JPEPA #5: Pimentel and Madrigal Submits Resolution on JPEPA
Even more opposition to JPEPA. Earlier today, Senator M. A. Madrigal and Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. submitted a resolution directing The Committee on Agriculture and Food to conduct an inquiry
IN AID OF LEGISLATION, INTO CERTAIN INIQUITOUS PROVISIONS OF THE JAPAN-PHILIPPINES ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (JPEPA) WHICH ARE DISADVANTAGEOUS TO FILIPINOS, WITH THE END IN VIEW OF REVIEWING THE TERMS OF THE AFORESAID BILATERAL AGREEMENT
some of the important statements in this resolution is as follows:
JPEPA will not allegedly bring in any new substantial Japanese investments nor open up new and bigger markets for Philippine products. Over three decades of investment, debt and trade relations between the Philippines and Japan under the old Treaty of Amity has only transformed the Philippines into a junior partner of Japan
and regarding the major issue of toxic waste:
environmental groups like KALIKASAN and GREENPEACE have likewise registered their strong opposition to JPEPA, claiming that the Agreement as it is worded; would legalize trade in hazardous and toxic wastes, making the Philippines a willing dumpsite for Japan, and would cause havoc on the environment as well as the health and well-being of the Filipinos
At this point, I am at least appeased that JPEPA is indeed being scrutinized and looked at very closely. There are just too many provisions that leave the Philippines on the short end of the stick.
Translation: JPEPA is not all it’s cracked up to be.
You can see the entire resolution here
tags: JPEPA
[…] 1. Introduction to JPEPA 2. Cayetano: JPEPA to Face Rough Sailing in The Senate 3. Palace To Review JPEPA on Toxic Wastes 4. ROXAS: SENATE TRADE COMMITTEE TO MEET ON JPEPA 5. Pimentel and Madrigal Submits Resolution on JPEPA […]
Its not only the toxic wastes issue that is being objected to in jpepa. Other equally if not more important issues are the fishery access by Japan’s factory ships & vessels in Philippine EEZ, rights in agricultural lands/public lands, nurses and caregivers (future jpepayuki!), etc.
The impact of fishery access however need to be underscored. If the United States of America, China, Korea, Taiwan, France, Spain, Italy, Australia (all of them are deep-sea fishing countries) would ask for the same fishery rights and access in Philippine exclusive economic zone, can the Philippines refuse their demand (not request) for access? Can the Philippine government stand its position that only Japan will be allowed fishery access? Do the Philippine government have the backbone to say no to U.S.A. if it will demand such right to access the Philippine EEZ?
What happens now to the provisions of 1987 Philippine Constitution - reserving exclusively the EEZ to Filipinos, pursuit of an independent foreign policy, national interests and right to self-determination, right to a balanced and healthful ecology, a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos, promotion of comprehensive rural development, more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth, promotion of industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, protection on Filipino enterprises against unfair competition and trade practices? These policies are enshrined in the constitution and the negation or circumvention of which has without consequences – Sec. 22, Art. XII provides – Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of this Article shall be considered inimical to the national interest and subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as may be provided by law.