SC: No TRO vs rice tariff cut

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) did not issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Executive Order (EO) 62, which reduced the tariffs on imported rice and other agricultural products from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Instead, the High Court ordered Malacañang to comment on the petition filed by farmers that sought to declare as unconstitutional the EO, also known as “Modifying the Nomenclature and rates of Import Duty on Various Products.”

The petition, filed by several farmer and other cooperative groups, sought a TRO against the EO to hold its implementation while the high tribunal deliberates on the matter.

Respondents named in the petition were Marcos, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, National Economic and Development Authority Secretary Arsenio Balisacan and Tariff Commission Chairperson Marilou Mendoza.

The SC gave the respondents 10 days from the receipt of the resolution to file their comment.

“The Court, without giving due course to the Petition and prayer for TRO, required the respondents to file their comments within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice,” SC spokesperson Camille Sue Ting said at a press briefing yesterday.

The petitioners include the Samahang Industriya ng Agrikultura (SINAG) Inc., Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) Inc., United Broiler Raisers Association Inc., Sorosoro Ibaba Development Cooperative and Magsasaka party-list Rep. Argel Joseph Cabatbat.

Sought for comment, Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said they are currently studying the legal issues involved. He said the Office of the Solicitor General has received a copy of the petition but not the resolution requiring their comment.

“We do not know whether the SC will issue a TRO or not in the days to come. As far as the government is concerned, however, the EO will be implemented unless temporarily restrained by the SC,” he told reporters.

In their 27-page petition, farmers and other cooperative groups claimed EO 62 would make the country dependent on importation, contrary to the policy of self-reliance and independent economy provided under the Constitution.

The EO will also prohibit farmers from being “more competitive” as it threatens them, along with the fishers and the entire economy.

For its part, SINAG called on the government to defer action on EO 62 as the High Court has yet to rule on the petition questioning its constitutionality.

“Considering that the matter of the constitutionality/validity of EO 62 is now pending before the SC, the pendency of this legal action should be respected by the respondents; defer any action in relation to EO 62 and give due respect to the SC,” SINAG legal counsel Virgie Lacsa Suarez said.

“SINAG and the whole agri sector welcome the order of the Supreme Court in requiring the respondents to file their comments within 10 days,” SINAG chair Rosendo So said.

Lower tariff takes effect

The reduction of rice tariffs to 15 percent – the lowest in the country’s history – under President Marcos’ EO 62 took effect last July 5, based on the circular issued by the Bureau of Customs (BOC).

Customs Commissioner Bienvenido Rubio issued Customs Memorandum Circular (CMC) 118-2024 for the implementation of EO 62.

“Thus, the tariff rates on rice shall take effect on 05 July 2024,” the CMC read, noting that the EO was published in the Official Gazette on June 20.

Meanwhile, the tariff rates for the other goods under EO 62 would take effect on July 20, according to the CMC.

Earlier this week, Finance Secretary Ralph Recto said he would meet with the BOC for the issuance of the CMC for the implementation of the EO 62. The BOC usually issues a counterpart circular for any tariff adjustments or modifications in order for such measures to take effect.

Recto said the tariff cut would pull down retail rice prices to between P44.17 and P49.56 per kilo by December.

The current average price for imported well-milled rice is P53.45 per kilo while its locally produced counterpart averages P51.25 per kilo.

Former agriculture secretary Leonardo Montemayor lauded the action of the SC after it directed respondents led by President Marcos to comment on the petition of farmers’ groups against EO No. 62.

“We welcome the Supreme Court’s quick response by requiring the President and other respondents to reply to our petition within ten days. Of course, we would have hoped for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against EO No. 62 in the interim,” Montemayor said in a message to The STAR. — Bella Cariaso