Tuesday, October 6, 2015
See - Village chair held for slay of IBP exec | Inquirer News
"x x x.
A barangay chairperson in Calamba City, Laguna province was arrested on Saturday afternoon for allegedly killing a lawyer and official of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) eight years ago.
Florencio Morales Jr. was apprehended inside his office in the barangay hall of Real, along with his bodyguard Bernard Palacio.
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CDG) members served on Morales an arrest warrant issued by Calamba judge Antonio Manzano for the murder in June 2007 of Demetrio Hilbero, IBP Laguna president.
Morales “is among the top 20 most wanted persons in the Calabarzon region,” said CIDG director Chief Supt. Victor Deona.
In 2011, two other suspects were arrested while another cohort remains at large.
Also arrested with Morales was Palacio, his alleged bodyguard, for his illegal possession of an unlicensed .357 revolver with ammunition.
Hilbero was shot dead near his law office in Calamba City after he attended Mass at St. John the Baptist Church. Hilbero was the political adviser of then-mayoral candidate Joaquin Chipeco, who was running against Calamba City councilor Moises Morales in the 2007 elections.
x x x."
Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/727878/village-chair-held-for-slay-of-ibp-exec#ixzz3niftCEgE
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Monday, October 5, 2015
See - P-Noy cleared; Abad, usec face DAP probe | Headlines, News, The Philippine Star | philstar.com
"x x x.
MANILA, Philippines - President Aquino has been cleared of criminal liability by the Office of the Ombudsman in his administration’s implementation of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), parts of which were declared unconstitutional in 2014 by the Supreme Court.
But the ombudsman said yesterday it found sufficient basis for a preliminary investigation of Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and Undersecretary Mario Relampagos.
President Aquino was “absolved” after fact-finding by the ombudsman determined that the charges against him do not amount to an impeachable offense and should thus be dismissed.
The ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office (FIO) said only Abad and Relampagos should be held liable for technical malversation of public funds.
Fact-finding investigators also said both officials should be held liable for administrative offenses in relation to their role in the utilization of DAP funds amounting to P31.9 billion from 2011 to 2012.
A preliminary investigation would give Abad and Relampagos a chance to answer accusations before charges are filed against them with the Sandiganbayan.
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales has created a special panel of lawyers to conduct the probe.
Under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, technical malversation is committed by a public officer when he or she disburses public funds or property for a purpose other than what is dictated by law or ordinance.
FIO investigators said Abad and Relampagos authorized the DAP sourced from pooled savings as “a plan to boost disbursements” and “to jumpstart the implementation” of the government’s expenditure program.
As authorized, projects were identified based on their “multiplier impact on the economy and infrastructure benefit, beneficial effect on the poor and translation into disbursements.”
But the ombudsman said documents noted irregularities in the cross border DAP transfer transactions to the Commission on Audit (COA) and the House of Representatives.
From the total P31.9-billion DAP funds, records show that P250 million was released to the House for the construction of legislative library and archive building/congressional e-library which was “not among those approved by the President.”
In addition, P143.7 million was released to the COA to augment the latter’s Information Technology infrastructure program and the hiring of additional litigation experts as per approved Special Allotment Release Order (SARO).
Investigation showed that Abad prepared and signed all memoranda and issuances concerning DAP implementation, while Relampagos signed the corresponding SAROs to COA and the House.
The ombudsman’s investigation was based on separate complaints filed by former Iloilo congressman Augusto Syjuco Jr., Greco Belgica and Kabataan party-list Rep. Terry Ridon.
Morales said her office is also studying another report on the alleged misuse of P900 million in Malampaya funds that were diverted to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) during the Arroyo administration and which ended up with bogus non-government organizations linked to alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.
The officials accused in the Malampaya case include Arroyo and former DAR secretary Nasser Pangandaman and other officials of the department.
The ombudsman revealed to lawmakers the DAP probe on Aquino and Abad last Sept. 1 during a hearing on her agency’s 2016 budget by the House committee on appropriations chaired by Davao City Rep. Isidro Ungab.
