On Republic Act 11203 or the Rice Tariffication Law

Legal Writing
September 28, 2019
Members:
Bae, Gem Gericka
Flores, Jarod Xander
Paghunasan, Emely
Trazona, Andrea
Tugas, Katrina Isabelle
1-O

Introduction
How can something so vital and precious hold such a miniscule value, specifically,
seven pesos? How can someone exerting great efforts be treated so little?
These inquiries came to the fore together with uproar from its citizens as the
Philippines has experienced the results of the recently passed Rice Tariffication Law.
Since the Philippines is an agricultural country, the law affects every person in the country.
It is undeniable that such consequences are magnified and greatly felt by the Filipino rice
farmers who will have to compete with rice importers offering cheaper prices.

Rice Tariffication Law (RTL)

Republic Act 11203, also known as the Rice Tariffication Law, was passed in
Congress before the end of 2018 and was signed into law by President Duterte on
February 14, 2019. The abovementioned law amends the Agricultural Tariffication Act of
1996 which imposed tariffs to agricultural imports except for rice. Primarily, the law aims
to lift the quantitative restriction (QR) on rice imports and replace it with a different form
of safeguard that is more transparent, while at the same time, will produce revenues to
support the agricultural sector.

Objectives of RTL
The Rice Tariffication Law aims to equally protect local farmers from the entry of
more imported rice into the country through the imposition of 35% tariff on rice coming
from member-countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) like
Thailand and Vietnam. For non-ASEAN countries, 40% tariff is imposed. The collected
tariffs will be used to fund mass irrigation, warehousing, and rice research. Aside from
that, this will open opportunities for farmers to engage in the world market by lifting the
restriction on rice exports and also encourage the farmers to produce a better quality of
rice. The law will ensure the availability of rice in the domestic market allowing them to
function effectively and efficiently with lesser or no government intervention, thereby, will
address the problem on its supply. Also, the law was one of the measures taken by the
country’s economic managers by giving the public access to a more affordable price of
rice to a greater majority of the population given the soaring inflation.

Statement of the Paper

The researchers claim that there is a need for Congress to re-examine Republic
Act No. 11203 because (1) it is in conflict with the intent of the framers and the idea of
social justice, (2) it is susceptible to misapplication, and (3) it undermines the very purpose
of the National Food Authority.
It will be beneficial to the country as a whole by mere observing the intent of the
lawmakers. However, controversies arise following its effect on the local farmers. The
question arises regarding the benefit of the law in the long run especially to farmers and
their engagement with the market. Under Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, “The State
affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.” Since there will be no restrictions in terms of quota, imports of rice
will be unlimited, putting the Philippine market at a high risk of being dominated by foreign
importers. Chances are, the farmers will get compensation, but they will be eliminated
from the business sector for it is not enough in covering the excessive lost in terms of
their net income. The right to join the market by engaging in a business will be restricted
for this will imposed an elevated competency. This is impliedly in conflict with the role of
the state to perpetuate social justice for the benefit of its people since fewer people or
group of people will participate in the market.
Article 2, Section 19 of the Constitution states that, “The State shall develop a self-
reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.” If there will
be an unlimited import of rice, there is a higher possibility that the supply of rice in the
market will overflow, and will affect the domestic price of rice. The domestic farmers will
be forced to cut down the price of rice and bargain their harvest even though it will yield
insignificant profit. Besides, the implementation of the law might place a negative effect
on the economy as there will be an imbalanced on export and import. The general rule is
that the export should be higher than the import to constitute the growth of the economy.
Under Section 5 of Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights of the said
Constitution, “The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and
landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers’ organizations… and
shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and
adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services. It is evident in this
provision that the right of farmers should be protected, therefore, if there is a law that
violates this provision of the Constitution as part of the law of the land, it is widely
understood that the said law should be held unconstitutional.
The liberalization of rice importation was allegedly responsible for the plummeting
prices of palay or unhusked rice and commercial which puts local farmers at a
disadvantage, hence, different groups call for its amendment or downright repeal of the
law. There is a need for an amendment of the abovementioned law to be consistent with
the supreme law of the land, for it violates the rights of the farmers to be equally protected
by the law. Consequently, it also poses a greater challenge for the National Food Authority
and other agricultural organizations, both governmental and non-governmental.
III. Conclusion
As aforementioned, the researchers aim to prove that in general, there is a need
for the legislative department to re-examine Republic Act in its entirety for its actual
outcomes are inconsistent with the intent of its authors and the constitutional mandate of
social justice. In addition, it is susceptible to misapplication. Lastly, the law diminishes, if
not invalidate, the primordial functions of the National Food Authority.
References
In this study, the researchers aim to mainly utilize the provisions of the
Constitution, the full text of Republic Act 11203 and other related laws, jurisprudence and
other related legal literature. Aside from these, the researchers will also look into recent
news and journal articles regarding the topic. The sources listed below are deemed vital
by the researchers as they tackle agriculture and its role in the national economy, the
functions of the government and the manifestations of social justice all in relation to the
topic at hand.
 Articles XII and XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
 Republic Act 11203
 Charter of the National Food Authority (NFA)
 PVTA v. CIR
 Gonzales vs. Hechanova
 Calalang vs. Williams
 National Food Authority (NFA). 2018. NFA, in retrospect. Quezon City,
Philippines: NFA. http://www.nfa.gov.ph /about-us (accessed on March 9,
2018).
 World Trade Organization (WTO). 2018. Technical information on state
trading enterprises. Geneva, Switzerland: WTO.
https://www.wto.org/english /tratop_e/statra_e/statra_info_e.htm (accessed
on September 26, 2019).
 Ocampo, K. R. (2019, February 19). NFA employees fear job loss under rice
import law. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1087286/nfa-employees-fear-job-
loss-under-rice-import-law.