(Photo from Office of Senate President Migs Zubiri)
MANILA, Philippines — Senator Risa Hontiveros on Friday said she is pleased with the dismissal of the case against officials tagged in the sugar importation controversy.
“I am gratified that justice and fairness prevailed in the sugar importation fiasco. I had no doubt that the truth would come out, as it always does,” she said in a statement on Friday.
Following the case dismissal, Hontiveros stressed that the country’s sugar cost remains high and needs to be addressed.
“Samantala, naabswelto man sila, ang susunod at pinakamahalagang tanong ay kung pakikinggan din ba ang kanilang naging policy recommendation — taasan at isunod sa dati ang sugar reserves ng bansa. Dahil sa huli, kailangang tugunan ang mataas pa ring presyo ng asukal at kasabay na alagaan ang interes ng mga konsyumer,” she added.
(While they were absolved, the next and most important question is will their policy recommendation be taken into consideration – increase the country’s sugar reserves. Because in the end, the high sugar prices should be addressed, together with protecting consumers’ interests.)
The Office of the President recently absolved former Agriculture Undersecretary Leocadio Sebastian, Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) Administrator Hermenegildo Serafica, and SRA board members Roland Beltran and Aurelio Gerardo Valderrama Jr.
The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee investigated the fiasco after Sugar Order No. 4, authorizing the importation of 300,000 metric tons of sugar, was posted on the SRA website.
The order was denied by Malacañang, saying that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who concurrently serves as agriculture chief, rejected the proposed importation.
After a series of hearings, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee recommended the filing of charges against the four officials.
The Senate minority bloc — composed of Hontiveros and Senate Minority Leader Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III — released a separate finding.
The minority bloc argued that the four officials’ actions bore “badges of good faith” and that the recommendation of charges is “lacking factual and legal basis.”