SRA replies – 9

In her letter of October 14, Sugar Regulatory Administration Administrator Ma. Regina Martin said, “The sugar statistics are held vital to the formulation of sugar policies by SRA and to the business decision of stakeholders. Enshrined with utmost transparency, SRA cannot and does not manipulate sugar data, nor feed them in advance to favor a few. The compulsory disposition of unmoving sugar stocks of the previous crop years has cleaned the slate of the sugar warehouses correcting sugar data thereby. To generate the most accurate data from the onset of the crop system, the systematic crop estimation system shall be operationalized (sic) by 2016.”

Two things that this statement admits: (1) the compulsory disposition of sugar stock was necessary to correct SRA data; and (2) there is presently no operational systematic crop estimation.

This was my earlier point – the reliability of sugar data that SRA admits is important in business decisions. Indeed so important is correct data that businessmen spend a lot of time and money to secure this information.

The letter thus tells us that until now SRA still depends on crop estimation that is not systematic. After more than three-fourths of a century, the SRA has yet to develop an accurate way of estimating the possible production for the coming year’s output. In some cases the SRA personnel resort to what is known as table survey.

In the past there was the system called plantation audit and to insure that prediction data is reliable, EO 18, Sec. 3 (A) authorizes the SRA to establish “production quota which attached the land to each planter.” But has SRA established production quota attached to the land? Ask any planter if he has a quota. Also ask those who buy collected canes that fell from trucks or those stuck in bridges.

The quota attached to the land was adopted in 1934 to insure that no one produces sugar beyond what the nation and our US commitment required. All those who produce sugar, like the small muscovado producers, do so at their own risk.

This was not a problem however because the muscovado producers served a small clientele and their sugar was for native delicacies. It is only now that health conscious people have resorted to muscovado and increased its demand.

The quota system attached to the sugar farm land insures no oversupply. The production data then was highly credible and reliable. But SRA did not comply with this provision of EO 18 but relied on field surveys that depend on the honesty and integrity of their inspectors. The fact that SRA has to be adjusting its production and consumption data at times indicates the weakness of the system and opens the way for mischief in the SRA.

There are other instances when SRA’s production data were gravely erroneous and this led to supply problems and authorized importation. But that is history; what is hoped for is that this promised systematic crop estimation will be operational. By admitting that this system will still be in place by 2016, SRA raises suspicion of the accuracy of its statistics.

The issue of data manipulation has already resulted in an initiation of legal action against SRA before the Ombudsman. The first step in this action is a request for “Fact-Finding Investigation” which was filed by Steven Chan. He alleged that the “various act of the Sugar Board of the Sugar Regulatory Administration… may constitute violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.”

I remember him to be the advertiser who had been complaining against the way the SRA was implementing the classification and allocation of sugar and the “misleading” data that SRA dished out to the public. I recall commenting and using some of his data.

In a six-page petition, Chan narrated how SRA used the statistics as its bases for making decisions that resulted to financial loss to sugar producers.

This is the first case I know to have analyzed SRA data and point out that the data have led to financial loss to the producers. I have been discussing how the powers of SRA can be used and is being used to the monetary disadvantage to the planters.

Last week (Nov 18) I cited a text message of how much the sugar producers are shortchanged by the way SRA allocated sugar. The petition filed by Steven Chan takes the “bull by the horns” so to speak by asking the Ombudsman to officially determine the liability of the SRA for his financial loss.

Let’s continue tomorrow.*

back to top