Powerpoint Presentation

Download PDF FILE

Download PDF FILE

English Version

Filipino Version

PDF FILE

By Dr. Carol Pagaduan-Araullo, BAYAN Chairperson

The whole problem with the debate on the fiscal crisis is not so much, as the UP economics students say in their rebuttal of the Bello-Nakpil-Nemenzo paper, the lack of “sound economic reasoning”. The problem is the lack of plain common sense in the analysis and remedies of the Arroyo government, the 11 UP economics professors, Bello-Nakpil-Nemenzo, and the UP economics students themselves.

First, common sense dictates that before you offer solutions, you must first diagnose the problem. The bigger and more chronic the problem is, as in a crisis situation, the deeper one must probe, study and identify the underlying causes and the more radical solutions that are likely required. “Band aid” remedies may cover up and alleviate the condition temporarily, but these will only perpetuate and aggravate the problem in the long run.

Second, all the analyses and “solutions” so far have not squarely addressed the social and political dimensions to the crisis. They conveniently overlook and are silent on the question of social justice, suggesting that the only way to tide over the crisis is by increasing the burden on those who have, over the decades, borne the brunt of hardship and sacrifice.

BAYAN stand

The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) takes the position that the current fiscal crisis and the impending repeat of a deeper and more devastating financial crisis than the one that hit the country in 1997, is but part of the chronic crisis of the backward, agrarian, pre-industrial economy resulting in a continuing pattern of unequal colonial trade despite the so-called grant of independence in 1946. Further, BAYAN asserts that no fiscal or economic measure can solve the problem without first of all being socially just.

A fundamental feature of the Philippine economy is its inherent inability to earn enough from its exports in order to pay for its imports especially from the US, Japan and the rest of the developed capitalist world. We export raw materials and semi-processed/low value-added goods and import oil, machinery and a wide range of durable and nondurable manufactured goods such as cars, computers, electronic gadgets, food and clothes. This has resulted in chronic balance of trade and current account deficits since earnings from exports could never catch up with expenditures on imports.

Through the decades, exports earnings have begun to shrink faster relative to the increase in the cost of imports, especially with the continuing overproduction of raw materials and semi-processed goods in the world market since the 70s and the 80s. That is why, from the time of the Marcos dictatorship to the present, there has been growing dependence on the remittances of an estimated 8 million overseas Filipinos who plow their earnings back into the economy amounting to more than US$7 billion a year.

With the onset of “globalization’ and the neo-liberal policy prescriptions of trade and investment liberalization, deregulation and privatization, whatever local industries could survive in the stunted economy were further subjected to unfair competition, dumping, cut-price tactics, and government exactions and restrictions until many more folded up. Even the agriculture sector has been ravaged by the removal of protective tariffs and subsidies, with vastly cheaper agricultural imports flooding the market and driving tens of thousands of farmers to bankruptcy.

Since the domestic economy cannot earn enough foreign exchange with this institutionalized unequal trade, the government has resorted to foreign and domestic borrowing.

Attracting foreign investments have become the be-all and end-all especially when cheap foreign loans dried up in the 80s. The belief was, this would set up the factories, create the jobs and generate the social wealth and capital needed to move the entire country forward. But decades of reliance on foreign investments, loans and official development aid have only caused further de-industrialization such that the only “industries” existing today are those in the extractive industries such as mining and those engaged in semiprocessing to produce low value-added commodities, more than 90% of which is made up of imported raw materials.

On top of all this, instead of helping to develop the country, these foreign monopoly capitalists have siphoned off whatever domestic capital there is by sourcing their capital requirements locally instead of bringing in their much-touted investments and then repatriating billions of dollars of profit abroad. Removal of foreign exchange controls in accord with liberalization tenets of the IMF/World Bank and the WTO made the outflow of precious foreign exchange that much easier.

The logical outcome is a vast sea of poverty and misery encompassing the entire country and people. According to census data, 75% or 58 million people are forced to live on P82 a day while 90% eke out a living on P137 or lower per day. According to the recent Asian Development bank report, 12% of Filipinos are in “extreme poverty” and are forced to subsist on $1 (P57) or lower a day.

Fundamentally Unsound

What has been papered over by government, the UP economists, as well as Bello and company , is the fact that the country’s economic fundamentals are not sound. The proof is actually staring us in the face and revealed by a careful perusal of even the UP economics study.

The UP study draws attention to the economy’s heightened vulnerability to “any large external shock” such as a sudden increase in global interest rates, a sustained increase in world oil prices, a sharp decline in overseas workers’ remittances or anything that could cause the import bill to rise, including, ironically, attempts to revive an import-dependent, export-oriented economy.

It points to the fact that “the historical growth rate of the Philippine economy from the 90s to the present averages only slightly more than 4% even if only non-crisis years are included.”

Most damning of all is what the UP economists aptly described as the “deepening crisis” of the deficit and public debt that are merely the exposed portions of the huge and festering problems of the economy: its basic incapacity to produce adequately for the people’s needs because of the reality of feudal ownership of land and the absence of industrialization; its debt addiction and ensuing enslavement to international usury; and its lack of sovereign protection in the face of policy dictates of the IMF/World Bank and the importunings of monopoly capital as a whole.

To utilize a commonsensical analogy, how can the patient be fundamentally healthy if what is diagnosed by the experts as a simple case of colds turns out to be a deadly pneumonia.

Finally, where does social justice enter the picture in all the fine discourse about the current fiscal crisis and how to ride it out?

Even in “normal” non-crisis times, the poor are exploited and oppressed. They who produce society’s wealth have always been the last and the least to enjoy the fruits of their labor. While they have never ceased to ask for what rightfully belongs to them — a just share of society’s wealth — the rich and the powerful have always callously disregarded such a legitimate, not to mention, morally just demand.

Those who are in the lower income brackets of our society — the farmers, workers, rank-and-file employees, vendors, public utility drivers, etc — have long been groaning under the yoke of onerous taxes concealed in ever-rising prices of basic commodities. Like their ancestors under the Spanish and American colonialists, they have been bearing the brunt of sacrifice to buoy over society from one crisis to another. Each crisis leaves them in deeper misery and penury while the social elite not only survive but end up richer and more powerful.

Sadly, the various “solutions” being pushed by government, academics, clerics, civic leaders and whatnot, reflect this utter callousness and insensitivity to the people’s demand for social justice. The UP economics paper warns against solutions that not only have little chance of succeeding, but would likely stir social unrest. But it falls short of requiring that a “solution” must first of all be socially just.

Download PDF FILE

1. Ano ang VFA?
Ang RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) ay isang kasunduang pang-militar sa pagitan ng Pilipinas at ng Estados Unidos (US). Ito ang ginagamit na ligal na balangkas sa pagpasok-labas at pananatili ng mga tropang Amerikano sa Pilipinas. Ito ang umiral na kasunduang militar sa pagitan ng dalawang bansa, patungkol sa “status of forces”, matapos ibasura ng Senado ng Pilipinas ang bagong tratado para sa base militar ng US. Layon nitong mapanatili ang pwersang militar ng US sa bansa kahit walang bagong tratado na nagpapahintulot ng mga base militar ng US.

Ang VFA ay binubuo ng dalawang dokumento – ang VFA 1 at ang VFA 2. Ang VFA 1 ay tungkol sa pagtrato sa mga sundalong Amerikano na nasa Pilipinas habang ang VFA 2 naman ay tungkol sa pagtrato sa mga sundalong Pilipino na nasa US.

Nagkaroon ng bisa ang VFA noong Mayo 27, 1999 matapos itong pagtibayin ng Senado ng Pilipinas. Ayon sa Konstitusyon ng Pilipinas, ang pagpasok at pananatili ng dayuhang tropa sa Pilipinas ay nangangailangan ng isang tratado na pinagtibay ng Senado. Itinuturing kung gayon ng Senado ng Pilipinas na isang tratado ang VFA.

Taliwas naman ang katayuan nito sa US, dahil hindi naman ito pinagtibay ng Senado ng US. Sinabi lang US Ambassador noon sa Pilipinas na kinikilala ng US ang VFA bilang isang tratado.

Ayon sa mga gobyerno ng Pilipinas at US, ang VFA ay implementasyon ng RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) na pinagtibay noong 1951. Isinasaad ng MDT na magtutulungan ang US at Pilipinas kapag nagkaroon ng pag-atakeng militar mula sa ibang bansa sa teritoryo ng alinman sa US at Pilipinas.

