President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. faces a question that should not require another Cabinet meeting: How long can a government claim to defend Filipino farmers while allowing imported agricultural products to compete with them during harvest season?

The question is no longer merely about rice. It concerns the direction of Philippine agricultural policy under Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr., whose continued reliance on importation deserves serious scrutiny at a time when the country can scarcely afford the economic consequences of a weakening peso.

Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Food and Agrarian Reform, has identified a particularly troubling pattern: agricultural imports entering the country when Filipino farmers are harvesting their crops, precisely when additional supply can depress the prices they receive.

In an October 27 statement, Pangilinan questioned whether the repeated timing of these shipments reflected more than administrative incompetence. He cited rice and onion imports arriving despite policies intended to protect local producers during harvest periods (Pangilinan 2026)

His concerns go to the heart of the Agriculture Department’s responsibility.

A government cannot claim to champion food security while pursuing policies that may undermine the economic security of the people who produce its food.

And a president cannot indefinitely escape responsibility for the policies of his own agriculture secretary.

A collapsing peso makes the importation habit more expensive

Consider the country’s deteriorating economic circumstances.

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, headline inflation accelerated to 7.2 percent in September 2026, compared with 6.1 percent in August. Food inflation reached 6.8 percent, while rice prices increased 20.3 percent year over year (PSA 2026)

The peso closed at approximately ₱64.17 against the US dollar on October 27, a record low according to contemporaneous market reporting (Media Meter 2026).

For an import-dependent economy, currency depreciation carries a straightforward consequence: goods priced in dollars become more expensive in pesos, all else equal.

Consider an agricultural shipment costing $1 million. At ₱55 to the dollar, the foreign-currency purchase costs ₱55 million. At ₱64.17, the same shipment costs ₱64.17 million—an additional ₱9.17 million before freight, insurance, tariffs, financing, and domestic distribution.

This does not mean every imported commodity will necessarily become more expensive. Changes in world prices and other costs can offset currency movements. But the exchange rate unquestionably matters.

And the more dependent the Philippines becomes on imported food, the more exposed its domestic food system becomes to international prices and currency fluctuations.

The administration must explain why its agricultural policy remains so heavily reliant on this exposure instead of building a stronger domestic production base.

Pangilinan has identified the contradiction

The most damaging criticism of Tiu Laurel’s importation policy is not that the Philippines imports food. Most countries do.

It is that the timing and management of imports can undermine the very farmers the Agriculture Department is supposed to protect.

Pangilinan has raised concerns about imported rice entering during the local harvest season, when farmers are already under pressure to sell their produce.

He has also called for an investigation into two intercepted shipments of Vietnamese rice with a reported combined value of approximately ₱700 million. The shipments were linked to vessels apprehended at Davao and Limay, Bataan, over customs and documentation concerns (Pangilinan 2026).

These are allegations and matters for investigation, not established findings of criminal wrongdoing by the agriculture secretary.

But they raise a legitimate public-policy question: Why does the country repeatedly confront disputes over imported agricultural products at the very moment its domestic producers need functioning markets?

The Agriculture Department’s own statements expose the tension.

On October 5, Tiu Laurel said there was no immediate reason to restrict rice importation, even as he appealed to private importers to voluntarily reduce shipments during the harvest season (Presidential Communications Office 2026).

Voluntary restraint may be administratively convenient. But convenience is not a substitute for a coherent agricultural policy.

If the government recognizes that harvest-season imports can hurt farmers, why should their protection depend primarily on the goodwill of importers?

And if imports are necessary to protect consumers from shortages, why are decisions not accompanied by sufficiently transparent assessments of domestic production, inventories, anticipated demand and their effects on farmgate prices?

These questions deserve clear answers from the department responsible for the country’s food supply.

When farmers lose, and consumers pay more, who benefits? You guessed it–China!

The contradiction becomes even more apparent in the pork market.

During Senate budget deliberations, lawmakers questioned why pork remained expensive at retail even as farmgate prices fell and imported supplies entered the market.

Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri cited farmgate prices of approximately ₱90 to ₱100 per kilogram, compared with retail prices of ₱350 to ₱380. Pangilinan, meanwhile, referred to estimated daily losses of ₱350 million in the domestic hog industry (Abante 2026).

These figures raise a question that deserves national attention.

If importation is intended to improve supply and moderate prices, why do farmers sometimes receive so little while consumers continue paying so much?

The answer may lie partly in distribution costs, disease-related disruptions, market concentration, weak enforcement or excessive intermediary margins. It cannot be established simply by looking at the difference between farmgate and retail prices.

But the government has a responsibility to find out.

Importation is not inherently bad economic policy. When domestic supply is genuinely insufficient, properly managed imports can prevent shortages and restrain prices.

The problem is treating importation as a substitute for agricultural development.

The Philippines needs investments in irrigation, storage, cold-chain facilities, farm-to-market logistics, mechanization, and domestic food processing. These investments require years of consistent policy and credible implementation.

Imported food can fill immediate supply gaps. It cannot, by itself, create a productive and resilient agricultural economy.

The conflict-of-interest question cannot be ignored

The controversy surrounding the intercepted Vietnamese rice shipment has raised another issue: public confidence in the independence of the Agriculture Department’s enforcement decisions.

