Sandro Marcos bill provides free electricity to low-consumption households. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting primarily one side of an issue while omitting or minimizing other relevant perspectives.

The article exclusively presents the rationale and benefits as described by Rep. Sandro Marcos and references a study that supports changing the subsidy mechanism. It does not include any views from: - Opposing lawmakers or parties - Consumer groups who might question long-term costs - Economists or budget experts on fiscal sustainability - Representatives of distribution utilities (DUs) who would implement the scheme Examples: - “Marcos said the bill aims to shift from cross-subsidization to a direct government subsidy to address distortions in the current system and remove the burden on other consumers.” - “He said it will also allow transparent validation and exclusion of ineligible households… ensure that public funds directly benefit eligible households.” - “Therefore, in order to bring better relief to low-income households than that afforded by the existing lifeline rate under the EPIRA… a direct subsidy scheme needs to be instituted.” All of these are presented without any counter-arguments, caveats, or alternative interpretations.

4 suggestions

Include comments from independent experts (e.g., energy economists, fiscal policy analysts) on the potential budgetary impact, implementation challenges, and long-term sustainability of a direct subsidy scheme.

Add perspectives from consumer advocacy groups and representatives of non-beneficiary consumers who may ultimately fund the subsidy through taxes, to reflect possible concerns about fairness and cost.

Present any known criticisms or reservations from opposition lawmakers or policy analysts about dismantling the cross-subsidy system and replacing it with a direct government subsidy.

Clarify that the benefits and claimed improvements are the bill proponent’s assertions, and explicitly note where independent verification or broader expert consensus is lacking.

Biased language / Framing effect

Using value-laden or one-sided framing that implicitly endorses a policy or position without presenting neutral alternatives.

Several phrases frame the bill as inherently positive or necessary, without qualifying that these are the proponent’s claims: - “Describing electricity as a ‘basic necessity of modern life’…” – This frames the policy as a response to a necessity, which can predispose readers to see the bill as obviously justified. - “aimed at making power more affordable and equitable nationwide.” – This is presented as the bill’s effect rather than as the stated goal or claim. - “He said that while ‘unquestionably noble in intent’, the current system…” – The phrase ‘unquestionably noble’ is value-laden and presented without challenge. - “In enacting this measure, Congress affirms that electricity is a necessity which the State must make affordable and accessible,” – This frames passage of the bill as the natural or correct way to affirm a widely accepted principle. - “Therefore, in order to bring better relief to low-income households… a direct subsidy scheme needs to be instituted,” – The word ‘needs’ implies necessity rather than a policy choice among alternatives.

4 suggestions

Attribute value-laden characterizations explicitly and consistently, e.g., change “aimed at making power more affordable and equitable nationwide” to “which Marcos says is aimed at making power more affordable and equitable nationwide.”

Qualify normative statements as opinions or claims, e.g., change “unquestionably noble in intent” to “which he described as ‘noble in intent’.”

Avoid implying that the bill is the only way to achieve a widely shared goal; for example, rephrase to: “Supporters argue that enacting this measure would be one way for Congress to affirm that electricity is a necessity which the State should help make affordable and accessible.”

Where possible, balance positive framing with neutral or critical context, such as mentioning that other policy tools (e.g., targeted cash transfers, energy efficiency programs) could also address affordability.

Appeal to authority

Using the opinion or actions of authorities or experts as primary justification, without fully presenting the underlying evidence or acknowledging limitations.

The article cites a study and regional practices in a way that can function as an appeal to authority: - “Citing a December 2024 study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies led by research fellow Dr. Kris A. Francisco…” – The study is referenced to support the shift away from cross-subsidies, but the article does not summarize its methodology, limitations, or whether there are competing studies. - “The bill also notes that, with the exception of the Philippines, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries already provide electricity subsidies in varying degrees…” – This suggests that because other ASEAN countries do it, the Philippines should too, which leans on regional practice as an authority rather than fully analyzing local conditions. - “Recently, President Marcos announced that low-income and marginalized families now have easier access to electricity subsidies.” – Mentioning the President’s announcement reinforces the policy direction without examining its effectiveness or implications.

4 suggestions

Provide more detail on the PIDS study’s key findings, scope, and limitations, and note whether there are other studies with differing conclusions.

Clarify that the reference to other ASEAN countries is descriptive, not prescriptive, e.g., “The bill notes that several ASEAN countries provide electricity subsidies, although their economic conditions, energy markets, and fiscal capacities differ from the Philippines.”

Include expert commentary that explains why practices in other ASEAN countries may or may not be directly applicable to the Philippine context.

Make clear that citing the President’s announcement is contextual and not, by itself, evidence that the proposed approach is optimal or effective.

Oversimplification

Presenting a complex policy issue as if it has straightforward solutions, without acknowledging trade-offs, uncertainties, or implementation challenges.

The article presents the shift from cross-subsidies to direct government subsidies as a clean solution that will ‘remove the burden on other consumers’ and ‘ensure that public funds directly benefit eligible households’ without discussing: - How the direct subsidy will be funded (e.g., taxes, borrowing, reallocation of existing budgets) - Potential administrative costs and risks of fraud or mis-targeting - Possible impacts on electricity prices, government deficits, or other public services Examples: - “Marcos said the bill aims to shift from cross-subsidization to a direct government subsidy to address distortions in the current system and remove the burden on other consumers.” - “He said it will also allow transparent validation and exclusion of ineligible households… ensure that public funds directly benefit eligible households.” These statements present the new system as largely problem-free and do not mention potential downsides or uncertainties.

4 suggestions

Add information on how the subsidy would be financed and any estimates of its fiscal cost, including comments from budget or finance officials if available.

Include discussion of potential implementation challenges, such as verifying eligibility, preventing fraud, and coordinating among DOE, ERC, DUs, and COA.

Mention that while the bill aims to remove the burden from other consumers’ electricity bills, the cost may shift to taxpayers generally, and note that this trade-off is subject to debate.

Incorporate any available analysis or projections (even if preliminary) about long-term sustainability and possible impacts on electricity pricing and government finances.

Confirmation bias / Selective use of sources

Highlighting information and sources that support a preferred conclusion while omitting relevant information that might challenge it.

The article cites a single study (PIDS) and regional comparisons that support the move to direct subsidies, but does not mention whether: - There are studies or expert opinions that favor improving the existing lifeline rate instead of replacing it. - There are concerns about fiscal risks or administrative complexity. - Some ASEAN countries have faced problems with subsidy reforms (e.g., budget strain, market distortions). Example: - “The study found that under DU-level cross-subsidies, poor households in low-income areas can end up subsidizing other poor households. It also noted that subsidized electricity is still subject to a 12 percent VAT, ‘effectively taxing both contributors and recipients’.” Only the aspects of the study that support the bill’s direction are highlighted; no potential caveats or alternative interpretations are mentioned.

4 suggestions

Seek and include any available expert opinions or studies that raise concerns about direct subsidies or suggest alternative reforms (e.g., better targeting of lifeline rates, energy efficiency programs).

If such sources are not available, explicitly state that the article is based primarily on the bill proponent’s statements and one cited study, and that broader expert consensus has not been fully canvassed.

Provide more balanced coverage of the PIDS study, including any limitations, assumptions, or recommendations that do not fully align with the bill’s approach.

Mention that policy design often involves trade-offs and that other models (e.g., hybrid systems, time-bound subsidies) exist and could be considered.