The citizens party Akbayan has warned that the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision affirming the executive department’s right to keep diplomatic communication on the Philippines’ first free trade agreement with Japan secret may lead to "one-sided" trade deals.
In response to the SC’s decision on the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) announced Wednesday, Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros said "the ruling would embolden the government to enter into one-sided, fraudulent, unconscionable and unconstitutional trade deals."
"The government could be selling our soul already and we wouldn’t know it. No one, not even Congress, would know it," Hontiveros said.
"In effect, the decision erodes the power of citizens to exact accountability and transparency from the government. Mas dadami ang mga 'bukol' sa mga trade deals. We can't allow the government to hide corrupt practices and kickbacks from trade deals behind executive privilege," Rep. Hontiveros said.
Akbayan legal counsel Ibarra Gutierrez III said the party "will definitely file a motion for reconsideration."
"We initially expected that the High Court would declare the petition moot and academic since it has been two years since it was filed. We are quite surprised that the ruling was an affirmation of the government's executive privilege. This is worrying," Gutierrez said.
Dismissed
The Court, by a vote of 10-4, dismissed the petition filed by the Akbayan party-list and other individuals for a full disclosure of the "behind the scenes" negotiations on the JPEPA.
On Dec. 2005, the petitioners asked the Court to compel government to reveal the full text of the JPEPA, including the Philippine and Japan offers that were submitted during the negotiation process. At that time, negotiations on JPEPA was still being finalized. President Arroyo and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi later signed the treaty on September 2006.
The petitioners feared that the trade agreement would include provisions on the dumping of hazardous and toxic waste products in the Philippines. The petitioners cited the right to information on matters of public concern as their main argument.
Majority ruling
But in the majority ruling penned by Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the High Court said the documents being sought for disclosure is cloaked with privileged character as it involved diplomatic negotiations.
The Court said the privileged character of diplomatic negotiations has already been upheld in previous cases, where they held that "secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of access to information."
During the negotiations for the JPEPA, the Court said it can be reasonably concluded that the Japanese negotiators "submitted their offers with the understanding that historic confidentiality" would govern the negotiation. "Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations," the majority decision said.
The Court recognized the fact that treaty negotiations "normally involved a process of quid pro quo and oftentimes negotiators have to be willing to grant concessions in an area of lesser importance in order to obtain more favorable term in an area of greater national interest."
Carpio joins majority
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Antonio Carpio stressed that "offers and counter-offers in treaty negotiations are part of diplomatic secrets protected under the executive privilege."
To do otherwise would put the country in an embarrassing situation as "other countries will be reluctant to negotiate in a candid and frank manner," Carpio added. "Negotiators of other countries will know that a Philippine negotiator can be forced to disclose publicly offers and counter-offers that their countries want to remain confidential after the treaty signing."
Correct way to decide
A former justice said the ruling "shows the correct way to decide executive privilege," in oblique reference to the Neri ruling. The ex-magistrate said transparency may not be invoked when it involves "diplomatic privilege and military secrets."
"We will be intruding into the sovereignty of a country, its negotiations done in private, if we reveal these unilaterally. What is said in public is another matter. We should have the consent of the other country," the former justice said. -- with a report from ARIES RUFO, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak