Antisabotage council needs this one important factor
The Anti-Agriculture Economic Sabotage Act, signed by the President just last September 26, can significantly increase its effectiveness if a specific mechanism is implemented.
I am referring to the public-private anti-smuggling committee, which proved successful when it was last implemented. It reduced smuggling by 27 percent and 31 percent during the two times it was activated.
Sadly, it was abolished because it was too successful and displeased certain powerful people, having caught a big fish.
Under the new law, agriculture smuggling, hoarding, profiteering and financing are considered economic sabotage. The crimes carry a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine three times the value of the agriculture and fishery products involved.
For those who aid in smuggling, the penalty is 20 to 30 years in jail and a fine two times the value of the goods.
Indeed, this will deter smugglers, but only if there are people actually caught and penalized.
We will focus on the smuggling aspect of the law.
Measurements
Measuring smuggling is possible using numbers from the United Nations Comtrade.
We just compare the number a country reports to us and the number we were supposed to have received.
For example, if a country reports they sent us P100 billion worth of exports, but we supposedly received only P80 billion, the difference of P20 billion indicates smuggling.
In 2019, this smuggling indicator showed P500 billion. Two years later, the number ballooned to more than twice at P1.2 trillion. This is disastrous to the industry and to the country, in general.
The law creating the Anti-Agriculture Economic Sabotage Council comes at an opportune time.
Headed by the President, the members are from the departments of Agriculture, Trade and Industry, Finance, Interior and Local Government, Justice, and Transportation. Also included are the Anti-Money Laundering Council and the Philippine Competition Commission.
These nine government representatives are supplemented by seven private sector representatives. They represent sugar, rice, corn, livestock and poultry, vegetables and fruits, fisheries and other aquatic products, and tobacco.
The council is definitely important. But if it has no executive committee that will ensure urgent action from the Bureau of Customs (BOC), the council may suffer the same fate as other public-private councils that created several resolutions but made little to no action.
(This is because the follow-up action lacks information and necessary clout to make things happen).
Previous experience
We now compare this council with the previous antismuggling committee.
Again using UN Comtrade statistics, the latter’s presence allowed for smuggling to decrease by 27 percent. The succeeding year after it was abolished in 2025, however, smuggling rose to 104 percent.
Many years later, a very similar committee was created (with the same functions, including meeting with the BOC Commissioner monthly and reporting directly to the President). At that time, there was an even more impressive 31-percent reduction in smuggling,
Despite this, it was abolished in 2016 during the first year of the previous administration.
This committee had seven members, compared to the current council’s 15. A lean body made things more manageable for quick action.
Its government representatives were the same as the council’s, except for the Department of Transportation, the Anti-Money Laundering Council and the Philippine Competition Commission. There were only two private sector representatives: one for agriculture (Alyansa Agrikultura) and the other for industry (Federation of Philippine Industries). This is because the committee addressed both agriculture’s and industry’s concerns.
It is recommended that the council consider a small executive committee, possibly with a membership similar to the previous anti-smuggling committee with five government and two private sector agriculture representatives. This executive committee should also hold monthly meetings with the BOC chief while reporting directly to the President.
As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The previous antismuggling committee was not broken, it was abolished.
With a better executive committee at the Anti-Agriculture Economic Sabotage Council, I hope rampant smuggling will finally be stopped for our agriculture to finally flourish.
The author is Agriwatch chair, former secretary of presidential flagship programs and projects, and former undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Industry. Contact is agriwatch_phil@yahoo.com
