By ROY C. MABASA
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on Sunday strongly defended its authority to issue Philippine visas, rejecting Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla’s claims that the power belongs to immigration authorities and that the department has turned visa processing into a business.
The department also defended the government’s 14-day visa-free entry program for Chinese nationals, saying reports of overstaying visitors did not establish wrongdoing in the policy’s implementation.
The DFA’s response followed Remulla’s remarks on DZRH’s Executive Session on Saturday, where he renewed his call to transfer visa processing to private service provider VFS Global and accused the department of earning money from visa applications handled through travel agencies.
“Ang DFA, kumikita diyan ang DFA, yung travel agencies, nagp-process ng mga visa,” Remulla said, adding that a Filipino-Chinese businessman had complained to him that obtaining a Philippine business visa was more difficult than getting a US visa.
He also questioned the DFA’s ability to screen foreign applicants and argued that the Bureau of Immigration, which is under the Department of Justice, should have authority over visa issuance.
“Tama na ’yan. VFS na ’yan dapat,” Remulla said.
The DFA rejected his interpretation of the law, saying its authority to issue visas was expressly recognized under the Administrative Code of 1987 and was not merely delegated by the DOJ.
It cited Section 21(3), Chapter 7, Title I, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, which identifies visa issuance as a statutory function of Philippine consular offices. It also cited the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which recognizes visa issuance as a consular function.
The department said private companies such as VFS could help receive and facilitate visa applications but could not assume the government’s authority to approve or deny them.
That power, it stressed, must remain with authorized government officials in Philippine embassies and consulates.
The latest exchange also revived questions over the 14-day visa-free entry arrangement for Chinese nationals, which took effect on Jan. 16 and is due to expire in January 2027.
Remulla said around 1 percent of Chinese visitors under the program had failed to return home during its first two months.
“Kung 200,000 ’yan, may 2,000 kaagad ’yan. Yung nandito, TNT na ’yan,” he said, referring to undocumented overstayers.
The DFA said the arrangement was issued through Foreign Service Circular No. 2026-005 pursuant to a directive from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to promote trade, investment, tourism and people-to-people exchanges between the Philippines and China.
It said the policy was developed in coordination with other government agencies under the One-Country Team approach.
The visa-free privilege is limited to tourism and business visits for a maximum of 14 days. It cannot be extended or converted into another immigration status.
The DFA said reports of misuse should be investigated by law enforcement agencies but did not prove that the department had acted improperly or that the arrangement was unlawful.
On complaints about the difficulty of obtaining Philippine business visas, the department said each country has the sovereign right to set its own requirements and procedures.
Chinese nationals applying for a Section 9(a-1) business visa are subject to a standard processing period of five working days after submission of complete requirements, provided there is no derogatory information against the applicant, it said.
The DFA also rejected allegations and insinuations about its passport services, including claims that it issued fake passports or deliberately made applications difficult.
All documentary requirements, it said, are prescribed under Republic Act No. 11983, or the New Philippine Passport Act, and its implementing rules and regulations. Identity checks and documentary safeguards are necessary to prevent passport fraud.
The department also denied treating passport and visa services as commercial ventures, saying fees are collected under the government’s prescribed schedule and form part of public revenue.
The DFA said it would not accept accusations that question its institutional integrity and statutory authority without specific and verifiable evidence.
