SC asks Marcos, other execs to comment on EO lowering rice tariffs

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has called on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin and other officials to respond to a petition challenging the constitutionality of Executive Order (EO) 62, which lowers rice tariffs.

SC spokesperson Camille Ting announced this in a press conference on Thursday. 

An order to comment is part of the high court’s procedures in handling cases or petitions.

Among those required to comment are Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Arsenio Balisacan and Tariff Commission Chair Marilou Mendoza.

On July 4, several farmer groups, including the Samahang Industriya ng Agrikultura (SINAG), Federation of Free Farmers, United Broiler Raisers Association, and Sorosoro Ibaba Development Cooperative, filed a petition against EO 62.

The petition claimed that the order was issued without proper consultation and argued that it would increase the country's reliance on foreign produce.

“The issuance of EO No. 62 does not make our farmers more competitive; rather it is a threat to our farmers and fishers and to the entire economy. Instead of protecting and supporting our farmers, EO 62 exposes our very own food producers to unfair foreign competition,” the petition read.

EO 62, signed by Bersamin on June 20, adjusted the classification and import duty rates for several products, including rice, for the years 2024 to 2028. The order reduced tariffs on imported rice from 35% to 15%.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has indicated that this reduction in tariffs could pose a downside risk to inflation.

However, the high court did not issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of the executive order.

Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra said that the EO would remain in effect unless a TRO is issued by the court.

“We do not know whether the SC will issue a TRO or not in the days to come. I suppose the SC justices are also presently evaluating whether any injunctive relief is necessary,” Guevarra said. 

In a statement, SINAG said it welcomed the high court’s decision. 

“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,” the group's statement read.