WE are utterly amused as there is no need, and there is no compelling urgency, to amend Republic Act 10845 or the Anti-Smuggling of Agricultural Products Act to include the smuggling of tobacco “both in its raw form or as finished products” as proposed by Senate Bill 1812.

RA 10845’s purpose is specific and clearly described in the law itself. Section 2 states that “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 core and essential agri 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”.

Tobacco, raw or processed, should not be included in the list of agricultural products contemplated in RA 10845 or the “Anti-Agricultural Smuggling Act of 2016”.

It is misplaced public policy to include tobacco, especially cigarettes and similar products, as belonging to core and essential agricultural products affecting food security.

After all, we do not eat tobacco in any of its forms. Tobacco is not a food item. Tobacco is not an essential household item. Tobacco, particularly in processed cigarette or cigar form, has in fact been strongly 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. Consumption of tobacco, cigarettes, and similar products is considered a vice, and is subject to an additional “sin” tax together with alcohol.

There are laws and regulations in place aiming to reduce tobacco and cigarette consumption among the general population, especially the youth.

Core and essential food items are subject to the interplay of supply, demand and price stability concerns. Tobacco, cigarettes, and similar products are not. The latter’s 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 give and prolong life. Tobacco, cigarettes, and similar products shorten and take life.

In short, tobacco, cigarettes, and similar products belong to a completely different set of “agricultural” products that do not, and should not, fall into the ambit of smuggling protection and economic sabotage enforcement under RA 10845.

Including them in an amended law would muddle and dilute the law’s intent.

The government’s focus, in light of the recent onion shortage and perennial fluctuations in the price of core and essential food commodities, should be better and stricter enforcement of the law.

The law is sufficient. It does not need expansion to include tobacco, a non-essential product.

The thrust of Government, through the BOC, DA, DOF, DOJ, etc. should be to go after smugglers of core and essential food products and test the economic sabotage provisions of RA 10845. ‘Sampolan,’ in the vernacular.

This will send a strong message that the Government is serious about smuggling. It assures a wary public tired of price increases and supply disruptions that Government aims to urgently combat corruption and that essential food items are always available and affordable.

“Economic sabotage” as a crime needs to be tested. 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 rare 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.

Even assuming there is smuggling of tobacco, cigarette and similar products, and Government needs to address lost revenue caused by such smuggling, enforcement of existing laws is the solution. Not amendment.

And on this point of addressing tobacco and cigarette smuggling, the local industry and their foreign partners are not complaining. The billions of pesos of apprehended cigarettes and tobacco in the last 5 years can attest to this.

So why the need to muddle and dilute the intent of an already good law, am I right, Sen. Cynthia Villar?

Moreso if the proposed changes by SB 1812 are not pertinent to and consistent with the purpose of RA 10845.