WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/Q1/PHL/4
16 September 2002
(02-4917)
Committee on Safeguards Original: English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT
Replies by the PHILIPPINES
to Questions Posed by INDONESIA1
The following communication, dated 13 September 2002, has been received from the
Permanent Mission of the Philippines.
_______________
1. Where R.A. 8800 is silent on a number of WTO provisions could the Government of the
Philippines confirm that the full terms of the Agreement on Safeguards will prevail and how
will this be ensured in practice?
Reply
Assuming for the sake of argument that Republic  Act No. 8800 (the law) is indeed silent with
respect to a number of provisions stated in the Agreement on Safeguards (the Agreement), it must be
clarified that the law was formulated in accordance with the Agreement.  As such, the provisions of
the Agreement provide adequate guidance to the investigating authorities.
The Government of Indonesia notes that:
(a) R.A 8800 does not accommodate the WTO pr ovision “providing concessions and other
obligations or trade compensation".
Reply
Nothing in the provision of R.A 8800 prohibits the Philippine Government from providing
concessions and other obligations or trade compensation.
(b) R.A 8800 fails to include the requirement of providing adequate opportunity for prior
consultations to affected member countries.
Reply
The Philippines assumes that the reference to ‘prior consultations’ is taken in the context of
the obligation under Article 12.3 of the Agreement.  In this regard, it must be clarified that there are
provisions in the law and its implementing rules and regulations (the regulations) which require prior
consultations.  See, for example, Rule 6.5.b of the regulations (initiation of an investigation);
                                                     
1 G/SG/Q1/PHL/3.G/SG/Q1/PHL/4
Page 2
Section 7 of the law (preliminary determination); and Section 9 of the law (formal investigation).  In
sum, all interested parties have sufficient opportunity to present evidence, comment on, or respond
and rebut the presentations, and otherwise be heard by the investigating authorities.
(c) R.A 8800 does not provide procedures as  basic requirements for the application of
safeguard measures.
Reply
Section 5 of the law states the conditions for the application of general safeguard measures in
the Philippines. It provides that:
"The Secretary shall apply a general safeguard measure upon a positive final
determination of the commission that a product is being imported into the country in
increased quantities, whether absolute or relative to the domestic production, as to be
a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry;
however, in the case of non-agricultural products, the Secretary shall first establishthat the application of such safeguard measures will be in the public interest."
Subsequent sections of the law, and their corresponding regulations, detail the procedural and
substantive requirements for the investigation and application of safeguard measures.
2. In the case of the application of a safeguard measure against importation of Portland
Cement and Ceramic tiles, the Philippines provide to the interested parties only 5 (five) days to
respond to the application.  Could the Government  of the Philippines confirm that it considers
five days to be sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards.
Reply
The five-day period to respond to the application is sufficient because it merely refers to the
reply during the provisional determination of whether the increased import of the products under
consideration could cause substantial, or threaten to substantially cause, serious injury to the domestic
industry. It must be emphasized that the Agreement on Safeguards is silent as to the number of days in
which parties may respond to the application.
In addition, it should be noted that no opportunity was provided to comment on the
report of finding.
Reply
It must be clarified that Indonesia, a close ASEAN neighbour and important trading partner,
has had, and continues to have, adequate opportunity to make its comments and views on cement and
ceramic tiles known to the Philippines.
In the case of cement, the Philippines and Indonesia exchanged some nine communications
from July to November 2001.  In these exchanges, Indonesia submitted comments, which the
Philippines accepted and took into account in the proc ess of the preliminary and formal investigations.
In the communications dated 8 and 21 November 2001, the Philippines reiterated its offer to consult
before the imposition of the provisional and the definite safeguard measures, respectively, atIndonesia's convenience.G/SG/Q1/PHL/4
Page 3
In the case of ceramic tiles, Indonesia submitted comments twice, the first through a letter
from its Embassy in Manila dated 25 July 2001, and again on 7 November 2001.  Receipt of these
letters were acknowledged by Philippine authorities.  However, neither of these letters requested
consultations.
In addition to addressing the matter bilaterally, Indonesia and the Philippines have also
discussed the matter at the ASEAN forum.  (See, for example, paragraphs 58 and 59 of the agreed
summary record of ASEAN Senior Economic Offi cials Meeting (SEOM) 1/33, which was held in
Bangkok on 31 January and 1 February 2002.)
Having made these factual clarifications, the Philippines would nevertheless urge Indonesia to
communicate, through the appropriate channels, it s desire to continue engagement with the
Philippines on the issue of safeguards.  The Philippines is always prepared to consult at Indonesia’s
convenience, and to consider ways to address whatever concerns Indonesia might have.
__________