Bahagi diumano ng pagpapatupad ng MDT at VFA ang isinasagawang taunang Balikatan Military Exercises sa pagitan ng tropang Amerikano at Pilipino (gayong wala namang panlabas na banta sa Pilipinas). Libu-libong sundalong Amerikano ang pumupunta sa Pilipinas bawat taon upang magdaos ng mga tinatawag na pagsasanay militar, magsagawa ng mga diumano misyong “humanitarian” at iba pa. Tinatayang nasa 30,000 hanggang 50,000 sundalong Amerikano na ang nakapasok sa bansa sa ilalim ng Balikatan.

Katuwang ng VFA ang iba pang kasunduang pang-militar sa pagitan ng US at Pilipinas kabilang ang 2002 Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA). Sa ilalim ng MLSA, malayang naipapasok ng US ang mga kagamitang pang-militar nito at nakakapagtayo ng mga pasilidad para diumano sa mga pagsasanay at proyekto ng Balikatan. Binuo rin ang Security Engagement Board (SEB) noong 2006 upang pangasiwaan ang diumano kooperasyong panseguridad ng US at Pilipinas. Pinatitindi ng mga kasunduang ito ang presensya at panghihimasok militar ng US sa bansa.

2. Bakit may VFA?
Ayon sa mga opisyal ng gobyerno ng US at ng Pilipinas, layunin ng VFA na pahigpitin ang relasyong pang-seguridad ng dalawang bansa. Para sa gobyerno ng Pilipinas, mahalaga ang VFA upang diumano maging modernisado ang hukbong sandatahan nito. Sa mga nakaraang taon, ginagamit na din ang “gera kontra terorismo” upang bigyang katwiran ang VFA.

Pero ang totoo, idinikta ng gobyerno ng US ang VFA sa gobyerno ng Pilipinas dahil kailangan nitong magkaroon ng kapalit sa ibinasurang 1947 Military Bases Agreement (MBA). Matatandaang bunga ng protesta ng mamamayan, tinanggihan ng Senado ng Pilipinas ang pagkakaroon ng bagong tratado sa base militar matapos mawalang bisa ang MBA noong 1991. Pinalayas ang mga permanenteng baseng militar ng US sa Subic, Clark at iba pang lugar ng bansa.

Mahalaga ang lokasyon ng Pilipinas sa istratehiyang pang-seguridad at pang-militar ng US sa rehiyong Asya Pasipiko. Kasangkapan ang VFA upang panatilihin at palakasin ang pwersang militar ng US sa rehiyon. Ipinuposisyon ng US ang tropang militar nito upang bantayan ang mga pang-ekonomikong interes ng US sa rehiyon tulad ng mga negosyong Amerikano, ruta ng kalakalan at interes ng nito sa langis at iba pang likasyaman maging ang pampulitikang interes na panatilihin ang dominanteng impluwensya nito sa rehiyon. Dahil dito, kailangan ng US ng akses para sa tropa nito sa loob ng Pilipinas. Sa halip na malakihang permanenteng baseng militar, ikinukubli ngayon ng US ang permanenteng pagbabase nito sa iba’t-ibang bahagi ng bansa sa pamamagitan ng VFA.

Sa ilalim ng VFA, maaaring pumunta kahit sa alin mang bahagi ng bansa ang mga  diumanong “bisitang” tropang Amerikano. Ang buong Pilipinas, kung gayon, ay nagmimistulang baseng militar ng US. Bahagi ng pananatili ng mga tropang US sa bansa
ang mga itinayong permanenteng pasilidad at opisina ng mga sundalong Amerikano sa loob ng mga kampong militar ng Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) na tinatawag nilang Cooperative Security Locations (CSL) hanggang sa mga tinatawag na Forward Operating Sites (FOS). Mayroong CSL sa Camp Aguinaldo, ang punong himpilan ng AFP; at FOS sa Camp Navarro sa Zamboanga City gayundin sa mga kampong militar sa Cotabato City at Basilan.

Ang matagalang presensya naman ng mga tropang Kano sa Sulu ay maaaring tignan na nakatali sa ginagawang oil exploration ng Exxon Mobil sa Sulu Sea. Ang Amerikanong Exxon Mobil ang tinuturing na pinakamalaking kompanya ng langis sa mundo ngayon. Sinasabi din na sa proseso ng mga high-tech na surveillance at satellite mapping na ginagawa ng mga tropang Kano, natutunton nila ang mga posibleng nakaimbak na langis, mineral at iba pang likas yaman sa teritoryo ng Pilipinas.

