Credits: Inquirer.net
Several agricultural groups have filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s Executive Order No. 62, which was issued last June. The controversial order reduces tariffs on various agricultural products, including a reduction of the rice tariff from 35 percent to 15 percent.
Executive Order No. 62, formally titled “Modifying the Nomenclature and Rates of Import Duty on Various Products,” has faced backlash from the agricultural sector. Petitioners argue that the order was issued without the mandatory consultation, investigation, and hearings required under Republic Act 10863, also known as the Flexile Clause of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act.
“EO 62 was hastily issued without the necessary consultation, investigation, and hearings required under RA 10863,” stated Atty. Virgie Lacsa Suarez, legal counsel for the Samahang Industriya ng Agrikultura (Sinag). “These processes are essential to ensure that any executive order involving tariff reduction is validly issued.”
Joining Sinag in the petition are the Federation of Free Farmers Inc. (FFFI), United Broiler Raisers Assn. 1 Inc., Sorosoro Ibaba Development Cooperative (SIDC), and Magsasaka Partylist representative Atty. Argel Cabatbat. The petitioners have requested the SC to halt the implementation of EO 62, which is set to take effect on July 7, pending a decision on the merits of their case.
The petition names President Marcos Jr., Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Arsenio Balisacan, and Tariff Commission Chairperson Marilou Mendoza as respondents. The groups argue that previous executive orders reducing tariffs—such as EO 10 and EO 12, which lowered tariffs on corn, pork, rice, and electric vehicles—went through the required consultations, investigations, and hearings.
“These previous EOs underwent the necessary procedures, and petitioners were duly notified and actively participated in the investigations prior to their issuance,” the petition states. “In contrast, EO 62 was issued in clear violation of due process, amounting to an undue delegation of the President’s rule-making power.”
Petitioners also warn that reducing tariffs on staple products like corn could pose significant challenges for local farmers. “Lower tariffs can lead to an influx of cheaper imported goods, undermining domestic producers and farmers,” they argue. “This threatens the livelihoods of local farmers and the agricultural sector, exacerbating rural poverty and economic disparity.”
Furthermore, the petitioners contend that EO 62 contradicts the state policy of fostering a self-reliant and independent economy, as mandated by the 1987 Constitution. “EO 62 does not make our farmers more competitive; rather, it threatens their survival by exposing them to unfair foreign competition,” they assert. “Instead of protecting and supporting our farmers, EO 62 undermines their ability to compete, potentially leading to greater dependence on imports and further economic inequality.”
As the Supreme Court considers the petition, the agricultural sector and other stakeholders await the outcome, which could have significant implications for the future of tariff policies and the livelihoods of Filipino farmers.
