MANILA, Philippines — Malacañang has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the petition seeking to declare as unconstitutional Executive Order 62, which reduced the tariffs of imported rice and other agricultural products from 35 percent to 15 percent.
In a 62-page comment dated July 29, Malacañang – through the Office of the Solicitor General – said the petition, filed by several farmer and other cooperative groups, violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by going to the SC.
Malacañang said the issues raised by petitions against EO 62 are factual issues which must first be settled before the lower courts. “This Honorable Court is not a trier of facts and cannot resolve these factual issues at first instance,” it said.
The Palace also argued that petitioners cannot anchor their case on alleged violations of broad constitutional policies, nor bring before the SC the resolution of political questions.
It said the courts are mandated to settle actual issues or controversies, not to rule whether the executive branch was correct in lowering tariff duties on rice imports in the context of socioeconomic policy.
“Mere disagreement with the government’s position is not sufficient ground to bring EO 62 before this Honorable Court, let alone for this Court to strike down the same,” it said.
On the question whether tariffs will serve public interest if they benefit consumers while impacting local producers, Malacañang said this is for the legislative and executive branches of government to decide, not the judiciary.
“It is clear that petitioners’ case has no leg to stand on. Outside of the allegation regarding the lack of prior consultation, petitioners build their case on matters which are not cognizable by this Honorable Court. It is not for this Honorable Court to replace the policy judgments of the Executive with its own, especially in matters involving economic, not legal consideration,” it said.
Malacañang also said President Marcos was improperly impleaded in the petition, considering that he enjoys immunity while he sits as the country’s top official.
It also refuted the petitioners’ claim that their right to due process was violated, saying the government had complied with all the necessary notice and hearing requirements under the Flexible Clause of Republic Act 10863 or the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA).
It said a petition from an interested party is not the only means by which a tariff modification can occur under the Flexible Clause. The Tariff Commission is likewise not required to conduct independent and separate public hearings for each product subject to tariff subjects.
Malacañang also asserted that the Tariff Commission conducted public hearings, contrary to the claims of the petitioners, and argued that no undue delegation of legislative powers were involved in the case, saying the petitioners did not assail the constitutionality nor completeness of the CMTA nor of any other law.
“Such an allegation is required for any claim premised on ‘undue delegation.’ Undue delegation necessarily implies a law that either fails to express a complete policy or does not lay down specific standards to limit the exercise of the power it grants,” it said.
It added that EO 62 did not go beyond the powers delegated by the CMTA to the executive.
In their petition, farmer groups and other cooperative groups sought a temporary restraining order against the EO while the high tribunal deliberates on the matter.
Respondents named in the petition were Marcos, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, National Economic and Development Authority Secretary Arsenio Balisacan, and Tariff Commission Chairperson Marilou Mendoza.
The SC told the respondents to file their comment within 10 days from receipt of the resolution.
The petitioners claimed EO 62 would make the country dependent on importation, saying this is contrary to the policy of self-reliance and independent economy provided under the Constitution.
The EO will also prohibit farmers from being “more competitive” as it threatens them, along with the fishers, and the entire economy.
“Instead of protecting and supporting our farmers, EO 62 exposes our very own food producers to unfair foreign competition. The danger of reduced tariffs for the next four years does not in any way make our country self-reliant; rather it makes us dependent on foreign produce,” the petitioners said.
The petitioners also argued that EO 62 violates the conditions set in the Flexible Clause of RA 10863, which makes its issuance invalid and is tantamount to undue delegation of powers.
They also claimed the order violates the state policy to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy controlled by Filipinos, as well as violate the constitutional mandate to protect farmers from unfair competition and trade practices.
“This is clearly detrimental to the farmers, who may struggle to compete with the lower prices of imported products. As a result, their livelihoods and the agricultural sector in general may suffer, exacerbating rural poverty and economic disparity,” the petition read.
The Department of Agriculture earlier claimed the EO could help bring down the price of rice by P6 to P7 per kilo.
Rice prices still up
Watchdog Bantay Bigas yesterday said that EO 62 failed to bring down the retail prices of rice, despite almost a month of the implementation of lower tariff on the imported staple after it became effective on July 7.
In an interview over dzBB, Bantay Bigas spokesperson Cathy Estavillo noted that the retail price of the grains remains high despite the reduction of tariff on imported rice from 35 percent to 15 percent.
“Despite EO 62… consumers have yet to see lower prices of rice as promised,” Estavillo said.
In a separate interview, Agriculture Assistant Secretary Arnel De Mesa confirmed that at least 101,000 metric tons of imported rice arrived as of the third week of July under EO 62 of the 15 percent tariff.
“Hopefully, this will lead to the big possibility of bringing down the retail price (of rice) amid the big cut in the tariff (on imported rice),” De Mesa said.
Meanwhile, Estavillo said that the P45 per kilo of rice should not be called the Rice-For-All program, saying it is only available in four Kadiwa outlets.
“You cannot see P45 (per kilo of rice) in the markets. According to the consumers, it should not be called Rice-For-All since it is only available in four Kadiwa outlets. Many are looking for lower prices of rice,” she said.
Estavillo noted that P45 per kilo is still high, compared to the P20 per kilo promised by Marcos during his election campaign.
“The P45 per kilo is still high for ordinary people, as they are still waiting for the P20 per kilo that was promised for three years now. The P45 per kilo should be brought to the markets as the ordinary consumers buy there,” she said.
De Mesa has announced that the Department of Agriculture (DA)’s P45 per kilo rice is now available at four Kadiwa outlets in Metro Manila as part of the Rice-for-All program of the government.
He added that the rice is sold at the Food Terminal Inc. Kadiwa in Taguig; Caloocan; Potrero, Malabon and the Bureau of Plant Industry main office in Manila on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Each buyer will be limited to 25 kilos a day to prevent abuse. — Bella Cariaso
Be the first to comment