3. Bakit tinututulan ng mamamayan ang VFA?
Nilalabag ng VFA ang pambansang soberanya at panteritoryong integridad ng Pilipinas. Pinapahintulutan nito ang malayang labas-pasok at walang taning na pananatili ng walang hanggang bilang ng tropang Amerikano. Mula 2002, halimbawa, naka-istasyon na sa Mindanao ang mga tropang Amerikano para sa mga diumano misyong “humanitarian”, na sa aktwal ay interbensyong militar. Ang mga permanenteng pasilidad nila sa Camp Aguinaldo, Camp Navarro at iba pang kampong militar sa bansa ay patunay ding hindi lamang bumibisita ang mga sundalong Amerikano at katunayan ay permanente
nang nagbabase sa Pilipinas.

Ang US Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTFP) sa ilalim ng US Pacific Command ay nakahimpil sa loob ng Camp Navarro sa Zamboanga mula pa noong 2002. Ito ay sa kabila ng pagbabawal ng Konstitusyon sa permanenteng presensya
at base militar ng dayuhang tropa sa Pilipinas. Di maaaring basta basta pasukin ng sinumang Pilipino ang Headquarters ng JSOTFP. May sarili ding seguridad ang pasilidad nito na pinamamahalaan ng mga Amerikano habang may Pilipino ring security force. Ang pananatili ng dayuhang tropa at mga gamit militar sa isang bansa ay palantandaan na ito ay hindi tunay na malaya. (Ito ay bukod pa sa ipinagbabawal ng Konstitusyon ng Pilipinas ang dayuhang baseng militar sa loob ng bansa kung wala namang tratado.)

Tanda ito ng patuloy na dominasyon at panghihimasok ng US sa mga panloob na usapin
ng isang tinaguriang independyenteng bansa. Masahol pa sa dating MBA ang VFA dahil sa walang itong taning; mawawalang bisa lamang ang VFA kapag magbigay notisya ang isa sa magkabilang panig. Hindi rin malinaw ang maaaring gawing aktibidad ng mga tropang Amerikano sa ilalim ng VFA. Nagresulta ito sa maraming kaso ng tuwirang paglahok ng mga sundalong
Amerikano sa aktwal na mga “combat operations” ng AFP, bagay na labag sa Konstitusyon at pinanindigan ng Korte Suprema ng Pilipinas sa kasong Bayan et al vs Zamora (1999). Lumalahok ang mga tropang Amerikano sa mga combat patrol,
armadong convoy, hanggang sa pagsasagawa ng paniniktik o surveillance.

Dagdag pa, walang paraan ang gobyerno ng Pilipinas upang malaman kung sinu-sino ang mga pumapasok na tropang Amerikano sa bansa at kung gaano sila katagal mananatili dahil hindi sila obligadong kumuha ng visa. Inalis din ng kasunduan ang kapangyarihan ng Kongreso na magpataw ng buwis at hindi sinisingil ng customs duty ang mga kagamitan ng pwersang Amerikano na ipinapasok sa bansa.

Lubhang pumapabor sa mga Amerikano ang VFA. Sa ilalim ng VFA 1, halimbawa, kapag may nilabag na batas ng Pilipinas ang isang sundalong Amerikano, siya ay maaaring manatili sa “custody” o pangangalaga ng US habang nililitis ang kanyang kaso.
Kahit sinasabing nasa ilalim na ng “jurisdiction” o awtoridad ng Pilipinas ang mga Amerikano, hindi ito nangangahulugan ng “custody” sa mga sundalong lumalabag sa mga batas ng bansa. Kabaliktaran ito sa sinasabi naman ng VFA 2 na awtomatikong
ilalagay sa “custody” ng US ang isang sundalong Pilipino na lumabag sa batas ng US. Ang pagturing ng US sa VFA bilang isang simpleng kasunduang pang-ehekutibo habang itinuturing naman itong tratado ng Pilipinas ay isa pang tanda ng hindi pagiging patas ng VFA.

