Republic Act No. 3018

Also known as: The Rice and Corn Industry Act — the Supreme Court's styling in Purina Philippines, Inc. v. Flores ([LawPhil — Purina](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/sep2015/gr_180323_2015.html "Purina Philippines, Inc. v. Flores, G.R. No. 180323 (September 16, 2015) — The LawPhil Project")) · An Act Limiting the Right to Engage in the Rice and Corn Industry to Citizens of the Philippines, and for Other Purposes — the long title · The rice and corn nationalization act — the descriptive styling · RA 3018

Government

Definition

Republic Act No. 3018, long-titled “AN ACT LIMITING THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN THE RICE AND CORN INDUSTRY TO CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” was approved August 2, 1960 and, by its Section 11, “shall take effect on January 1, 1961.” (LawPhil — RA 3018) It is the nationalization act for the Philippine staple economy. Its operative command is the first sentence of Section 1, quoted verbatim: “No person who is not a citizen of the Philippines, or association, partnership or corporation, the capital or capital stock of which is not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, shall directly or indirectly engage in the rice and/or corn industry except as provided in Section three of this Act.” The same section defines the reserved industry to “mean and include the culture, milling, warehousing, transporting, exportation, importation, handling the distribution, either in wholesale or retail… or the acquisition for the purpose of trade of rice (husked or unhusked) or corn and the by-products thereof,” with licensed public utilities alone allowed to carry the grains. (LawPhil — RA 3018) The Supreme Court has called the statute simply “the Rice and Corn Industry Act.” (LawPhil — Purina)

The Act is best read as four machines in one. Sections 2 and 3 run the exit: alien persons and non-Filipino firms already in the industry had sixty days to file verified statements with their city or municipal treasurer, and could then continue “only for the purpose of liquidation” — two years for trade, distribution, and culture; three years for milling and warehousing — with capital pegged to declared levels, licenses forfeited for violations of economic and tax laws, and no new alien license issuable “after the date of approval of this Act.” (LawPhil — RA 3018) Section 4 finances the entry, requiring the Development Bank of the Philippines and the Philippine National Bank each to set aside revolving loan funds of at least fifty million pesos at six to seven percent for Filipinos entering the industry, with FaCoMa and cooperative priority; Section 5 creates the Rice and Corn Board to “administer the provisions of this Act” — the agency this wiki’s Rice and Corn Board entry treats separately — and Sections 6 through 9 supply the rules (published and translated “into the dialects spoken in the different regions”), the penalties, a treaty carve-out for United States rights, and a five-hundred-thousand-peso appropriation. (LawPhil — RA 3018) After martial law, Presidential Decree No. 4 transferred the Board into the National Grains Industry Development Administration, “under which the Board shall continue to carry out the purpose of Republic Act Numbered Three thousand eighteen.” (Supreme Court E-Library — PD 4)

Identities

Source Type	Identity
Wikipedia	N/A — no standalone article (title verified missing this session); the Act’s Board is treated within Wikipedia’s National Food Authority (Philippines) article as one of the two agencies PD 4 absorbed
Wikidata	N/A — entity search returns no item (verified this session)
DBpedia	N/A (resource verified missing this session)
ProductOntology	N/A
Wiktionary	N/A
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)	Rice trade–Law and legislation — the catalog heading under which the statute’s subject falls; no Philippines-specific statute heading verified
MeSH	N/A
NCBI Taxonomy	N/A
AGROVOC	rice (c_6599) and maize (c_12332) — the staples under regulation; no statute-specific concept (both verified this session)
Google Scholar	Republic Act 3018 Rice and Corn Industry Act Philippines 1960 nationalization rice and corn industry citizens alien liquidation by-products Rice and Corn Board Go Ka Toc Presidential Decree 4 economic nationalism Filipino First
ConceptNet	N/A
OpenCyc	N/A

Also Known As

The Rice and Corn Industry Act — the Supreme Court’s styling in Purina Philippines, Inc. v. Flores (LawPhil — Purina)
An Act Limiting the Right to Engage in the Rice and Corn Industry to Citizens of the Philippines, and for Other Purposes — the long title
The rice and corn nationalization act — the descriptive styling
RA 3018

