Philippines Declares Food Security Emergency to Stabilize Rice Prices

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

On February 3, 2025, the Philippines declared a food security emergency to address persistently high rice prices, despite global price declines and previous tariff reductions. Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel announced that the emergency status would remain in effect until retail rice prices stabilize. This declaration empowers the National Food Authority (NFA) to release up to 150,000 metric tons of its 300,000 metric tons buffer stock over the next six months, aiming to alleviate market pressures. 

Background and Rationale

The decision follows a resolution from the National Price Coordinating Council (NPCC), which urged the Department of Agriculture (DA) to declare a food security emergency for rice. Trade and Industry Secretary Ma. Cristina Roque, who chairs the NPCC, emphasized that releasing buffer stocks would help stabilize local prices and support Filipino farmers by replacing released stocks with locally produced rice. 

Secretary Laurel welcomed the NPCC's resolution, describing it as a critical move to address rice affordability. He highlighted the broader economic benefits of affordable rice prices, noting their impact on inflation and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ interest rate policies. "Even if you don’t eat rice, lower rice prices help stabilize our economy," he stated. 

Impact on Consumers and Farmers

Rice is a staple food in the Philippines, accounting for nearly 10% of Filipino household budgets, and up to 20% for poorer families. The government's intervention aims to protect consumers from high prices while ensuring that farmers receive fair compensation for their produce. The NFA's release of buffer stocks is expected to decongest warehouses in preparation for the upcoming harvest season, facilitating the procurement of palay from local farmers. 

Future Outlook

The DA has set ambitious goals for 2025 to boost food security and support farmers. These include achieving a record rice harvest of 20.46 million metric tons and improving logistics for perishable goods like vegetables and fruits. Secretary Laurel emphasized the importance of bold action to secure food supply chains and protect farmers, fisherfolk, and consumers. 

While the immediate focus is on stabilizing rice prices, the government remains committed to long-term strategies to enhance agricultural productivity and ensure food security for all Filipinos.

Angkas CEO George Royeca Addresses Controversial Incident and Political Aspirations

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

On February 2, 2025, a video surfaced showing a group of Angkas riders blocking traffic at Cainta Junction and making illegal left turns, despite clear signage prohibiting such maneuvers. The footage quickly went viral, sparking public outcry and raising concerns about rider discipline and adherence to traffic laws.

Public Apology and Immediate Response

In response to the incident, George Royeca, CEO of Angkas, issued a public apology, expressing regret over the actions of the riders involved. He emphasized the company's commitment to upholding traffic regulations and pledged to implement measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Initiatives to Address the Issue

To address the concerns raised by the incident, Angkas has initiated several measures:

Enhanced Rider Training: The company is conducting refresher courses for its riders, focusing on traffic laws, road safety, and professional conduct to ensure compliance and improve service quality.

Strengthened Monitoring Systems: Angkas is implementing stricter monitoring protocols to oversee rider behavior, aiming to promptly identify and address any violations.

Collaboration with Authorities: The company is working closely with local law enforcement agencies to enhance coordination and ensure that riders adhere to traffic regulations.

George Royeca's Political Endeavors

Beyond his role at Angkas, George Royeca has ventured into politics. In October 2024, he filed his certificate of nomination and acceptance under the party-list "Angkasangga," aiming to represent and advocate for the informal sector in the Philippines. The party-list seeks to formalize the informal sector, enhance social security measures, promote skill development, and foster an inclusive economic environment. 

Royeca's political aspirations have garnered both support and criticism. Notably, comedian Vice Ganda endorsed the Angkasangga Party-list, highlighting its potential to benefit riders and the broader informal workforce. 

Conversely, workers' groups have expressed skepticism, questioning the alignment of a successful entrepreneur with the interests of ordinary workers. 

Looking Ahead

The recent incident at Cainta Junction underscores the challenges in balancing business operations with public responsibility. George Royeca's proactive response and the measures implemented by Angkas reflect a commitment to addressing these challenges. As he continues his political journey, his leadership in both the private and public sectors will be closely watched, with expectations that his initiatives will positively impact the informal sector and the broader Filipino community.