4. Ano ang naging epekto ng VFA sa karaniwang Pilipino?
Katulad ng panahon na may malalaking mga base militar ang US sa Subic at Clark, at marami pang mas maliliit na instilasyon sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng kapuluan, kaliwa’t kanang pang-aabuso at paglabag sa karapatang pantao ang dinaranas ng karaniwang
mamamayan sa kamay ng mga sundalong Amerikano sa ilalim ng VFA. Isa na rito ang panggagahasa ni Lance Corporal Daniel Smith sa Pilipinang nagtago sa ngalang “Nicole” noong 2005.

Nakipagsabwatan ang administrasyong Arroyo sa gobyernong US upang pagtakpan ang mga pang-aabuso sa karapatang pantao at iba pang krimen katulad ng ginawa nila kay “Nicole”. Dahil sa VFA, hindi na nailagay sa “custody” ng Pilipinas si Smith, kahit pa nga nahatulan na itong may sala sa krimen ng panggagahasa.

Nagsabwatan ang dalawang gobyerno noon nang itakas mula Makati City Jail si Smith at itago sa Embahada ng US, kung saan ito nananatili hanggang ngayon. Bagama’t nagdesisyon na ang Korte Suprema na iligal ang kaayusang ito, samu’t saring maniobra pa rin ang ginawa ng administrasyong Arroyo at US manatili lamang si Smith sa kustodiya ng US.

Dahil sa kaso ng “custody” kay Smith, tuluyang nalantad ang lubhang tagibang o dipantay ng VFA at ang pagiging papet ng rehimeng Arroyo. Binalewala nito ang papalakas na opinyong publiko kontra-VFA at ang panawagan na ibasura ang kasunduan. Upang pigilan ito, pinwersa si “Nicole” na maglabas ng panibagong affidavit na tila nagbibigay duda sa kanyang naunang testimonya na ginahasa siya ni Smith. Ang bagong affidavit ni “Nicole” ay ginawa mismo ng mga abogado ni Smith.

Marami pang kaso ng pang-aabuso at paglabag sa karapatang pantao ng mamamayang Pilipino ang kinasangkutan ng mga sundalong Amerikano. Kabilang dito ang pambubugbog kay Marcelo Batesil sa Cebu City; ang pamamaril kay Buyong-Buyong
Isnijal sa Basilan; ang pagmasaker sa tatlong sibilyang Moro sa Barangay Sipangkot, Umapoy Island, Tawi-Tawi; at ang pamamaslang kay Arsid Baharon sa Barangay San Roque, Zamboanga City. Ipinasara rin ng mga sundalong Amerikano ang Panamao District Hospital sa Panamao, Sulu noong Nobyembre 30, 2007 at binantaan pa ang mga empleyado ng ospital na babarilin sila kung hindi susunod sa utos ng mga tropang Amerikano.

Meron ding kaso na nadadamay ang mga sibilyan sa mga live-fire exercises ng mga tropang Kano, tulad ng isang babaeng nasabugan ng M-203 grenade habang sya ay naglalaba sa ilog. Noong 2008, namataang kasama ang mga tropang Kano sa isang yunit ng AFP na nagsagawa ng pagmasaker sa pitong sibilyan sa Maimbung, Sulu.

5. Ano ang ating dapat gawin?
Dapat tuluy-tuloy na labanan ng mamamayan ang VFA at ang mga aktibidad na binibigyang matwid sa ilalim nito, tulad ng tinaguriang Balikatan “joint military training exercises”. Walang ibang alternatibo kundi ang pagbabasura ng di-pantay at mapaniil na VFA, kasabay ng pagwawakas ng iba pang mga kasunduang militar sa pagitan ng Pilipinas at US tulad ng Mutual Defense Treaty, Mutual Logistics Support Arrangement at Security Engagement Board. Ang mga kasunduang ito ay tanda ng katayuan ng Pilipinas bilang mala-kolonya ng imperyalismong US. Ang mga kasunduang ito ay nagpapanatili at nagpapalakas sa dominasyon at panghihimasok militar ng US sa Pilipinas.

Ang panawagan para ibasura ang VFA ay nakadirekta mismo sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas. Siya sa ngayon ang tanging may kapangyarihan para tuluyang ibasura ang kasunduang ito.

