Wazzup Pilipinas!?
In June 2024, the Philippine government, under the leadership of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., implemented Executive Order 62, slashing the rice import tariff from 35% to 15%. The move, heavily endorsed by economic managers led by NEDA Secretary Arsenio Balisacan, was billed as a bold strategy to curb inflation and bring down skyrocketing rice prices. However, over six months later, the promised relief has yet to materialize. Instead, consumers and farmers alike are left questioning who truly benefited from this policy.
The Lofty Promises of Tariff Reduction
The premise of the tariff reduction was straightforward: cheaper import costs would translate to lower market prices for rice. It was estimated that this policy would bring down prices by as much as ₱7 per kilogram, a much-needed reprieve for Filipino households burdened by inflation. This measure came on the heels of the controversial Rice Tariffication Law (RTL) of 2019, which similarly promised lower rice prices through the liberalization of rice importation.
However, history appeared to be repeating itself. The RTL, authored by Senator Cynthia Villar and championed by then-Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez, failed to deliver on its promise. Instead of reducing prices, it inadvertently empowered rice cartels and middlemen, who now dictate the supply and pricing of rice in the market. When EO 62 was introduced, critics warned that it might follow the same trajectory—and they were right.
The Reality: High Prices Persist
As of January 2025, the Philippine Statistics Authority reported that the average retail price of regular milled rice remains stubbornly high at ₱48.51 per kilogram. Even with the tariff cut, the Department of Agriculture (DA) was forced to implement a maximum suggested retail price (MSRP) of ₱58 per kilogram for imported rice to combat price surges. These measures, however, seem to be reactive band-aid solutions to a deeper systemic issue.
The failure to bring prices down has exposed the flawed assumptions behind the tariff reduction policy. The primary issue? Market forces and cartels remain unchecked. Despite reduced import costs, rice traders and importers have not passed on savings to consumers. Instead, they have reaped higher profits, leaving the Filipino people to bear the brunt of high prices.
The Double-Edged Sword for Farmers
While consumers struggle with high prices, local farmers face their own challenges. The influx of cheaper imported rice has dampened the competitiveness of Filipino farmers, many of whom already grapple with high production costs and insufficient government support. With the government losing an estimated ₱15 billion annually in tariff revenues due to EO 62, resources that could have been allocated to bolster local agricultural productivity are now out of reach.
This policy has been described as a "double whammy" by critics, harming both the government and the agricultural sector. Manny PiƱol, former Agriculture Secretary, publicly warned against the move, citing its potential to erode government revenues and demoralize Filipino farmers. In a widely circulated post, he argued that lowering tariffs without addressing the control exerted by rice cartels was a recipe for failure.
Who Truly Benefits?
Analysts have pointed out that the real winners of the tariff reduction are the rice cartels and unscrupulous importers masquerading as legitimate traders. The lack of effective mechanisms to monitor and regulate market prices has allowed these groups to manipulate the system to their advantage. The DA has admitted that the policy did not achieve its intended goal, further fueling public outrage over what many perceive as a government failure.
The situation has drawn comparisons to South Korea and Japan, where tariffs on imported rice are as high as 500% and 800%, respectively. These countries prioritize protecting their farmers and ensuring food security, a stark contrast to the Philippines, where policies seem to favor importers over local producers.
Government’s Next Steps: Will They Be Enough?
Recognizing the policy’s shortcomings, the government is now exploring ways to rectify the situation. The National Food Authority (NFA) plans to purchase 300,000 metric tons of rice in 2025 to stabilize buffer stocks and influence market prices. However, this measure alone may not be sufficient to address the root causes of the problem.
Experts and stakeholders are calling for a comprehensive review of the country’s rice policies. Among the proposed solutions are reinstating the 35% tariff to protect local farmers, providing subsidies and modern equipment to improve agricultural productivity, and implementing stricter regulations to dismantle cartels. Critics argue that without addressing systemic corruption and conflicts of interest within policymaking bodies, any new measures may suffer the same fate as their predecessors.
A Broken Promise
The rice tariff reduction policy, much like the Rice Tariffication Law before it, has left many Filipinos disillusioned. What was marketed as a solution to high prices has instead deepened the struggles of both consumers and farmers. The question now is whether the government will take decisive action to correct course—or continue to allow powerful interests to dictate the fate of the nation’s rice industry.
Accountability and the Road Ahead
For many, the failure of the tariff reduction policy is not just a matter of flawed economic assumptions but a deeper issue of accountability. The public is demanding answers: Why were policies based on unrealistic projections? Who should bear responsibility for the continued suffering of millions of Filipinos? And most importantly, how can the country break free from the stranglehold of rice cartels and ensure food security for all?
These questions remain unanswered, but one thing is clear: the time for empty promises and half-measures is over. The Filipino people deserve a government that prioritizes their welfare over the profits of a few. It’s time to rewrite the narrative and rebuild trust in the nation’s agricultural policies—before it’s too late.
Post a Comment