The “English-Only Policy” at Pamantasan ng Cabuyao: Progress or a Step Backward?

Wazzup Pilipinas!?

The Pamantasan ng Cabuyao (University of Cabuyao) recently announced the implementation of an English-Only Policy across all official transactions, classes, and interactions starting February 3, 2025. This means that students, faculty, and staff must communicate exclusively in English within university premises. The administration justifies the policy as a means to uphold academic excellence and global competitiveness. However, this decision has ignited a heated debate, raising critical questions about language, cultural identity, and what truly defines a "world-class" education.

Language Proficiency vs. Global Competence

While fluency in English undoubtedly provides access to global opportunities, equating it with intelligence or success is a flawed perspective—one that reeks of a colonized mindset. Some of the most economically and academically successful nations, such as Japan, South Korea, and Germany, have achieved global excellence without prioritizing fluency in English. Instead, they focused on strengthening their education systems, investing in research, and fostering innovation.

If the goal is to create globally competent graduates, why is the solution a monolingual policy rather than a curriculum that encourages critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability? How does an enforced English-only environment guarantee success when Filipino students consistently rank low in reading comprehension, not because they don’t speak English fluently, but because the quality of education itself needs improvement?

Is This Even Constitutional?

A closer look at the 1987 Philippine Constitution raises concerns about the legality of the policy:

Section 6: “The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages.”

Section 7: “For purposes of communication and instruction, the official languages of the Philippines are Filipino and, until otherwise provided by law, English.”

By prioritizing English exclusively and mandating "strict compliance," is the university contradicting the spirit of the Constitution, which recognizes Filipino as the national language and an official medium of instruction? While English is also an official language, enforcing it as the only means of communication dismisses the linguistic and cultural identity of the very people the university serves.

A Colonial Relic Disguised as Progress

History has seen many monolingual policies being used to erase cultures, particularly in colonized nations. Canada’s residential schools and colonial-era educational systems imposed language policies that systematically suppressed indigenous identities. The University of Cabuyao’s policy may not be as extreme, but the logic behind it—forcing an English-only environment in the name of global competitiveness—echoes a similar pattern.

Is it truly progress to impose a language policy that punishes students for expressing themselves in their native tongue? Shouldn’t a university, of all places, be a space where linguistic diversity is celebrated rather than restricted?

The Flawed “Strict Compliance” Approach

One of the most troubling aspects of the announcement is the phrase “Strict compliance required.” What does this entail? Will students and staff face penalties for speaking in Filipino? Will they be reprimanded for struggling with English? If the goal is to help students improve their English proficiency, is punishment really the best approach?

Education should be built on accessibility and support, not punitive enforcement. Rather than forcing a monolingual rule, why not create programs that encourage multilingualism? Providing resources, conducting English language workshops, and fostering an environment where students feel safe to improve their skills without fear of judgment would be far more effective.

A Better Approach to Global Competitiveness

If Pamantasan ng Cabuyao truly wants to produce world-class graduates, enforcing an English-only policy should not be the priority. Instead, it should:

Strengthen Critical Thinking and Research Skills – Competence isn’t just about speaking English fluently; it’s about understanding, analyzing, and applying knowledge effectively.

Enhance Teaching Methods – Well-trained educators with access to updated teaching strategies and learning tools will contribute more to student success than a language policy ever will.

Support Multilingual Education – Promoting proficiency in both Filipino and English, while also encouraging other global languages like Mandarin or Spanish, would be a more effective way to prepare students for international opportunities.

Improve Reading Comprehension and Literacy Programs – Instead of focusing on English alone, addressing the root issue of declining reading comprehension should be a priority.

Final Thoughts: Is This Really the Best Path Forward?

The outrage surrounding the English-Only Policy is not just about the language itself—it’s about what it represents. It’s about how institutions continue to equate success with fluency in a colonial language, rather than focusing on the quality of education as a whole.

A university’s goal should be to empower students, not limit them with restrictive policies that stifle self-expression and cultural identity. Instead of forcing an English-only rule, why not embrace a balanced, multilingual approach—one that truly prepares students for a competitive global stage without stripping them of their heritage?

Education should be about thinking, innovating, and leading—not just about speaking in English.