Just New Warrior

Transcript of Senator Santiago’s interview after the JPEPA hearing

As I’ve said, there would be five hearings but now I’ve decided to make the following amendments: 1) we are going to move Environment next week because there are senators who would be going abroad on official business and (since) this is the most controversial aspect; 2) the opposition raised many constitutional issues, and this is a very worrisome to the legislators and we will have another topic in our fifth hearing. We are going to invite former Justice and former WTO Judge of the Arbitrary Tribunal Florentino Feliciano and Dean Merlin Magallona (former professor of the UP College of Law) who is a recognized expert in International Law. We simply have to dispose of the constitutional issues in our final report.

If this were a boxing match, Round 1 went to the opposition, and I’m afraid Round 2 (also) went to the opposition. It is getting worserer and worserer, as Alice said in Alice in Wonderland. (Members of) the government panel do not seem to understand what senators are searching for. Why is JPEPA on the whole better for the Philippines? This is not a zero-sum game. We don’t really want to know if Japan is giving up things or whether Japan would achieve more gains or losses. What will (our) country gain in exchange for all the concessions we are making?

There was no response at all to the issue of why are some provisions that are favorable to the host country not included in our JPEPA version. There are JPEPA versions in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and even Mexico. Why are some of these provisions that these governments insisted on during negotiations absent in ours? We are making so much concessions. That is the first failure on the part of the government panel: the failure to show that our concessions offset or balance what we shall gain. All the government panel could site were theoretical simulations or studies. They are far-removed from economic reality.

The second issue here is what long-term effect will this treaty have. In effect, we are binding future generations of Filipinos. We are only looking at the present. But what about the future? We (the senators) do not see that. It would be extremely difficult to get the senate in plenary session to approve of this treaty. There are questions that are left unanswered as of this second round. It would be extremely difficult for me to defend this (the treaty) if I’m not given the proper arguments. I’ve already been feeding the government panel with leading questions, but still the answers are not supplied. When the opposition raises certain issues, the administration just ploughs over their prepared statements and does not respond. This is turning out to be an experience in the surreal. This is not the way a debate should be; it should always center on necessity, benefits and practicality.

Everything will depend on the last three hearings. But for me as a lawyer, it is very important that we dispose of the constitutional issues raised today.

How am I going to defend this document before my twenty-two peers in the Senate if today the government cannot answer basic questions? I refuse to crucify myself. I’m going to go up in flames.

So far I can see that there is a great sense of resentment and failure on the part of the Committee members. They all sense that [the treaty] is going to be a loser. Unless the government becomes more energetic in its arguments, it is going to be decked by the opposition.

-o0o-