PHILIPPINES, February 22 - Press Release
February 21, 2023

Transcript of Senator Risa Hontiveros' interpellation regarding the Senate ratification of RCEP

SRH: Mr President I'll actually take off from one of the questions where the good gentleman from Taguig and Pateros left off kasi po Mr. President yung unang tanong ko is a health question. I know that many of us in the Senate are anti-tobacco and pro-breastfeeding advocates. RCEP's services market access provision yun po ay nasa Article 8.5.2, means that in the service sectors where the Philippines has made market access commitments, we cannot restrict the amount of a service. Sa Annex II, the Philippines has liberalized advertising in modes 1 and 2 (cross-border). This means that the Philippines cannot ban or restrict the hours in which any kind of cross-border advertisements are shown, including ads for tobacco, e-cigarettes, and baby formula, for example.

This has been flagged relentlessly by health advocates, considering that tobacco advertising is currently banned on the internet, TV, and radio in the Philippines. And we heavily regulate how baby formula is being advertised. And according to some experts I've consulted, these bans on advertising could be challenged if RCEP comes into force.

Ano po yung mga kaisipan ng good sponsors tungkol dito ,Mr President?

SP ZUBIRI: Thank you very much, Mr President, I totally agree with the gentle lady, the Deputy Minority Leader that they should be banned, they should not allow it, we have a law. The law and if Senator Pia was here, she would've stood up cause I'm sure she's one of the proponents of the law that bans advertising for tobacco. Even having concerts that are sponsored by tobacco, even having big gatherings that are sponsored by tobacco is totally banned. I support that and I want to, well I'm looking at our negotiator, it will still be banned, right because we have a law on it?

We have the provision that would adopt and implement measures to society to protect health, animal, plant life, and human health as well. But we have a law and I don't think that this treaty and I have a bar topnotcher looking at me, I don't think this treaty will be an exception to the law particularly on the ban on advertising. And I'm with you, 1000 percent.

Senator Loren Legarda (SLL): I would like to add, first of all, we are on the same page and we share your concern, let me just state it very categorically and simply. There is no commitment in RCEP that would require amendments in law relating to advertising of tobacco and e-cigarette in short, wala pong probisyon na mag-aamenda na ano bang existing na batas natin na papayagan ang ating kinakatakutan ng mag-iiba ang mga batas tungkol sa advertising sa tobacco at e-cigarette.

SRH: Salamat po. Isang follow up question po para sa isa sa co-sponsor, isa rin sa co-sponsor. Nabanggit po ng good co-sponsor, the Senate President, that there is a provision in RCEP that will respect in effect na hindi gagalawin yung ating mga kasalukuyang pambansang batas tungkol sa tobacco advertising, baby milk formula advertising at iba pa. Ano pong probisyon ito sa RCEP?

SLL: There is no commitment in RCEP to touch any law, I think that's very clear. Let me just also state that the RCEP agreement affirms the DOHA Declaration on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS agreement to address or protect public health and in particular, to promote access to medicines for all. RCEP parties are committed to ensure access to medicines and public health in accordance with Art. 13 of the TRIPS AGreement. This is part of the RCEP agreement.

SRH: Salamat. Actually, I will also get to question on the alleged stronger intellectual property protection in RCEP but a little later. Balikan ko lang po. Sabi po ng good co-sponsor, walang probisyon sa RCEP na mag-aamyenda ng batas ng Pilipinas. There is no commitment in RCEP to touch the law pero let's talk about a concrete situation, what if i-cite ng RCEP countries a very specific provision, Art 8.5.2 na an RCEP member countries such as the Philippines cannot restrict the amount of service, Ganoon po ka-konkreto at ganung ka-specific.

The RCEP also talks about in Annex II liberalized advertising in modes I and II for cross border advertising. So kapag po may sitwasyon tayo na ang pambansang batas natin na nagbaban sa advertising tungkol sa tobacco o nagbaban o nagrerestrict ng advertising tungkol sa infant milk formula, paano ito babangga dito sa napaka-konkretong provisions sa RCEP and we do know there are national laws pero kapagka ung bansa natin pumapasok sa isang treaty katulad ng RCEP something's got to give and something gives.

SP Zubiri: RCEP really talks about market access and not regulation within the countries. It is trying to make it easier doing business with these countries on market access and we also have under article 17.12 or 17.12 of the RCEP, it says here, this provision, among others, allow RCEP parties to adopt and implement measures necessary to protect human, animal, plant life or health. And it goes onward to Article 17.13 where the RCEP parties among others can take action and considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests and then it goes on to talk about public health under Article 11.8 of the RCEP agreement.

The RCEP Agreement reaffirms the DOHA Declaration of Trade-Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights of this agreement to address and protect public health and access to medicines, as well pero RCEP parties also committed to ensure access to medicines and public health in accordance to Article 13 of the agreement. So, obviously this states many times that public health is a priority. The law is very clear in this particular issue.

SRH: Salamat po, isa pong follow up sa parehong dalawang punto na ni-raise ng good sponsor. The general health exception cited by the good co-sponsor, yan mismong Article 17.12 sa RCEP, that general health exception was imported from the WTO. Kung saan sa WTO, bahagi siya ng general exception. That has been so difficult to use that government's only succeeded twice in 48 attempts to use it as of today. Ibig sabihin po, ang mga member-countries sa WTO 48 times na pong sinubukang gamitin yang general health exception na ngayon inimport to the RCEP. Sa 48 na yan, twice lang po sila nagtagumpay, 46 times they failed. So inless than 5% of the time, nagamit talaga yang general health exception. Are the good co-sponsors aware of this?

SP: Do you have a specific example of these 48 attempts?

SRH: I wouldn't mind getting back to the good co-sponsors on this but it's a matter of record, 48 attempts sa WTO gamitin itong general health exception, napakahirap, dalawang beses lang nagtagumpay. Ibig sabihin, kung sakali kailangan yung mga health advocates --

SP ZUBIRI: Is this referring to resolved disputes?

SRH: No, well, this referring to the Article 17.12 mentioned by the good co-sponsor bilang isang safeguard. Safeguard lang po siya in less than 5% of the time sa WTO. Yun din po ang koinopy-paste nila sa RCEP. Ibig sabihin kapag may anti-tobacco, anti-milk formula health advocates, kailangan susubok muna sila ng 46 times bago magtagumpay ng dalawang beses po,.

