MANILA, Philippines—The Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) ratification “railroaded”? Whoever made that accusation should be reminded that railroading means causing a measure to be passed or approved quickly by applying pressure; or pressing someone into doing something by rushing or coercing them — the operative words being “quickly” and “rushing.” So how could the JPEPA have been railroaded when it had been moldering in the Senate for at least two years, for heaven’s sake, even as our neighboring countries which started their negotiations with Japan later than we did had their agreement already in force? Unless of course the person who made the charge thinks that the average turnaround time for the Senate to pass a measure is significantly more than two years — in which case the most cursory investigation would show he/she is either ignorant of the facts or not one to let the facts get in the way of his story.

The JPEPA approval a collective betrayal (of the Filipino people)? Because it will convert the Philippines into a dumping ground for Japan’s toxic wastes? Because it will allow Japanese to own land and other businesses that are constitutionally prohibited? Oh, please. Weren’t those charges laid to rest a year ago? But let’s lay them to rest one more time (not the last, unfortunately).

With regard to toxic and other hazardous wastes, there are national (RA 6969) and international laws (the Basel Convention or the Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal) which prohibit their importation. And to make sure that there would be no room for misinterpretation, our Foreign Secretary Bert Romulo and Japan’s Foreign Minister (now Prime Minister) Taro Aso had an Exchange of Notes in effect saying that these laws trumped any possible JPEPA interpretation to the contrary.

With regard to the JPEPA supposedly allowing Japanese nationals to own land and other businesses in contravention/betrayal of our Constitution, it has been pointed out again and again that there is no such provision in the JPEPA.

What led some people to the wrong conclusion seems to have been a confusion between a positive list (only the items in the list are allowed; anything not listed is not allowed) and a negative one (the items listed are not allowed; anything not in the list is allowed). In the JPEPA, one chapter’s annex is a positive list, and another chapter’s annex is a negative one. That distinction, unfortunately, may have been overlooked by some critics, and one can only guess that pride prevented them from subsequently admitting their carelessness, when their attention was called. So they continue to insist on their (wrong) interpretation. But that is, of course, conjecture on my part. So let’s stick to the facts. If anyone can cite me a chapter and verse — the specific provisions in the JPEPA — allowing Japanese firms or individuals to own land in the Philippines, I will publicly apologize at a time and place he/she designates.

But that may be too late? Not really. The JPEPA requires that ground rules and facilitation be carried out by subcommittees (composed of representatives from both countries) for each major area of the agreement, so there will be ways to close the loopholes or prevent them from being put into operation; and in any event, the agreement is subject to review every five years.

Finally, the JPEPA ratification is tantamount to committing national suicide? Let’s be more specific. Who will suffer and die (literally as well as figuratively)? The agricultural sector? The industrial sector? If that is the case, we must be a nation of masochists and death-wishers. Because representatives of both sectors, if one recalls correctly, were very much in favor of the agreement. And this essentially validates the findings of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), which evaluated the costs and benefits of the JPEPA and concluded that the benefits to us far outweighed the costs.

The PIDS did point to a sub-sector of the automotive industry where jobs may be lost — the assembly sub-sector, where 7,500 jobs are at risk. This is a far cry from the 350,000 jobs that had been claimed to be at risk in the industry — a gross exaggeration, since at last count, the industry accounted for 77,000 jobs. The less than 10 percent of those jobs at risk, however, would have 10 years to make adjustments.

The PIDS estimated that the JPEPA would cost the Philippines P3.7-P4.2 billion a year, versus benefits of from P6.5 billion to P110 billion based on market prices at the time of the study, plus a positive impact on poverty reduction (discussed in my Oct. 6, 2007 column — that’s how long ago it’s been). That should have constituted a huge green light.

So if so many people were for it, who were against it? Those who claimed possibility of environmental damage (baseless) and those who claimed unconstitutionality (baseless to me, but presumably substantive enough to delay the approval of the JPEPA).

So if the Senate is to be excoriated, it is not because the JPEPA was railroaded, or because the senators betrayed the country, or that they have caused the country’s demise. Rather, it is because they allowed an agreement so potentially beneficial to us to molder on the altar of political expediency. Had they approved it last year, we would have been in a better position to meet today’s challenges.

But I forgive them. Finally an act of statesmanship.