Fake

1
A RICE PARADISE: A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH IN ANALYZING THE VALIDITY

OF THE RICE TARIFFICATION LAW PURSUANT TO THE STATE’S OBLIGATION UNDER
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
MALCOLM JOSHUA C. CRUZ
A thesis presented in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of
JURIS DOCTOR
2
ABSTRACT
International obligations may sometimes conflict with each other. The most common of
which is the conflict between an obligation of a State under an international trade agreement
and an obligation under international human rights law.
The Rice Tariffication Law (RTL) was enacted pursuant to the Philippines’ obligation
under the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under the terms of the WTO, the Philippines
has an obligation to remove barriers to trade such as quantitative restrictions (QRs) on
products exported to the country. The RTL made this obligation into reality. The abolition on
QRs on rice means the unlimited imports of foreign rice which would compete with the
produce of local farmers. Tariff will now be the new form of protection.
The enactment of the RTL gave rise to a cry on the violation on the right to food and
food security guaranteed by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR). Human rights obligations of States include the duty to respect, protect and
fulfill the right to food and life. Conflicting interests thus arose between exporting States
claiming rights under WTO obligations and local farmers, the poor and future generations
claiming under the right to food and life.
Realization of the right to food occurs when every person has physical and economic
access to adequate food including the means of procuring the same at present and for the
future. Thus, a realization of the right to food necessarily includes food security. Aside from
availability, accessibility and adequacy of food, a key element to achieve food security is
sustainability. The Right to Food Guidelines by the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) emphasizes that a human-rights based approach to national food security stresses the
view that food and other basic needs are a matter of right and not of privilege.
With the enactment of the RTL, although it may appear that rice would be abundant
and arguably more affordable, the question of sustainability arises. There is a special
concern on the increased vulnerability of the Philippines to exporters’ decisions and a
possible enabler of cartels in rice trade. During the global financial crisis in the late 2007
and 2008, the world rice market was gravely disrupted which made exporting countries
restrict their rice exports in order to protect their own nationals and consumers. Hence,
importing rice countries had difficulties in getting supplies. History could repeat itself, but
this time, the Philippines is more dependent on rice imports due to the lack of regard to
sustainability when the RTL was enacted.
Due to the need to reconcile the competing obligations under the WTO and ICESCR,
it is essential to look into the nature of WTO obligations. This study will examine once again
the binding force of WTO obligations and whether deviations or modifications should be
allowed in light of WTO law, principles of international law and human rights.
3
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Agriculture is significant for the Philippine economy. 1 There is a variety of crops

produced in the country which includes corn, coconut, sugarcane, bananas, pineapple and the
most controversial of which is rice. In the Philippines, rice is not only a political issue but
also an emotional one.2 Rice is both a principal source of food and livelihood thus of great
importance especially to the Filipinos.3 The poor has always relied on rice as part of their
dietary staple.4 Around 13 million workers of the agricultural sector or 32% comprise the
labor force in the Philippines and contributes around 14% of the country’s gross domestic
product.5 Major rice producers come from Central Luzon and Cagayan Valley and some are
scattered all throughout the country.6 In the rice industry alone, latest data shows that 2.5
million households and 2.1 million farmers are involved in the rice production and 110,000
workers are involved in post-farm activities and 320,000 for ancillary activities.7
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) paved the way for individual
farmers to own land to produce crops such as rice. 8 Despite this, the problem does not stop
upon the acquisition of land by the farmers. Poverty, lack of support services and unsound
1
Food and Agriculture Organization, Fact Sheet Philippines, available at
http://www.fao.org/3/ae946e/ae946e03.htm (last accessed Feb. 22, 2020).
2
Cliff Venzon, Duterte’s war on inflation hammers Philippine farmers, available at
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/Duterte-s-war-on-inflation-hammers-Philippine-farmers (last
accesses Feb. 22, 2020).
3
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION, THE RICE CRISIS 123 (2010) [hereinafter THE RICE CRISIS].
4
Venzon, supra note 2.
5
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION INITIATIVE IN PHILIPPINE RICE
CULTIVATION 1 (2015) [hereinafter MITIGATION INITIATIVE].
6
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rice around the world, available at
http://www.fao.org/rice2004/en/p10.htm (last accessed Feb. 23, 2020).
7
Food and Agriculture Organization , FAO Regional Rice Initiative Pilot Project, available at
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/bodies/CL_149/SideEvents_CL149/Rice/Presentation_RRI-
Philippines.pdf (last accessed Feb. 28, 2020).
8
An Act Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to Promote Social Justice and Industrialization,
Providing the Mechanism for its Implementation, and for Other Purposes [CARP], Republic Act No. 6657
(1988).
4
policies aggravates the situation of farmers. Poverty especially in the rural areas have
worsened because of neglect of the government in advancing our agricultural sector.9
During the 1970s, the Philippines was rice self-sufficient and even became a rice exporter
to other Asian countries such as Myanmar, Indonesia and China but this was not sustained
because of factors such as population growth and the lack of agricultural land and eventually
the country became a rice importer. 10 In fact, the Philippines became the second largest
importer in the world and mostly its imports come from Vietnam and Thailand consisting
52% and 29% of the total rice imports respectively. 11 Previous administrations have vowed
to develop the rice sector for years in order to attain food security and rice self-sufficiency
but failed to invest especially on mechanization and irrigation.12
The country was the biggest rice importer back in 2010 and 2011 which amounted to 2.38
million tons in 2010 which were imported from Vietnam and Thailand but rice prices for
consumers were still one of the highest considering other prices from other developing
countries in Asia.13 The Philippines was the 8th highest rice producer in 2012 producing 18
million tons which shows how much rice is important not just only as an agricultural crop but
as a staple food for the Filipinos.14
Philippines is a major importer of rice despite the abundant land which can be used for
planting rice thus demand cannot meet the local supply. 15 The Philippine’s land devoted for
rice is still not big as other major rice-producers in Asia. 16 Also, people are largely dependent
on rice as compared to other countries wherein the Philippine’s total calorie intake and total
protein intake accounts for 41% and 31% respectively. 17 The Philippines still remains
9
Food and Agriculture Organization, supra note 1.
10
ANNETTE M. TOBIAS, THE PHILIPPINE RICE TARIFFICATION LAW: IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES 1 (2019).
11
Id.
12
13
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Philippines, available at
http://ricepedia.org/philippines (last accessed Feb. 28, 2020).
14
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION INITIATIVE IN PHILIPPINE
RICE CULTIVATION 21 (2015) [hereinafter MITIGATION INITIATIVE].
15
16
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, supra note 13.
17
5
vulnerable in the aspect of food security as aggravated by increasing population of over 92

million in 2010 matched with an average increase rate of around two percent every year.18
The 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was executed to pave the way for
internationalism and mutual cooperation among States.19 Over 50 countries participated
during the negotiation stage which led to the creation of the International Trade Organization
which was aimed to be a specialized agency of the United Nations. 20 By early 1980s, the
trade policy environment became obsolete because of the emergence of globalization of the
world economy, trade in services and international investment which led for GATT members
to reinforce the multilateral system through the Uruguay Round Agreements. 21 Eventually,
the 1947 GATT was replaced by GATT 1994 or the “Final Act” giving birth to what we call
now as the World Trade Organization which is the umbrella organization for international
trade.22
The Philippines signed the GATT only on December 27, 1979. 23 The Philippines
signified its intent to officially join the WTO on 15 April 1994 through the then Secretary of
the Department of Trade and Industry and finally signed the Final Act Embodying the
Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations in Marrakesh, Morocco. 24
Ratification by the Senate was on 14 December 1994 following the certification by the
President for immediate adoption.25
As the Philippines entered the World Trade Organization in 1995, one of the conditions
imposed was the abolition of quantitative restrictions and reduction of tariffs to give way to
liberalization of trade but rice was given an exemption. 26 This special treatment on rice was
18
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, supra note 14.
19
CHAD P. BROWN, SELF-ENFORCING TRADE 11 (2009 ed.).
20
World Trade Organization, From Havana to Marrakesh, available at
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact4_e.htm (last accessed Mar. 6, 2020).
21
Id.
22
Id.
23
World Trade Organization, the WTO: GATT members, available at
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/gattmem_e.htm (last accessed Mar. 6, 2020).
24
Tanada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18 (1997).
25
Id.
26
TOBIAS, supra note 10, at 2.
6
valid up to 2005 but was allowed to be extended until 2012.27 Another waiver was obtained
by the country to maintain its quantitative restrictions up until June 30, 2017.28
The Rice Tariffication Law (RTL) or also known as “An Act Liberalizing the
Importation, Exportation and Trading of Rice, Lifiting for the Purpose the Quantitative
Import Restriction on Rice and for Other Purposes” was passed on February 14, 2019 by
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.29 The RTL was made because of the inflation on the price of
rice faced by the Philippine during the last quarter of 2018 because the National Food
Authority’s (NFA) buffer stock ran out.30 According to the Department of Trade and
Industry, the price of regular milled rice was at Php41.00 per kilo and well-milled rice at
Php49.00 per kilo which was a record-high average on September 2018 and on October
2018, rice inflation was at 10.7%.31 Aside from the objective of lowering inflation,
proponents of the RTL pushed for the fulfillment of the Philippines international obligation
under the World Trade Organization which imposes the removal of QR on rice with another
form of protection which is the tariff.32
Filipino farmers especially those who are in the rural areas are usually in high spirits
during harvest season but during the third and fourth quarter of 2019, farmers especially from
the north of Luzon are low-spirited.33 In 2019, cheap foreign rice has been imported in the
country as an effect of granting import licenses to over 200 companies and over 2,000 import
clearances.34
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
An Act Liberalizing the Importation, Exportation and Trading of Rice, Lifting for the Purpose the
Quantitative Import Restriction on Rice and for Other Purposes [Rice Tariffication Law], Republic Act No.
11203 (2019).
30
31
Department of Trade and Industry, Rice Tariffication Law led to record-low prices in 7 years -DTI Chief,
available at https://www.dti.gov.ph/media/latest-news/13548-rice-tariff-law-record-low-prices-7yrs (last
accessed Mar. 7, 2020).
32
33
34
Id.
7
B. Thesis Statement
Given the issues outlined above, it is this Submission’s hypothesis that: the enactment and
implementation of the Rice Tariffication Law given the present conditions of our local rice
industry and the lack of competitiveness of our farmers, violate the right to food, food
security and life of the poor, farmers and the future generation. The Philippines’ WTO
obligations are divisible, bilateral and contractual in nature, thus must be conditioned to its
obligation under international human rights law on the right to food and life.
C. Definition of Terms
1. ATIGA Rate - refers to tariff rate commitments under the ASEAN Trade m Goods
Agreement (ATIGA) applicable to importations originating from Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member States35
2. Bound rate - refers to the agreed maximum tariffs on products committed by the
Philippines to the World Trade Organization (WTO) under the Uruguay Round Final Act,
and under the ATIGA, in accordance with its tariff schedule.36
3. Buffer Stock refers to the optimal level of rice inventory that shall be maintained at any
given time to be used for emergency situations and to sustain the disaster relief programs
of the government during natural or man-made calamities.37
4. In-Quota Tariff Rate - refers to the tariff rates for minimum access volumes committed
by the Philippines to the WTO under the Uruguay Round Final Act.38
5. Out-Quota Tariff Rate - refers to the higher rate of customs duty that is levied on the
quantities of an imported agricultural product in excess of its minimum access volume
(MAV).39
35
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (c).
36
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (d).
37
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (e).
38
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (f).
39
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (g).
8
6. Minimum Access Volume - refers to the volume of a specific agricultural product that is
allowed to be imported with a lower tariff as committed by the Philippines to the WTO
under the Uruguay Round Final Act.40
7. Quantitative Import Restrictions - refer to non-tariff restrictions used to limit the amount
of imported commodities, including, but not limited to discretionary import licensing and
import quotas, whether qualified or absolute.41
8. Rice Shortage is a situation where the quantity available or the supply of the commodity
in a market falls short of the quantity demanded or required at a given time.42
9. Tariff - refers to a tax levied on a commodity imported from another country. It earns
revenues for the government and regarded as instruments to promote local industries by
taxing their competitors. The benefit is accorded to the local producers by the
maintenance of a domestic price at a level equal to the world price plus the tariff.43
10. Tariffication - refers to the lifting of all existing quantitative restrictions such as import
quotas or prohibitions, imposed on agricultural products, and replacing these restrictions
with tariffs.44
D. Objectives of the Study
This study aims:

1. To evaluate the effects of the RTL specifically on the abolition of QRs on the domestic
rice industry and the situation of local farmers;
2. To identify the human rights involved in the issue of abolition of QRs and unlimited
importation of foreign-produced rice and to determine if there is any violation of human
rights.
40
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (h).
41
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (j).
42
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (l).
43
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (m).
44
Rice Tariffication Law, § 3 (o).
9
3. To examine the nature of WTO obligations and its implication and interaction with the
Philippines obligation under international human rights law.
4. To harmonize and find a middle ground between the apparently conflicting obligations of
ensuring food security and tariffication of goods.
E. Significance of the Study
Since the time of the Greeks, international trade has been one of the most debated topics
because of a trade-off of between benefits and disadvantages. 45 For economists, the overall
benefits to society outweigh the narrow interests on the other end. 46 Adam Smith for example
states that import restrictions would diminish competition and gives protected industries a
monopoly and in effect the local producers would be able to charge higher prices.47 However,
with the rising concern of human rights impacts of these trade policies, can we just regard
human rights concern as just a “narrow interest?”
Vietnam and Thailand’s rice productivity steadily rose but the Philippines’ productivity
remained stagnant.48 Aside from the factors of growing population, budget allocation for the
agricultural sector has always been very low.49 The local rice industry failed to develop as
much as it should have to attain rice self-sufficiency and eventually to attain food security.
These factors left the small rice farmers at the mercy of government policies such as on the
imposition of QRs, rice subsidy and the like.
The 2007-2008 World Crisis posed a serious threat to the rice industry thus affected also
food security among households due to rising of prices.50 What if this happens again but the
difference is that the Philippines is wholly dependent on imports of rice? What if the
importing countries were gravely affected by another crisis thus would have to increase
45
Douglas Irwin, A Brief History of International Trade Policy available at
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Irwintrade.html (last accessed Mar. 6, 2020).
46
Id.
47
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations available at
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/Irwintrade.html (last accessed Mar. 6, 2020).
48
V. Bruce J. Tolentino, The Globalization of Food Security: Rice Policy Reforms in the Philippines, 29 PHIL. J.
DEV’T. 27, at 30.
49
Id. at 33.
50
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION, THE RICE CRISIS 123 (2010) [hereinafter THE RICE CRISIS].
10
prices unaffordable to the common people or even worse stop importing due to lack of
supply?
This study is important in order to reevaluate government policies that gravely affect the
right to food and food security of the citizens especially the poor. Although short-terms
advantages and benefits are being reported, these should not prevent a more thorough and
deeper understanding on the implications of the RTL on the small local rice farmers, the
poor, rights-holders, duty-bearers and the Philippine economy.
F. Scope and Limitation
This study will cover the RTL and its key provisions but will be more focused on the
abolition of QRs provision and its effects on rights holders. This study will limit itself in
analyzing the validity of the law in the aspect of right to food, food security and life and not
on its effects on the right to labor due to the effects of laying-off workers due to the
decreased power of the NFA and not on other rights which could be invoked due to the
effects brought by the said law. Analysis on the effects of the RTL will be limited to
situations of developing countries such as the Philippines thus may not apply to more
developed countries.
This thesis will take into account the peculiar situation of the rice industry of the
Philippines and will reason as to why a special treatment on the same is needed. It will
mainly focus on the situation of small and poor farmers as an illustrative example of the
effects of imposition of tariff and abolition of QRs on human rights considering that the
Philippines is just a developing country. Further, consideration of human rights violations
will be sourced from obligations under the ICESCR and other related documents such as
General Comments and cases in international courts.
The discussion on international trade law will be limited to the obligations under the
WTO in tariffication and some of the special provisions concerning the same. Thus,
discussions on other principles such as the “most-favored-nation principle” would be at a
minimum. Understanding the nature of WTO obligation will be limited to applications of
11
public international law principles and the VCLT. Establishment of link between WTO
obligation and human rights law will be done in the same manner.
G. Methodology
This study will first dwell into the key provisions and objectives of the RTL. The reasons
behind its passage will also be discussed so as to give the framework of analysis of the
Philippine’s compliance with international obligations. Although this study will be using a
human-rights based analysis, it will still dwell on treaty principles, public international law,
domestic law and local and foreign cases.
Having discussed the main law at issue, the right to food and food security will be first
point of analysis. Discussion on the same will encompass international documents and
treaties such as the UDHR and ICESCR. General Comments will also be used as to give life
on the discussion on these documents and the meaning of rights therein. Commentaries and
research on past experiences of the Philippines and other developing countries will be
utilized in order to analyze the probable effects of longer impositions of tariffs instead of
QRs on the right to food and food security. The right to life will be discussed in connection
to the right to food being regarded by some scholars to be a malleable right. International
case law will discuss on this point further so as to concretize the discussion. After
establishing the foundations and standards for fulfillment of these rights, this Thesis will
opine that the RTL is a hindrance to these rights because of its effects on availability,
accessibility and adequacy of rice in the long run.
After establishing the human rights violations, a discussion on the nature of WTO
obligations is a must in order to know if there is really a derogation of the Philippines
obligation if it does not abolish QRs for rice. In light of the principle of pacta sunt servanda,
if there is really a violation of treaty obligations so grave that would amount to possible
sanctions to the country by the Council for Trade and Goods of the WTO. Ultimately, this
thesis will try to weigh in the possible arguments for still affording protection to the local rice
industry in light of the obligations under the ICESCR and despite the obligations under the
WTO.
12
II. THE RICE TARIFFICATION LAW (RTL)

A. Objectives of the RTL
The RTL or Republic Act No. 11203 amended Republic Act No. 8178 or the
Agricultural Tariffication Act also known as “An Act Replacing Quantitative Import
Restrictions on Agricultural products, except Rice, with Tariffs, Creating the Agricultural
Competitiveness Enhancement Fund and for Other Purposes.”51
The Agricultural Tariffication Act provides that tariffs are to be adopted in place of
non-tariff barriers to protect local producers of agricultural products except in the case of
rice.52 For greater protection, the NFA is vested with the power to:
(xxx) Establish rules and regulations governing the importation of rice and
to license, impose and collect fees and charges for said importation for the
purpose of equalizing the selling price of such imported rice with normal
prevailing domestic prices.
In the exercise of this power, the Council after consultation with the Office
of the President shall first certify to a shortage of rice that may occur as a
result of a short-fall in production, a critical demand-supply gap, a state of
calamity or other verified reasons that may warrant the need for
importation: Provided, That this requirement shall not apply to the
importation of rice equivalent to the Minimum Access Volume obligation of
the Philippines under the WTO. The Authority shall undertake direct
importation of rice or it may allocate import quotas among certified and
licensed importers, and the distribution thereof through cooperatives and
other marketing channels, at prices to be determined by the Council
regardless of existing floor prices and the subsidy thereof, if any, shall be
borne by the National Government.53
However, the NFA’s monopoly of power was counterproductive and implementation of the
QR, retained high domestic prices and affects the public.54
51
An Act Replacing Quantitative Import Restrictions on Agricultural products, except Rice, with Tariffs,
Creating the Agricultural Competetiveness Enhancement Fund and for Other Purposes [Agricultural
Tariffication Act], Republic Act No. 8178 (1996).
52
AGRICULTURAL TARIFFICATION ACT, § 2.
53
AGRICULTURAL TARIFFICATION ACT, § 5.
54
Tolentino, supra note 48, at 32.
13
The policy of the State is stated in Section 1 of the RTL which reads:
Section 1. Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8178, as amended, is
hereby further amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy of the State to
ensure food security and to make the country’s agricultural sector viable,
efficient and globally competitive. The State adopts the use of tariffs in lieu
of non-tariff import restrictions to protect local producers of agricultural
products. (xxx)55
One of the objectives stated by proponents of the RTL is for the fulfillment of the
Philippines international obligation under the World Trade Organization which imposes the
removal of QR on rice with another form of protection which is the tariff.56The RTL was also
made to ensure the availability of rice to the general public through increase in imports of
rice.57 Lowering domestic prices in order for the poor to afford rice is the projected effect of
the RTL.58 Another objective of the RTL is to make the local rice market competitive and
operate efficiently with less government intervention.59 And in connection with this, the RTL
also lifter the restriction on rice exports to give local farmers an opportunity to earn from the
world market.60 Lastly, it also aims to provide farmers with monetary assistance through the
“Rice Fund” which will be sourced from the tariff collected from imports.61
B. Key provisions
1. Lifting of Quantitative Export Restriction on Rice
The RTL removes QR as a mode of controlling imports of rice. The same is made
express under the law which reads:
Section 9. A new Section 9 is hereby inserted after the new Section 8 of R.
A. No. 8178. as amended, to read as follows:
"Sec. 9. Lifting of Quantitative Export Restrictions on Rice — Any and all
laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, and other issuances imposing
quantitative export restrictions on rice are hereby repealed. The exportation
55
Rice Tariffication Law, § 1.
56
57
Id.
58
Id.
59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Id.
14
of rice shall be allowed in accordance with the established redes, regulations

and guidelines."62
2. Tariffication
Rice imports will be subject to tariff but ASEAN countries and non-ASEAN
countries will have different rates which are 35% and 40% respectively.63
3. Powers of the President
The President may, upon the recommendation of NEDA and as advised by the NFA
Council, increase, reduce, revise or adjust existing rates of import duty up to the bound rate
of rice tariffs and may allow rice imports at a lower applied tariff in case of imminent or
forecasted shortage for a limited period and/or a specified volume as provided for in the RTL
itself and its IRR respectively.64 This portion in the law and the IRR reads:
Section 6. A new Section 7 is hereby inserted after Section 6 of R. A. No.

8178, as amended, to read as follows:
"Sec. 7. Powers of the President. - Consistent with the Philippine national

interest and the objective of safeguarding Filipino farmers and consumers,
the President is hereby empowered to act with full delegated authority
subject to the provisions of the CMTA. in the following circumstances:
"(a) The President may increase, reduce, revise, or adjust existing rates of
import duty up to the bound rate committed by the Philippines under the
WTO Agreement on Agriculture and under the ATIGA, including any
necessary change in classification applicable to the importation of
rice: Provided, That the power herein delegated to the President shall only
be exercised when Congress is not in session: Provided, further, That any
order issued by the President adjusting the applied tariff rates shall take
effect fifteen (15) days after publication;
"(b) In the event of any imminent or forecasted shortage, or such other

situation requiring government intervention, the President is empowered for
a limited period and/or a specified volume, to allow the importation at a
lower applied tariff rate to address the situation. Such order shall take effect
immediately and can only be issued when Congress is not in session; and
62
63
64
Id. at 3.
15
"(c) In case the calculated out-quota tariff rate referred to under Section 6(c)
of this Act exceeds one hundred percent (100%), the provision of Paragraph
1, Section 1608(a) of the CMTA shall also not apply.
"The power herein delegated to the President may be withdrawn or

terminated by Congress through a Joint Resolution."65
4. The Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (RCEF)

The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) projects a total of
Php10 billion annually which will be used for the procurement of equipment and machines
beneficial to the rice industry and will also include rice development projects and rice credit
and extension services.66 The RCEF shall be allocated as follows:
Section 13. A new Section 13 is hereby inserted after the renumbered

Section 12 of R. A. No. 8178, as amended, to read as follows:
"Sec. 13. Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund. - There is hereby

created a Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund, herein referred to as the
‘Rice Fund’. The Rice Fund shall consist of an annual appropriation of Ten
billion pesos (₱10,000,000,000.00) for the next six (6) years following the
approval of this Act and shall be automatically credited to a Special
Account in the General Fund of the National Treasury which shall be in
place within ninety (90)’ days upon the effectivity of this Act. (xxx)
"Subject to the usual accounting and auditing rules and regulations, the Rice
Fund shall be allocated and disbursed to rice producing areas, as follows:
"(a) Rice Farm Machineries and Equipment – Fifty percent (50%) of the
Rice Fund shall be released to and implemented by the Philippine Center for
Postharvest Development and Mechanization (PHilMech) as grant in kind
to eligible farmers associations, registered rice cooperatives and local
government units (LGUs), in the form of rice farm equipment, such as
tillers, tractors, seeders, threshers, rice planters, harvesters, irrigation
pumps, small solar irrigation, reapers, driers, millers, and the like, for
purposes of improving farm mechanization: Provided, That the PHilMech
shall, whenever feasible, procure from accredited local manufacturers to
assist in the promotion of locally manufactured farm machineries and
equipment;
"(b) Rice Seed Development, Propagation and Promotion – Thirty percent

(30%) of the Rice Fund shall be released to and implemented by the
Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) and shall be used for the
development, propagation and promotion of inbred rice seeds to rice
65
66
16
farmers and the organization of rice farmers into seed growers associations
and/or cooperatives engaged in seed production and trade:
"(c) Expanded Rice Credit Assistance – Ten percent (10%) of the Rice Fund
shall be made available in the form of credit facility with minimal interest
rate-s and with minimum collateral requirements to rice farmers and
cooperatives, to be managed equally by the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP); and
"(d) Rice Extension Services – Ten percent (10%) of the Rice Fund shall be
made available for the extension services provided by PHilMech. PhilRice.
Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) and Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA) for teaching skills on rice crop
production, modern rice farming techniques, seed production, farm
mechanization, and knowledge/technology transfer through farm schools
nationwide as follows: seventy percent (70%) to TESDA, ten percent (10%)
each to ATI, PhilRice and PHilMech.(xxx)67
5. Rice industry road map

The RTL provided for a roadmap which deals with a new system of service support
delivery to small producers which is stated as follows:
Section 15. A new Section 15 is hereby inserted after the new Section 14 of
R. A. No. 8178. as amended, to read as follows:
"Sec. 15. Rice Industry Roadmap. - Upon the effectivity of this Act, the DA,
together with the NEDA. Department of Finance (DOF), DBM, DAR.
National Irrigation Administration (NIA), TESDA, PCIC, National Anti-
Poverty Commission (NAPC) Farmer Sectoral Council Representative and
other government agencies concerned, including rice farmer representatives,
shall be given a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) days to formulate
and adopt the rice roadmap to restructure the government‘s delivery of
support services for the agricultural rice sector.
"The following principles shall govern the development and implementation

of the roadmap for the rice industry:
"(a) Raise sustainable investments in the rice industry particularly on rice

support infrastructure and post-harvest facilities;
"(b) Improve the productivity, efficiency and profitability of small rice

farmers and landless farmworkers;
67
17
"(c) Strengthen research and development programs that will enhance the
resiliency of the rice industry:
"(d) Preserve and enhance the rice production capabilities of future

generations;
"(e) Provide accessible, targeted and technology-oriented support services

that cover the entire value chain;
"(f) Set up responsible, participatory and effective governance mechanisms;

and
"(g) Address impact of income loss caused by rice tariffication.
"The rice industry roadmap shall be implemented through a

complementation of the DA‘s rice sector programs as funded by the GAA,
and the Rice Fund created under this Act."68
6. Issuance of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance for Rice for the Sole Purpose
Rice importers need to secure a phytosanitary permit from the Bureau of Plant
Industry in connection with the unlimited importation of rice in the country and will also
include rice donations during national emergencies.69 The RTL provides:
Section 4. A new Section 5 is hereby inserted after Section 4 of R. A. No.

8178, as amended, to read as follows:
"Sec. 5. Issuance of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance for Rice

for the Sole Purpose of Ensuring Food. Safety. - All importers of rice are
required to secure a Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC)
from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) prior to importation in accordance
with existing laws, rules and regulations: Provided, That the clearance shall
not provide for import volume and timing restrictions: Provided,
further, That failure on the part of the BPI to release the SPSIC without
informing the rice importer of any error, deficiency, omission, or additional
documentary requirement shall mean automatic approval of the SPSIC
applied for within seven (7) days after submission of the complete
requirements. (xxx)70
7. National Single Window Program

The RTL also provides for a National Single Window Programs which states:
68
69
70
18
Section 16. A new Section 16 is hereby inserted after the new Section 15 of
R. A. No. 8178. as amended, to read as follows:
"Sec. 16. National Single Window Program. - To ensure the accurate

collection of tariff as provided in Section 6 of this Act, the National Single
Window (NSW) program of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) shall be
implemented within one hundred eighty (180) days from the effectivity of
this Act in accordance with Executive Order No. 482."71
8. Exclusion and transfer of the regulatory function of the National Food Authority (NFA) to
the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI)
One of the notable changes the RTL made is the removal of regulatory function such
as food safety regulation from the NFA except its power to maintain a rice buffer stock and
the transfer of the same to the Bureau of Plant Industry. The pertinent provision on this reads:
(xxx) "The food safety regulatory function of the NFA under Item (i),
Section 16 of R. A. No. 10611, otherwise known as the ‘Food Safety Act of
2013’.1âwphi1 is hereby transferred to the BPI." (xxx)72
9. Rice Farmer Financial Assistance Program

This program will provide those farmers who are adversely affected by the rice
tariffication by allocating revenues from tariff in excess of Php10 billion to farmers who lost
income and will also cover expanded crop insurance, crop diversification and titling of rice
lands.73 The RTL on this matter reads:
(xxx)
(a) Rice Farmer Financial Assistance – A portion of the excess rice tariff
revenues shall be released to the DA and shall be used for providing direct
financial assistance to rice farmers who are farming two (2) hectares and
below regardless of whether they continue farming rice or not as
compensation for the projected reduction or loss of farm income arising
from the tariffication of the quantitative import restrictions on rice;(xxx) 74
71
72
73
74
19
III. RTL: AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
(WTO)?
The principal objectives of the World Trade Organization include ensuring full
employment, raising standards of living, production and trade expansion and allowing
optimal use of the resources of the world.75
The Most-Favored Nation (MFN) clause provides that trade instruments such as
custom duties must be applied by WTO members in a non-discriminatory manner. 76 In some
instances, a WTO member can legitimately impose QRs.77 In the same way, if imposition of
QRs is justified under the respective provision of GATT, it must be also applied in a non-
discriminatory manner.78 But there are exceptions to this as stated in Art. XIV of GATT 79 but
two conditions must be met which are the imposition of quota to address problems related to
balance of payments and the discriminatory quota must affect a small part of its trade.80
A. Article XI: General Elimination of Quantitative Restriction (QR)
As a general rule, there is a prohibition on the imposition of QRs as provided for by

article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade:
No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges,

whether made effective through quotas, import or export licenses or other
75
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization pmbl. ¶ 1, opened for signature Apr. 15, 1994, 1967
UNTS 154 [hereinafter WTO Agreement].
76
MITSUO MATSUSHITA, ET. AT., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: LAW, PRACTICE, AND POLICY 205 (2d
ed. 2006).
77
ed. 2006).
78
ed. 2006).
79
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XIV, opened for signature Apr. 15, 1994, [hereinafter GATT].
80
ed. 2006).
20
measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the

importation of any product of the territory of any other contracting party or
on the exportation or sale for export of any product destined for the territory
of any other contracting party.81
This article also encompasses “other measures” which may be any regulation or
requirement designed to prevent or hinder imports or exports.82 This includes but not limited
to “data collection and monitoring requirements, minimum price systems, prohibiting
importation of copyrighted works not manufactured domestically, requiring security deposits,
and prohibiting imports not produced in a certain way.”83 QRs are numerical restrictions
wherein if a certain level of import or export reaches the mandated limit, additional goods
will be barred.84 In lieu of QRs, tariffs will be imposed. Increasing tariffs cannot be done
unilaterally by a WTO member and can only be done if certain conditions are met in
accordance with WTO rules.85
B. Exceptions to the prohibition on QR and other measures
There are exceptions which would allow the impositions of QRs provided for by
Article XI.
1. Relieving critical shortages
81
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XI, ¶ 1, opened for signature Apr. 15, 1994, [hereinafter
GATT].
82
ed. 2006).
83
ed. 2006).
84
ed. 2006).
85
ed. 2006).
21
The first exception permits the prohibition or restriction of exports which are essential
to a WTO member to prevent shortages of that product.86 Article XI para. 2(a) reads:
Export prohibitions or restrictions temporarily applied to prevent or relieve

critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products essential to the exporting
contracting party.87
2. Necessity of applying standards or regulations
The second exception pertain to the prohibition or restriction which is related to the
“application of standards or regulations for the classification, grading, or marketing of
commodities in international trade and does not go beyond what is necessary for the
application of those standards or regulations.”88 Article XI para. 2(b) reads:
Import and export prohibitions or restrictions necessary to the application of

standards or regulations for the classification, grading or marketing of
commodities in international trade.89
3. Necessity of enforcing governmental measures
The third exception allows WTO members to impose import restriction in order to
enforce governmental measures.90 Unlike the above two exceptions, this exception only
allows the restriction and not prohibition of imports. 91 By availing themselves of this
exception, WTO members can ensure the non-interference of foreign agricultural or fisheries
86
ed. 2006).
87
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XI, ¶ 2 (a), opened for signature Apr. 15, 1994, [hereinafter
GATT].
88
ed. 2006).
89
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XI, ¶ 2 (b), opened for signature Apr. 15, 1994, [hereinafter
GATT].
90
ed. 2006).
91
ed. 2006).
22
goods in the enforcement of governmental programs which aim to support agricultural or fish
productions.92 In imposing this exception, the WTO member must give public notice of the
limit.93 Article XI para. 2(c) provides:
Import restrictions on any agricultural or fisheries product, imported in any

form, necessary to the enforcement of governmental measures which
operate:
(i) to restrict the quantities of the like domestic product permitted to be

marketed or produced, or, if there is no substantial domestic production of
the like product, of a domestic product for which the imported product can
be directly substituted; or
(ii) to remove a temporary surplus of the like domestic product, or, if there
is no substantial domestic production of the like product, of a domestic
product for which the imported product can be directly substituted, by
making the surplus available to certain groups of domestic consumers free
of charge or at prices below the current market level; or
(iii) to restrict the quantities permitted to be produced of any animal product

the production of which is directly dependent, wholly or mainly, on the
imported commodity, if the domestic production of that commodity is
relatively negligible. (xxx)94
4. Article XXV: Waivers
Article XXV para. 5 provides a situation wherein the contracting parties may waive
an obligation which reads:
In exceptional circumstances not elsewhere provided for in this Agreement,

the CONTRACTING PARTIES may waive an obligation imposed upon a
contracting party by this Agreement; Provided that any such decision shall
be approved by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast and that such
majority shall comprise more than half of the contracting parties. The
CONTRACTING PARTIES may also by such a vote
92
ed. 2006).
93
ed. 2006).
94
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XI, ¶ 2 (c), opened for signature Apr. 15, 1994, [hereinafter
GATT].
23
(i) define certain categories of exceptional circumstances to which other

voting requirements shall apply for the waiver of obligations, and
(ii) prescribe such criteria as may be necessary for the application of this
paragraph.95
The Philippines first filed a waiver in 2011 so as to allow it to continue imposing QRs
but only in 2014 was the same granted.96 This however was valid only until June 30, 2017.97
C. WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AG)
Agriculture is a sensitive topic in trade relations. 98 It has been a topic for various
negotiations and was “singled out for special treatment in the GATT 1947.” 99 This issue on
agriculture was part of the major negotiations that took place during the Uruguay Round
which eventually led to the creation of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
measures and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.100
The goal of the Uruguay Round negotiations on agriculture “was to achieve greater
liberalization of trade in agriculture and bring all measures affecting import access and export
competition under strengthened and more operationally effective GATT rules and
disciples.”101
WTO members did indeed contemplate that there will be further negotiations upon
the conclusion of the AG which was reflected on Article 20 of the same:
95
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XXV, ¶ 5, opened for signature Apr. 15, 1994, [hereinafter
GATT].
96
Joel M. Sy Egco and Jing Villamente, Rice Quotas Violate WTO Pact, MANILA TIMES, Feb. 23, 2014,
available at https://www.pids.gov.ph/pids-in-the-news/658 (last accessed Mar. 27, 2020).
97
98
ed. 2006).
99
ed. 2006).
100
ed. 2006).
101
ed. 2006).
24
Recognizing that the long-term objective of substantial progressive

reductions in support and protection resulting in fundamental reform is an
ongoing process, Members agree that negotiations for continuing the
process will be initiated one year before the end of the implementation
period, taking into account:
(a) the experience to that date from implementing the reduction

commitments;
(b) the effects of the reduction commitments on world trade in agriculture;
(c) non-trade concerns, special and differential treatment to developing

country Members, and the objective to establish a fair and market-oriented
agricultural trading system, and the other objectives and concerns
mentioned in the preamble to this Agreement; and
(d) what further commitments are necessary to achieve the above-

mentioned long-term objectives.102
1. Article 4.2: Prohibition on QR
Just like GATT, the AG generally prohibits the imposition of QRs. Article 4 para. 2
reads:
Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any

measures of the kind which have been required to be converted
into ordinary customs duties, except as otherwise provided for
in Article 5 and Annex 5.103
2. Two Exceptions to Tariffication
There are two exceptions to tariffication provided by AG in order for WTO members
to protect local farm producers and market. The first exception is the adoption of a
102
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, art. 20.
103
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, art. 4, ¶2.
25
provisional safeguard provision as located in Article 5 and the second is as stated in Annex 5
of AG where a member can protect designated products which are necessary for the
traditional diet of developing countries.104
a. Annex 5 Section B.7: Protection for designated products necessary

for the traditional diet of developing countries
Annex 5 of AG provides for a Special Treatment for the importation of “designated

products” or primary agricultural products.105 This can only be granted upon request and with
approval of other Members.106 It reads:
Section B
7. The provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 4 shall also not apply with
effect from the entry into force of the WTO Agreement to a primary
agricultural product that is the predominant staple in the traditional diet of a
developing country Member and in respect of which the following
conditions, in addition to those specified in paragraph 1(a) through 1(d), as
they apply to the products concerned, are complied with:
(a) minimum access opportunities in respect of the products concerned, as

specified in Section I-B of Part I of the Schedule of the developing country
Member concerned, correspond to 1 per cent of base period domestic
consumption of the products concerned from the beginning of the first year
of the implementation period and are increased in equal annual instalments
to 2 per cent of corresponding domestic consumption in the base period at
the beginning of the fifth year of the implementation period. From the
beginning of the sixth year of the implementation period, minimum access
opportunities in respect of the products concerned correspond to 2 per cent
of corresponding domestic consumption in the base period and are increased
in equal annual instalments to 4 per cent of corresponding domestic
consumption in the base period until the beginning of the 10th year.
Thereafter, the level of minimum access opportunities resulting from this
formula in the 10th year shall be maintained in the Schedule of the
developing country Member concerned;

104
ed. 2006).
105
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Annex 5, § A, ¶ 1.
106
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Annex 5, § A, ¶ 3.
26
(b) appropriate market access opportunities have been provided for in

other products under this Agreement.107
From 1995 to 2005, the Philippines was granted this Special Treatment and was
allowed to impose QRs on importation of rice.108 An extension was granted in 2004 which
lasted until June 30, 2012.109 After which, the country applied for waivers.
D. Article XIX and the Safeguards Agreement
WTO members have the right to impose safeguard measures aimed at protecting its
economy and domestic industries by imposing temporary tariffs, quotas, tariff-rate quotas
and other measures.110
There are four reasons as to the allowance of these safeguards despite the goal of
trade liberalization. First, trade does not guarantee prosperity for all because of the political
and economic realities of every country.111 Second, policymakers often need a political safety
valve so nothing will preclude them from pursuing a long-term strategy of free trade. 112
Third, these safeguards can sometimes serve as just compensation to those who will be
adversely affected by the trade liberalization. 113 Lastly, a “breathing space” will be created
for entities and policymakers to take necessary actions on a “macro- or micro-economic level
107
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Annex 5, § B, ¶ 7.
108
109
110
ed. 2006).
111
ed. 2006).
112
ed. 2006).
113
ed. 2006).
27
either to restore competitiveness and efficiency to the industry or to undertake an orderly

contraction.”114
1. Requirements to escape from WTO obligations
An escape clause is located in Article XIX of GATT where three conditions must be
met in order for a WTO member to “escape” from its obligations:
If, as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the

obligations incurred by a contracting party under this Agreement, including
tariff concessions, any product is being imported into the territory of that
contracting party in such increased quantities and under such conditions as
to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers in that territory of
like or directly competitive products, the contracting party shall be free, in
respect of such product, and to the extent and for such time as may be
necessary to prevent or remedy such injury, to suspend the obligation in
whole or in part or to withdraw or modify the concession.115
a. Increase of imports
First requisite is the existence of increase of imports. Such must be “in such increased
quantities” which is significant enough in quantity and quality to cause ‘serious injury’ as
explained in the Appellate Body Report in Argentina – Footwear Safeguard:
We recall here our reasoning and conclusions above on the meaning of the
phrase "as a result of unforeseen developments" in Article XIX:1(a) of the
GATT 1994. We concluded there that the increased quantities of imports
should have been "unforeseen" or "unexpected". We also believe that the
phrase "in such increased quantities" in Article 2.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 is meaningful to this
determination. In our view, the determination of whether the requirement of
imports "in such increased quantities" is met is not a merely mathematical
or technical determination. In other words, it is not enough for an
investigation to show simply that imports of the product this year were more
than last year – or five years ago. Again, and it bears repeating, not just any
increased quantities of imports will suffice. There must be "such increased
quantities" as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic
114
ed. 2006).
115
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XIX, ¶ 1(a), opened for signature Apr. 15, 1994, [hereinafter
GATT].
28
industry in order to fulfil this requirement for applying a safeguard measure.

And this language in both Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, we believe, requires that the increase
in imports must have been recent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough,
and significant enough, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to cause or
threaten to cause "serious injury".116
b. Unforeseen developments
A literal interpretation of “unforeseen developments” would mean safeguards will not

be imposed unless “the injury to a domestic industry was caused by developments that were
not foreseen at the time of the latest trade negotiation.” 117 National authorities must
demonstrate the unforeseen development:
(xxx) However, as the existence of unforeseen developments is a

prerequisite that must be demonstrated, as we have stated, "in order for a
safeguard measure to be applied" consistently with Article XIX of the
GATT 1994, it follows that this demonstration must be made before the
safeguard measure is applied. Otherwise, the legal basis for the measure is
flawed. We find instructive guidance for where and when the
"demonstration" should occur in the "logical connection" that we observed
previously between the two clauses of Article XIX:1(a). The first clause, as
we noted, contains, in part, the "circumstance" of "unforeseen
developments". The second clause, as we said, relates to the three
"conditions" for the application of safeguard measures, which are also
reiterated in Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. Clearly, the
fulfilment of these conditions must be the central element of the report of
the competent authorities, which must be published under Article 3.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards. In our view, the logical connection between the
"conditions" identified in the second clause of Article XIX:1(a) and the
"circumstances" outlined in the first clause of that provision dictates that the
demonstration of the existence of these circumstances must also feature in
the same report of the competent authorities. Any other approach would
sever the "logical connection" between these two clauses, and would also
leave vague and uncertain how compliance with the first clause of Article
XIX:1(a) would be fulfilled.118
c. Serious injury or threat of serious injury
116
Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Footwear Safeguard, ¶ 131, WT/DS121/AB/R (Dec. 14, 1999).
117
ed. 2006).
118
Appellate Body Report, United States – Lamb Safeguard, ¶ 72, WT/DS177/AB/R (May 1, 2001).
29
WTO members must determine the serious injury or threat of serious injury before
applying a safeguard measure.119 The meaning of this is further explained by the Appellate
Body in United States – Lamb Safeguard:
The standard of "serious injury" set forth in Article 4.1(a) is, on its face,
very high. Indeed, in United States – Wheat Gluten Safeguard, we referred
to this standard as "exacting". Further, in this respect, we note that the word
"injury" is qualified by the adjective "serious", which, in our view,
underscores the extent and degree of "significant overall impairment" that
the domestic industry must be suffering, or must be about to suffer, for the
standard to be met. We are fortified in our view that the standard of "serious
injury" in the Agreement on Safeguards is a very high one when we contrast
this standard with the standard of "material injury" envisaged under the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures (the "SCM Agreement") and the GATT 1994. We believe that the
word "serious" connotes a much higher standard of injury than the word
"material". (xxx)120
Serious injury means “a significant overall impairment in the position of a domestic

industry.”121 There must be “not only an upward trend in the volume or market share of
imports, but also a deterioration of the situation as a whole with respect to the domestic
industry seeking relief.”122 The Appellate Body explained:
In our view, it is only when the overall position of the domestic industry is
evaluated, in light of all the relevant factors having a bearing on a situation
of that industry, that it can be determined whether there is "a significant
overall impairment" in the position of that industry. Although Article 4.2(a)
technically requires that certain listed factors must be evaluated, and that all
other relevant factors must be evaluated, that provision does not specify
what such an evaluation must demonstrate. Obviously, any such evaluation
will be different for different industries in different cases, depending on the
facts of the particular case and the situation of the industry concerned. An
evaluation of each listed factor will not necessarily have to show that each
such factor is "declining". In one case, for example, there may be significant
declines in sales, employment and productivity that will show "significant
overall impairment" in the position of the industry, and therefore will justify
a finding of serious injury. In another case, a certain factor may not be
119
ed. 2006).
120
121
ed. 2006).
122
ed. 2006).
30
declining, but the overall picture may nevertheless demonstrate "significant

overall impairment" of the industry. Thus, in addition to a technical
examination of whether the competent authorities in a particular case have
evaluated all the listed factors and any other relevant factors, we believe
that it is essential for a panel to take the definition of "serious injury" in
Article 4.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards into account in its review of
any determination of "serious injury".123
Threat of serious injury means “serious injury that is clearly imminent.” 124 It must be
factual and not merely a remote possibility.125 The meaning of “threat” is further explained by
the Appellate Body:
We recall that, in making a "threat" determination, the competent authorities

must find that serious injury is "clearly imminent". As we have already
concluded, this requires a high degree of likelihood that the anticipated
serious injury will materialize in the very near future. Accordingly, we
agree with the Panel that a threat determination is "future-oriented".
However, Article 4.1(b) requires that a "threat" determination be based on
"facts" and not on "conjecture". As facts, by their very nature, pertain to the
present and the past, the occurrence of future events can never be
definitively proven by facts. There is, therefore, a tension between a future-
oriented "threat" analysis, which, ultimately, calls for a degree of
"conjecture" about the likelihood of a future event, and the need for a fact-
based determination. Unavoidably, this tension must be resolved through
the use of facts from the present and the past to justify the conclusion about
the future, namely that serious injury is "clearly imminent". Thus, a fact-
based evaluation, under Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards,
must provide the basis for a projection that there is a high degree of
likelihood of serious injury to the domestic industry in the very near
future.126
2. Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards (SG Agreement)
The Agreement on Safeguards established rules were made pursuant to Article XIX
of GATT 1994.127 The SG Agreement provides guidelines for investigating authorities in
123
Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Footwear Safeguard, ¶ 139, WT/DS121/AB/R (Dec. 14, 1999).
124
ed. 2006).
125
ed. 2006).
126
127
ed. 2006).
31
their determination of the existence of serious injury or the threat thereof serious.128 As stated
in Article 4 para. 2(a):
(a) In the investigation to determine whether increased imports have

caused or are threatening to cause serious injury to a domestic industry
under the terms of this Agreement, the competent authorities shall
evaluate all relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature
having a bearing on the situation of that industry, in particular, the rate
and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in
absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by
increased imports, changes in the level of sales, production,
productivity, capacity utilization, profits and losses, and employment.129
Causation must be established as provided for by Article 4 para. 2(b) of the SG

Agreement:
(a) The determination referred to in subparagraph (a) shall not be made

unless this investigation demonstrates, on the basis of objective
evidence, the existence of the causal link between increased imports of
the product concerned and serious injury or threat thereof. When
factors other than increased imports are causing injury to the domestic
industry at the same time, such injury shall not be attributed to
increased imports.130
The Appellate Body further explained the legal requirement for causation as stated in
the aforementioned provision of the SG Agreement:
Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards establishes two distinct legal

requirements for competent authorities in the application of a safeguard
measure. First, there must be a demonstration of the "existence of the causal
link between increased imports of the product concerned and serious injury
or threat thereof ". Second, the injury caused by factors other than the
increased imports must not be attributed to increased imports.131
From Article 4 para. 2(b), there are two legal requirements. First there must be a
causal link between increased imports and the serious injury or threat thereof. 132Authorities
128
ed. 2006).
129
WTO Agreement on Safeguards, art. 4, ¶ 2(a).
130
WTO Agreement on Safeguards, art. 4, ¶ 2(b).
131
Appellate Body Report, United States – Line Pipe Safeguard, ¶ 208, WT/DS202/AB/R (Feb. 15, 2002).
132
ed. 2006).
32
must determine “a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect between the
increase of imports and the serious injury thereof.” 133 Second, other causal factors must not
be attributed to increased imports.134
E. Article XX and the General Exceptions
The GATT provided for general exceptions in order for a member to deviate from the
GATT principles. However, for the exceptions to apply, it must be applied in a non-
discriminatory manner.135 The following are those important for human rights concerns136:
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not

applied in a manner which would constitute a means of
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries
where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction
on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any
contracting party of measures:
(a) necessary to protect public morals;
(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or

health;
(xxx)
(e) relating to the products of prison labour;
(xxx)
133
ed. 2006).
134
ed. 2006).
135
Gudrun Monika Zagel, WTO & Human Rights: Examining Linkages and Suggesting Convergence, 2, VDL. 1,
10 (2005).
136
10 (2005).
33
(g) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural

resources if such measures are made effective in conjunction
with restrictions on domestic production or consumption;
(xxx)137
Measures for the protections of the right to food can be under paragraph (g) which
can be further protected under paragraph (b) on the protection on the right to human life
and health.138
F. Nature of WTO Obligations
The WTO Agreement is a multilateral agreement since more than two States ratified
the same.139 However, the nature of WTO obligations is still questionable. There are two
views on the nature of these obligations. First is that their nature is bilateral where relations
of parties are independent and detachable from others. 140 Second, the nature of these
obligations is multilateral where the relations of parties are connected with each other and is
collective.141
Determining the nature of WTO obligations is important to know the permissibility of

inter se modifications and suspension of obligations. 142 If the nature is bilateral, modifications
and suspension would be allowed and standing to bring complaint would be limited to the
other State party concerned while if the nature is multilateral, modifications and suspension
would be generally not allowed and standing is given to all WTO members. 143 An obligation
derived from a multilateral treaty such as the WTO agreement, can be reduced to a
137
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XX, opened for signature Apr. 15, 1994, [hereinafter GATT].
138
13 (2005).
139
JOOST PAUWELYN, THE NATURE OF WTO OBLIGATIONS 1 (2002).
140
141
142
143
34
“compilation of bilateral state-to-state relationships.”144 Special Rapporteur Sir Gerald