SP ZUBIRI: Case-to-case basis depending on the issue. But, for example, let's be specific on tobacco, if what you're trying to say, general agreements together with the WTO, where it supposed to be liberal and these activities can be done. Is it done in the Philippines even if we pass a law? I mean, we pass a law banning advertising, but can they still advertise? Is it being pushed by Philip Morris for example and other cigarette companies to still be able to advertise because I see no advertisement whatsoever.

SRH: Ikakabit ko po yung comment ko doon sa comment ng good co-sponsor sa follow up question ko in relation po sa Article 17.12. Kung dito sa bansa natin, mabuti na lang nandito yung Kongreso, tayo sa Senate pati po ang House to exercise oversight on our health and advertising laws pero other governments? Aside from the Philippines, other governments have recognized how difficult this exception is to use. Itong exception na ang batting average sa WTO ay 2 lang out of 48, tapos ngayon andito sa RCEP. Other governments have recognized how difficult this exception is to use and made it easier to use in FTAs, in free trade agreements na mayroon na po tayo ng marami even before that without RCEP. Halimbawa po the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement which was concluded in 2020 actually excludes from investor to state dispute settlement o ISDS measures to promote public health. So, at the outset, inexclude na nila sa FTA nila, but this exclusion, is not in the RCEP now at ang RCEP po walang katulad na similarly easy to use health exception.

SP ZUBIRI: This is quite technical, the questions of our distinguished colleague. I'm an expert only on the agri side, so if you're willing and with the permission of the body, maybe we can suspend the rules once more and allow our chief negotiator to answer this specific question. I don't want to guess and I don't want to make a mistake in my answer because these are serious points being raised by Senator Risa and I don't want to make a guess our of it no matter how confident I am and say it but I know deep inside of me it might not be the right answer. I would suggest we just suspend the rules so we can allow Senator Risa to talk to the principal author or negotiator so he can answer clearly and incisively the questions on this particular issue on public health

SLL: Mr. President, Before you do so, and suspend the rules, may I just cite a portion of the RCEP where the Philippines make also reservation to adopt and implement measures that it considered necessary in the protection of its essential security interest. It does not specifically state health, it does not specifically state formula milk, it does not specifically state tobacco, but it says, we had made reservations to adopt measures that we consider necessary for the protection of its essential security interest and I believe that this sector that you are speaking about would be part of what we would consider essential security interest and second we have our laws, and I believe that the vague provision of GATT WTO which is incorporated within RCEP which you claim other countries have used to the detriment, perhaps, of those countries, we will not allow that to happen because we have laws that protect public health and as I said, the RCEP agreement reaffirms the DOHA Declaration on Trade-Related Aspects of TRIPS, intellectual property and even committed to ensure access to medicines and it underscored public health as well.

I think we are protected in that and again, there are safeguards in the RCEP. There are provisions that our chief negotiator can probably read into record where you can actually leave or you can file a reservation or a protest, it's cast in stone but there are provisions, safeguards, temporary and permanent, right? You can mention that, and the provisions where you can file a complaint di ba? Pwede. Pwede kang umangal dyan. So while it is a concern that we share, I am certain based on the provisions I am reading that we are amply protected insofar as public health is concern and I will be one with you in fighting for this cause against any country or jurisdiction that insists that because of RCEp, they can violate Philippine laws and abuse and contravene Philippine laws and violate the public health interest of the Filipino people.

SRH: Salamat to the good co-sponsor I will get to my question about the DOHA declaration later but before the majority leader may move to suspend the rules and we can all benefit from the input from the chief negotiator, just to quickly respond to a point raised again by the good co-sponsor baka gusto ring comment-an ng chief negotiator natin, yung exception dyan sa schedule ng Annex II for measures, a state considers necessary for the protection of security interest, ang problema po dito kahit sa exception na ito, is that WTO jurisprudence which will likely serve as the basis to resolve RCEP disputes, ang WTO jurisprudence sinasabi niya, it is the tribunal that decides what is an essential security interest, never po ito self-judging on the part of the member-country, ni sa WTO, ni magiging sa RCEP. And historically, panels have found against protectionism and in favor of open borders. Just for the record, Mr. President, to track record ng pagsubok na pakinabangan iyang exception na yan for the protection of security interests.

Senator Joel Villanueva (SJV): To answer the query, Mr. President may I just make the necessary motion with consent of the body and upon consultation with the minority floor leader, I move to suspend the rules of the Senate to allow the head and officers of the government agencies to respond directly to the queries pertaining to their offices in relation to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement, I so move, Mr. President.

Senator JV Ejercito (SJE): There's a motion to suspend the rules of the Senate. Is there any objection? There being none, motion is approved.

SJV: Mr. President, I move that we recognize our chief negotiator Asec. Gepty to answer the queries of the distinguished minority leader

SJE: Asec FT is recognized.

DTI Asec Allan Gepty: Thank you, Your Honor. To respond to the questions raised by honorable Senator Risa Hontiveros, first, I just want to call the attention of the body on the preamble of the RCEP agreement, because this is very agreement. The preamble, our statement, provides context on the intention, the spirit of the international agreement. And it is clearly stated there that the parties reaffirm the right of each party to regulate in pursuit of legitimate public welfare objectives. That's one, there's already a recognition.

Number 2, in terms of flexibility and policy space, we have incorporated the general exceptions under article 20 of GATT 1994 and article 14 wherein the party has the right to adopt and implement measures necessary to protect human, animal, plant life or health. And with respect to the adoption of article 14 that also refers to the security exceptions, so in other words, RCEP parties, under the provision of security exception, can take any action which it considered necessary for the protection of its essential security interest in time of national emergency or war or other emergency in international relations in the WTO agreement.

The instances by which you can exercise this security exception is actually very limited, because it only refers to war and international emergency. In RCEP, we even expanded the same to include national emergency. That is why we always say if you're going to compare our policy space in RCEP agreement versus policy space in the WTO agreements, we have a lot of flexibilities under the present agreement. we are discussing.

Also, it was already mentioned that when it comes to adoption and implementation of laws, rules, and regulations, affecting public health and access to medicines, we have incorporated and we have reaffirmed the DOHA declaration on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, to address or protect public health, and in particular, to promote access to medicines for all RCEP parties that also committed to ensure access to medicines and public health.

