tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28703355440066378932024-02-20T23:07:21.969+08:00Magkaisa Junk JPEPAThe official blog of the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition, a multisectoral effort to defeat an unfair and environmentally unjust bilateral trade agreement with JapanRonnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-67299923632145599422009-11-04T13:09:00.001+08:002009-11-04T13:11:52.140+08:00People’s Coalition urges vigilance on JPEPA implementation; Bantay JPEPA launched<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal">As the nation awaits the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement, the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) reiterated its call for the public to be vigilant in monitoring the implementation of the JPEPA with the launching of the Bantay JPEPA campaign last May 20, 2009. As of the moment focus is on three vulnerable sectors: (1) nurses; (2) automotive industry; and (3) the environment.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal">The campaign aims to:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto;text-indent:-.25in;line-height:normal;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"></p><ul><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(1)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span>Conduct an annual review and monitoring of the implementation of the JPEPA, including initiating dialogue with legislators;</li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(2)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span>Coordinate with other trade groups with similar advocacies, to strengthen the initiative; and</li><li><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(3)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span>Give assistance to vulnerable sectors and act as coordinating boy among the stakeholders.</li></ul><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal">Recognition of the “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Apat na Tapat</i>” – Senators Jamby Madrigal, Chiz Escudero, Noynoy Aquino and Nene Pimentel, who voted against the treaty, was also held at the grounds of the Senate. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-32138655675146343502009-01-14T17:31:00.001+08:002009-01-14T17:34:09.377+08:00People’s Coalition calls on Supreme Court to uphold Philippine Constitution as Japan-RP Pact Takes Effect Tomorrow10 December 2008, Quezon City . The Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) called on the Supreme Court to take decisive action on the constitutional and legal questions surrounding the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).<br /> <br />The MJJC made this call in view of the Court’s inaction despite the looming implementation of the JPEPA, which is expected to take effect on Thursday.<br /><br />It will be recalled that the MJJC on October 13, 2008 questioned the constitutionality of JPEPA and implored the Supreme Court to halt its implementation.. Petitioners include the Alliance of Progressive Labor, Concerned Citizens Against Pollution, EcoWaste Coalition, Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services Inc., Kilusan Para sa Pagpapaunlad ng Industriya ng Pangisdaan, Mother Earth Foundation, NGOs for Fisheries Reform, Philippine Metal Workers Alliance and Akbayan Rep. Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel<br /><br />“We have seen that the Supreme Court is perfectly capable of acting expeditiously on matters of grave national importance. Why then is it dragging its feet on an agreement that is potentially more devastating than Philippine membership in the World Trade Organization and is blatantly unconstitutional?” Atty. Golda Benjamin, lead counsel of the MJJC, asked.<br /><br />Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and Japanese Ambassador Makoto Katsura had exchanged diplomatic notes last month and set December 11, 2008 as the date that the JPEPA would enter into force. JPEPA opponents had filed a case with the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the trade treaty and asking for a restraining order which the High Court had declined to grant.<br /><br />“We ask the Honorable Supreme Court to give justice to the millions of poor Filipinos who will suffer needlessly because of the government’s failure to protect their rights and interests during the negotiation of the JPEPA. We call on our Honorable Justices to abide by their solemn duty to uphold the Philippine Constitution and defend the interests of the Filipino people,” Benjamin stated.<br /><br />The MJJC also called on all Filipinos to exercise continued vigilance in the light of the impending implementation of the JPEPA.<br /><br />“Philippine officials have asked us to ‘give JPEPA a chance.’ What they are really saying is, we have no choice but to accept the JPEPA because it’s already there. We refuse to accept such a defeatist attitude,” Josua Mata, Secretary General of the Alliance of Progressive Labor, said. <br /><br />“Contrary to what some JPEPA apologists are saying, implementing JPEPA would only hasten the collapse of our industrial capacities that are now tottering as a result of the global crisis. After all, JPEPA severely constricts our policy space in the areas of trade and investments,” Mata added.<br /><br />The MJJC will monitor the implementation of the JPEPA very closely, publicly disclose its ill effects and hold government officials accountable and liable.<br /><br />“We choose not to be defeated. This battle -- for economic justice, environmental integrity, national sovereignty, and Philippine pride -- is far from over,” the MJJC said.<br /><br />The MJJC, a multisectoral people’s coalition, has vigorously campaigned for the Senate rejection of JPEPA on economic, environmental, constitutional, legal and ethical grounds.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-63262983788532817052008-10-12T22:10:00.000+08:002008-10-12T22:11:05.074+08:00An act of national betrayalIn an act of national betrayal, sixteen so-called representatives of the people voted to approve the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement. <br /><br /> Sixteen votes to approve the JPEPA. Sixteen votes to sell the Filipino people’s freedom, dignity, and future. Sixteen votes [that said] affirming: <br /><br /> * a treaty that is admittedly weak and badly negotiated is good enough for the Filipino people.<br /> * it is correct to violate Philippine laws and the Constitution to accommodate the requests of a powerful and rich nation such as Japan.<br /> * it is correct to accept that Filipino nurses can be discriminated against.<br /> * it is correct to allow a rich nation like Japan to protect its fishermen and farmers while Philippines [negotiators] abandoned their own.<br /> * It is acceptable to foresake the environment and health of Filipinos by allowing toxic wastes and other poisonous substances to be commodified under a trade agreement.<br /> * it is correct to say that the Filipino is not good enough to be protected and defended.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> In the midst of financial and political turmoil, countries are fighting to protect their own people, uphold national interest, and ensure that the lives and livelihood of their citizens are defended according to the demands not only of law but of basic demands of justice and human rights. <br /><br /> On the Senate floor, only four rightful representatives of the people voted to stand up for the Filipino, with the Filipinos. These are today’s heroes: Senator Jamby Madrigal, Senator Chiz Escudero, Senator Noynoy Aquino, and Senator Nene Pimentel. They did what they swore to do: serve the Filipino people. <br /><br /> We, the members of the Magkaisa JUNK JPEPA Coalition, are enraged by this shameful act performed was once the hallowed floors of the Senate. The fight for this nation cannot be made to end in their bloodied hands. These sixteen people cannot take part in the determination of this country’s future. Never again shall we allow cast our vote to call them leaders. <br /><br /> We will march on and invoke the wisdom of the highest court of the land. <br /><br /> We refuse to mourn for this act against the people. We choose not to be defeated. We choose to fight against any and all attempts to sell this proud nation and its people to the highest bidder. <br /><br /> We call on every Filipino to join us in our continuing struggle and NOT to forget the injustice that these 16 Senators did today. <br /><br /> Para sa Pilipas.Para sa Pilipino. <br /><br /> Magkaisa JUNK JPEPA.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-83451352505678428322008-10-09T18:05:00.002+08:002008-10-09T18:11:35.778+08:00An Act of National Betrayal: Senate Approves JPEPA<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b style=""><o:p> </o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">In an act of national betrayal, sixteen so-called representatives of the people voted to approve the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Sixteen votes to approve the JPEPA. Sixteen votes to sell the Filipino people’s freedom, dignity, and future. Sixteen votes that said:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ul style="margin-top: 0in; font-family: arial;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;">a treaty that is admittedly weak and badly negotiated is good enough for the Filipino people<o:p></o:p></span> </li><li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;">it is correct to violate Philippine laws and the Constitution to accommodate the requests of the powerful and rich nation, Japan<o:p></o:p></span> </li><li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;">it is correct to accept that Filipino nurses can be discriminated against<o:p></o:p></span> </li><li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;">it is correct to allow a rich nation like Japan to protect its fishermen and farmers while Philippine negotiators abandoned them.<o:p></o:p></span> </li><li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;">it is correct to say that the Filipino is not good enough to be protected and defended.<o:p></o:p></span> </li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">In the midst of financial turmoil, countries are fighting to protect their own people, uphold national interest, and ensure that the lives and livelihood of their citizens are defended according to the demands not only of law but of basic demands of justice and human rights. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">On the Senate floor, only four rightful representatives of the people voted to stand up for the Filipino, with the Filipinos. These are today’s heroes: Senator Jamby Madrigal, Senator Chiz Escudero, Senator Noynoy Aquino, and Senator Nene Pimentel. They did what they swore to do: serve the Filipino people.<o:p><br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">We, the members of the Magkaisa JUNK JPEPA Coalition, are enraged by this shameful act performed on the floors of the Senate. The fight for this nation cannot be made to end in their bloodied hands. These sixteen people cannot take part in the determination of this country’s future. Never again shall we allow cast our vote to call them leaders.<o:p><br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">We will march on and invoke the wisdom of the highest court of the land. <o:p><br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">We refuse to mourn for this act against the people. We choose not to be defeated. We choose to fight against any and all attempts to sell this proud nation and its people to the highest bidder. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">We call on every Filipino to join us in our continuing struggle and NOT to forget the injustice that these 16 Senators did today.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:100%;">Para sa Pilipas.Para sa Pilipino.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; text-align: justify; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Magkaisa JUNK JPEPA.<o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">- </span><b style="font-family: arial;">Magkaisa JUNK JPEPA Coalition</b></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-39873249009404354112008-08-30T00:31:00.000+08:002008-08-30T00:33:12.803+08:00Sayonara JPEPA !<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G3SfCWIK2Ak&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G3SfCWIK2Ak&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-12145737910699434492008-08-30T00:21:00.002+08:002008-08-30T00:31:23.755+08:00Experts cite illegality and failed trade objectives in JPEPA27 August 2008, Pasay, City – In a forum organized by the multi-sectoral group Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) entitled, "JPEPA Losers and Gainers: Constitutional and Trade Issues", two experts provided a bruising critique of the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) before members of the press, civil society and Senate staff.<br /><br />Constitutional, international law expert and former dean of the UP College of Law, Prof. Merlin Magallona, and former commercial attaché and former director of the Department of Trade and Industry Bureau of International Trade Relations, Ms. Edna Espos weighed the constitutional and trade issues facing the JPEPA, and gave the treaty a thumbs down, concluding that the JPEPA will make the Philippines and the Filipinos big losers to Japan.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Unconstitutionality of JPEPA</span><br /><br />“JPEPA is an essential aspect of the Japanese relocation strategy and JPEPA’s benefits will be accruing to the Japanese subsidiaries in the Philippines,” explained Magallona. <br /><br />In his analysis, Magallona dissects how the JPEPA by granting extensive national treatment principle gives away to the Japanese sacred Constitutional rights reserved for Filipinos, such as to own land in the Philippines, the right practice certain professions, operate and administer educational institutions. This essentially places Japanese nationals and their investments at parity with Filipinos. <br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgukkn1pmP-SKWTHtmFKl0_Md-wJZEQYp1BIMJLQetfomL9HTDKaF_71SAY9K1eMKIdYg08wpuSXAkGPdHw5wq6_zRLCJQg7VT49zYPU68tJ_qevSm0VMY9lJakqKl2W2zArLaya1k6BUnq/s1600-h/IMG_2548.