Fitzmaurice states that the number of parties to a treaty does not dictate the nature of
obligations thereunder.145 The author would be proposing that WTO obligations are indeed of
bilateral nature for several reasons.
First, a breach of a WTO obligation does not injure all members of the WTO. 146 The
legal consequence of a breach is limited only to the Member which suffered from the adverse
effects of the same.147 There must be at least a “legal interest” or a showing of proof of actual
damage or trade diversion committed by a WTO member against another member.148 The
WTO Agreement is akin to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a multilateral
treaty imposing bilateral obligations, where in the former, trade of goods and services from
one country to another takes place while in the latter, diplomats are sent from one country to
another.149 Although a State is bound to comply with the obligations derived from the WTO
Agreement, it is still allowed to breach the same but only with its relation to another WTO
member because only the State which suffered from such breach can resort to remedies made
available by international law.150
It is arguable that because of the increasing interdependence among States, a breach

of a WTO obligation has economic effects to more than one member however, “it is not the
same as saying that a breach of WTO obligations necessarily affects the rights of all other
WTO members the way, for example, human rights or certain environmental law breaches
do.”151 WTO obligations which are derived from participating in the WTO, “are never
144
145
Jelena Baeumler, The Legal Nature of WTO Obligations: Bilateral or Collective?, at 17 (May 2013)
(unpublished L.L.M. thesis, University of the Western Cape, South Africa) (on file with Author).
146
147
Tarcisio Gazzini, The Legal Nature of WTO Obligations and the Consequences of their Violation, 17 EJIL.
723, 729 (2006).
148
149
150
723, 724 (2006).
151
35
inherently indivisible or erga omnes in the sense elaborated by the International Court of
Justice in the field of human rights.”152
Human rights treaties both as to their object and implementation is a national

matter.153 This means that the parties involved are public authorities of a State and the
citizens of the same.154 However, human rights treaties have values that are international and
collective in a way that respect for human rights is universal and part of every obligation of
every State.155 Thus, a breach of the same is of international interest in contrast with a breach
of WTO obligations.156 The obligations under a human rights treaty though inherently
national, is of collective nature while WTO obligations is inherently international but is of
bilateral nature.157
Second, the objective of trade and WTO Agreement which is liberalization is not a
value but only an instrument to achieve economic welfare for all States unlike in human
rights treaties.158 WTO members have their own specific interests in relation to their trade
activities but not in human rights law.159 This has been discussed by the International Court
of Justice in its advisory opinion on the crime of genocide:
The objects of such a convention must also be considered. The Convention

was manifestly adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose. It
is indeed difficult to imagine a convention that might have this dual
character to a greater degree, since its object on the one hand is to safeguard
the very existence of certain human groups and on the other to confirm and
endorse the most elementary principles of morality. In such a convention
the contracting States do not have any interests of their own; they merely
have, one and all, a common interest, namely, the accomplishment of those
high purposes which are the raison d'être of the convention. Consequently,
152
723, 723 (2006).
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
36
in a convention of this type one cannot speak of individual advantages or

disadvantages to States, or of the maintenance of a perfect contractual
balance between rights and duties. The high ideals which inspired the
Convention provide, by virtue of the common will of the parties, the
foundation and measure of all its provisions. 160
Third, WTO obligations are negotiated and renegotiated state-to-state.161 There is a

“give and take” scenario in trade negotiations which can be “multilateralized” by extending
the same trade restrictions or benefits in other bilateral relationships with other States. 162 But
still, the nature of such obligations remain bilateral and non-integral. An example would be
the cornerstone of multilateral trading system which is the “Most-Favored-Nation” clause or
the MFN principle where a trade advantage granted by one State to another must be given to
all other WTO members.163 Though this trade advantage is granted to all WTO members,
thus multilateralized, the same is nothing more than a duplication of bilateral concessions and
still negotiations remain to be from one State to another. 164 It is by definition divisible where
treatment given by Member A to Member B to their bilateral relationships will be extended
to all other members.165 As the Appellate Body of the WTO stated on one of its reports:
(xxx)Tariff negotiations are a process of reciprocal demands and

concessions, of "give and take". It is only normal that importing Members
define their offers (and their ensuing obligations) in terms which suit their
needs. On the other hand, exporting Members have to ensure that their
corresponding rights are described in such a manner in the Schedules of
importing Members that their export interests, as agreed in the negotiations,
are guaranteed. (xxx)166
For some authors, the WTO Agreement is for the protection of expectations and a law
of interdependence.167 This includes the MFN principle which should be an obligation
160
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory
Opinion, at 12 (May 28, 1951), available at https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/12/012-19510528-ADV-
01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed Apr. 5, 2020).
161
162
163
164
165
723, 728 (2006).
166
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment, ¶
109, WT/DS62/AB/R (June 5, 1998).
167
Chios Carmody, WTO Obligations as Collective, 17 EJIL. 419, 422 (2006).
37
towards all member states.168 WTO obligations though contain a common interest in reducing
barriers to trade still does not encompass interdependent obligations or obligations that are so
interlinked that a member state will only want to perform if all others would also perform. 169
A member state’s interest “does not stand and fall with only one member state not observing
its obligations.”170
Fourth, WTO obligations are enforced in an exclusively bilateral way. 171 In WTO
dispute settlement, there is only nullification of benefits “that accrue to a particular
member.172 There is only an examination of claims by one member against another particular
member before the Panel and Appellate Body of the WTO.173 Also, the WTO treaty only
allows for a member to suspend its WTO obligations as a countermeasure against another
which strengthens the notion that the same are bilateral in nature. 174 This suspension may
affect other States economically but their rights granted by the WTO Agreement are not
necessarily affected.175 Human rights treaties and obligations operate differently since their
very nature is different with WTO obligations. Obligations under human rights law are not
subject to suspension when there is breach because once suspension is done, it will not only
affect the State in breach but also other State parties.176
Also, some theorists believe that WTO obligations are “above politics” such that
countries are bound by them absolutely because it is a “higher form of law.”177 This view
however is “myopic or very limiting in its scope or coverage” because it fails to take into
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
IKEMEFUNA STEPHEN NWOYE, EVALUATING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DECISIONS OF WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM:
THE COMPLY OR NOT TO COMPLY CONSIDERATIONS 13 (2015).
38
account the “practical realities” of every State. 178 Further, this view according to Robert
Howse179, “makes the individual elements of the regime less contestable, less democratically
entrenched, and less legitimate.”180
In the case of Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, the WTO Appellate Body itself
said that the WTO Agreement is the “international equivalent of a contract” which reads:
The WTO Agreement is a treaty -- the international equivalent of a

contract. It is self-evident that in an exercise of their sovereignty, and
in pursuit of their own respective national interests, the Members of
the WTO have made a bargain. In exchange for the benefits they
expect to derive as Members of the WTO, they have agreed to
exercise their sovereignty according to the commitments they have
made in the WTO Agreement.181
G. Legal Analysis of the Philippine’s Compliance with WTO Obligations and its Relation to
Human Rights
Based from the discussions above and establishing that the nature of WTO
obligations is bilateral and contractual, the essential consequence is that deviation or
suspension from WTO obligations are inter se or suspension or modification may be made
between and among interested WTO members.182 As provided for by Article 41 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties:
1. Two or more of the parties to a multilateral treaty may conclude an

agreement to modify the treaty as between themselves alone if:
a. the possibility of such modification is provided for by the treaty; or

b. the modification in question is not prohibited by the treaty and:
178
179
ROBERT HOWSE, THE WTO SYSTEM: LAW, POLITICS & LEGITIMACY 249 (2007).
180
181
Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, p. 15, WT/DS8/AB/R (October 4, 1996).
182
39
i. Does not affect the enjoyment by the other parties of their

rights under the treaty or the performance of their obligations;
ii. Does not relate to a provision, derogation from which is
incompatible with the effective execution of the object and
purpose of the treaty as a whole.
(xxx)183
WTO obligations therefore is a branch of public international law which must yield to
other rules and principles of international law.184 This includes but not limited to obligations
mandated by international human rights law wherein WTO members may agree to deviate
from WTO obligations by “mutually agreeing to condition their trade on respect for human
right”.185 Thus, the WTO obligations relating to barriers to market such as tariff and QRs are
divisible and can be waived, suspended or modified at the agreement of involved WTO
members.186
Although WTO obligations are governed by similar rules, the inevitable truth is that
there is an asymmetric benefits and different outcomes for rich and poor countries or
developed and developing ones.187
The divisibility of WTO obligations is bolstered by the provisions in the WTO

Agreement on Special and Differential (S&D) Treatment of Developing Countries where
there is a singling out of certain developing States. 188 Under the Special and Differential
(S&D) Treatment of Developing Countries, developed countries have to surrender the
principle of reciprocity in some areas of trade policy when application thereof would be
183
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 41, ¶ 1, opened for signature May 23, 1969 [hereinafter
VCLT].
184
185
186
723, 728 (2006).
187
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION, THE RIGHT TO FOOD GUIDELINES: INFORMATION PAPERS AND
CASE STUDIES 72 (2006) [hereinafter THE RIGHT TO FOOD GUIDELINE]
188
723, 728 (2006).
40
inappropriate.189 The basis of which is the substantial distinction between and among
developed and developing countries where the former is at an advantage position. 190 The
Doha Declaration reaffirmed the needs of developing countries and that the S&D is
important for food security and rural development which reads as follows:
We agree that special and differential treatment for developing countries

shall be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations and shall be
embodied in the schedules of concessions and commitments and as
appropriate in the rules and disciplines to be negotiated, so as to be
operationally effective and to enable developing countries to effectively
take account of their development needs, including food security and rural
development. We take note of the non-trade concerns reflected in the
negotiating proposals submitted by Members and confirm that non-trade
concerns will be taken into account in the negotiations as provided for in the
Agreement on Agriculture.191
The Doha Declaration embodies the idea of the danger liberalization could bring upon
to small farmers, women, children and other vulnerable sectors.192 Liberalization could result
to dependence on imported products which would have an impact on accessibility,
availability and price.193 Almost all WTO obligations have impacts on food security but on
different degrees.194
Considering the existence of waivers in the GATT, it strengthens the idea that WTO
obligations are bilateral in nature. Bearing in mind the nature of WTO obligations, the
Philippines failed to protect the local rice industry by not applying for the continuation of
waivers. In the same way, it failed to protect the right to food and food security of its citizens
by allowing unlimited importation of rice. The authority of the Philippines to implement QRs
189
Ramon L. Clarete Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in the Uruguay Round
Agreement Agricultural Negotiations, University of the Philippines, School of Economics 1989, at 7.
190
Ramon L. Clarete Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in the Uruguay Round
Agreement Agricultural Negotiations, University of the Philippines, School of Economics 1989, at 7.
191
World Trade Organization, Doha WTO Ministerial 2001: Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1
(2001) ¶ 13 [hereinafter Doha Ministerial Declaration].
192
Allan Matthews, Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO Agricultural Negotiations, 61 IIIS
Discussion Paper, Jan. 2005, at 12.
193
Allan Matthews, Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO Agricultural Negotiations, 61 IIIS
Discussion Paper, Jan. 2005, at 12.
194
41
should remain unless challenged by concerned WTO member countries. But even though
challenges by the concerned members, they too have responsibilities to respect and realize
even the right to food of other States.195
Granting that State parties to the WTO are also States parties to the ICESR, the
concerned States or those exporting rice to the Philippines are also obliged to respect the
right to food of citizens of the country since the right to food transcends and goes beyond
nationality. It is a basic human right that every State must respect, protect and fulfill.
Therefore, rice-exporting countries to the Philippines when entering into agreements with the
Philippines under the WTO, must give serious attention to the danger it may cause to food
security of the Philippines and should prevent themselves from invoking WTO obligations in
this specific special circumstance. As stated in General Comment No. 12:
In the spirit of Article 56 of the Charter of the United Nations, the specific
provisions contained in articles 11, 2.1, and 23 of the Covenant and the
Rome Declaration of the World Food Summit, States parties should
recognize the essential role of international cooperation and comply with
their commitment to take joint and separate action to achieve the full
realization of the right to adequate food. In implementing this commitment,
States parties should take steps to respect the enjoyment of the right to food
in other countries, to protect that right, to facilitate access to food and to
provide the necessary aid when required. States parties should, in
international agreements whenever relevant, ensure that the right to
adequate food is given due attention and consider the development of
further international legal instruments to that end.196
As stated by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights:
This is so because human rights treaties, as the Court has already noted, "are
not multilateral treaties of the traditional type concluded to accomplish the
reciprocal exchange of rights for the mutual benefit of the contracting
States;" rather "their object and purpose is the protection of the basic rights
195
196
United Nations Economic and Social Council Resolution, Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General Comment 12 (Twentieth
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 36.
42
of individual human beings, irrespective of their nationality, both against

the State of their nationality and all other contracting States."197
Human rights obligations are erga omnes obligations which are legally indivisible
because all States cannot be selective and must satisfy a common interest that is they must
comply with such obligations “either towards all other addressees of the norm or towards
none of them.”198 Economic sanctions “should always take full account of the provisions of
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.” 199 There is always a
dramatic impact on rights under the ICESR whenever there are sanctions such as
“distribution of food, pharmaceuticals and sanitation supplies, jeopardize the quality of food
and the availability of clean drinking water, severely interfere with the functioning of basic
health and education systems, and undermine the right to work.”200 This means that the most
vulnerable groups in the country will be the most affected.
Admittedly, trade liberalization is for the “general interest” of States but still WTO
obligations remain to be a compilation of individual state interests which aim for individual
economic gains unlike in human rights and environmental law which seek a “global
common” transcending individual benefits and interests of States.201
197
Restrictions to the Death Penalty, Advisory Opinion, 1983 Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1, 13
(Sept. 8).
198
723, 725 (2006).
199
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, The Relationship between Economic
Sanctions and Respect for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General Comment no. 8, ¶ 1, E/C.12/1997/8
(Dec. 12, 1997).
200
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, The Relationship between Economic
Sanctions and Respect for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General Comment no. 8, ¶ 3, E/C.12/1997/8
(Dec. 12, 1997).
201
43
IV. THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY
A. From Recognition to an Obligation: The Right to Food in Local and International

Legal Documents
“The right to adequate food is a legal obligation under international law.” 202 The right
to a standard of living adequate for a person and his family including food has first been
recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1940 which reads:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in
the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.203
The right to food has been later more recognized and protected through different
international legal documents. One of which is the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).204 The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
202
Food and Agriculture Organization, Right to Food, available at http://www.fao.org/policy-support/policy-
themes/right-to-food/en/ (last accessed Apr. 25, 2020).
203
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), art. 25 (Dec. 10, 1948) [hereinafter UDHR].
204
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 11, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S.
44
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)205 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC)206 also recognize the right to food.
The Philippines signed the ICESCR in 1966 and ratified the same on 1974. 207 The
ICESCR necessitates food that is acceptable in a given culture, sufficient and available. 208 It
recognized that it is a fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger.209 Art. 11 reads:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of

everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family,
including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous
improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate
steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the
essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental

right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and
through international co-operation, the measures, including specific
programmes, which are needed:
(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of

food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by
disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or
reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient
development and utilization of natural resources;
(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-
exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food
supplies in relation to need.210
205
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, art. 12 & 14, Dec. 18, 1979,
U.N.T.S. 13 [hereinafter CEDAW].
206
Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 25 & 27, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S 3 [hereinafter CRC].
207
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S.
208
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 8.
209
Nadia Lambek & Priscilla Claeys, Institutionalizing a Fully Realized Right to Food, 40 VERMONT LAW
REVIEW 743, 748 (2016).
210
International Covenant on Economic, Social And Cultural Rights, art. 11, opened for signature Dec. 16,
1966, 993 U.N.T.S [hereinafter ICESCR].
45
The right to food is also reaffirmed by the World Food Summit Declaration which
states “the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the
right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger.”211
State parties need not only observe but must satisfy the “minimum essential level
required to be free from hunger.”212 Implementation in the national level is an obligation
imposed upon State parties. There are three levels of such implementation which include
imbedding the right to food in our Constitution; through enactment of national laws; or
through an evaluation of already existing laws relating to such right.213 The right to food is
not explicitly recognized in the Philippine Constitution. However, such right has been
recognized implicitly as a directive principle of state policy.214 The 1987 Constitution, Article
II, Section 5 and 9 state:
SECTION 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,

liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential
for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.215
SECTION 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that
will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the
people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services,
promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved
quality of life for all.216
These provisions however are not self-executing.217 There is a lack of law that
particularly tackles the issue on the right to food and food security. Several bills have been
211
212
FAO, Guide On Legislating For The Right to Food, 20, available at
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/righttofood/documents/RTF_publications/EN/1_toolbox_Guide_on_Le
gislating.pdf (last accessed Mar. 21, 2020).
213
FAO, Guide On Legislating for the Right to Food, 10, available at
214
215
PHIL. CONST, art. II, § 5.
216
PHIL. CONST, art. II, § 9.
217
Tondo Medical v. CA, 527 SCRA 74, 765 (1995).
46
made but were not yet enacted into laws. One of which was bill submitted by the late Senator
Miriam Defensor Santiago. The Right to Adequate Food has been defined in a Senate Bill
authored by the late Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago which reads:
Right to adequate food means the right to have regular, permanent and
unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to
quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food, corresponding
to the cultural traditions of the people, to which he or she belongs, and
which ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling
and dignified life, free of fear.218
B. The Triple “A” + S Obligation: Availability, Accessibility, Adequacy and

Sustainability
The State must not only ensure the availability of food but must also ensure that it is
accessible and adequate. An added dimension of the right to food is “sustainability” which is
related to food security.219 Food Security exists “when all people, at all times, have physical
and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and
food preferences for an active and healthy life.” 220 Realization of the right to food occurs
when every person has physical and economic access to adequate food including the means
of procuring the same.221
Availability refers to the “possibility either for feeding oneself directly from
productive land or other natural resources, or for well-functioning distribution, processing
218
An Act Providing for a Framework on the Right to Adequate Food, S.B. No. 2137, § 3 (c), 16th Cong., 1st
Reg. Sess. (2014).
219
Focus on the Global South, Right to Food and Food Security in the Philippines: What the Numbers Say,
available at https://focusweb.org/right-to-food-and-food-security-in-the-philippines-what-the-numbers-say/
(last accessed Apr. 23, 2020).
220
World Food Summit Plan of Action, par. 1, Nov. 13, 1996, available at
http://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm (last accessed Mar. 25, 2020).
221
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 6.
47
and market systems that can move food from the site of production to where it is needed in
accordance with demand.”222
Accessibility includes both physical and economic accessibility both of which has
been explained in General Comment 12:
Economic accessibility implies that personal or household financial costs

associated with the acquisition of food for an adequate diet should be at a
level such that the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs are not
threatened or compromised. Economic accessibility applies to any
acquisition pattern or entitlement through which people procure their food
and is a measure of the extent to which it is satisfactory for the enjoyment
of the right to adequate food. Socially vulnerable groups such as landless
persons and other particularly impoverished segments of the population
may need attention through special programmes.
Physical accessibility implies that adequate food must be accessible to

everyone, including physically vulnerable individuals, such as infants and
young children, elderly people, the physically disabled, the terminally ill
and persons with persistent medical problems, including the mentally ill.
Victims of natural disasters, people living in disaster-prone areas and other
specially disadvantaged groups may need special attention and sometimes
priority consideration with respect to accessibility of food. A particular
vulnerability is that of many indigenous population groups whose access to
their ancestral lands may be threatened.223
Adequacy is intimately linked with sustainability and food security where food is
accessible now and in the future.224 Food must not only be consistently available for the
present generation but also for future ones. Deliberations on the core content of the right to
adequate food has been done by the CESCR and agreed on the meaning of the same:
The availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the

dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable
within a given culture;
222
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 12.
223
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 13.
224
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 7.
48
The accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and that do not
interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights.225
C. Binding Guaranty of the Right to Food under the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
1. Progressive realization and deliberate retrogressive measures: ICESCR General

