210402 Response to Philstar Article.Docx
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Roxas Boulevard Corner Pablo Ocampo MR. MIGUEL G. BELMONTE President and CEO, PhilStar Media Group The Philippine Star MR. KEVIN BELMONTE President and CEO, PhilStar Global Corp./Philstar.com Unit 909 and 910, The Infinity Tower, 26th Street Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City Dear Messrs. BELMONTE: Greetings. We write to rectify the points discussed in an article entitled “China projects in Philippines found riddled with secretive conditions” (Annex A) which was published by the Philippine Star in its website on April 1, 2021 through Ian Nicolas Cigaral and Prinz Magtulis. Said article, while probably well-meaning, propounded several inaccuracies and falsehoods in connection with Chinese-funded projects in the Philippines. We demand that this counter statement be published in order to set the records straight. We have mentioned countless times that Chinese-funded ODA projects pursued by the Duterte administration were negotiated to promote the national interest and with due regard to all our laws and regulations. The financing agreements for the three loans we have executed thus far (Chico River Pump Irrigation Project of the National Irrigation Authority, New Centennial Water Source - Kaliwa Dam Project of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, and Philippine National Railways South Long Haul-Project Management Consultancy of the Department of Transportation) are transparent and are currently posted at the Department of Finance (DOF) Website (available at https://www.dof.gov.ph/data/fin-agreements/) for the public to scrutinize, have no hidden security features as claimed by the foregoing article, and are consistent with other financing agreements which we have signed with countries such as Japan, Korea, and France. NO CONFIDENTIALITY The Philstar article borrows its conclusion that the Chinese-funded contracts are not transparent and contained confidentiality clauses from a paper entitled “How China Lends: A Rare Look Into 100 Debt Contracts with Foreign Governments1” from a think tank called AidData being run under the auspices of the William & Mary Global Research institute, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Center for Global Development, and Peterson Institute for International Economics. The Philstar article then claims that the DOF divulged the details of these contracts in 2019 only after purported scrutiny from several lawmakers. This is clearly inaccurate and speculative. When the contracts were negotiated in 2018 and 2019, these already included provisions which provide that the contract details may be disclosed if “required by any applicable Philippine laws, regulations, and rules, or by order of any courts, tribunals, or agencies of competent jurisdiction, or relevant regulatory bodies.” In fact, the DOF wasted no time in posting and divulging the contracts in their entirety in its website to comply with the public’s right to information enshrined in the Constitution and to invite public comments on these contracts. No pressure from anyone was necessary for this to happen as this was contractually provided for. CERTAINTY OF PAYMENT BUT NO SECURITY FEATURE The Philstar article also claims that “the Philippines was mandated to funnel “profits accruing from the Project...to repay the principal and interest” in the Chinese loan used to build it.” The article likewise claims that “…this is a counterpart provision to tighter ones found in other contracts that mandated opening a bank account with sufficient balance for repayment at all times.” 1 Gelpern, A., Horn, S., Morris, S., Parks, B., & Trebesch, C. (2021). How China Lends: A Rare Look into 100 Debt Contracts with Foreign Governments. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Center for Global Development, and AidData at William & Mary. Available at https://www.aiddata.org/publications/how-china-lends. While it is reasonable to require that profits from the MWSS project be earmarked for interest payment and debt servicing, there is no other contract that mandates the opening of a bank account with sufficient balance for repayment at all times contrary to the claim in the Philstar article. Debt servicing, including interest payment of these Chinese loans, goes through a process similar to loans from Japan, Korea, the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank. Hence, there is no need for a separate account or a holdout to ensure prompt payment. If we read further, the AidData attributes some of these security features to loans from the China Development Bank (according to a report around 75% of the time). Note that the Philippine Government has not executed any loan or financing agreement with the China Development Bank. CROSS-DEFAULT CLAUSES AND PARIS CLUB INITIATIVE Cross-default clauses are by no means sinister provisions designed to entrap sovereign borrowers but are standard features of cross border debt. In fact, the AidData report quotes an authoritative guide to international debt contracts: “things do not get much more utterly standard than the cross-default clause.” Contrary to the rationale provided by the Philstar article, the objective of the cross-default clause is to ensure that all debtors are placed in the same level of priority in the remote chance that a sovereign borrower defaults. It is present in all cross border debt contracts in order to ensure that all debtors are treated equally in case of default and not to give undue preference to a single creditor country. Hence, the claim that the cross-default clause is being used as a means to “climb the seniority ladder, potentially gaining repayment advantage over other creditors…” is preposterous. Also, the claim that Chinese loans cannot be restructured because China does not subscribe to Paris Club initiatives is likewise nebulous and unfounded. All loans can be restructured through bilateral agreement, regardless of whether the creditor country is a Paris Club member or not. The fact that China is not a member of the Paris Club does not mean that the Philippines is precluded from asking for a loan restructuring if this is required by the circumstances. In fact, there is no provision in the Philippine agreements which prohibits debt relief or restructuring. Based on the foregoing, instead of the Philippine contracts being riddled with secretive conditions, it is in fact the Philstar article which is riddled with inconsistencies, half-truths, and outright lies. We have performed our constitutional duty of disclosing all financing or loan agreements entered into with bilateral and multilateral partners. It is incumbent on the free press to do their research thoroughly before proceeding with unfounded allegations. Professionalism dictates that claims such as those in the Philstar article be first verified before being published, as pure speculation or conjecture cannot be the hallmark of press freedom. Thank you. Very truly yours, CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ Secretary of Finance Copy furnished: MR. RAY C. ESPINOSA Chairperson, PhilStar Daily Inc. MR. ISAAC G. BELMONTE Head, Editorial Board, The Philippine STAR MS. ANA MARIE T. PAMINTUAN Editor in Chief, The Philippine STAR MS. CAMILLE DIOLA Editorial Head, Philstar.com \ANNEX A China projects in Philippines found riddled with secretive conditions Ian Nicolas Cigaral (Philstar.com) - April 1, 2021 - 4:55pm <https://www.philstar.com/business/2021/04/01/2088565/china-projects-philippi nes-found-riddled-secretive-conditions> MANILA, Philippines (UPDATE 10:08 a.m., April 2) — Contracts for three China-funded projects under the Duterte administration’s infrastructure program were found riddled with highly secretive conditions that give Beijing undue advantage in debt settlement. The Kaliwa Dam Project, Chico River Pump Irrigation Project, and technical assistance for the Philippine National Railway (PNR) South Long Haul Project were among the 100 Chinese contracts worth $36.3 billion analyzed by researchers and found to contain grossly disadvantageous provisions against 24 developing economies. These "Build, Build, Build" projects were cumulatively worth $493.08 million. The findings were contained in an 85-page report drawn up by AidData, a research unit at the William & Mary’s Global Research Institute, together with the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Center for Global Development and the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Specific projects were listed on a data set accompanying the report. While the Philippines overall is minimally leveraged to China — only 0.002% of state debt last year came from Beijing — overall liabilities have increased over the past year due to pandemic costs, and liabilities from already-signed China loans are only adding to the burden. None of the 3 projects named in the report is completed, hit by construction delays not only emanating from the health crisis, but also opposition from grassroots and those worried about President Rodrigo Duterte’s cozying up to China. Five years into this however, there are little economic gains to dangle, and the persistent threat of a debt trap— no matter how unlikely— is consistently re-surfacing. Sought for comment, Ernesto Pernia, Duterte's former socioeconomic planning secretary under whom the contracts were signed, said his office "did to the extent we could" to ensure projects were above-board. But as to financing, the finance department had "the last say." Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III did not respond to request for comment. Confidentiality The report