What's the deal with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources' (BFAR) crackdown on the sale of imported fish in the local market?

Cavite 4th district Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr., chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, wants to know.

As such, Barzaga filed House Resolution (HR) No.600, which calls for an investigation on the matter "to determine if there is a violation of the Constitution, discrimination against local fish vendors and if the present regulations only encourage smuggling, graft and corruption that does not protect the general public, the environment, and promote the general welfare".

He said there is a need to probe the ongoing crackdown to find out if the BFAR is correct in claiming that the move was based on laws and regulations such as The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8550), Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) 195, Fisheries Memorandum Order (FMO) No. 001, FAO 259, and Certificate of Necessity to Import.

Among the fish being targeted by the crackdown are pampano and pink salmon.

The veteran lawmaker said the measure would ascertain "whether BFAR’s administrative orders and memorandum order are evidence-based" and if its implementation is in order.

BFAR is claiming that the sale of imported pampano and pink salmon in wet markets is prohibited under FAO 195, as these are only for canning, processing, and institutional buyers like hotels and restaurants.

The agency said such fish aren't included in the Certificate of Necessity to Import (CNI) issued in November. The document listed imported fish products that can be sold in wet markets.

Sec. 2 of FAO 195 states that the importation of fresh/chilled/frozen fish and fishery/aquatic products "shall be allowed when certified as necessary by the Secretary in order to achieve food security taking into consideration public welfare and safety, in consultation with the NFARMC (National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council). Provided, That the importation of fresh/chilled/frozen fish and fishery/aquatic products for canning and processing purposes including importation undertaken by institutional buyers does not require such certification."

Barzaga pointed out that in a subsequent administrative order, Fisheries Memorandum Order (FMO) No. 001, Series of 2000, institutional buyers are required to obtain an authority to import from the BFAR.

"To insure that importation for such purposes is strictly observed, the Bureau reserves the right to reject applications to import fresh/chilled/frozen fish and fishery/aquatic products which it deems contrary to the purpose stated. Specifically, importation for direct selling to the wet market is not within the scope of this guideline, and applications for such purpose, or with such intent, will not be considered until the Secretary of Agriculture issues a Certificate of Necessity to Import.

"Further, importation of fish and fishery products covered by this guideline will largely depend on the species and volume to be imported in relation to the purpose of such importation. Finally, this guideline does not preclude the Director of Fisheries from issuing further policies aimed at clarifying issues and enhancing this guideline," it said.