Comment No. 3
The ICESCR imposes an obligation upon States to progressively realize the rights
thereunder stated as follows:
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps,

individually and through international assistance and co-operation,
especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available
resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the
rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means,
including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.226
Progressive realization however does not mean rights in the ICESCR are mere
“program rights.”227 Realizing rights in a progressive manner does not mean lack of legal
significance but States are only given leeway as to how they will comply with the realization
of these rights in the view of their economic conditions. 228 Therefore, a State must move
towards that goal of realization. Though States are given a margin of discretion in
approaching the right to food, it is still required that in adopting national strategies, it must be
in accord with ensuring nutrition and food security based on human rights principles. 229 The
225
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par. 8.
226
International Covenant on Economic, Social And Cultural Rights, art. 2, ¶ 1, opened for signature Dec. 16,
1966, 993 U.N.T.S [hereinafter ICESCR].
227
KLAUS BEITER, THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION BY INTERNATIONAL LAW 376 (2006).
228
KLAUS BEITER, THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION BY INTERNATIONAL LAW 376-377 (2006).
229
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 21.
49
minimum essential level indicates a condition of “freedom from hunger by providing

minimum basic resources to enable individuals to be free from threats to their survival.” 230
Violations of the right to food as stated in General Comment No. 12 include:
Formal repeal or suspension of legislation necessary for the continued

enjoyment of the right to food; denial of access to food to particular
individuals or groups, whether the discrimination is based on legislation or
is proactive; the prevention of access to humanitarian food aid in internal
conflicts or other emergency situations; adoption of legislation or policies
which are manifestly incompatible with pre-existing legal obligations
relating to the right to food; and failure to regulate activities of individuals
or groups so as to prevent them from violating the right to food of others, or
the failure of a State to take into account its international legal obligations
regarding the right to food when entering into agreements with other States
or with international organizations.231
Food safety nets are not compatible with all market systems because every State has
its own unique economic situation.232 If such have a negative effect on local markets, it would
mean that while there will be a realization of the right to food for some, but a derogation on
the right to food and other rights of other people. 233 Retrogressive measures can be justified if
they are necessary for the fulfillment of other rights and the general welfare and there is no
other better alternative.234 Retrogressive measures would require the most careful
consideration and must be justified to the totality of human rights as General Comment no. 3
states:
(xxx) Moreover, any deliberately retrogressive measures in that regard

would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully
justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the
Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available
resources.235
230
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 3:
The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations, ¶10, U.N. Doc. E/1991/23 (1990).
231
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 19.
232
233
234
HOLGER HESTERMEYER, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE WTO 110 (2007).
50
2. Respect, Protect, Fulfill: ICESCR General Comment No. 12
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) held various
consultations and adopted General Comment No. 12 which served as the “authoritative legal
interpretation clarifying the normative content of the right to food.”236 Accountability in the
national level will mainly depend on the status of international treaties as well as domestic
laws such as the Constitution.237
States are required “to take steps” to achieve the right to food and consequently food
security and this necessarily involves repeal or amendment of local legislations which
prevent the attainment of the same.238 States are prevented from taking the opposite direction
that would deprive people access to adequate food.239In achieving freedom from hunger and
ensuring economic and physical access to food the three-fold obligation of the State party
must be complied with which are the obligation to respect, protect and fulfill.240
The obligation to respect means there should be no interference on the rights

recognized under the ICESCR and that any act that will deprive material resources or
implementation of laws contrary to the rights and principles under the ICESCR be stopped or
repealed respectively.241 Therefore State parties should not prevent access to adequate food.242
235
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 3:
The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations, ¶9, U.N. Doc. E/1991/23 (1990).
236
BERTRAN G. RAMCHARAN, JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS: CASES
AND MATERIALS 105 (2005).
237
238
239
240
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 15.
241
MANISULI SSENYONJO, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 23 (2009).
242
51
The obligation to protect means that States must not allow non-State individuals or
actors to engage in any act that are detrimental on the people’s right to adequate food. 243 This
would include implementation and enforcement of existing laws that would protect
vulnerable sectors of the country.244
The obligation to fulfill which is an active duty requires that States to make food and
production resources available and accessible.245 This includes and active duty to ensure food
security alongside with utilization of resources to ensure people’s livelihood. 246 Fulfilling in
one sense means “facilitating” thus the State must pro-actively implement measures that
would support access to resources and means to have livelihood and food security. 247 These
include “educations and training, agrarian reform, policies supportive of urban and rural
development, market information etc.”248 On another sense, fulfilling means “providing”
wherein the State must allow people to enjoy the right to adequate food whenever they are
unable to do so because of reasons beyond their control. 249 The state has the obligation to
enable the people to enjoy the right to food whenever there are external factors that disable
people to access the same such as in times of calamities and natural disasters.250
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 15.

243
FAO, The Right to Food Guideline: Information Papers and Case Studies: Justiciability of the Right to Food,
at 80 available at http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/214344/RtFG_Eng_draft_03.pdf (last accessed Mar. 27,
2020).
244
245
Rolf Kunnemann, Basic Income: A State’s Obligation Under the Human Right to Food, at 7, available at
https://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/ses/download/docs/kunn.pdf (last accessed Mat. 27, 2020).
246
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 15.
247
248
249
250
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 15.
52
Rights-based social and food safety net “explicitly recognizes that its purpose is to
fulfil rights rather than provide discretionary charity.”251
D. The Right to Food and the RTL: An Analysis of The Irony - More Supply of Imported
Rice but still Results to Food Insecurity?
A human-rights based approach to national food security stresses that citizens’ basic
needs is a matter of right and not of benevolence. 252 People often forget that food is not
something charities should provide but for the State to ensure. The State is not required to
directly give food to the people but rather it is required to enable the people to have means to
feed themselves. Food is not a mere charitable cause but a basic human right. Food is not a
privilege but a right.
FAO pointed out that implementation of programs to alleviate hunger and poverty
fails to meet the Right to Food Guidelines. 253 The Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act
of 1997 is the Philippine’s national poverty reduction law but this however do not
specifically address “access to adequate food at the same time uses a “minimum basic needs
approach” in lieu of “rights-based approach.”254
As can be inferred from international human rights law, the right to food is not
qualified by age, sex, race or other factors. Everyone is afforded such right. However, could
there be a violation even for the future generations? The author answers in the affirmative.
The right to food is not only a right by the present generation but also future generations.
There is no need to show material risk or damage for there to be a violation of the right to
food. As pointed out by the ICJ:
251
252
253
Fritzie Rodriguez, Our right to food, available at https://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/61838-
right-to-food (last accessed Apr. 23, 2020).
254
53
Next, it may be said that a legal right or interest need not necessarily relate
to anything material or "tangible", and can be infringed even though no
prejudice of a material kind has been suffered. (xxx)255
Retrogressive measures can be justified if they are necessary for the fulfillment of
other rights and the general welfare and there is no other better alternative. 256 Is there really
no other alternative to the abolition of QRs in order to comply with WTO obligations and to
have more supply of rice to be accessible to the people especially the poor? Is the RTL, being
a retrogressive measure for the fulfillment of food security, necessary for the fulfillment of
other rights? The author answers both in the negative considering the present situation of the
local rice industry and farmers.
With regard to the abolition of QRs, the author believes that the Philippines has
alternative measures in order to comply with its WTO obligations or has the option of non-
compliance in light of the nature of these obligations as discussed further in Chapter III of
this thesis. As to the objective of increasing supply to lower the price of rice and to make it
affordable to the poor, the Philippines has better measures such as giving support services
and technology to local farmers in order for them to be more competitive and by providing
jobs to the poor which will be discussed further in this Chapter. In short, the government is
“barking up the wrong tree.”
With regard to the necessity of the RTL’s passage to fulfill other rights, there is no
such necessity especially that farmers’ rights are prejudiced. Though there is a projection that
consumers are to gain $50.71 billion, producers are about to lose $29.73 billion for the period
of 2020-2040.257 Treating small farmers as mere collateral damage is the very root of human
rights violation of not only farmers but also the future generation. Local farmers are essential
for the Philippines to attain food security in the future. Isagani Serrano the president of the
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement said that agriculture is crucial in upholding the
255
South West Africa Cases (Ethiopoa v. South Africa; Libera v. South Africa), 1966 I.C.J. 6, 32 (July 18).
256
257
National Economic and Development Authority, Philippine Rice Trade Liberalization, available at
http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/133371/filename/133582.pdf (last accessed Apr.
24, 2020).
54
right to food because farmers can feed the nation “through sustainable practices that don’t
discount people and nature.”258
As stated by General Comment No. 12, there is a violation of the right to food when a
State adopts laws and policies which are manifestly incompatible with existing legal
obligation on the right to food and if there is failure to take into account international legal
obligation regarding the right to food when entering into agreements with other countries.
Because the government failed to take into account its obligations under the ICESR and other
guidelines produced by FAO when it enacted the RTL, the Philippines has violated its
obligation in respecting, protecting and fulfilling the right to food and food security.
Ironically, while the RTL intends to ensure food security, “it is the very same
principle that the law puts at risk.” 259 It abrogates “the people’s inalienable right to
development – to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy development processes, as their very
basic right to adequate food is not fully realized.”260
1. Harm of the RTL to the local rice industry
Historical instabilities on the prices of rice both domestically and internationally will
continue until 2040.261 Climate change will also continue to influence production and
profitability of rice.262
258
259
Rosario Guzman, What the Rice Tariffication Law violates, available at https://www.ibon.org/what-the-rice-
tariffication-law-violates/ (last accessed Apr. 24, 2020).
260
Rosario Guzman, What the Rice Tariffication Law violates, available at https://www.ibon.org/what-the-rice-
tariffication-law-violates/ (last accessed Apr. 24, 2020).
261
24, 2020).
262
24, 2020).
55
Low-yielding rainfed and irrigated rice farms will have difficulty with the
implementation of the RTL.263 According to the National Economic and Development
Authority, “342,000 hectares of rice farms are projected to be out of rice production by
2025.”264 NEDA further explained:
In terms of percentages, the highest reductions in area are to come from the
Visayas, where 13.9 percent of irrigated and 62.3 percent of rainfed lands
are to become non-competitive in rice production. These are followed by
Mindanao where declines of 7.6 percent in irrigated farms and 9.2 percent
in rainfed rice areas are expected. In terms of hectarage, more irrigated land
from Luzon (89,000 hectares) and rainfed land from Mindanao (48,000
hectares) are expected to be out of rice production by 2025.265
National strategies and laws must have regard as to activities relevant to the present
situation and context.266 Thus the allowance of unlimited import of foreign rice as made
possible by the RTL failed to take into account the danger of the same to local farmers and to
the fragility of our rice industry. It only made our local rice farmers vulnerable due to high
competition and low price thus some would be pressured to stop farming. Not taking into
account the present situation of farmers which include the lack of competitiveness due to lack
of government support is a derogation of the State’s duty to adopt national strategies and
laws in accordance to human rights principles and more importantly the right to food and
food security.
FAO said that aside from the socio-economic status of households, policies and social
services also contribute to food insecurity due to their ineffectiveness. 267 These social
services must also account for the needs of the people such as infrastructure and
263
24, 2020).
264
24, 2020).
265
24, 2020).
266
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 22.
56
transportation services.268 There should be more development of farm-to-market roads, rail

lines and bridges, irrigation systems so as to help farmers transfer crops and vegetables.269
According to an Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), the

Philippines needs to construct 48,350 kilometers of farm-to-market roads. 270 It is the lack of
government support and inaccessibility for farmers to link themselves with retailers that
contribute to the inconsistency of food supply in the market. 271 Instead of spending money to
transport their rice to the market, farmers decide to just let their produce go to waste.272
Farmer groups claim that making them compete with more imported rice would make
them penniless.273 While the RTL has some projected advantages, the RTL lacks “safety
nets” that are immediately available to farmers.274 There will be an obvious displacement of
not only rice farmers but also NFA employees, accredited NFA retailers, rice millers and rice
by-product producers.275
Food security being linked to the notion of adequacy and sustainability entails an
obligation to the State to ensure accessibility to food not only for the present generation but
also for future generations. This principle is what the RTL failed to consider. Long-term
availability and accessibility are endangered by the RTL and the unlimited imports of rice
considering the present conditions of our farming industry.
267
Fritzie Rodriguez, How food insecurity threatens us, available at https://www.rappler.com/move-ph/51726-
food-security-philippines (last accessed Apr. 23, 2020).
268
269
270
Bella Suansing, What Causes Food Insecurity in the Philippines?, available at
https://www.borgenmagazine.com/causes-food-insecurity-in-the-philippines/ (last accessed Apr. 25, 2020).
271
272
273
274
275
57
2. Increased vulnerability to exporters’ decisions and an enabler to cartels of rice

trade
The importation of rice puts the country in a very vulnerable position because there is
vulnerability of food security if global prices increases. 276Although there is an expected
decrease in retail prices of rice, there is no guarantee that it will remain at low prices in the
long run.277 If unhampered rice imports continue in the long run without making our domestic
rice industry competitive, it will make the Philippines vulnerable to higher world market
prices and ultimately susceptible to decisions of rice exporters.278
Just like in the late 2007 and 2008, the world rice market was gravely disrupted
because of the global financial crisis during those times.279 World market rice prices of “Thai
100%B” tripled wherein from $335 per ton to $1000 per ton. 280 Exporting countries restricted
their exports activities to protect their own consumers in case of shortages.281 In fact,
Vietnam, India and Pakistan did restrict their rice exports due to the rising global rice
prices.282 Thailand even “raised the idea of creating a global rice cartel similar to that for oil
exporting countries.”283 Rice importers “scrambled for supplies to stabilize their own
market.”284 Due to substantial surges and lack of food security, there are substantial adverse
impacts to people especially the poor.285 During the 2008 food crisis, people were waking up
early in the morning in order to be first in line in buying the limited stocks of rice provided
276
Kate McGeown, The Philippines tries to reduce its dependency on rice, BBC NEWS, July 11, 2011, available
at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-14102518 (last accessed March 10, 2020).
277
278
279
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION: MARKETS, POLICIES AND FOOD SECURITY (2010) 3 [hereinafter
THE RICE CRISIS].
280
THE RICE CRISIS].
281
THE RICE CRISIS].
282
283
284
THE RICE CRISIS].
285
THE RICE CRISIS].
58
by government-allocated rice stores because they are cheaper. 286 Rice being the staple food
for the poor, “the world rice market crisis was probably the most serious shock to world food
security.”287
Aside from global economic crises, rice exporting countries are not absolutely
protected from disasters brought about by nature. In 2007, Vietnam experienced a major
brown planthopper pest outbreak thus the government ceased exporting rice to protect its
citizens.288 If rice shortage occurs in Thailand and Vietnam which are major rice exporters for
the Philippines, the country will definitely have economic and political problems matched
with increase in food insecurity.289
3. An increase in availability but not accessibility of rice to the poor
The World Food Summit provided for the four pillars of food security which are
availability, stability of supply, access and utilization.290 Balancing the four pillars of food
security is challenging. For instance, in South Africa and India, they overemphasized the
availability component but without concentrating on the other factors which prevent people
to have adequate food.291 Food security exists “when all people, at all times, have physical
and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and
food preferences for an active and healthy life.”292
286
Florencia G. Palis, Aging Filipino Rice Farmers and Their Aspirations for Their Children, 149 PHILIP J. SCI. 351,
351 (2020).
287
THE RICE CRISIS].
288
356 (2020).
289
Rene Ofreneo, With rice tariffication, what happens to food security?, available at
https://businessmirror.com.ph/2018/09/27/with-rice-tariffication-what-happens-to-food-security/, (last accessed
Apr. 25, 2020).
290
291
292
59
Stability is very important and must be taken into account when forming laws and
policies. The RTL failed to account for this pillar. FAO stressed that “Even if your food
intake is adequate today, you are still considered to be food insecure if you have inadequate
access to food on a periodic basis, risking a deterioration of your nutritional status.”293
In Uganda, while the Government wanted to increase foreign investment to increase

economic growth, this however led for some small-holder farmers to be deprived of their
land thus losing their principal source of livelihood and food.294 The 1996 World Food
Summit in Rome recognized that in order for there to be alleviation of rural poverty and to
achieve a hunger-free world, the government must provide access to land and security of
tenure.295
Development policies in the Philippines are mostly in accord with liberalization

