MOTION: LIBRT the Rice Tariffication Law should be repealed.

AFFIRMATIVE – BENEFECIALITY SPEECH

1. SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX – the welfare of the people is

the supreme law. It always takes precedence over other
matters of governance. Yet when we need it desperately to
effect changes in the country, what has become of it? Your
Honors, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

2. Tonight, the affirmative strongly argues that it is highly beneficial

for RA 11203 or Rice Tariffication Law to be repealed and
replaced by House Bill 0477 or The Rice Industry Development
Act in order to address issues in relation to the looming economic
recession and degradation of rice industry.

3. But before I proceed, Your Honors, allow me to oppose the

unmeritorious claims of the negative:

a. It is the contention of the negative the RTL provides

improvement in the agriculture sector, but we say
otherwise. Rice importation brings more harm than good to
the rice industry. RTL is injurious to our rice farmers, weakens
our rice industry, undermines our collective efforts to attain
food security, and harmful to the national economy in the
long run.

b. It is also the contention of the negative that RCEF justifies

the implementation of RTL. Let it be known that the same
lacks clear and concise rules and regulations, in effect,
delaying the disbursement of funds to the local rice
farmers.
4. Now on to my constructive:

5. FIRST, THE RTL OPEN GATES FOR CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC

DOWNTURNS.

6. RCEF lacks implementing guidelines and has slow disbursement

process. Unlike ACEF, interests earned from RCEF loans would
go directly to the National Treasury. Absence of the provision
that would mandate the reversion of RCEF gives a high
probability of corruption.

7. In a financial report, DBM had released P5 billion from the RCEF

to the DA, of which PHP1 billion was loaned to farmers. The P4
billion, however, remains unaccounted for.

8. History have proven that corruption has been perennial in the

country. In fact, in 2004, ex-President and Speaker of the House
of Representative faced plunder cases for allegedly diverting
P728 million worth of funds meant for fertilizers to her electoral
campaign.

9. Your Honors, it already happened before and it can happen

again. This should be about more than just band aid solutions.
What we need are interventions that are direct, immediate,
and large-scale to get to the root causes and underlying
problems.

10. SECOND, THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF RTL GRADUALLY

KILLS THE COUNTRY’S RICE INDUSTRY BY WHICH LOCAL RICE
FARMERS, AGENCY WORKERS AND CONSUMERS ARE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
11. Local rice farmers are suffering, and country’s rice industry
is on the losing end since the implementation of RTL.

12. Competition with low-priced imports becomes an

unnecessary burden on the part of the Filipino rice farmers.
Data confirm that palay prices has drastically dropped. In
Nueva Ecija, they sell palay for P7 to P8 per kilo with P8 per kilo
as their production cost. This drop in rice prices is endangering
the incomes and livelihoods of more than 2 million Filipino rice
farmers nationwide.

13. In addition, RA 11203 removes the power and function of

NFA in rice importation. It limits NFA’s role to simply maintaining
buffer stock for emergency situations. Around 1,000 employees
will be laid off as the agency is stripped of its power to distribute
rice in the market.

14. Moreover, since the NFA is no longer engaged in the

distribution of the cheaper NFA rice to local markets, an
estimated 10 million poor families which rely on NFA rice are
now left with no other option but to buy the more expensive
imported rice.

15. Ladies and gentlemen, the law should be all

encompassing, meaning that it applies to everyone and in all
circumstances. Ensuring food security should go hand in hand
with protecting the welfare of the people. Hence, the need for
repeal. Thank you and I am now ready for my interpellation.
INTERPELLATION

1. Good evening, Counsel. Just a mere yes or no.

2. Have your read the entirety of RTL?
3. So, it is clear to you that it claims to improve the country’s rice
industry, correct?
4. Counsel, have you been to the market lately?
5. You are aware of the sudden drop of local rice prices?
6. And this is because local rice farmers are forced to sell their
crops just to compete with imported rice that come with a
cheaper price tag, correct?
7. Since RTL imposes tariff on rice imports, is it not that with this
advent, exporters will tend to raise their price so as to at least
break even, hence, putting the farmers and even the
consumers in more risk?
a. The drop of rice prices is only temporary. This is clear
deceit on to our local rice farmers and producers. 8.
8. Counsel, RTL strips our farmers of their livelihood, however, this
will lead to domino effect which in turn will affect industries
dependent on rice production thereby many laborers will have
to lose their job?
9. Counsel, do you consider this as a fulfillment of the promises of
the law?
a. The effect of the law on the ground is not equal to what
the law promises.

