Press Release
April 24, 2008

Transcript of interview with Senator Pia Cayetano on Dateline Philippines, ANC with Ms. Pinky Webb and Mr. Ricky Carandang

Topic: "JPEPA Conditional Concurrence"

Q: What are your thoughts on Jpepa? Are you inclined to approve it personally, or no?

SPSC: I've made a statement in the last few weeks, after we concluded a series of hearings that I feel that the negotiating panel did not present to us valid reasons to ratify the JPEPA agreement. So that has been my consistent stand for the last few months. And then just last Monday, our chair for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Sen. Miriam Santiago presented this different scheme where she intends to convince us to get conditional concurrence from the Senate, she is (inaudible). So it's a different scenario because effectively it says no unless the conditions, the issues we are concerned about are addressed. It's quite interesting.

Q: Interesting, but you know and I'm sure you are aware that a number of your colleagues in the senate also lawyers, are saying that its not legally done, a or the b, or its just not politically done? In other words you have the choice to accept or reject it, you don't have the option of revising or making conditional concurrence

SPSC: I agree with the way you summarize it, it has not legally been done and neither has it been politically been done. But Sen. Miriam Santiago is very candid in her explanation that precisely this is her compromise agreement instead of saying no, which I'm sure everybody knows is sort of the political pressure to say yes, so instead of her saying no, she's now proposing this conditional concurrence, which, when I look at it, its effectively no without saying no, because we are saying na if you meet certain requirements then we will consider. Effectively, it is going back to the drawing board. It is going back and saying let's revisit this whole thing without saying that we shelved it, without the Senate having to vote no. I'm a proactive kind of person, I can support this if the net effect is really a no, unless and they will go back to the drawing board and so far it is, its going back to the drawing board. I am not prepared to say yes, because like I said, in the committee hearings there was no reason for us to support this JPEPA, and I don't believe that the Senate should not be used as a rubber stamp if our negotiating panel did not do a good job in getting us a good deal, why should we approve it? For the same reason, I will not be voting yes and if Sen. Miriam is presenting a conditional concurrence I'll be open to debate on why we should even consider a conditional concurrence.

Q: Well let me cite you into what Sen. Escudero said, he cited Sec. 2 Article 19 on the Vienna Convention on the law on treaties saying there are areas, there are instances where some kind of conditional concurrence can occur or formulate a reservation, but only if a treaty provides for it and those reservations are specified under what has been discussed. Apparently, under the JPEPA, there is no reservation, again correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no provision on that on the JPEPA, in other words, conventional wisdom is that the Senate simply has to reject or accept as is.

SPSC: I definitely open to the idea of my colleague, this constitution, international law issues is a specialty, and I'm not familiar with the Vienna Convention,. So definitely if the Vienna Convention is very specific to the mode of what kind of amendments are allowed, because I know as a rule you may not make any amendments to any treaty. Like I said, this is our chair's way of bringing it back to the drawing board. You are not making any amendments per se, what she saying is, start negotiating all over again and bring us another agreement. Historically, Japan also does not make amendments. Really what you're looking at is her view of what is the politically accepted way of saying no and if you want let's start all over again. She did make it clear, that if it doesn't happen in 2008, she believe that there will be a JPEPA 2009 because she believe that Japan will not be able to live without an agreement with the Philippines of similar nature. I've sat down with her in all those committee hearings and I do know her sentiment, she was not happy with the way JPEPA was negotiated by our panel, and yet as chair of the foreign affairs committee she has the burden of trying to find a diplomatic way of getting this approved, (inaudible) a diplomatic way of saying no that is why I believe she went through this effort of coming up with a term which is now conditional concurrence, but I definitely see the point of Senator Chiz and that is exactly the debate will do. We do have a lot of experts in the field, and they were pressed on the committee level and I'm quite certain that when Senator Miriam tries this to defend this in the floor, she most likely will bring in a constitution expert to help her respond to the concerns of the body.

Q: Senator, you said that you personally are not for it on its present form, where do you feel that we did not get a good deal.

SPSC: I initially came in my area of interest and concern really was on the area of environment being its committee chair in the Senate, and just to go through it very quickly, the tariff on the hazardous waste were eliminated so that gave the impression to us that we are now encouraging or supporting the entry of hazardous waste. There have been a lot of denial in the part of the Japanese embassy and basically Japan that this is not the case, but it doesn't sit well with us because if in fact we are pro environment, why do we have to live with a provision that leave doubt in our mind, that we are encouraging the entry of hazardous waste. In fact this is a provision in JPEPA in Article 4 which requires the countries to review any of its laws that is contrary to this agreement. So effectively if we have laws that prohibit the entry of hazardous waste, article 4 says at some point we will be compelled to review this law so that they are consistent of zero entry of waste. Those post a lot of questions in my mind.

