3 Responses to “8 Reasons Why JPEPA Is Bad for the Philippines”

1. kin Says:
   April 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 am

   I already meet and attended meeting with those Japanese. In negotiation they always insist their conditions which gives to the other country to the point of no return. They insist their motives and advancement. They give you favor once but what is the return? Even 10 times of what they give. I hope Philippine government must think about Japanese trap for the benefits of the Filipino people.

2. jpepa man Says:
   May 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am

   JPEPA MEANS JOBS. jobs means higher GDP. jobs means poverty alleviation. jobs means better financial health for the micro and macro economy

   WHO DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENT WITH? JAPAN or BURMA? LAOS? CAMBODIA? How useless would that be.

   accept the fact the we need japan more than they need us

3. mabini Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 2:52 pm

   In fightingFTA’s website, its observations are quite enlightening for us non-experts in international trade agreements, which reads:
   “Under North-South FTAs, the market access for the South is generally very small. For the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), Japan got improved access to the Philippines automobile market, new fishing opportunities in the Philippine seas (to replace imports), stronger investment guarantees and even the green light to export toxic wastes, while the Philippines got reduced tariff rates on a few exported fruits and a quota to be able to send 100 nurses a year to Japan, In the Japan-Thailand deal, Japan got major investment opportunities in the automobile and health sectors, while Thailand goat a measly quota to send chefs and masseuses to Japan.” (Today’s FTA Frenzy)
   On government’s claim that Philippines will lose investment opportunities worth P 4 billion, well fightingFTA’s wrote, in the same article, that:
   “Several World Bank and UNCTAD studies show that there is no direct relationship between signing an investment agreement and receiving increased foreign investment. China, South Africa and Brazil are prime examples of countries that have captured big investment inflows in recent years without such agreements. Indeed, signing such an agreement can get you into costly legal disputes for failing to deliver the right investment conditions, resulting in net financial losses.” (Today’s FTA Frenzy)
   Lest we be mislead again, JPEPA is not intended to benefit the poor and under/unemployed of the Philippines but to further exploit them in tandem with the Philippine natural resources for to maximize and protect the profits of large Japanese corporations. Note that large Japanese corporations together with their government are the ones pushing the Economic Partnership Agreement unlike in the Philippines where it is the government that pushed it with negligible consultations with local industries. To ensure this objective for Japanese investors, JPEPA includes the following provisions: (1) to be treated no less favorably than domestic companies (national treatment); (2) get any better treatment that is offered to TNC under other trade deals (most favored nation); (3) enjoy secure ownership of all assets: no expropriation (whether direct or indirect), no nationalization and fewer possibilities for the state to issue compulsory licenses in the public interest; (4) protection and insurance to realize any anticipated profits – and to sue the state if any public policy measure or decision gets in the way of that (similar to NAFTA); (5) conduct business with minimal hassle from the government – no requirements to hire local workers, no obligations to transfer technology, full freedom to send money out of the country and generally few restrictions on moving capital around; (6) have direct access to local policy-making process; and expand their commercial monopolies through a longer menu of intellectual property rights.
   The future consequences of those provisions are far-reaching. Just some of the situations – local fishing companies (tuna etc) or fishermen that will not survive the competition with Japanese fishing investors cannot be compensated (not covered by safeguard measure, dumping or countervailing since these laws applies only to goods sold in the Philippines and not to simply cornered the supply source and not the market in the Philippines) unlike their Japanese counterparts; whatever petroleum, gas or minerals that Japanese investors extracted from the Philippines, they are not required to process or sell it here even if local industries or consumers will need it (oil crisis) also the same in the case of agricultural products produced in land (food crisis); local government cannot impose additional real property taxes and business tax other than those already existing at the time of entry of JPEPA.

Leave a Comment (Moderated)

You must be logged in to post a comment.