Sought for comment then, Abad said, “It’s the process of the ombudsman and we respect it. We will cooperate. We do want to put a closure to this issue.”
He said the Supreme Court has upheld in the DAP cases the “doctrine of operative fact, meaning that what we did was constitutional, legal and regular, and we implemented the economic stimulus program in good faith.”
“In fact, the Supreme Court declared that DAP benefited the country. We stand by our position that DAP was an urgent and appropriate response to the then under-spending problem that was slowing down the economy,” Abad said.
“The resulting uptick in spending and growth validated our position,” he said.
“We also commit to align, as we have already done, our savings, augmentation and realignment policies along with SC decision,” he added.
The budget chief noted that “there was no insinuation of graft” in the tribunal’s ruling.
He pointed out that the ombudsman has not yet sought any comment from them.
“This is just the fact-finding stage. If they go to preliminary investigation, that’s when they will require us to comment,” Abad, who is a lawyer, said.
The SC stopped the DAP economic stimulus program in 2014 after declaring at least four practices under it as unconstitutional. The tribunal did not declare DAP itself as unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, the DBM said in a statement it welcomes the ombudsman’s investigation into the DAP issue.
“Not only will the inquiry enable the parties to present their views on all remaining issues involving DAP, we likewise trust that the ombudsman will conduct the investigation with the soundest judgment,” the DBM said in a statement.
“The Supreme Court itself observed that DAP was instrumental in accelerating public spending, and in such a manner that allowed the country to achieve significant economic progress,” the DBM said.
“It is also worth noting that DAP is not a novel program. Its implementation only followed precedents set by previous presidents and their respective budget secretaries,” it added.
The DBM also said it wished to “clarify certain terms relevant to the investigation” like “technical malversation.” It said the term does not suggest that the individuals in question committed acts of graft or corruption or used public funds for their personal gain or benefit.
“Certainly, the inquiry is not a matter of whether individuals had stolen from public coffers,” the DBM stated.
“The inquiry involves the application of excess or unutilized public funds to existing priority government projects and programs that require additional funding,” it pointed out.
“The investigation seeks to determine whether these uses of public funds constitute technical malversation, where public funds are used for a public purpose that differed – in a very technical sense – from the original plan,” it said.
Allowed under GAA
The DBM also said the use of the funds to augment deficient items of appropriations were authorized under the General Appropriations Act and other laws.
“We must also remind our people that despite several news reports, the final Supreme Court decision on DAP did not declare the program unconstitutional.”
The DBM also stressed that the Supreme Court ruling emphasized that “the doctrine of operative fact holds sway over the implementation of DAP.” This means “the program’s authors, sponsors and implementers must be presumed to have acted in good faith and with regularity in the performance of their official duties.”
The DBM also noted that DAP is “not a novel program” and that its implementation only followed precedents set by previous administrations.
“Finally, the positive impact of DAP on the Philippine economy – in line with the program’s purpose –must not be overlooked,” it said.
“The Supreme Court itself observed that DAP was instrumental in accelerating public spending, and in such a manner that allowed the country to achieve significant economic progress,” the DBM statement read.
“The DBM will of course cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman in the course of their investigation. We look forward as well to the inquiry’s swift and fair conclusion.” With Delon Porcalla, Prinz Magtulis
x x x."
Saturday, October 3, 2015
"x x x.
Not for the first time when he had the country’s highest magistrates as his captive audience, President Benigno Aquino III on Friday took the occasion to take the justices to task for taking on cases that he said delayed critical infrastructure projects and promulgating rulings that he described as “judicial legislation.”
While stressing that his administration supports the judiciary and its reform programs with increased funding, the President firmly asserted his authority, pointing out the cost to the country of slow litigation, citing in particular an expressway project that has apparently stalled because of court proceedings.
“What our bosses expect from us public servants is simple: Instead of “just tiis (being patient), let’s promote genuine justice. That’s why I will take this opportunity to raise some issues with you,” he said in remarks that were a mixture of English and Filipino at the groundbreaking ceremonies for the new Supreme Court complex in Taguig City.
