Friday, April 11, 2008 Roperos: Seized rice stocks By Godofredo M. Roperos Politics Also
THE controversy over the raid of a warehouse that held some 30,000 bags of imported rice is wearing down the public’s patience. While the retail price of rice has been steadily rising, government’s law enforcers and known rice dealers are unduly fuelling the imbroglio on the issue of legality of the raid.
Consumers are hankering for the release of the rice, perchance the increased supply would bring rice prices down a little bit. .What we are seeing instead is a continuing tug-of-war about the legality of the raid.
At face value, the raid was an act of public service done in the best interest of the rice consumers. The problem is that after the raid and after media reports made heroes of the raiders, owners of the rice stocks came out to say the raid was made out of turn, and that the rice was legally imported and covered with documents.
That is the primary issue. The other issue is the legality of the warehouse’s operation. Did it have a license to serve clients? The owners claim it has.
Hence, what appears an open and shut case for law enforcers is instead being clouded with doubt and uncertainty. Subsequent reports that said there was no license issued for the warehouse to operate turned out wrong.
Two warehouses were raided. The first one was empty. Another request for warrant sought to include Warehouse 52. But Warehouse 52 was the one that was certified to as having a license, thus making the raid on it illegal and implied that the rice stocks were legitimately stored.
What seems to be the problem is the inability of the National Food Authority (NFA) to put its act together. It appears that the three certificates issued by the NFA regional and provincial offices did not show coordination of operation. It even casts a measure of suspicion on the officials that have jurisdiction over the case.
However, even if the outcome of the muddled issue will eventually resolve itself, the fact remains that the stocks in question were unduly detained when it could have been sold sooner to the public.
On the other hand, what the controversy exposed is the fact that the adversarial stance between law enforcers and the business sector had worked for the public interest. It showed the kinks in the legal process that law enforcers should adhere to when conducting law enforcement.
What enforcers should primarily consider is protection of the citizens’ legitimate rights, the people they are sworn to serve.
