Inflation is usually a term for economists and business pages, but every Filipino family feels it directly at the wet market, the neighborhood store and the dining table. Food is the most basic need there is and its price decides how well and how often a family eats.
Even a few extra pesos on eggs, chicken, or pork can strain a household budget. Over time, families are forced to cut spending elsewhere, often on education or health, just to keep food on the table.
Much of that price pressure traces back to something Filipinos rarely buy for themselves: corn. Feed is the single biggest cost of raising chickens and pigs, making up roughly 70% of production expenses and corn is the main ingredient in that feed. So when the cost of corn rises, the cost of chicken, pork and eggs rises with it.
Corn, in other words, is an invisible ingredient in many of the food items Filipinos consume every day. We may not buy it directly very often, but it sits near the beginning of the supply chain for poultry and livestock. The Foundation for Economic Freedom notes that corn accounts for approximately 50% to 65% of animal feed formulations.
That connection is straightforward: corn affects feed costs; feed costs affect livestock and poultry production; and production costs eventually affect the prices of chicken, pork and eggs. Ultimately, corn matters to the parent deciding how many eggs to buy for the week, the worker buying a chicken meal for lunch and the family budgeting for dinner.
The problem is that the Philippines does not grow enough corn to meet the feed industry's needs. The rest has to be imported and that is where government policy comes in.
Right now, corn bought within a government-set quota is taxed at 5%. Corn bought beyond that quota is taxed at 15%. The Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF) is pushing to bring that second rate down to match the first - a flat 5% on all imported corn, regardless of volume.
This is a narrow and targeted reform, but it matters because feed costs ripple through the food chain. Lower input costs can give producers more room to manage prices, absorb other increases, expand production and compete. In an environment where consumers are already under pressure, even moderating the pace of food-price increases has value.
Local corn farmers understandably worry that cheaper imports will make their own harvests less attractive to buyers. That is a fair concern and it deserves a real answer, not a dismissal. But a uniform 5% rate does not have to come at farmers' expense if it is paired with direct support to help them grow more and sell more competitively. Lower feed costs and stronger local farming are not mutually exclusive goals.
Government should be able to pursue both. It can make feed inputs more affordable while also helping local farmers improve productivity, yields, logistics, access to technology and market competitiveness. Framing the issue as a choice between farmers and consumers misses the larger problem. A food system that works should be able to support domestic producers while keeping basic food affordable for families.
The alternative on the table, simply expanding how much corn can be imported at the low rate, has its own catch: it hands government the power to decide who gets access to the cheaper quota and how much. That kind of discretion has a track record of favoring whoever has the right network, not necessarily the buyers who would pass on savings fastest. A flat tariff applies the same rule to everyone, regardless of who is buying.
This matters from a consumer-governance perspective. Transparent and predictable rules are generally better than discretionary allocation. A uniform tariff creates clearer rules for market participants and reduces the distinction between those who gain access to a low-tariff quota and those who do not. Greater competition among importers, feed producers and downstream suppliers is preferable to a system that can restrict access to essential inputs through administrative discretion.
None of this will single-handedly fix the nutrition gaps in Filipino households, but affordable protein is part of the equation. FEF cites data showing Filipino children aged three to five consume about 20% less protein than recommended and that 23.6% of children under five are stunted. Keeping chicken, pork, and eggs within reach of ordinary families will not undo those numbers on its own, but pricing protein further out of reach certainly will not help.
The data cited by FEF also point to stunting among school-age children aged five to ten and among adolescents aged 10 to 19. These figures are a reminder that access to adequate nutrition has consequences that go well beyond a single meal. It affects childhood development, educational outcomes, health and ultimately the country’s human capital.
Lowering the corn tariff may seem like a narrow, technical change, but its effects reach well past corn traders and feed millers, all the way to the family deciding how nutritious their meals can be.
The petition to reduce the out-of-quota tariff on corn from 15% to 5%, therefore, deserves serious consideration. It is not a complete answer to food inflation, nor is it a substitute for sustained support for Filipino farmers. But it can be part of a broader effort to make the Philippine food system more efficient, competitive, transparent and responsive to consumers.
At the end of the day, the issue is not really about corn alone. It is about whether ordinary Filipino families can continue to afford basic sources of protein. The closer policy stays to that reality, the better chance we have of keeping chicken, pork and eggs on the table.
Kit Belmonte is a co-convenor at CitizenWatch Philippines. He is also a three-term member of the House of Representatives.