|
A
LAST-MINUTE side agreement being worked out by Manila
and Tokyo officials in a bid to cure major
constitutional defects in the controversial
Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (Jpepa)
may not suffice to have it ratified in the Senate,
opponents of the “lopsided” accord said Thursday.
In a
statement, the Magkaisa Junk Jpepa Coalition (MJJC)
noted that no less than Sen. Miriam Santiago, who chairs
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, admitted that
the Jpepa violates at least 15 provisions of the
Philippine Constitution.
“Several
hearings prove that the Jpepa has many serious,
dangerous and onerous flaws. The logical and
pro-Filipino choice should have been made a long time
ago: Junk Jpepa,” the MJJC said.
It
lamented, however, that due to strong pressure from
President Arroyo, “the Senate is now being pushed around
to fix the problems of this treaty; to clean up a mess
that this institution did not make. First, a conditional
approval was suggested. But strong opposition and
doubts as to the legality of the move was registered by
some senators and civil society groups, including the
MJJC.”
In a
last-ditch attempt to save the accord from being
rejected by the treaty-ratifying chamber, the Department
of Foreign Affairs last week requested Santiago’s
foreign relations committee to defer initial vote on the
committee report endorsing conditional concurrence to
the Jpepa so that both
Manila
and Tokyo officials can “fix the treaty.”
“Unfortunately, like all band-aid measures, the proposed
conditions or changes are limited in scope,” said the
coalition. They attempt “to rectify one problem,
unconstitutionality, leaving the other equally grievous
problem of environmental degradation,
de-industrialization, labor, displacement, migrant
exploitation and other such problems, unanswered.”
At the
same time, the Ibon Foundation aired a separate warning
that even if Japan accepts a side agreement to fix
Jpepa’s defects—which it says is unlikely—these still
“would not transform the deal into a genuine economic
partnership agreement that recognizes the vast
inequalities between the two countries and takes genuine
measures to develop the
Philippines.”
Ibon
acknowledged that conditions for concurrence with the
Jpepa proposed by the Senate committees are potentially
substantive. It noted that the proposed Annex “A”
explicitly introduces reservations/exceptions for
future/existing measures that are not in the original
agreement. “This may possibly protect investment areas
and allows for performance requirements.”
Meanwhile, it also noted that the proposed Annex “B”
explicitly introduces the possibility that subsequent
changes in Philippine laws of a suitably high level—such
as by a Supreme Court decision or legislation by
Congress—could alter tariff schedule commitments. “This
could possibly allow for raising tariffs and other trade
barriers.”
Ibon
found that these proposals aim to align the Jpepa with
the nationalist economic provisions of the 1987
Philippine Constitution and are positive as far as they
go. “However, they do not signify a real shift in the
country’s economic strategies and merely assert what is
already formally contained in the Charter.”
Unfortunately, Ibon added, “these potentially important
provisions have in practice not really been able to
hinder the unprecedented implementation of “free-market”
policies of so-called globalization in the country and,
indeed, have been observed more in the breach.”
In any
case, said Ibon, “the conditions for concurrence still
fall far short of transforming the Jpepa into a truly
developmental deal for the Philippines. Such a deal
would begin from recognizing the vast inequality between
advanced Japan and backward Philippines. It would also
acknowledge that Japan has become highly developed in
part from decades of taking advantage of cheap Filipino
labor and natural resources as well as from access to
the domestic market.”
On these
premises, the foundation insisted that a genuine
partnership deal would have Japan in solidarity with the
Philippines and giving real support for its development.
“Among others, this means the Philippines having open
access to Japan while still retaining its trade and
investment protections, the Philippines maintaining its
control over and capacity to regulate the domestic
economy, and Japan providing untied financial aid and
technical assistance that the Philippines can freely use
according to its development priorities.”
According to Ibon Foundation, the Jpepa signed by the
government, on the contrary, “is unequal, defeatist and
destructive. The “conditional concurrence” proposed is
an improvement, but the only acceptable deal for the
Philippines must be one based on the principles of
solidarity, mutual benefit and development for those who
have long suffered poverty and backwardness. Anything
short of this must be rejected. |
