When President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. ran for office, one of his boldest and most popular campaign promises was to bring down the price of rice to ₱20 per kilo. For millions of Filipinos, that pledge symbolized hope—for affordable food, for government intervention in runaway prices, and for renewed attention to the agricultural sector.
Today, that campaign vision is beginning to take shape. The government, through the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the National Food Authority (NFA), has started rolling out rice at ₱20 per kilo in selected areas, primarily for the benefit of poor families enrolled in anti-poverty programs like the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps).
But behind the celebratory headlines and viral videos lies a much deeper, more complex issue. Yes, cheap rice is good news—but only for a few. For the majority of Filipinos, the reality is that this program raises serious concerns about fairness, sustainability, and long-term food security.
1. Selective Benefit: Who Really Gains?
While the government proudly hails the ₱20/kilo rice as a win for the poor, it conveniently ignores a fundamental question: Why is this subsidy limited to a select few?
This rice is not available to all Filipinos. It is restricted mostly to 4Ps beneficiaries and recipients of similar programs. That leaves out a huge segment of the population—minimum wage earners, jeepney drivers, small entrepreneurs, informal workers, and the unemployed—many of whom also struggle daily to put food on the table.
Why are these citizens, who are not technically classified as indigent but who are far from affluent, left out? Every Filipino deserves access to affordable rice, not just those on a specific list. This targeted rollout reeks of inequality, even as it claims to be a social safety net.
2. Who Pays the Price? The Unseen Cost of Cheap Rice
The ₱20 price tag on rice may look like a blessing, but it is heavily subsidized—and the real cost is being shouldered by the Filipino taxpayers, most of whom do not get to benefit from the program.
Here’s the breakdown: The NFA buys palay (unmilled rice) from farmers at ₱19 to ₱24 per kilo. This does not include the cost of drying, milling, packaging, transport, storage, and distribution. Once you add these, the actual price of rice easily exceeds ₱30 per kilo. So, how is the government selling it for ₱20?
The answer lies in subsidies. Local Government Units (LGUs) are covering the difference—between ₱9 to ₱13 per kilo—depending on location. And where do LGUs get their money? From the Internal Revenue Allotment and other public funds—funded by taxes paid by working Filipinos.
In short, taxpayers are subsidizing the cost of rice they are not allowed to buy. It’s a double blow—they pay, but don’t benefit.
3. Fragile Supply: How Long Can This Last?
The DA claims that it currently has about 1 million sacks of rice ready to distribute under this program. That sounds like a lot—until we remember that the Philippines has nearly 120 million people.
These 1 million sacks, if distributed aggressively, will quickly run out. More importantly, these stocks are supposed to serve as buffer reserves for disasters and emergencies. Using them for a non-emergency social program risks leaving the country vulnerable when real crises hit.
And let’s not forget a painful irony: The Philippines, an agricultural country, is now the top global importer of rice, even surpassing China. If we continue to rely on imported rice while undermining local production through artificial pricing, we are only setting ourselves up for deeper dependency and food insecurity.
4. Disrupting the Market Chain: A Risky Gamble
Artificially lowering the price of rice without fixing structural problems in the supply chain may provide temporary relief, but it causes long-term harm.
- Farmers face a dilemma: if they are not paid enough or supported in production, they lose money or abandon farming altogether.
- Millers and traders may be pressured to sell at losses or be bypassed entirely.
- Taxpayers continue to bear the cost of multi-billion peso subsidies every year.
- Consumers might become dependent on unsustainable pricing—and suffer once the program collapses or gets politicized.
When you tamper with pricing but fail to address production costs, logistics, irrigation, and post-harvest systems, the result is a weakened, unbalanced supply chain. The dream of cheap rice becomes a nightmare of inefficiency and disincentivized production.
5. Cheap Is Not Always Fair
The goal of affordable rice is noble. But what about fairness and sustainability? A truly effective rice program must uphold justice at every step of the rice chain—from seed to store.
The solution is not just about low prices. It’s about ensuring that:
- Farmers are supported.
- Market players are treated fairly.
- Consumers are empowered, not manipulated.
- Public funds are used responsibly.
- Future food security is protected.
6. Long-Term Solutions: What Must Be Done
If the government truly wants to make rice affordable without compromising the system, it must look beyond short-term political gains and commit to real, structural reforms:
- Massive production support for farmers—including affordable inputs, mechanization, irrigation, and access to credit.
- Strengthened post-harvest and logistics infrastructure—to reduce losses and stabilize supply.
- Transparent and inclusive distribution systems—where all taxpayers, not just the enrolled poor, can benefit from rice subsidies.
- Smart importation policy—prioritizing local production and using imports only as a strategic buffer.
- Public accountability—with proper audits to ensure that subsidies serve the people and not corrupt intermediaries.
- Passage of the National Land Use Act—to secure and protect agricultural lands from conversion, land-grabbing, and speculative real estate. A strong land use policy ensures that the Philippines will have a stable and protected base for food production—not just rice, but vegetables, fruits, and other essential commodities.
Conclusion: A Dream Fulfilled, But Not a Dream Realized
The ₱20 rice program is a fulfillment of a campaign promise—but at what cost, and for how long? If we continue on this path without deeper reforms, we risk weakening the very foundation of our food system.
Food security is not about temporary relief. It is about sustained justice, equitable access, and national resilience.
Let us not confuse short-term victories with lasting solutions. Let us build a food system that serves everyone—not just the few, not just for now, but for generations to come.