How can the law be considered as a solution to the problems of

inflation if the target price of rice was never met?
Have you come across Article II Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution?
So you are well aware of the state policy of self-sufficient national
economy?

10. Good evening, Counsel. Just a mere yes or no.

11. Have your read the entirety of RTL?
12. So, it is clear to you that it claims to improve the country’s
rice industry, correct?
13. Counsel, have you been to the market lately?
14. You are aware of the sudden drop of local rice prices?
15. And this is because local rice farmers are forced to sell
their crops just to compete with imported rice that come with a
cheaper price tag, correct?
16. Do you know that the farmers are among our most
economically vulnerable workers and constitute the country’s
highest poverty incidence?
a. While lower rice prices benefit rice consumers, they hurt
rice produces mostly the local rice farmers.
17. Counsel, do you consider this as a fulfillment of the
promises of the law?
a. The effect of the law on the ground is not equal to what
the law promises.
18. Are you aware how much rice subsidy will be received by
farmers next month?
a. A financial aid of 5 thousand pesos. This is not enough to
prevent the farmers from converting their land to other
viable uses.
19. Do we have to resort to rice tariffication and importation
only to answer to answer the problem with inflation?
20. How does it become beneficial where in fact the income
and livelihood of local rice farmers are compromised? Your
honors, there is obvious displacement of farmers, workers and
 even consumers. Moreover, other businesses and industries are
also affected by the liberalization of rice importation.
21. Moving on. Counsel, have you read House Bill 0047?
22. Specifically, that of Section 3 of the House Bill?
a. It covers the development of rise industry through food
security, food self-reliance and sufficiency, empowerment
and increase of farmers’ income and attainment of rice
affordability for the general public. All-encompassing.
Correct, Counsel?
23. Do you agree with me that the issue on rice deregulation,
economic growth and development of local rice farmers and
consumers should be addressed by an all-encompassing
legislative act?
24. Thank you for your concession, Counsel. Your Honors,
absent sufficient safeguards and safety nets for the working
force, RTL only serve as another costly leaky bucket that
politicians can exploit. Ladies and gentlemen, programs under
House Bill 0047 will not only address the root causes of the crisis
of our rice industry and holistically develop the industry in a way
that will guarantee in the long term the food security of our
people. They are at once employment and livelihood
generating projects.
25. Thank you, Counsel. No more questions, Your Honors.

NOTES

1. Rice importation is injurious to our rice farmers, weakens our rice

industry, undermines our collective efforts to attain food
security, and harmful to the national economy in the long run.
2. The State recognizes the indispensable role of our rice farmers
in attaining food security based on food self-reliance and self-
sufficiency.

3. It is very clear now that the Morrison Government respects the

law for big business, but the law for the people, which is
supposed to be the same for everybody, is thrown out the
window to suit Morrison's whims.

4. The law literally doesn’t exist anymore. I hope the justices will
speak up for themselves for the power they hold and for the
people of whom they are supposed to protect against tyranny
like this.

5. For a country known for its agricultural products, it is sad to

know the plight of our local farmers. According to the National
Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), poverty incidence among
farmers is nearly 35 percent as of 2015.

6. The implementation of RTL in March 2019 has, however, resulted

in higher rice prices for consumers but lower palay prices for
rice farmers. This is not the balance that economists envisioned
from the law.

