Newman, Opposing the Keynesian Illusion: Spending Does Not Drive the Economy, January 21, 2025 

A. P. Lerner, The Symmetry between Import and Export Taxes, 1936 Wiley jstor.org 

Do Gold’s Historic Highs Predict a Coming Crisis?

Massive money printing and debt accumulation have gone on for something like 80 years, and the system has held together. Why should it end now? Maybe they can wring one more cycle out of the corrupt Keynesian system. That said, I think we have finally reached the actual crisis point. Although this certainly isn’t the first time the inevitable seemed imminent…—Doug Casey 

This three-part series sheds light on the multifaceted story of gold: 

Part one examines how gold price surges have predicted global crises, from the GFC to today. 

Part two analyzes the role of central banks in driving these record highs. 

Part three assesses how these highs could impact the shares of listed Philippine gold mining companies. 

In this issue

Do Gold’s Historic Highs Predict a Coming Crisis?

I. Gold at All-Time Highs: A Beacon of Crisis or Recession Ahead?

II. Gold, The Philippines and the Pandemic Recession:

III. The Bigger Picture: Gold as a Recession or Crisis Bellwether

IV. Gold Outshines the S&P 500: Gold’s Crisis Predictive Power in Focus

Do Gold’s Historic Highs Predict a Coming Crisis? 

First series on gold: Surging USD Gold Prices: A Predictor of Crises from GFC to Pandemic—What’s Next? 

I. Gold at All-Time Highs: A Beacon of Crisis or Recession Ahead?

Figure 1

Is the recent record-breaking streak of gold prices signaling an impending global recession or crisis? 

The relationship between gold and the US GDP has undergone a profound transformation. 

Ironically, gold’s multi-year climb began during the dotcom recession. It surged ahead of the Great Recession of 2007-2009—or 2008 Financial Crisis—and, while falling during its culmination, gained momentum once again before the climax of the Euro crisis. (Figure 1, upper and lower charts) 

Between May 2001 and September 2011, gold prices soared approximately 6.9 times, from $270 to $1,873. 

Thanks to interventions from central banks like the Federal Reserve (FED) and the European Central Bank (ECB), as well as their global counterparts, volatility subsided, and risk perception diminished, ushering in a “goldilocks” period. During this time, gold prices retraced roughly 43%, falling to $1,060 by December 2015. 

However, China’s unexpected currency devaluation in August 2015 triggered a stock market crash lasting until February 2016, further compounded by Donald Trump’s election, ignited the next leg of gold’s bull market, as investors once again sought refuge in the precious metal. 

Gold reached new heights during the US repo crisis of 2019, continuing its ascent prior to the onset of the global pandemic recession. 

It achieved an interim peak of $2,049 in August 2020, representing a remarkable 93.33% increase from its low in 2015. 

Despite the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war in February 2022 and peak inflation in mid-2022, gold prices slid by 20%, hitting a low of $1,628 in September 2022. 

The Bank of England’s bailout of UK pension funds during the Truss budget crisis in October 2022 provided support or put a floor under gold prices, stabilizing the market. 

More recently, geopolitical conflicts—including the Israel-Palestine war and its extension to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict—along with rising tensions in hotspots like the South China Sea, escalating global protectionism, and the increased weaponization of finance, have fueled uncertainty. 

Additionally, the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 and his administration’s policies, including trade wars, demands for the annexation/acquisition of Greenland, and control over the Panama Canal, have added to global economic and geopolitical instability. 

The resumption of hostilities in the Middle East, particularly Israeli attacks in Gaza and Beirut following a broken ceasefire, has further destabilized the region. 

In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the UK and France have threatened to send troops to support Kyiv, risking escalation as Trump pushes for a quick resolution with concessions to Russia.

On April 2, 2025, Trump’s administration imposed 25% tariffs on all imported cars and light trucks, effective April 3, with plans for broader “reciprocal tariffs” targeting countries like Canada, Mexico, and the EU, prompting threats of retaliation and fears of a global trade war.