Examples and Analogies

Nationalization by wind-down, not confiscation: the Act fixed dated exits — “a period of two years from the date of effectivity of this Act” for trade and distribution, three for milling and warehousing — and let the license power and attrition do the transferring, rather than expropriating standing businesses outright. (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Exclusion paired with credit: the same statute that barred aliens set aside at least one hundred million pesos in DBP and PNB revolving funds at six to seven percent for Filipinos entering milling, warehousing, and production — exit financed by entry. (LawPhil — RA 3018)
A statute that reached the by-products: the Board’s Resolution No. 10 of November 21, 1960 read the Act’s “by-products” to cover binlid, darak, tahop, tiktik, corn husk, and corn meals — a reading the Supreme Court sustained in Go Ka Toc Sons & Co. v. Rice and Corn Board (1967), holding that “only Filipinos and associations, partnerships or corporations 100% Filipino can engage even in the trade and acquisition of the by-products of rice and/or corn.” (LawPhil — Go Ka Toc)
Verified statutory data:
Approval and effectivity: approved August 2, 1960; effective January 1, 1961, except provisions specifically dated (Secs. 11, 10; Sec. 2’s registration ran from approval) (LawPhil — RA 3018)
The reservation (Sec. 1): rice and/or corn industry limited to Philippine citizens and wholly Filipino-owned entities; industry defined from culture to retail and trade acquisition, including by-products; RA No. 1180 overridden for wholesale and retail distribution (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Registration (Sec. 2): verified statements in quadruplicate to the city or municipal treasurer within sixty days, copies to the provincial treasurer and Secretary of Finance (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Liquidation (Sec. 3): two years for trade lines, three for milling and warehousing; capital pegged to declared amounts; no new alien licenses; forfeiture for violations of economic-control, monetary, tax, health, weights-and-measures, and labor laws; failure to renew annually bars renewal (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Credit (Sec. 4): DBP fund of at least ₱50 million at up to 7% for milling, processing, warehousing, and marketing; PNB fund of at least ₱50 million at up to 6% for cultivation, production, crop loans, and quedans; Central Bank rediscounting; FaCoMa, cooperative, farmer, small landowner, and tenant priority (LawPhil — RA 3018)
The Board (Sec. 5): “There is hereby created a board, which shall be known as the Rice and Corn Board”; Secretary of Commerce and Industry chairman, Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources vice-chairman; Central Bank Governor, PNB President, DBP Chairman; six private-sector members — one for millers and warehousemen, two for planters or producers, one for retailers and wholesalers, one for the consumers cooperative, one for labor — appointed with Commission on Appointments consent; ₱25 per-meeting per diem (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Rules (Sec. 6): implementing rules within thirty days of approval, effective fifteen days after Manila publication, translated into regional dialects (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Penalties (Sec. 7): imprisonment of five to ten years, fine of ₱5,000–₱10,000, and “immediate deportation after service of the sentence”; corporate officers liable as principals; the same penalty for a Filipino dummy; naturalization cancellation for a naturalized offender; dismissal and perpetual disqualification for a culpable public officer (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Treaty carve-out (Sec. 8) and appropriation (Sec. 9): rights of United States citizens and entities preserved; ₱500,000 appropriated for the Board (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Afterlife: PD No. 4 (September 26, 1972), Sec. 27, transferred the Board’s “functions, personnel, properties, assets and unexpended appropriations” to the National Grains Industry Development Administration (Supreme Court E-Library — PD 4)

Usage Scenarios

1. Nationalizing the Staple Trade

Between 1961 and 1972 the Act was administered by its Board: registering the alien businesses of 1960, policing the two- and three-year liquidation windows, and enforcing the citizens-only rule through licensing — the Board’s own career traced in this wiki’s Rice and Corn Board entry. (LawPhil — RA 3018)

2. Rule-Making and the By-Product Litigation

Section 6’s rule-making power produced Resolution No. 10 (November 21, 1960), whose by-product enumeration was challenged and sustained in Go Ka Toc (May 23, 1967) — the Court holding that the Board’s authority “to issue such rules and regulations implementing the law, proceeds from the law itself.” (LawPhil — Go Ka Toc)

3. Distinguishing Statute, Board, and Administration

Researchers must keep three instruments apart: RA 3018 (1960, the nationalization statute and its Board), RA 3452 (1962, the Rice and Corn Administration built for price stabilization and buffer stocks), and PD 4 (1972, the merger of both into the grains Authority) — the sibling entries on this wiki keep the same distinctions. (LawPhil — RA 3452, Supreme Court E-Library — PD 4)

4. Tracing the Statute After 1972

PD 4 did not repeal RA 3018; Section 27 kept its purposes alive inside the grains Authority, and the Supreme Court recorded in 2015 that the Administration “took over the functions of the Rice and Corn Board in carrying out the purpose of R.A. 3018” — and that “thirteen years into the effectivity of R.A. 3018, the law succeeded in transferring the country’s rice and corn industry to Filipinos and Filipino-owned entities.” (Supreme Court E-Library — PD 4, LawPhil — Purina)

5. Teaching Filipino-First Economics

The Act is a primary text for the economic nationalism of the era: a citizenship rule, a wind-down schedule, counterpart credit, and criminal penalties — the legislative grammar of Filipino-first policy in a single statute. (LawPhil — RA 3018)

