Bawal Magtapon Dito

JPEPA Side Notes on the Toxic Wastes Issue: Can we now sleep well at night?

Fact, there is no national law or international agreement that demands the inclusion of toxic and nuclear wastes in any country’s schedule of tradable goods. Not even the WTO requires this. There are, however, national and international laws that prohibits the trade of toxic wastes.

Fact, a former DENR secretary opposed the inclusion of toxic wastes in the JPEPA. In the 2003 Working Draft of the JPEPA, toxic wastes were clearly stricken out of the actual page of JPEPA itself.[2]

And yet, these globally repugnant and prohibited wastes nevertheless found their way back into the JPEPA. In previous Senate hearings, the pro-JPEPA government panel resorted to dishonest strategies to mislead the Filipino people. They attributed predictions of JPEPA-created jobs, to authors Cororaton and Kawasaki, when in fact no such conclusions were made by these authors. They failed to explain why the Philippines surrendered the right to require Japanese investors to transfer technology and to hire a given level of Filipino nationals.

In last Thursday’s hearing, September 27, 2007, on environmental issues, the strategy remained fully utilized. The pro-JPEPA government panel adopted this line of reasoning: the Philippines can include toxic wastes in the JPEPA despite clear restriction on trade of these wastes in existing national and international laws because, anyway, the Philippines have clear national and international laws that prevent the entry of these goods. Very little is required to see the absence of logic behind the government’s argument.

The government panel also waved the banner of their so-called protective side notes issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan. Below is an actual snapshot of this side note. It can be downloaded from the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan: [http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fta/philippines.html] – file description: Foreign Ministers’ Letters on the Signing of the JPEPA. This file cannot be found on the website of our own DTI and DFA.

The side notes do not add any new commitments from Japan. It does not require Japan to reduce its toxic waste generation. It does not require Japan to increase spending for greater customs enforcement against toxic waste exports. The side notes leave much of the burden on policing toxic wastes to the Philippines. This is the status quo, wrapped in a new package.

The side notes also bear the same commitments that allow Japan to export 197,500 tons of toxic incinerator ash to Thailand in 2006, 70 toxic end-of-life vessels to India from 2003 to 2006, among others. These are the same commitments that are riddled with loopholes that Japan continues to exploit.

The side notes are not enough. It covers only toxic wastes. What about Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) such as CFCs, Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) such as DDT, Nuclear materials and wastes, which the JPEPA considers tradable goods? At the end of the day, is the diplomatic exchange of notes or side notes enough to defend our environment and our right to health?

Should we Filipinos just hope that Japan will not dump toxic and hazardous wastes in the Philippines?

Hope is not a strategy.

JUNK JPEPA!

Ratify the Basel Ban Amendment!

Enact National Toxic Waste Import Bans!

-------------

Senate Rejection of JPEPA seen. Read here.

Post-hearing report. Read here.

[2] See pages 16-17. Can be downloaded from http://pascn.pids.gov.ph/jpepa/ (lower right hand corner: JPEPA),

Environment Experts Shoot Down JPEPA at Senate Inquiry

Photo byGigie Cruz/Gaia.

Environment Experts Shoot Down JPEPA at Senate Inquiry
Trade Pact Weakens Philippine Protection against Japan's Toxic Shipments

Manila, 27 September 2007. Environment experts today continued to expose the unacceptable toxic waste trade provisions under the Japan Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) as the Senate took a closer scrutiny at the treaty's health and environmental repercussions.


The groups, which include Basel Action Network, EcoWaste Coalition, Greenpeace and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, working under the banner 'Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition,' revealed Japan's on-going illegal toxic shipments throughout Asia, and reiterated how JPEPA weakens Philippine measures to prevent Japanese toxic waste from ending up in our shores by creating strong economic incentives for their trade.

Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.
In time with the Senate inquiry, over 200 protesters gathered outside the Senate gates to depict their outrage over Japan's intent to send toxic wastes to the Philippines and to call on the Senate to reject the JPEPA. The protesters erected a mock pirate ship laden with wastes carried by the toxic tsunami wave coming from Japan. Above the mock pirate vessel a banner was unfurled exclaiming 'Ahoy, Pinoys! JPEPA: Toxic to Health and Environment.'


"Japan has a record of shipping all sorts of hazardous waste to different countries in Asia. The toxic wastes Japan has been exporting are the same toxic wastes Japan insists on getting zero tariffs under JPEPA," said Atty. Richard Gutierrez of the Basel Action Network, Asia-Pacific (BAN AP), one of the environmental groups invited before the Senate. "The export data from Asia proves our point that Japan's promise not to export toxic wastes is empty, and that its real intent is to use the Japanese Economic Partnership Agreements to facilitate toxic waste colonization of the Philippines and Asia."


Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.
Atty. Gutierrez cited data from Thailand, India, China, and Hong Kong showed large amounts of toxic and other wastes were moving out of Japan and exported to these places, legally and illegally. In India, for instance, Japan exported a total of 70 end-of-life vessels---containing many cancer-causing pollutants---for disposal from the years 2003 to 2006. In 2006, Japan dumped 195 million kilograms of toxic incinerator ash to Thailand, and illegally shipped 4,000 tons of Japanese contaminated municipal waste to China. China and Hong Kong customs officials were also recently able to intercept large quantities of Japanese toxic wastes, such as contaminated municipal wastes and electronic wastes or e-waste, even though they were misdeclared as mixed scrap or plastic wastes.


According to Greenpeace, the country's current regulations against the entry of such toxic shipments are hopelessly inadequate. Toxic waste can still be shipped to our shores if they are declared recyclable, an excuse that hazardous waste traders fully exploit. Neither Japan nor the Philippines have ratified the Basel Ban Amendment, an international treaty which protects developing countries from toxic waste dumping by developed nations under the guise of recycling. Additionally, JPEPA supports radioactive waste trade which is not covered under the Basel Convention.

"Recycling hazardous waste produces equally hazardous waste residues, and Filipino workers and communities end up bearing the costs. JPEPA--which legalizes and eliminates tariffs on shipments of poisonous trash, and even dangerous radioactive waste--fully supports this atrocious practice to the detriment of the health and well-being of Filipinos. There is no sound economic reason, no plausible or credible explanation, why the entry of poisonous and radioactive waste into our shores should be something that our country should welcome," said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Campaigns Director Von Hernandez.


Meanwhile, the EcoWaste Coalition raised the lack of capacity of the Philippines to deal with its own domestic waste. Citing the dismal failure of the National Solid Waste Management Commission to shut down the 677 open dumps and 343 controlled dumps that should all have been closed and rehabilitated as required by the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, the Philippines is in no shape to take in foreign wastes.

Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.
"Hope is not a strategy. Hoping that Japan will not dump toxic waste on us will not stop them from doing so," said Marie Marciano of the EcoWaste Coalition, adding that "The Philippines needs to take concrete steps to protect itself--reject the JPEPA in its present form, and close the loopholes in its waste laws by enacting a total prohibition against toxic waste imports by immediately ratifying the Basel Ban Amendment."


For more information: http://junkjpepa.blogspot.com.

Richard Gutierrez, Basel Action Network, Asia-Pacific, in Manila at: Tel. No. +63 02 929 1635; e-mail: rgutierrez@ban.org

Von Hernandez, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, in Manila at: Tel: +63 917 5263050; e-mail: von.hernandez@dialb.greenpeace.org

Marie Marciano, EcoWaste Coalition, in Manila at: Tel: 9290376; email: marie_marciano@yahoo.com.


Note:

1. Additionally, a recent report prepared by BAN, EcoWaste Coalition and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives has raised the alert about the potential influx of CRT-based TV sets from Japan when TV systems in Japan are fully converted into HDTV digital systems in 2011. An estimated 64 million TVs with lead and other hazardous components are to become obsolete and likely to find their way to the Philippines and other countries under the guise of recyclable wastes or used goods should JPEPA be ratified.


2. The Basel Ban Amendment prohibits the export of all toxic wastes, for any reason whatsoever, either for disposal or recycling, from rich or developed countries like Japan, to poorer countries. The amendment was proposed back in 1995 in order to address the recycling loophole that has plagued the Basel Convention ever since its adoption in 1989. The Basel Ban Amendment has been ratified by almost all developed nations and is awaiting the requisite number of ratifications for it to enter into force of international law. The Philippines and Japan have not yet ratified the Amendment.

More photos:

Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.



















Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.



















Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.

Pro-JPEPA numbers: Misleading the Nation

Notes from the Senate hearing on Economics: September 20, 2007.

In today's hearing, representatives from the government panel that is defending the JPEPA refused to admit and even address specific and clear issues raised by the Magkaisa JUNK JPEPA Coalition as regards the basis of their rosy projections for the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement.

The Coalition hereby reiterates these points:

1. "The Japanese side provided studies of macroeconomic impact of JPEPA."

• This is an actual quote from page 7 of the JPEPA Joint Coordinating Team Report, December 2003.

• We expect a clear answer from the pro-JPEPA government panel. For such a comprehensive treaty that will partly define the future of the Filipino people, why did we not come up with our own studies? Should we just accept Erlinda Medalla's explanation during the hearing that "we don't have the money" to do the study? Surely, the future of this country deserves more than that kind of explanation. Or is it because our own studies predicted only a 0.09% increase in GDP versus the rosy Japanese prediction of 1.73%-3.03%?
  