I just want to point out under the chapter on intellectual property, if there is a DAO as to interpretation, we have agreed that the TRIPS agreement will prevail. In addition to that, in our schedules of commitment, both on services and investment, we also made reservations to adopt and implement measures it considered necessary for the protection of its essential security interest.

You mentioned earlier about decisions of the WTO on the matter. For one, in international law, particularly in WTO, as a rule, we don't observe precedent, although for purposes of reference, we do take into account previous decisions of the tribunal, but if it is being applied in the context of precedence, there is no such thing because every issue will have to be addressed in a case to case basis.

On the self-judging provision, you are correct that this reservation, the one that we made in the schedule and also in the security exception, the same is construed as self-judging. As to the determination of what is essential to your security interest. And decisions of the WTO has very limited jurisprudence on that. I can recall the case of Ukraine vs. Russia, and recently, they just came out, the decision on the security measures applied by the United States against China, but again, there are so many views on this, as to how the self-judging provision is being applied.

One is the determination of what is essential to your security interest must be left to the sovereign state because there is no other entity that can determine what is essential to its security interest but the sovereign state itself. What is of course subject for determination before the tribunal is the circumstances by which these exercise is being availed of by the member-state, meaning if there is war, international emergency, among others.

In other words, the flexibility, the policy space, have been fully reserved in this RCEP agreement.

SRH: Thank you Mr President. Quoting from the preamble, sabi niyo nga po, "in pursuit of legitimate public interest." Sino po yung magdedetermine ng legitimate? What if ang isang bansa tulad ng Pilipinas sasabihin nila, legitimate public interest natin, to protect our public from the ill-effects of tobacco, therefore, these advertising restrictions. What if in the legitimate public interest of promoting full breastfeeding in the first six months of life, limited ang advertising sa mga infant milk formula? Pero pwedeng hindi lang yung tribunal pero ibang bansa na RCEP member country who are involved in that service of advertising of such products, will raise a complaint na in violation tayo sa ating treay obligations. Kaninong depinisyon ng legitimate public interest ang mamamayani?

Asec Gepty: Maraming salamat, that's a very important question. Of course, the determination of what is the legitimate public welfare objective must be left to the sovereign state or to the party. Under the agreement, if you will peruse the same, yung mga qualifications lang po diyan when it comes to the availment of exercise is that the exercise must not be intended to defeat your commitment in the RCEP agreement. But again, as to what is legitimate, what is essential to your security interest, tayo po ang mag-dedecide non.

Maganda po at nasabi niyo po ang tungkol sa tobacco. If you will note po dito, hindi po kami pumayag na magkaroon ng investor-stake dispute settlement, kasi ayaw po namin yung ating bansa or yung RCEP party can be sued by a private entity just because of certain breach or alleged breach in the agreement.

We know what happened in the case of Australia, when they passed the plain tobacco packaging, that case what elevated to the WTO. But of course, their right to adopt and implement measures to protect health has been upheld.

SRH: Thank you. Nabanggit niyo nga po ulit yung ISDS, investor stake dispute settlement, at kasama niyo hindi siya kasama sa RCEP, and yet two other countries na kasama sa RCEP, Australia and Indonesia, inexclude ito, inexclude ito sa kanilang free trade agreement, so bakit hindi ba .. what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Kung mabuti para sa kanila na inexclude mula sa ISDS yung measures to promote public health, bakit hindi rin yan natin hiningi sa negotiation tungkol sa RCEP na iexclude din ang measures to promote public health explicitly.

Asec Gepty: Very clear that when it comes to adopting and implementing measures regarding public health, we have the sovereign right to do that so wala pong isyu doon. Yung sa ISDS po, sa RCEP agreement is that ang nakalagay lang po doon it is subject to work program, kasi nga po hindi tayo pumayag. So ang naging compromise nalang, is that pagusapan nalang yan ulit or magnegotiate nalang ulit. But without prejudice to the eventual outcome of the negotiation.

SRH: So ang natitira nalang talaga sa RCEP Mr President in such cases is the general health exception sa article 17.12? Na napakahirap ngang gamitin.

Asec Gepty: Hindi po. All that I have enumerated your Honor, the incorporation of article 20 of GATT 1994, that is under article 17.12 of the RCEP agreement, number 2, we have the security exceptions that is under 17.13 of the RCEP agreement. Also, with respect to other measures, particularly addressing, for example, shortages of food, we have also incorporated article 11 of GATT 1994 that is under article 2.17 of the RCEP agreement.

Also with respect to protection of public health and access to medicines, we have adopted the DOHA declaration that is under article 11.8 of the RCEP agreement, and in addition to these flexibilities that I have mentioned, we also made reservations to adopt and implement measures we consider necessary for the protection of our essential security interest in our schedule of reservation of services and in our schedule of reservation of nonconforming measures for investment and the schedule for specific commitments for services. This is list 13 and annex 2 of the agreement.

SRH: Salamat po. Just for the record, just to clarify, yung isa sa mga binanggit ng mga good resource persons, Mr. President, Article 17.12, that is precisely what I was asking about bilang isang halimbawa na inimport mula sa WTO, nasa RCEP, pero napakahirap gamitin o pakinabanggan. And it is well and good for us to say that we have the right to do this, we have the right to do that pero alam naman po natin as with laws na trinatrabaho namin dito sa Kongresso sa mga treaties din po tulad ng RCEP if we don't claim it explicitly, in black and white, in the text. Hanggang ganon nalang. Aspirational. It is a right. But if we do not actually provide effective, with good track record, recourses to grievance, or effective conflict resolution mechanisms or effective provisions to uphold our rights as a country as expressed in national law, at madaling gamitin kaysa mahirap gamitin, not subject only to the decision of tribunals, pero kumbaga, may pwersa sa sarili niya, then it will remain as aspiration.

Kahit nga po yung preamble ng ating mismong saligang batas ay kinailangan nating gawing konkreto at specific sa lahat na mga sumunod na sections and provisons. Dahil maraming beses narin pong binanggit yung DOHA declaration, lulundag na po ako doon sa tanong ko tungkol sa intellectual property protection.

SRH: One benefit being touted by proponents of RCEP is that the stronger intellectual property protection in RCEP's Intellectual Property (IP) Chapter benefits net IP exporters. However, does the Sponsor not agree with me na tayo naman sa Pilipinas ay net IP importer, hindi exporter, and will only become more and more so over time? Napaguusapan narin ang mga gamot, yes, Philippine consumers need affordable medicine, which can only also be accessed through importation, for example. So does this still count as a benefit for RCEP?