Strategies

Nationalize by citizenship, wind down by deadline: rather than confiscate, the Act fixed dated exits and closed the door behind them — “after the date of approval of this Act no license… shall be granted to any new alien applicant.” (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Pair exclusion with entry financing: the DBP and PNB revolving funds meant the departing alien capital was to be replaced, not merely expelled — with rediscounting and FaCoMa priority steering the credit to small producers. (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Seat the stakeholders in the regulator: the Board mixed cabinet and bank officials with six sectoral seats — millers, planters, traders, consumers, labor — making the regulated parties participants in the nationalization’s administration. (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Regulate by published, translated rule: the Sec. 6 requirements — publication in a Manila newspaper, effectivity after fifteen days, translation into regional dialects — tied enforcement to rules the smallest barrio dealer could read. (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Deter dummies criminally: prison, fine, deportation, naturalization cancellation, and perpetual disqualification of culpable officials aimed the statute’s harshest penalties at the dummy arrangement that could otherwise hollow it out. (LawPhil — RA 3018)

Security and Safety Measures

Food security as citizenship policy: the Act treated control of the staple trade — culture, milling, warehousing, distribution — as a matter of national economic security reserved to citizens, the supply of rice and corn defended by nationality rule rather than tariff. (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Penalties with teeth: five to ten years’ imprisonment, fines up to ₱10,000, deportation of aliens, cancellation of naturalization, and perpetual disqualification of culpable officials made violations of the Act and its rules criminally expensive. (LawPhil — RA 3018)
The treaty safety valve: Section 8 preserved “whatever rights are granted to citizens or juridical entities of the United States of America under existing treaties” — the Act’s own check against diplomatic collision. (LawPhil — RA 3018)
Continuity across the transfer: PD 4’s Sec. 27 moved the Board’s functions, personnel, and appropriations whole and kept RA 3018’s purposes alive inside the grains Authority — the safeguard that the nationalization regime survived its administrator. (Supreme Court E-Library — PD 4)
For researchers: quote the Act from the LawPhil text; date it August 2, 1960 / January 1, 1961; and resist the popular conflation of this statute’s Board with the Rice and Corn Administration of RA 3452 — Wikipedia’s own National Food Authority article describes the Board as “regulating the rice and corn retail trade and… tasked to nationalize it within a target date,” while price stabilization belonged to the other agency. (LawPhil — RA 3018, LawPhil — RA 3452, Wikipedia — National Food Authority (Philippines))

Historical Context

RA 3018 belongs to the Filipino-first economics that matured in the late 1950s. Approved August 2, 1960, it reserved the entire rice and corn economy — from culture to retail, and including by-products — to Philippine citizens and wholly Filipino-owned firms, gave the alien businesses of 1960 a dated liquidation schedule, and created the Rice and Corn Board to administer the closure. Its implementing Resolution No. 10 followed within four months, on November 21, 1960, and the general effectivity arrived on January 1, 1961. (LawPhil — RA 3018) The courts tested the regime through the 1960s: Go Ka Toc (1967) sustained both the by-product rule and the Board’s rule-making power, reading the Act’s policy as permitting “only Filipinos and associations, partnerships or corporations 100% Filipino” even in the by-product trade. (LawPhil — Go Ka Toc)

Congress built the statute’s sibling in 1962 — RA 3452’s Rice and Corn Administration for price stabilization and buffer stocks — so that through the decade the nationalization board and the price administration ran side by side. (LawPhil — RA 3452) Martial law’s first week ended the duality: PD No. 4 of September 26, 1972 created the National Grains Industry Development Administration and, in Section 27, transferred the Board to it “under which the Board shall continue to carry out the purpose of Republic Act Numbered Three thousand eighteen” — the Administration later reconstituted as the National Grains Authority and transformed into the National Food Authority, within which the Supreme Court still traced RA 3018’s purposes in 2015, by then in enforcement against feed manufacturers. (Supreme Court E-Library — PD 4, LawPhil — Purina, Wikipedia — National Food Authority (Philippines))

Challenges and Controversies

The Cost of the By-Product Reach

The reading that “by-products” — darak, binlid, corn husk, corn germ meal — lay inside the nationalized industry displaced long-established Chinese-Filipino processing and trading businesses; Go Ka Toc sustained the Board’s enumeration, and the litigation record registers the human cost of a citizenship rule drawn that broadly. (LawPhil — Go Ka Toc, LawPhil — Purina)

A Nationalization Act, Not a Price Act

Popular accounts give RA 3018 price-fixing margins and buffer stocks; the text gives it neither. Price stabilization and buffer stocks belonged to the Rice and Corn Administration of RA 3452 and, from 1972, to the grains Authority — the same conflation this wiki’s Rice and Corn Board entry corrects. (LawPhil — RA 3018, LawPhil — RA 3452)

The Statute That Outlived Its Board

Section 27 of PD 4 extinguished the Board but preserved the Act — a trade-off between institutional survival and regulatory continuity that left RA 3018 administered, four decades on, by an authority its framers never named. Whether a 1960 nationalization statute could sensibly govern a 2010s feed market was the practical question underneath Purina’s corn-industry dispute. (Supreme Court E-Library — PD 4, LawPhil — Purina)

Exclusion Under a Treaty Carve-Out

Section 8’s preservation of United States treaty rights meant the citizens-only rule was never absolute on its own terms — an exception that sat uneasily beside the Act’s penal apparatus and reflected the parity-era bargaining within which the statute was passed. (LawPhil — RA 3018)