Mr. Aquino even quoted the Constitution to drive home his point. He said Article VIII, Section 15 (1) mandates that the high court resolve “all cases or matters” within 24 months, or two years from the day of filing.
A new chapter
He challenged the magistrates to complement the modernity and quality of the new Supreme Court facility—funded by Malacañang—that will rise on the site where he was speaking.
“The complex that will be built will be modern and of high quality, with new equipment. But for me, the most important part of it is the people who will work there,” Mr. Aquino said.
He said the facility was proof that “a new chapter” has begun in the relations among the three branches of government, noting the expected doubling of the budget allocation for the judiciary, from P12.66 billion in 2010 to P25.89 billion in 2016.
“All the new equipment in your new building will help you fulfill your mandate, but it’s still up to you if you will uphold what is right and just,” he told the high court magistrates.
The President, who has had tense brushes with the Supreme Court justices in the past, said government infrastructure projects should be spared from the delaying effect of a temporary restraining order.
“Just look at the situation of one of our expressways, where the project was delayed because the court did not immediately issue a writ of possession. When I think about it, because court hearings delay a project, it’s just like being under a TRO,” Mr. Aquino said.
The President was apparently referring to the expressway project at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, which has been delayed by right-of-way issues.
“To you who know the law better, isn’t there a law that says when it comes to a project involving government infrastructure, there should be a deposit for the amortization of land to be expropriated? And when that has been done, the court has to issue a writ of possession saying government has the right to use that land and proceed with its project,” Mr. Aquino said.
He said Public Works Secretary Rogelio Singson had reported that despite compliance with the deposit requirement, the court hearing the case has yet to issue the writ, thus delaying the project.
Mr. Aquino also mentioned instances where “projects are delayed because of the need (for the court) to determine just compensation.” He did not cite the specific project.
“I hope you give due attention to coming up with decisions on issues like these. The law is clear on the right of the government to proceed with a project even when the court has yet to resolve the matter of just compensation,” he said.
He cited how such obstacles derail the delivery of services and benefits for the public, and multiply costs for the government.
“Because of such delays, costs also increase. And the additional funds could have been used for other services. We are all serving our bosses. We should focus on nothing else but those that will be for the good of the nation,” he said.
The President also cited cases where he felt certain magistrates took “confounding” positions or made a sudden turnaround.
“You are the experts in law, and my appeal is this: Go back to the major and controversial issues that the judiciary faced, such as the times when one or several justices took confounding positions (on a case), when the court suddenly changed its view on important issues, or when it seemed there was judicial legislation,” he said.
Mr. Aquino did not cite a specific case or issue, but his statement brought to mind the recent Supreme Court ruling granting the bail petition of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, who was released from detention on humanitarian grounds despite being on trial on the nonbailable charge of plunder.
The Aug. 18 ruling has been criticized as a rewriting of the restrictions on granting bail for an accused facing nonbailable charges, which does not include humanitarian considerations as a ground for granting an exemption.
“As among those expected to uphold the interest of the Filipino, let us ask ourselves: Am I able to do right by the people or am I just doing something to say I am fulfilling my duties? Will this be good for my bosses, and will it truly deliver justice?” Mr. Aquino said.
In the audience were the same justices who last year invalidated the President’s Disbursement Acceleration Program, a spending reform mechanism to speed up public expenditure and boost economic growth. The high court declared the DAP unconstitutional because in carrying out its high-impact programs and projects, it used funds that were not programmed in the budget passed by Congress or that were obtained from illegally declared savings.
The DAP ruling angered the President who twice went on television to defend the program, issuing a not-so-subtle threat against a coequal branch of government. Not since he instigated the removal of Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2011 and 2012 did Mr. Aquino speak so strongly against the Supreme Court.
But attempting to introduce a note of levity on Friday, the President quoted a joke that his lawyers apparently like to tell. He said his lawyers were told in their introduction to law class that there are only two kinds of lawyers: “those who know the law” and “those who know the judge.”