Figure 2

The ongoing trade war, did not emerge in a vacuum; rather, it reflects a broader, underlying trend of deglobalization. The rising number of import curbs—spanning tariffs, antidumping duties, import quotas, and other restrictions—represents the cumulative anti-trade measures undertaken by global authorities. 

According to Global Trade Alert, the number of import curbs in force among major economies, including the U.S., EU, China, Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the G20, has surged from under 1,000 in 2008 to over 4,000 by 2024 (Biden era), with the U.S. and EU leading the increase. (Figure 2) 

This proliferation of trade barriers has not only strained economic ties but also influenced foreign relations, contributing to a slippery slope of deglobalization that has materially heightened geopolitical stress. 

For instance, the U.S.’s aggressive tariff policies have prompted retaliatory measures from trading partners, fracturing alliances and fostering and deepening a climate of mistrust, which in turn exacerbates conflicts in regions like the South China Sea and Ukraine. 

This deglobalization trend, coupled with geopolitical flashpoints, has driven investors to seek safe-haven assets like gold, pushing prices to new all-time highs, as shown in the earlier chart, where NYMEX gold futures prices have spiked since 2023 even as the U.S. nominal GDP share of global GDP remains flat. 

II. Gold, The Philippines and the Pandemic Recession

Back in February 2020, I warned: 

In an interview with Ms. Gillian Tett at Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) on October 2014, former Fed chief Alan Greenspan aptly remarked: 

Remember what we're looking at. Gold is a currency. It is still, by all evidence, a premier currency, where no fiat currency, including the dollar, can match it. And so that the issue is if you are looking at the question of turmoil, you’ll find as we always find in the past, it moves into the gold price. 

The bottom line: Gold's uprising against central banking fiat currencies warn that the world is in the transition of entering the eye of the financial-economic hurricane! (Prudent Investor Newsletter)

It turned out that a global recession had already begun. 

In the Philippines, the first local COVID-19 case was reported in early March 2020, prompting the Duterte administration to impose a Luzon-wide lockdown, officially termed "Enhanced Community Quarantine." 

The Philippine economy subsequently plunged into a recession, with GDP contracting from Q1 2020 to Q1 2021.

Figure 3

Gold in the priced in the Philippine peso also soared ahead of the pandemic crisis. (Figure 3) 

III. The Bigger Picture: Gold as a Recession or Crisis Bellwether 

The charts illustrate a clear pattern: since the "Fed Put" during the dotcom bubble, gold’s record-breaking runs have consistently foreshadowed major recessions, economic crises, and geopolitical upheavals. 

These include the GFC, the Eurozone debt crisis, the U.S. repo crisis, the global pandemic recession, and the recent wave of conflicts and protectionist policies. Gold has also proven responsive to the serial interventions of central banks and governments, which have deployed easy money regimes and fiscal stimulus to mitigate these crises. 

For instance, the chart highlights how gold prices dipped during periods of perceived stability (e.g., post-2011 Euro crisis) but surged ahead of crises, reflecting its role as a leading indicator of economic distress. 

Is gold’s series of epic all-time highs yet another chapter in this unfolding saga of economic and geopolitical turmoil? The historical correlation between gold price surges and impending crises suggests that investors should remain vigilant 

IV. Gold Outshines the S&P 500: Gold’s Crisis Predictive Power in Focus

Figure 4

Finally, the mainstream financial narrative often compares gold’s performance to that of the stock market, framing gold as a speculative asset. In this context, gold has significantly outperformed the U.S. S&P 500 by a substantial margin over the past century, particularly since 2000.

However, this comparison is somewhat of an apples-to-oranges exercise. Gold, as a safe-haven asset, serves a fundamentally different role than equities, which are driven by corporate earnings, economic growth, and investor sentiment.

Gold’s value is tied to its scarcity, historical role as money, and its appeal during times of uncertainty, whereas the S&P 500 reflects the performance of the U.S. economy’s largest companies.

Despite this distinction, the comparison underscores gold’s resilience and appeal in an era marked by economic and geopolitical turbulence.

For a more nuanced perspective, the chart’s lower section presents the S&P 500-to-gold ratio, which measures how many ounces of gold are needed to buy the S&P 500 index. This ratio reveals a striking technical pattern: a massive head-and-shoulders formation, a bearish indicator in technical analysis that often signals a potential reversal. 

If this pattern completes, it could indicate a significant outperformance of gold over the S&P 500 in the coming years, potentially driven by a crisis that erodes confidence in equities while boosting demand for gold. 

Given gold’s historical predictive prowess for crises, as evidenced by its price surges before major economic and geopolitical upheavals, this head-and-shoulders pattern may well be fulfilled. 

____

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletter Oh, Gold!!!! February 23, 2020

Maharlika's NGCP Investment: Economic Nationalism or a Bailout?

 

Don’t you need some ‘wealth’ to create a ‘wealth fund?’ Norway did it with the money it got from North Sea oil. China’s trillion-dollar wealth fund comes from its trade surpluses. Where will the US wealth come from? The government runs deficits—Bill Bonner 

In this issue 

Maharlika's NGCP Investment: Economic Nationalism or a Bailout?

I. Introduction: Maharlika's First Test: Can Conflicting Objectives Deliver Optimal Returns?

II. The Legacy of NAPOCOR: A Historical Overview and its Cautionary Lessons

III. Geopolitical Tensions Permeate the Power Sector

IV. MIC’s Investment in NGCP: A Revival of Economic Nationalism? Shades of Napocor?

A. Advance National Security by Strengthening Oversight of NGCP Management?

B. Economic Benefits: Lowering Electricity Costs by Enhancing Grid Efficiency?

V. Maharlika's NGCP Investment: A Bailout in Disguise? Potentially Inflating an SGP Stock Bubble?"

VI. Maharlika’s Risks and Potential Consequences

VII. Conclusion 

Maharlika's NGCP Investment: Economic Nationalism or a Bailout? 

Is Maharlika’s exposure to the National Grid Corp. about investments, economic nationalism, or a bailout of SGP? Or could hitting all three birds with one stone be feasible? 

__

Nota Bene: This post does not constitute investment advice; rather, it explores the potential risks associated with the recent acquisition of the National Grid Corp. (NGCP) of the Philippines by the Maharlika Investment Corporation, through its controlling shareholder, Synergy Grid and Development Philippines Inc. (SGP).

I. Introduction: Maharlika's First Test: Can Conflicting Objectives Deliver Optimal Returns?

First some news quotes. (all bold mine)

Philippine News Agency, January 27, 2025: Under the deal, MIC will purchase preferred shares in SGP, granting the government a 20 percent stake in the company, which holds a significant 40.2 percent effective ownership in NGCP, the operator of the country’s power grid. Consing noted that the deal will also provide the government with board seats in both SGP and NGCP. “Once the acquisition is completed, we shall be entitled to two out of nine seats in the SGP board, after the total seats are increased from seven to nine. At NGCP, the government gains representation through two out of 15 board seats, following an increase in the total seats from 10 to 15,” he explained. The investment is seen as a crucial step for the government to regain control over the nation’s vital power infrastructure.

Inquirer.net, January 29, 2025: The country’s sovereign wealth fund is investing in the National Grid Corp. of the Philippines (NGCP) to allow the government to monitor the possible emergence of external threats, the head of Maharlika Investment Corp. (MIC) said on Tuesday. MIC president and chief executive officer Rafael Consing Jr. said they would also be interested in buying the 40-percent NGCP stake owned by a Chinese state-owned company once the opportunity arises. 