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgukkn1pmP-SKWTHtmFKl0_Md-wJZEQYp1BIMJLQetfomL9HTDKaF_71SAY9K1eMKIdYg08wpuSXAkGPdHw5wq6_zRLCJQg7VT49zYPU68tJ_qevSm0VMY9lJakqKl2W2zArLaya1k6BUnq/s400/IMG_2548.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5239977498059439570" /></a><br />According to Magallona, if very little preference is extended to the Filipino vis-à-vis the Japanese investors under the JPEPA, what is the value of being a Filipino in your own national economy?<br /><br />On the issue of the pending exchange of notes that Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago claims will address the Constitutional issues in JPEPA, Magallona was cautious; elaborating that without the benefit of seeing the actual document it would be very difficult to come up with a definitive analysis favorable or otherwise.. <br /><br />He raised concerns, however, on the impact of the notes on the JPEPA if it is executed merely between the Philippine and Japanese Executive branches, noting that the JPEPA was ratified by the Japanese Diet and is pending concurrence by the Philippine Senate. Any amendment to the agreement entered into by the Philippines with Japan should at least go through a similar process, at a minimum.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Failed Trade Objectives</span><br /><br />“Sen. Roxas’ established two tests to gauge the success of JPEPA: first, did we achieve our negotiating objectives, and second, did we gain more than we gave up. The answer to these tests is a resounding no,” exclaimed Espos at the start of her critique on the trade value of JPEPA to the Philippines.<br /><br />One of the goals for entering into JPEPA, according to Espos, is to gain market access for Philippine exports to Japan. In order to achieve this goal the Philippines under JPEPA drastically eliminated tariffs across the board, exempting only 6 tariff lines for rice and salt and negotiated on issues that it would not even do so under the World Trade Organization. <br /><br />Instead of reciprocating the gesture, Japan on the other hand, excluded from the coverage of JPEPA at least 197 tariff lines, constituting mainly agricultural and marine products for which the Philippines has competitive advantage. The long list of Japanese exclusions, long-term phase out of tariffs, and deferred market negotiations under JPEPA severely restricted agricultural gains by the Philippines under JPEPA.<br /><br />Espos further explained that the purported easier market access for electronics, furnitures, and automotive parts under JPEPA is not entirely true. Even without the JPEPA, these products already enter Japan duty-free; JPEPA did not change anything. Philippine garments and footwear exporters cannot take advantage of the duty-free provision under JPEPA because their raw materials do not comply with JPEPA Rules of Origin (ROO), which mandates in part that the raw materials come primarily from Japan or any of the ASEAN countries.<br /><br />A crucial item that the Philippines failed to get after giving up so much was the removal of the enormous Japanese agricultural subsidy (including subsidies on fishing industry) that aversely affects millions of Filipino farmers and fisherfolks who cannot compete with subsidized products both abroad and at home.<br /><br />Espos elaborated on the inequity of the JPEPA, by citing that the Philippines eliminated its fish tariffs under JPEPA, but Japan will not even commit to reduce its subsidies on its fishing vessels and will in fact even exclude fish products from the JPEPA. <br /><br />“We gave up everything, and gained nothing under JPEPA. This is the sorry conclusion facing us with JPEPA,” stated Atty. Golda Benjamin, lead counsel for MJJC. “For a treaty that is so patently unconstitutional and for its failure to obtain the needed gains for Filipino farmers, fisherfolks, workers and exporters, there is only one logical, just, and moral step that the Senate can take, and that is to reject JPEPA.”Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-34800335764086055552008-08-20T23:59:00.003+08:002008-08-21T00:18:54.721+08:00Toxic wastes in JPEPA a real threat<span style="font-weight:bold;">Green groups call on Senate not to ignore environmental issues</span><br /><br />12 August 2008, Quezon, City – “The threat posed by toxic wastes in the JPEPA is very real for Filipinos. It behooves our Senators to address this threat and not pretend that it is not there,” stated Marie Marciano, President of Mother Earth Foundation and a member of the multi-sectoral movement called the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) that held a creative protest in front of the Senate today. <br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY_5iaN5vJ9Dae_m0TtM1a1V9SN5WtoJ_0C7Pq9NHwiuP0aS-cpcfYCCCHPLMF5vMNAYIHys2fRl2PMBkYZkQdfoGEvPtWmlz5wwL449L6EWbiLYn60whj47AD-FFZiN5lNN1GvLCm9nL1/s1600-h/PR+Photo.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjY_5iaN5vJ9Dae_m0TtM1a1V9SN5WtoJ_0C7Pq9NHwiuP0aS-cpcfYCCCHPLMF5vMNAYIHys2fRl2PMBkYZkQdfoGEvPtWmlz5wwL449L6EWbiLYn60whj47AD-FFZiN5lNN1GvLCm9nL1/s400/PR+Photo.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236631467383826290" /></a><br />Members of various environmental groups participated in the creative protest in which mock figures of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Senators Mar Roxas and Miriam Defensor-Santiago sat on toxic waste barrels marked JPEPA, miming the common phrase “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil”. In this instance the three figures are metaphorically washing their hands of JPEPA and the toxic waste nightmare it will bring.<br /><br />In May of 2007, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso executed a side note expressing Japan’s promise not to export hazardous wastes to the Philippines, as long as it follows Philippine and Japanese laws, as well as the international treaty on toxic wastes known as the Basel Convention. According to Atty. Richard Gutierrez, Executive Director of Ban Toxics!, it is not sufficient to rely on Japan’s promise not to export toxic wastes to the Philippines because there are physical and financial incentives for Japan to export its wastes.<br /><br />Citing data from the Japanese Ministry of Environment, Gutierrez stated that Japan has been generating over 50 million tons of wastes per year for the past 10 years. Because of their continued generation of waste Japan only has 13.2 years left of physical space in their landfills to dispose of their municipal waste. For their industrial wastes, the Japanese only have 6.1 years left in their landfills. <br /> <br />“It’s simple physics, two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. You either move the Japanese out of Japan or you move the waste out of Japan. This is a no brainer,” stated Gutierrez.<br /><br />“In terms of cost, the Japanese are spending 2 trillion Yen per year to deal with their wastes,” continued Gutierrez. “Why not export these wastes in the guise of raw materials to poorer countries and save money on the processing cost in Japan? This is a win-win for Japan and a major loss for the country accepting the toxic wastes.”<br /><br />The environmental groups also mentioned that Japan is struggling with the growing cases of illegal dumping within its borders and data from Thailand and India have revealed that Japan is already exporting toxic wastes to these countries under existing Japanese and international laws.<br /><br />According to Marciano, the promise to follow laws is not sufficient. “We need to take into account that all these laws define toxic wastes the same way and that they are all implemented rigorously. The fact that Japan is able to export toxic wastes to Thailand and India for the past three years is evidence that Japanese law and the Basel Convention do allow toxic wastes exports.”<br /><br />In her privilege speech to the Senate sponsoring the ratification of the controversial treaty, Sen. Defensor-Santiago expressly stated that the Senate is recommending to Malacañang the ratification of the Basel Ban Amendment. <br /><br />“If Malacañang does not endorse the Basel Ban Amendment to the Senate for ratification, this will recommendation will go nowhere,” said Gutierrez “Filipinos have the Constitutional right to a healthful ecology. This is a right based on a legal obligation not on convenience. The Filipino health and environment must constantly be protected, and not when it is politically convenient.”Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-76311735048802892572008-08-13T22:36:00.002+08:002008-08-13T22:45:26.784+08:00NGO Leaders from 30 Countries Call for Senate Rejection of JPEPA, Warn against Chemical Trespassing via Toxic Waste Trade13 August 2008, Trivandrum, India; Quezon City, Philippines. Opposition against the ratification of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) has gone international with public interest groups across the globe urging the Senate not to ratify the flawed treaty.<br /><br />In an open letter faxed today to the office of Senate President Manny Villar, 66 non-governmental organization (NGO) leaders from 30 countries currently gathered in Trivandrum, capital city of Kerala state, India for a global conference on chemical safety urged the senators to desist from ratifying the controversial pact.<br /><br />Among the signatories were member groups of the International Persistent Organic Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and North America.<br /><br />“We trust that the Philippine Senate will heed what the local and international civil society groups are saying and be proactive in protecting the Filipino people and the environment from chemical trespassing through toxic waste trade,” Australian lawyer Marian Lloyd-Smith, IPEN Co-Chair, said.<br /><br />“As groups engaged in the global movement to cut pollution that impairs the health and wellbeing of the people and other creatures in this planet, we empathize with the steadfast stance of public health and environmental justice groups in the Philippines against JPEPA, a treaty that promotes trade in toxic waste,” the open letter reads.<br /><br />“We join the Filipino people in appealing to the members of the Senate to reject JPEPA, ratify the Basel Ban Amendment, plug loopholes in waste and customs laws to stop toxic waste trade, and initiate policies, applying the principles of precaution and prevention, that will protect the people and the environment from the adverse toxic effects of chemicals,” the open<br />letter states.<br /><br />The EcoWaste Coalition, a partner group of GAIA and IPEN in the Philippines, obtained a copy of the letter to the senators, which the group warmly welcomed and circulated to the local press.<br /><br />“We laud this timely support from our colleagues abroad for the trashing of the discredited JPEPA because of the treaty’s barefaced defects to stand up for the public welfare, the environment and the Constitution,” Manny Calonzo of the EcoWaste Coalition and GAIA said.<br /><br />In their open letter, the groups reminded the senators that “the Philippines is already struggling with the wastes it generates, and with the widespread lack of information on the toxicity and environmentally-safe management of its wastes," a situation that will not be helped by ratifying JPEPA.<br /><br />They explained that “the inclusion of hundreds of toxic materials and wastes for zero tariff elimination, including persistent organic pollutant(POP) wastes, nuclear wastes, ozone depleting substances and many other globally banned and controlled chemicals and substances provides unambiguous indicator that trade in toxic wastes is promoted under the pact.”<br /><br />“The fact that neither Japan nor the Philippines has ratified the Basel Ban Amendment, which prohibits the export of toxic wastes from developed to developing countries for all intents and purposes, including recycling and disposal, makes us wary beyond doubt of the plausible dumping of toxic wastes, including electronic wastes, into the Philippines, turning the country's islands into convenient dumps for all types of garbage from overseas,” they emphasized.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-89229725144510812442008-08-12T20:32:00.003+08:002008-08-12T20:40:54.815+08:00Mar hit on JPEPA constitutionality<span style="font-weight:bold;">Group sees senator's position <br />one of political convenience not principle</span><br /><br />12 August 2008, Quezon, City – Before the scheduled start of the Senate interpellation on the trade issues of the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) last Monday, Senator Mar Roxas gave an impassioned speech on the boiling issue of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) that has caused bloodshed in the South. Sen. Roxas condemned the MOA-AD as unconstitutional and described it as an agreement “conceived in secrecy, borne of duplicity, enforced through threat and coercion”.<br /><br />His vehement opposition on the MOA-AD was not lost on Sen. Jamby Madrigal, when the latter took the floor to interpellate him on his speech. Sen. Madrigal reminded Sen. Roxas that the very observations he expressed against the MOA-AD were the very conditions in which the JPEPA is currently embroiled in and how she wished he expressed the same sentiment on JPEPA as with the MOA-AD.<br /><br />The Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC), a coalition of more than 50 multisectoral groups opposing the uneven trade pact with Japan, took over where Sen. Madrigal left off. <br /><br />“What is mind boggling is how Sen. Roxas can scream that the MOA-AD is unconstitutional and remain straight faced and defend JPEPA at the same time,” stated the MJJC. <br /><br />“One can simply be cynical about Mar’s stand and conclude that since the MOA-AD did not make any beneficial trade forecast the good Senator is more than happy to pounce on it. Unlike in JPEPA, which relies on bogus positive trade projections you have the Japanese threatening ODA and direct investment cuts. So even if JPEPA is unconstitutional, he’s happy to accept JPEPA,” explained the MJJC.