Concerned that the Philippines may have made additional commitments to the U.S. that could disadvantage local agriculture, the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) has urged the government to fully disclose the results of its recent negotiations on reciprocal tariffs. The group cited conflicting statements and ongoing speculation about what transpired during the talks.
FFW noted that a social media post following his meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. last July 22, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump stated: “the Philippines is going OPEN MARKET with the United States, and ZERO Tariffs. The Philippines will pay a 19% Tariff.”
In a subsequent press briefing, President Marcos implied that the zero-tariff rate would be applied only to selected imports from the US, such as automobiles, pharmaceuticals, soya and wheat. This was later affirmed by Secretary Frederick Go, Special Assistant to the President for Investment and Economic Affairs, who categorically stated that sensitive agricultural commodities like corn, pork, poultry, fish, sugar and rice would not be subjected to reduced protection.
“Unfortunately, these claims by our government officials have not been corroborated by the US government, which may later on insist on a wider range of affected products or a blanket application on all products, as what reportedly was imposed on Indonesia and Vietnam,” said Raul Montemayor, FFF national manager.
Montemayor suspects that “additional commitments may have been granted by the Philippines to the US, such as loosening import quarantine regulations, increasing minimum access volumes, and maintaining the low tariffs on rice, pork, corn and other commodities, which were reduced through Executive Order No. 62 in 2024 and previous issuances.”
The FFF official called for a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the concessions, once these have been clarified and confirmed. In particular, it warned against the impact of duty-free imports of US agricultural commodities that may not be produced in the Philippines but are direct substitutes of local products. These include soya, feed wheat and barley which can displace corn and copra meal, and high fructose corn syrup which is a substitute for domestic cane sugar.
Montemayor said further that the reduction in tariffs on Philippine exports to the US from 20 percent to 19 percent “was not only disproportionate to our zero-tariff concession, but also harmful to our export trade prospects”.
“Moreover, even if this 19 percent tariff is equal to or even lower than the tariffs imposed on countries like Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, we will still lose out to them in terms of quality, consistency of supply, and overall competitiveness.”, he said.
The FFF reported that some US importers of Philippine coconut products were demanding that local exporters reduce their selling price to compensate for the higher tariffs. The farmers group warned that the country may lose its market share if it does not accede to these demands, or if competitors offer better deals to displace Philippine exports.
The FFF expressed concern that tariff collections that may be earmarked by law for the corn, dairy, livestock and poultry sectors may drop severely if imports from the US are assessed zero tariffs.
“The USD60 million (Php 3 billion) funding assistance for economic and maritime security that the US gave us as a sweetener to the trade deal is minimal, compared to our foregone custom revenues and losses that Philippine exporters may incur due to the 19 percent US tariff,” said Montemayor.
