THERE ARE far too many “ums” and “ahs” in the sugar industry — hesitations and half-answers that continue to frustrate stakeholders.
The surprise issuance of Sugar Order (SO) Nos. 2 and 3 for Crop Year 2025–2026 has dismayed planters, millers, and laborers alike. Both orders were signed by the Sugar Board on January 9 but were revealed only during a public consultation on the sugar crisis held in Talisay City on Friday, January 23.
Why the delay?
Both SOs are widely perceived as a veiled move toward sugar import liberalization — which, according to labor leader Wennie Sancho, is a “silent killer” of the sugar industry.
Under SO No. 2, for every four sacks of locally produced sugar, a trader may purchase at P2,300 per bag. However, one sack must be set aside for export at only P1,100 per bag.
SO No. 3 further complicates matters: the single exported bag will be replenished by three bags of imported sugar.
For planters, millers, and laborers, the implication is clear — sugar importation will remain the norm in the country after every milling season. In short, nothing really changes. Locally produced sugar will continue to be dehado (disadvantaged) against imported supplies. A sugar glut will again trigger another crisis.
3-TO-1 SCHEME
SO No. 8 of 2025 remains the principal cause of the current sugar crisis. That order allowed the importation of 424,000 metric tons (MT) of refined sugar into the country in mid-September last year — far beyond what planters had recommended.
Planters were stunned. They had proposed importing only 150,000 MT.
Now, both the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) appear to be in a quandary over how to dispose of the imported sugar flooding the local market — just to give way to locally produced sugar — while millgate prices continue to swing like a roller coaster, rising and falling unpredictably, further irking industry stakeholders.
Thus came SO Nos. 2 and 3, crafted around a 3-to-1 scheme — three imported bags for every one bag of sugar exported.
In effect, this means the SRA remains import-reliant in maintaining the country’s sugar supply.
Although DA Secretary Francisco Laurel Tiu Jr. has issued a standing order barring sugar importation until December this year, stakeholders — especially labor groups — remain unconvinced. They insist that the 3-to-1 scheme is “deceitful” in substance, if not in form.
‘DIALOGUE DE SOURDS’
Listening to former Negros Occidental governor and former SRA administrator Lito Coscolluela, one can safely conclude that what prevails in the sugar industry today is a classic dialogue de sourds — a dialogue of the deaf.
As the former governor pointed out, the core problem of the SRA is communication.
The SRA failed to meaningfully engage stakeholders in discussions on industry plans. As a result, transparency has become a point of contention among sugar leaders.
For Coscolluela, the solution is simple: SRA needs to remember three words — communication, participation, and transparency.
If SRA fails to master these, the sugar crisis will persist.
OUSTER CALL
Then came the drastic — and some would say savage — appeal of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) turned small planters to both the DA and the SRA: oust the sitting planters’ representative on the SRA Board.
Small planters argue that amid the crisis, their representative has been conspicuously unseen and unheard.
In fairness, I sent a message to Dave Sanson, a native of Victorias City, to get his reaction to the call for his ouster. As of posting time, he has yet to respond.
Roland de la Cruz, president of the National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines – Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (NACUSIP-TUCP), said the call for ouster is valid. According to him, the sector needs a representative at the SRA Board who genuinely has a heart for small planters.
SMALL BUT ‘BIG PLANTERS’
De la Cruz stressed that ARBs or small planters are now the new “big planters” of the industry.
The era of sugar barons dominating the 1960s, ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s is long gone.
With the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), around 80,000 ARBs nationwide are now small sugar planters. By rough estimate, 80 percent of sugar production in Negros today comes from ARBs.
Statistically, Negros supplies about 65 percent of the country’s sugar needs.
This reality prompted Negros Occidental 5th District congressman Dino Yulo — a planter himself and former SRA executive — to support the proposal allowing ARBs to have representation on the SRA Board.
“It’s about giving voice to those who were once voiceless,” the solon said.
FRIENDLY APPEAL
Negros Occidental 4th District congressman Jeffrey Ferrer, meanwhile, issued a friendly but pointed appeal to both the DA and the SRA: find solutions to the sugar crisis.
Ferrer noted that when President Bongbong Marcos assumed office in 2022, millgate prices hovered at P3,800 per bag.
Today, prices have plunged to as low as P2,000 to P2,200 per bag — clear proof, he said, that the industry is in crisis.
No one can cure this problem except the DA and the SRA, Ferrer stressed — simple as that.
COMMUNICATION DEADLOCK
After interviewing key figures in the sugar sector, one conclusion stands out: the heart of the problem is a communication deadlock.
Except for traders, planters, millers, and labor groups are now largely united in saying that the SRA Board has failed to cascade information down to the grassroots level of the industry.
In a communication deadlock, parties talk past each other — airing positions without listening to or acknowledging opposing, yet valid, arguments.
This is evident in the cases of SO No. 8-25, SO No. 2-26, and SO No. 3-26. These orders took effect without the prior knowledge of stakeholders, inevitably triggering protest.
The lingering questions are:
* Why is the SRA afraid to communicate openly with industry stakeholders?
* Who really dictates policy within the SRA?
Communication, participation, and transparency are not complicated concepts. They are simple principles that can — and should — be institutionalized.
What prevents the SRA from doing so?
Something is clearly wrong.
One can only hope that this communication problem within the SRA will be corrected soon — for the sake of an industry that once shone brightest.
For now, however, the many “ums” and “ahs” haunting the sugar industry are anything but a healthy sign./PN