<br /><br />The MJJC has for over the past two years revealed that the JPEPA was negotiated in secret with little public consultation. Over the course of the hearings in the Senate in late 2007, it was also revealed that the JPEPA was drafted by a cabal of Japanese and Filipino negotiators with very little accountability to the Filipino people. During these hearings which Senators Roxas and Defensor-Santiago presided over, they were privy to the testimonies of legal luminaries, Retired Supreme Court Justice Florentino P. Feliciano and former University of the Philippines Law School Dean Merlin Magallona that the JPEPA violates the Constitution of the Philippines.<br /><br />Ret. Justice Feliciano, who is also the former head of the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body, provided a stinging and critical examination of how the JPEPA gives away to the Japanese sacred Constitutional rights to own land, practice certain professions, operate and administer educational institutions, and own media companies. In his note to the Senate he also explained how JPEPA limits Legislative powers, both at the national and local levels, to enact future laws that could impact JPEPA and how the treaty usurps the Congressional prerogative to set tariff rates, among others.<br /><br />“Senator Roxas is caught between his two conflicting positions on the Constitution. This is proof that you cannot brandy the Constitution for political convenience. You either apply it evenly in all conditions or you’ll be caught with your foot in your mouth as he was in yesterday’s hearing,” stated the MJJC.<br /><br />“His only savior now from utter political embarrassment is the side agreement which Japan and the Arroyo administration are concocting to address the constitutional issues,” explained the MJJC. “The reliance on a side agreement for JPEPA is misguided and only serves to gloss over the fundamental flaws of that agreement. Should the MILF enter into a side agreement with the Philippine government addressing the constitutional issues of the MOA-AD, will Sen. Roxas capitulate on his stand as well?”<br /><br />Contact:<br /><br />Josua Mata, Alliance for Progressive Labor / Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC), Tel. No. +63 917 794 2431, e-mail: josua@apl.org.phRonnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-70931915559026899662008-08-04T13:39:00.006+08:002008-12-13T19:10:50.364+08:00Coffin, mourners march to Senate<span style="font-weight:bold;">JPEPA spells death to environment and economy—green groups</span><br /><br />4 August 2008, Pasay City. Concerned civil society groups today held a funeral march at the Philippine Senate to symbolize death to the environment and economy with the ratification of the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_ID77RpjsW0vYe-8W_0lPqgCkNjRuUuB7X9-onn0VOJ6C-ZDZ8ciuaqaMht5efIx9syGpqXsZyB-XDRy5uNA6GdqMhU0E9B5rASblOjAQ2tpchnLYhEm-LHGwXErZxwNNad85ayzmePkR/s1600-h/IMG_0688.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_ID77RpjsW0vYe-8W_0lPqgCkNjRuUuB7X9-onn0VOJ6C-ZDZ8ciuaqaMht5efIx9syGpqXsZyB-XDRy5uNA6GdqMhU0E9B5rASblOjAQ2tpchnLYhEm-LHGwXErZxwNNad85ayzmePkR/s320/IMG_0688.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230899073404806450" /></a><br />Among the funeral cortege were members of the EcoWaste Coalition dressed in black, as well as women mourners covered in black veils. Pall bearers carried a white coffin behind which was a huge banner saying, “JPEPA: Toxic to the Environment and Economy”. The mood of the mock funeral was made even grimmer with traditional Philippine funeral music in the background, played live by a 12-man band.<br /><br />The “black and green protest” by the public health and environmental justice groups serves as a sign of the continued rejection of the treaty by the different sectors in the light of the upcoming floor debates in the Senate. The sponsorship speech, expected to take place this week following circulation of the Committee Report and Senate Resolution seeking concurrence in the ratification of the JPEPA, also signals the commencement of the floor deliberations on the treaty.<br /><br />“We’d like to remind the Senators that they are duty-bound to protect all aspects of Philippine life from unjust treaties like the JPEPA”, said Manny Calonzo, President of the EcoWaste Coalition, a partner of the multi-sectoral Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC). “We should not allow Japan to take us by a noose like a cow thinking it is being led to its fodder when, in reality, it is being prepared for slaughter. The Filipino people deserve nothing less than a just and beneficial deal that honors our sovereignty and respects our Constitution”, Calonzo added.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjIb_zB-4K8VqaWoMp3Rc8lQlD58MXj6ltBpl_lc65idXNAW-Nh9mPUlVPSc_xg56ArPAzt8XQhYTDcIGhTVW06ppzY7JMoG7ztf-ecr9dWFwJ1wMZT7u9TQXrF3cC6OjhiVlf8pFZije4/s1600-h/5x7_20080804jpepa_mourners0002+copy.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjIb_zB-4K8VqaWoMp3Rc8lQlD58MXj6ltBpl_lc65idXNAW-Nh9mPUlVPSc_xg56ArPAzt8XQhYTDcIGhTVW06ppzY7JMoG7ztf-ecr9dWFwJ1wMZT7u9TQXrF3cC6OjhiVlf8pFZije4/s400/5x7_20080804jpepa_mourners0002+copy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230897132443830162" /></a><br />The Coalition reiterates that the issues on toxic and nuclear waste dumping remain unresolved despite the exchange of diplomatic notes signed by the Japanese and Philippine governments. A study published by the Ban Toxics, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives and the EcoWaste Coalition slammed JPEPA for failing to protect the public health and the environment with the promotion and facilitation of trade involving a long list of toxic waste materials, including incinerator ash and numerous globally banned and restricted chemicals and substances..<br /><br />Data gathered by the EcoWaste Coalition show that Japanese wastes have entered and continue to enter the country, sometimes disguised as recyclables or second hand goods.<br /><br />“Majority of our Senators have expressed that they have reservations about this treaty—even they cannot deny that JPEPA is unjust, unconstitutional, and heavily biased toward Japan’s interests at the expense of Philippine sovereignty, economy, and environment. For our Senators to ratify such a treaty—with full knowledge of its terrible flaws—is beyond the limits of what is decent and right, and spells death to our dignity and aspirations as a nation,” said Beau Baconguis of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, a member of the EcoWaste Coalition and the MJJC.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM1f2MGgoyOAQtc6TvU5yrBz6RGvNZ7aiKChsv2vLfe_moHHDKeWTm3J31yqy2w-QIbqFlLQ6NO-mdp-CnlwyAlaPjIaXWibr5lKbvCR0ihZyxVqSGWsAmYuWJbOAv696BTMsay2uNN8QW/s1600-h/5x7_20080804_jpepa_mourners_0342.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM1f2MGgoyOAQtc6TvU5yrBz6RGvNZ7aiKChsv2vLfe_moHHDKeWTm3J31yqy2w-QIbqFlLQ6NO-mdp-CnlwyAlaPjIaXWibr5lKbvCR0ihZyxVqSGWsAmYuWJbOAv696BTMsay2uNN8QW/s400/5x7_20080804_jpepa_mourners_0342.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230886422172459714" /></a><br />Members of the EcoWaste Coalition, Ban Toxics, Cavite Green Coalition, Concerned Citizens Against Pollution, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Health Care Without Harm, Malayang Tinig ng Kababaihan sa Komunidad, Mother Earth Foundation, November 17 Movement, Sagip Pasig Movement, Sanib Lakas ng Inang Kalikasan and Zero Waste Philippines took part in the mock funeral march and drama against JPEPA.<br /><br />Contact details:<br /><br />Manny Calonzo: President, EcoWaste Coalition, +63 922 8286343<br />Beau Baconguis: Campaigner, Greenpeace +63 917 8715257Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-43746681964388028762008-08-01T11:23:00.002+08:002008-08-01T11:26:21.633+08:00Doha deal would have deprived RP of safeguards against import surges31 July 2008, Quezon City. – A people’s coalition campaigning against the ratification of the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) applauded the collapse of the Doha round of multilateral trade talks in the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva.<br /><br />“A WTO deal would have exposed the developing countries like the Philippines further to the exigencies of the global market and would have deprived the country of safeguard mechanisms against import surges,” Atty. Golda Benjamin, lead counsel of the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA (MJJC), said.<br /><br />"Under a liberalized trade regime, import-dependent countries like the Philippines face the very real threat of being flooded with highly-subsidized and cheap products from abroad,” she warned.<br /><br />"With the JPEPA, the Philippines is practically opening up its entire agricultural market with the sole exception of rice and salt to Japanese imports. What we need is some sort of shield from the threat of import surges,” Arze Glipo, lead convenor of the Task Force Food Sovereignty, a partner of the MJJC, said.<br /><br />The Doha round of multilateral trade talks of the World Trade Organization(WTO) collapsed yesterday over huge disagreements on how to deal with agriculture subsidies and food tariffs. One of the more contentious issues is the proposed language on special safeguards mechanisms for developing countries or SSM.<br /><br />The SSM is an instrument that would allow developing countries to increase tariffs to ward off the negative effects on the livelihoods of farmers from import surges. Developed countries led by the United States have over the course of the seven-year negotiations been trying to impose strict conditions on the use of SSM.<br /><br />"The watered-down proposal on SSM in the WTO, that was rightfully rejected by developing countries, would exclude imports covered by bilateral trade agreements like JPEPA from the computation of import volumes, effectively depriving the Philippines and developing countries that have signed bilateral FTAs, the use of this remedial mechanism" explained Joseph Purugganan of the Focus on the Global South, another MJJC partner.<br /><br />"We are glad that developing countries stood up to defend their right to effective safeguards under the WTO but our urgent call is to the Senate to reject JPEPA. It is a known fact that developed countries are using bilaterals to get what they failed to obtain at the WTO. The Senate must recognize this. It is not yet too late to put the interest of the Philippines at the heart of the JPEPA controversy. There is only one way to vote, no to JPEPA as the developing countries have said NO! to the WTO Doha round of talks," the MJJC stated.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-76032260363194399422008-08-01T10:25:00.005+08:002008-12-13T19:10:50.988+08:00Group Claims a Senate Vote Favoring JPEPA will be Disastrous for Filipinos29 July 2008, Pasay City: "A vote for JPEPA is a vote against Filipinos,"was the cry of close to 300 members of the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC), a multi-sectoral network formed in late 2006 opposing the ratification of the controversial Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), during their rally in front of the Senate today.<br /><br />The activists held images of Senators in silhouettes with a question mark emblazoned where the Senators' faces ought to be. A giant streamer bearing the message "JPEPA is Anti-Filipino" served as the main backdrop for the many placards held by the demonstrators.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5qAm8OMi-nvNQAU8sz0Z77twHeY-aySa46CJbuWtEJOYjDDI_rSiZKTMixmvufKcvtJN8L2VBRixKExFGT0ENUDoWlTgNeBrbeCWUYhLxY1KLAXq50Cx-9KaDDCpa71nER6xVUum5PNls/s1600-h/JPEPA2.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5qAm8OMi-nvNQAU8sz0Z77twHeY-aySa46CJbuWtEJOYjDDI_rSiZKTMixmvufKcvtJN8L2VBRixKExFGT0ENUDoWlTgNeBrbeCWUYhLxY1KLAXq50Cx-9KaDDCpa71nER6xVUum5PNls/s400/JPEPA2.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5229373909042816882" /></a><br />"At the center of this controversy really is whether JPEPA will be clearly beneficial to Filipinos," explained Atty. Golda Benjamin, MJJC lead counsel. "From the past hearings conducted by the Senate on this very issue the Government has totally failed to prove its case that this damned treaty is good for the country."<br /><br />The issue of the JPEPA once again took center stage after the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by several party-list lawmakers and NGOs requesting Malacanang to divulge negotiation information about the much contested treaty. Last week Senate President Manuel Villar intimated the JPEPA will be one of their priorities when session resumes this week.<br /><br /><br />NO FOOD FOR FILIPINOS<br /><br />"Our study shows that much of the trumpeted JPEPA gains are imaginary, but the losses are real in terms of job displacement and worsened poverty for rural people who will be driven away from their land and natural resources. The Senate cannot ignore the impacts of JPEPA to the basic food producing sectors," stated Ms. Arze Glipo of the Task Force Food Sovereignty (TFFS), a member of the MJJC.<br /><br />The group further argues that the JPEPA's text allows the full entry of Japanese multinational companies in crop plantations, fishery, mining, power, etc, depriving the Filipinos the prior right and access to their land and other productive resources.<br /><br /><br />NO JOBS FOR FILIPINOS<br /><br />In addition to the loss of jobs in the agricultural sector, JPEPA's is poised to axe at least 77,000 Filipino workers in the automobile industry. Even without the JPEPA, second hand vehicles are already coming in through various ports, most recently the controversy involving Port Irene in Cagayan. With JPEPA, it will open the floodgates to imported used four-wheeled motor vehicles despite the existence of Executive Order 156 that clearly prohibits the same.<br /><br />"If JPEPA passes in spite of these clear threats to Filipino jobs, it will only worsen the jobless growth we have been experiencing under the Arroyo regime," exclaimed Josua Mata, Secretary General of the Alliance of Progressive Labor, another coalition partner of MJJC.