MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday effectively stopped the release of rice imports seized by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) at the Port of Davao last year.
SC spokesman Theodore Te said the high court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Davao City Regional Trial Court (RTC) from enforcing its Dec.12, 2013 writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the BOC to release rice imports it earlier seized due to lack of import permits.
“The TRO is effective immediately and until further orders from the Court,†Te announced at a press briefing.
The SC granted the immediate relief sought in the petition filed by Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala and Customs Commissioner John Philip Sevilla assailing the writ issued by Judge Emmanuel Carpio of the Davao City RTC Branch 16.
Te said the SC “considered as meritorious†petitioners’ arguments that they were not given adequate representation in the RTC hearing on the case and that the owner of the shipment, businessman Joseph Ngo, had no legal standing to sue the government in court.
Judge Carpio and Ngo have been given 10 days from receipt of notice to answer government’s petition.
Stakeholders in the agriculture industry immediately welcome the SC intervention on the case.
BOC’s Sevilla said that the SC’s issuance of TRO was good news to them, and better news for farmers.
“We earnestly hope the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) could help us secure similar rulings for the Manila and Batangas regional trial courts whose injunctions have helped smugglers,†he said.
The Samahang Industriya ng Agrikultura (Sinag), an umbrella group of agriculture stakeholders, lauded the TRO, which they said would bolster the government’s campaign against rice smuggling.
“This is a positive development in our campaign against smuggled rice. It has always been our position that the quantitative restriction on rice, which requires importation permits, is still in effect,†Abono party-list chairman and Sinag president Rosendo So said in a statement.
“These smugglers are not just evading tax payment. They are also manipulating the price of domestically produced rice. They buy local rice, hoard it, and then sell it at a higher price. They are acting like a cartel in manipulating the price of rice,†he added.
So also urged the high court to act on their group’s administrative complaint against Judge Carpio for ordering the release of the shipments despite BOC’s seizure orders.
The assailed writ of the respondent judge directed the release of the 13 rice shipments which arrived between Oct. 21, 2013 to Nov. 4, 2013 containing a total of 126,600 bags of rice at the Port of Davao.
The rice shipments were purchased by Ngo from Starcraft International Trading Corp., which is believed to have links with alleged big-time rice smuggler Davidson Bangayan.
Petitioners, through Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, said the RTC’s writ was against National Food Authority Memorandum Circular No. AO-2K13-003 and would result in unhampered entry of smuggled rice coming from various countries.
They said there is a need for the issuance of a TRO enjoining the implementation of Carpio’s injunction in order to prevent the entry of “excessive and unquantifiable†amounts of rice into the market.
“A sudden surge in rice imports would have catastrophic consequences on the incomes and livelihood security of 2.4 million Filipino farming households,†the OSG argued.
The government argued that Ngo cannot anchor his case on the expiration of the WTO special treatment for rice as only member-states can bring suits in case there are violations of the provisions of the agreement.
It said that regardless of the status of the quantitative restrictions, the National Food Authority (NFA) has the sole authority to import rice and to authorize private entities to import rice under Republic Act No. 8178, the Agricultural Tariffication Act.
“The WTO Agreement does not produce any direct and automatic effect on the Philippine domestic law. The agreements entered into during the WTO negotiations are matters and obligations among states, while the NFA provisions are matters of Philippine domestic law – between the government and its citizens,†petitioners stressed. – With Evelyn Macairan