Diesel now hovers at P130.00/liter. It’s the kind of pain that only billionaires can shrug off. The President has signed a law that will allow him to temporarily suspend the excise tax on fuel. Some economists object that this will largely benefit the “rich.” Activists counter, decrying how the academics’ views are divorced from real life. 

Both seem to have good points. However, although the studies cited against excise tax suspension appear robust, the “data-based” view seems to struggle to find adherents.

Perhaps because the segment that usually serves as its audience isn’t onboard. In the debate on how to best help the poor, the middle class finds itself without a champion. Like the proverbial middle child, it is once again left out and left behind. 

The ultra-wealthy know that a reliable core of experts will rush to its defense. The mere mention of “wealth tax” triggered immediate pushback from a Cabinet member on why it won’t work. Micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) have no such luck. During COVID-19, experts dismissed cash aid to the middle as inflationary. 

From taxation to over-regulation, the middle is battered as if it’s being punished for daring to climb out of poverty. Too rich for ayuda but, too poor to get bailouts. Taga-bayad ng tax. Pero di daw kailangang  tulungan. Taga-boto ng “tama” pero walang nag-aalaga.

The argument that cutting fuel excise taxes will primarily benefit the “rich” seems sound. It’s the silent part of the argument that leads to the middle’s disaffection: “rich” includes them. Middle class families are more likely to have cars and use more fuel than the poor. That’s precisely why leaders love these kinds of taxes. Taxing the middle class is easy, politically painless, and “efficient.” 

The pushback isn’t about a lack of understanding. Nor is it about anti-intellectualism. 

It comes because the middle is being asked to sacrifice again, to forego its own pain, in exchange for yet another promise. This includes people who have just started their careers. It includes families who might own cars but aren’t exactly raking it in. With home loans, car loans, and other debts, most are just one medical emergency away from the poverty line. All it takes is one business closure, one round of layoffs and they are back to square one. 

Excise taxes are designed to be deterrents. Yet, what viable alternatives are available to the middle class? Public transport remains problematic. The MRT is literally clogged. And even the ride-hailing system is unpredictable. At P 130.00 per liter, it’s doubtful the middle class will use the savings to go on joy rides. The middle consume fuel to bring kids to school or as part of their work. Not everyone can bike to the office. Not when the only affordable housing options left are outside the city centers. 

The middle isn’t onboard because it feels abandoned. It was sold a raft of promises. Pay your taxes, take bitter medicine, and things will get better. And like a dutiful middle child it complied. It complied even as the ultra-wealthy got away with not paying their fair share. It complied even as it was repeatedly denied the same dole-outs extended to the poor. 

But after decades of taxes, those promises failed to bear fruit. Worse, from the pork barrel scam to the flood control scandal, the middle class saw the money it sacrificed only ended up in mansions and sports cars. Now it’s being told to “Be patient” once again, to wait for trickle down effects that may never come.

This tax cut will have repercussions. No doubt. There is no need to belabor the middle class about it. It’s painfully aware that it will pay the bulk of taxes down the road. Yet, how different is that situation from its lived experience today?

The foregone revenue isn’t going to be wasted. It’s going to the pockets of a segment that for decades have borne the brunt of taxes. It will help with rising tuition payments. It can give a struggling business a few days to breathe. If we can afford to lose trillions to corruption, we can afford to lose money by helping the middle class (not just the poor) survive, not in the future but, today. 

There’s another dimension to this “either or” debate that needs to be pointed out. It forces us to pit the poor against the middle. This feeds into the same game that has held back the real reforms this country needs to make. So long as the bottom squabbles, there are those who stand to benefit the most. “Ayuda” or excise tax cut?

In 2026, our answers should challenge these forced choices. There’s more. During the pandemic, billionaires saw their wealth increase by 30%. In this oil crisis, some will end up seeing history repeat. That’s the line we should focus on. Everyone below that line pays taxes at a more painful rate than those above it. Everyone below that line deserves help.

If a tax cut allows the ultra-wealthy to benefit, perhaps it’s time to devise ways to claw that back. Crisis presents opportunity. Our best minds should take this as a chance to give the middle class a break and look for someone else to foot the bill.

Targeted tax burdens

If targeted aid and targeted fiscal incentives are fine, how about targeted tax burdens? If government needs to recover the shortfall, direct it to look up and not down. It should also tighten its belt by cutting confidential funds and other pork. The preferred solution cannot always be to continue squeezing the middle class and MSMEs. Iba naman.

As a teacher, I can relate with the frustration of seeing policy that doesn’t align with what we teach in classrooms. Yet, in governance the alleviation of suffering is a legitimate priority, even if it costs money. There are times when speed matters more than precision. And when administrative capacity for targeting is weak, then the government must work with what it has. There is no “best” solution to a crisis. Even perfect models can fail in the battlefield.

We are currently in an of Age of Disillusionment. Decades of prioritizing some of the policies we revere have generated massive wealth but, only for a few. In the meantime, it has hollowed out the middle class, reduced living standards and, fostered disbelief in democratic systems across the world. The rise of the far-right is fueled by discontent. The middle class, working people, the poor, they all feel left behind. It’s time for a rethink, not to double down. 

It is also time to listen, to empathize, and to understand. Logic isn’t one-dimensional. Data is subject to interpretation. And views that prioritize something else aren’t any less good, nor are they “emotional.”

When we lose touch with people, our language stops reflecting the realities of those we claim to serve. We test the patience of an already weary public. We risk further democratic decline in 2028. Because as one of my friends recently remarked, “If these are the kind of solutions that the ‘good’ side offers, then I might as well vote for the ‘bad’ guys.” – Rappler.com

John Molo teaches Constitutional Law in UP and UA&P. He is a litigator who has argued several landmark cases before the Supreme Court. He prefers to buy meat from the palengke (because good sinigang needs the freshest pork) and is currently addicted to vlogs of butchers in Pritil and Cubao.