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPzyDeN0D-OPXtIepYTceXeH7j2b2TG8sXGc8uTaFzaD3or32dkAysyfMEl_Pd2bBgMhcQCGyaVIn6F_nTdM8A6r33-eGafOj62Tm_BcIJIj70F8OeYppHAqhjmyXDfhvNffOFh1oFNz2J/s1600-h/JPEPA3.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPzyDeN0D-OPXtIepYTceXeH7j2b2TG8sXGc8uTaFzaD3or32dkAysyfMEl_Pd2bBgMhcQCGyaVIn6F_nTdM8A6r33-eGafOj62Tm_BcIJIj70F8OeYppHAqhjmyXDfhvNffOFh1oFNz2J/s400/JPEPA3.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5229383221500156658" /></a><br />"The supremacy of Japanese interests in JPEPA, and not the interests of the Filipino people has totally eroded any shred of JPEPA's presumed political and economic ascendancy," Mata emphasized.<br /><br /><br />NO FUTURE FOR FILIPINOS<br /><br />JPEPA disregards the basic contract between the government and the Filipino people. Unbiased and respected legal experts, such as retired Justice Florentino P. Feliciano have out rightly called JPEPA as unconstitutional. No less than Senator Miriam Santiago, agreed to Justice Feliciano's conclusion when she spoke to the press after the Senate hearing on the Constitutionality of JPEPA, "it (JPEPA) will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. That is my humble opinion as a<br />scholar of constitutional law."<br /><br />As if the issue of unconstitutionality is not enough, JPEPA's threatens the Philippine environment as well, since the entry of toxic wastes, and other banned or controlled substances such as ozone depleting substances, chemicals that are attributed to climate change, persistent organic pollutants, such as the cancer causing PCBs, and nuclear wastes are facilitated, promoted, and protected under JPEPA.<br /><br />The Administration attempted to plug this loophole with a side note with Japan, but according to the MJJC no amount of side notes would safeguard the interests of the Filipinos against the problems of JPEPA.<br /><br />"Can the Senate remain untarnished amidst Malacañang manic push for this illegal and immoral treaty? How will our Senators comport themselves amidst this offensive from President Arroyo? The answers to these questions will be the bellweather of our Senate's independence, their nationalism, and if they are even worthy to be considered come 2010. We hope for all our sake they muster the needed courage to say no to GMA and to JPEPA," the MJJC stated.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-29874604445985569942008-07-22T06:58:00.002+08:002008-07-22T07:02:25.158+08:00SC Decision Does Not Validate the "Discredited JPEPA" - MJJCPRESS RELEASE<br /><br />Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition<br />c/o IDEALS 4th Floor, MB Building<br />6 Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines<br />Media Contact: Atty. Golda Benjamin (0917-3141016)<br /><br />20 July 2008, Quezon City, Philippines. Reeling from the recent Supreme Court decision dismissing the petition for the full public disclosure of the text and negotiating points of the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition(MJJC), warned the public not be taken by the drumbeats of the pro-JPEPA camp over the setback handed by the High Court.<br /><br />The MJJC, a broad coalition of labor, peasant, fisherfolk, youth, faith, legal, public health, environmental and social justice groups and movements, disapproved of the Supreme Court’s decision as a retreat into the weakening of democratic debate and the people’s fundamental right to<br />know.<br /><br />“There are two issues facing us. One is the SC decision that slammed the door on our rights to information, giving the Executive a free pass on negotiating unconstitutional and unconscionable treaties without the public’s knowledge, and second, the propaganda being thrown to once again prop up the discredited JPEPA,” explained Atty. Golda Benjamin, MJJC lead counsel. “The SC did not rule on JPEPA’s merit, so why is the Administration talking as if it’s a done deal already?”<br /><br />Voting 10-4, majority of the members of the Supreme Court agreed with Malacañang’s defense of executive privilege. The High Court based its dismissal, in part, on the ground that petitioners failed to present a ‘sufficient showing of need’ that the information sought is critical to the performance to their function as members of Congress.<br /><br />Interviewed after the release of the SC decision, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo pronounced that “There will be a lot of opportunities for our exports, for our high-value agriculture which would provide huge income for our farmers”.<br /><br />“GMA is rehashing the JPEPA soundbites that have been disproven a long-time ago. The claimed benefits from JPEPA are illusory. It’s non-existent. The records of the joint Senate Committee hearing of Foreign Relation and Trade and Commerce last year bear this out,” stated Josua Mata of the Alliance of Progressive Labor. “It is very troublesome that GMA would continue with this tract, knowing fully well that seeming benefits from JPEPA are just conjectures.”<br /><br />“It is of great shame that in the midst of the crisis facing us today, with continued rise in the price of gasoline, food, and basic services around us, GMA instead of taking decisive steps to get us out of the crisis, continues to flog the carcass of JPEPA as a solution,” continued Mata.<br /><br />The MJJC also took exception to the claim raised by Tarlac Rep. Jeci Lapus, vice chairman of the House committee on good government and public accountability, “There is no longer legal impediment for the Senate ratification of JPEPA now that the High Tribunal has spoken.”<br /><br />“Rep. Lapus is clearly mistaken. The SC decision does not touch on the merit of JPEPA. In fact the legal black hole in which the treaty is stuck in is a worry for the administration,” said Atty. Richard Gutierrez of Ban Toxics!. “Not only is JPEPA legally impaired because of the various constitutional infirmities it has, it is also impaired because of the social, economic, and environmental burdens it will heap on the Filipinos.”<br /><br />The Supreme Court said in its majority opinion that since various NGOs and private citizens have already publicly expressed their views on the JPEPA, "there is no basis for petitioners' claim that access to the Philippine and Japanese offers is essential to the exercise of their right to participate in decision-making."<br /><br />The High Court, observed the MJJC, has conveniently ignored the fact that the petition was filed back in December 2005, at a time when there was very little information on JPEPA that was publicly available, and there was staunch refusal, even defiance on the part of government negotiators,to disclose the status of negotiations. The flow of information, the Coalition pointed out, only started after the petition had been filed, and is certainly a very recent development.<br /><br />The petition by Akbayan Citizens Action Party, Alliance of Progressive Labor, Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan and concerned individuals led by lawmakers Lorenzo Tanada III, Mario Joyo Aguja, Loreta Ann Rosales, Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel and Emmanuel Joel Villanueva was filed back in December 2005. At that point, there were apprehensions that the JPEPA would be signed at the World Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Hong Kong, without being made public. The petition was filed in an effort to prevent it from being signed without full public disclosure being done.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-34179098237705497222008-07-20T13:02:00.002+08:002008-07-20T13:04:31.811+08:00JPEPA Decision Strains Credibility and Impartiality of SCOffice of Sen. Rodolfo G. Biazon<br />Press Release<br />July 17, 2008<br /><br />Senator Rodolfo G Biazon today said the latest decision of the Supreme Court declaring that Executive Privilege may be invoked in the debates on the JPEPA strains the credibility and impartiality of the Supreme Court.<br /><br />"The Executive Department transmitted the JPEPA for ratification by the Senate on 17 August 2007. This means that even the Executive agrees to the proposition that the Senate's ratification is required for the agreement to be effective."<br /><br />The Chairman of the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security cited, "Entering into treaties and agreements is a shared responsibility and authority between the Executive and the Legislature specifically through the ratifying powers of the Senate as provided for in the Constitution's Art VII Sec. 21 "No treaty or agreement shall be valid or effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of the members of the<br />Senate."<br /><br />"Ratification is a process that would entail public debate. How can public debate be proper if Executive Privilege will be invoked denying the public of certain information which is necessary for public acceptance through the Senate of the proposed treaty or agreement. There can be no public debate if information is withheld from the public."<br /><br />Biazon said upon examination of the records of the proceedings of the 1987 Constitution, the proceedings clearly requires ratification by the Senate of any treaty or any agreement if any of the three characteristics are present:<br /><br />1. The treaty or agreement is political in nature;<br /><br />2. The treaty or agreement is permanent in nature; and<br /><br />3. The treaty or agreement will require a change in national policies.<br /><br />According to Article 4 of the JPEPA (page 14) "Each party shall 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 exists or if such circumstances or objectives can be addressed in a less trade-restrictive manner."<br /><br />Biazon said the possibility of repealing or amending existing statues definitely is a change in national policy.<br /><br />"JPEPA is permanent in nature. Once the Philippines ratifies the said treaty, it is binding upon the parties and must be performed by the parties in good faith. A treaty under international law, being an agreement entered into by states or international organizations must take into consideration the principle of "pacta sunt servanda" or pacts must be respected, " Biazon emphasized.<br /><br />Biazon concluded, " I believe the Senate, the repository of the ratifying power of the government must examine this development and take appropriate action such as getting involved in the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the decision."Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-31317070340059313242008-07-10T11:04:00.002+08:002008-07-10T11:07:30.828+08:00'GMA'by Bernardo Lopez <br />BusinessWorld, May 21, 2008<br />(original link <a href="http://www.bworldonline.com/BW052108/content.php?id=144">here</a>)<br /><br />The GMA in the title stands for "Gloria's Management Ability." Managing an entire nation is more demanding than managing a conglomerate or a multinational. How good is GMA's GMA?<br /><br />Management involves sensitivity to "processes," which, apart from objectives, are essential in ruling a nation. Many times processes are bypassed in the obsession to reach objectives. Not going through a critical process may sometimes result in undermining or losing the objective one is so eager to achieve. This is where management by process supersedes management by objective.<br /><br />Let us take a specific example. The objective is to forge a trade deal with Japan, the JPEPA, which is very critical to the nation's future economic growth. In the obsession for the goal, the process of achieving it was ignored. Here is how it happened, one of the biggest management blunders today.<br /><br />GMA told her boys at the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to get it done. But she did not orient them to the all-important process, namely, a multisectoral consultation to make sure the deal with Japan protects our interests, not just Japan's.<br /><br />The DTI boys, for fear of not getting the job done on time, immediately sat down with the Japanese and used their creative instincts toward getting not a fair deal but simply a deal, much flawed but forged within the time frame of the boss. They tapped each other's shoulders in appreciation and headed for the bar for a drink to celebrate the "good job," not aware that a monster was incubating.<br /><br />Not only did the DTI boys get the deal done fast, they had it done in secret to avoid criticisms that would exceed the time limit set by the boss. Secrecy is the complete opposite of participation and transparency. It was so secret that advocacy groups could get the JPEPA document only in bits and pieces, until finally, months after it was negotiated with the Japanese panel, the Senate demanded that it be submitted for scrutiny.<br /><br />Of course, how can the Senate ratify something it has not read? Instantly, the many worms within the deal emerged. In fear of the boss, and to avoid headaches, the Filipino negotiators said yes to everything the Japanese said. The result was the most lopsided trade deal in the whole of Asia. This "anti-process process" let loose a tsunami of protests from all sectors, the very people the deal was kept secret from, the very people who would be affected by the deal. GMA congratulated her boys for a job well done.<br /><br />We head toward the second management blunder. Instead of admitting her mistake and conceding to the protests, GMA wanted them quelled. It was her second chance to allow the people their voice, and she failed miserably. Her obsession was the deal, not a fair deal. So her next move was to tell her boys (and girl) at the Senate to go for a Senate ratification ASAP, whether the deal was flawed or not.<br /><br />Instead of conceding to a dialogue, the GMA boys let loose a barrage of rebuttals in defense of JPEPA, most of them non sequiturs and fallacies. This made the protestors angrier and more vehement in rebutting the rebuttals. The core issue of fair trade was ignored and many irrelevant issues were brought up. The focus was put on legal hurdles rather than fairness. Thus, the conflict escalated to its present state of belligerence from all sides. The pros and antis polarized, and the war is growing into something GMA may not be able to handle at this point.