Stronger systems in lieu of new trade office

February 25, 2015 at 15:43

“We recognize the merits of the proposal in creating the PTRO (Philippine Trade Representative Office.) Nevertheless, we think that there might be a need to further evaluate the need to create another organization. Because basically, there is already an existing department in the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) that actually does the function,” Wilhelmina C. Mañalac, managing director of the International Sub-Sector of the BSP.

“If there are any problems with the mechanism and also the collaboration among different agencies for this particular purpose, which would be the negotiations, then I think we can just enhance the existing mechanism which we think would be less expensive than creating a new office which will be doing exactly the same function,” she said further.

NEDA Assistant Director Amelia A. Menardo said agency officials generally share the view of the DTI and the BSP regarding the creation of the PTRO. She added that they support the aim of the bill to promote coordination, cohesion, transparency and continuity in trade and investment policy.

“But we are of the view that the objectives of the bill may also be achieved by strengthening the existing coordinating body in government agencies tasked with the formulation and negotiation for training investments,” she added.

Previously, the DTI opposed the establishment of the PTRO, the government agency which will separately handle international trade relations. Three separate Senate bills have been filed proposing to create the PTRO — Senate Bills 1084, 1149 and 1404 filed by Senators Teofisto D. Guingona III, Antonio F. Trillanes IV, and Jose E. Estrada, respectively, last year.

According to the DTI’s Office of Policy Research, the PTRO will only replicate the responsibilities of the Trade Secretary, which, in turn, will not guarantee that foreign trade policy and negotiations will improve.

Similar proposals have been filed at the House of Representatives under House Bills 1690 and 2770, none of which have made it past the committee level.

Marcos A. Punsalang, Special Assistant to the Office of the Undersecretary for International Economic Relations of the DFA, also said that they are in favor of the DTI’s position, citing how they currently handle FTAs and are familiar with the role each agency plays.

“DTI is the lead in the negotiations [while] DFA take[s] a supportive role both here and also abroad, Mr. Punsalang said.

The DFA official said that the creation of the PTRO will have policy implications for them, citing that one of the three pillars of Philippine foreign policy is economic security, with the other two being national security, and the welfare of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).

Nonetheless, the DFA, NEDA and the BSP agreed to conduct a technical working group to work out the kinks and to come up with a consensus next month.

European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines Executive Vice-President Henry Schumacher believes that assigning this function outside the DTI would have no merit, saying that the task should be left with the trade agency.

“The DTI should be able to handle this job,” Mr. Schumacher said in a text message. “There are other agencies that have higher priority in our view [such as the creation of a] Department of Information and Communication Technology and the Fair Competition Commission,” he added.

John D. Forbes, senior adviser of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, believes otherwise.

“The public sector needs to build up its capabilities for international trade policy. The JFC (Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce in the Philippines) supports a [PTRO]. Future trade agreements will span issues beyond the DTI’s traditional role, such as labor, environment [and] customs. We like the USTR model,” he said.