THE Philippine Ports Authority or PPA, a government-owned and -controlled corporation with special charter under Presidential Decree 857, now appears to be the perpetrator of a grave injustice being committed against port stakeholders.
The alleged injustice stems from the PPA’s misinterpretation of its own rules under PPA Memorandum Circulars (MC) 12 and 13-2014, which respectively led to the wrongful imposition of mutimillion-peso penalty charges on port stakeholders.
This practice and its attendant inflationary effect on the Philippine economy has been going on for almost five years now, and the Duterte administration needs to intervene to correct this. For instance, sometime in 2014, the PPA crafted and enforced MC 12-2014, which penalizes overstaying foreign inbound containers loaded with imported cargoes that are left unclaimed at the ports despite the grant by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) of withdrawal permits.
For containers deemed as overstaying foreign inbound, the PPA imposes a storage penalty per day in the following amounts depending on the size of the container: P5,000 for a 20-footer; P8,750 for a 35-footer; P10,000 for a 40-footer; and P11,250 for a 45-foot container.
The rationale for the imposition of the storage fees by the PPA is to help decongest the ports of Manila and to penalize some unscrupulous port stakeholders who deliberately fail to claim their containerized cargoes despite having obtained all clearances for container pull out, making the port area as their virtual cargo storage.
However, the PPA did not specify in PPA12-2014 when shall a foreign container be classified as overstaying.
To resolve this, the PPA issued MC 13-2014 in October 2014, which gave a categorical criterion to classify overstaying foreign inbound containers. Based on a copy of PPA MC 13-2014 provided to port stakeholders, a container shall be classified as an overstaying foreign inbound container if the following conditions are all present:
1. The vessel carrying the foreign inbound containers actually berth;
2. The foreign inbound containers have been discharged at the port;
3. Said foreign inbound containers that have been discharged at the port are given five days which shall commence after the day that the last item of cargo is discharged from the carrying vessel; and
4. Foreign inbound containers stay at the port despite the BOC’s issuance of clearance and gate passes for withdrawal after payment of duties and taxes.
Unfortunately, despite the clear provisions of PPA MC 13-2014 as to when a container is classified as overstaying foreign inbound container, the PPA continues to arbitrarily impose storage fees. This has been the complaint of port stakeholders against the PPA, which, for unknown reasons, the PPA continuously ignores.
Based on information relayed to this writer by affected port stakeholders, the practice is that, once their containers pass through the online release system (OLRS) even though they have yet to secure gate passes or legal permits for withdrawal from the BOC, their containers are automatically classified as overstaying foreign inbound containers after the lapse of 10 days and subject to penal storage rates.
For the longest time, this has been the problem of port stakeholders. During the time of former BOC Commissioner Isidro Lapena, the BOC was allegedly issuing highly questionable alert orders. If a shipment is subjected to an alert order by the BOC, it is physically and legally impossible for an importer or broker to secure a gatepass or permit for withdrawal of the shipment unless and until the alert order is lifted.
Unfortunately, most of these alerted shipments have already paid import duties prior to the issuance of alert orders; thus, OLRS is automatically triggered. Most of these alerted shipments have already passed through OLRS but without gatepasses. As a result, port stakeholders needlessly suffer from this malpractice perpetrated by the PPA in automatically classifying their containers as overstaying foreign inbound containers even though the cause for non-withdrawal is the BOC’s alert order.
In trying to remedy the situation, as early as February, an association of port stakeholders—the Aduana Business Club Inc (ABCI)—wrote a letter to PPA General Manager Jay Daniel Santiago praying for an immediate suspension of the automatic imposition of storage fees on alerted shipments.
In the letter, ABCI said the automatic imposition of storage penalty on shipments under alert order is unfair, illegal and highly irregular for no matter how eager and willing a consignee, broker or trucker is claiming his shipment, it is legally and physically impossible for him to do it because the BOC will not issue a clearance or permit (i.e., favorable endorsement, gate pass, etc.) for its release unless and until said alert order is resolved in favor of the concerned consignee, broker or trucker.
PPA, however, ignored the ABCI request and continued imposing storage fees on alerted shipments. Port stakeholders said PPA cannot classify their containers as overstaying. According to them, PPA MC 13-2014 clearly provides that apart from the other conditions, it is a must that foreign inbound containers stay at the port despite BOC’s issuance of clearance and gate passes for withdrawal after payment of duties and taxes. But how can a clearance or gate pass be secured if a shipment has an alert order from the BOC?
PPA’s distorted interpretation of the provisions of PPA 13-2014 has been causing grave injustice to port stakeholders. They are now pinning their hopes on President Duterte’s resolve to root out abuses and corruption in government, hoping that concerned government agencies will look into this matter and investigate the PPA.
To reach the writer, e-mail cecilio.arillo@gmail.com.