<br /><br />And so her Senate boys and girl went into a labyrinth of legal maneuvers, side deals, preconditional deals, and so on and so forth, to get the deal done by hook or by crook. Now GMA is headed for her third and biggest management blunder - having a lopsided deal ratified conditionally, which opens up a maze of legal issues that will surely hit the courts and defer economic growth rather than fuel it. Strike three.<br /><br />Instead of creating a multisectoral commission to try to make JPEPA a fair deal for us, GMA's move was to assign another agency, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), to study it all once more. The problem is the objective, which is to simply jump over the legal hurdles, not to really get a fair deal. They still do not get it up to now - the core issue of a fair deal.<br /><br />The DFA move is futile because it addresses not the core issue, but only the legal aspects. They gave a timetable of August. So the DFA will come up with a set of legal answers, hoping they have enough time before the Senate votes.<br /><br />The anti-JPEPA coalitions are getting ready with more missiles against GMA. If the DTI went for a multisectoral commission early on, instead of a secret onerous deal, we would have everything ready by now. It was a management omission. Time is not that important but fairness. Even if it takes a year to address the issue of the JPEPA's fairness, that is the only way to go.<br /><br />The JPEPA blunder is time and again repeated in many other aspects of GMA's managing a culturally diverse nation of robots and rebels, of goats and sheep.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-55157352550227534792008-05-31T11:39:00.002+08:002008-05-31T11:52:28.577+08:00Answer to Ambassador del Rosario on the JPEPAby Ester V. Perez de Tagle<br /><br />Please allow me space for this reaction to former Ambassador Albert Del Rosario's article of May 2-3, 2008 [see original article he<a href="http://business.inquirer.net/money/columns/view/20080504-134538/JPEPA--The-way-forward"></a>re), to point out inaccuracies in the interest of fair play, correct information and the public good.<br /><br /> (1) It is already a fact, stated by constitutional experts and accepted by constitutionalist Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago who, as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been tasked to look into the legal aspects and submit the necessary Foreign Committee Report on the Jpepa, that it is unconstitutional and lopsided. Her conclusion was unchallenged during the interpellation after her Senate report. Sen. Santiago, probably to provide a graceful exit all around, feels constrained to resort to legal gymnastics to come up with "an improved treaty" to ensure "compliance with at least 15 specified constitutional provisions" via a side agreement with which she hopes to get the Senate's conditional concurrence. She says further: " the basic issue with Jpepa was that the advantages were in favor of Japan, but not necessarily for the Philippines. Another issue was that Jpepa failed to include reservations that Japan has already conceded to Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia." She said the conditions for the concurrence were an "absolute necessity" because she is sure the Supreme Court would declare the Jpepa, ratified as is, unconstitutional. Then Japan could sue us since the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a party may not invoke internal, even constitutional law, as a defense for not honoring an international agreement. But why ratify even "conditionally" such an undeniably flawed agreement in the first place? The safest and most logical option is to reject it. .<br /> <br /><br /> (2) The Bilateral Free Trade Agreement that Mr. del Rosario wanted us to pursue during the 2002 APEC meeting in Mexico with the U.S., which he called a "pioneering initiative" and a "unique opportunity" missed, is neither pioneering nor unique. We had the onerous Bell Trade Agreement which the Philippine legislature ratified just two days before our independence. It required us to amend our Constitution to grant equal economic rights to Americans. With this Parity Amendment, we were treated like an American economic colony although we were already politically independent. This stunted our economic growth. We fought the Filipino-American War of 1898 before the Ameicans finally subjugated us. Are we now, going to surrender our sovereignty and grant the same parity rights under Jpepa Art. 89 to Japan, a former and unrepentant oppressor without a single shot being fired? <br /><br /> <br /> (3) Mr. Del Rosario's "reasonable assumption" showing full faith that "the provisions of the Jpepa were expertly negotiated in great detail by both sides " was sadly mistaken. The Philippine panel miserably failed in its sacred task of protecting our country's interests and could not even satisfactorily answer many basic questions, especially with regards to defects pointed out by the NGO panel, prompting an exasperated senator to ask, "why don't you do your homework like the NGO's?" When asked about the<br /><br /> outrageous provisions of Art.93, prohibiting the Philippines from demanding technology transfer and the hiring of Filipinos, not found in Japan's EPA's with other countries, the Philippine panel head replied: "I am stupefied.". The Executive Department officials failed to show to the Senate, Jpepa's economic benefits with their optimistic projections, expectations and misleading figures, mere speculations and forecasts not backed by solid evidence. The oppositors not only successfully refuted their arguments but also showed that they "wrongly and criminally" used a Japanese macroeconomic study to defend Jpepa. Was the voluminous Jpepa agreement "ready-made" by the Japanese too, and spoon-fed to the Philippine panel to make it "made-to-order" for Japan? This would explain why the panel seemed so clueless during the Senate Hearings (as the transcripts should bear out) about the agreement they were supposed to have negotiated. The bigger question is why was such a flawed bilateral agreement, made by such inept negotiators not rejected outright by the Senate?<br /><br /><br /> (4) How can Philippine exports grow with Jpepa which allows our market to be our competitor in the use of our own production sources? Jpepa allows hi-tech Japanese factory ships to fish in our waters. Equipped with the latest in sonar technology to zoom in on the big catch and freezers that freeze fish in five seconds to ensure maximum freshness for storage while waiting for processing, packaging or canning right on site, ready for the international and even our very own local market in no time and at cheaper prices, what chance does our fishing industry have and what exports are we talking about? How about our poor fishermen who depend on the sea for livelihood and survival? Such injustice in our seas would be replicated in our forests and farmlands under Art. 89 of Jpepa. Furthermore, small and medium industries, the backbone of our economy, deprived of tariff protection and lacking government support systems, would inevitably die. Contrary to Mr. del Rosario's contention, the loss, not the creation of jobs, and the worsening of poverty would be the end result. Besides, how can Mr. del Rosario talk of job creation and fruitful partnerships when Jpepa expressly prohibits the Philippines from demanding technology transfer and the hiring of Filipinos?<br /><br /><br /> (5) Mr. del Rosario says that " In a dialogue with the Japanese Embassy, it was established that the agreement fully advocates environmental protection…there has been no case whatsoever of Japanese toxic waste export to the Philippines since the Basel Convention of 1993." Wrong! First of all, Japan and the Philippines are not signatories to the later, mandatory Basel Ban on waste trading. Therefore, we cannot invoke it for protection. In July 1999, 122 forty-foot Japanese container vans reportedly carrying waste paper for recycling were opened in the port of Manila. They contained not waste paper for recycling but hazardous, toxic and infectious hospital waste. This was reported in the papers and the public outrage forced the Japanese government to repatriate their deceptively dumped waste. Moreover, an AP Tokyo, 1998 news report says: "Japan has a new export for the world-garbage. Export of hazardous materials is banned by international conventions. So businessmen are just calling it something else." Health and Welfare Ministry official Tatsuro Akashi confirmed this, saying "there is no objective definition to distinguish waste from goods". No wonder, Japan insisted on listing toxic waste as tradable goods entitled to preferential treatment with 0% tariff.<br /><br /> The Japanese use of personal connections as a means to advance its interests is disturbing. Dean Hideo Kobayashi, of the Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University, in his book, "Postwar Japanese Economy in Southeast Asia" quotes Goto Noboru, vice president of the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry who dealt with economists and businessmen from the Philippines and other Asian countries, stating "the importance of personal connections in the development of foreign business." Japanese businessmen play a key role in their government's policy-making and Goto's view can be said to reflect such policy. Goto said: "close connections were useful in the expansion of the Tokyo group…only the financial people count, through the joint venture and overseas transfer of production base…" So, never mind the other stakeholders? <br /><br /> This means lavish wooing of trade and industry officials and business leaders of the targeted host country. The problem with using personal relations in national agreements is that such relations benefit only the decision makers courted, and not the nation they are supposed to uphold. Furthermore, the mention of "overseas transfer of production base" should make us wary. Japan, a small island state, is finding it harder to cope with the toxic waste generated by its high industrialization and could be expected to transfer its dirty industries to the Philippines.<br /><br /> International experts call Jpepa a "mega-treaty". It encompasses practically all aspects of our national life. Our Senators should not be stampeded into ratifying it with the threat of being "left behind". Which is the greater threat, being left behind in the rush to be swallowed up in the revival of Japan's expansionist "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" which triggered World War II, or waking up one day to find out that we no longer have a country to call our own, or worse, being left with an inhabitable wasteland which cannot sustain life?.<br /><br /> <br /><br />. The onset of Climate Change brought about by modern man's unsustainable development fuelled by globalization has shown the folly of the unbridled pursuit of such development paradigm. Our ecosystems are collapsing and the food, water and fuel crises that environmentalists have warned about are now upon us. In the scramble for scarce resources, our government must prioritize the security of the Filipino people. Conservation and wise use of resources are imperatives for survival and people development for the economic empowerment of communities a must for real development. The Jpepa is the antithesis of such imperatives. While the arguments for Jpepa are not based on facts but on shaky projections and expectations, the arguments against Jpepa are based on the strongest and most solid evidence, the text of the Jpepa agreement itself and its annexes and reservations. We earnestly urge those who want to know the truth to get hold of these and even the transcripts of the Senate hearings. Let the Jpepa, ill-conceived in the darkness of secrecy {even the Congressional party- list, Akbayan had to file a case in court to get a copy) be exposed to the clear light of truth and be subjected to stakeholder consultations and debates both in public fora and on the Senate floor, as such a crucial issue should be dealt with in a true democracy.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Ester V. Perez de Tagle is the founder of Concerned Citizens Against Pollution (COCAP). She was a member of congressional TWG's of several environmental bills that became law.</span>Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-90388339438258837802008-05-12T15:03:00.005+08:002008-05-12T15:47:08.850+08:00JPEPA makes no economic sense and must be junkedGolda Benjamin, Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition<br />Maitet Diokno-Pascual, Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition<br />Dr. Leah Sumaco-Paquiz, Philippine Nurses Association<br />Marie Marciano, EcoWaste Coalition<br /><br />Much has been said and written about the toxic and unconstitutional provisions in the proposed Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement. Such provisions alone are sufficient grounds for rejecting the JPEPA outright and working for it to be junked. The proposed agreement’s economic provisions are given less attention. As JPEPA is first and foremost an economic agreement, it is but right to focus on this aspect of the proposed agreement. What we see is a very lopsided agreement that heavily favors Japan, an economic power that doesn’t need JPEPA to bolster its already strong economic hold, especially vis-à-vis our country.<br /><br />Simply go over the proposed Agreement and its Annexes page by page and you will see that the Philippine negotiators of Mrs. Arroyo gave away practically all of the Philippines to Japan, in exchange for virtually nothing. Is this a bad deal? Definitely. Is it better than No Deal? Definitely not. The best option, in fact the only option for the Senate and this government is to junk JPEPA.