Militant groups asked Supreme Court to stop the implementation of JPEPA

Ma. Lourdes “Miami” Ebilane
October 13, 2008
Story: Militant groups asked Supreme Court to stop the implementation of JPEPA

The Junk JPEPA (Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement) Coalition has filed their petition to the Supreme Court to stop the implementation of JPEPA.

The group composed of Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. (IDEALS, Inc.), Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL), Ecological Coalition of the Philippines, Mother Earth Foundation, Concerned Citizens Against Pollution, NGOs for Fisheries Reform, Kilusan Para sa Pagpaunlad ng Industriya ng Pangisdaan, Akbayan Citizen’s Action Party and Philippine Metal Workers Alliance (PMA) filed the petition, Monday, 10:30 am.

The group said that they are seeking the wisdom and justice of the Supreme Court to rule whether JPEPA is constitutional or not.

“When the Senators ratify the JPEPA, it is very clear that there is a grave abuse of discretion in approving the JPEPA. This is unconstitutional.” Atty. Golda Benjamin, legal counsel of Junk JPEPA coalition, said.

The group is hoping that the Supreme Court will issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and study the JPEPA first, before President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo could sign the JPEPA into law.

Before filing the petition, the group assembled in Liwasang Bonifacio ata round 9:30 am then marched going to the Supreme Court. The march, as the group described it, is a funeral because the 16 senators have signed the JPEPA.

Those who voted in favour of JPEPA were Senate President Manuel Villar, Francis Pangilinan, Gregorio Honasan, Edgardo Angara, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Jinggoy Estrada, Panfilo Lacson, Juan Ponce Enrile, Richard Gordon, Loren Legarda, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Ramon Revilla Jr, Manuel Lapid, Mar Roxas, Rodolfo Biazon and Alan Peter Cayetano.Only four Senators who voted against the treaty; they are Senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr, Ma. Consuelo Madrigal, Francis Joseph Escudero and Benigno Aquino III.

On their petition, the petitioners said, “The JPEPA is a social, economic, and political tragedy with serious and prejudicial implications to the direction of this country’s future. They also said that the Supreme Court is their last option in able to stop the JPEPA.

“Petitioners assert that the JPEPA is unconstitutional and consequently, the Senate’s act of concurrence must be annulled. This case is anchored, among others, on rights thus violated but the same rights should not have been violated; including the Filipino people’s right to land, enjoyment and utilization of marine resources, right to a balanced and healthful ecology, and the right to be ensured that the constitutional provisions mandating certain powers to each branch of government be respected and not usurped,” their petition stated.

Benjamin also added that the JPEPA has violated many constitutions like the rules on private land ownership or even agricultural land.

On their explanation, it stated, “It is submitted that based on the rules of interpretation set out in JPEPA’s Annex 7,it must be concluded that if the investment is made in the manufacturing sector, the
Philippines shall apply, and Japan is bound by the rule set out in Article 12, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution and thus allow corporations, associations or partnerships with maximum 40 percent foreign equity to own private lands in the country. The rules of interpretation also leads to the conclusion that if the investment is not made in the manufacturing sector, the same constitutional rule thus reserved shall no longer apply. As a result, corporations, partnerships or associations with more than 40 percent and up to 100 percent foreign equity will then be allowed to own private lands in the country. This situation may arise if the investment is made in relation to agribusiness ventures, real estate development, and similar areas other than manufacturing.”

The group also insist that they know that with JPEPA the Constitution of the Philippines will still remain, but they said JPEPA will prevail over Constitution, “JPEPA will supersede or supplant it.”

They also took notice of the fisheries, “The catch of our fishermen on fish had decline, so why let others, a foreigner, fish on our own seas. Why not have projects for our own people,” Benjamin said.

The lawyer also said that when the Japanese enter the Philippines, many Filipinos might work for them where in fact they can work on their own lands.

She also emphasize on the violation of right to health, “With JPEPA, the Japanese can dump their toxic wastes here in our country, we will be the on risk.”

If the Supreme Court will decide unfavourably on their petition, the group vowed that they will continue to monitor that all the safeguards to be set-up in the JPEPA are fully carried out and that the promised benefits and the feared ill effects will be objectively monitored and assessed.