Asec Gepty: It's definitely still a benefit. But before I answer that, I just want to clarify that the incorporation of article 20 of the GATT 1994, in the RCEP agreement, is not aspirational. It is a right. If you read the text, it's very clear: that nothing prevents a party from adopting and implementing measures necessary to protect human, animal, plant and health.

SRH: Of course I share the good co-sponsors' belief in aspiration, yun naman po yung, kahit inchoate pa, yun naman po ang nagpapakilos sa atin, I'm just saying po, tulad sa mga batas, even as speaking as a layperson in the sense na hindi ako abogado, what we do not claim in black and white, in the text, in words, napaka-mas mahirap pong kamtin lalo na kapag na-ratify na po ang isang tratado.

Asec Gepty: Now going to your question on the benefit of the intellectual property chapter. Unang-una po, we have to bear in mind that when you talk about intellectual property rights-- there are many kinds of intellectual property rights. We have patent. We have copyright. We have trademark. We have industrial design. You have utility model. You have integrated circuit and topography, and we even have trade secrets.

Kaya po pag titignan niyo po yung seven kinds of intellectual property rights your honor, you will note na pagdating sa copyright, Philippines is very strong on copyright. In fact, when I was in the IP office, we conducted a study to determine the GDP contribution of copyright-based industries, and my recollection to date, 7.6% of GDP generating around 11% of employment. I can double-check the percentage and the figures, but one thing that I would like to convey is that this is actually a strength of the country. I think alam naman natin maraming magaling kumanta , maraming magaling gumawa ng movies, game development, etc, so therefore, hindi po tayo nahuhuli when it comes to intellectual property rights. In fact, pagdating sa computer programming, there was even this study conducted by Bloomberg sometime in 2015 as to the brains of silicon valley and it was noted that Philippines was actually ranked number 6 and if you are going to base it on a country to country basis, actually number 3 po tayo, kasi the first three are identified were states of the USA.

We have a lot of programmers and developers, so malaki po ang potential natin sa copyright. Huwag na natin isama yung mga performers natin and the TV shows and everything, so these generate a lot of benefits on our kababayans.

Pangalawa, importante sa ating mga performers yung collection ng kanilang royalties so dito po sa IP chapter, we have a provision on cooperation of collective management organization. Ito po yung entity na nangongolekta ng mga royalties so talagang malaki po ang benepisyo nito sa mga performers natin kasi po mga composers natin, mga musicians natin, kasi po pagdating sa collection of royalties, yung mga kanta nila ay pineplay outside of the Philippines, at least we can work with others to try to collect what is due to them.

Pangatlo, pagdating sa trade mark, malaking bagay din po kasi yung mga negosyante po natin they can easily protect their trademarks in this RCEP region, because yung mga RCEP parties nagcommit to accede to the Madrid protocol. Tayo po wala na tayong problema kasi party na tayo sa Madrid Protocol but what is Madrid protocol? It is an international registration system for trade mark. Kasi po ang trade mark is territorial. So if you are just registered in the Philippines, dito lang po yan sa Philippines protected.

So kung ako si Potato Corner who would like to do business in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, then I have to go to their IP offices and register my trademark. Dito po sa Madrid protocol, you can apply for a registration of trademark, through the IP office in the Philippines, and designate that you want your trademark to be protected in these countries who are also members of the Madrid Protocol, so malaking bagay po yan sa negosyo.

Of course, in industrial design, ang dami din nating magagaling. I can mention ang mga kababayan natin sa Cebu. Kenneth Cobonpue is one of the known designeres in the Philippines and in the world so ang dami pong talents ang Pilipino kaya ang laking bagay ang IP chapter. Siguro kapag pinagusapan yung patents, baka dun sabihin na natin na naghahabol po tayo pagdating sa patent application because marami pong mga challenges pagdating sa patent application. Not only because patent itself is very technical, but also you need capacity when it comes to applying patent application, and also you have to be very good in conducting research, kasi bukod sa technical na, mahal din ang proseso. So ito po yung mga challenges natin diyan.

Kaya siguro po doon kayo nanggagaling thats why meron po tayong sinasabi natin na hindi na tayo ganon kacompetitive. Maybe on that particular aspect but I will take this opportunity that right we have a very strong patent regime in the country and we have a very good potential in that particular area. Number 1, Philippines together with Singapore, tayo lang po ang designated ng World IP organization as international searching authority and international preliminary examination authority, so ano pong ibig sabihin niyan? Yung mga patent applicants, hindi lang po dito sa Pilipinas, but even abroad, they can ask the Philippines to conduct the necessary search and also preliminary examination. Ibig sabihin nun gusto natin masigurado na bago nga ang mga patents na inaapply. Kung isusuma tutal, napakalaki po ng benepisyo sa bansa. That's why sa mga presentation namin isa sa mga positioning lagi ng bansa aming inaadvocate na the country is one of the centers of innovation in the region, and also center for research and development.

SRH: Salamat. Certainly, yung 7% of GDP na counted for by copyright isa lang sa pitong klase ng intellectual property. 11% of employment. These are not numbers to sneeze at. Pero ano po yung comparison niya sa actually ineexport natin kasi ang hindi ba sa ngayon hindi yung potential, pero sa ngayon, in terms of the kumbaga balance of trade and intellectual property products and services hindi ba sa ngayon, good resource person, tayo ang Pilipinas, net IP importer rather than a net IP exporter sa ngayon?

Asec Gepty: That would depend po on how you are going to compare the intellectual property rights but if you are going to base that on let's say number of patent applications, so talagang kulang po tayo compared sa other RCEP parties like Australia or New Zealand. Pero kung copyrighted po na mahirap din yun sukatin, but of course in other RCEP parties we can also tell na malakas rin sila kasi very creative din sila no, so napakafluid po nito your honor.

SRH: Yes, Mr President, fluid po ito over time but just tonight February 21, 6:42 PM, siguro kung magslice of life tayo, at this moment hindi ba totoo mas net IP importer tayo kaysa net IP exporter na?

Asec Gepty: My apologies, your Honor, but I will just be guessing if I say yes or I will say no because we have to conduct necessary computation for that.

