CeMAP legal counsel Edcel Lagman, however, said that CeMAP has not yet been notified about the adverse SC ruling on the cement safeguard.
"CeMAP will await the Court’s official notice of the decision and in the event the decision is indeed adverse to the Philippine government and to the local cement industry, CeMAP will file a motion for reconsideration of the decision," Lagman said.
Furthermore, Lagman said, "we are convinced that the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the Department of Trade and Industry’s authority to formulate and implement government policy on trade and industry is the right and most logical decision in view of the language of the law and the implementing rules."
Lagman added that should the SC decision be indeed adverse, "a reconsideration is necessary especially since the issues involved in the petition are critical to the continued viability of safeguard measures."
He argued that "safeguards is one of the safety nets promised to local industries and workers when the Philippines acceded to the World Trade Organization in 1995."
Lagman stressed that "the SC ruling on the petition would determine whether it is a viable safety net or if it is merely a piece of paper unable to defend local industries and jobs from injury caused by the flooding of imports."
He added, "I hope the decision will not make it more difficult to obtain safeguards in the Philippines than in the United States which is the number one imposer of safeguard measures."
The SC ruling was based on a petition by Southern Cross Cement Corp. (SCCC) which had questioned the DTI’s legal capacity to impose a safeguard tariff of P20.60 per bag of imported cement starting in June last year.