• On the same report, the papers written by Prof. Kenichi Kawasaki and Profs. Urata and Kiyota, are specifically enumerated.Urata and Kiyota concluded that JPEPA would accelerate Philippines' GDP growth rate by 0.04% annually (see page 7 of the JPEPA Joint Coordinating Team Report)
  

• On the same report, there is no mention of the paper by Dr. Caesar Cororaton entitled: Philippine-Japan Bilateral Agreements: Analysis of Possible Effects on Unemployment, Distribution, and Poverty in the Philippines using CGE-Microsimulation Approach.This paper is part of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement Research Project by our own Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS). If this paper is not as accurate as Medalla explained during the hearings, shouldn't the Philippine negotiators have commissioned another study instead of simply adopting the results of the Japanese studies?
  

• It is a fact that the JPEPA Joint Coordinating Team Report was released in December 2003. Dr. Cororaton's paper had its first complete draft on the same month. Yet, his paper was not at all cited in the JPEPA Joint Coordinating Team Report as one of the studies for which the JPEPA is based.

2. We also do not understand why Erlinda M. Medalla kept on attacking the reliability of Dr. Cororaton's conclusion that the JPEPA would negatively affect the agriculture sector (unemployment increases, wage decrease, contraction in the agriculture sector) and yet adopted what has been attributed as the Cororaton conclusion of a 0.09% increase in GDP if the Philippine Senate approves the JPEPA.

• The Filipino public must also be informed that the figure of 0.09% does not appear in the entire paper of Dr. Caesar Cororaton. Erlinda Medalla admitted that the figure cannot be found on the paper and attempted to explain by saying something about her "getting the difference" between two things that were not at all clear to those present in the hearing.Why she would make conclusions of a paper that is not even hers was not explained. Why Dr. Cororaton himself has never appeared with Medalla in the Senate hearings is also unclear. Even if Medalla's conclusions would appear correct, this would not change the fact that page 7 of the JPEPA Joint Coordinating Team Report of 2003 states that only "the Japanese side provided studies of macroeconomic impact of JPEPA."
  

3. The DTI, through Thomas Aquino, has been giving inconsistent numbers as regards the JPEPA's contribution to job creation.

• November 7, 2006 (before the Committees on Trade and Commerce, and Economic Affairs: 35, 477 jobs [2007-2016]
• August 7, 2007 (before the LEDAC): 22, 120 jobs-744, 715 jobs
• Today's hearing: 221,000 jobs
  

To the pro-JPEPA government panel: the Filipino people do not deserve "sketchy" and "fuzzy" explanations for a treaty that will partly define our future.

We deserve better.
JUNK JPEPA.

-----
Santiago sees "dead" JPEPA if gov't won't explain benefits. Veronica Uy.Inquirer.net

-----
The actual papers can also be downloaded from the following websites:
1. Joint Coordinating Team Report (December 2003)- here.
2. Kawasaki paper- here.
3. Cororaton paper- here.

---
If you wish to get copies of all the papers via email, pls send us a note at magkaisa.junkjpepa(at)gmail(dot)com.

Videos: Senate Hearing on the Economic Issues of the JPEPA, 20 Sept. 2007

Atty. Golda Benjamin, Legal Counsel, Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition:

"This is not a college project where i can do chapter one and you can do chapter two. This is a mega treaty which will define part of our future, part of the course of this nation."



Video by Marnie Dolera/GAIA-EcoWaste Coalition.

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Chair, Committee on Foreign Affairs:

"I will not be able to defend this on the Senate floor because you're not giving me enough arguments. If you think this is tough, you should watch the Senate debate. If I find it impossible to defend the Senate on the basis of your statements, then, as Chair, I will be compelled to defer filing my committee report. In other words, the treaty will be dead."



Video by Marnie Dolera/GAIA-EcoWaste Coalition.

JPEPA EQUALS ECONOMIC HARA-KIRI

JPEPA EQUALS ECONOMIC HARAKIRI

Photo by Marnie Dolera/GAIA-EcoWaste Coalition

20 September 2007, Manila, Philippines. - A group of some 250 workers, farmers, fisherfolk, environmentalists, and fair trade advocates from the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) trooped to the Senate complex today to keep vigil as the Senate held its 2^nd round of hearings on the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). The Senate is scheduled to tackle the economic issues of JPEPA today .

MJJC advocates picketed the Senate wearing bayongs over their head, in a direct reference to graphic images of the 2^nd World War wherein Filipinos who collaborated with the Japanese covered their heads to conceal their identities, as they sentenced their fellow compatriots to death at the hands of the Japanese imperial army. The Coalition said that DTI Undersecretary and chief JPEPA negotiator Tomas G. Aquino, DTI Secretary Peter Favila, and Philippine Ambassador to Japan Domingo Siason were the “New Makapili”, willing accomplices to the demise of Philippine industry and the death of the livelihoods and jobs of thousands of Filipino workers, farmers, and fisherfolk at the hands of Japanese government and corporate interests.

Photo by Marnie Dolera/GAIA-EcoWaste Coalition.

