Our Farmers Deserve Better: The Hard Truth About Philippine Agriculture

As a boxer, I learned that you can't win a fight if you're always on the defensive. The same goes for our country's agriculture. Under President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr., our farmers have been taking hits from all sides: corruption, debt, and a system that seems to work against them. The numbers don't lie: an estimated ₱8.8 trillion lost to corruption between 2016 and 2025. That's money that could have built schools, funded hospitals, and protected our farmers from the whims of traders and import shocks.

Our national debt has ballooned from ₱12.79 trillion in 2022 to ₱18.55 trillion by May 2026. That's a heavy burden that crowds out resources for agriculture, irrigation, and food security programs. While the agriculture budget has gone up in name, the real support per farmer has actually gone down. Our farmers receive less than half the support given to their counterparts in Vietnam and Thailand. That's not just unfair; it's a national security risk.

The Import Trap

We've become the world's largest rice importer again in 2024. That's not something to be proud of. Rice imports hit 4.8 million metric tons, and projections show we might need 6 million metric tons because of El Niño and global disruptions. Our rice self-sufficiency ratio has fallen from 116% in 1960 to 91% in 2025. We're producing less and importing more.

The Rice Tariffication Law of 2019 removed protections for our farmers without giving them the safety nets they needed. While imports kept consumer prices stable for a while, they weakened farmer morale and strengthened the middlemen who control our food supply. The peso's depreciation from ₱2 to the dollar in 1960 to ₱61.50 in 2026 has made everything more expensive. Our food import bill now sits at an estimated ₱2 trillion to ₱2.2 trillion, or 31% of our national food economy.

This dependence leaves us vulnerable. An estimated 5 million to 6 million Filipinos have been displaced or underemployed because of import substitution. That's not just an economic problem; it's a human tragedy.

Climate Shocks and Governance Failures

A looming super El Niño in 2026 threatens to cut rice yields by as much as 30%. That could force us to import even more rice. But instead of a credible adaptation strategy, the administration has relied on reactive importation. That approach is becoming untenable as even rice-exporting countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and India face droughts of their own.

Governance failures are everywhere. Technical and physical smuggling destabilize our onion, garlic, and sugar markets. Ghost projects in the Department of Public Works and Highways divert funds that could have been used for irrigation and postharvest facilities. The transfer of ₱60 billion from PhilHealth, despite Supreme Court rulings, shows a lack of fiscal discipline that hurts our farmers.

The National Food Authority's minimum buying price of ₱21 per kilogram of palay is a joke. The agency lacks the budget to purchase even 25% of harvests. Farmers are left at the mercy of traders. President Marcos's pledges to plant 15 million coconut trees and amend the Coconut Farmers and Industry Trust Fund Act remain unfulfilled. Our farmers are losing hope.

What We Can Learn from India

India's Minimum Support Price (MSP) system offers a way out. India guarantees farmers a fixed price for rice and more than 20 other crops. The government procures 25% to 30% of annual rice production, ensuring farmers have a reliable buyer even when market prices collapse. The procured crops feed into a public distribution system that maintains buffer stocks and distributes rice at subsidized prices.

The proposed Philippine MSP Act of 2026 aims to adopt this model with local adaptations. It would guarantee floor prices for rice and at least 20 other strategic crops, establish government procurement, build buffer stocks, and provide explicit budgetary allocations. This could stabilize farmer incomes, reduce import dependence, and strengthen food security.

But implementing an MSP system in the Philippines won't be easy. Debt service consumes a large share of our budget. Corruption and inefficiencies in procurement agencies could undermine the system. Climate disruptions could threaten production stability. Changing diets would require MSP coverage to extend beyond rice to feed grains and other staples.

Despite these challenges, an MSP system could help reduce import dependence, stabilize the peso, protect farmers, and improve health outcomes. It could also strengthen buffer stocks, integrate climate-resilient production strategies, and give agricultural cooperatives a larger role in procurement. Cooperative empowerment is key because middleman-dominated value chains have long weakened farmers' bargaining power.

Food Nationalism: A Cultural Path Forward

Food nationalism means growing, eating, and protecting locally produced food. It encourages consumers to choose pinakbet, dinengdeng, inabraw, and ginataang lubi-lubi over fast food. Such choices can reinforce our cultural identity while supporting rural livelihoods.

By incorporating dietary reform, cooperative empowerment, and local consumption into national policy, food nationalism could provide a cultural and economic path toward greater resilience. It's about taking pride in what we grow and eat.

The Road Ahead

President Marcos's State of the Nation Address must confront our reliance on food imports, the lack of a credible climate adaptation strategy, and governance failures that have left food security precarious. The address offers an opportunity to change direction by committing to structural reform, fiscal discipline, and farmer-centered governance.

Food security is not merely an economic concern. It is a matter of national security. Decades of trade liberalization, currency depreciation, and climate shocks have entrenched food import dependence, displaced agricultural workers, and exposed households to external volatility.

We must rebalance our agricultural policy by institutionalizing marketing support alongside production assistance. The proposed MSP Act of 2026 offers a possible path to stabilize farmer incomes, reduce import dependence, and strengthen food security. By integrating procurement, buffer stocks, and distribution, the government could bridge the gap between production and marketing and build a food system that serves both farmers and consumers.

The Marcos administration stands at a crossroads. The debt-and-corruption trap has narrowed fiscal space, import dependence has increased our vulnerability, and climate shocks threaten production. By adopting an MSP system, promoting dietary diversification, strengthening cooperatives, and supporting locally produced food, we can begin building a more resilient agricultural sector.

Without urgent reforms, we will remain trapped in recurring food import crises, widening inequality, and persistent governance failures. With meaningful reform, we can strengthen food sovereignty and secure a future in which farmers and consumers can thrive. Our farmers deserve better. It's time to fight for them.