Senate ratifies RP-Japan deal
By Michael Lim Ubac
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:44:00 10/10/2008
Filed Under: Agreement (general), Foreign affairs & international relations
MANILA, Philippines—No sooner had the Senate voted 16-4 to ratify the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) than senators started mulling over a renegotiation of the terms of the trade deal.
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, chair of the foreign relations committee, Thursday said that the country could ask Japan for a renegotiation of the treaty after the “required period,” or a year after its implementation.
“After one year, we can already notify that we are seeking amendments,” Santiago, the principal sponsor of a resolution endorsing JPEPA’s ratification, said at a press briefing.
She described the trade pact as “flawed.”
But for now, she said the treaty would bring Japanese investments into the country and create jobs and encourage more foreign aid.
“If we rejected the treaty, word will spread that the Philippines is not a good place to invest,” she said, when asked why the Senate mustered the two-thirds vote to ratify the controversial trade agreement when it was clearly favorable to Japan.
Heartfelt thanks
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Thursday praised the senators for ratifying the agreement.
In her speech at a trade fair, the President personally thanked Sen. Edgardo Angara and told him to convey her “heartfelt thanks” to the other senators who ratified the pact.
“Japan will open up with JPEPA ratified,” Ms Arroyo said at the World Trade Center in Pasay City.
“One of the biggest winners of our JPEPA is our agriculture, food and aquaculture industry. So to all those involved in the Agrilink, Foodlink and Aqualink exhibits, you now have a new market,” the President said.
As clear as day
Others are not happy with the ratification.
Akabayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros said the senators who gave the go signal for the deal had effectively junked the Philippine Constitution and sovereignty.
“It was as if even the 16 senators who approved of JPEPA were ashamed of their vote. Unfortunately for them, the unconstitutionality of JPEPA is as clear as day,” Hontiveros said in a statement.
By contrast, she was all praises for the senators who refused to sign the agreement. “We laud them for standing up for the interest of the country,” she said.
Hontiveros said Akbayan would take the fight against JPEPA to the Supreme Court.
Environmentalists warned that JPEPA could make the country Japan’s toxic dumping ground, while several quarters pointed out the constitutional violations in the provisions on land ownership and deep-sea fishing.
Others voiced fears that Japanese enterprises would swamp the Philippines with their products, adversely affecting local industries.
Before adjourning for a month-long recess on Wednesday night, the chamber ratified the treaty.
It was Sen. Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, chair of the Senate trade and commerce committee, who moved to have the treaty, contained in Senate Resolution No. 555, ratified on second reading at 10:49 p.m.
“The ayes have it,” said Senate President Pro-tempore Jinggoy Ejericto Estrada, the presiding officer.
Certified as urgent
With Ms Arroyo certifying as urgent the adoption of the treaty on Oct. 8, the chamber dispensed with the three-day notice required before a measure could be passed on third and final reading.
Roxas then proceeded to ask for a roll call vote.
With only Senators Benigno Aquino III, Francis Escudero, Ana Consuelo Madrigal and Aquilino Pimentel Jr. casting negative votes, JPEPA was swiftly ratified at 10:51 p.m.
Absent
Senators Joker Arroyo, Pia Cayetano and Antonio Trillanes IV, who is detained for rebellion charges, were absent during the late-night session.
Spotted in the gallery were Ambassador to Japan Domingo Siazon, Trade Secretary Peter Favila and Secretary for Special Concerns Medy Poblador who later approached and thanked the senators who voted yes.
The vote came two years after the controversial trade and investment deal was signed in Helsinki, Finland, in September 2006 by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and then Japanese Premier Junichiro Koizumi on the sidelines of an Asia-Europe summit.
The Japanese parliament swiftly approved the treaty in December of that year.
Economic opportunities
Sen. Loren Legarda said she “voted yes with reservations because I have fears about the issue of toxic wastes, but it was sufficiently answered [because] prevailing environmental laws will be respected.”
“At the same time, when there is an economic turmoil, we should concentrate on our No. 1 source of official development assistance (Japan),” Legarda said.
Roxas supported the treaty because it would ensure “access” of Philippine products such as agriculture, fisheries and semiconductors into the Japanese market.
Not perfect
Siazon said it was the senators’ role to think whether a treaty was good or not for the country. “It’s not a perfect one but we’ll try it,” he said.
The trade department has predicted an increase in Philippine exports for three to five years, he said. “We are part of the production system in Asia involving Japan, China, ASEAN, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan.”
About 200 nurses and 300 caregivers will be allowed to enter the Japanese market every year, Siazon said.
Santiago expected a legal challenge in the Supreme Court.
“That’s why I insisted that there should be a second exchange of notes. The first exchange was about importation of hazardous wastes and I insisted on a second exchange of notes, notwithstanding the intransigence of the Japanese ambassador (Masahiko Kamura),” she said.
“He, in effect, took the position that they were not accepting anymore modifications of JPEPA because that would have compelled the Japanese government to resubmit the JPEPA for ratification by the Japanese Diet. My impression is he viewed it as a fate worse than death.”
“By persuading him to accept our proposals—although not all our proposals—was already an achievement in itself.”
“We can give it a year or two and see how if it works, and see if the majority decision today was correct or not because we can always terminate that treaty by its own provisions just by giving one year’s notice.”
Explaining his vote, Escudero said JPEPA was a poorly and badly negotiated treaty. “It contains unconstitutional and illegal provisions, devoid of needed backup work, research and consultation, wanting in transparency,” he said.
Subject to amendments
Before the vote, Pimentel, the Senate minority leader, stood up to clarify a statement that JPEPA, being a treaty negotiated by both governments, was not subject to amendments.
Santiago said the issue of JPEPA’s constitutionality had already been resolved because Japan had agreed to the side agreement.
The side deal provides for a complete list of all the provisions in the Philippine Constitution so that those that conflict with the agreement would be deemed superior to any JPEPA provision.
Santiago said she had insisted, during interpellation, to the executive branch that a supplemental agreement contain three exemptions from JPEPA, but only one was secured.
“Japan accepted the first proposal, but insisted on using language that should have been left out. We shall have to trust that it will observe these exemptions in good faith,” she said.
The first proposal was that the JPEPA shall observe all existing Philippine constitutional provisions, laws, and rules and regulations concerning investment activities.
The second condition was that JPEPA should observe any future Philippine laws, including those to be passed by Congress, local governments, and administrative agencies.
The third was that JPEPA should observe any act of Congress or any Supreme Court decision limiting the President’s delegated power to set tariffs applicable to RP-Japan trade.
Santiago said the treaty could be renegotiated because the second and third proposals were “temporarily shelved, with a commitment by Japan that in the near future, it shall accept negotiations to amend JPEPA.” With reports from Christine Avendańo, TJ Burgonio and Leila B. Salaverria
|