which has been devastating to the agriculture sector and did not effectively allow all people
to have access to adequate and affordable food supply. 296 Thus, despite the sufficient supply
of food, if livelihoods or the absence thereof cannot meet daily needs, food insecurity still
persists.297 This reality points to the fact that policies must not only aim for sufficient supply
at present but should also aim for sufficient supply for the future generations and providing
them livelihoods and means in accessing the same.
293
294
295
Focus on the Global South, Right to Food and Food Security in the Philippine: What the Numbers Say,
296
297
60
Accessibility to food remains a barrier for Filipino families disabling them to attain
basic needs of food.298 By enacting the RTL, the Philippines has veered away from its
commitment in ending hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030 made during the
adoption of the global 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda involving seventeen
sustainable development goals accompanied by 169 targets made during the 2015 United
Nations General Assembly in 2015.299 Hunger and malnutrition result not from the lack of
food but the lack of accessibility to avail of food.300 The latest Social Weather Station Survey
found that 10 million people are experiencing severe hunger while 19 million experience
hunger.301
The Philippines’ Global Hunger Index (GHI) which was based on indicators such as
undernourishment, child underweight and child mortality was 13.1 in 2014.302 The
Philippines ranked 29th in the whole world and its situation is described as a “serious
problem.”303 This amounted to 3.8 million households experiencing hunger. An indication of
low hunger would be a score of less than five.304
298
United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food on Her Mission to
Philippines (Thirty-first Session 2015), A/HRC/31/51/Add/1. Par.5.
299
Briones et al., Food Security and Nutrition in the Philippines, 3 available at
https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000015508/download/ (last accessed Mar. 21, 2020).
300
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 5.
301
Ernesto Ordoñez, Food security for the poor, PHIL. DAILY INQ., Jan. 17, 2019, available at
https://business.inquirer.net/263693/food-security-for-the-poor (last accessed Apr. 24, 2020).
302
303
304
61
Rural areas are more vulnerable to the effect of food insecurity and hunger. 305
Farmers and other people working in the agriculture are more prone because of “low rural
incomes, lack of access to productive resources such as land and capital, and the vulnerability
of the sector to various shock such as climate change, extreme weather events, pests and
disease.”306 The majority of farmers are women and farmers comprise four out of ten poor
Filipinos.307 Rice farmers and workers are included among farmworkers who have the highest
poverty incidence.308
The cost of production for one kilogram of palay is Php12.40. 309 During the early
months of implementation of the RTL in 2019, farm gate prices of palay decreased
drastically which are Php7.00 and Php10.00.310 Moreover, the average price of fresh palay in
Central Luzon which is the Philippines’ rice granary is Php10.60.311 Likewise, the average
price in Cagayan Valley is Php12.31.312 Comparing these prices, our local farmers are really
at a loss.313 Due to poverty and aggravated by the effects of RTL, there is higher incidence of
“malnutrition, school dropouts and increased vulnerability to early marriage.”314
305
306
307
308
309
Omi Royandoyan, Revisit rice tariffication law, PHIL. DAILY INQ., Oct. 8, 2019, available at
https://opinion.inquirer.net/124459/revisit-rice-tariffication-law (last accessed Apr. 24, 2020).
310
311
312
313
314
62
The government must create small farm development programs to help small farmers
because according to FAO, they can feed the world for they provide adequate, safe and
affordable food.315 What is needed is not loans to give out to farmers but for the government
to have “a clear program for small farms development, an effective agrarian reform program,
and an enabling policy environment that puts smallholder agriculture/family farms at the
front and center.”316
V. FOOD IS LIFE: CONNECTING THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND THE RIGHT TO
LIFE
Human rights are interdependent and indivisible. 317 The right to life is a supreme right
where no derogation is allowed.318
315
316
317
318
United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment no. 36, Article 6 (Right to Life), ¶ 2,
CCPR/C/GC/35 (Sept. 3, 2019).
63
The right to life can be found in Article 3 of the UDHR which states that “everyone
has a right to life, liberty and security of person.”319 It is also written under the ICCPR on
Article 6 which states that “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall
be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”320
The right to adequate food is “of crucial importance for the enjoyment of all
rights.”321 Right to adequate food is “indivisibly linked to the inherent dignity of the human
person and is indispensable for the fulfilment of other human rights enshrined in the
International Bill of Human Rights.”322 The right to food is “closely related to the right to life
– a civil right, well-recognized in international and regional law and through a number of
national constitutions.”323 In the same way the effective protection of the right to life is a
precondition for the enjoyment of all other rights. 324 This means that civil and political rights
can only be enjoyed if economic, social and cultural rights are realized. 325 Individuals are
entitled to enjoy a life with dignity and to be protected from unnatural or premature death due
to acts or omissions.326
The right to life is recognized by the international community of states where no

derogation is allowed.327 As compared to the ICESCR which requires progressive realization,
319
UDHR, art. 3.
320
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), art. 6, U.N. Doc. A/6316
(1966) (Mar. 23, 1976).
321
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 1.
322
Session, 1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 4.
323
324
CCPR/C/GC/35 (Sept. 3, 2019).
325
326
CCPR/C/GC/35 (Sept. 3, 2019).
327
64
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires an immediate fulfillment of
the rights:
Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures,

each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary
steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the
provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as
may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present
Covenant.328
National laws must be adopted immediately for the fulfillment of civil and political
rights.329
A. Malleability of the Right to Life: Cases under Foreign Courts and Tribunals
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in a number of cases emphasized that

“without protecting life all other human rights protections are meaningless.” 330 Commonly,
the right to life is applied in a criminal context, however there is an expanding view of the
same by applying it in a societal context in order to protect more people and more
communities.331 Protection of the sanctity of life in a holistic manner is the trend among
foreign tribunals.332
Before, the restrictive interpretation of the right to life means a negative obligation on
the part of the State wherein it must no arbitrarily deprive a person of his or her life. 333 In the
case Myma Mack-Chang v. Guatemala334 explained that all other rights lack meaning if the
328
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2, ¶ 2, opened for signature Dec. 16, 1966, 999
U.N.T.S 171[hereinafter ICCPR].
329
330
Alexandra R. Harrington, Life as We Know It: The Expansion of the Right to Life Under the Jurisprudence of
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 35 LOY.L.A.INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 313, 313 (2013).
331
332
333
334
Myma Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgement, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 101,
Nov. 25, 2003, available at https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_101_ing.pdf
65
right to life is not respected. 335 This paved the way for the strengthening of the concept of
positive obligations with regard to the right to life wherein the State must adopt measures in
order to preserve and protect.336
In the case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, the Court reiterated
that the right to life not only includes the prevention of arbitrary deprivation of life but also
the duty of the State to provide conditions to ensure a decent existence which reads:
This Court has asserted that the right to life is crucial in the American
Convention, for which reason realization of the other rights depends on
protection of this one. When the right to life is not respected, all the other
rights disappear, because the person entitled to them ceases to exist. Due to
the basic nature of this right, approaches that restrict the right to life are not
admissible. Essentially, this right includes not only the right of every human
being not to be arbitrarily deprived of his life, but also the right that
conditions that impede or obstruct access to a decent existence should not
be generated.337
Also in this case, the Court considered that the right to health, food, clean water, education
and cultural identity are intimately tied to a decent existence and therefore the right to life:
Special detriment to the right to health, and closely tied to this, detriment to
the right to food and access to clean water, have a major impact on the right
to a decent existence and basic conditions to exercise other human rights,
such as the right to education or the right to cultural identity. (xxx) 338
In the case of The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for
Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, the African Commission on Human and People’s
Rights (ACHPR) stated that even though the right to food is not explicitly enshrined in the
335
Alexandra R. Harrington, Life as We Know It: The Expansion of the Right to Life Under the Jurisprudence
of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 35 LOY.L.A.INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 313, 319 (2013).
336
337
Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparation and Costs, Inter-Am Ct. H.R., (ser. C),
No. 125, June 17, 2005, ¶ 161, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_125_ing.pdf
338
No. 125, June 17, 2005, ¶ 167, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_125_ing.pdf
66
African Charter on People’s and Human Rights, the same is implicit in other rights stated in
the Charter which includes the right to life, health and to economic, social and cultural
development.339 The Communication alleges:
That the Nigerian government has destroyed and threatened Ogoni food
sources through a variety of means. The government has participated in
irresponsible oil development that has poisoned much of the soil and water
upon which Ogoni farming and fishing depended. In their raids on villages,
Nigerian security forces have destroyed crops and killed farm animals. The
security forces have created a state of terror and insecurity that has made it
impossible for many Ogoni villagers to return to their fields and animals.
The destruction of farmlands, rivers, crops and animals has created
malnutrition and starvation among certain Ogoni Communities.340
The ACHPR in the end found that the Nigerian government violated the right to food
even though the same is not granted under the Charter:
The right to food is inseparably linked to the dignity of human beings and is
therefore essential for the enjoyment and fulfilment of such other rights as
health, education, work and political participation. The African Charter and
international law require and bind Nigeria to protect and improve existing
food sources and to ensure access to adequate food for all citizens. Without
touching on the duty to improve food production and to guarantee access,
the minimum core of the right to food requires that the Nigerian
Government should not destroy or contaminate food sources. It should not
allow private parties to destroy or contaminate food sources, and prevent
peoples' efforts to feed themselves.341
The government's treatment of the Ogonis has violated all three minimum
duties of the right to food. The government has destroyed food sources
through its security forces and State Oil Company; has allowed private oil
companies to destroy food sources; and, through terror, has created
significant obstacles to Ogoni communities trying to feed themselves. The
Nigerian government has again fallen short of what is expected of it as
under the provisions of the African Charter and international human rights
standards, and hence, is in violation of the right to food of the Ogonis.342
339
340
The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria,
ACHPR/COMM/A044/1, May 27, 2002, ¶ 9, available at https://docs.escr-net.org/usr_doc/serac.pdf (last
accessed Apr. 12, 2020).
341
342
67
The ACHPR emphasized that:
(xxx) The right to food is "inseparably linked" to human dignity and is

"therefore essential for the enjoyment and fulfilment of such other rights as
health, education, work and political participation." In failing to prevent
private actors from contaminating and destroying food sources for the
Ogoni, Nigeria violated the right to food.343
The same case also made a recognition that the right to life is intimately linked with the right
to a clean and safe environment as the ACHPR stated:
These rights recognise the importance of a clean and safe environment that
is closely linked to economic and social rights in so far as the environment
affects the quality of life and safety of the individual.6 As has been rightly
observed by Alexander Kiss, "an environment degraded by pollution and
defaced by the destruction of all beauty and variety is as contrary to
satisfactory living conditions and the development as the breakdown of the
fundamental ecologic equilibria is harmful to physical and moral health344
In the case of Ain O Salish Kendro (ASK) & Ors v. Government of Bangladesh &
Ors, the High Court ruled that demolition of slum-dwellings and consequently the eviction of
the residents therein were contrary to the right to life and human dignity.345
In the case of Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors, pavement
dwellers were evicted in the city of Bombay and the Supreme Court of India ruled that this
eviction deprived the dwellers of livelihood and consequently there is a violation of the right
to life because of such deprivation which reads:
The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far
reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken
away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death
sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one
aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right
to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that
is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part

343
Comm. No. 155/96, 2001, available at https://www.globalhealthrights.org/africa/the-social-and-economic-
rights-actions-center-and-the-center-for-economic-and-social-rights-v-nigeria/ (last accessed Apr. 12, 2020).
344
345
68
of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his
right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point
of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its
effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to
live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the
procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a
part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave
aside what makes like livable, must be deemed to be an Integral component
of the right to life. 346
B. The RTL, the Right to Food Security and the Right to Life: An Analysis
The ICCPR obliges States to protect and not to abridge the right to life which reads:
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be
protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.347
This provision of the ICCPR provides the foundation of the obligation of respecting
and ensuring the right to life by enacting laws and other measures. 348 This obligation
encompasses life-threatening situations and foreseeable threats even if do not necessarily
result to loss of life.349 Thus, there can be a violation of the right to life even without the loss
of the same. The duty to protect being an active duty, obligates the States to take appropriate
measures for the enjoyment of the right to life. 350 Measures include ensuring access without
delay of essential goods and services such as health care, shelter, water and most especially
food.351
346
Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors, SCR Supl. (2) 51, July 10, 1985, available at
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/ (last accessed Apr. 13, 2020).
347
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 6, ¶ 1, opened for signature Dec. 16, 1966, 999
U.N.T.S 171[hereinafter ICCPR].
348
CCPR/C/GC/35 (Sept. 3, 2019).
349
CCPR/C/GC/35 (Sept. 3, 2019).
350
CCPR/C/GC/35 (Sept. 3, 2019).
351
CCPR/C/GC/35 (Sept. 3, 2019).
69
This thesis submits that there should be a broad interpretation of the right to life.
According to the case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, the interpretation of
the right to life that would encompass positive measures of protection for people to enjoy a
decent life “is based on international jurisprudence and doctrine, and it entails new steps
forward in International Human Rights Law.”352
The right to life is commonly associated with the physical being of a person. Thus,
the most common question to be answered to know if there is a violation of the right to life is
whether a person is physically harmed or not. This can be inferred from the different texts
and documents produced by international organizations. However, these texts were produced
during or a little after the time of war where slavery, genocide, and killings are abundant.
However, in times of “peace” where oppression does not happen outright through physical
harm but through a systematic one, what is then the importance of the right to life? This is
where the expansive interpretation of the right to life comes into play. The right to life should
not be interpreted restrictively. Rather, it should be interpreted in an expansive manner in
order for other rights to be equally protected as well. As can be seen from decisions from
foreign cases, the right to life is malleable and coextensive with other rights. As stated in
General Comment No. 6, the right to life should not be interpreted narrowly:
Moreover, the Committee has noted that the right to life has been too often
narrowly interpreted. The expression “inherent right to life” cannot properly
be understood in a restrictive manner, and the protection of this right
requires that States adopt positive measures. In this connection, the
Committee considers that it would be desirable for States parties to take all
possible measures to reduce infant mortality and to increase life expectancy,
especially in adopting measures to eliminate malnutrition and epidemics. 353
Malnutrition is undoubtedly still a major problem in Philippine society. Rice being a

