IN the wake of the issuance of Administrative Order (AO) 20 by the Office of the President on April 18, three things have become abundantly clear: First, that the order was crafted and pushed through by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) without the consultation of the affected stakeholders, in this case, the Department of Agriculture (DA) or anyone else with an interest in agriculture or import regulation.

Second, if any of those stakeholders had been consulted, AO 20 would have never seen the light of day, because it would have been properly rejected as not only completely ineffective to achieve its stated objective, but harmful to Filipino agricultural producers, consumers and management of agricultural imports and anti-smuggling efforts.

Most importantly, however, what has become clear is that under Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Arsenio Balisacan, NEDA has gone far beyond its true role and mandate. Comprehensive change is needed, beginning with the replacement of Balisacan with a secretary who understands and accepts that NEDA is the advisor of national economic policy and not the arbiter.

AO 20 states that it seeks to remove constraints that increase importation costs and limit the supply of agricultural goods, which lead to increased prices. Thus, the order directs concerned agencies, particularly the DA, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department of Finance to remove non-tariff import restrictions. Among other directives, AO 20 orders the loosening of procedures and requirements "in the licensing of importers, minimize processing time of application for importation and exempt licensed traders from submission of registration requirements."

It also calls on the Bureau of Customs to speed up the release of agricultural import shipments. The Sugar Regulatory Administration is directed to craft updated guidelines for the importation of sugar, particularly increasing the number of authorized traders. In addition, the DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, is directed to craft new guidelines easing the importation of fish and other marine products.

In a hearing of the House Committee on Agriculture on Monday, May 6, Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. belied the claim of NEDA that it had consulted with the Agriculture Department in crafting the AO, telling lawmakers that, "I was never, and my new team was not consulted about this AO." Tiu Laurel surmised that the "old" team at the DA may have been consulted by NEDA, but even if that was the case, he was specifically bypassed by NEDA. Tiu Laurel was appointed agriculture secretary in November 2023, and according to the information that emerged in the congressional hearings, the work on drafting AO 20 was started in December.

Unkindest cut

That is unacceptable, and shows an arrogant disregard for the mandate of the DA and other departments. And, as former agriculture secretary Leonardo Montemayor pointed out in a media interview this week, some of the provisions of AO 20 directly contradict existing laws; he cited as examples Republic Act (RA) 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries Code and RA 10659 or the Sugarcane Industry Development Act of 2015. The question of whether an AO can override existing legislation is one for the legal experts.

But knowing President Marcos and his keen interest in supporting and improving the domestic agriculture sector — which is why he kept the job of agriculture secretary himself until he found a competent and reliable leader for the department in Secretary Tiu Laurel — we are fairly certain he would have at least hesitated to endorse NEDA's creation had he realized that was an open question which, in turn, strongly suggests he was misled by Balisacan.

The unkindest cut of all, not just for Filipino farmers and fishermen who will be put under even more competitive pressure from unchecked importation, but for consumers as well, is that even though increasing food supply through imports hypothetically reduces prices, in actual real-world experience it has not worked. The problem lies elsewhere in the value chain, but NEDA and its out-of-touch leader seem too busy cultivating an executory role that neither the law nor the President has explicitly given them, rather than doing the advisory job for which the agency was designed. The role and value of NEDA needs to be reexamined, and changes need to be made, starting at the top.