I WRITE in response to your (Dr. Fermin Adriano) article, “State-sponsored cartels,” published in The Manila Times issue of April 24, 2026. At the outset let me be clear that there is no such thing as “state-sponsored cartels.” As you rightly acknowledged, Planter Product Inc. (PPI) is not a government-owned and -controlled corporation. This fact has been affirmed since 1989 by the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission and even by the Supreme Court.

Thus, any importation PPI undertakes could not be within the ambit of “government-to-government” arrangement.

Are you not aware that rice importation is liberalized under Republic Act 11203? Hence, if the requirements on food safety are followed, there is no prohibition in importing rice by any person, natural or juridical.

Therein lies the problem.

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, the rice import quadrupled after the implementation of the Rice Tariffication Law in 2019 from 1.7 million metric tons up to 4.77 million metric tons in 2024.

Liberal importation of better eating quality rice at a much lower cost from foreign countries has caused the slow death of our farmers and rice processors. This should have been obvious to you during your time as undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture (DA).

I also take note that your article is full of supposition, surmises and even hearsay, masquerading as truths. First, I could not comment on an article about political infighting in an Indian state, half-way across the world, more so that it is only based on internet articles. I hope you could be more discerning of your sources. Second, I ask your basis on your allegation that PPI sold directly to the National Food Authority? Is this again based on dubious sources? You could have easily verified this with the National Food Authority (NFA) in writing.

NFA would have answered you that you are only imagining things. There is no such transaction made between the NFA and PPI.

Your misleading article is purely speculative, meant only to discredit the NFA. You are accusing the men and women of the NFA of a crime based on hypothetical scenarios. This is a disservice to the hardworking personnel of the NFA.

I am also appalled that you are blaming me for the sugar fiasco that happened even before my term as Secretary of Agriculture. Are you not aware that I was only appointed in November 2023, while the sugar importation issue happened early that year. I was still a private citizen when all that was happening. Can you please get your facts straight?

If you are really interested to know, we fixed the sugar importation issue immediately as soon as I stepped in as secretary by issuing Sugar Order 2, Series of 2023–2024.

Under this program, the current importation allocation of sugar is based on the volume of raw sugar purchased from the local farmers. The more you purchase from local farmers, the more importation allocation you would get, but subject to a total maximum level. This means that you are helping the local farmers first before you are allowed to import sugar. This is a win-win situation.

I was really flabbergasted that you did not even think of this practical solution during your time as undersecretary.

What is even funny is that you, in your own words, were, “shocked to learn that even bureau heads did not exactly know when a certain crop is planted and harvested during the calendar year.”

I was also shocked that you knew the problem all along, but you still did not do anything during your stint at the DA. Half of my problem as secretary would have been solved had you fixed the data problem of the department during your time.

Now you are telling your readers that you know the solution to the problem. Then you should have done it during your administration.

For you and your readers’ benefit, we have already established a data command center. What you only imagined, my team have already accomplished.

This command center will contain all data sets from all sources within the department. We are slowly building up this data center with, yes, you guess it right, artificial intelligence. This would help us navigate and understand the voluminous data we have, and make the correct and timely decisions.

In my two-and-a-half-years’ term, we are halfway through our data solution. Halfway through is way better than none at all during your term.

On the minimum access volume (MAV) and two-tariff system, I totally agree with you. I would fight with you to push this with our economic managers. Let us petition them for your correct suggestion.

As to the allegation of favoritism in the allocation of MAV, can you please be more specific? Which company are you alluding to? What is the volume of their MAV in relation to the total MAV allocation? What commodity? Unlike you, I cannot take liberties in making general allegations without the benefit of accurate data.

In fact, I have overhauled the 30-year-old MAV rules to make it more logical, reasonable and equitable; which your administration should have done. Opening up the MAV allocation to new players and removing old cartels and leveling the playing field among importers and traders.

This should translate to lower food cost to consumers as it promotes more competition.

By the way, your son is currently an undersecretary of the Department of Finance. Perhaps, it would be a good idea for you to consult him on many of what you said and maybe he can explain to you some of the things we do and the rationale behind our decisions.

Mr. Adriano, we at the DA have an open mind, and we are willing to listen. I welcome criticism against our actions and policy, but this criticism should be responsible and based on facts; verifiable and unimpeachable facts. Less than that criteria are malicious with no good intent other than being seen by the whole DA family as self-serving, know it all.

Should you need to verify your data, you are welcome to discuss with us. Your former colleagues in the DA and the NFA, which you maligned in your article, are ready to sit down and discuss the correct facts.

Let me end my letter response by saying you are correct. The agriculture sector is a sad story. This is no less because of the lack of investment, policy reform, concrete and decisive actions taken during your term. It is a sad story, a mess, which it now falls on us to untangle.

Yet, we at the DA are hopeful, and we are working tirelessly to bring our agricultural sector as a main driver of our economic growth. Please be part of that hope.

Francisco P. Tiu Laurel Jr.

Secretary Department of Agriculture