MANILA, Philippines — Proposed amendments to Republic Act No. 11203 or the rice tariffication law can be certified as urgent by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., according to House of Representatives Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.
Romualdez told reporters at the Batasang Pambansa complex on Tuesday that he would consult with Marcos on the possible amendments, adding that he hopes the Senate would prioritize this issue too.
Earlier, the Speaker said that rice prices could go down by P10 to P15 — close to the P30 per kilogram mark — if the said law is amended by June.
READ: Romualdez: Rice prices down P15 if rice tariff law amended by June
“More likely because this is a priority of the President, we are part of that urgency because you know our beloved President does not want the masses, the consumers, the rice buyers, to suffer. There should be a right price for rice,” Romualdez said just after the session was called to order.
“I would go to Malacañang; that’s why I am telling you that I will consult with him. But I am sure he feels this is a very urgent matter, this is a top issue, so we will work together with the executive, with the OP (Office of the President), with the DA (Department of Agriculture), with the NFA (National Food Authority), with the NIA (National Irrigation Authority), with what they can do, and we will also ask our friends in the Senate to support this initiative,” he added.
Deputy Majority Leader and ACT-CIS party-list Rep. Erwin Tulfo meanwhile assured the public that there is enough time for the proposed amendments to be discussed and eventually passed by the House.
Tulfo said the House committee on agriculture under Quezon 1st District Rep. Wilfrido Mark Enverga has vowed to conduct as many hearings as possible to assess the proposed changes to the rice tariffication Law.
“Not impossible, that’s not impossible because we have three weeks, the committee on agriculture can conduct hearings daily. I’ve talked to Congressman Enverga, we will do this almost every day. So, it’s up to the President if he can appeal to the Senate, that they can do this too, because we have three weeks. I think we can handle that,” Tulfo said.
“We would just tinker with it, adjust it a little bit, we will not repeal the law […] almost all congressmen agree, based on my talks with lawmakers in the past few days, […] they were saying that they agree with such proposals,” he added.
Tulfo earlier also said that amending the rice tariffication law is essential to lowering rice prices because the NFA has been prevented from selling cheap rice after the law’s enactment.
The House committee on agriculture and food has conducted two hearings in as many days since the session’s resumption, all focused on discussing amendments to R.A. 11203.
Among the bills discussed are the following:
- House Bill (HB) No. 212 seeking to amend R.A. No. 11203’s Section 13 (Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund or RCEF), to lift the quantitative import restriction on rice, authored by Nueva Ecija 1st District Rep. Mikaela Angela Suansing
- HB No. 404, seeking to repeal the whole R.A. No. 11203, authored by Gabriela party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas
- HB No. 1562, seeking to authorize the Bureau of Customs’ excess tariff revenues from rice importation and other possible sources as a special emergency fund, and be used as financial aid for rice farmers, authored by Camarines Sur 2nd District Rep. LRay Villafuerte Jr.
- HB No. 9030, seeking to create a national rice emergency response, authored by Marikina 2nd District Rep. Stella Luz Quimbo
- HB No. 9547, seeking to extend the RCEF, authored by Nueva Ecija 3rd District Rep. Rosanna Vergara
The Rice Tariffication Law, which was signed into law last March 2019 during the term of former President Rodrigo Duterte, created the RCEF which is funded by the tariff revenues. While the RCEF seeks to assist farmers, opposition figures back then claimed that the law made the situation worse for farmers as they faced stiff competition from cheaper imports.
READ: Rice tariffication law: Farmers worry; lawmakers wary
Critics also contested that the goal of the law — to allow imports so that supply will increase and eventually, lower prices, has not been attained.