<br /><br />A close scrutiny of JPEPA shows there is a clear imbalance of commitments, substantially favoring Japan, on tariff and non-tariff trade in goods, on the movement of natural persons, and on the Singapore issues,<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">LOPSIDED DEAL IN AGRICULTURE AND FISHERY</span><br /><br />For example, in agriculture, only rice and five of its subheadings were excluded from the JPEPA by Mrs. Arroyo’s negotiators. No fish products were excluded; 46 of 114 tariff lines for fish products in the Philippine schedule will be duty free from year one.<br /><br />Furthermore, tariffs on agricultural products that are not duty free from year one are much lower than the corresponding WTO bound rates . For instance, the base rate for various vegetables and fruits is 7%, much lower than their WTO bound rate of 40%. The base rates for fish products range from 3% to 10% which are far lower than the WTO bound rates of 30% to 40%.<br /><br />Having given more away to Japan than Japan did to the Philippines, does the JPEPA nevertheless open the doors for our major agricultural exports? Not.<br /><br />Japan excluded 197 sub-headings covering various agricultural products. Even dairy products, oranges, shiitake mushrooms—where we pose no threat to Japan’s local producers—remain protected in JPEPA. Consistent with its protection under WTO agreements, Japan kept away from JPEPA agricultural products excluded in the former, with very few exceptions. Less sensitive products have been placed under quota or deferred for market access negotiations in some indeterminate future. Non-sensitive agricultural products that are not excluded such as bananas (traditional export of the Philippines to Japan) will nevertheless have to wait five to 10 years before enjoying duty free access to Japanese markets. As a whole, agricultural products such as fresh asparagus and other fresh vegetables that Japan agreed to have duty free status in year one already enjoy very low duties of 3% and below. In effect, Japan gave nothing away of its agriculture and instead protected its agriculture in JPEPA.<br /><br />Japan also maintained protection for its fishery sector. Of the 200 tariff lines for fish products in Japan’s JPEPA schedule, 59 are forever excluded from duty-free treatment; 15 are for deferred market access negotiations; 72 for phased tariff removal; and only 25 duty free from year one.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">LOPSIDED DEAL IN INDUSTRY</span><br /><br />Mrs. Arroyo’s JPEPA negotiators gave duty free entry from year one to a very long list of industrial products such as garments, refrigerators, air conditioners, dishwashers. Domestic industries such as automotive vehicles and their parts that could have benefited from some protection, at the very least through deferred market access negotiations under the JPEPA, were instead subjected to a tariff phaseout by the negotiators of Mrs. Arroyo.<br /><br />Trade and industry sources say that Japan’s primary negotiating objective was the automotive industry. Mrs. Arroyo’s negotiators gave Japan what it wanted, at the expense of workers in the industry and other non-Japanese investors. In giving Japan its prized objective, did Mrs. Arroyo’s negotiators gain something in exchange? Not.<br /><br />In JPEPA, the Philippines bound its applied MFN tariffs on industrial products at a level much lower than the WTO bound rates, using the former as the base rates for the phased tariff removal in the JPEPA. This is another giveaway, the first time the Philippines has done so in an international agreement outside the ASEAN. Did Mrs. Arroyo’s negotiators get a correspondingly heavy commitment from Japan in exchange for this giveaway? Not.<br /><br />What did Japan give away? Nothing it already has: Industrial products already enjoy very low tariffs in Japan which are bound at the WTO. Products such as electronics and furniture are already duty free, so declaring them duty free entry under the JPEPA is meaningless. Japan imposes tariffs of 5% and above on a few manufactured products such as garments, made up textile articles and footwear. These have been given duty free entry from year one in the JPEPA. However, such products will enjoy duty free entry only if they comply with the rules of origin as provided in the JPEPA. That is, our garments exports to Japan must be made from raw materials such as fabrics that we ourselves produce, or that we import from ASEAN or Japan. Since the country’s textile industry is virtually non-existent, and since most of our garments are made from fabrics or threads from China or countries outside Japan or ASEAN, then<br />the duty free entry does not apply.<br /><br />In effect, the little that Japan gives away through duty free access it takes back through the rules of origin under JPEPA. Given the imbalance of commitments, this will more likely result to more of Japan’s goods entering the Philippines duty free and less of Philippine goods enjoying duty free status for failing to comply with JPEPA’s rules of origin. Thus free trade under JPEPA is not free for Philippine industrial goods.<br /><br />And this is called partnership?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">UNDERMINING PHILIPPINE POSITION VIS-A-VIS MULTILATERAL TRADE ISSUES</span><br /><br />Mrs. Arroyo’s negotiators gave away the country’s negotiating leverage in the WTO by agreeing to negotiate on the controversial Singapore issues without getting anything in return for doing so. Her negotiators were either unmindful of, or completely ignored the fact that on the subject of investments; apart from resisting its inclusion in the WTO agenda, the Philippines was among those calling for the following:<br /><br />• disciplines on undesirable investor conduct such as Restrictive Business<br />Practices; bribery and illicit payments, destruction of the environment, among others;<br /><br />• a firm development dimension in the form of specific as opposed to general flexibility clauses that would allow developing countries to continue imposing prohibited performance requirements such as technology transfer.<br /><br />Whether due to sheer incompetence or gross insensitivity, Mrs. Arroyo’s negotiators are taking the Philippines several steps back in trade negotiations that many of us in civil society have severely criticized as flawed and biased. Rather than moving forward, Mrs. Arroyo’s JPEPA negotiators have pulled down the country’s negotiating position. Yes there is something worse than the WTO. It’s called JPEPA.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">OVERSTATING THE BENEFIT TO NURSES</span><br /><br />Mrs. Arroyo’s negotiators insist that they secured an excellent deal for our nurses, but they overlook the difficult bureaucratic, cultural and knowledge hurdles that Filipino nurses must overcome in order to practice their profession in Japan. Filipino nurses, in addition to being qualified under Philippine law and having had three years work experience, must have at least six months of language instruction in Japan and training supervised by a “Kangoshi” or Japanese nurse. In order to extend one’s stay as a nurse in Japan, the Filipino nurse must be a qualified kangoshi, that is, (s)he must have passed the qualifying examination (in Japanese) for kangoshi. Like other overseas Filipinos, nurses working abroad need to earn enough to recover the investments and repay the debts incurred in order to become a nurse and get the chance to work overseas. And yes, they must earn also to support their families left behind. Overcoming the cultural and knowledge hurdles may not be worth the time spent in queuing for a job as a kangoshi in Japan.<br /><br />JPEPA is highly disadvantageous to the Philippine economy and its people. It must be junked, or the Philippines—and our children’s future— will be.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-70539251511209933502008-05-07T13:03:00.005+08:002008-12-13T19:10:51.474+08:00Citizens’ Groups Spurn Side Notes, Call for JPEPA Rejection Now<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSlpHeNw-4tbOffnNvOIObt2OCxTegrcchRWDjqN6y4aqfH3_r6lwwodF4FX3B3yR_1j7kYq61kX7SIVR-d4DBTgaCVeimJXC1tJC5RcULYAR5QdcQkBM2p-2cWXsX8o0v7xTTk_yq_I2H/s1600-h/IMG_2061.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSlpHeNw-4tbOffnNvOIObt2OCxTegrcchRWDjqN6y4aqfH3_r6lwwodF4FX3B3yR_1j7kYq61kX7SIVR-d4DBTgaCVeimJXC1tJC5RcULYAR5QdcQkBM2p-2cWXsX8o0v7xTTk_yq_I2H/s400/IMG_2061.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5197662424460581778" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">5 May 2008, Pasay City</span>. The planned exchange of diplomatic notes will not repair the injustice and irregularity innate to the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). Rejecting the treaty now is pro-Filipino. <br /><br />This is the unequivocal message of the EcoWaste Coalition and the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) as they peaceably assemble outside the Senate of the Philippines to campaign for the rejection of JPEPA now, and thwart what they view as a dubious scheme to “fix” the constitutional, economic and other infirmities of the treaty with side notes between the governments of Japan and the Philippines. <br /><br />To put their message across to the Senators and the public, the youth volunteers of the EcoWaste Coalition acted out the people’s anguish over the social, economic and environmental injustice coming out of the badly negotiated agreement and the inadequacy of the side notes to rectify the gross injustice. <br /><br />Dressed in the colors of the Philippine flag, “Inang Katarungan” (Lady Justice) raised a symbolic scale of justice showing the uneven gains of the contracting states with Japan profiting heavily from JPEPA, a sad fact that a mere exchange of notes, stressed the protestors, cannot remedy. <br /><br />“We seriously doubt if band-aid measures like the side notes can set right a discredited pact that has dismally failed to serve and protect the sovereign interests of the Filipino people, including our right to a just development and a toxic-free environment,” said Manny Calonzo of the EcoWaste Coalition and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. <br /><br />According to Atty. Golda Benjamin, lead counsel of the MJCC, “We were generous even where we had cause to be stingy with the Japanese. Fish, crustaceans and mollusks are excluded from the WTO Uruguay Round commitments of member countries because developed countries refused to reduce their export subsidies especially those on fishing vessels. Despite this the Philippines still bound its tariffs at the WTO, albeit at very high rates. Japan did not.” <br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-fjeDUD3S563umVSocY3_5ny5LNkmcf4R5iurwaRSRuYSGcMAxPP884ys3XWTesrgu30SUw_nACG9-6JwYdtmMuR4smPirDQvB8F1MdS8SOoUV2rRopHaUZ5hRo0Ls1iesBJ5YARgxk-B/s1600-h/IMG_2053.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-fjeDUD3S563umVSocY3_5ny5LNkmcf4R5iurwaRSRuYSGcMAxPP884ys3XWTesrgu30SUw_nACG9-6JwYdtmMuR4smPirDQvB8F1MdS8SOoUV2rRopHaUZ5hRo0Ls1iesBJ5YARgxk-B/s400/IMG_2053.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5197500504447539954" /></a><br />The MJJC complained that of the 200 tariff lines for fish products in Japan’s JPEPA schedule, 59 are forever excluded from duty-free treatment; 15 are for deferred market access negotiations; 72 for phased tariff removal; and, 25 duty free from year 1. Of the 114 in the Philippine schedule, 46 will enjoy duty-free treatment from year 1 while the remaining 68 are subject to phased tariff removal. <br /><br />Both the EcoWaste Coalition and the MJJC denounced the evident deficiency of the side notes being crafted by the two governments to correct the economic inequities and what they described as “the ultimate form of a national sell-out that is extremely tilted to favor Japanese interests.” <br /><br />“The approval of JPEPA in its current form will not only cause us to miss the boat but also to drown in a sea of negotiation mistakes. Two wrongs do not make one right. The only choice left for the Senate is the pro-Filipino choice: reject JPEPA now,” the groups asserted. <br /><br />After the creative protest, the EcoWaste Coalition representatives trooped to the Senators’ offices to provide the lawmakers with the MJJC’s summary of the balance of commitments of the contracting parties that substantiate the groups’ vehement rejection of the lopsided treaty. <br /><br />Among the groups represented in the latest peaceful protest against JPEPA were the Buklod Tao, Cavite Green Coalition, Concerned Citizens Against Pollution, EcoWaste Coalition, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Mascomthea, Mother Earth Foundation, Sagip Pasig Movement, Sanib-Lakas ng Inang Kalikasan and Zero Waste Philippines.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-43437067242262363392008-05-07T12:50:00.003+08:002008-05-07T12:53:55.166+08:00Playing with the Law, Fooling the People, Endangering the Nation<span style="font-weight:bold;">Statement of the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition:</span><br /><br />It is admitted by the Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) violates the 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. <br /><br />However, because of strong pressure from no less than President Arroyo herself, 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. However, strong opposition and doubts as to the legality of the move was registered by some senators and civil society groups, including the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC). In a surprising move, the proposal was withdrawn at the same convenient time that the Department of Foreign Affairs told the Senate to defer their vote so that it can now “fix the treaty.” <br /><br />Unfortunately, like all band-aid measures, the proposed conditions or changes is limited in scope – it attempts to rectify one problem, un-Constitutionality, and leaving the other equally grievous problem of environmental degradation, de-industrialization, labor, displacement, migrant exploitation, and other such problems, unanswered. . The Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Trade and Commerce has also not asked the opinion of the other remaining senators as regards the conditions to be proposed. The current band-aid measures the Arroyo administration is patching is conveniently missing the following realities: <br /><br /> o that the JPEPA is the ultimate form of a national sell-out<br /><br /> o that the JPEPA is extremely tilted to favor Japanese interests<br /><br /> o that the JPEPA contains anti-Filipino and discriminatory provisions:<br /> + Unlike the rules in trade in goods and services, and in investment, the chapter on nurses does not provide for national and equal treatment among Japanese and Filipino nurses.