The EPIRA Myth: Debunking the Misinformation on Energy Prices and Oligarchy in the Philippines

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

Sad that only few knows the effects of EPIRA in our lives. Oligarko, pulitiko, sabtawan, kitaang ng todo-todo... pagsasapribado, deregulation... lahat yan nagpapahirap sa mamamayang Pilipino.

The height of ABS CBN is the Gloria era when Noli and Loren ran as Vice presidents.

Gloria sold Napocor and broadband to China. 

This allowed the Lopez group to thrive in the energy industry and why the PH has among the highest energy prices in ASEAN.

Could those bloggers double your electric bill by passing Epira?

No they cannot.

Only the Lopezes could help push for Epira and feed off the people.

Misinformation and political bias have long fueled narratives about the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) and its supposed role in benefiting oligarchs while burdening ordinary Filipinos. One such claim, circulating online, suggests that the Lopez family—owners of ABS-CBN—used EPIRA to their advantage, leading to the Philippines having some of the highest electricity prices in ASEAN. It also alleges that former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s privatization moves were solely responsible for this scenario.

However, a closer look at the facts reveals a much more complex picture—one that invalidates these misleading assertions.

Did EPIRA Cause High Electricity Prices?

One of the most persistent myths is that EPIRA is the primary reason for high electricity costs in the Philippines. In reality, EPIRA was enacted in 2001 under Republic Act 9136 to address the power sector’s deep-seated inefficiencies caused by government mismanagement. Before its passage, the National Power Corporation (Napocor) was drowning in debt, heavily subsidizing electricity rates at the expense of taxpayers. Its financial instability led to rolling blackouts in the 1990s, prompting the need for drastic reform.

EPIRA’s objectives were clear:

Privatization of power generation to improve efficiency and reduce the government’s financial burden.

Open access and retail competition to allow consumers to choose their electricity providers.

Stronger regulation through the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to prevent monopolistic abuses.

While it is true that the Philippines has among the highest electricity rates in ASEAN, this is not simply because of EPIRA. Instead, multiple factors contribute to high power costs, including:

Heavy reliance on imported fuel – Unlike Indonesia and Malaysia, which have abundant oil and natural gas, the Philippines imports much of its energy sources.

Geographical challenges – Being an archipelago, the country faces higher transmission and distribution costs.

Taxes and subsidies – Unlike other ASEAN countries, the Philippines does not heavily subsidize electricity, making costs appear higher than in nations that do.

Blaming EPIRA alone ignores these fundamental economic realities.

Did the Lopezes Manipulate EPIRA for Their Gain?

Another claim suggests that the Lopez family, through ABS-CBN and its influence, somehow manipulated the passage of EPIRA to benefit their energy business. However, facts contradict this notion.

While the Lopezes once controlled Manila Electric Company (Meralco), they lost their majority stake in 2009 when they sold their shares to the Pangilinan-led Metro Pacific Investments Corporation. By then, EPIRA had already been law for eight years. Moreover, Lopez-owned First Gen operates in power generation, not distribution, meaning it does not control electricity pricing as Meralco does.

If the Lopezes were truly the masterminds behind EPIRA to monopolize the energy sector, why did they eventually lose control over Meralco? The claim simply does not hold up under scrutiny.

Did Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s Administration “Sell” the Power Sector to China?

The claim that Arroyo "sold Napocor and broadband to China" is also misleading. Napocor was not sold to China; it was privatized to various local and international investors under EPIRA’s provisions. This was done not as a political favor but to pay off Napocor’s $16 billion debt and stabilize the country’s energy supply.

As for the National Broadband Network (NBN) project, its deal with China’s ZTE Corporation was canceled due to corruption controversies. No functional broadband infrastructure was ever transferred to Chinese control.

Could Bloggers “Double” Your Electricity Bill? A definite NO!

The claim that "bloggers could double your electric bill by passing EPIRA" is outright absurd. Legislation is crafted and passed by lawmakers, not online commentators. EPIRA was the result of years of legislative deliberation and was signed into law in 2001—long before the rise of political bloggers as a significant force in discourse.

If electricity bills have increased, it is due to inflation, global energy market trends, and regulatory factors, not because of bloggers or an orchestrated oligarchic plot.

The Real Path Forward

Instead of perpetuating unfounded claims, the discussion should focus on real solutions to energy pricing:

Diversifying the energy mix – Investing in renewables like solar and wind can reduce dependence on costly imported fuels.

Improving infrastructure – Modernizing transmission lines and distribution networks can cut down inefficiencies.

Enhancing competition – Strengthening the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) can encourage fair pricing and reduce monopolistic tendencies.

EPIRA was not a perfect solution, but it was necessary to prevent a complete collapse of the power sector. The real issue lies in continuous regulatory enforcement, energy diversification, and infrastructure investment—not in conspiracy theories about media moguls and political elites.