The Coalition questioned the conflicting economic projections and figures presented by the government panel, pointing out that the studies conducted by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) had been conducted years before the start of the actual JPEPA negotiations, and in all likelihood did not correspond with the final outcome of the negotiations. The Coalition called for objective, realistic, coherent economic assessments based on the concessions given and the final text of the treaty. They cautioned that any studies conducted on any other basis would be sheer speculation and should be disregarded by the Senate as immaterial and irrelevant to the proceedings.

The Coalition also questioned the entire concept of trickle-down economics which is at the heart of the JPEPA. As stated by the PIDS in various fora, the main beneficiaries of the JPEPA will be export-oriented industries, agri-business ventures dealing in high-value or so-called “cash crops”, selected service providers, and the retirement industry. The Coalition pointed out that it was highly unlikely that these limited sectors could be responsible for the projected “dynamic growth” under JPEPA, and chided the government for not involving the rest of the population in economic activity and economic growth.

The Coalition also pointed out that given the premise of trickle-down economics, it would be highly unlikely that any significant poverty alleviation would take place under the JPEPA. Contrary to the government’s assertion that any kind of growth would contribute to poverty alleviation, the Coalition pointed out World Bank, UNDP, and ADB studies that show that growth that increases the gap between rich and poor can actually worsen poverty. JPEPA will tend to increase the divide between the have’s and the have-not’s.

“If the Philippine Senate decides to approve the JPEPA despite the overwhelming evidence that this treaty will be disastrous to the Philippine economy, this will be nothing less than economic hara-kiri,” said Atty. Golda Benjamin, lead counsel for the Coalition.

Photo by Marnie Dolera/GAIA-EcoWaste Coalition.

The Japanese cannot be faulted for watching out and pushing for their interests; that is to be expected and is in fact admirable about the Japanese people. What is unforgivable is that our own kababayan watch out for the interests of the Japanese instead of our own, and give away the future of our country and our children.

For all its pretenses at being an “economic partnership” agreement, the JPEPA is really a partnership between unequals, and a repressive agreement that sacrifices the long-term economic development, and ultimately the dignity and sovereignty of the Filipino people. It is nothing less than economic treason. We must label it for what it truly is, and those responsible for such a reprehensible agreement must be made to answer to the Filipino people.

More pictures:

Photos by Marnie Dolera/GAIA-EcoWaste Coalition.

15 Reasons AGAINST JPEPA

The Philippine Senate MUST REJECT the JPEPA.

1. The JPEPA is a mega-treaty, a first of its kind for the Philippines; covering not only trade in goods but also services, investments, government procurement, and other matters. Its implications are massive on a political, social, and economic level.

2. Today, the JPEPA is currently being heard at the Senate. Pursuant to the Constitution, the Senators can only cast a YES or a NO vote for this treaty. The Senate has no power to make amendments or modifications. They can either accept it or reject it, as a whole.

3. The secrecy, lack of public disclosure and exclusion of stakeholders, in the processes leading to the adoption of JPEPA, violate the people’s right to participate in matters of public interest. Akbayan representatives and concerned groups had to file a Supreme Court case in order to even get a copy of the full text and annexes of the JPEPA.

4. For such a comprehensive treaty, the Philippine negotiators bargained away our future and failed to do their homework. The Joint Coordinating Team Report on the JPEPA states that “the Japanese side provided studies of macro-economic impact of JPEPA.” One of these studies is the source of the much-publicized 3.03% incremental increase in GDP if the Philippine Senate votes to accept JPEPA.Why did we not do our own study?

5. Toxic and hazardous wastes are scheduled for tariff elimination despite clear national laws and international commitments. To address the massive protests on the matter, a side note, of dubious legal validity, was subsequently issued to supposedly "fix" the problem but the same note covers only toxic wastes. Clinical and municipal wastes remain. To even include toxic and hazardous wastes, serious threats to our health, our environment, and our lives, is a blatant disregard of the rights of the Filipino people.

6. Contrary to the administration’s repeated media statements, Article 93 of the JPEPA reveals that the Philippines waived its right to demand from Japanese investors the obligation to transfer their technology to assist their Filipino partners. The Philippines also surrendered the right to require Japanese investors to hire a given level of Filipinos. This voluntary surrender of rights has not been done by Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand. Even Singapore refused to surrender its right to require Japanese investors to “appoint, as executives, managers or members of boards of directors, individuals of any particular nationality,” including those of its own.

7. Article 4 of the JPEPA, a blatant usurpation of legislative power, ties the hands of the Senate and the House of Representatives and requires them to "examine the possibility of amending or repealing laws and regulations that pertain to or affect the implementation and operation of this Agreement, if the circumstances or objectives giving rise to their adoption no longer exist or if such circumstances or objectives can be addressed in a less trade-restrictive manner." This provision does not exist in Japan's agreements with Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand. This provision also did not exist in the 2003 Working Draft of the JPEPA.

