Favila wary of Japan’s demand for ‘nat’l treatment’ of its RP investments

Trade and Industry Secretary Peter B. Favila is wary over Japan’s insistence on being granted the same "national treatment" on investments as granted by the Philippines under its regional trade agreement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Japan is insisting on the inclusion of a provision extending "national treatment" to investments under the proposed Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).

The request for national treatment as well as Japan’s refusal to accommodate the Philippines’ request to include a solid waste provision governing the export of used Japanese cars and appliances to the Philippines, along with major disagreements on automotive tariff, trade in goods and movement of natural persons, is holding up the completion of the JPEPA.

Earliest estimates of an agreement have now been pushed back to next year as Favila assured that the government would carefully study Japan’s request.

Extending "national treatment" would basically mean that Japanese investors would be treated like Filipinos and entitled to full ownership of their investments.

Japan’s request is being carefully studied by the Philippine negotiating team as agreeing to the provision could have far-reaching implications on the future of the Philippine economy and its future bilateral agreements with other countries.

If Japan is extended national treatment under JPEPA, other countries seeking a bilateral free trade agreement or a similar economic partnership agreement with the Philippines could ask for the same treatment.

According to Favila, the Philippines is still carefully studying Japan’s demand for national treatment.

Earlier, Senior Trade Undersecretary Thomas Aquino explained that the national treatment extended to other ASEAN member states was limited to specified industries mentioned in the Investment Priorities Plan (IPP).

Trade Undersecretary and Board of Investments managing head Elmer C. Hernandez also clarified that such "national treatment" would still be limited to "such activities allowed by the Constitution and relevant laws."