SRH: Well I should think na mas alam natin yung mga numbers natin kung hinihingi yung ratification ng Senate sa treaty but if you don't wish to answer my question tonight I think it's a pretty straightforward question, that's less satisfactory.

Asec Gepty: But if I will base it on the basis of our trade and services, surplus po ang Philippines.

SRH: So we are a net IP exporter?

Asec Gepty: No, what I'm saying po is that the whole universe of services for example, if you are going to factor that in, then surplus ang Philippines sa trade and services. But if the question pertains to whether we are net importer, net exporter of intellectual property rights, I do not have any study conducted on that to support that claim. Otherwise or in favor of the statement.

SRH: Then I will leave it as an open question for now, Mr President, dahil po kahit yung mga intellectual property rights advocates are raising this concern na kahit mayroong diumanong stronger intellectual property protections sa IP chapter ng RCEP, mas nagbebenefit sa mga net IP exporters na hindi tayo ganoon sa ngayon, o hindi pa tayo ganoon and therefore as of this evening would not count as a benefit for RCEP and just for the record Mr President kaugnay ng earlier citing of the Doha declaration as a protection the Doha declaration is about intellectual property not about the services chapter where the Philippines has liberalized tobacco and access to medicines that's different from tobacco control or breastfeeding. I'll just clarify this Mr President but for the record.

If I could backtrack to my second question, which is also a health issue. Last Congress, I raised concerns about RCEP's possible impact on our COVID-19 measures. COVID-19 still remains a serious problem. Scientists warn us to expect more worrying variants after Omicron and that future pandemics are likely to be more frequent and more deadly, so we will need all possible regulatory and policy tools to deal with them. These may include lockdowns, price controls and the like.

There were quite a number of examples given, halimbawa na lang yung lockdown, sabihin natin. Kung titignan po natin yung Annex 2 ng RCEP, schedule of specific commitment of services, retailing services, ang IATF may be violating the RCEP kapag inutos niya yung temporary closure of companies to prevent the spread of a virus, kung at any time in the future Mr President we have to return to Alert Levels 2, 3 or 4, restaurants in other RCEP countries would be able to operate at full capacity indoors and outdoors while our local restaurants would not.

At para magbigay pa ng isa pang halimbawa, legal experts naman have flagged that price controls on say COVID-19 tests or test kits and medicines and the grace periods for loan repayments, rent and electricity which we implemented earlier in this pandemic, could violate the expropriation provision which is in the RCEP investment chapter naman. So ayoko pong isipin na kailangan natin mamili ano po between complying with RCEP and keeping our citizens alive. So ano po yung kaisipan ng good resource person dito may mga safeguards din ba tungkol dito?

Asec Gepty: Thank you Ma'am for raising that particular point, pero pagdating po sa protection ng public health, safety ng citizens natin I mean all RCEP parties, and I would say even all sovereign states and even economies would state that that's their sovereign right to protect. Dito po sa RCEP agreement, very clear yung mga exceptions and also yung mga flexibilities that I have enumerated, Art. 20 of GATT 1994 as I have mentioned is very clear on that.

Even the security exceptions can be invoked. Even Art. 11 GATT 1994, our reservations can be invoked, your Honor. So wala pong issue doon, and I don't think that will be questioned. Alam po natin noong nagkaroon ng lockdown marami pong mga countries maraming economies and nagsara talaga, but naintindihan po yun at wala pong nagquestion about that. Because precisely nirerecognize nila ang right po na ito.

SRH: I hope you are right good resource person, Mr. President, para lang alam niyo rin na may mga legal experts na nagfflag nito, at baka kailangan din magreach out sa kanila. My next question is on the RCEP rules of origin. Filipino exporters can supposedly benefit from RCEP if they comply with the rules of origin requirements. RCEP has more than 186 pages of rules of origin that Philippine exporters must comply with in order to benefit from the lower tariffs under RCEP.

To fully reap the benefits, exporting companies must not only fully understand the rules of origin for the free trade agreement, they must be sufficiently familiar with the procedure requirements and regulations for establishing origin. So baka parang follow up sa ilang punto na niraraise ni Sen. Imee kanina, yung ating pong mga micro, small and medium scale enterprises natanong na po ba sila kung kaya nilang magcomply doon sa rules of origin. At ano yung percentage na mga enterprises na tulad nila ang makakacomply sa rules of origin, Mr. President.

ASEC Gepty: Thank you your honor for raising that very important point, tama po kayo isa yang malaking challenge sa mga MSMEs natin ang pagutilize ng FTA, kaya po dito sa RCEP mindful po yung mga parties, kaya dito nagkaroon ng chapter on small and medium enterprises. Ang isang offensive interes ng Pilipinas is to integrate our micro, small and medium enterprises into the global value chain. Marami pong paraan yan para magawa. Tama po yung observation na while meron tayong chapter ng SME dito sa RCEP agreement, basically platform ito for cooperation between and among RCEP parties.

But more than that, marami pong mga provisions din dito na makakatulong sa ating mga small and medium enterprises meron tayo ritong economic and technical cooperation, meron po tayong provisions on e-commerce, meron din sa customs procedure, and trade facilitation, so dito po ineempower natin mga small and medium enterprises na malaman nila yung mga rules pagdating sa pagttrade, sa pageexport, pagiimport, so publicly accessible ang information na ito, not to mention yung mga capacity-building inquiry points sa customs offices and also mechanisms for advance rulings ng tariff classifications, rule of origins at evaluation, para po sila matulungan. So napakarami po talaga at ito po yung gagawin ng executive department lalo na po yung DTI under our doing business sa free trade area para po sila matulungan.

SRH: Nakonsulta po ba Mr President ang ating mga MSMEs tungkol sa chapter na ito on them?

Asec Gepty: Yes po.

SRH: At ilang porsytene po sa kanila ang nagsabing 'okay, makakacomply kami diyan sa rules of origin ayon sa chapter na yan'?

Asec Gepty: We do not have the percentage because we do not have a study on that your Honor.

SRH: I think we should have a study para rin makita kung talagang mapapakinabangan, makakatulong sa atin, hindi makasasama or hindi mapagiiwanan ang mga MSMEs natin. And then good co-sponsor ano po yung cost ng pag-comply sa cost of rules of origin sa RCEP may sources po kung ang estimate nila tantsa ng cost of complying with rules of origin generally daw 6 to 8% of the value of the product being exported. Tama po ba ito or may iba pang percentage?

