G/LIC/Q/PHL/11  
 
9 May 2023  
(23-3269) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Import Licensing  Original: English  
 
 
IMPORT LICENSING SYSTEM OF PHILIPPINES  
QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO PHILIPPINES  
The following communication, dated 5 May 2023, is being circulated at the request of the delegation 
of the United States.  
 
_______________  
 
Philippines' response :  
Per information from the Philippines Bureau of Fisheries Aquatic Resources (BFAR), the importation  
of fish is categorized into the following intent of importation:  
1.  If the fish being imported is intended for cann ing and processing, and for institutional buyers,  
it is covered by Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) 195. There are no defined criteria as to  
who may import under such activity as long as the requirements set forth therein are met.  
2.  If the fish being  imported is intended for wet markets, it is covered by FAO 259. Under  
Section  5 of 259, the following are the qualified importers:  
a. Members of an organization or association from commercial fishing sector that have 
been in existence for at least three years prior to the effectivity of the FAO; and  
b. Registered fisheries associations or cooperatives that have been doing fish trading  
business and in existence for at least three years prior to the effectivity of this Order.  
On whether supermarkets, groceries, and online retailers are considered institutional buyers, per  
definition provided under FAO 195, these establishments are not to be considered as institutional 
buyers. Thus, they should not be allowed to import fish without the necessary CNI. Th e requirement 
of a CNI is provided for under Section 61 (c) of Republic Act (RA) 8550 (Fisheries Code of the 
Philippines) as amended by RA 10654.  
U.S. follow -up question(s ):  
1. What is the SPS justification for not allowing groceries and online retailers to sell imported 
fishery products?  
2. The United States thanks the Philippines for its 23 February 2023 Department Circular No. 3, 
Series of 2023, which revokes Department Circular  No. 8, Series of 2021, which removed the 
unscheduled quantitative restriction known as the Certificate of Necessity to Import (CNI) for 
fresh onions. The United States asks that the Philippines abolish the practice of requiring CNIs 
for all other applicab le products where it is still used, including fish products.  
Philippines' response : In a related development, we wish to inform the US that the Philippines may  
consider to permanently institute the validity of SPSIC for meat and poultry to 90 days. This wi ll be 
subject to public consultation with the relevant stakeholders.  
 G/LIC/Q/PHL/11  
 
- 2 - 
 
  U.S. follow -up question(s ):  
3. On 28 February, the Government of the Philippines, Department of Agriculture, Bureau notified 
the WTO SPS Committee about its new measure , Department of Agri culture Administrative 
Circular No. 6 , as WTO notification G/SPS/N/PHL/525 with no comment period. Why was the 
notification issued and entered into force more than six months prior to the WTO notification? 
Please also notify the measure to the WTO Committe e on Import Licensing.  
4. The United States thanks the Philippines for its intent to permanently extend the validity period 
for meat and poultry SPSICs to 90 days. Please  confirm if the SPSIC validity period for all 
commodities that present low risk (e.g.,  animal-origin proteins, hides/skins, fishery products, 
etc.) will also be extended?  A 12-month validity period for these products would be reasonable 
from a risk -based perspective.   
5. What is the risk -based perspective for not extending validity periods on all  commodities for a 
full year?   
6. Please  confirm if the Philippines allow s multiple shipments per SPSIC issued for extended 
validity periods . Allowing multiple shipments for each SPSIC does not compromise risks to 
public or animal health.   
7. The United States also does not understand the risk -based criteria currently used to determine 
that SPSICs for  frozen fish products  should  have a shorter validity period than meat products.  
Please  confirm how risk -based criteria was used to determine these SPSIC vali dity periods . 
Philippines' response : The limitation on the validity period of SPSICs is based on risk involved. 
High-risk commodities, such as those categorized as level 3 and 4 under [International Standards 
for Phytosanitary Measures] ISPM 32, are impose d with shorter duration validity period.  
U.S. follow -up question(s ):  
8. ISPM-32 (Categorization of Commodities According to their Pest Risk) is an international 
standard for plants and plant products . What is the basis and criteria for determining levels of 
risk and SPSIC validity periods for non -plant products such as fish, eggs, dairy products, 
animal feeds and feed ingredients, live animals, live poultry, meat and poultry products, 
livestock genetics, etc.?  
9. Regarding SPSIC validity periods for plants and p lant products, we note in your response that 
ISPM-32 guidelines are used to establish validity periods.  Therefore, please  provide the 
standard SPSIC validity period used by BPI for products categorized in accordance with 
ISPM-32 in levels 1, 2, 3, & 4 . 
__________