CJ for a national discussion
In an interview after walking the President out of the venue, Sereno said she would look into the expressway case that Mr. Aquino had raised.
“I didn’t know there was an issue on infrastructure… especially about the Naia Expressway, and I will have to look into these matters,” she told reporters.
In response to the President’s call for speedy judicial proceedings on cases involving government expropriation, Sereno said there should be a national discussion on “what kind of periods are allowable for due process.”
“Ultimately, you have to make sure that property owners are not unduly deprived. So we are going actually in that direction and we are already convening several small committees to discuss these problems,” she said.
She said the current legal framework “is no longer capable of addressing all these issues.”
On the matter of judicial legislation, Sereno said the court has also been careful to avoid overstepping its powers.
“In every en banc session, we continue to debate on whether what we’re doing is already legislation or if it is still within the bounds of what we can do. But, ultimately, it will redound to a question of what the final vote will be. So it’s an evolving thing, but we are mindful of that need to maintain that line,” she said.
x x x."
Thursday, October 1, 2015
See - www.dptlaw.asia/forms/PRIMERS, GUIDES & FAQs/FAQs on FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES.pdf
"x x x.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES
DULAY PAGUNSAN and TY LAW OFFICES
Strata 100 Building, Suite 1300, F. Ortigas Jr. Road,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1605
1. How does the Philippines define foreign corporations?
Foreign corporations has been defined as one, which owes its existence to the laws of another state, and generally, has no legal existence within another state. Section 123 of the Corporation Code defines a foreign corporation as one formed, organized, and existing under any laws other than those of the Philippines and whose laws allow Filipino citizens and corporations to do business in the Philippines.
2. What is the general policy of the government for foreign investments?
The Philippine government is encouraging foreign investors to invest in the country with businesses that will provide opportunities in employment, develop the productivity of resources, heighten the volume as well as the value of exports and provide the future development of the economy’s foundation.
3. Can a foreign company invest in the Philippines?
Yes. The Foreign Investment Act (R.A. 7042, 1991, amended by R.A. 8179, 1996) liberalized the entry of foreign investment into the Philippines. Under the FIA, foreign investors are generally treated like their domestic counterparts and must register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (in the case of a corporation or partnership) or with the Department of Trade and Industry’s Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection (in the case of a sole proprietorship).
4. What is the percentage of foreign equity allowed under the FIA?
With the liberalization of the foreign investment law, 100% foreign equity may be allowed in all areas of investment except those reserved for Filipinos under the Philippine Constitution and existing laws.
5. What are those businesses with foreign investment restrictions?
Within the 1991 Foreign Investment Act (FIA) there are two negative lists, also known as the “Foreign Investment Negative List”, which defines the foreign investments, Page | 2 which are limited or restricted by the Constitution and specific laws. Negative List A and Negative List B.
6. What is the coverage of Negative List A?
In Negative List A, foreign ownership in certain businesses is limited by mandate of the Constitution and specific laws.
No Foreign Equity
1. Mass Media except recording
2. Practice of professions
3. Retail trade enterprises with paid-up capital of not less than US$2,500,000.00 4. Cooperatives
5. Private Security Agencies
6. Small-scale Mining
7. Utilization of Marine Resources in archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone
8. Ownership, operation and management of cockpits
9. Manufacture, repair, stockpiling and/or distribution of nuclear weapons
10. Manufacture, repair, stockpiling and/or distribution of biological, chemical and radiological weapons and anti-personal mines
11. Manufacture of firecrackers and other pyrotechnic devices
Up to Twenty Percent (20%) Foreign Equity
12. Private radio communication network
Up to Twenty-Five Percent (25%) Foreign Equity
13. Private recruitment, whether for local or overseas employment
14. Contracts for the construction and repair of locally-funded public works, except:
a. infrastructure/development projects covered in RA 7718; and
b. projects which are foreign funded or assisted and required to undergo international competitive bidding (Sec. 2(a) of RA 7718)