Asec Gepty: Depende po sa produkto your Honor.

SRH: Pero yung ganoong range na 6 to 8%?

Asec Gepty:: Usually po yung regional value content po ng produkto, 40% galing po sa Free Trade Area.

SRH: Are you saying good resource person na aabot sa 40% ng value ng product?

Asec Gepty: The usual rule po. It will really depend on the product.

SRH: Mas mataas pa pala, way higher compared doon sa range na tinantsa na 6 to 8%. Ngayon good resource person, once the costs of complying with the RCEP rules of origin are taken into account, gaanong kalaking bago export market access ang makukuha ng Pilipinas sa ilalim ng RCEP? Of course it's important to understand whether or not the new export market access is greater than the cost of complying with RCEP rules of origin. So yung mas malaki po ba nating export market access ay maooff set malalampasan yung 40% cost of the product being exported accounted for by pagcomply sa rules of origin?

Asec Gepty: Yung 40% that refers to regional value content of the product but as to the export, based on the study of Dr. Quimba, the estimate increase in export is 10.47%.

SRH: 10.47% ang mas malaking new export market access na makukuha. 10.47% increase. Salamat po diyan, good resource person.

Yung aking fifth question, yung economic studies of gains from free trade typically study only national level gains from trade and assume that even without safety nets affected sectors and communities will be alright, since capital and labor that loses to competition will only be unemployed temporarily, tapos inaassume na yung recovery sa unemployment, or maybe even underemployment sabay-sabay yung mga subnational areas na magrerecover. But this is not supported by more recent evidence Mr President pre-eminent trade economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman revisited the idea that there will be across-the-board gains from greater trade openness. Ayon sa kanyang pag-aaral, free trade agreements resulted in specific areas and districts that were unable to catch up, doon sa resulting unemployment, or iba pang ill effects, resulting in disproportionately high unemployment and de-industrialization in these specific states.

Naaalala ko tuloy yung pagaaral doon sa ngayon alin ang mga rehiyon ng Pilipinas ay kakayanin kung eventually magshift tayo to federal form of government in terms of financial sustainability, tatlo lang daw, central luzon, NCR, southern tagalog, ito yung free trade hindi equally napapakinabangan, hindi rin equally nakakarecover sa any negative effects. Yung komite ba natin dito sa Senado did we have the benefit of an assessment of the possible subnational impacts of RCEP or pinagaralan ba ng ating executive yun?

Asec Gepty: Yes po your Honor, that's why we commissioned Dr. Cororaton* to conduct a study on this and based on his findings, meron po tayong increase sa real GDP by 2031 ng 1.93%, reduction ng poverty incidence ng 3.62%. Marami pong findings, but very positive po ang kanya. Of course marami pong studies talaga but sabi ko nga depende sa methodology, depende rin sa orientation, depende rin sa data na ginamit, but the bottom line is, most of the studies are very positive.

SRH: Actually, Mr President, salamat para doon kasi meron akong later question tungkol sa pagaaral ni Dr. Cororaton at yung methodologies ng iba't ibang studies na ito. Pero yung tataas yung real GDP natin by 1.9% by 2031, yung pagaaral ni Dr. Cororaton was that a 1.9% by 2031 for the Philippines as a whole or na test ba nila kung it will be in each and every kahit region man lang kung hindi man probinsya,

Asec Gepty: Philippines lang po yun.

SRH: Ah so national level, so unanswered yung tanong na pinopose ni Dr. Krugman na hindi across the board yung gains nationally at mayroong disproportionate impacts positive and negative sa mga subnational units ng bawat bansa. At this point Mr President at baka bukod doon sa pagreach out pa sa mga ilang legal experts baka pa worth it aralin yung subnational impacts ng RCEP hindi lang sa Pilipinas as a whole but per region man lang, Mr President.

Asec Gepty: As I mentioned, marami pong mga studies. Unang una po that si Dr. Quimba of PIDS also conducted a study. Meron po siyang findings doon kung ilan yung mga real GDP growth na iggain ng mga RCEP parties. Ang UNTA* din po, meron po silang study na nilabas noong November 2020 basically on a regional level ang estimate po nila halos pareho din po sa national 9.9% if you're talking about export. Pero ang pinakamaganda po doon, is that it will really increase economic activities in the region.

SRH: Salamat, good resource person. One last point about Dr. Cororaton's study at this point... I stand corrected, yung sa study ni Dr. Cororaton were sectoral impacts not geographic, and when we say subnational we mean of course regional or provincial. Pero the suggestion or the request still stands na baka kapikapinabang pagaralin yung subnational, not sectoral, but subnational impacts. So I now turn my attention to Art. 9.2 in the RCEP financial services annex which says "a party shall not take measures that prevent: (a) transfers of information, including transfers of data by electronic or other means, necessary for the conduct of the ordinary business of a financial service supplier in its territory."

According to some experts I have consulted, this doesn't have sufficient exceptions and allows financial services companies, halimbawa, po mga bangko, mga insurance companies to transfer any information they want or that they need for their ordinary business to jurisdictions where the privacy protections are not so strong. There is a whole industry made up of companies, Mr President, which gather records from pharmacies and sell them to health insurers who use the information to reject health insurance applications. Worse, some data brokers even have categories like believe it or not, Mr President, "demented seniors" and their data is sold so they can be targeted as customers of toxic financial products like loans with high interest rates. Sa ganito po, Mr President, kawawa naman po yung ating mga senior citizens. May safeguards po ba tayo laban diyan?

Asec Gepty: Yes, your Honor. Number one po if you will read Art. 9, that is transfers of information and processing of information, very clear po yung 9.1 na each party may have its own regulatory requirements concerning the transfer of information and the processing of information. Yung concern niyo po is that yung flexibility ng RCEP party to take measures that would prevent yung mga information, and that is on 9.2.

But if you will peruse po Article 9.2, it states that parties shall not take measures that prevent transfers of information etc but take note po, that this is not absolute, this is qualified by the phrase "necessary for the conduct of the ordinary business of a financial service supplier in its territory" which is very reasonable po, because in the conduct of business talaga namang free-flowing yung data, lalo na sa mga BPO, financial services. So that is why we just have this commitment na huwag kayong magpasa ng batas o rules and regulations na pagbabawal niyo kami na itransfer yung data na yan.