Inquirer.net, January 28, 2025: The way NGCP can contribute to lower electricity is by ensuring that that rollout indeed happens. Because once you have that transmission grid infrastructure being rolled out successfully, then you would have more power players that can in fact get onto the grid and provide supply to the grid. And, obviously, just like any commodity, as you’ve got more supply coming in, the present power will, at some point in time, come down

The Philippines' sovereign wealth fund (SWF), the Maharlika Investment Corporation (MIC), has made its first investment by acquiring a 20% stake in Synergy Grid and Development Philippines Inc. (SGP), the majority holder of the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP), a firm listed on the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) 

Is this move primarily about economic interests, or does it also serve geopolitical objectives? 

Is the MIC being used to facilitate the re-nationalization of NGCP by phasing out or displacing China’s state-owned State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), which holds a 40% stake? 

Or has this, in effect, been an implicit bailout of SGP? 

If so, how can achieving domestic and geopolitical objectives align with the goal of attaining desired financial returns?  

Or how could competing objectives be reconciled to achieve optimal returns? 

II. The Legacy of NAPOCOR: A Historical Overview and its Cautionary Lessons

To better understand the current situation, let's first examine the origins of NGCP, tracing its roots back to its predecessor, the National Power Corporation (NPC). 

The NAPOCOR (NPC), was once the behemoth of the Philippine power industry, centralizing control over both the generation and transmission of electricity. 

Established in 1936 as a non-stock, public corporation under Commonwealth Act No. 120, nationalizing the hydroelectric industry. It was later converted into a government-owned stock corporation by Republic Act 2641 in 1960. Its charter was revised under Republic Act 6395 in 1971. 

While consolidating significant influence over the Philippine electricity market, this monolithic structure came with its pitfalls. 

NAPOCOR accumulated substantial debt due to a combination of over-expansion, mismanagement, political interference, and corruption. 

The corporation's financial stability was further undermined by subsidies, price controls—both contributing to market imbalances—and costly contracts with Independent Power Producers (IPPs), which led to a cycle of financial losses. 

In response, the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) of 2001 was enacted, marking the beginning of the sector's restructuring through privatization. 

The Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) was created to manage the sale and privatization of NPC's assets, also assuming NPC's liabilities and obligations.

Figure 1

At its peak, NAPOCOR’s debt, as reported by PSALM, had reached 1.24 trillion pesos by 2003. (Figure 1) 

The National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) was established to manage the transmission facilities and assets previously under NAPOCOR.

This restructuring ultimately led to the formation of the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) in 2009, a consortium that included local business tycoons Henry Sy Jr. and Robert Coyiuto Jr., along with China’s state-owned enterprise, the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC). NGCP assumed operational control of the country’s power grid. 

The key takeaway from NAPOCOR’s experience is that its monopolistic structure created and fostered inefficiencies, corruption, and imbalances, which culminated in massive debt. 

Despite the privatization, NGCP remains a legal monopoly. 

Once again, NGCP operates and maintains the transmission infrastructure, such as power lines and substations, that connects power generation plants—including those owned by NAPOCOR and private generators—to distribution utilities. 

III. Geopolitical Tensions Permeate the Power Sector 

The current Philippine administration's foreign policy can be viewed through the lens of U.S. influence. 

Evidenced by hosting four additional bases for access to the U.S. military in 2023 amidst ongoing maritime disputes in the South China Sea, this stance marks a contrast with the previous Duterte administration's more China-friendly policies. 

This foreign policy shift has also been manifested in actions such as the banning of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGOs) and the legal actions against Ms. Alice Guo, a former provincial (Tarlac) mayor accused of espionage and involvement in illegal gambling. 

These tensions extend to the NGCP, where the Chinese stake has been cited by media and officials as a national security risk.  

According to a US politically influential think tank, "Fears in both Manila and Washington that Beijing could disable the grid in a time of crisis have lent urgency to efforts to reform its ownership and operational structure". (CSIS, 2024) 

Therefore, heightened scrutiny of China’ government involvement in sectors like NGCP, justified on the ‘kill switch’ or national security risk, combined with increasing military cooperation with the U.S., suggests a Philippine foreign policy trajectory heavily influenced by Washington's strategic objectives. 

