Posted by: Jae | March 6, 2008

GR No. 181549

After several months of waiting and several incantations to the universe, we had finally managed on February 19, 2008 to file before the Supreme Court our Petition for Certiorari entitled AKBAYAN et. al. vs. YAP, et. al. GR No. 181549 questioning the constitutionality of the RP-China agri-business agreements, including one which deigns to lease to China 1,000,000 hectares of Philippine land and another one which would allow all-around marine cooperation in Philippine marine waters. We hope to obtain a decision that will in the future curtail the sense of impunity of executive officials who hastily enter into international agreements without considering the consequences.

The following are the contracts subject of the Petition:

1. A Memorandum of Understanding granting the lease of 1,000,000 hectares of land to a Chinese corporation for a period of 25 years renewable, for the planting of hybrid rice, hybrid corn and hybrid sorghum (Jilin Fuhua).

2. A Memorandum of Agreement allowing the lease or any agribusiness venture scheme over 40,000 hectares of land to a Chinese corporation for sugarane and cassava (ADGZAR).

3. A Memorandum of Agreement allowing all around marine cooperation on fishing with a Chinsese corporation (GDOFA).

A brief discussion of the constitutional objections to the RP-China Agreements may be found in this old blog entry but there have been developments since that time, as well as flip-flopping on the part of our agencies on even the most basic undertakings in the Agreements.

In December of last year, at a consultation, upon a question as to the nature of lands subject of the petition (the contract merely mentioned “lands legally owned by the Philippines”), the DAR representative replied that the lands would be lands already distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries and the contract would essentially be with these ARBs, on an individual basis.

However, a month ago, they called another consultation, and this time they did a turn-around and said that the lands to be used would be forest lands covered by tenurial instruments or community-based forest management agreements (CBFMA) . In another turnaround, they previously said that the operational mode would be lease (the contract says lease), and a month ago, they changed their mind to joint venture and co-management.

The Agreement for the 1,000,000 hectares spoke of a credit platform facility for loans repayment. We asked if the investments were really in the form of a loan, they brushed that question aside.

The Agreement granted tariff reductions (at 0% to China!), they told us not to worry because that actually is a good thing.

The consultation meetings, particularly the first one, was a sham from the get-go. Bogus farmer groups were made to attend to bring the attendance to around 300 (an example of this is a big farmer group that forged an unholy alliance with Danding Cojuangco to enter into a compromise on the coco levy deal despite the victory in the Sandiganbayan), and private sector representatives went in full force to laud the merits of the Agreements. Chinese businessmen moved freely among the ranks of Filipino businessmen. No copies of the Agreements were ever given in any of the consultations, despite request, only a overgeneral powerpoint presentation.

Arthur Yap (the guy who said that only treaties concurred in by the Senate may be considered international agreements. haller…..) kept on reiterating that (1) China will allow us to unilaterally change the terms of the SIGNED and BINDING agreements; (2) he only signed because he wanted more investments to come in, and (3) the contacts are suspended so there is nothing for us to worry about.

If anyone knows why, despite the statement that the the RP-China land deals are unilaterally suspended and are SUPPOSEDLY virtually dead anyway, administration congressmen in full force attended the Congressional inquiry on the land deals (supposedly a small and insignificant issue hardly picked up by the news in light of the political crisis) and the Arroyo brothers were both visibly present in that hastily-scheduled hearing — please let me buy you coffee. 🙂

The PDF file of the entire petition is here (please note that this is a pdf copy of the final MS Word draft, not a copy of what was submitted to the Supreme Court bearing the Court’s stamp. Been trying to tinker with it for hours, but for some reason, that file was too heavy to be uploaded. The layout in the Supreme Court received copy is better, but the content is exactly the same):




  1. wow jae this is really good development. we also have a lot of concerns concerning the rp-china farm-deals, which i’m sure you may have heard of or already familiar with.right now i’m trying to trace back again my hard copies of the agreements for another look and policy analysis of the deals on (agro)biodiversity in line with present negotiations under the CBD.

    with the ZTE deal already in the limelight, the JPEPA having its share in the news – both highlighting how our government officials negotiate against the interest of the public and against any minimal sense of social justice, hopefully they also turn an eye on the rp-china deals and see how starkly unplanned the deals are and prejudicial to a lot of national interests.

  2. chrisgel, by “trace back again” you mean you misplaced your hard copies and are looking for them? we have both hard and soft copies, kung gusto mo.

  3. wow, i just read the document in full. stayed up all night. this is interesting stuff! im really supportive of what you’re doing. (kala ko children’s stories lang kaya mong sulatin.) do you think though that this might have anything to do with the spratlys? while driving to work, i was thinking about your document and all the other things you’ve told me, and you’re right. a system change is necessary. the only way we can have change is if ordinary citizens like us take a stand. we shouldn’t just oust gma, but rebuild our system so that future gma’s will not be allowed. i hope you win the rp-china case!!!!

  4. ….Jae of Akbayan reports filing a case….

  5. jae, yes i misplaced them. the softcopies will do hehehe to save on paper.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: