Current planning answer: Cebu is administered by the Cebu Port Authority, so PPA tariff notices should not be copied automatically into a Cebu voyage. Use CPA’s own tariff, issuance and operational sources, then confirm the exact Cebu facility and current pro forma before treating a model port-cost assumption as commercial.
CPA-specific tariff and pilotage information is kept separate from PPA-governed ports.
The Cebu Port Authority’s 2026 news/publications page includes a notice for filling two accreditation slots for Cebu Harbor Pilot.
Voyage implication: pilotage is an authority-managed operational input that should be checked against current CPA arrangements; this notice does not itself establish a vessel-specific pilotage cost.
CPA’s current Port Tariff page separates vessel, cargo, storage, exemption and cargo-handling categories under the Cebu authority.
Voyage implication: use CPA—not a PPA tariff headline—as the starting authority source for Cebu port-cost verification.
Resolve the exact Cebu port facility, berth and draft, cargo acceptance, gear/grab arrangement, loading/discharge productivity, working hours, pilotage, tugs, storage/free time and all tariff items relevant to the nominated terminal.
Use PHCEB for initial route modeling. Before a market approach, replace generic port time and port cost with facility-specific Cebu assumptions sourced from CPA and the terminal/agent.
Research checked 22 September 2026. Dynamic CPA notices can extend the timeline without mixing Cebu with the PPA regime.