IV. MIC’s Investment in NGCP: A Revival of Economic Nationalism? Shades of Napocor?

The stated objectives of MIC’s entry into NGCP through a 20% stake in SGP are twofold: 

A. Advance National Security by Strengthening Oversight of NGCP Management? 

MIC contends that this investment allows for governmental oversight of NGCP management, potentially counterbalancing foreign influence, particularly from China. They have also expressed interest in acquiring the entire SGCC’s stake. 

However, this approach risks "political interference," one of the critical factors that historically plagued the National Power Corporation's (NPC) financial stability. 

Furthermore, a move towards re-nationalization could represent a regressive step, potentially leading to deep financial losses reminiscent of NPC’s past.

B. Economic Benefits: Lowering Electricity Costs by Enhancing Grid Efficiency?

MIC has promoted the investment as a means to improve grid infrastructure, with the expectation that efficiency gains would eventually translate into lower electricity rates for consumers.

First, the latter objective appears secondary to the former. Since all government actions must be publicly justified, MIC’s interventions are presented as beneficial to the consumer.

Figure 2

The Philippines is often cited as having one of the highest electricity rates in Asia. (Figure 2, upper chart) 

However, subsidies on power firms have distorted this metric. The NPC’s subsidy program significantly contributed to its debt accumulation.

Similarly, the government’s attempt to regulate fuel prices via the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) ended up as a net subsidy, requiring large bailouts, as noted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD, 2014). 

In short, Philippine experiences with subsidies have historically been unsuccessful. 

It is also questionable whether dependency on energy imports directly equates to high electricity prices. (Figure 2, lower image)

This simplistic logic would lead to the conclusion that nations that are most dependent on oil and energy imports would have the highest electricity rates, which is not necessarily true—because of many other factors. 

Second, MIC argues that "investing in NGCP could improve the rollout of transmission grid infrastructure, allowing more power players to supply energy to the grid."  

While this proposal is ideal in theory, its practical implementation faces significant challenges. 

One of the primary drivers behind high energy costs is the oligopolistic market structure, characterized by a concentration of power among a few large conglomerates.

Figure 3 

The most prominent players include San Miguel Corporation (PSE: SMC), Aboitiz Power Corporation (PSE: AP), First Gen Corporation (PSE: FGEN), and Manila Electric Company (PSE: MER). In Luzon, for example, seven generation companies hold an estimated 50% of the total installed capacity. (ADMU, 2022) (Figure 3) 

Despite partial deregulation, the concentration of market power among these firms potentially reduces competitive pressures and limits market alternatives, leading to price-setting behaviors that do not reflect true supply and demand dynamics. 

The Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) was introduced in 2006 to foster competition, yet allegations of anti-competitive behavior emerged soon after its inception. 

Moreover, while EPIRA led to privatization in segments of the industry, the slow pace of implementing reforms, such as open access provisions and retail competition, has maintained high electricity prices, as highlighted in a World Bank study. 

Furthermore, the incumbent regulatory framework, despite its intent to limit market power, has not fully mitigated oligopolistic tendencies, resulting in persistently high prices for consumers. Examples: Bureaucracy and red tape, cross ownership, system losses, conflicting laws, over-taxation and more. 

As a result, the oligopolistic market structure and high energy costs deter foreign direct investment (FDI), as investors seek markets with lower operational costs. 

The likely substantial influence of these oligopolists on the political sphere, which protects their interests through legal frameworks, raises the risks of collusion, cartel-like behavior, and barriers to entry, thereby constraining competition.

Therefore, while MIC’s argument for infrastructure rollout benefiting consumers through competition is necessary, it is crucially insufficient. 

Market concentration among large firms may have significant influence on regulations and their implementation, particularly in the upstream and midstream segments (generation, transmission, and distribution). 