Kailangang ilantad at tutulan ng mamamayan ang nagaganap na mga diumano pagsasanay militar at maging ang mga diumano misyong “humanitarian” sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng bansa sa ilalim ng Balikatan at iba pang “military exercises”.

Sa Bicol, kung saan magsasagawa ng diumano mga misyong ”humanitarian” tulad ng dental at medical mission ang tropang Amerikano sa Abril, dumaranas na ng pang-aabuso ang mamamayan. Napaulat ang pagpababawal ng pangingisda sa mga lugar na malapit sa mga pinagdadaungan ng mga barkong US. Noong Pebrero, namatay ang isang sanggol at malubhang nasugatan ang mga batang may edad sampung buwan hanggang siyam na taon sa isang clearing operation ng AFP bilang paghahanda sa Balikatan sa Bikol.

Sa Senado, nakahain pa rin ang petisyon ni Senador Kiko Pangilinan na nananawagan sa Malacañang na ibasura ang VFA. Sinusuportahan ito ng iba pang mambabatas kabilang sina Sen. Joker Arroyo, Chiz Escudero, Jamby Madrigal, Ping Lacson at Pia Cayetano. Isa itong mahalagang pampulitikang presyur sa rehimeng Arroyo at dapat suportahan ng mamamayan. Kailangan ding kumbinsihin ang iba pang senador na pumirma sa nasabing resolusyon at ilantad naman ang mga kakampi ng Malacañang na tumatangging pumirma. Sa kasalukuyan, nakasampa pa rin ang mga petisyon ng Bayan at iba’t ibang grupo sa
Korte Suprema upang kwestyunin ang VFA at paglabag nito sa Konstitusyon. Nakasampa rin ang isa pang petisyon na kumukwestyun sa kaduda-dudang sirkumstansya ng panibagong affidavit ni “Nicole”. Kailangang sabayan ang mga hakbang na ito sa Korte ng mas malakas, malaki at malawak na kilusang kontra-VFA upang idiin ang presyur sa rehimeng Arroyo na ibasura ang VFA.

Tulad noong 1991 nang patalsikin ang mga base militar ng US sa Pilipinas, ang mga pangmasang kilos-protesta ng ng mamamayan at nagkakaisang hanay laban sa VFA ang syang magiging mapagpasya sa pagwawakas ng VFA. Kailangang ng walang humpay na pagmumulat, pagpapakilos at pag-oorganisa upang higit na ilantad at labanan ang papalaking interbesyong militar ng US at lagutin ang tanikala ng imperyalismo sa bansa.

Inihanda ng
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan)
Abril 2009

Bagong Alyansang Makabayan
September 5, 2008

After many delays, Manila and Tokyo have finally produced the “exchange of notes”. The much awaited document, Senator Miriam Santiago said, will supposedly correct the constitutional flaws of the controversial Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and seal its ratification by the Senate.

Only five pages, the actual document is composed of: (1) the diplomatic letter of Foreign Affairs secretary Alberto Romulo to Japanese foreign minister Masahiko Koumura, dated August 22, identifying four major points of “shared understanding” between the Philippines and Japan and (2) Masahiko’s reply to Romulo, dated August 28, citing verbatim the points he raised and a statement confirming the shared understanding.

The first two points of the shared understanding refer to general statements pertaining to the parties’ commitment to respect each others’ national laws, including their constitutions; and to implement the JPEPA in accordance with each other’s respective charters.

Point number three, meanwhile, enumerates the provisions of the 1987 Constitution that the Philippines clarified shall not be amended by the JPEPA. These include provisions in Article II (Section 15), Article XII (Sections 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10-12 and 14), Article XIV (Sections 4 and 12), and Article XVI (Section 11). The provisions cover, among others, the protection of Filipino enterprises from unfair foreign competition; restrictions on foreign ownership of public lands and in the exploration and exploitation of natural resources; limitation to Filipinos of certain investment areas; preferential rights, privileges and concessions granted to Filipinos covering the national economy and patrimony; regulation of foreign investments; regulation of technology transfer and promotion; and the promotion of preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials, and locally produced goods.

The need for an exchange of notes arose from the indisputable fact that the JPEPA seriously violates several provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Santiago, main sponsor of the treaty and a self-styled constitutional expert, recognized that ratifying the JPEPA in its present form invites the risk of an eventual rejection by the Supreme Court (SC).

