The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has strongly rejected Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla's assertions questioning its authority over visa issuance and allegations concerning its passport services.
In a statement released on Sunday, November 8, the DFA maintained that its authority to issue Philippine visas is established under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987 and is not merely delegated by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The agency also defended the 14-day visa-free entry arrangement for Chinese nationals, saying it was implemented pursuant to a presidential directive to promote trade, investments, tourism, and people-to-people exchanges between the Philippines and China.
The DFA clarified that the privilege is limited to tourism and business purposes, is non-extendible and non-convertible, and may be subject to investigation if abused.
The department also opposed Remulla's suggestion to transfer visa processing to private service providers, such as VFS Global, emphasizing that the authority to approve or deny visa applications remains a sovereign government function.
“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,” the DFA said.
Meanwhile, the agency denied allegations involving the issuance of fake passports and deliberately difficult application requirements, stressing that all documentary safeguards are mandated under Republic Act No. 11983, or the New Passport Law, and its implementing rules and regulations.
“The DFA does not issue ‘fake’ passports nor does it impose documentary requirements to make applications deliberately difficult,” the department emphasized.
The DFA further rejected claims that its passport and visa services are commercial undertakings, explaining that the corresponding fees are collected under the prescribed government Schedule of Fees and form part of government revenue.
The statement came following remarks made during DZRH's Executive Session program on November 7, which the DFA described as erroneous and unsupported by specific and verifiable evidence.
