Lozano Vs. Energy Regulatory Board (OPSF is NOT a Tax) Facts: On 10 September 1990, Caltex, Shall and Perron proffered separate applications with Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) for pemnission to increase the wholesale posted prices; and meanwhile, for provisional authority to increase temporarily such posted prices pending further proceedings. The ERB in a joint order granted provisional relief and authorised said applicants a weighted average provisional increase of P'1.42 per litre in the wholesale posted prices. Then Senator Maceda submit that the above order had been issued with grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, saying that by decreeing an increase in the wholesale price they had created a new source for the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF), or otherwise levied a tax, a power vested only on the legislature, and/or that it had recollected by an act of taxation. Moreover, Ad Valorem taxes on oil is already abolished by RA 6965. Atty. Lozano alang writh other petitioners supported the claim of Sen. Maceda Issue: Whether or not ERB committed a grave abuse of discretion in decreeing an increase on the wholesale prices of petroleum products. Held: No. Senator Maceda’s attack on the order in question on premises that it constituted an act of taxation cannot prosper. While it is true that Ad Valorem taxes had been abolished by RA 6965 by imposing specific taxes, it is not a guarantee against an “Oil Hike" The court gathers that the OPSF has a deficit of P61.5B, the exchange rate of PHP to USD has fallen, Philippines balance of payments is expected to reach $ 1B and we have a trade deficit af $2.88. These findings clearly show that the government has failed to effectively collect or raise money for the OPSF, which purpose is to protect the consumers from the erratic changes in the global price of the petroleum products. Hence, the court ruled that the provisional increase of P1.42 per litre in not a fom of taxation butan cil price hike to replenish the OPSF.