[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’No stopping SRA order regulating ‘corn sugar’’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY MAE SINGUAY
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
BACOLOD City – There is no stopping the implementation of a Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) order regulating the importation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener used by cola companies.
Regional Trial Court Branch 98 in Quezon City upheld its decision denying the prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) against Sugar Order (SO) No. 3 sought by Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc.
In a ruling dated April 24, the court denied the motion for reconsideration that Coca-Cola filed against its March 10 decision.
Judge Marilou Runes-Tamang clarified that the denial of the motion was “irrespective of the petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.”
Coca-Cola, criticized by the sugar industry for using HFCS instead of locally produced sugar, wants SO No. 3 nullified.
Its prayer for a TRO sought to enjoin the SRA and the Bureau of Customs to refrain from enforcing SO No. 3, which mandates consignees to seek clearance from the SRA before their HFCS and/or chemically pure fructose imports are released.
The order also requires that consignees are SRA-registered international traders.
In denying the motion for reconsideration, Runes-Tamang said Coca-Cola failed to substantiate its claim that the court erred in denying the TRO.
Coca-Cola “did not even cite the testimony of its witness during the hearing on the TRO application in support of its arguments in the [motion for reconsideration],” the court said.
The court denied the prayer for TRO, believing Coca-Cola will suffer “no grave and irreparable injury, based on law and jurisprudence,” if SO No. 3 is enforced.
In its motion, Coke said there is “lack of due process in the implementation of IRR (implementing rules and regulations) of SO [No.] 3” and its HFCS imports “are being held in various ports in the country.”
But the beverage company was “too busy” preparing the motion it forgot to inform the court about the IRR, “leaving this court oblivious that the assailed IRR translates into actual policy,” said Runes-Tamang.
“Instead, plaintiff (Coca-Cola) chose to incorporate the discussion of the IRR in this motion rather than have the civility of filing a supplemental pleading as instructed by the Rules of Civil Procedure,” said the judge.
The IRR “may have caused injury and additional expenses [on] the beverage giant, but it does not constitute grave and irreparable injury because it is quantifiable,” Runes-Tamang said.
The court is still pushing through with the civil suit seeking to nullify Sugar Order No. 3.
SRA administrator Anna Rosario Paner, Agriculture secretary Emmanuel Piñol, Customs commissioner Nicanor Faeldon, and Sugar Board members Hermenegildo Serafica and Roland Beltran were named respondents in the case./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