8. For the Filipino nurses, considered to be among the best in the world, our Philippine negotiators are offering to send them to Japan as nurse aides who are slapped with excessive language and training requirements. While nurses from Indonesia are required only 2 years of work experience and a 3-year nursing course without a national licensure exam, our Philippine negotiators agreed to the requirement of 3 years of work experience for our nurses who undergo 4 years of nursing education and who must pass the national licensure exam.

9. In terms of market access, JPEPA is clearly lopsided in favor of Japanese agricultural and industrial products. The Philippines will drastically eliminate tariffs on agricultural products except for rice (5 tariff lines) and salt. On the other hand, Japan was able to exclude 238 tariff lines, which include a wide range of fish and marine products, vegetables, fruits, seaweed, and footwear. There is much doubt about market access claims raised by the negotiators. For seaweeds, some of the species, for which Japan has made commitments for tariff elimination, do not even grow and/or are not even farmed in the Philippines.

10. Article 27 of the JPEPA mentions cooperation in relation to used four-wheeled motor vehicles; a clear violation of Executive Order 156 that prohibits the importation thereof. It is a clear disregard of a 2006 ruling by the Supreme Court that upheld the validity of the said law. The negotiators have repeatedly said in various fora that national laws will be respected but Annex 1: Notes of the JPEPA clearly show that "On the request of either Party, the Parties shall negotiate on issue such as market access conditions on used motor vehicles." Furthermore, the provisions in Article 27 do not exist in Japan's agreements with Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand. This provision also did not exist in the 2003 Working Draft of the JPEPA.This commitment is a serious threat to the 77,000 workers of the automotive industry.

11. Contrary to the administration’s claim that JPEPA will spur economic growth for the entire country, one of the studies conducted on the JPEPA by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, a non-stock, non-profit government research institution, concludes that with JPEPA, “agriculture wages decline” and “unemployment rate in agriculture labor deteriorates.”

12. JPEPA will restrict local government autonomy, legislative and taxation powers.

13. The administration of the treaty will create bureaucratic and financial nightmares that will effectively wipeout whatever little economic benefits there may be under JPEPA.

14. The JPEPA is but the first in a long line of free trade and economic partnership agreements currently being negotiated by the Philippines, and it will set the stage for all future trade and investment agreements. If we cannot strategically defend our interests in this treaty, what kind of future can we promise to the Filipino people?

15. The Executive branch’s insistence that JPEPA be concurred with because the Philippines cannot afford "to miss the boat" as the other Asian countries are negotiating "similar" economic partnership agreements with Japan, is inaccurate. The actual text of the JPEPA and the Philippines' severely limited protections for its own sectors indicate that the negotiators have already caused the Philippines to miss the boat. Surely, the Filipino people deserve a better boat.

This is about our jobs. Our families. Our lives.

We have faith in our Senators.

JUNK JPEPA.

-----

Friday, Sept. 14, 2007: Senators slam "fuzzy" gov't presentation of JPEPA.Read here.

Saturday, Sept. 15, 2007, Philippine Daily Inquirer, page A9: Senators not impressed on JPEPA.

news found here.

** The Coalition accepts volunteers (lawyers, economists, writers, students, etc). We cannot pay everyone but we can feed you.:) Please feel free to email us.

magkaisa.junkjpepa@gmail.com

We need your help.

If voting were held today, JPEPA would be junked

The Daily Manila Shimbun, the Philippine Daily Inquirer,and GMA 7 report on the rather disastrous turn of events for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) when it defended the JPEPA during the first hearing for the agreement's ratification in the Philippine Senate.

In separate media interviews after the hearing, Senators Enrile,Defensor-Santiago, Roxas said that the government was unable to make a sound defense of the JPEPA. Senator Roxas was "underwhelmed." The Junk JPEPA Coalition was more prepared than the government officials, according to Senator Defensor-Santiago. This was despite the fact that there was a full ensemble of top government officials defending the JPEPA (Secretary Favila, Usec Aquino, Secretary Gary Teves,etc)versus only one from the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA COalition: Atty Golda Benjamin of the alternative legal group IDEALS.Senator Enrile said that the pro-JPEPA panel was resorting to scare tactics to bully the senators to vote for JPEPA, the agreement's merits being incomprehensible to ordinary Filipinos.

Also, the invited Japanese panelist, the president of the Japanese chamber of commerce, did not help the case of the pro-JPEPA panel, with senators pouncing on his casual remark that the Philippines "does not have a good image" in Japan. Senators Gordon and Enrile asked if JPEPA will improve that image and bring in the investments from Japan.

You can see the report of GMA 7 below:


For the latest Philippine news stories and videos, visit GMANews.TV

THE PHILIPPINE SENATE

SHOULD REJECT THE
JAPAN-PHILIPPINES ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (JPEPA)

1. The secrecy, lack of public disclosure and exclusion of stakeholders,including members of Congress, in the processes leading to the adoption of JPEPA violate the Philippine Constitution on people’s participation in matters of public interest. Akbayan representatives and concerned groups had to file a Supreme Court case in order to get a copy of the full text and annexes of the JPEPA.