The slow pace of reforms aimed at fostering a competitive environment has severely limited efficiency gains, and consequently, the reduction of electricity rates. 

Third, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ (BSP) low interest rates regime has enabled these firms to accumulate substantial or large amounts of debt to finance their commercial operations, which implicitly creates obstacles for competitors unable to access cheap credit. 

Alternatively, this debt accumulation poses systemic financial and economic risks. 

In essence, despite EPIRA and its privatization efforts, monopolistic inefficiencies coupled with readily available cheap credit have effectively transferred NPC’s debt dilemma to the oligopoly. 

Lastly, decades of easy money policies from the BSP have driven a demand boom, resulting in a significant mismatch in the sector’s economic balance. This is evident in overinvestment in areas like real estate, construction, and retail, potentially diverting resources from necessary energy infrastructure and even potentially leading to overinvestment in renewable energy sources at the expense of reliable baseload power from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy. 

In sum, prioritizing the expansion of a competitive environment where the sector’s pricing reflects actual demand and supply dynamics is essential. 

Liberalization, which should lower the hurdle rate, would intrinsically encourage infrastructure investment without the need for political interventions. 

MIC’s promotion of economic gains from its interventions appears more as a "smoke and mirror" justification for politically colored actions. 

V. Maharlika's NGCP Investment: A Bailout in Disguise? Potentially Inflating an SGP Stock Bubble?" 

An even more fascinating perspective is SGP's financial health. 

Certainly, as a legal monopoly, the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) holds a significant economic advantage—an economic moat. 

Grosso modo, SGP, as the majority shareholder of NGCP, seemingly operates within a rent-seeking paradigm, where wealth is accumulated not through value creation but through leveraging of economic or political environments to secure favorable positions. 

OR, for monopolists, the focus shifts from open market competition, innovation, or improvement, to maintaining their monopoly status by currying favor with political stewards. Subsequently, they leverage this privilege to extract economic rents, often at the expense of consumers or other market participants. 

SGP’s financials and recent developments appear to support this narrative.

Figure 4

Revenue Stagnation: Since Q3 2022, SGP's quarterly revenue has grown by an average of 5.9% over 13 quarters through Q3 2024, with a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of only 0.52% since Q3 2020. 

Slowing Profit Trends: During the same periods, quarterly profits expanded by 2.67%, but shrank by 2.25% based on CAGR. 

Notably, a spike in net income in Q2 2022 was attributed to "higher iMAR as approved by ERC effective January 1, 2020 and the recording of Accrued revenue for incremental iMAR 2020 for CY 2020 and 2021." 

iMAR Explanation: As per Businessworld, "iMAR stands for "Interim Maximum Annual Revenue," which refers to the maximum amount of money a power transmission company like the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) is allowed to earn annually from its operations, as approved by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) during a specific regulatory period; essentially setting a cap on how much revenue they can collect from electricity transmission services"

Figure 5

Mounting Liquidity Issues: SGP's cash reserves have been contracting, with an average decrease of 3.9% over 13 quarters through Q3 2024 and a -6.7% CAGR since Q3 2020. 

Surging Debt Accumulation: Conversely, debt and financing charges have escalated. Debt has grown by an average of 12.1% over 13 quarters, with a 2.1% CAGR, while financing charges increased by an average of 5.7% with a 1.9% CAGR. 

SGP’s finances are not exactly healthy. 

Yet NGCP’s recent activities gives further clues. (bold mine) 

ABS-CBN, May 23, 2023: "The National Grid Corporation of the Philippines on Thursday said it was not to blame for delayed projects, and fended off criticism that it was making consumers pay even for delayed projects. The country’s power grid operator also insisted that power transmission improved since it took over operations from the government. A recent Senate hearing found that 66 projects, of which 33 were in Luzon, 19 in the Visayas, and 14 in Mindanao, remained unfinished. " 

ABS-CBN, December 23, 2024: "The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) has imposed a total of P15.8 million worth of fines on the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) over "unjustified delays" in 34 out of 37 projects. "

SGP’s tight finances, mainly evidenced by stagnant revenues, declining profits, and deteriorating liquidity, could reflect the challenges faced by NGCP. 

Further, despite the complex political nature of the operations of the grid monopoly, the ERC caps the revenue that NGCP is allowed to generate (Php 36.7 billion annually). 

This limits NGCP’s financial health, potentially leading to liquidity strains and increased borrowings by SGP to finance their projects. 

Fundamentally, his dynamic might resemble a high-stakes path towards Napocor 2.0. 

Besides, the Department of Energy (DoE) sets the plans and policies, while NGCP, as the exclusive franchise holder, is in charge of the operation, maintenance, development, and implementation of projects for the country's power transmission system. 

The ERC regulates and approves rates, monitors performance, and can impose penalties for delays or inefficiencies. 

In short, since NGCP prioritizes fulfilling the administration's political agenda, it seemingly does so with little concern for consumers—does this reflect the rent-seeking paradigm? 

This raises two crucial questions: aside from economic nationalism, could MIC’s entry into NGCP amount to an implicit BAILOUT of SGP? 

And could this package include a deal for China’s SGCC to exit? 

While we are not privy to the legal technicalities leading to MIC’s initial investment in NGCP via a 20% stake in SGP, SGP’s share prices have experienced a resurgence, or spike, since hints of MIC’s entry began to emerge late last year. 

Year-to-date (YTD) returns of SGP shares totaled 17.6% as of February 7th. 

Once again, this raises additional questions:

Figure 6

-Is a stock market bubble being inflated for SGP shares, benefiting not only corporate insiders and their networks, but also political figures and their allies behind the scenes? 

-Considering the price plunge of SGP shares from over 700 in 2017 to the present, resulting in substantial losses for its shareholders, could this potential bailout include efforts to pump up SGP shares to recoup at least a significant portion of these deficits? 

VI. Maharlika’s Risks and Potential Consequences 

The paramount concern revolves around what might happen if MIC's investment, re-nationalization, or its policy of economic nationalism regarding NGCP goes awry. 

What if NGCP replicates the pitfalls of its predecessor, the National Power Corporation (NPC)? How would the resulting losses or deficits be managed? 

Maharlika's investment capital is derived from public funds. If MIC incurs losses, would additional taxpayer money be on the line? Would there be a necessity for a bailout of MIC itself? 

How would potential deficits from MIC affect the country's fiscal health? Could this lead to higher interest rates and a weaker peso, exacerbating economic pressures? 

VII. Conclusion 

Ultimately, Maharlika's NGCP investment, executed through SGP, reflects a tension between seemingly conflicting objectives: securing national security interests and generating optimal returns. 

While proponents tout the deal as a means to lower electricity costs and improve grid efficiency, our concern—given SGP's financial weaknesses—is that MIC’s infusion could, in effect, function as a bailout. 

That is to say, the potential exposure of public funds through the SWF for political goals may conflict with, or potentially override, the Maharlika Investment Corporation’s stated goals: "to ensure economic growth by generating consistent and stable investment returns with appropriate risk limits to preserve and enhance long-term value of the fund; obtaining the best absolute return and achievable financial gains on its investments; and satisfying the requirements of liquidity, safety/security, and yield in order to ensure profitability of the GFIs’ respective funds." 

____

references 

Harrison Prétat, Yasir Atalan, Gregory B. Poling, and Benjamin Jensen, Energy Security and the U.S.-Philippine Alliance, Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 21, 2024 

Maria Nimfa Mendoza Lessons Learned: Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Energy Sector Reform in the Philippines, March 2014, IISD.org p. iv 

Majah-Leah V. Ravago, The Nature and Causes of High Philippine Electricity Price and Potential Remedies, January 19, 2022 Ateneo de Manila University