But not withstanding po na may 9.2 na yan na commitment, meron po ritong 9.3, basically telling us that we can pass regulatory or prudential reasons from requiring a financial service supplier in its territory to comply with our laws and regulations in relation to data management and storage etc. So very clear po yan. In addition to this, may 9.4 po - so we have to read all these articles in correlation with each other - Article 9.4, doon po sa concern niyo, nothing prevents the party to protect personal data, personal privacy and the confidentiality of individual records and accounts, including and in accordance with its laws and regulations. So very clear po, your Honor.

SRH: Very clear, arguably in the text, pero in actual application that is where, sinasabi nga po ng good sponsor, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So kung meron tayo sa Pilipinas na ganoong regulatory requirements pero yung isang kaugnay natin sa RCEP ay iba, iba naman ang interes niya, maaring siya naman home country nitong mga financial entities that use these data in a less than benevolent way, edi diba sino ang mamamayani, kung wala doon sa mother treaty acceded to by the member countries at dapat sundin? So maybe that is the point of concern na hindi sapat yung exceptions.

And again yung phrase na "necessary for ordinary business" napakalawak niyan. Sa ganyang sitwasyon maybe it would be better to have phrases na kung ano ang ipinagbabawal, na hindi iiwan na lang sa bawat member country ng RCEP na magbawal niya through each of our own regulatory requirements pero tinatakda na ng RCEP for all countries to follow.

In any case, kasi napaguusapan na po natin, good resource person, sila Dr. Quimba and Dr. Cororaton and I would return also to some of the references used earlier by Senator Imee. Proponents for RCEP always cite the 2016 Cororaton study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies or PIDS, I think nababanggit din si Dr. Quimba dito, on the expected GDP and FDI gains from RCEP. I actually heard this mentioned a lot even in our first round in the plenary.

But hindi po ba totoo na ito mismong study ng PIDS kasama dito ang India na hindi naman po sumali sa RCEP, at hindi pa kasama sa study na ito ang Brunei at Myanmar na sila naman ang pumirma sa RCEP? And since the study was done in, at least the one I am referring to, in 2016, it was a good 4 years before RCEP negotiations concluded, so it cannot be based on the final RCEP text. And incidentally it was also a few years before the pandemic turned our world upside down.

And further to that study, as an aside, my economist friend said that conclusions in that study, kasi kanina napaguusapan yung mga methodology, said that conclusions in that study was reached through a methodology called Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) modeling, which has been discredited for its unrealistic assumptions. Kanina rin po binanggit din ni Senator Imee si Dr. Nishita.

In contrast to the earlier mentioned study, kanina tiningnan namin yung peer-reviewed 2021 study ni Dr. Rashmi Banga's published by the Global Development Policy Center using World Bank methodology that is based on the actual signed RCEP text that we senators are being asked to consider, the actual RCEP signatories - kasi itong Banga 2021 study ay kasama na ang Brunei at Myanmar at di kasama ang India - and the actual tariffs that will be removed by each RCEP country and takes into account the Philippines' exclusion lists etc. That study found that the Philippines goods trade balance would worsen by US$264million/year and that we would lose tariff revenue of US$58million/year.

Bagay po na binanggit ni Senator Imee kanina, and this study shows that there are no net benefits from the RCEP goods chapter na doon sana yung isang developing country aasahang makinabang sa isang free trade agreement tulad ng RCEP by being able to export more of these goods, edi lalo na po Mr. President na malabo po sa akin kung paano yung benefits pwedeng i-outweigh yung costs sa Philippines ng ibang RCEP chapters gaya ng investment, intellectual property, services, ecommerce at iba pa. Does the sponsor have any comments?

Asec Gepty: There are many studies conducted on the impact of RCEP both at the regional level and the national level. You mentioned Dr. Cororaton in 2016, tama po kayo, may study siya in 2016 but in 2021 meron siyang bagong study at yung study na yan ay based on the actual outcome of the negotiations, kaya yung 2016, yung assumptions, yung parameters noon ay talagang hindi po yon eksakto sa outcomes ng negotiations. Tama po kayo, kasama pa doon ang India.

You also made mention of the study of Rashmi Banga. Based on her study, basically there is a projected decrease in trade among ASEAN countries by around 6 percent. If you will analyze, you will note that basically that reduction by 6 percent has been debunked by the reported increase in trade experienced by Thailand, Vietnam and also Cambodia, But most importantly, if you will examine further the analysis of Banga, makikita mo doon na tumaas daw ang imports ng Philippines.

Kapag inexamine mo yung mga imported products ng Philippines, you will see that the increase in importation is basically contributed by importation of arms and ammunition, by 51 percent, from South Korea, which is unlikely naman po. Unang-una regulated naman po itong mga arms and ammunition, saka pangalawa, I don't think na mayroon ding demand o etc para ganoon din ang pumasok. In fact yung top 5 niya pong imports wala doong agricultural products.

That is why siguro in appreciating these several studies, we just have to take into account the assumptions, the data and the methodologies. But ang kagandahan po dito sa mga studies nila Dr. Quimba and Dr. Coraroton is that hindi lang po nila ginamit yung reduction sa tariff rates. Tinake into account and other factors like non-tariff measures, size of economy, distance of trading partners. Kay Banga po, ang kanilang finactor in ay yung pagbaba ng taripa, which is tariff liberalization.

SRH: Salamat, Mr. President. Pero sige yung 2021 Coraroton study, ginagamit pa rin ba niya yung discredited CGE modelling methodology?

Asec Gepty: The CGE was used. As to whether it is or it is not discredited, debate po iyan, Your Honor. Alam mo naman, madaming methodologies ang mga economist.

SRH: Still, if it is the subject of debate, importante pa rin kapag naninote natin na may mga methodology that are challenged or eventually kapag nasettle na yung debate dyan among the experts, yung iba talaga isina-isang tabi dahil at the end of the debate, nadidiscredit siya, at kaya naman tayo umuulad, kahit sa agham at iba, dahil we test certain methodologies, yung iba stood the test of time, yung iba eventually nadidiscredit. The jury is still out on the CGE modelling, but just for the record, from certain quarter of economists, it is already discredited for its unrealistic assumptions.