Misinformation distorts public understanding and distracts from genuine policy discussions. It is crucial to approach these topics with critical thinking and a commitment to factual discourse.

Debunking the Myth: The Filipino Diaspora vs. The Marcos Romualdez Administration

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

Krizette Chu, the DDS social media personality who recently stood before the Tricomm hearing to apologize for spreading fake news, seems to be at it again—peddling yet another round of deception. But this time, we won’t just call it out—we’ll dismantle her latest statement piece by piece. We still need to verify if this is indeed her or somebody else taking her identity.

Below is what is posted on that particular Facebook page. Well, it's one of those posted on the page dated March 13, 2025 creation and followed by 293, 929 people:

"THE FILIPINO DIASPORA VS THE MARCOS ROMUALDEZ ADMIN

The Marcos Romualdez administration expected a revolution on the streets when  Duterte was kidnapped. That’s why EDSA and other areas they expected supporters to congregate have been secured, even when Sara was impeached.

What they didn’t expect was a worldwide protest—one whose narrative they can’t twist; one with people they can’t pay off to be silent; one that is borderless, from the streets of New York to the internet, which they couldn’t control. 

One so big and so loud there is nothing they can do to quiet the maelstrom on the streets. 

They can scare  Filipinos in the country but they cannot touch the OFWs who loved PRRD and who loved them in return. 

I bet they did not foresee how their name will be dragged not just in the Philippines but all over the world— the petty son of a dictator who betrayed his own ally, egged on by an ambitious ruthless cousin who because he could not be loved, tried to run a government based on fear. 

But the dam has been broken, and people all over the Philippines and all over the world are fighting for Rodrigo Duterte and for Filipino sovereignty. 

And the Filipino diaspora—one of the biggest and most important in the world—is to thank for this. 

Finally, non Pinoys and foreign governments are starting to notice. 11 days after Rodrigo Duterte was forced into an airplane, the world is sitting up and taking notice.

This is just the beginning. Once an idea is let loose into the world, you can label it anything you want, but it’s already taken shape."

In the fast-paced digital age, narratives can be manufactured, amplified, and distorted beyond recognition. The claim that the Marcos-Romualdez administration is facing an unstoppable, worldwide uprising from the Filipino diaspora over the supposed “kidnapping” of former President Rodrigo Duterte is not only exaggerated but also misleading.

Let’s dismantle the fiction and ground ourselves in the facts.

1. Duterte Was Not “Kidnapped” – He Was Subject to Due Process

The core of this narrative hinges on the false assertion that Rodrigo Duterte was “forced into an airplane” against his will. However, there is no credible evidence to support this claim. The former president, despite facing multiple legal and human rights inquiries during his tenure and beyond, has not been secretly whisked away or detained unlawfully.

If such an extraordinary event had actually taken place, where are the official reports from independent sources? Where is the footage? Where are the legal proceedings confirming this "kidnapping"? Without concrete evidence, this claim remains nothing more than a sensationalized piece of fiction designed to incite fear and outrage.

2. The Marcos-Romualdez Administration Did Not Fear a “Revolution”

The idea that the administration was bracing for an uprising on the streets following Duterte’s alleged disappearance is unfounded. While protests and demonstrations are natural in any democratic society, there has been no large-scale, nationwide revolt that even comes close to the EDSA People Power Revolution of 1986.

Yes, there have been scattered protests both online and offline, but these are a far cry from the mass mobilization that some groups have attempted to portray. The notion that the government was “securing EDSA” in anticipation of an uprising is speculative at best and manipulative at worst.

3. The Filipino Diaspora Is Not a Monolith—Nor Is It a Political Weapon

The claim that Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) and the global Filipino community are uniformly against the Marcos-Romualdez administration is a gross oversimplification. The Filipino diaspora is incredibly diverse, encompassing a wide range of political beliefs, economic interests, and personal values.

Yes, many OFWs supported Duterte due to his pro-OFW policies and strongman persona, but does this mean every Filipino abroad is now actively fighting against the current administration? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, OFWs have always been concerned about economic security, fair labor rights, and support from the Philippine government. Their priorities do not revolve solely around one political figure. The idea that they have become the sole driving force of an international anti-Marcos movement is a misrepresentation of their collective will.

4. The “Worldwide Protest” is Overstated and Largely Digital

Social media can create the illusion of widespread upheaval, but trending hashtags do not equate to real-world revolutions. While pockets of protests may have occurred in select cities abroad, these are far from a coordinated, large-scale international movement that could genuinely threaten the administration.

Moreover, many of the so-called “global protests” appear to be orchestrated by politically motivated factions rather than an organic uprising. There is no substantial evidence of foreign governments formally intervening in the Philippine political landscape due to alleged human rights concerns over Duterte's situation.