source of nutrition especially for the poor, should be abundant and affordable. The RTL may
have increased the supply of rice but accessibility is still questionable. The abundance of rice
today may not be the case of tomorrow. Food security of the future generations especially
352
No. 125, June 17, 2005, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_125_ing.pdf
353
United Nations Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 6: Article 6 (Right to Life), ¶ 5,
(Apr. 30, 1982) [hereinafter General Comment No. 6: Right to Life].
70
those who are born poor is endangered for the reasons stated in the previous Chapter. This
consequently affects the quality of health and life they will have. Their right to life though
not violated through physical harm, is still violated because of the lack of accessibility to
food. Because of the State’s failure to foresee the harms of the RTL, the enjoyment of the
right to life is endangered.
Although the right to food is not explicitly granted under the 1987 Constitution, this
thesis submits that the same should be protected under the right to life. Just like in the case of
The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social
Rights v. Nigeria, the African Court ruled that even though the right to food is not granted
under their Charter, it is “inseparably linked to the dignity of human beings and therefore
essential for the enjoyment and fulfillment of such other rights.” 354
Thus, following from this
pronouncement, the right to food and food security must be protected under the right to life.
In the case of Pueblo Indigena Kichwa de Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the Inter-American
Court has set a standard for the determination of the existence of a failure to discharge the
positive duty of a State to protect the right to life:
For this positive obligation to arise, it must be determined that, at the time
the events occurred, the authorities knew or should have known about the
existence of a situation that posed an immediate and certain risk to the life
of an individual or of a group of individuals, and that they did not take the
necessary measures available to them that could be reasonably expected to
prevent or avoid such risk.
In sum, for there to be a violation of the right to life, the requirements of knowledge,
foreseeability and omission must be present.355 Thus, a State is responsible for the violation
354
355
71
of the right to life, if it failed to protect persons whose ‘decent existence’ are at risk due to
governmental or private acts already known and foreseen by it to cause serious harm.
This thesis submits that the State failed to protect the right to life and decent existence
of farmers, the poor and future generations. It already has knowledge about the risk of
removing QRs on foreign rice imports to local farmers considering the present conditions of
the rice industry. It has already foreseen the danger brought by the RTL to the rice industry
and food security all knowing the lack of competitiveness our local farmers face due to lack
of government support. Yet, the State still pursued the course of implementing the RTL. It
knows too well the fragility of the rice industry because from 1995 to 2005, the Philippines
asked for a ‘Special Treatment’ and was allowed to impose QRs on importation of rice. 356 An
extension was granted in 2004 which lasted until June 30, 2012. 357 After which, the country
applied for waivers. Thus, the Philippine government cannot feign ignorance now as to the
lack of competitiveness of our local farmers. Though the Inter-American Court’s standard
speaks of omission, “the actions which nullify previous measures already taken by a
government to address a risk to life, or actions which heighten the risk to life, should be
considered just as much a violation as an omission.”358
This thesis submits that the continued implementation of the RTL considering the
expanded interpretation of the right to life, will endanger the local rice industry in the long
run which will in turn endanger the right to life of many. It will endanger the decent
existence of the farmers if there will be a continued implementation of the RTL without
immediate relief or agricultural support to increase their competitiveness. The government is
putting lives at risk knowing the immediate effect of the unlimited import of foreign rice.
356
357
358
Patricia Anne D. Sta. Maria, Life, Death, and Data: Examining the Human Rights Implications of Introducing
Data Exclusivity to India’s Pharmaceutical System, In Light of the Global Situation of Diseases such as HIV/AIDS
in the Philippines and Other Developing Countries, at 126 (2015) (unpublished J.D. thesis, Ateneo de Manila
University) (on file with the Professional Schools Library, Ateneo de Manila University).
72
Even though there are funds allocated for compensation of hard-hit small farmers, the
question is whether the relief is immediate as to deter the detrimental effects on the right to
life. Are the funds disbursed right away before these small farmers sell their own lands as a
last resort to prevent their impending demise? These farmers would have to take out loans
from different individuals and entities just to meet their basic needs amid the loss of profits
brought by the decrease of rice prices. Truly a cycle of debt is a cycle of death.
VI. THE FUTURE OF OUR RICE PARADISE: AN INTEGRATION
A. The Present Status of Our Farmers and the Local Rice Insutry: A Year after the
Implementation of the RTL
For 2019, the Philippines is the world’s biggest rice importer ousting China after it
brought from other countries a total of 3 million metric tons, or 7 percent of the entire
globally traded stocks.359
According to the leading agencies, the government gained Php14 billion from the
tariffs collected from the first year of the implementation of the RTL wherein collection
359
Karl R. Ocampo, Rice tariff law a year later: Prices down but farmers lose, PHIL. DAILY. INQ., Mar. 4,
2020, available at https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1236530/rice-tariff-law-a-year-later-prices-down-but-farmers-
lose (last accessed July 26, 2020).
73
amounted to Php12.31 billion in 2019 and Php1.71 Billion as of February 14, 2020.360 The
Department of Agriculture Secretary stated that there is a Php2.31 billion excess in the
collection for the first year thus Php1.32 billion will be utilized as financial aid while Php1
billion will be for crop insurance for members of the Farmers’ Cooperatives and Associations
(FCAs).361 The Secretary also stated that “There are PHP8.2-billion losses of our farmers but
consumers were able to save PHP4.9 billion due to the low price of rice in the market. So the
actual net loss of our farmers who are also consumers is actually only PHP3.3 billion.”362
The Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) reported that between April
to September 2019, farmers already lost Php8.22 billion.363 On the other hand, the Federation
of Free Farmers’ (FFF) study reported a loss exceeding Php34 billion.364
360
Hilda Austria, P14-B tariff collected in 1st year of rice tariffication law, PHIL. NEWS AGENCY, Mar. 5,
2020, available at https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1095633 (last accessed July 26, 2020).
361
362
363
Karl R. Ocampo, Rice tariff law a year later: Prices down but farmers lose, PHIL. DAILY. INQ., Mar. 4, 2020,
available at https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1236530/rice-tariff-law-a-year-later-prices-down-but-farmers-lose
(last accessed July 26, 2020).
364
74
Land Bank of the Philippines provided data that Php2.48 billion is to be divided
among 163,527 farmers who availed of the SURE Aid program wherein each farmer was
granted PHP15,000 worth of loan assistance for the whole year. 365 An initial support of free
certified inbred seeds was also given on selected farmers.366
With the enactment of the RTL, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) reported
that on the first three weeks of February 2020, the average price of regular milled rice was
Php36.32 per kilogram while the average price of well-milled rice was Php41.23 per
kilogram. 367 “But the picture is not as rosy as economic managers have painted it to be.
While rice prices have gone down, farmers are barely surviving.”368
Although rice farmers are provided with cash assistance through the RCEF, the same
is not enough and immediate to deter the cycle of debt of our rice farmers. Rice farmers for
the past years had been borrowing money from private lenders due to high input costs and
lack of government support.369 Most Filipino rice farmers are “trapped in the cycle of poverty
365
366
Mae Flor Vertudes, Christopher Dave Musa, Mary Ann Cosilet, Rommel Salahubang, Felipe Balaria, Impact
of Rice Tariffication Law in selected Rice Farmers in Nueva Ecija, Philippines, 6 IJAEMS 147, 148 (2020).
367
Asian Journal Media Center, Rice Tariffication Law led to record-low rice prices in seven years – DTI Chief,
available at https://www.asianjournal.com/business/business-news/rice-tariffication-law-led-to-record-low-
rice-prices-in-seven-years-dti-chief/ (last accessed July 26, 2020).
368
369
356 (2020).
75
since most of them have insufficient capital to commence rice cultivation.” 370 As one of the
respondents in a study said “We rice farmers are always under the mercy and control of
private money lenders who usually charged us with 20% monthly interest, and the rice
buyers and traders who usually dictate the price of freshly harvested rice.”371
Rosadilla Limbres one of the rice farmers in Bukidnon province for 30 years said that
the past three years has been the hardest for her since her husband already died and with the
lowering of the price of her produce from Php20 to only Php15.372 With this lowered palay
prices brought by the RTL, she was forced to till only one hectare and cannot gamble
anymore to spend for fertilizers and laborers who will help her.373
A farmer from Nueva Ecija, Joe Pangilingan also manifested his dismay and
frustration over the RTL and said “At this rate, we would not be able to feed our families
anymore. There is not enough government help.”374
A mixed of both qualitative and quantitative study shows that the initial impact of the
RTL on selected farmers in Nueva Ecija is a negative one.375 In the study, 100 percent of the
370
356 (2020).
371
356 (2020).
372
373
374
375
76
respondents were not in favor of the RTL and experienced the negative effects.376 63 percent
said that they cannot compete with cheap rice imports.377 Cheap rice imports are the result of
low production costs wherein in the Philippines, production cost is 90 percent higher than
Vietnam.378 This is primarily due to lack of machineries and equipment to produce rice. As
100% of the respondents said in the study, no one has ever experienced free usage of
machineries that were supposed to be provided to them.379 This is consistent with the
statement of the Department of Agrarian Reform that it has not yet produced any equipment
or machinery promised to the rice farmers a year after the implementation of the RTL.380
Also respondents were able to sell their produce at Php18.00 being the highest and Php10.00
being the lowest during the wet season.381
The Department of Agriculture started to prepare rice farmers to its crop
diversification program which means rice farmers are going to shift from planting rice to
planting other crops which are more profitable.382 This plan however brings more danger to
our local rice farms and industry. Less farmers would be producing rice which means the
Philippines will become more dependent to rice imports.

376
377
378
379
380
381
382
77
“The administration is aware that the new policy would displace farmers who would
not be able to survive the new market landscape. They would mostly include smallholder
producers in far-flung areas who live below the poverty line.”383 According to the Philippine
Statistics Office, poverty incidence in the Philippines is highest in the agricultural sector
which is 34.3 percent in 2015.384
Despite the effort for these small rice farmers to gain land through CARP or other
means, some have already sold their lands which were converted to commercial spaces such
as factories, poultry farms and residential lands.385 The resiliency of these poor farmers
forced them to find other jobs and migrate to other cities to become “habal-habal drivers,
fast-food and factory workers, and household helpers.”386
A study conducted in Agusan del Norte for Mindanao, Iloilo for Visayas and Isabela
for Luzon shows that a majority of farmers do not want their children to be rice farmers
because of the economic hardships faced by them.387 With the low prices of palay due to the
RTL, “it becomes harder now to convince the youth and adults in the rural population to go
into rice farming and show that it can be a profitable venture.388
383
384
356 (2020).
385
386
387
351 (2020).
388
357 (2020).
78
According to Dr. Asterio Saliot the former Director of the Agricultural Training
Institute, there is a huge possibility of a critical shortage of farmers because of the increase in
the average age to 57 years old from 44 years old.389 Particularly to rice farmers, the average
age increased to 59 years old in 2012 in Central Luzon alone.390
Even though the RTL affords protection under the RCEF, there is still no assurance
that there will be proper implementation and that it will not hurt the rice industry in the long-
run.391 The continued implementation of the RTL is putting the country’s food security at risk
and worsens poverty among rice farmers.392
B. The RTL, The WTO, The Right to Food and Life, The Present and the Future: An
Integration
As discussed in the previous Chapters, the RTL was enacted because of the
Philippines’ obligation to remove QRs under the WTO Agreement. It has led to the
tariffication of foreign rice imports which flooded the domestic market with
imported rice. This led to challenges faced not only by farmers on a personal level
but to food security on a national scale.
The main premise for the enactment of the RTL is that the Philippines is
obliged to impose tariffs instead of QRs on rice imports. In order to dispute this
premise, Chapter III looked into relevant documents such as the GATT, the
Agreement on Agriculture, and the Agreement on Safeguards. The nature of WTO
obligations is also assessed and examined in order to know the permissibility of
inter se modifications, suspensions and alterations of these obligations. Two
conflicting views on the nature of WTO obligations were presented. First, the
nature of WTO obligations is bilateral or contractual wherein parties are allowed to
389
351-352 (2020).
390
352 (2020).
391
392
358 (2020).
79
deviate from their obligations. The second view is that the nature of WTO
obligations is multilateral or collective wherein these obligations cannot be
modified thus akin to human rights obligations or erga omnes obligations.
The first argument against the RTL is that the Philippines is not absolutely
obliged to remove QRs based from the reading of the texts of the concerned
documents. The country is allowed to defer the imposition of tariffs as allowed
under the law. First, GATT provided certain instances for the continued imposition
of QRs, the most important of which is the “necessity of enforcing governmental
measures” aimed at supporting the local production. Second, the country could
have applied for another extension of the waiver as allowed under GATT wherein
the contracting parties may agree to waive an obligation. Third, the Agreement on
Agriculture provides for a “Special Treatment” for the protection of designated
products necessary for the traditional diet of developing countries. The Philippines
could have applied for another extension of this Special Treatment. Fourth,
although not primarily aimed at the prevention of the enactment of the RTL but a
suspension of the implementation thereof, the Agreement on Safeguards provided
three requirements to escape from WTO obligations which are the increase of
imports, unforeseen developments, serious injury or threat of serious injury.
Lastly, the GATT also provided for general exceptions for a WTO member to
deviate from GATT principles. The most relevant provisions of which are the
protection of public morals, human life and health, and for the conservation of
exhaustible natural resources. The Philippines could have used these grounds in
order to halt the imposition of tariffs on rice imports.
Granting that these laws do not provide exceptions to the continued
imposition of QRs to protect the local rice industry, the second argument is that the
nature of WTO obligations is bilateral and contractual where contracting parties
are allowed to suspend, modify and deviate from WTO obligation between and
among themselves. Arguments in support of this bilateral nature were laid down.
First, a breach of a WTO obligation will not cause injury to all member states.
Second, liberalizing trade is not a value but only a mean to achieve a further end-
goal which is economic welfare for all unlike in human rights obligations. Third,
WTO obligations are negotiated between and among contracting parties
exclusively. Non-contracting member states are not concerned with how two or
more countries would agree on their trading terms. Lastly, enforcement of these
obligations is exclusively between and among contracting parties. Dispute
settlement does not concern other member states which are not part of the trade
agreement.
80
If the two previous arguments are unavailing and assuming that the RTL
was enacted not as a WTO obligation but because the government itself just
wanted to enact it in furtherance of its political will, the next argument against
the enactment of the RTL is that is violates the right to food and life of the
farmers, the poor and the future generations. Article 31 (3)(c) of the VCLT provides
that treaties should be interpreted in light of relevant rules of international law applicable in
the relationship between the parties.393 This means that interpretation of WTO Agreements
must conform to the parties’ human rights obligations.394
As stated in General Comment No. 12, a violation on the right to food exists
when a State adopts laws and policies which is incompatible with existing legal
obligation on the right to food and failure to consider international legal
obligations on the same when entering into agreements with other States. Chapter
IV discussed the failure of the government to take into account obligations under
the ICESR and guidelines produced by FAO when it enacted the RTL thus it
violated its duty to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food and food security.
Long-term availability and accessibility are endangered by the RTL considering
the current competitiveness of our local rice industry. This is also due to the
increased vulnerability of the Philippines to exporters’ decisions. Serious food
insecurity could occur when another economic crisis and food crisis happen
internationally. There is no guarantee of unlimited supply from other countries
considering they also want to protect their own nationals.
The RTL violates the right to life because as discussed in Chapter V, the
right to food is interlinked with the right to life. The fulfillment of one is a
precondition for the fulfillment of the other. Thus, a violation of the right to food is
a violation of the right to life. The right to life is malleable because it is connected
with all other rights. Further, the right to life should be interpreted in an expansive
manner in order for other rights to be equally protected. This interpretation would
include not only negative measures but also a positive one. Thus, fulfillment of the
right to life does not only happen when the State has prevented itself or other
entities in causing physical harm to its citizens but also through a positive duty in
ensuring their “decent existence.” Three requirements were laid down in order to
know if there is a violation of the right to life which are knowledge, foreseeability
393
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31, ¶ 3(c), opened for signature May 23, 1969 [hereinafter
VCLT].
394
SARAH JOSEPH, THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 852 (2013).
81
and omission. The Philippines has failed to protect the right to life and decent
existence of farmers, the poor and the future generations. The government has
knowledge of the risk of removing QRs on foreign rice imports to local farmers
considering the present conditions of the local rice industry. It has already foreseen
the danger brought by the RTL to the local rice industry. The knowledge and
foreseeability requirement are evidenced by waivers and special treatment the
government sought for in the previous years. It cannot feign ignorance as to the
danger the RTL could bring to food security. Though there is no omission in this
case but an action through the continued enactment of the RTL, Chapter V
discussed that it is considered as much as a violation as an omission. The RTL may
have increased the supply of rice but sustainability and accessibility is not
guaranteed. The abundance of rice today may not be the case of tomorrow.
If we are to harmonize these arguments and the conflict between human

rights law and WTO law, this thesis submits that “Tariffication of rice imports and
the abolition of QRs are obligations which can be suspended provided it is within
the bounds of both principles under WTO law and human rights law in order to be
a valid exercise of sovereignty.” Cases decided by WTO Panel and Appellate Body
stated that bilateral agreements between member states must still be consistent with the
general principles contained in the WTO treaty otherwise the agreement shall be void. 395 This
means that a State may continue to impose QRs on rice imports in a non-
discriminatory and transparent manner in order to be in accordance with the
MFN principle under WTO. In the same way, this continued imposition of QRs
must be done in good faith and for the purpose of protecting the right to food
and life in order to achieve national food security. Thus, abandonment of the
imposition of QRs should happen when farmers already achieved a certain level
of competitiveness enough to open the domestic market with more foreign rice
imports. Tariffication could proceed once national food security is achieved.
395
82
Because of the conflicting views with regard to the nature of WTO obligations, a three-step
approach suggested by Jelena Baeumler can be used in order to determine the nature the
same especially those relating to agriculture. First step is to look into the overall will of the
parties to determine what interests they protect and looking into the preambles, general
statements and relevant documents concerned. 396 Second step is to look into the procedural
design of the treaty which is the allowance given by the agreement to modify, alter or
derogate an obligation.397 The last step is to see the details in the individual obligations by
using interpretation methods in the VCLT which includes looking into the wording, history,
object and purpose of the obligation.398
VII. CONCLUSION
The author is not antagonistic towards trade liberalization. Trade liberalization is

beneficial. However, the author recognizes that total deregulation must happen in the right
time and in the right place. Conditions must first be met before enacting a law that would
deregulate the rice industry. Both human rights law and WTO law promotes higher
standards of living however they have “developed in splendid isolation.”399 Only around 15
396
397
398
399
Gudrun Monika Zagel, WTO & Human Rights: Examining Linkages and Suggesting Convergence, 2, VDL. 1, 8
(2005).
83
percent of food produced in the world is actually traded internationally yet “international
trade and investment requirements dictate food and agricultural policies.”400
The World Food Crisis in 2008 made the international agricultural markets suffer
which affected the right to food of many especially small agricultural farmers which consists
50 percent of the world’s hungry.401 The Philippines like many other poor nations which are
food importers cannot withstand sudden price rises caused by economic depressions. 402
Small local farmers are not equipped to withstand fluctuating market conditions for they
cannot afford to store food and would disable them to live a decent life.403
A human-rights based approach in solving the problem of the lack of food security
starts by changing the way we view agricultural activities. Agricultural activities are not
merely commercial transactions but it truly is multifunctional because it promotes “human
welfare (nutrition, livelihoods, sustaining rural communities), traditional cultural practices
(e.g. hunting, gathering, food rituals), and the provision of environmental and ecological
services.”404
WTO members’ policies on human rights are sometimes impaired because of their
obligations under WTO.405 Encroachment of WTO rules and obligations on human rights can
be seen in the different cases such as the TRIPS agreement ( Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights) that would disable poor people from gaining access to affordable
medicine.406 However, since States have the primary responsibility in ensuring the protection
of human rights, it must ensure that in the face of globalization, it must liberalize trade “in
ways that are in harmony with their obligations to respect, protect and implement human
rights.”407
400
401
402
403
404
405
(2005).
406
(2005).
407
29 (2005).
84
Rice self-sufficiency is “still an elusive dream.” 408 Food security is not only
threatened by the economic hardships of our present rice farmers aggravated by the
RTL, it is also threatened by the decreasing number of rice farmers. Our rice
farmers are not rewarded enough for the hardships that they face every day. With
the aging of Filipino rice farmers even those of other major exporting countries such as
Thailand and Vietnam, with the aggravated conditions of our rice farmers brought about by
the implementation of the RTL, with the possibility of global economic recessions,
pandemics such as the COVID-19, climate change, pest infections and natural disasters, “the
country’s continued dependence on rice imports would not guarantee us that another food
crisis would be averted in the future.”409
Due to the lack of policies and laws of the Philippines with regard to food security
and the right to food, the next Chapter would provide a proposed bill through which the right
to food is focused on and an amendment on the RTL itself. It will also have
recommendations on how to improve the rice industry and how to help our farmers obtain a
higher level of competitiveness. It will also have recommendations for the WTO and the
United Nations.
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Philippines
1. Strengthening the Philippines’ Laws on Food: Framework for the Protection of

the Right to Food and Fulfillment of National Food Security
The right to food is not explicitly granted by the 1987 Constitution. There is no
existing law which specifically tackles and protects the right to food and food security.
According to the FAO guidelines, fulfillment of the right to food through legislation includes
three levels which are imbedding the same in the Constitution, enactment of national laws,
408
351 (2020).
409
357 (2020).
85
and through an evaluation of already existing laws relating to such right. 410 Although some
laws touch upon this right, an overarching framework is needed in order to streamline and
harmonize the different issues and solutions offered by these laws. This is to further
strengthen the foundation of government food and agricultural programs. A bill is hereby
presented pattered from the Senate Bill authored by Miriam Defensor Santiago.411
FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND

FULFILLMENT OF NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Philippines in

Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “The Right to Food and National
Food Security Framework Act.”
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. –The State recognizes its duty to respect, protect and fulfill
the right to life and decent existence of every Filipino. It also recognizes the right to food of
its citizens. In furtherance of these duties, it devotes itself to attain national food security by
extending its outmost support to its local food farmers and producers.
Towards this end, this act shall provide a framework that would facilitate and ensure
faithful execution of governmental food and agricultural programs and would address
elimination of hunger and malnutrition.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms shall be defined
as follows:
410
411
Reg. Sess. (2014).
86
a. Food – means nourishment that includes solid, liquid and semi-liquid nourishment,
as well as drinking water.412
b. Food Security – exists “when all people, at all times, have physical and economic
access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food
preferences for an active and healthy life.”413
b. Hunger – means a spectrum of situations, from starvations, which is not having
enough food of any sort to eat, to undernourishment, which is having enough food to
eat, but of inadequate quality.414
c. Right to adequate food - means the right to have regular, permanent and
unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to
quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food, corresponding to
the cultural traditions of the people, to which he or she belongs, and which
ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified
life, free of fear.415
d. Vulnerable groups - refers to those who are particularly disadvantaged. These
include indigenous peoples, ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities, persons
with disabilities, individuals living with HlV/AIDS, refugees and internally
displaced people, women and children.416
Section 4. Normative Content. – The right to food is the right of everyone to have access
2. Amendment to RTL
Revising the RTL is needed to also fulfill the third level in implementing the right to
food through legislation which is an evaluation of already existing laws relating to such right.
3. Strengthening the Local Rice Industry and the Competitiveness of our Rice
Farmers
412
An Act Providing for a Framework on the Right to Adequate Food, S.B. No. 2137, § 3 (a), 16th Cong., 1st
Reg. Sess. (2014).
413
414
An Act Providing for a Framework on the Right to Adequate Food, S.B. No. 2137, § 3 (b), 16th Cong., 1st
Reg. Sess. (2014).
415
Reg. Sess. (2014).
416
An Act Providing for a Framework on the Right to Adequate Food, S.B. No. 2137, § 3 (d), 16th Cong., 1st
Reg. Sess. (2014).
87
B. United Nations
C. World Trade Organization
1. Harmonizing Obligations under WTO with the Constitution and ICESCR

a. Rule under Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties
WTO adjudicating bodies use the VCLT system in deciding cases.417
b. Respect for Human Rights as Part of Jus Cogens
Generally, the rule of lex posterior or the rule that the later law will prevail governs in the
interpretation of law when WTO provisions conflict with other international law.418 The
Philippines joined the WTO on 1 January, 1995.419 On the other hand, the Philippines ratified
the ICESCR in 7 June, 1974.420 The dates would indicate that the WTO obligations would
prevail over obligations under the ICESCR. However, this is not an inflexible rule.
417
MITSUO MATSUSHITA, ET. AT., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: LAW, PRACTICE, AND POLICY 29 (2d ed. 2006).
418
419
World Trade Organization, The Philippines: September 1999, available at
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp114_e.htm (last accessed Apr. 5, 2020).
420
Patricia Lourdes Viray, DFA urged to adopt optional protocol to international rights covenant, PHIL. STAR,
Sept. 26, 2018, available at https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/09/26/1854871/dfa-urged-adopt-
optional-protocol-international-rights-covenant (last accessed Apr. 5, 2020).
88
In principle, treaties and general customary international law are equal in value and no
hierarchy between the exists because both are derived from State consent.421 An exception to
this is the rule on jus cogens in accordance with the VCLT.422
Treaties are created in a system of international law akin to a contract created in a system of
domestic law in a way that both do not need to indicate relevant principles of law that would
entail the attachment of documents such as the VCLT or the Civil Code.423
Article 53 of the VCLT provides that a treaty is void if at the time of its conclusions it
conflicts with a preemptory norm or jus cogens.424 Even though it can be argued that the right
to food is not a preemptory norm, the right to life is for their can be no derogation of the right
to life. As discussed above, the right to food is intimately linked with the right to life thus
their can be no derogation against the former.
Further, States “declared the primacy of their human rights obligations in Article 1 of the
Vienna Declaration and Progamme Action of 1993.425
The Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights further emphasized that States must
take into account their obligations under the ICESCR when entering international
organizations and treaties.426
Based from the discussions above, WTO law is bilateral in nature while human rights treaties
are integral or multilateral in nature. There is a collective interest in advancing and ensuring
human rights such as the right to food security and life. Thus, even if a WTO rule comes later
in time which is the scenario at the case at hand, in a way that it is in conflict with the
attainment of a human right, the human rights treaty would prevail because the WTO rule
421
Joost Pauwelyn, The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?, 95 AJIL. 535, 536
(2001).
422
(2001).
423
(2001).
424
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 53, opened for signature May 23, 1969 [hereinafter VCLT].
425
426
89
would affect the faithful execution of the object and purpose of the human rights treaty by
virtue of art. 41 par. 1(b)(ii) of the VCLT.427
In the same manner, if the human rights treaty comes later, harmonizing or modifying WTO
obligations with the ICESCR on the right to food and life is allowed because as
aforementioned, WTO members may agree to deviate from WTO obligations by “mutually
agreeing to condition their trade on respect for human right.” If harmonization is unavailing,
then the lex posterior rule may apply.428
Make list of exporters of rice to the Philippines

Since exporters of rice are all State parties to the ICESCR, as discussed above, there is an
obligation on both the exporter and the Philippines to ensure food security and life regardless
of nationality.
Non-trade concern for valid Special and Differential Treatment v. Trade concern
The government should divert its focus not on rice importation but to investing in price
support in order for our rice farmers to increase their production and income.429 Although
there is some support coming from the government, the same is not guaranteed to reach
farmers immediately. The bureaucracy that hinders rural services for agricultural extension
427
428
429
358 (2020).
90
such as financial aids, information dissemination and agricultural innovations should be

reassessed in order to meet rice farmers’ need immediately.430
Making the professions of rice farming rewarding would be hitting a lot of birds with one
stone which includes the challenge of food insecurity, poverty, the decreasing population and
the increase of the average age of rice farmers.
A. Farmers as partners and not mere beneficiaries and strengthening the

competitiveness of the rice industry
http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/133371/filename/133582.pdf
http://hrbaportal.org/wp-content/files/SAT-FS_ENG1.pdf
The government should focus its efforts in providing for support instead of focusing its
efforts on price intervention instrument.431
Formulation of national strategies in relation to the right to food requires “full compliance
with the principles of accountability, transparency, people’s participation, decentralization,
legislative capacity and the independence of the judiciary.”432
Designing and implementation of safety nets should be in accordance with participatory
principles because this would increase transparency of the process and accountability of duty-
bearers.433
Putting human rights in the center of policy-making is important.
430
358 (2020).
431
V. Bruce J. Tolentino, The Globalization of Food Security: Rice Policy Reforms in the Philippines, 29 PHIL. J.
DEV’T. 27, at 32.
432
United Nations Economic and Social Council Resolution, Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General Comment 12 (Twentieth Session,
1999), E/C.12/1999/5/, par 23.
433
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION, THE RIGHT TO FOOD GUIDELINES: INFORMATION PAPERS AND CASE STUDIES 143
(2006) [hereinafter THE RIGHT TO FOOD GUIDELINE]
91
The Constitution of South Africa enshrines the right to food and at the same time the South
African Human Rights Commission has to monitor the implementation of the same. 434
In the same way, Brazil in its food security policy of Zero Hunger puts human rights and the right
to food at the center and belong to its principal objectives. 435
In India, its Constitution was interpreted to include the right to food as part of the right to life. 436
B. QR as an Option
A WTO trade and food security expert said that before the Philippine government pursues a
rice deregulation policy, it should first look into the effects on tariffs.437
The RTL’s implementation should be suspended during the competitive measures phase in
order for Filipino farmers to be competitive with imports for they are not just beneficiaries of
conditional cash transfers for they are “key staple food producers.”438
The Food and Agriculture Organization stated that it is important to safeguard domestic
markets from import surges to aim for food security.439 The WTO framework includes
safeguards such as the following:
1. Raising applied tariffs up to limit set by WTO bound rates;
2. Resorting to the Special Safeguard of the AG; and
3. Resorting to general trade remedy measures, i.e. anti-dumping,
countervailing and emergency safeguards.440
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
92
Implementation of guaranteed employment especially for those vulnerable groups during

times of food insecurity is needed to fight hunger.441
In this regard, the Philippines should enhance its investment in long-term
sources of productivity growth, with special attention to:
• continuing development of rice technologies appropriate for local conditions,
especially in view of climate change, such as stress-tolerant varieties
suitable for cultivation in areas with abiotic problems (for example
drought, floods);
• creating incentives for human resource development and maintaining and
improving research facilities;
• overhauling the rice extension programmes from their top-down, centrally
directed approach to one that is LGU-led and linked to research systems;
140 POLICY RESPONSES IN TRADITIONAL IMPORTING COUNTRIES
innovative mechanisms involving civil society organizations and the private
sector can deliver technologies and information more effectively than the
usual formal extension systems based on the traditional mode of technology
transfer;
• investing in irrigation development but focusing more on the rehabilitation
of existing systems rather than on construction of new large-scale irrigation
systems, and on small-scale systems including the facilitation of
privately owned shallow tube wells;
• reducing the ‘cost of doing business’ by investing in connectivity (transport,
electricity, telecommunication) and removing efficiency-inhibiting
regulatory measures.442
C. Strengthening our Laws on Food
Our laws are clearly inadequate for full recognition of the right to food and food security.
The 1987 Constitution only mentions “food” once and FAO reported in 2010 that the same
did not explicitly recognize the right to food.443
General Comment
441
442
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION: MARKETS, POLICIES AND FOOD SECURITY (2010) 141-142 [hereinafter THE RICE
CRISIS].
443
93
WTO, since it is a member-driven organization, must take the first step in giving supremacy
to human rights.444
WTO must undertake a “human rights mainstreaming process” and be more open to
recommendations that would guarantee free trade and enforcement of human rights at the
same time.445
II. Bibliography
Recommendations
https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/210883-solving-philippines-unli-rice-crisis
A chronic problem
Analysts often point out 4 factors behind the chronic crisis of our rice industry.
One is high population growth. Simply put, the increase in the number of Filipinos
eating rice outpaces any increase in rice production. Unfortunately, this will be a
given for the next few years since a country’s population rate takes decades to
change.
Two is low yield coupled with high cost of production. While our rice-producing
neighbors like Vietnam and Thailand produce an average of 5 to 8 tons per hectare
at a cost of P5 to P9 per kilo, our farmers produce a lower average of 3 to 6 tons per
hectare at a higher cost of P11 to P14 per kilo. On top of that, most rice farmers
444
(2005).
445
30 (2005).
94
have to share their income with landowners, traders, and money lenders who all
charge usurious rates for land, farm inputs, and interest
Because of the difficulties faced by our rice farmers, many have opted to just sell out
to land developers eager to convert their farms to residential or industrial uses. Low
yield and high production cost, coupled with the decreasing land area devoted to
palay, is a triple whammy for rice production. In fact, palay’s share in the economy’s
gross value added has been falling by 10.4% annually for the last 4 years, indicating
a dangerous trend of shrinking production.
Three is hoarding and price manipulation. Rice traders act like a cartel and, in
connivance with officials of the NFA, Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI), and law agencies, are able to constrict supply at will,
creating artificial shortages and price spikes.
The NFA, whose mandate is to ensure national food security and stabilize supply
and prices of staple cereals both in the farm and consumer levels, has become a
ghost of its original self. It’s capacity to purchase at least 10% of total palay
production is down to a mere 1% to 2%, even less in some years, making no dent in
farmgate or retail prices
Four is our flawed importation policy. With expensive local supply unable to cope up
with demand and cartels manipulating the market to keep prices high, a stop gap
measure has always been to just import cheaper rice. But massive rice importation,
including of smuggled rice, has become the rule. Despite this, imports have failed to
impact significantly on supply and prices.
The unli rice challenge
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or an agriculture secretary to see what needs
to be done. Long term solutions are actually contained in countless policy papers,
program designs and pieces of legislation. The problem is that no government has
had the perseverance and political will to actually see them through.
The following goals are key:
First, increase rice yield to keep up with population growth while lowering the cost of
95
production.
It is simply not true that we can't compete with our ASEAN neighbors. We are
endowed with the same resources and weather conditions like Thailand and
Vietnam. What we lack are the infrastructure, farmer support and industry
development programs that they have put in place, many of which were learned,
ironically, from Filipino scientists and technologists from UP Los Baños.
To achieve this goal, 4 things have to be done: 1) roll out massive and adequately
funded projects and programs to provide farm inputs, technology and machinery,
affordable financing, research and development to our rice farmers; 2) rehabilitate
existing irrigation systems and construct new ones to double or even triple the yield
of existing farms; 3) stop the conversion of agricultural land, especially irrigated rice
land, to non-agricultural purposes; and 4) reconfigure and complete the agrarian
reform program to provide free land to qualified rice farmers and dismantle the
remaining feudal structures and mindsets that discourage them from tilling the land
and adopting better farming technologies.
All these presuppose good management, transparency, accountability and focus

from the lowest to highest levels of government. If only half of the energy and focus
given to the drug war were given to agriculture and rice production, we would already
be better off.
Second imperative is to dismantle the cartel and establish policies and mechanisms
to prevent cartel-like behavior and other abuses of market power.
Third is to supplement local production by importing rice at the right amount at the
right time. Admittedly in the short term, we can't do without importation. What is
important however is that imports should not flood the market to the detriment of
our local farmers. Limiting imports to just the lean months or to meet actual
shortages is essential.
In this light, the pending rice tarrification bill in Congress that does away with
quantitative restrictions on rice is dangerous. Absent the above-mentioned reforms,
allowing the unlimited importation of rice, even if slapped with high import taxes, will
adversely impact on our rice industry, including close to 20 million Filipinos
96
dependent on it. A study by the Philippine Institute of Development Studies

estimates a 29% reduction in farmers’ income due to rice tarrification.
Fourth is to regulate the price of rice. It is frustrating for our farmers that even as
retail prices are skyrocketing, the farm gate price for palay has hardly changed.
Worse, everyone claims that imported rice is cheaper but it's still sold at a premium
price way beyond the price of local rice. Such profiteering by rice traders and
importers must be checked.

Fake

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Fake

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1

A RICE PARADISE: A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH IN ANALYZING THE VALIDITY

MALCOLM JOSHUA C. CRUZ

A thesis presented in partial fulfilment

Agriculture is significant for the Philippine economy. 1 There is a variety of crops

vulnerable in the aspect of food security as aggravated by increasing population of over 92

D. Objectives of the Study

This study aims:

E. Significance of the Study

F. Scope and Limitation

II. THE RICE TARIFFICATION LAW (RTL)

of rice shall be allowed in accordance with the established redes, regulations

Section 6. A new Section 7 is hereby inserted after Section 6 of R. A. No.

"Sec. 7. Powers of the President. - Consistent with the Philippine national

"(b) In the event of any imminent or forecasted shortage, or such other

"The power herein delegated to the President may be withdrawn or

4. The Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (RCEF)

Section 13. A new Section 13 is hereby inserted after the renumbered

"Sec. 13. Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund. - There is hereby

"(b) Rice Seed Development, Propagation and Promotion – Thirty percent

5. Rice industry road map

"The following principles shall govern the development and implementation

"(a) Raise sustainable investments in the rice industry particularly on rice

"(b) Improve the productivity, efficiency and profitability of small rice

"(d) Preserve and enhance the rice production capabilities of future

"(e) Provide accessible, targeted and technology-oriented support services

"(f) Set up responsible, participatory and effective governance mechanisms;

"(g) Address impact of income loss caused by rice tariffication.

"The rice industry roadmap shall be implemented through a

Section 4. A new Section 5 is hereby inserted after Section 4 of R. A. No.

"Sec. 5. Issuance of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance for Rice

7. National Single Window Program

"Sec. 16. National Single Window Program. - To ensure the accurate

9. Rice Farmer Financial Assistance Program

III. RTL: AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

A. Article XI: General Elimination of Quantitative Restriction (QR)

As a general rule, there is a prohibition on the imposition of QRs as provided for by

No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges,

measures, shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party on the

B. Exceptions to the prohibition on QR and other measures

1. Relieving critical shortages

Export prohibitions or restrictions temporarily applied to prevent or relieve

2. Necessity of applying standards or regulations

Import and export prohibitions or restrictions necessary to the application of

3. Necessity of enforcing governmental measures

Import restrictions on any agricultural or fisheries product, imported in any

(i) to restrict the quantities of the like domestic product permitted to be

(iii) to restrict the quantities permitted to be produced of any animal product

4. Article XXV: Waivers

In exceptional circumstances not elsewhere provided for in this Agreement,

(i) define certain categories of exceptional circumstances to which other

C. WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AG)

Recognizing that the long-term objective of substantial progressive

(a) the experience to that date from implementing the reduction

(b) the effects of the reduction commitments on world trade in agriculture;

(c) non-trade concerns, special and differential treatment to developing

(d) what further commitments are necessary to achieve the above-

1. Article 4.2: Prohibition on QR

Members shall not maintain, resort to, or revert to any

2. Two Exceptions to Tariffication

a. Annex 5 Section B.7: Protection for designated products necessary

Annex 5 of AG provides for a Special Treatment for the importation of “designated