The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has refuted assertions by Ombudsman Samuel Martires Remulla, who claimed the power to issue visas rests solely with immigration authorities under the Department of Justice (DOJ) and that the DFA merely exercises delegated powers, if any. The public dispute ignited during Remulla’s radio program, where he further alleged corruption within the DFA, accusing the department of profiting from visa processing, issuing “fake” passports, and intentionally complicating application procedures for personal gain.
In a comprehensive statement, the DFA firmly dismissed Remulla’s accusations as “unfounded insinuations,” presenting a defense of its statutory mandate. The department explicitly stated that its authority to issue visas is not a delegation from the DOJ but is unequivocally "founded on law." The DFA cited Section 21(3), Chapter 7, Title I, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, known as the Administrative Code of 1987, which directly recognizes visa issuance as a statutory function of Philippine consular offices worldwide.
Beyond domestic legislation, the DFA cited its compliance with international legal frameworks, invoking the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Specifically, Articles 3, 5(d), and 70 of the Convention establish visa issuance as a legitimate and universally recognized consular function exercisable by diplomatic missions across the globe. This dual legal foundation, the department argued, provides the basis for its authority in handling visa applications.
Ombudsman Remulla also advocated for the outsourcing of visa processing to private entities, citing organizations like VFS Global as potential operators. The DFA rejected this proposal, which clarified that while private service providers may offer administrative support in facilitating applications, the fundamental authority to assess, approve, or deny Philippine visas remains a “sovereign governmental function.” This critical power, the department stressed, cannot be transferred or abdicated to a private entity,
Addressing the graver accusations of corruption and malfeasance, the DFA vehemently denied that it treats passports and visas as “commodities for sale” or that its services operate as commercial undertakings. The department clarified that all fees collected for passport and visa services are prescribed by the government's official schedule of fees and are remitted as legitimate government revenue. These funds, it asserted, are not a source of illicit profit for the department or its personnel.
The DFA also explicitly refuted the claim of issuing “fake” passports or intentionally creating burdensome requirements to complicate the application process. It explained that all passport requirements are mandated by Republic Act No. 11983, or the New Passport Law, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. These documentary safeguards and identity verification procedures are, according to the DFA, precisely designed to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of Philippine travel documents, rather than to obstruct legitimate applicants.
A specific point of contention raised by the Ombudsman was the 14-day visa-free entry arrangement for Chinese nationals. Remulla expressed significant concern over this policy, citing an approximate one percent overstay rate among those who entered under the privilege and suggesting it contributed to broader issues. The DFA, in its defense, clarified that this arrangement, formalized under Foreign Service Circular No. 2026-005, was implemented pursuant to a presidential directive.
The department emphasized that the policy's primary objectives are to facilitate trade, investments, tourism, and people-to-people exchanges between the Philippines and China. It underscored that this privilege is strictly limited to tourism or business purposes, has a maximum stay of 14 days, and is explicitly non-extendible and non-convertible. Any reported misuse of these visa-free entry privileges, the DFA stressed, is immediately referred to Philippine law enforcement agencies for appropriate investigation, rather than being an indication of unlawful implementation on the part of the department.
The Ombudsman’s remarks also dramatically recounted a past “altercation” with DFA Secretary Ma. Theresa P. Lazaro over these very issues.
The DFA also criticized unnamed government officials who had questioned the transparency of its recent account of a telephone call between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Secretary Lazaro. The department asserted that diplomacy, particularly when defending national sovereignty, should not be misconstrued as appeasement. It emphasized that public disclosure serves various strategic purposes, and portraying diplomatic dialogue as secondary to public exposure creates a false dichotomy between diplomacy and transparency. The DFA cautioned that public statements undermining the government's diplomatic approach do more than complicate the work of its diplomats; they risk "eroding the country's credibility in international affairs and project an image of internal division that external parties can exploit."