2. Toxic and hazardous wastes are scheduled for tariff elimination despite clear national laws and international commitments. A side note was subsequently issued to supposedly “fix” the problem but the same note covers only toxic wastes. Clinical and municipal wastes remain.Said note is also of dubious legal validty.

3. Contrary to repeated media statements, the actual text of the JPEPA reveals that the Philippines waived its right to demand from Japanese investors the obligation to transfer their technology to assist their Filipino partners. The Philippines also surrendered the right to require Japanese investors to hire a given level of Filipinos. This voluntary surrender of rights has not been done by Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand.

4. Article 4 of the JPEPA ties the hands of the Senate and the House of Representatives and requires them to “examine the possibility of amending or repealing laws and regulations that pertain to or affect the implementation and operation of this Agreement, if the circumstances or objectives giving rise to their adoption no longer exist or if such circumstances or objectives can be addressed in a less trade-restrictive manner.” This provision does not exist in Japan’s agreements with Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand.

5. Contrary to the rosy picture painted by the Executive Department for Filipino nurses and caregivers, the JPEPA imposes extremely harsh requirements for the entry and employment of Filipino nurses and caregivers that will make it impossible for them to gain access to the Japanese market.

6. In terms of market access, JPEPA is clearly lopsided in favor of Japanese agricultural and industrial products. The Philippines will drastically eliminate tariffs on agricultural products except for rice (5 tariff lines) and salt. On the other hand, Japan was able to exclude 238 tariff lines, which include a wide range of fish and marine products, vegetables, fruits, seaweed, sugar and related products, and footwear. There is much doubt about market access claims raised by the negotiators. For seaweeds, some of the species, for which Japan has made commitments for tariff elimination, do not even grow and/or are not even farmed in the Philippines.

7. Article 27 of the JPEPA mentions cooperation in relation to used four-wheeled motor vehicles; a clear violation of EO 156 that prohibits the same. It is a clear disregard of a ruling by the Supreme Court that upheld the validity of the said law. The negotiators have repeatedly said in various fora that national laws will be respected but Annex 1: Notes of the JPEPA clearly show that “On the request of either Party, the Parties shall negotiate on issue such as market access conditions on used motor vehicles.” Furthermore, Article 27 does not exist in Japan’s agreements with Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand. This commitment is a serious threat to the 77,000 workers of the automotive industry.

8. Contrary to the Executive Department’s claim that JPEPA will spur economic growth and alleviate poverty, with the lopsided provisions in favor of the Japanese and the absence of a clear national and development plan for the Philippines, JPEPA may very well hasten the demise of the Philippine manufacturing and agricultural sectors and tragically sink majority of the population into deeper poverty.


9. JPEPA will restrict local government autonomy, legislative and taxation powers.

10. The administration of the treaty will create bureaucratic and financial nightmares that will effectively wipeout whatever little economic benefits there may be under JPEPA.

11. The JPEPA is but the first in a long line of free trade and economic partnership agreements currently being negotiated by the Philippines, and it will set the stage for all future trade and investment agreements. If we cannot strategically defend our interests in this treaty, what kind of future can we promise to the Filipino people?

12. The Executive Department’s insistence that JPEPA be concurred with because the Philippines cannot afford “to miss the boat” as the other Asian countries are negotiating “similar” economic partnership agreements with Japan, is inaccurate. The actual text of the JPEPA and the Philippines’ severely restricted protections for its own sectors indicate that the negotiators have already caused the Philippines to miss the boat. Surely, the Filipino people deserve a better boat.

This is about our livelihoods. Our lives.

We have faith in our Senators.

JUNK JPEPA.

-----

Friday, Sept. 14, 2007: Senators slam "fuzzy" gov't presentation of JPEPA.Read here.

Saturday, Sept. 15, 2007, Philippine Daily Inquirer, page A9: Senators not impressed on JPEPA.

news found here.

** The Coalition accepts volunteers (lawyers, economists, writers, students, etc). We cannot pay everyone but we can feed you.:) Please feel free to email us.

magkaisa.junkjpepa@gmail.com

We need your help.

Video: Mass mobilization at the first Senate hearing on JPEPA

Video by Rei Panaligan/EcoWaste Coalition.
Music by Partners In Rhyme.

Mass Mobilization Marks The First Senate Hearing On The JPEPA

Mass Mobilization Marks The First Senate Hearing On The JPEPA

Photo by Rei Panaligan/EcoWaste Coalition.

14 September 2007, Manila, Philippines. – A crowd of more than 300 workers, farmers, fishers, and environmentalists from the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) today called on the Senators of the 14^th Congress to look beyond the rosy projections and government hype surrounding the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), and to carefully assess its short-term and long-term implications. The group’s call came on the day of the first scheduled Senate hearing for this historic, precedent-setting treaty.