The constitutional provisions listed in the exchange of notes contradict the bilateral treaty’s terms on National Treatment (Japanese investors will enjoy the same rights and privileges reserved to Filipinos), Most Favored Nation (Japan will get the same most favorable treatment that the Philippines accorded to other countries), and prohibition of performance requirements (Japanese investors could not be forced to transfer technology or to procure locally their production needs).

Santiago described the exchange of notes as an agreement wherein “Japan” promises explicitly and specifically that it will respect the nationalist provisions of the constitution”. She also called the document an “integral” part of the JPEPA, which under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties can be considered as a treaty “when the parties agree”.

With this document, the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee and her co-sponsor Senator Mar Roxas, head of the trade and commerce committee, are confident that the JPEPA will surely pass scrutiny by their colleagues. By October, they hope to muster the needed two-thirds vote and complete the ratification process – more than two years after the JPEPA was signed by Gloria Arroyo and then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

But despite all the hullabaloo about the exchange of notes, including Roxas’s refusal to defend the JPEPA unless it was produced and Santiago’s “no exchange of notes, no treaty” stance, the document is nothing but a general statement of commitment from Japan to respect the1987 Constitution. It could have been a stronger and more binding document if it explicitly amended the questionable provisions of the JPEPA, as originally proposed by retired SC justice Florentino Feliciano who first raised the constitutional issues during one of last year’s Senate hearings.

In fact, the exchange of notes could be a Trojan Horse just awaiting the opportune time to attack. A closer look at point number four of the shared understanding reveals the hidden intentions of the document:
“4. The present exchange serves only to confirm the interpretation of and does not modify the rights and obligations of the Parties under the provisions of the JPEPA.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the unconstitutional provisions of the agreement remain and will still bind the Philippines once the JPEPA gets ratified. The exchange of notes did not resolve the constitutional issues but in effect just deferred the question to be tested by actual legal conflicts over the treaty’s implementation that may arise in the future. This places the Constitution under unnecessary duress because under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Philippines could not raise unconstitutionality for failure to comply with its JPEPA obligations.

Point number three of the exchange of notes, in reality, does not guarantee that the JPEPA will not undermine the 1987 Constitution. It simply clarified that the bilateral agreement will not amend the pertinent constitutional provisions. But it does not prevent Japan, for example, to insist before an international court on its right accorded by the JPEPA to fully own local public utilities because the Philippines did not exempt it from Article 89 (National Treatment). Another potential area of legal tussle is the prohibition of performance requirements and future non-performing measures. What the Philippines reserved in the JPEPA are existing measures, thus undermining the constitutional mandate of Congress to restrict foreign investments in certain economic activities in the future when the national interest requires.

The Trojan Horse in the exchange of notes is also exposed by the calculated use of the phrase “shared understanding”. As such, Japan can argue in the future that as a simple “shared understanding” and not a categorical “agreement”, the exchange of notes is merely a diplomatic note that does not modify anything in the main treaty and does not bind Japan to specific legal obligations. As a matter of fact, it is equivalent to the diplomatic correspondence between the foreign affairs heads of Japan and the Philippines in May 2007 confirming the former’s vow not to dump toxic wastes in the country. But despite this exchange of diplomatic notes, the liberalization of toxic waste trade between the parties under the JPEPA remains, which creates the condition for increased exports of Japanese hazardous materials to the Philippines.

Despite Santiago’s relentless propaganda that the JPEPA will be ratified by the Senate, a host of issues about the treaty remains unresolved. The exchange of notes itself is viewed differently by some senators. According to Senator Francis Pangilinan, the exchange of notes is in effect a renegotiation of the original JPEPA and said that a bloc of four to five senators is forging a consensus that renegotiation is the best option. Senator Aquilino Pimentel, on the other hand, pointed out that aside from constitutional issues, there are also equally important trade issues that must be scrutinized by the Senate.

The battle against the JPEPA is certainly far from over. Advocates of just and mutually beneficial economic agreements and defenders of national patrimony and sovereignty must be more aggressive in convincing at least eight senators to firmly reject the obviously defective economic treaty. With a host of bilateral economic deals, including one with the US, in line, the outcome of this campaign takes a higher level of strategic importance. (END)

Download PDF FILE