15. Contracts for construction of defense-related structure.
Up to Thirty Percent (30%) Foreign Equity
Up to Forty Percent (40%) Foreign Equity
17. Exploration, development and utilization of natural resources
18. Ownership of Private Lands
19. Operation and management of public utilities
20. Ownership/establishment and administration of educational institutions
21. Culture, production, milling, processing, trading excepting retailing, of rice and corn and acquiring, by barter, purchase or otherwise, rice and corn and the byproducts thereof
22. Contracts for the supply of materials, goods and commodities to governmentowned or controlled corporation, company, agency or Municipal Corporation
23. Project Proponent and facility Operator of a BOT project requiring a public utilities franchise
24. Operation of deep-sea commercial fishing vessels
25. Adjustment Companies
26. Ownership of condominium units where the common areas in the condominium projects are co-owned by the owners of the separate units or owned by a corporation.
Up to Sixty Percent (60%) Foreign Equity
27. Financing companies regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission 28. Investment houses regulated by the SEC 7.
What is the coverage of Negative List B?
In Negative List B, foreign ownership in certain business is limited for reason of security, defense, risk to health and morals and protection of small-and-mediumscale enterprises.
Up to Forty Percent (40 %) Foreign Equity
1. Manufacture, repair, storage and/or distribution of products and/or ingredients requiring Philippine National Police (PNP) clearance:
a. Firearms (handguns to shotguns), parts of firearms and ammunition therefore, instruments or implements used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms
d. Blasting supplies e. Ingredients used in making explosives f. Telescopic sight, sniper scope and other similar devices
2. Manufacture, repair, storage and/or distribution of products requiring Department of National Defense (DND) clearance;
a. Guns and ammunition for warfare
b. Military ordnance and parts thereof (e.g., torpedoes, depth charges, bombs, grenades, missiles)
c. Gunnery, bombing and fire control systems and components
d. Guided missiles/missile systems and components
e. Tactical aircraft (fixed and rotary -winged), parts and components thereof
f. Space vehicles and component systems
g. Combat vessels (air. land and naval) and auxiliaries
h. Weapons repair and maintenance equipment
i. Military communications equipment
j. Night vision equipment
k. Stimulated coherent radiation devices, components and accessories
l. Armament training devices m. Others as may be determined by the Secretary of the DND.
3. Manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs
4. Sauna and steam bathhouses, massage clinics and other like activities regulated by law because of risks posed to public health and morals
5. All forms of gambling, e.g. race track operation
6. Domestic market enterprises with paid-in equity capital of less than the equivalent of US$200,000.
7. Domestic market enterprises, which involve advanced technology or employ at least fifty (50) direct employees with paid-in-equity capital of less than the equivalent of US$100,000.
8. What requirements must be complied with before a foreign corporation can do business in the Philippines?
If the foreign corporation itself intends to do business in the Philippines under its foreign charter, the foreign corporation must first secure a “License to do Business in the Philippines” from the Philippine Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). If the foreign corporation intends to do business in the Philippines by incorporating a Philippine company, the foreign corporation must first secure the approval of the SEC by filing its incorporation papers, together with authenticated copies of its foreign charter and by-laws.
9. Is there a need for the foreign corporation to appoint its local agent in the Philippines?
Yes, if the foreign corporation intends to do business in the Philippines under its foreign charter. Among the things to be stated in the verified application are the name and address of the foreign corporation’s resident agent authorized to accept summons and process in all legal proceedings and, pending the establishment of a local office, all notices affecting the corporation. Page | 5
10. How will the foreign corporation appoint its Philippine local agent?
A written power of attorney must be filed by the foreign corporation with the SEC designating some person who must be a resident of the Philippines, on whom service of summons and other legal processes may be served in all actions or other legal proceedings against such corporation, and consenting that service upon such resident agent shall be admitted and held as valid as if served upon the duly authorized officers of the foreign corporation at its home office.