Q: But Senator, you do understand that under the JPEPA its not as if they could simply force us to take their hazardous waste at zero tariff, someone in the country has to say yes we will accept your hazardous waste. Ion other words, it becomes a choice for us.

SPSC: Exactly, that is what our negotiating panels kept on trying to assure us with, that we have our Philippine laws and no less than the ambassador of Japan, and our ambassador to Japan have come to me and assured me that it won't happen because of Philippine laws. But let me read you article 4, it says that Japan and the Philippines have to review its laws and regulation that pertain only to impede the implementation of this bilateral pact. I'm saying that it opens the door to pressuring the Senate later on to reviewing our laws because we agreed to zero tariff rates. Why then do we have to agree to zero tariff rates? Why? Why couldn't it be the reverse where we opted and we said specifically under no circumstances will we accept hazardous waste. What if, and this is all happening in various forms, what if they come up with a multimillion peso deal where they will teach how to recycle waste and we will then be the recipient of Japan's waste and make so much money by having this new industry where we recycle waste. Our country is always eager for new opportunities, that means that we would probably considering.

Q: Senator, what's your sense among your colleagues, if it were put to a vote, and I assume it will be in some point soon, do you sense as a whole will reject or accept the JPEPA?

SPSC: I have not taken a tally but just to give you an indication, I have a quite number of colleagues that did attend the committee hearings, from my recollection, most of us were disgusted by the presentation of how the whole JPEPA came about. And yet in the final outcome, I think there is a lot of pressure for us to accept it, for the same reason that we are a member of the WTO, and we support it for we don't want to be left behind, and all our other Asian neighbors had signed deals with Japan wherein they are getting preferential treatment, ayaw nating magpaiwan. But my question is, when do we draw the line? When do we act in a more proactive manner that we get a better deal and we are not defensive. My fear is a lot of my colleagues may be in a position that they are very aware of the need to be participative and (inaudible) in the Asian market, but I feel that now or never we should sent a lesson to our negotiating panel to the administration, when do we act in a more aggressive manner to not just to protect our interest but to go out and sell our positions. I don't remember that there is anything in this agreement that is extremely beneficial to us, and yet we feel we have to do it dahil malulugi tayo if we don't.

Q: There is something in the law that is against the dumping of toxic waste in the Philippines, so I always thought existed, and that would take over any treaty the Senate may ratify, is that true or not?

SPSC: That was what I had hoped to see. If there was really no intention, why could we not have had a very simple yet blatant provision that says under no circumstances we'll have toxic waste in the Philippines? What happened was, as a result of the clamor of the NGOs and us on provision on toxic waste there was a side agreement that was signed by I think the Philippine embassy and probably representatives by Japan, but then the question is. Is this valid, constitutionalists again said can you have side note> again go back tpo what Sen. Escudero said that in a way that's a form of amendment that the Vienna Convention does not allow, and I mean, it is not a practice to have amendment and treaties. That's the situation.

Q: So there's nothing in the law that would violate the dumping of toxic waste in the Philippines?

SPSC: as you mention that, there is a bassel ban amendment, which prevents, it's a listing of prohibited toxic waste, if you are a signatory to this, you are then prohibited in exporting toxic waste from a developed country to a developing country for disposal or recycling. And Japan has not become a signatory to this. Its scary because we are now negotiating with a country who specifically kept its door open to the possibility to sending toxic waste to a developing country.

Q: on another issue, we are also saying that another benefit is we will be able to send our workers, over to Japan. But then if you really look into specifications in sending workers in Japan, there are very strict measures, the front page is good but when you look inside, it would be very difficult for Filipino workers to make it to Japan and stay there for a good period of time. How was that coming along?

SPSC: That was another concern, on the side of our nurses. Again our panel did not have their best interest in mind, because in other countries, there is easier access to enter foreign market. I personally believe that because of language barrier, then the requirement to learn Japanese may not be unreasonable, although our nurses' appreciation (inaudible), the difficulty having to learn it while you're there, and then while you're there you get a minimum allowance, and may have to provide apprenticeship services so they are not agreeable to that. And there is comparison to the terms given to nurses in other Asian countries \which seem to be less stringent that the terms given to us. Bottom line is, we could have gotten a better deal if we tried. I am told though that the Japanese nursing appreciation is a very strong lobby group which effectively against Filipino nurses.

I just wanted to point out on the trade aspect and investment aspect that Japanese investors to provide technology transfer to Filipino counterparts and there are also provisions on the ownership that may be violating the constitution. So those are serious provisions that either go against the Constitution, or go against our normal business practice.

News Latest News Feed