Palace asks Supreme Court: Junk petition vs rice tariff cut

MANILA, Philippines — Malacañang has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the petition seeking to declare as unconstitutional Executive Order 62, which reduced the tariffs of imported rice and other agricultural products from 35 percent to 15 percent.

In a 62-page comment dated July 29, Malacañang – through the Office of the Solicitor General – said the petition, filed by several farmer and other cooperative groups, violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by going to the SC.

Malacañang said the issues raised by petitions against EO 62 are factual issues which must first be settled before the lower courts. “This Honorable Court is not a trier of facts and cannot resolve these factual issues at first instance,” it said.

The Palace also argued that petitioners cannot anchor their case on alleged violations of broad constitutional policies, nor bring before the SC the resolution of political questions.

It said the courts are mandated to settle actual issues or controversies, not to rule whether the executive branch was correct in lowering tariff duties on rice imports in the context of socioeconomic policy.

“Mere disagreement with the government’s position is not sufficient ground to bring EO 62 before this Honorable Court, let alone for this Court to strike down the same,” it said.

On the question whether tariffs will serve public interest if they benefit consumers while impacting local producers, Malacañang said this is for the legislative and executive branches of government to decide, not the judiciary.

“It is clear that petitioners’ case has no leg to stand on. Outside of the allegation regarding the lack of prior consultation, petitioners build their case on matters which are not cognizable by this Honorable Court. It is not for this Honorable Court to replace the policy judgments of the Executive with its own, especially in matters involving economic, not legal consideration,” it said.

Malacañang also said President Marcos was improperly impleaded in the petition, considering that he enjoys immunity while he sits as the country’s top official.

It also refuted the petitioners’ claim that their right to due process was violated, saying the government