This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Parity Rights (Gabriel John D. Recalde) Under the Bell Trade Act President M. Roxas believed that Philippines needed assistance from the Americans to be able to rehabilitate its economy. He wanted from them financial assistance (aid and investments) immediately in order to carry out his plans of lessening the radicals in the country. In exchange of the financial assistance, Roxas promised that the Philippines will remain loyal to the U.S. Along with this, he even assured of sacrificing the country’s sovereignty to accommodate the demands of the Americans. On a speech, he emphasized that the Philippines could be an ideological bridge between the east and the west. The part of the Bell Trade Act which could be cited as the most oppressive was the parity. This grants the U.S. citizens and corporations the same rights, parity rights, as the Filipinos to develop and exploit the country’s natural resources and operation of the public utilities. In exchange, the U.S. provided the Philippines with the disparity of rights. Americans refused to give the same parity rights they received. The U.S. State Department said that there was no need for the parity amendment since the provision of the Bell Trade Act and their capital was enough. However, since many huge companies wanted to have more privileges for their investments in this country, they insisted to have the parity amendment. (Constantino, 1978) It was a great advantage for the American investors the inclusion of the parity amendment in the constitution. Because of this, the issue on the national patrimony comes in. since, the Americans are free to exploit the natural resources that this country have, it would result in the depletion of our natural resources. There is a possibility that time would come and nothing will be left for our generation and the future generations. On the issue of the capital
Recalde. 10837396 formation. there was a minimal approval of members during the final vote. This was a revision of the Bell . Langley. In order to have the amendment passed. 1978) Under the Laurel-Langley Agreement The Laurel-Langley Trade Agreement was signed on December 1954. the opposing members were set to dismissal. in fact double. more American investors would have huge capital. To have more affirming members. In fact. it was still amended. This only proves that many members of the congress dislike this. when the amendment was passed. Filipinos had minimal capital to invest. The argument raised by Roxas to the opposing members was that the Bell Trade Act is the key so that financial aid could be given to the country. only a number of companies had the capital and earn from this. the use of the currency was prevented. there were few companies that monopolize the exports from the Philippines. Roxas even sought for Osmena’s help to convince the other Nacionalistas.S. Thus. Laurel and James M. Moreover. It was the result of negotiations headed by Jose P. the exchange rate of the Philippine peso to the U. Moreover. In order for the parity amendment to be passed. These members were subject to their pending investigation of alleged fraud and terrorism in their election. there must be an approval of at least three fourths of the members of the congress. (Constantino. 1978) This deprived the Philippines of its currency sovereignty. The result would be. Roxas persuaded them and offered support and pork barrel funds to them. Gabriel John D. Despite of the numerous disadvantages the Bell Trade Act has. to invest in our country. (Constantino. dollar was fixed to two pesos is to one dollar. The Roxas administration knew that they could not meet the required number of votes since there were only 13 members in the senate and 60 in the congress both coming from the Liberal party. Also.
had surplus capital that could be invested. they were exempted to Filipinization. However. corporations. 2005) . 10837396 Trade Act. Unlike the Bell Trade Act which is limited to the exploitation of resources. Americans were willing to help. Mining Act of 1995 The Mining Act of 1995 grants the foreign mining companies 100% ownership and control of the mineral resources of Philippines. (Confronting TNC Control in RP Mining. This would result in the increase of the American investments in the Philippines.’ natural resources were subject to federal control and regulations.S. Though. Philippines had none. The result would be economic invasion. U. The extension of the parity privileges on all business activities would later on have a negative effect on the Philippine economy. These transnational corporations took advantage of the dying industry and suggested that foreign investments and liberalized regulatory environment would be of great help.S. Filipinos has nothing to exploit since there was hardly anything left. the form of help they want to extend in the Philippines was direct investment.S. Economic invasion in a sense that the infant economy of our country would be killed. Moreover. extraction and exportation of minerals by transnational corporations. Recto opposed the Laurel-Langley Trade Agreement by stating that Filipinos’ parity rights to the U. Actually. (Constantino. they are treated as Filipinos. This is the result of the government’s policy towards mining – foreign investment-led and exportoriented. With this. Lichauco stressed out that the American citizens and corporations accorded national statuses.Recalde. the Laurel-Langley Trade Agreement opened the entire Philippine economy to different U. Gabriel John D. 1978) On the issue of the foreign aid. The mining sector of the Philippines remained to be the exploration.
Within these incentives. tax holidays are allowed until all costs are recovered. MAP aims to provide strategic directions for the exploration. equipment and investments. the Mining Act of 1995 provided a set of incentives to the investors. the issue of parity rights could be seen.Recalde. mining leases lasts for 25 years and it could be extended for another 25 years. foreign companies have the right to sell gold directly to the international market. The Mining Act of 1995 aims to increase foreign investments. One of these is the National Minerals Policy (NMP). lastly. investors could repatriate the profits.000 hectares depending on the location. The Marcopper incident in 1996 opened up the consciousness of the Filipino people to the negative effects of large-scale mining. As a result.to legislate a mining law that would liberalize the mineral industry. The negative effects of these laws affect the people in the mining . the government sent out documents to pursue the mining investments in the Philippines. excise duties are lowered from five percent to two percent. with $50 Million as the minimum investment. 10837396 The Republic Act 7492 was the result of the recommendation of the World Bank to the Ramos’ administration . Gabriel John D.000 hectares to 324. the Mining Act of 1995 was not fully enforced. NMP strengthens the Mining Act by maintaining the rights of and incentives already given to corporations. Since the Mining Act of 1995 was hard to implement. The set of incentives include that foreign companies could claim up to 81. Aside from the 100% ownership and control of the mineral resources of Philippines. the government ensures the removal of all obstacles to mining. development and utilization of the country’s mineral resources. Another was the Mineral Action Plan (MAP). It aims to balance the need for investments as well as the need to protect the environment and the people. Americans have the opportunity to exploit our natural resources whereas the Philippines could not. foreign companies are guaranteed of expropriation.
Gabriel John D. The People’s Mining Policy was formulated to highlight the demands of the people towards a mining industry that is pro-people and pro-environment. 10837396 sites. IBON Facts and Figures. References Confronting TNC Control in RP Mining. . 1-15. Quezon City: Tala Publishing.Recalde. &. Constantino. (1978). (2005). The Philippines: the continuing past. R.