5. The Marcos-Romualdez Administration Is Not "Running on Fear"

Another baseless claim is that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and House Speaker Martin Romualdez are governing through fear. If this were true, we would see widespread human rights violations, crackdowns on free speech, and mass arrests of dissenters. However, critics continue to voice their opinions openly, media outlets still operate, and the political opposition remains active.

Duterte himself was known for his own brand of governance that often relied on strong rhetoric and fear tactics, particularly in the war on drugs. To accuse the current administration of being more authoritarian than Duterte’s presidency is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.

6. The “Ambitious Ruthless Cousin” Narrative is Pure Speculation

The claim that Martin Romualdez is the puppet master orchestrating Duterte’s downfall out of personal ambition is a classic case of political fan fiction. There is no concrete evidence that Romualdez is masterminding a grand betrayal.

Yes, political rivalries exist within the Philippine government, but Duterte’s declining influence is not because of a singular villain in the Marcos administration—it is a natural progression of political dynamics. Every leader eventually steps out of the spotlight, and Duterte is no exception.

7. The “Dam Has Been Broken” Argument Is Wishful Thinking

The article paints a picture of an unstoppable global movement rising against the administration. However, history tells us that genuine revolutions are not sparked by online outrage alone. They require mass mobilization, concrete action, and widespread public support—none of which have materialized in the way this narrative suggests.

Foreign governments “taking notice” does not automatically translate into intervention. The Philippines remains a sovereign nation, and diplomatic relations continue as usual.

Conclusion: The Truth Will Outlive the Hysteria

The claim that the Marcos-Romualdez administration is facing an uncontainable, global rebellion spearheaded by the Filipino diaspora is an overblown, highly dramatized narrative with little basis in reality. While political disagreements are natural, they should be rooted in facts, not fiction.

Filipinos, whether at home or abroad, deserve responsible discourse—not alarmist propaganda designed to stir division. Instead of falling for exaggerated claims, let us focus on constructive engagement and real issues that impact our nation.

The Collapse of a Manufactured Courage: When Disinformation Peddlers Face Accountability

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

For years, a particular breed of social media influencers has thrived in the shadows of political chaos, masquerading as truth-tellers while sowing seeds of division, deceit, and distortion. They built their platforms on incendiary rhetoric, vilifying journalists and critics, fueling misinformation, and reinforcing echo chambers that served only those in power. But when the moment of reckoning arrived—when they were finally summoned before a joint congressional hearing on disinformation—their bravado crumbled into feeble apologies, a stark contrast to the unrelenting aggression they once projected.

Among them were Mark Lopez, Krizette Laureta Chu, and MJ Quiambao, figures who had long championed themselves as fearless warriors in the digital battlefield. Their narratives were often laced with vitriol, targeting journalists who risked their lives to expose corruption, crime, and injustice. Many of these journalists, unlike the influencers in question, were not granted the privilege of issuing a simple apology in exchange for avoiding legal consequences. Instead, they endured harassment, threats, and, in some cases, even assassination—punishments far graver than the temporary discomfort of being held in contempt.

So what does true courage look like? It is not the cowardice of folding under pressure when the specter of accountability looms. True courage is standing by one’s words, even in the face of adversity. If these influencers truly believed in their pronouncements, they would have defended them—regardless of the consequences. Instead, they cowered, choosing self-preservation over the conviction they once preached so boldly.

And yet, a new narrative is already being shaped. In the aftermath of their congressional appearance, it would not be surprising if these same individuals attempt to rewrite history—painting themselves as victims of an oppressive establishment rather than architects of a toxic, misinformed online culture. They may soon present themselves as misunderstood advocates of free speech, brushing aside the fact that they have been repeatedly fact-checked and debunked by credible institutions. They may claim moral high ground, pretending that their “apologies” signify introspection rather than strategic retreat. They may even try to weaponize their moment of reckoning, twisting it into a story of persecution rather than justice.

But let this be a warning to the public, particularly to those who once placed blind faith in these figures: you have been deceived. The very voices that rallied you against the supposed evils of mainstream media, that urged you to distrust institutions and vilify critics, have now betrayed you. Their apologies were not admissions of responsibility—they were escape routes. They did not stand for you; they abandoned you when it mattered most.

And in that moment of surrender, they proved the very point that journalists and truth-seekers have been making all along: disinformation thrives not on principle, but on convenience. The influencers who once positioned themselves as fearless warriors of truth folded the moment their own tactics backfired. They threw their followers under the bus to save themselves.

Their capitulation is not just an indictment of their personal integrity—it is a damning reflection of the ecosystem they helped create. It is a reminder that misinformation peddlers do not operate on ideals, but on manipulation. And when the weight of truth presses down upon them, their so-called courage evaporates into nothing more than a calculated retreat.

The public deserves better. They deserve truth, accountability, and, above all, justice. And justice begins with recognizing who truly stands for it—and who merely pretends to, until it is no longer convenient.