Although the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision on the matter was released through its website, the Department of Energy (DOE), through its counsel the Office of the Solicitor General, has yet to formally receive a copy of the Ruling. Once formally received, the DOE intends to seek a reconsideration of the Decision, and raise the issue to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

The DOE would like to emphasize that the CA ruled only on the issue of the validity of the trial court's issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. 

While the writ has prevented the DOE from implementing Department Circular (DC) DC2019-05-0008 on the unbundling of oil prices during the course of the case in the trial court, the CA Decision did not rule on the validity or invalidity of the DC.

The DOE considers the Circular vital as it believes in the objective of the law for the transparency of oil prices, at least to the government, in order to formulate better and more responsive oil industry policies. The DOE issued the Circular to help strengthen the agency's capability to monitor oil prices more effectively.

Moreover, the cases filed by the oil companies to nullify DC2019-05-0008 were based on the wrong notion that the supposed trade secrets they are being obligated to submit to the DOE wiill be divulged to the public. Time and again, the DOE has been stressing that all confidential information shall be kept strictly confidential.

The DOE maintains that the unbundling of oil prices would foster greater market transparency by establishing the trends in the prices of oil and finished petroleum products. This, in turn, would help ensure a level playing field within the oil industry, while upholding the best interests of consumers. 

###