Govt allays fears that JPEPA violates RP charter
Manila Times
Although pitted against legal luminaries from the anti-JPEPA groups, the government panel succeeded in explaining constitutional issues raised against the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) in yesterday’s joint hearing conducted by the Senate committees on foreign relations and on trade and commerce.
Ambassador Manuel A.J. Teehankee, Philippine Permanent Representative to the World Trade Organization who was designated spokesperson of the JPEPA legal panel, was allayed fears that the treaty would give the Japanese nationals the same rights as Filipinos while doing business in the Philippines.
Teehankee explained that the national treatment provision in the JPEPA does not give parity rights to Japanese businessmen, citing specific provisions in the treaty to prove his point.
In a fact sheet, the Department of Trade and Industry said that the national treatment clause in the JPEPA refers only to the nondiscriminatory treatment of Japanese and Filipino investors as far as regulatory conditions are concerned, such as taxes and fees, hiring, and distribution requirements.
This does not include the right to own lands, exploit natural resources and engage in activities reserved for Filipinos, the DTI said.
Teehankee, formerly an undersecretary in the Department of Justice, said that contrary to the observations of anti-JPEPA groups, there is no commitment in the JPEPA for Japanese investors to engage in the services sector—such as in public utility, educational institutions, mass media and advertising—because these are reserved only to Filipino-owned companies.
Under existing laws, foreigners can only own 40 percent in any company, with 60 percent or majority owned by Filipinos.
Teehankee also explained that under the most-favored nation treatment clause in Chapter 8 of the JPEPA, the provision states that the country will give Japanese investment activities the same treatment that it gives even to nonparty or other countries without a bilateral agreement with the Philippines.
This means that under this MFN provision, there is no special treatment to the Japanese nationals, Teehankee said.
Yesterday’s hearing dealt with constitutional issues and the movement of goods and services.
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chairman of the Senate committee on foreign relations, said that although Monday’s hearing was supposed to be the last in the scheduled five hearings, another hearing has been set with Sen. Edgardo Angara presiding. Its date will be announced later.
Santiago, however, said that as earlier announced, the deadline for the submission of memorandums from both sides—the government and the oppositors—will still be on October 23.
According to Santiago, the issue of constitutionality is very important because even if the Senate concurs, if the Supreme Court would later rule that the treaty is unconstitutional, then JPEPA could not be implemented. However, she said there are ways to remedy this “deficiency” without having to reject the treaty.
Besides Teehankee, those who attended the hearing from the government side included Trade and Industry Secretary Peter Favila, Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap, Health Secretary Francisco Duque, and Acting Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera.
Among those who attended from the anti-JPEPA groups were former Senator Wigberto Tanada; Atty. Merlin Megallona, former dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law; and Atty. Roberto C. San Juan, who read the position paper of retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Florentino Feliciano.
No Comments, Comment or Ping
Reply to “Govt allays fears that JPEPA violates RP charter”