“It may be prudent to leave RA 10845 alone as tobacco is not an essential agricultural product”
Flummoxed, or perplexed, is how one would feel after reading a proposed Senate bill that seeks to amend Republic Act 10845, otherwise known as the Anti-Agricultural Smuggling Act of 2016.
Senate Bill 1812 filed early this year in the 19th Congress seeks to include the smuggling of tobacco “both in its raw form or as finished products” as constituting economic sabotage.
The purpose of RA 10845, however, is as clear as daylight.
Section 2 states “it is the policy of the State to promote the productivity of the agriculture sector and to protect farmers from unscrupulous traders and importers, who by their illegal importation of agricultural products, especially rice, significantly affect the production, availability of supply and stability of prices, and the food security of the State.”
The essential agricultural products enumerated in RA 10845 are “sugar, corn, pork, poultry, garlic, onion, carrots, fish, and cruciferous vegetables, in its raw state, or which have undergone the simple processes of preparation or preservation for the market”.
But why is tobacco, raw or processed, not included in the list of agricultural products contained in RA 10845 or the Anti-Agricultural Smuggling Act of 2016?
In fact, tobacco, especially cigarettes and similar products, does not belong to the category of essential agricultural products affecting food security.
After all, tobacco is not a food item. It is not an essential household item. To lump it together with onion and garlic as an essential agricultural product is misplaced, if not ludicrous.
Tobacco, particularly in processed cigarette or cigar form, is already strictly regulated by the government because of its scientifically-proven harmful effects.
The food products enumerated in RA 10845 are necessary for the health and survival of Filipinos.
Tobacco and cigarettes are not.
Habitual consumption of tobacco, cigarettes, and similar products is considered a vice by our health authorities, and our lawmakers even saw it fit to impose an additional “sin” tax on tobacco together with alcohol.
There are laws and regulations already in place aiming to reduce tobacco and cigarette consumption among the general population, especially the youth.
Essential food items are subject to the interplay of supply, demand and price stability concerns.
Tobacco, cigarettes, and similar products are definitely not since their prices are dictated more by government regulatory and tax impositions and not necessarily by supply and demand.
Rice, sugar, vegetables, and meat products ensure the health and well-being of Filipinos.
They nourish and prolong life.
Tobacco, cigarettes and similar products, on the other hand, shorten life, if not kill people.
In other words, tobacco, cigarettes, and similar products belong to a completely different set of “agricultural” products that do not, and should not, fall within the scope of smuggling protection and economic sabotage enforcement under RA 10845.
Including them in an amended law would simply dilute the law’s intent.
Second, the government is already engaged in a tooth-and-nail fight against smuggling of core and essential agricultural products enumerated in RA 10845.
Including tobacco and cigarettes would only further strain government resources and draw important resources away from the drive against smuggling.
Third, the government’s focus, in light of the recent onion shortage and fluctuations in the price of essential food commodities, should be better and stricter enforcement of the law.
The government, through the Bureau of Customs and the Agriculture, Finance and Justice departments, among others, should go hammer and tongs after the smugglers of essential food products and test the economic sabotage provisions of RA 10845.
This will send a strong message the government is serious in combating smuggling.
It assures a wary public tired of price increases and supply disruptions that government seeks to stop corruption and that essential food items are always available and affordable.
Economic sabotage as a crime needs to be clearly defined and tested in practice.
The term is comprehensive enough to include price manipulation, smuggling, hoarding and profiteering, also large-scale illegal recruitment, infringement of internationally known trade names and trademarks, unfair trade practices and the like. In reality, however, there have been very few instances of “economic sabotage” being filed against smugglers.
This may be the right time to start filing complaints of economic sabotage against violators of the law.
If there is large-scale smuggling of tobacco, cigarettes and similar products, and government needs to address lost revenue caused by such smuggling, strict enforcement of existing laws is the solution.
The proposed changes sought by SB 1812 do not appear relevant or consistent with the purpose of RA 10845.
In short, it may be prudent to leave RA 10845 alone as tobacco is not an essential agricultural product.
Instead of tinkering with an existing law, the government should bear down hard on those engaged in economic sabotage.
(Email: [email protected])