[November 11, 2007]

`Nothing wrong with Japan deal'

(Manila Standard Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) SENATORS Edgardo Angara and Richard Gordon yesterday disputed the claims of some legal luminaries that the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement has constitutional infirmities that would prevent the Senate from ratifying the one-year-old accord.

Angara said he does not share the interpretation of retired Supreme Court Justice Florentino Feliciano that Japanese firms may be allowed to invest in vital and protected domestic industries, including media and public utilities, and to exceed the 40 percent limit on foreign ownership as part of the alleged concessions to them under the JPEPA.

That is only according to the legal opinion of some lawyers. But other constitutionalists have a different opinion. So whatever they say is not the final word on the issue, Angara told Standard Today.

Gordon said the allegation that there are unconstitutional provisions in the bilateral treaty have yet to be substantiated.

This comes after the denial by the Philippines is committed to open the service sectors and public utilities to Japanese investors.

He said that even assuming that there are provisions of JPEPA that do not conform with the Constitution, they cannot supersede the Constitution and will be merely deemed without force and effect.

Gordon said he is in favor of ratifying the agreement--the first of the 23 senators to make such declaration. He said he is also amenable to the so-called conditional ratification being broached by some constitutional experts to overcome any unconstitutional feature of the accord.

I'm in favor of ratification with conditionalities. To address any question on constitutionality, maybe we should have a side agreement that the provisions of our Constitution will prevail over the provisions of the treaty under question, he said.

In fact, this was the advice of retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban in view of the impossibility of renegotiating the JPEPA as it had already been ratified by the Japanese Diet (Parliament). Panganiban said this scheme was even proposed by Justice Feliciano himself in his paper presented to the Senate foreign relations committee.

The Senate ratifies the treaty on the understanding and interpretation that the Constitution is superior to any provision of the JPEPA and that the Philippines is not barred from applying current, or enacting future, legislations that implement our fundamental law, Panganiban said.

On the removal of tariff duties for nearly 98 percent of tariff lines provided under the agreement, Angara disputed the argument of Merlin Magallona, former dean of the UP College of Law, and former Senator Wigberto Tanada of the Fair Trade Alliance that the executive branch has usurped the power of Congress to fix tariff rates.

He said the President has the power to adjust tariff rates while Congress is in recess.

Angara said that he has not yet made up his mind on the JPEPA although I am inclined to support it.

On the allegation of the Junk the JPEPA Coalition that the controversial agreement even allows Japanese nationals to go around the constitutional ban against ownership of lands by foreigners, the senator from Aurora said this is just a scare tactic of the oppositors, and that is not true.

Meanwhile, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile is keeping his judgment on the JPEPA to himself in the meantime even as he expressed dismay over the lackluster efforts of officials of the executive branch to explain the pros and cons of the agreement.

In making a position with respect to the JPEPA, we have to assess the entire global environment where we operate as a nation. If we do not ratify it, are we better off. If we ratify it, will it be bad for us? he remarked.

Criticizing the proponents of JPEPA over their unpreparedness during hearings, Enrile said, They come to us, and they give us figures, but when we start scrutinizing the figures, and ask them questions, they grope. I don't think that is healthy.

Copyright 2007 Kamahalan Publishing Corp. , Source: The Financial Times Limited

[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]

Discussions: