Changes in rice tariffication bill not assured

MANILA, Philippines — Four days before the rice tariffication bill lapses into law, there is still no assurance that changes urged by rice industry stakeholders will be considered.

While President Duterte met with farmers last week and sought a position paper on the provisions they want changed, Agriculture Secretary Emmanuel Piñol said there is no assurance that such changes will be included.

“It will be the President’s call. I don’t want to second-guess. But having to say that he’s willing to listen, I would assume he is open to some changes. As to how these changes will be implemented, that’s beyond me,” Piñol said.

He added that Duterte asked the Department of Agriculture (DA) to collate all positions of the farmers, specifically on the provisions that they are opposing.

“That is the instruction to me. I cannot say what will happen afterwards. If he will accept or reject it, or as to its effect,” Piñol said.

The rice tariffication bill was already submitted to the Office of the President last month and will lapse into law if not acted upon by Feb. 15.

Based on the simplified position paper forwarded to Malacañang over the weekend, farmers are suggesting that the regulatory powers of the National Food Authority not be removed and that its price stabilization powers remain.

They also asked that the President be given powers to respond to any agriculture emergency anytime as well for the DA be involved in distribution of the Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund, which would cover collected tariffs from rice imports.

Presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo had already said that the President would unlikely veto the bill despite calls from the industry.

“The farmers wanted veto but I don’t think the President will. His position is for the greater interest and good of Filipinos,” Panelo said.

Local farmers had cautioned Duterte into signing the rice tariffication bill, emphasizing that it “will make the government inutile in responding to price spikes and market failures in the future.”

Farmers said such move is dangerous not only to consumers and farmers but also for the government.