<br /> + The JPEPA does not require Japan to commit that it will not discriminate against Filipino workers.<br /><br /> o that the JPEPA is unjust and oppressive<br /> + It protects more than 200 products of the highly advanced and rich country, Japan. It only protects 2 Philippine products.<br /> + Because Japan requested for it, the Philippines agreed to let Japanese own private lands for purposes other than those in the services and manufacturing sector. Not only is this unconstitutional; it is also highly unjust and oppressive to the Philippines’ own farmers who have long suffered and died to own the land that they have worked for and worked on since time immemorial.<br /><br /> o that the JPEPA throws away several Philippine policies that have been defended, promoted, and asserted for decades; both in the national and the international level<br /> + like the fight to demand developed countries to remove trade-distorting export subsidies so that foreign imported products will not slaughter the local products in terms of price<br /><br /> o that the JPEPA will result in more economic hardships for a greater number of Filipinos than benefits.<br /><br /> o that the proclaimed benefits from JPEPA are simply that: “proclaimed”<br /><br /> <br /><br />The proposed side notes will not fix these ills. The decision to delay the vote is an ultimate manifestation of the concerned committee’s surrender to the powers of the Executive Branch of government. The Senate’s job is straightforward: to approve or disapprove the treaty.Now, the entire body is being bullied into extending their own powers to yield to the wants of the Palace: all these efforts are now made after several months of the Executive Branch’s repeated claim that there is nothing wrong with the JPEPA and that this is an all-or-nothing deal that cannot be renegotiated. <br /><br /> It must be asked: What will the 21 remaining Senators do about this serious disrespect of procedure and the serious denial of their right to express their opinion about the JPEPA on the Senate floor? <br /><br /> This nation must not be pushed around with similar empty threats that were used when the government was pushing for the GATT/WTO. You will miss the boat: the ultimate mantra of the JPEPA pushers. We, the members of the Magkaisa JUNK JPEPA Coalition (MJJC), believe that the JPEPA, if approved, will not only cause us to miss the boat but also to drown in a sea of negotiation mistakes. . Two wrongs do not make one right. <br /><br /> The pro-Filipino choice for all of us is to JUNK JPEPA and to JUNK JPEPA NOW.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-80407184776489233722008-04-29T10:44:00.003+08:002008-12-13T19:10:51.873+08:00Groups Assail JPEPA as Anti-Filipino, Slam Conditional Concurrence as Compromise for Inequity28 April 2008, Pasay City, Philippines – Various people’s movements, all part of the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition, staged several activities today around the metropolis to signal what they call “Black Monday”; a day of action and outrage over the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). Their activities were in anticipation of a Senate plenary deliberation on the proposed conditional concurrence resolution submitted by Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago, as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee and Mar Roxas III, as Chair of the Committee on Trade and Commerce, which Sen. Santiago deferred late last week due to the opposition raised by various Senators. <br /><br />As early as 6 a.m., more than 50 members of the MJJC congregated at the Welcome Rotunda in España Ave., raising the banner “Walang Ilusyon, Walang Kondisyon, JPEPA Di Solusyon!” At 10 a.m. members of the MJJC held a creative demonstration at the Quezon Memorial Circle, and protest activities culminated at around 2 p.m. in Pasay City, before the Senate gates, where at least 600 MJJC members congregated and held a three-hour vigil over the Senate proceedings as they begun deliberating on the proposed conditional concurrence for the ratification of JPEPA.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPmGaI3Ct0z5V9oa4t06xdpu4XYvqpAXTbUia1XOsNDbSd3-5sfTz4i05DTgwtpMTsHgOBUZvrYBGCGBfuVwCMM6rm0D0FRp-KhbqCYn1ADb4F__BGBWctnq-HHBWZPpx0oWkhbT4fM8K_/s1600-h/2008_04_28_junkjpepa_C_006.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPmGaI3Ct0z5V9oa4t06xdpu4XYvqpAXTbUia1XOsNDbSd3-5sfTz4i05DTgwtpMTsHgOBUZvrYBGCGBfuVwCMM6rm0D0FRp-KhbqCYn1ADb4F__BGBWctnq-HHBWZPpx0oWkhbT4fM8K_/s400/2008_04_28_junkjpepa_C_006.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194518126401837762" /></a><br />“The executive branch negotiated away the future of the Filipino people. By signing an unconstitutional and unfair treaty, the President sold the Philippines at a bargain without the people’s consent. These are the very acts that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Trade and Commerce wish to nevertheless bless with a vote of approval,” stated the group in their formal statement.<br /><br />The JPEPA was signed by Pres. Arroyo and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan back September 2006 in Finland. Ever since the treaty has been heavily criticized by a wide-swath of sectors from nurses, farmers, fisherfolks, environmentalists, labor, academia, public health groups, and even Japanese civil society groups have joined the fray. <br /><br />Last week over 100 Japanese individuals and groups sent an e-mail letter to the Senate raising the concern of the Philippines receiving their toxic wastes, and acknowledging that “"The potential for job creation for the Philippine people under JPEPA, as argued by the Japanese and Philippine governments, will in reality be extremely small when compared with the jobs lost as a result of the destruction of Philippine industry and agriculture caused by JPEPA."<br /><br />The MJJC has released various briefs on the JPEPA’s impact on nurses, the environment, constitutionality, labor, agriculture, and investments, and continues to expose how lopsided the JPEPA is in favor of the Japanese.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf3uvfCcbLv1G5_jpJm3Z7ix2uhIvmCH8Wk53gDcF8vq6TiS-nAAETHy2XXqZvrQqGYR17I85Sb71Zvd3cxQ1qbqKARsW7_xiH4Fj-GjpI-MZuR2Ps6OHCdaHdDgJRDWtUMR6-oqTbFoxI/s1600-h/2008_04_28_junkjpepa_C_001.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf3uvfCcbLv1G5_jpJm3Z7ix2uhIvmCH8Wk53gDcF8vq6TiS-nAAETHy2XXqZvrQqGYR17I85Sb71Zvd3cxQ1qbqKARsW7_xiH4Fj-GjpI-MZuR2Ps6OHCdaHdDgJRDWtUMR6-oqTbFoxI/s400/2008_04_28_junkjpepa_C_001.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194524328334613202" /></a><br />According to Atty. Golda Benjamin, lead counsel of the MJCC, “We were generous even where we had cause to be stingy with the Japanese. Fish, crustaceans and mollusks are excluded from the WTO Uruguay Round commitments of member countries because developed countries refused to reduce their export subsidies especially those on fishing vessels. Despite this the Philippines still bound its tariffs at the WTO, albeit at very high rates. Japan did not. Of the 200 tariff lines for fish products in Japan’s JPEPA schedule, 59 are forever excluded from duty-free treatment; 15 are for deferred market access negotiations; 72 for phased tariff removal; and, 25 duty free from year 1. Of the 114 in the Philippine schedule, 46 will enjoy duty-free treatment from year 1 while the remaining 68 are subject to phased tariff removal. Not a single fish escaped our net or was excluded.”<br /><br />“The welfare of the Filipinos, our country, should never be compromised!” stressed Dr. Leah Paquiz, President of the Philippine Nurses Association, an MJJC partner. “The conditional concurrence that Senators Defensor-Santiago and Roxas are advocating is simply unacceptable to us. We need leaders who will pull all of us together, not abandon us one by one. The conditional concurrence only addresses an aspect of an atrocious treaty. Our leaders should stop putting band-aids on JPEPA, and simply put it to rest.”<br /><br /><br />For more details:<br />Atty. Golda Benjamin, Lead Counsel Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition, mobile: 0917 314 1016<br /><br />Dr. Leah Paquiz, President, Philippine Nurses Association, mobile: 0917 852 0918Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-11426203183370676612008-04-22T13:57:00.002+08:002008-04-22T13:58:18.089+08:00Japanese Groups Reject “Faulty” JPEPA, Call for “Partnership Based on Mutual Respect”20 April 2008, Quezon City. The controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) has attracted criticism and resistance not only among Filipinos, but also from Japanese as the Senate vote for the treaty nears. <br /><br />In two separate petitions sent to the Senators of the 14th Congress, concerned Japanese citizens and citizens’ groups made a passionate plea for the rejection of the treaty, asserting that “the Philippines deserves a better and just deal from Japan.” <br /><br />“JPEPA would establish a relationship between the Philippines and Japan that is completely opposite to our wish for equality and mutual respect between good-neighbors,” they said, warning further that “JPEPA can even become a barrier in the long-term friendship between the two countries.” <br /><br />The Japanese petitioners lauded the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) and other groups for putting up a strong opposition to JPEPA, saying that “they were right in condemning the secretive negotiations which did not benefit from informed public participation and for disclosing the bad effects of JPEPA to the economy, the environment and to Philippine sovereignty.” <br /><br />The first letter was signed by over 90 individuals and 25 groups and transmitted to the Senators through the Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya (KPD), a member of the MJJC. <br /><br />In his cover letter, Pete Pinlac, KPD Chair, told the senators that the Japanese took it upon themselves to express their misgiving about the “unequal” treaty, which the signatories denounce for its “inherent bias for the Japanese economy” to the detriment of genuine development, social justice and environmental integrity for the Filipinos. <br /><br />“We believe that you, our elected Senators, possess enough good sense to recognize what is good for the many and not just for a few, and hope that you take to heart the points raised by our Japanese counterparts,” Pinlac said. <br /><br />Echoing local opposition to contentious trade and economic pact, the Japanese opponents of JPEPA pointed out that the treaty will hurt Filipino companies, while providing advantages to Japanese business, in addition to the “possible export (of) Japanese pollution and waste to the Philippines.” <br /><br />“The potential for job creation for the Philippine people under JPEPA, as argued by the Japanese and Philippine governments, will in reality be extremely small compared to the jobs lost as a result of the destruction of Philippine industry and agriculture caused by the JPEPA,” they emphasized. <br /><br />The second letter was e-mailed directly to the Senators from Tokyo and signed by 24 groups. <br /><br />“As Japanese grassroots groups working on agriculture, environment, public health, human rights, trade and consumer issues, we fear about the dire consequences if JPEPA is ratified, which lists toxic wastes, persistent organic pollutants, ozone depleting substances, among others, as "products" under JPEPA,” the second letter reads. “From our view, JPEPA will facilitate the practice of sending Japanese toxic wastes and other harmful substances into the Philippines in the name of free trade.” <br /><br />“Since November 2006, we have released a number of statements urging the Japanese government to remove all provisions in JPEPA that liberalize trade in toxic wastes and other banned or controlled substances, but to no avail,” the groups lamented. <br /><br />The Japanese petitioners asked the Senators to resist Japanese pressure to approve the “faulty agreement and to decide in favor of what is best for the Philippines.”Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-38793965383388388572008-04-22T13:57:00.001+08:002008-04-22T13:57:27.989+08:00Senate Urged to Uphold People’s Interest vs JPEPA16 April 2008, Quezon City. The Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC) and former Vice-President Teofisto Guingona, Jr. rejected President Gloria Arroyo's latest pitch for Senate approval of the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). <br /><br />In a joint statement, they questioned what President Arroyo said in her speech last Monday at the Yazaki-Torres factory in Calamba City regarding the P365 billion in direct investments and 200,000 jobs that would be generated if JPEPA is approved. <br /><br />Guingona, an outspoken nationalist who was among the so-called "Magnificent 12" senators who voted in 1991 to end the RP-US military bases agreement, rallied the country's senators to resist the pressure to give their stamp of approval on the tarnished pact. <br /><br />"The Senate should not be deceived by the specious benefits of JPEPA that are being peddled by President Arroyo and her adherents. The economic and financial gains that our country is supposed to reap once the treaty is ratified are purely speculative and lacking real merits as the proceedings of the Senate hearings would show," Guingona said. <br /><br />"Japan's own study reveals that the Philippines is not a priority destination for Japanese investments, at least for the next three years, because of ‘inadequate infrastructure, an underdeveloped legal system and problems with legal operation,’ among others. JPEPA won't cure the reasons behind low foreign direct investments, but it will definitely be a grand-scale surrender of our rights as a sovereign people," he added. <br /><br />Atty. Golda Benjamin, lead counsel of the MJJC, echoed Guingona's word of warning regarding the much-ballyhooed profits to be gained from JPEPA's ratification, stressing their hope that the Senate will assert its institutional independence and fight for the sovereign interests of the Filipino people. <br /><br />"The President promises P365 billion in direct foreign investments from Japan if JPEPA is signed, something not found in the actual text of the treaty. Even if it was in the treaty, we now ask: is that the price for Filipinos to violate our own Constitution, to surrender our lands and seas, and even surrender the lawmaking powers of Congress? If the President answers yes to that question, we hope the Senate is brave enough to go against it. Surely, this nation deserves leaders who can say no to the illegal sale of Filipinos and their rights," Benjamin said. <br /><br />Guingona and Benjamin cited the recently released results of the 2007 survey on the international operations of Japanese companies by the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), a government related agency, which ranked the Philippines as last among 18 Japanese investment destinations. The same survey showed the country as among the top five places where there are many risks of doing business. <br /><br />Last week, the MJJC met at the University of the Philippines to plan for a more vigorous campaign against the ratification of JPEPA, which they condemned as "a greater bitter poison for the public to stomach" compared to the outrageous NBN-ZTE deal. <br /><br />Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago had earlier said that the committee report will be released on April 28. As of today, the date for the voting has not been announced. For the JPEPA to pass, 16 affirmative or yes votes are required.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-37641691680888508232008-04-22T13:56:00.001+08:002008-04-22T13:56:33.229+08:00Citizens’ Coalition Vows to Escalate Action against JPEPA10 April 2008, Quezon City - Two weeks before the scheduled release of the committee report on the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), members of the church, the academe, and more than 25 civil society organizations gathered at the University of the Philippines-Diliman to discuss their plans towards an escalation of actions against the JPEPA. <br /><br />The groups present are members and supporters of the Magkaisa Junk JPEPA Coalition (MJJC), broad coalition that has, for two years, vigorously exposed the lopsided and unconstitutional features of the treaty and campaigned against its ratification by the Senate at the public hearings and various protest assemblies. <br /><br />“We continue to closely monitor each and every Senator’s move on the JPEPA. Giving away of Philippine land, allowing discriminatory treatment for Filipino nurses, formalizing trade and dumping of toxic waste, and opening up our seas to foreigners, these are very serious violations of law. A senator who says yes to these provisions must be held accountable, together with the Chief Executive of this country who consistently bargains away the freedom, resources, and sovereignty of this country,” expressed Golda Benjamin, lead counsel of the Coalition. <br /><br />JPEPA opponents also raised their concern as regards some senators’ proposal for a conditional concurrence on the treaty. <br /><br />“Some senators are supposedly working to “fix” the problems in the JPEPA. However, members of the negotiating team keep on saying that this is an all-or-nothing deal that cannot be renegotiated. If the Executive Branch is doing nothing to fix the JPEPA, why are the Senators now trying to clean up the mess of the Executive Branch when their power is simply to approve or reject the treaty?” asked Marie Marciano, representative of the EcoWaste Coalition, a member group of the MJJC. <br /><br />The participants, mostly coming from sectors that will be adversely impacted by JPEPA, signed an open letter to the Senators warning them that ratifying JPEPA in the midst of major corruption scandals will not go unnoticed. <br /><br />“With the NBN-ZTE now in the public mind, with the concession of the Spratlys nipping at its heel, the ratification of the JPEPA will be a greater bitter poison for the public to stomach. The ramifications are even graver with JPEPA since it is more than just a business deal. The treaty if ratified becomes a law of the land. If the Senate does ratify it, the question becomes who are watching the watchers?” their letter to the Senators said. <br /><br />“The Arroyo administration is marked with a litany of anomalous agreements entered into at great cost and detriment to the Filipino people. The year 2010 is not far away. We, the Filipino people will remember and distinguish the traitors from the patriotic,” they stated. <br /><br />The MJJC has revealed its plan to strengthen their campaign and to continue its information drives all over the country. The Coalition is also prepared to support legal actions before the Supreme Court to question the constitutionality of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement. <br /><br />Among the MJJC partner groups are the Alliance of Progressive Labor, Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines - Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Commission, EcoWaste Coalition, Freedom from Debt Coalition, Green Convergence for Safe Food, Healthy Environment and Sustainable Economy, Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya, Kilusang Mangingisda, Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya, Philippine Nurses Association and the Task Force Food Sovereignty.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-84538523138076223692008-04-22T13:00:00.002+08:002008-04-22T13:09:32.656+08:00The ultimate treasonA commentary from the Philippine Daily Inquirer, published last April 14, 2008 (original link <a href="http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080414-130179/The-ultimate-treason">here</a>).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The ultimate treason<br />By Ester V. Perez de Tagle</span><br /><br /><br />MANILA, Philippines - When theSpratlys exploration deal was linked to the NBN project and other mega-projects, the web of corruption was exposed to have a more serious dimension—treason by sellout.<br /><br />But hidden in the voluminous pages of another but bigger agreement is the mother of all sellouts: the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (Jpepa). Once ratified, it will beget other similar EPAs; other countries would understandably want to get the same terms as Japan. Who would not want to enjoy equal rights with Filipinos to exploit the land and waters of an internationally recognized natural resources superstar and center of global marine biodiversity?<br /><br />There is no need to dig up damning evidence of the sellout from other documents or to extract it from witnesses. It is right there, in its text.<br /><br />Loss of Philippine sovereignty. The Jpepa tramples on our Constitution and other laws and the people’s constitutional right to participate in economic decision-making. It usurps the legislature’s constitutional power to exercise authority over commerce and trade. An example is the unilateral elimination of tariff protection within 11 years. This would result in the much-increased inflow of aggressively priced Japanese goods, thereby killing the backbone of our economy—our small and medium industries, which are already suffering from government neglect. Massive unemployment would follow.<br /><br />The Jpepa also usurps the constitutional power of our local government units (LGUs) to enjoy local autonomy, including the power to create their own revenue sources. Future legislation relating to investments will no longer be possible with the minimal and wrong reservations or exemptions the Philippine panel made and Japan’s various extensive reservations to protect its interests.<br /><br />The Philippine panel also agreed to remove the phrase in previous Philippine bilateral investment agreements that allow for national legislative flexibility on “investments … made in accordance with the legislation of that contracting state.” The Jpepa is thus beyond the reach of Philippine legislation, present or future.<br /><br />It even plans to “examine the possibility of amending or repealing laws and regulations that pertain to, or affect the implementation and operation of this agreement.” (Art. 4) Philippine laws exist for the good of our people but would be amended or repealed to accommodate the Jpepa.<br /><br />National Treatment (Art. 89) accords the Japanese investors equal rights as Filipinos in the exploitation of our natural resources. It would be open season for our priceless flora and fauna, with Japan getting the first shot! How ironic, considering that it never apologized for the atrocities it committed against our people during World War II. Worse, Japan’s comprehensive reservations and our lack of the same make this provision nonreciprocal.<br /><br />Annex 7, 2B of Jpepa would allow Japanese large-scale fishing in our already badly depleted seas. With economies of scale, their hi-tech factory ships would enjoy unfair competitive advantage over our poorly equipped fishing boats. Who would buy our products? The same could happen to our agriculture and agro-forestry. The plight of the Sumilao farmers would be replicated many times over. Much of our limited land and water, which should be used to plant food crops, could be used by the Japanese to plant biofuel feedstock for their energy needs, thus endangering our food and water security. Forest destruction would worsen. The Jpepa would legitimize biopiracy. Protected by Art. 90, the Japanese could patent their manufacturing processes to prevent us from commercially using our own bio-resources. Jpepa provides neither sufficient safeguards to protect our country’s rich bio-resources nor provisions on access and benefit-sharing.<br /><br />Japan, a small island state, cannot cope with the toxic waste generated by its high industrialization. An AP Tokyo 1998 news report says “Japan has a new export for the world—garbage. Export of hazardous materials is banned by international conventions. So, businessmen are just calling it something else.” Health and welfare ministry official Tatsuro Akashi confirmed this, saying “There is no objective definition to distinguish waste from goods.” In the Jpepa Tariff Lines, waste is entitled to preferential treatment and granted a tariff rate of 0 percent. Another threat is that Japan, to avoid the toxic and hazardous waste generated by its many dirty industries, may relocate these in the Philippines.<br /><br />Articles 95 and 96 not only give the Japanese more rights than Filipinos, they also open our government to multimillion-dollar suits. Article 93 prohibits the Philippines from imposing on Japanese investments any technology transfer and any hiring of Filipinos. The Japanese do not impose these in their treaties with other countries. So, what benefits do our people get from the Jpepa? Even our nurses, supposedly among its biggest beneficiaries, reject it. Philippine Nurses Association president Leah Paquiz wrote a paper against it. Decent, fair-minded Japanese, like Japan’s Christian pastors, decry its great injustice to the Filipino people.<br /><br />The Jpepa shows what happens when the greed for wealth and power blinds governments to what is right and turns them into predators. But the worst predators are those who turn against their own land and people.<br /><br />Ester V. Perez de Tagle is the founder of Concerned Citizens Against Pollution (Cocap). She was a member of the congressional TWGs of several environmental bills that became law.Ronnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2870335544006637893.post-89462418151297615732008-03-28T14:34:00.001+08:002008-03-28T14:35:57.841+08:00NGO hits Roxas, Santiago for endorsing JPEPAFrom <a href="http://www.gmanews.tv/story/86361/NGO-hits-Roxas-Santiago-for-endorsing-JPEPA">GMA News</a>:<br /><br />DAVAO CITY, Philippines - A Mindanao-based coalition of non-government organizations has criticized senators Manuel Roxas II and Miriam Defensor-Santiago for recommending the ratification of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).<br /><br />Members of the Mindanao Ayaw sa JPEPA Coalition oppose the proposed Japan-RP treaty which they consider as flawed and unfair.<br /><br />Under economic treaty, Japanese multinational corporations are given full right to invest in crop production, fishery, mining and the power sector, said Abby Pato of the Integrated Rural Development Foundation of the Philippines, a member of the coalition.<br /><br />He said that such arrangement would have great impact on the livelihood of small farmers and fisher folk in Mindanao.<br /><br />The coalition is urging the Davao City council to pass a resolution supporting moves against the JPEPA.<br /><br />At a city council hearing, the group asked councilor and Trade Committee Chair Pete Laviña to conduct an investigation on the impact of JPEPA on the Mindanao economy, Pato said.<br /><br />He said that the proposed trade pact might have disastrous impact not only on food security but also on Mindanaoans' access to and use of land, water, seed and other productive resources.<br /><br />Under the JPEPA, huge tracks of land would be put under the control of transnational and agro-business ventures, he added.<br /><br />Pato feared that the increasing global demand for bananas would further fuel the expansion of banana plantations which encourage widespread use of pesticides that are hazardous to people and environment.<br /><br />JPEPA could displace small producers and fish workers in the tuna industry with the onslaught of Japanese firms, he said.<br /><br />He added that JPEPA might also pose health hazards as dumping of Japan's toxic waste in the country (in the guise of recyclable or with recyclable content) would be allowed. - GMANews.TVRonnel Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15604678936524323827noreply@blogger.com0