Kasunod nitong discussion tungkol sa iba't-ibang studies, is it not true that even if we do not ratify RCEP, just supposing, we continue to trade as today? We can already export to all other RCEP countries under World Trade Organization rules and under our existing FTAs we already have with all other RCEP countries, yung iba doble gaya ng ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).

RCEP countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore have already removed all tariffs on products from us under existing FTAs, so we actually get no new market access to them if we ratify RCEP. If we need cheap imports of raw materials and inputs for manufacturing, we can voluntarily remove tariffs on those products immediately if we need, without having to join RCEP to do so.

Medyo natouch on ito nung diskusyon na pinamunuan si Sen. Chiz. So diba, kahit hindi natin iratify ang RCEP, makakapangalakal pa rin tayo tulad ngayon? So napagisipan na ba talaga natin ng mabuti ang cost-benefit analysis para dito?

Asec. Gepty: Tama po kayo, your Honor, pwede naman po talaga tayong magtrade pa rin kahit walang RCEP. Ang question po doon is, yung trade mo ba ay preferential? And the answer to that is no. Ang trade mo ba will bring competitiveness to local industries? The answer is no. And of course dito po sa RCEP, more than the competitiveness, more than the comparative advantage being offered, ang dami rin pong opportunities na mamimiss.

SRH: Salamat po Mr. President. That segues perfectly doon sa susunod na tanong ko, gabay ng Federation of Free Farmers, kasi preferential ba talaga? Alam ko siguro nasa isip nating lahat, alam natin malamang kung saan papunta ang desisyon namin sa RCEP, pero hindi po nagsasawa na kausapin tayo ng mga magsasaka at mangingisda, ng mga MSMEs sa kanayunan.

Kahit hindi po sila pinakinggan in large part noong GAT- WTO, hindi sila sapat na napapakinggan at naaksyunan dito sa maraming buwan ng debate dito ukol sa RCEP. Hindi po silang nagsasawang kausapin tayo, dahil ayaw nila siguro sabihan tayo eventually ng "We told you so." Pero diba kailan ba natin sila pakikinggan?

Dito sa tanong ng "preferential," so ayon sa Federation of Free Farmers, and I quote, "the advocacy to promote RCEP and highlight its benefits in terms of market access opportunities conveniently downplays, if not deliberately conceals, one crucial caveat - that any tariff concession from our trading partners under RCEP will not be exclusive to the Philippines, and will in fact be available to all other RCEP member countries. This means that there is no guarantee that we will be able to avail of and benefit from such opportunities, especially if competing countries who are also part of RCEP are more competitive, dependable and efficient than us."

Baka yan po yung isang paliwanag doon sa isang slide kanina na "Bakit ang Vietnam, bakit ang Thailand, nakikinabang sa RCEP?" We have a clue already, as one of the sponsors said, "Doble ang gastos ng Vietnam sa agrikultura nila." And we know how they and Thailand learned from us in the 60s and 70s sa agrikultura and then put that to much, much better use than we have been able to so far kaya mas competitive sila kahit sa agrikultura at kaya may proteksyon and kanilang rural sectors at mas kayang magcompete on a level playing field.

Ito na po yung second to the last question ko, but isa sa pinakaheartfelt, kasi nasa bangin na tayo, nasa bingit na tayo, hindi po nagsasawa ang mga alyansa agrikultura na kausapin tayo. Ano po ang masasabi ng ating good resource person dito?

Asec Gepty: Tama po kayo, your Honor, na yung preferential treatment na binigay ng ASEAN plus one partners sa RCEP, applicable lahat sa ASEAN members states. Kaya nga po pagdating sa pagtatrade, pagnenegosyo, kailangan po talaga that you find your comparative advantage, napakaimportante po niyan, kasi yan po yun ano dito sa regional agreement. Yung produkto na hindi po natin nakuha dito sa Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, ang ginagawa po natin ay nagnenegotiate po tayo ng bilateral agreements for that particular country.

I will give a particular example po. Halimbawa, saging, of course malaki po yung export natin ng saging. Dito po sa RCEP agreement, hindi po yan binigay ng Japan at South Korea, kasi alam nila na kapag binigay nila yung ano, yung preferential access sa Philippines, in effect ibibigay din nila yan sa Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. So that is why para maging sa Philippines lang yung whatever arrangement you will be negotiating and later being agreed upon, then dapat sa bilateral na lang po iyan. Kaya po kami nagnegotiate ng bilateral sa South Korea. So ganyan po yung approach, your Honor.

SRH: Salamat Mr. President. Siyempre kahit napakahalaga ng bilateral treaties, the excitement is about the big thing happening, sa RCEP, kasi madaming bansa na pagsasama-samahin at ngayon pa lang, kung pakiramdam talaga, kung karanasan talaga ng mga magsasaka at iba pang rural sectors na patalo talaga sila dito.

Actually, some are saying that even manufacturing will have to take some losses under RCEP, pero higit sa lahat, agri, hindi katulad sa services, ang nagbabrace na ngayon, tense na tense na sila kasi alam na nila yung dagok na tatama uli sa kanila. And sasabihan natin sila na "Hintayin niyo yung bilateral agreements na bubuoin natin isa isa?" Wag naman sana sabihan nila tayo ng "Aanhin mo ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo?"

So for my last point, Mr. President - for the consideration of the sponsors and with gratitude to the resource persons para sa kanilang malaman na pagtugon sa aking mga tanong, and this is also related to one of the points na niraise ni Senator Chiz kanina - I am wondering if, at the proper time, amendments can still be accepted to add additional resolutory clauses that will guide the Executive to "use to the full any exceptions and transition periods available to the Philippines" and "not implement any unenforceable RCEP provisions that are detrimental to the Philippines".

Tinatanong ko po ito in closing, Mr. President, dahil karaniwan yung mga gobyerno sa mga developing countries, napagusapan po natin kanina, unilaterally nagliliberalize bago pa magrun out yung transition periods nila, ang nagcocomply sila sa mga unenforceable obligations para lang magmukhang good boys, kahit yung mga developed countries naman ay hindi nagcocomply doon. So for the consideration of the good co-sponsor.

SP Zubiri: Mr. President, with the permission of our dead colleague. Nakita ko po yung inyong amendment, and we accept.

SRH: Salamat po sa good sponsor, and salamat po uli sa ating good resource person. I I wish there will be a different ending to this, Mr. President, pero maraming salamat din po.

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.