7. But the country remains largely agricultural, and millions of

farmers and their families depend on rice production.
Tariffication is supposed to help them not only boost production
but also to export rice. This laudable intention depends heavily
on the speedy rollout of measures to boost rice production,
and on the proper management and
8. What will you do then, when the Philippines has become a
country unable to produce its own food and just relies on
imports?

9. Polish verb. If the farmer is poor, then so is the whole county.

10. What does this mean for the agriculture industry

now? Now that it has been rendered a law, expect the
aftermath of its implementation to come in the following
months. Local farmers will be affected by the introduction of
more foreign competitors and how they fare in the face of that
competition will depend on the RCEF that the law has put into
place.

11. New law lacks safety nets for Filipino farmers. Farmer
groups clamor that the new law will make them compete with
cheap rice imports, making them more penniless. Measures
should be in place to ensure that Filipino farmers will not suffer
with the rice tariffication law and that "safety nets" are
available for farmers. While it has its good points, the lack of
government regulation worries stakeholders. Potential
displacement of farmers, NFA employees, accredited NFA
retailers, rice millers and rice by-product producers. Aside from
the obvious displacement of rice farmers, NFA employees, and
some 90,000 accredited NFA rice retailers nationwide, the
deregulation of rice imports goes beyond the industry. Some of
the businesses and industries that will be affected by liberalized
rice importation includes the following: Millers. There are around
6,600 registered rice millers all over the country, employing
55,000 workers. Industry stakeholders, in a position paper, said
that a complete milling facility costs from Php 30 million
(US$572,519.08) to Php 50 million (US$954,198.47)1 . This would
 place the value of the whole industry itself at Php200 billion
(US$ 3.82 billion) to Php300 billion (US$ 5.73) ( (Orly Manuntag,
Confideartion of Grains Retailers Association of the Philippines).
Animal feeds and beer industry. A by-product of the rice milling
process, the rice bran is used for making animal and
aquaculture feeds. A shortage in local unhusked rice
production would also mean there would be a drop in its by-
product. If feed mills produce less, it would cause a possible
increase in the prices of pork and chicken which use rice bran
as major ingredient for its feeds. Another by-product which
comes from the milling process is the brewer's rice or “binlid”
which is used in manufacturing alcoholic drinks, particularly
beer. Biomass, construction industry. A drop in local rice output
will also mean a decrease in rice hull, which is used as fuel for
biomass furnaces used in the provinces to provide electricity.
Rice hulls are also used as a binder for cement and land fillers
(Orly Manuntag, Confideartion of Grains Retailers Association of
the Philippines). Enable cartels of the rice trade and will throw
poor sectors into a worsened state of hunger. There is no
guarantee that retail rice prices will be lower in the long run
with unhampered importation. Relying on rice imports makes
the country vulnerable to higher world market prices as well as
to rice production and export decisions of other countries. In
2008, for instance, Vietnam, India and Pakistan restricted their
rice exports amid rising global rice prices. Thailand also raised
the idea of creating a global rice cartel similar to that for oil
exporting countries.

12. Since the NFA is no longer engaged in the distribution of

the cheaper NFA rice to local markets, an estimated 10 million
poor families which rely on NFA rice are now left with no other
option but to buy the more expensive commercial and
 imported rice. These families are already victimized by the
barrage of price hikes set forth by the Tax Reform for
Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law and by the cheap
wage policy of the Duterte administration. With the law's
impact on food spending by poor families, it is expected that
more Filipino families will experience hunger and poverty while
the local rice cartel gets a big boost.

13. Its main features include: Enhance to the fullest the

productive capability of the rice industry Developing a
mandated fixed schedule on domestic rice production and
increasing productivity. Increase income of farmers, and
poverty alleviation Time bound accelerated implementation
fixed at 3 years Creation of rice development zones Creation of
RIDC Rice Industry development Council RPSCP Rice
Production Socialized Credit Program – Collateral Free fixed at
5% interest per annum. Penal provisions for rice cartels,
smuggling, and profiteering among others Creation of local
rice security councils