Sugar Order No. 8 signed before consultative meeting, CONFED says
By Dolly Yasa
By Dolly Yasa
BACOLOD CITY — The Confederation of Sugar Producers Associations (CONFED) has revealed that Sugar Order No. 8 (Series of 2024–2025) — which authorized the importation of refined sugar and allegedly caused mill gate prices to plunge — was signed even before the government consulted key industry stakeholders.
In a press statement Thursday, CONFED said there is proof that SO 8, allowing the importation of 424,000 metric tons (MT) of refined sugar from July 15 to Nov. 30, 2025, had already been signed nine days before a consultation meeting was held with sugar federations and other stakeholders.
The Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) issues Sugar Orders to regulate the balance between local supply and demand, with importation periodically allowed to bridge the gap between the end of the crop year in August and the start of domestic sugar refining in December.
However, industry leaders have long emphasized that importation volumes and timing must be carefully managed to avoid depressing mill gate prices — particularly at the start of the milling season in October — when sugar farmers rely most heavily on stable prices.
Negros Island, the country’s main sugar-producing region, has been particularly affected by the recent drop in raw sugar prices at the start of the 2025–2026 milling season.
According to CONFED, SRA Administrator Pablo Luis Azcona invited the Sugar Council — an alliance composed of CONFED, the National Federation of Sugarcane Planters (NFSP), and the Panay Federation of Sugarcane Farmers (PANAYFED) — to a Zoom meeting on July 7, 2025, to discuss possible importation volumes.
During the meeting, the Sugar Council proposed an initial importation of 150,000 MT in August and suggested that any additional imports should be subject to another round of consultations to maintain stable mill gate prices.
Administrator Azcona acknowledged this recommendation, saying he would bring it before Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu-Laurel Jr. and the Sugar Board.
However, CONFED said that on July 8, 2025, a day after the meeting, the SRA released SO 8, which was dated June 28, 2025 — indicating that the order was finalized and signed even before the July 7 consultation took place.
“The timeline speaks for itself,” CONFED said. “The consultation was merely held to create an impression of stakeholder involvement, when in fact, the decision had already been made.”
Section 3 of SO 8 authorizes the importation of 424,000 MT — 274,000 MT more than what the Sugar Council recommended.
Section 8 also directs that shipments should begin arriving on July 15 and continue until Nov. 30, 2025, even as the 2025–2026 milling season began on Oct. 1.
CONFED noted that while the SRA has publicly declared that there will be no further importation until next year, the statement is misleading.
“The promise of no more importation sounds good, but it is deceptive because importation has already been authorized,” CONFED said. “Too late the hero.”
Despite the controversy, CONFED said its member federations remain committed to working with the SRA to help stabilize mill gate prices and protect local producers.
Based on the SRA’s Supply and Demand Report as of Sept. 28, 2025, raw sugar inventory stood at 322,775 MT, while refined sugar inventory reached 383,799 MT.
Of the 424,000 MT of refined sugar authorized under SO 8, 197,307 MT had yet to enter the domestic market as of late September.
CONFED said the issue underscores the need for transparency, proper timing, and genuine consultation in future sugar importation policies to safeguard both farmers’ incomes and industry stability.
Comments (0)
LEAVE A REPLY
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts!
Related Articles

Pro-China attacks on PCIJ expose PHL vulnerabilities to FIMI
Comments and posts from pro-China accounts on Facebook targeting the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) have exposed the vulnerabilities in the country’s infrastructure against Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI). Since last year, the PCIJ has been discussing FIMI, largely in the context of pro-China propaganda over social media,


