DOJ Opinion No. 019, s. 1997

DOJ OPINION NO. 019 , s. 1997 April 1, 1997 Hon. Salvador H. Escudero III Secretary Department of Agriculture Elliptical Road, Diliman Quezon City Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on your query relating to the compliance by the Philippines of its obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Uruguay Round Agreement providing for import quotas or minimum access volume (MAVs) for selected agricultural products. Specifically, you inquire whether Republic Act No. 8178, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 313 and Department of Agriculture (DA) Administrative Order No. 9, s. 1996, are "sufficient to legally enable the quotas for frozen beef, and extracts, essences and concentrates of coffee, and the incremental increase in the quota of coffee beans." R.A. No. 8178, is also known as the "Agricultural Tariffication Act". DA Administrative Order No. 9, s. 1996, contains the "Implementing Rules and Regulations" of R.A. No. 8178. E.O. No. 313 dated March 29, 1996 modifies the nomenclature and the rates of import duty on certain imported articles under Section 104 of the Tariff and Customs Code of 1978 (P.D. No. 1464), as amended. LLpr You state that pursuant to Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 1878, MAVs 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 World Trade Organization (WTO) under the Uruguay Round Final Act". You also state that in the case of frozen beef (Harmonized System Code 0202) and extracts, essences and concentrates of coffee (Harmonized System Code 2101), no quota volumes were committed by the Philippines under the Uruguay Round Final Act; that the quotas set in Annex 1 of DA Administrative Order No. 9 were established unilaterally after consultations with the private sector; and that with respect to coffee beans (Harmonized System Code 0901), the quota volume was increased beyond what was committed in the Uruguay Round Final Act, also after consultations with the private sector. The pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 8178 provide: "Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy . It is the policy of the State 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, except in the case of rice, which will have quantitative import restrictions . Consistent with the constitutional mandate of protecting Filipino firms against unfair trade, it is furthermore the policy of the State to employ anti-dumping and countervailing measures to protect local producers from unfair trade practices, rather than the use of quantitative import restrictions ." xxx xxx xxx "Sec. 4. Repeal . The following laws and all other laws or provisions of law prescribing quantitative import restrictions or granting government agencies the power to impose such restrictions on agricultural products, except rice, are hereby repealed : (1) Republic Act No. 1296, entitled: 'An Act to prohibit the Importation of Onions, Potatoes, Garlic, and Cabbages, Except for Seedling Purposes, and to Provide Penalties for the Violation Thereof'; (2) Republic Act No. 2712, entitled: 'An Act to Prohibit the Importation of Coffee'; (3) Presidential Decree No. 1297, as amended, entitled: 'Centralizing the Importation of Ruminants for Breeding, Slaughter and Beef'; xxx xxx xxx." "Sec. 6. Tariffication . In lieu of quantitative restrictions, the maximum bound rates committed under the Uruguay Round Final Act shall be imposed on the agricultural products whose quantitative restrictions are repealed by this Act . The President shall issue the corresponding tariffs beginning 1996 up to the year 2000. Provided, That the schedule of the initial and final applied rates shall be consistent with the country's tariff-binding commitments . In case of shortages or abnormal price increases in agricultural products, whose quantitative restrictions are lifted under this Act, the President may propose to Congress, revisions, modifications or adjustments of the Minimum Access Volume (MAV) provided, however, that in the event Congress fails to act within fifteen (15) days from receipt of proposal, the same shall be deemed approved." (Emphasis ours) Nothing is well settled in interpretation of statutes than the rule that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says (Baranda vs. Gustilo, 165 SCRA 757, 758). The reason is because when the law is clear and unambiguous, interpretation does not apply, only application (Ablan, Sr. vs. Madarang, 41 SCRA 213, 220; Cebu Portland Cement vs. Mun. of Naga, Cebu, 24 SCRA 708). The clear and explicit language of R.A. No. 8178 leaves no room for doubt. Notwithstanding the exclusion of rice from the coverage thereof, it is the mandate and intent of the law to remove all quantitative restrictions on agricultural products in compliance with the country's commitments and obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Uruguay Round and their replacement with tariff equivalents as required under Article 4 (2) of the Agreement on Agriculture. It should also be stressed that Sec. 6 of R.A. 8178, prescribes the preconditions and the procedure for any revision, modification or adjustment of the MAV. Under said provision of law the President may propose to Congress such revision, modification or adjustment in case of shortages or abnormal price increases in agricultural products. Approval by Congress is inferred if it does not act within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the proposal from the President. Compliance with these preconditions and procedural requirements under the law is mandatory. Finally, considering that the quantitative restrictions on agricultural products except rice have been expressly lifted by R.A. 8178, we seriously doubt the legality of imposing quota volumes on agricultural products, except rice, even if there is no commitment relative thereto under the Uruguay Round Final Act. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. Secretary