Presenting a tableau depicting a group of peasants and a Japanese sumo wrestler engaged in a game of tug-of-war, the Coalition warned that approving the JPEPA would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament, as it surrenders the right of the Filipino people to protect itself in the future, and gives up so much for so little. One of the issues being contested by the group is the possibility that the JPEPA will pave the way for land ownership by foreigners.

“The purpose of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) like the JPEPA is to force the country’s hand on economic issues, including opening up land ownership and government procurement to foreigners,” said Josua Mata of the MJJC. “It is, at its core, about foreigners being given more rights than Filipinos in their own land.”

Photo by Rei Panaligan/EcoWaste Coalition.

Amongst the rights that the country stands to lose under the JPEPA is the right to require Japanese investors to transfer technology and the right to hire a certain level of Filipino nationals as conditions to doing business in the Philippines. Among all the ASEAN countries that have already entered into economic partnership agreements with Japan, it is only the Philippines which has given up these rights.

By failing to make the proper reservations for future measures in the Investments chapter of the JPEPA (Chapter 8), the Philippines has effectively surrendered its right to enact and implement future legislation and policies to achieve national development goals. Reservations operate as exceptions to the provisions of the treaty, and when no reservations are expressly made, it is understood that the countries cannot subsequently invoke future laws or policies. The Coalition feels that the absence of any reservation of “the right to adopt or maintain any future measures” – which is something present in Japan’s commitments, as well as those of Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore – is disturbing and should be cause for concern.

If in the future Congress or local government unit (LGU) enacts a measure that threatens the profit margin of Japanese investors, investors can claim that such a law or ordinance is tantamount to expropriation, and can demand compensation before an international arbitral tribunal, such as what happened in the Fraport-Terminal III case. Even a cursory examination of the experiences of Canada and Mexico under the NAFTA will show that this scenario is not far-fetched at all.

Photo by Rei Panaligan/EcoWaste Coalition.

“We are, in effect, giving them the right to do as they please without thought or regard as to how their activities will impact on the Filipino people. Smuggling in provisions like this in EPAs like the JPEPA is a thinly disguised way to circumvent the laws of the land without having to resort to Constitutional change,” Mr. Mata added. “The government should start thinking about the country’s long-term, strategic interests instead of focusing simply on Japanese investor interests to the exclusion of all else.”

The Coalition believes that the Senate must not be swayed by the hype and euphoria of promised Japanese investments and official development assistance, but must take a long, hard, critical look at what the JPEPA actually states. “We trust that the Senators have not forgotten the commitment they made to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land, and to protect the interests of the Filipino people,” said Mr. Mata. “We fervently hope that the 14th Senate will not go down in history as the Senate that sacrificed the future of the Philippines and the Filipino people at the altar of Japanese government and investor interests.”

*end*

Video: The People Are Watching!

Atty. Golda Benjamin tells us about one of the reasons behind today's action at the Senate. Video by Rei Panaligan/EcoWaste Coalition.

Civil Society Groups Train Their Eyes on the Senate

Civil Society Groups Train Their Eyes on the Senate as Hearings on JPEPA Set to Start



Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.


10 September 2007, Pasay City. Marking the anniversary of the signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), civil society groups from the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) converged today at the Philippine Senate to signify the people’s intention to keep a close eye on the hearings.

Laborers, nurses, environmental advocates and other concerned citizens carrying 13 giant papier mache eyeballs and a huge banner reading “The people are watching... Magkaisa, Junk JPEPA!” lined up at the Senate People’s Park to appeal to the Senators not to ratify the mega treaty.

Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.
The organizers explained that the eyeballs represent the yearning of the Filipino people for a robust, honest and transparent debate on multiple issues that continue to hound the controversial treaty signed by President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and then Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in Helsinki, Finland on 9 September 2006. Japan’s Diet ratified the agreement last 6 December 2006; it is currently awaiting ratification in the Philippine Senate.

The Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition reiterated the civil society’s call to reject the treaty. “The more we study the full text of the JPEPA, the more we become convinced that the Senators should cross party lines and reject it out of hand,” said Atty. Golda Benjamin, lead counsel for the MJJC. “We have faith in this Senate’s ability to transcend political differences and act as one to defend the interests of the Filipino people,” Benjamin added.

Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.
Foremost amongst the issues being leveled against the treaty is the lack of transparency during the negotiation process. Critics from civil society as well as lawmakers from both houses of the Congress have slammed JPEPA for the secrecy shrouding its inception.

In 2005, civil society groups and members of the House of Representatives were forced to file a case in the Supreme Court for the JPEPA negotiators to disclose the full text of the agreement. In 2007, detained mutineer Captain Nicanor Faeldon filed graft charges before the Office of the Ombudsman against government negotiators after finding JPEPA to be “grossly disadvantageous” to the Filipino people.

