|
So, it
has come to this. The two most talked about issues on
the nation’s table right now, that is, aside from the
final results of the May 14 elections, are drugs and
Japanese waste.
Drugs,
in this case cheap or affordable ones, has slowly but
surely brought the entire nation not to mention the
national leadership, from President Arroyo to the
warring leaders of political parties including the Left,
together for once. Ranged against this highly potent
coalition for affordable drugs are the affiliates of the
global pharmaceutical industry who have been lording
over the huge US$2-billion (and counting) Philippine
drug market for years on end.
After
successfully blocking the passage of a real,
honest-to-goodness cheap drugs law, as the Indian
inspired, multi-party sponsored bill has come to be
called, the multinational pharma companies working under
the PHAP umbrella are now caught staring at a bill that
not only mandates the importation of cheap medicines and
their local manufacture, as and when required, but the
mandatory carrying of such medicines by the drugstore
chains and, most importantly, the regulation of the
prices of such products.
What was
initially looked at, at least, by the multinationals as
a token initiative to salve the compounded hurts of
almost every Filipino laboring under a regime of high,
if not arbitrarily priced medicines, has taken a life of
its own. And, by all accounts, if the House version is
going to be adopted, a landmark law meant to put an end
to such a vicious and deadly regimen.
We are
told that three days ago the bill’s principal sponsors
in the House of Representatives—Reps. Ferjenel Biron,
Junie Cua, Rolex Suplico and Teodoro Locsin Jr.—finally
succeeded in convincing their Senate counterpart, Sen.
Mar “Mr. Palengke” Roxas, to adopt their version with
minor amendments.
That
should fast track the bill’s passage through both
chambers in the remaining days of the Thirteenth
Congress and provide a fitting backdrop to the 100th
anniversary of the Philippine Congress come June 7. That
should also be a fitting sendoff to those members who
are bowing out after three terms and those who
unsuccessfully defended their seats.
In a
very real sense, it is also this Congress’s way of
welcoming the next one, the Fourteenth, which this early
is definitely going to navigate tricky and perilous
waters in the runup to the next elections in 2010.
Judging
from the results of the elections, thus far, the
incoming Congress will have to do more than the usual if
it expects to regain its footing and the public’s
esteem. It is clear that the public will no longer put
up with token results, arrangements and/or practices.
Tama na. The nation’s business has to be attended to
and the public will not countenance anymore malingering,
nonsensical or divisive operations from either side of
the divide. We will know for sure whether that will
really be the case anytime soon with this drugs bill
and, of course, the Jpepa.
The
Jpepa is, of course, the Japan-Philippine Economic
Partnership Agreement, which was signed, finally, by the
foreign ministers of the two countries in Tokyo during
the recent visit of President Arroyo.
The
controversial agreement which was initially discussed in
2003 will have to go to the Philippine Senate for
ratification before it gains any kind of traction. But
this early we are assured by no less than Foreign
Affairs Secretary Bert Romulo that the same will
probably meet little or no opposition, if at all, since
the Japanese government has declared that it will not
activate the provision allowing it to export unwanted or
even toxic waste into the Philippines.
This
provision has been at the center of agitated debate
since it was first brought to light late last year.
Romulo points to the diplomatic note accompanying the
signed agreement as his authority for such an assertion.
The note
reads in part: “…Japan
would not be exporting toxic waste to the
Philippines,
as defined and prohibited under the laws of the
Philippines
and Japan, in accordance with the Basel Convention….”
If
indeed this is the note appended to the Jpepa then that
should pretty much assuage the fears of most
environmentalists and the public at large all of whom
were appalled by the pronouncements of Trade Secretary
Peter Favila sometime back justifying the inclusion of
the “…export of toxic and unwanted wastes” in the
agreement in the first place.
Favila
noted then that the same was just a ploy to balance (I
believe this was the word used) the listing of
exportable products which the signatories were supposed
to accept under the arrangement.
Well, I
just hope Favila will not insist on that kind of
sleight-of-hand justifications anymore now that the
diplomatic note clearly states the correct and
responsible position for both countries.
The
question that continues to bug a number of critics,
though, is this: if the intention is really such that no
“toxic or unwanted waste” was to be exported by Japan to
the Philippines under any and all circumstances, why did
the parties not simply amend the original provision in
the agreement to state so? Why resort to an appended
diplomatic note?
It may
be a stretch to insist that this again is at play. But
then again we have had bitter experiences where we found
ourselves at the receiving end of the bargain.
Even now
many analysts continue to be wary of the rules governing
the Japanese ODA program and the terms of engagement of
many projects funded by Japanese money. They insist that
based on record the so-called ODA rules have been such
that we end up paying double the internationally
accepted price the goods and services procured from
Japan
to the point that the program has been dubbed
“procurement of Japanese goods and employment of
Japanese consultants” certification program.
It is
“make work at the expense of the donee country” more
than anything else as far as the critics are concerned.
But that is what ODA’s are all about, ’di ba? In
any event, we will just have to take another look at the
Jpepa and scrutinize it as thoroughly as can be to
ensure that the pluses and the minuses get balanced off
somehow in its implementation and, yes, its
interpretation. |
