SC clears Japan free trade deal
The petitioners claimed that JPEPA violated several provisions of the Constitution which guarantee people’s right to health and to a balanced ecology
Daily TribuneThe petitioners claimed that JPEPA violated several provisions of the Constitution which guarantee people’s right to health and to a balanced ecology
photograph courtesy of phileco Navotas growth partner Phil. Ecology Systems Corp. (PhilEco) chairman Reghis M. Romero II displays the Top Taxpayers Award received from Navotas Mayor John Rey Tiangco (center) along with PhilEco president and COO Engr. Jouie V. Lee Oliver (second from right). Flanking them are Judy Savares (left) and senior business development and marketing manager Priscilla Mangune of PhilEco, the company that owns and operates the Navotas sanitary landfill facility. PhilEco is a ‘Triple A’ waste management and environmental engineering and infrastructure firm with various projects across the archipelago.
The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement, or JPEPA, a bilateral deal opening the market of the two nations for trade and investments sealed in 2006 and ratified by the Senate in 2008 was affirmed by the Supreme Court as constitutional.
The high bench dismissed for lack of merit two petitions challenging the constitutionality of JPEPA that was signed by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
In its 2008 briefer upon ratification, the Senate said that “Japanese investors in the Philippines would be accorded the same privileges and rights as Filipino investors in economic sectors where they are allowed and vice-versa.”
The first petition against JPEPA was filed by the Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services Inc., Alliance of Progressive Labor, Ecological Waste Coalition of the Philippines, Mother Earth Foundation, Concerned Citizens Against Pollution, Fisheries Reform, Kilusan Para sa Pagpapaunlad ng Industriya ng Pangisdaan and the Philippine Workers Alliance.
The Fair Trade Alliance, Automotive Industry Workers Alliance and several lawmakers and former senators filed the second petition against the trade agreement.
Cases consolidated
The two petitions were consolidated by the SC into one case which named as respondents the senators of 14th Congress that ratified the agreement and several members of the then Arroyo Cabinet.
The petitioners claimed that JPEPA violated several provisions of the Constitution which guarantee people’s right to health and to a balanced ecology.
They compelled the government to protect and reserve the use of the nation’s marine wealth and its archipelagic waters and exclusive economic zone to Filipino citizens.
Also alleged was that the agreement violated constitutional provisions that reserve certain sectors of economic activities to Filipinos and mandate the government to pursue trade policies that serve the general welfare.
The petitioners also claimed that JPEPA is a one-sided agreement that violated section 13, Article XII of the Constitution which mandates that “the State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.”
Also, they alleged that the agreement “is grossly unfair and disadvantageous” to the Philippines because Japan as a developed country, with less economic vulnerabilities than the Philippines, would have a wider exclusion list.
