IN THE FACE of rising prices and shortages of agricultural products, President Marcos’ certification of the bill redefining crimes of agricultural economic sabotage as urgent is understandable. There’s a clear and pressing need to protect farmers, fisherfolk, and consumers from the negative impact of smuggling, hoarding, profiteering, and cartel activities. However, like any significant piece of legislation, the bill’s consequences and implications need to be weighed judiciously.
The bill, which aims to repeal the Anti-Agricultural Smuggling Act of 2016, introduces severe sanctions, including life imprisonment and fines triple the value of agricultural and fishery products. The red line for defining a crime as economic sabotage has been set at a value of P1 million based on the Daily Price Index. This threshold, though perhaps crafted with the best of intentions, has raised eyebrows, especially among rice traders.
The Iloilo Grains Businessmen Association’s concerns highlight a potential flaw in the legislation. When a single truckload of rice, amounting to 500 bags, reaches the P1 million mark, traders stand accused of hoarding and risk facing the stringent penalties of economic sabotage. This constraint could inadvertently stifle regular business activities, creating an environment of fear and apprehension. It is imperative to differentiate between genuine business operations and intentional malicious acts of economic subversion.
It is undeniable that the nation needs mechanisms to curb unscrupulous practices that undermine the agricultural sector. Still, it is equally vital to ensure that genuine traders aren’t caught in a legislative net meant for economic saboteurs.
To foster an environment conducive to business while ensuring the protection of farmers, fisherfolk, and consumers, the government must find a middle ground. The threshold for what constitutes hoarding and economic sabotage needs to be revisited to ensure it does not inadvertently harm legitimate businesses.
Rice traders’ appeal to loosen the government’s grip on the rice market merits serious consideration. Perhaps, the way forward lies in dialogue and collaboration, where the government and traders can jointly identify solutions that uphold the integrity of the agricultural market without hamstringing genuine trade.
It is essential to tread cautiously. Balancing regulation with business freedom is the path to a thriving agricultural sector that benefits all stakeholders.