“A treaty should be negotiated with as much public participation as possible,” Atty. Benjamin stated. “The mystery surrounding the negotiation process puts the whole affair in a bad light. If the JPEPA is really all that they say it is, then the government shouldn’t be afraid of public scrutiny. The whole process begs the question, ‘What are they hiding?’”

*** end***


More photos:















Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.























Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.
















Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.
















Photo by Gigie Cruz/GAIA.

All That Glitters Is Not Gold

Vice President Teofisto Guingona and volunteers from the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition hold a golden treasure chest marked JPEPA. The treasure chest, when opened, reveals samples of wastes that will be given preferrential tariff rates under the controversial treaty. (30 Aug. 2007. Video by Rei Panaligan/EcoWaste Coalition.)

Letter to the Editor: In response to the Manila Times editorial dated 30 August 2007

31 August 2007

To the Editor:

I write in reaction to your editorial yesterday, 30 August 2007, in which you wrote glowingly about the benefits which the Philippines reportedly stands to gain under the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).

I have been studying the actual text of the JPEPA since September 2006, immediately after the Philippine government made it available to the public. Far from being mere paranoia, the dangers of JPEPA that have been raised by civil society and the basic sectors are very real indeed.

In theory, countries are supposed to mutually benefit under free trade and bilateral investment treaties such as the JPEPA. These supposed benefits are reflected in the economic projections made before such treaties are negotiated or completed. However, the real gains can only be assessed in the light of the actual final negotiated text of the treaty, the specific concessions and reservations made in the annexes, and the political, social, and economic reality within which the treaty will operate.

While there is no express provision saying that Japan will export its waste to the Philippines, this is due more to the sophistication of the Japanese negotiators than anything else. Articles 29 (i) to (l) of JPEPA subtly provide that goods that are “fit only for disposal” can be traded under preferential tariff rates. Annex 1 of JPEPA expressly provides that clinical waste, municipal waste, sewage sludge, and incinerator ash can enter the Philippines duty-free. The DENR and members of civil society already pointed out as early as February 2006 that this would potentially violate Philippine environmental law and the Basel Convention, but our negotiators inexplicably ignored this piece of legal advice.

More than the loss of tariff revenue, what the Senators must be even more alarmed about is the loss of policy space and national sovereignty that JPEPA will wreak at both the national and local government levels.

First, by eliminating tariffs on practically all products, the Executive Branch has usurped the power of Congress to adjust tariffs and impose quotas, and eliminated the use of tariffs as a means to shape trade and industrial policy in furtherance of national development goals.

Worse, under the investments chapter of JPEPA (Chapter 8, Articles 87-107 and Annex 7), our negotiators effectively bargained away the prerogative of the national and local governments to enact and enforce future laws and policies pertaining to investment and taxation. This can be seen from the glaring absence of any Philippine reservation of “the right to adopt or maintain any future measures” at both the national and local government levels. This means that, if in the future Congress or an LGU enacts a measure that threatens the profit margin of Japanese investors, investors can claim that such a law or ordinance is tantamount to expropriation, and can demand compensation before an international arbitral tribunal, such as what happened in the Fraport-Terminal III case. Even a cursory examination of the experiences of Canada and Mexico under the NAFTA will show that this scenario is not far-fetched at all.

The supposed market access gains under the JPEPA are belied by the reality of the concessions that the Philippines has managed to exact from Japan. Anyone who will take the time to review the JPEPA tariff schedule will see that Japan has excluded 238 key products from tariff reduction, and has imposed quotas on key Philippine imports such as Cavendish bananas.

Moreover, the Philippines has excluded only rice and salt from tariff elimination, a move which our negotiators have justified as necessary for compliance with WTO commitments. This does not explain how Indonesia managed to exclude 835 products, including iron and steel, poultry, livestock, and various fruits, or how Malaysia was able to exclude 38 products, including rubber, wheat, rice, sugar, meat and dairy products. In addition to that, Malaysia has provided for a maximum 15-year period for tariff reduction, compared to the Philippines’ maximum period of 10 years.

These matters are just a few of the many legitimate causes for concern over the possible Senate approval of the JPEPA. The Senate must not be swayed by the hype and euphoria of promised Japanese investments and official development assistance, but must critically analyze the JPEPA and recognize this treaty for what it truly is: a lopsided agreement that sacrifices the future of the Philippines and the Filipino people at the altar of Japanese government and business interests.

The Manila Times has had a long and celebrated history of coming out with balanced news and well-reasoned editorials. It saddens me to note that your JPEPA editorial appears to have been based solely on government press releases and speculations without the benefit of actual, independent study. It would be best that your editorial pieces be backed by empirical data and critical analysis, lest your paper’s credibility be called into question in the future.

Very truly yours,

Tanya Lat
LL.M. Candidate, 2007-2008
Fellow, Institute of International Economic Law
Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, D.C.


Read the Manila Times editorial here.