THE Court of Appeals (CA) has thumbed down the petition filed by a group of importers seeking to compel the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) to issue permits to import onion and garlic.
In a 13-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, the CA’s Thirteenth Division affirmed the decision issued by the Regional Trial Court in Manila City Branch 10 denying the petition for mandamus filed by Philippine Federation of Food Industry Inc. (PFFII).
The BPI, through its attached agency Plant Quarantine Service (PQS), issues import permits for plant and plant products through a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) clearance.
On April 20, 2012, then-BPI Director Clarito M. Barron issued a memorandum to all importers temporarily suspending the issuance of import permits for garlic pursuant to the decision of the Department of Agriculture (DA). The DA evaluates available stocks based on plant quarantine clearance issued, as well as the price in the market.
However, the PFFII accused the BPI of being selective despite the lifting of the quantitative import restriction. The group claimed that it had submitted several applications for the issuance of SPS import clearance for garlic and onion, but these were denied by the PQS without any valid and lawful reason.
The PFFII said the BPI-PQS had been regulating the issuance of permits based on the adequacy of supply of onions and garlic in the country.
The group has asked the lifting of the prohibition against the importation of onions and other related agricultural products due to the failure of the local sector to meet the public’s demands.
Following the agency’s rejection of its request, PFFII filed a petition for mandamus before the Manila RTC and insisted that it is the duty of the BPI’s PQS to issue import permits.
PFFII claimed that the issuance of such permits by the PQS is a ministerial act that does not require the exercise of discretion when the products to be imported are clear of any infestation of plant pest.
However, the RTC in Manila ruled against the petition, prompting PFFII to elevate the matter before the CA.
In upholding the RTC in Manila ruling, the CA held that PFFII failed to present evidence to establish its clear right to be given an SPS clearance.
“As ruled by the trial court, while it alleged that it is engaged in the importation of onions in the Philippines, PFFII nevertheless failed to state that it is an accredited importer which has complied with all the requirements and procedure mandates by the agency,” the CA said.
“Without evidence of compliance with all the requirements required as an accredited importer, PFFII has no clear and unmistakable right to the import permit,” it added.
Contrary to PFFII’s claim, the CA also said the issuance of SPS import permits is part of the regulating power of BPI, and not a mere ministerial act. It also stressed that the DA, PQS and BPI’s findings of adequate supply of onions and garlic should be respected, being the specialized agencies in charge of the administration of laws governing the plant industry.
“Hence, their findings or conclusions, which in this case were based on the data collected from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, shall be accorded great respect by this Court,” the CA ruled.