DFA rejects ombudsman’s remarks on visa issuance

“The DFA strongly objects to Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla’s assertions that authority over visa matters belongs exclusively to immigration authorities under the Department of Justice (DOJ), that the DFA merely exercises delegated powers, and that no other law confers such authority upon the DFA,” the DFA said in a statement.

STAR / File

MANILA, Philippines — The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) yesterday rejected Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla’s “erroneous” statement that authority over visa matters belongs exclusively to immigration authorities.

“The DFA strongly objects to Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla’s assertions that authority over visa matters belongs exclusively to immigration authorities under the Department of Justice (DOJ), that the DFA merely exercises delegated powers, and that no other law confers such authority upon the DFA,” the DFA said in a statement.

“The DFA’s visa-issuance authority is founded on law. It is neither derived from nor dependent upon delegation by the DOJ,” it added.

The DFA again cited Section 21(3), Chapter 7 (The Foreign Service), Title I, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987, which expressly recognizes visa issuance as a statutory function of Philippine consular offices.

The mandate is recognized under Articles 3, 5(d) and 70 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which establish visa issuance as a consular function that may be exercised by diplomatic missions.

Remulla said the visa processing should be transferred from the DFA to a third party service provider such as VFS Global.

While the provider may provide administrative support in receiving and facilitating visa applications, the DFA reiterated that the authority to assess, approve or deny Philippine visas is a “sovereign governmental function that cannot be transferred to a private entity through an outsourcing arrangement.”

Remulla cited a Chinese businessman’s comment that a Philippine business visa is more difficult to obtain compared to another country.

The DFA emphasized that each country exercises sovereign authority to prescribe its own visa requirements and procedures. It called out the false information and irresponsible comments made about passport services.

“The DFA does not issue “fake” passports nor does it impose documentary requirements to make applications deliberately difficult,” it said.

All documents required from passport applicants are provided under Republic Act 11983 or the New Passport Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

“The prevention of passport fraud is precisely why documentary safeguards and identity verification requirements are necessary,” the DFA said.

It added that there were also insinuations made during Remulla’s program “Executive Session” on radio dzRH that the DFA’s passport and visa services are commercial undertakings.

“The DFA firmly rejects any suggestion that the Department treats passports and visas as commodities for sale,” the DFA said.

Passport and visa fees, it said, are collected pursuant to the prescribed government schedule of fees and form part of government revenue.