On October 20, the Federation of Free Farmers called for Tiu Laurel to take temporary leave while the shipment was investigated.

Its chairman, Leonardo Montemayor, cited a potential conflict of interest arising from Tiu Laurel’s chairmanship of Planters Foundation, which reportedly owns 79 percent of Planters Products Inc., the importer involved in the disputed shipment (News5 2026).

Tiu Laurel has denied suggestions of wrongdoing. According to the Agriculture Department, he directed the cancellation of the shipment’s import clearance before the vessel reached the Philippines after the importer reported discrepancies in the rice specifications. The department maintains that its intervention prevented the problematic shipment from entering the domestic market (Department of Agriculture 2026b).

That explanation must be considered fairly.

But it does not eliminate the need for an independent investigation into the relationships, decisions, and procedures surrounding the shipment.

A Cabinet secretary should not have to be found criminally liable before legitimate questions about institutional independence become relevant to his continued service.

The issue is not whether Tiu Laurel has already been proven guilty. He has not.

The issue is whether the department can maintain public confidence while serious questions about import controls and potential conflicts of interest remain unresolved.

The administration’s defense is no longer enough

Tiu Laurel argues that imports remain necessary to stabilize food supplies amid weather-related disruptions, rising transport costs and the threat of a severe El Niño.

The Agriculture Department has announced a ₱45 billion response program, with ₱6.2 billion reportedly released as of early October. It also maintains that food supply interventions are being accompanied by support for farmers and fisherfolk (Department of Agriculture 2026a).

These are legitimate considerations. Climate disruptions can reduce production, and restricting imports without adequate domestic supplies could make food even less affordable.

But acknowledging those risks does not excuse an agricultural policy that appears perpetually dependent on emergency intervention.

The central question is whether the government has a credible, measurable program to reduce avoidable import dependence while maintaining affordable food prices.

How much domestic production capacity has been added? How much postharvest waste has been reduced? Have farmers’ real incomes improved? Are consumers receiving the price benefits that importation is supposed to deliver?

Those are the measures by which the Agriculture Department should be judged.

And they are questions Marcos himself must answer.

Marcos must decide whether Tiu Laurel should remain

The president appointed Tiu Laurel to lead an agency whose responsibilities extend far beyond keeping imported food flowing into Philippine ports.

Its mandate includes strengthening domestic agriculture, protecting food security, improving farmer livelihoods and maintaining fair market conditions.

Pangilinan’s warnings have exposed serious questions about the department’s handling of harvest-season importation. The inflation figures demonstrate the scale of the country’s food-price problem. The peso’s depreciation adds another layer of vulnerability. And the disputed rice shipment has introduced legitimate concerns about institutional independence.

None of these developments alone proves that Tiu Laurel caused the country’s inflation crisis or engaged in wrongdoing.

But taken together, they provide substantial grounds for a presidential review of his performance and continued tenure.

Marcos should dismiss Tiu Laurel from the Cabinet.

Not because importation should be abolished. Not because every allegation against the secretary has been established. And certainly not because removing one official will miraculously lower rice prices.

He should do so because the administration needs a clear change in agricultural policy and accountability for its implementation.

The next agriculture secretary should be expected to publish transparent commodity-level import schedules, disclose supply-and-demand assessments, enforce safeguards during harvest periods, strengthen domestic production and demonstrate that consumers actually benefit from supply interventions.

An independent investigation of the disputed shipments must proceed regardless of any Cabinet change.

There is a larger lesson here for the Marcos administration.

Food security is not simply the ability to purchase food from abroad. It is the capacity to maintain affordable supplies while sustaining the farmers, fishers and agricultural enterprises on which the country depends.

An agricultural system that makes farmers vulnerable to import competition while leaving consumers exposed to inflation and currency depreciation is not secure merely because imported food remains available.

Pangilinan has raised the right questions. The president must now provide the answers.

The Philippines cannot import its way out of every agricultural crisis. And Marcos cannot build a credible food-security policy without holding his agriculture leadership accountable.

References:

Abante. 2026. “Kiko, Tiu Laurel Dinikdik sa Baboy Tongpats.” October 21. Article.

Department of Agriculture. 2026a. “DA Moves to Curb Food Prices after September Surge.” October 6. Official statement.

Department of Agriculture. 2026b. “DA Ordered BPI to Cancel Permit for Controversial Rice Import.” October 14. Official statement.

Media Meter. 2026. “Peso Hits Record ₱64.17 as Rice Import Timing Probed.” October 28. Market report.

News5. 2026. “Farm Group Wants DA Chief to Step Back amid Smuggled Rice Probe.” October 20. News report.

Pangilinan, Francis. 2026. “Kiko Sees Possible Modus Operandi in Timing of Agri Imports during Harvest Season.” October 27. Senator’s statement.

Philippine Statistics Authority. 2026. “Summary Inflation Report Consumer Price Index (2018=100): September 2026.” October 6. Official inflation statistics.

Presidential Communications Office. 2026. “DA Urges Rice Importers to Ease Imports during Harvest Season.” October 5. Official statement.