11. Is there a need for the foreign corporation to execute an agreement with the SEC regarding service of summons?
Yes. In consideration of its being granted a “License to Do Business in the Philippines”, the foreign corporation shall execute and file with the SEC an agreement or stipulation agreeing that if at any time said corporation shall cease to transact business in the Philippines or shall be without any resident agent in the Philippines on whom any summons or other legal processes may be served, then in any action or proceeding arising out of any transaction or business which occurred in the Philippines, service of any summons or other legal processes may be made upon the SEC and that such service shall have the same force and effect as if its is made upon the duly authorized officers of the foreign corporation at its home office.
12. What is the effect of failure to appoint or maintain a local agent? The failure to appoint or maintain a resident agent in the Philippines, or after change of its resident agent or his address, failure to submit to the SEC a statement of such change, are grounds for revocation of a license granted to a foreign corporation to do business in the Philippines.
13. Is there any Reciprocity Compliance?
Yes. Attached to the application shall also be a duly executed certificate under oath by the authorized official or officials of the jurisdiction of incorporation of the foreign corporation, attesting to the fact that the laws of the country or state of the applicant allow Filipino citizens and corporation to do business therein.
14. Is there a need to deposit Securities?
Yes. Within sixty (60) days from issuance of the license to do business, such foreign corporation shall deposit with the SEC, for the benefit of its present and future creditors, Philippine securities in the actual market value of at least Php100,000.00, subject to further deposit of additional securities every six months after each fiscal year equivalent in actual market value to two percent (2%) of the amount by which the foreign corporation’s gross income for that fiscal year exceeds Php5,000,000.00.
15. What is the effect of being issued a “License to Do Business in the Philippines”?
When a foreign corporation is issued the license to do business in the Philippines, it may commence to transact its business in the Philippines and continue to do so for as long as it retain its authority to act as a corporation under the laws of the country or state of its incorporation, unless such license is sooner surrendered, revoked, suspended, or annulled.
16. What are the consequences of not obtaining a license to do business?
A foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without first obtaining the license to do business
(a) shall not be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative agency of the Philippines;
(b) but such foreign corporation may be sued or proceeded against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws.
17. Are there any tax incentives for foreign corporations investing in the Philippines? Yes. There are several tax incentives available to foreign corporations depending on the government office or export zone under which such foreign corporation intends to undertake or register its investment. Please refer to “The Investor’s Guide to Doing Business in the Philippines” for a more comprehensive list of the investment options available to foreign corporations.
18. Can foreign corporations acquire or own land in the Philippines? Yes, provided the following requirements are met: (a) it must be a private land, which means any land of private ownership; and (b) the foreign equity in the corporation must not exceed forty percent (40%). Page | 7
19. What will happen if foreign ownership exceeds forty percent (40%)? The effect would be that the foreign corporation would lose its capacity to hold the private land. They may, however, be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not prohibited by the Constitution.
20. What are the other exceptions to the ownership of land by foreign investors and corporations?
a. Acquisition through hereditary succession; b. Purchase by a former natural-born Filipino citizen pursuant to the Dual Citizenship Law which states that a former Filipino re-acquiring his Filipino Citizenship shall be deemed not to have lost his Philippine citizenship, thus enabling them to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Filipino; c. If a former natural-born Filipino who has become a naturalized citizen of another state opts not to re-acquire Filipino citizenship according to the Dual Citizenship Act, he may nonetheless own land but limited to the following according to BP 185 and RA 8179):
i. For residential use: 1. Up to 1,000 square meters of residential land 2. Up to 1 hectare of agricultural land ii.
For business or commercial use 1. Up to 5,000 square meters of urban land 2. Up to 3 hectares of rural land
d. Purchase of not more than 40% interest in a condominium project; and
e. Ownership through Filipinos who are married to aliens who retain their Filipino citizenship
21. Can foreign corporations own real properties in the Philippines other than land? Yes. Foreign corporations can acquire other immovable or real properties such as buildings and other improvements on the land, including condominium units. Page | 8
22. Are foreigners and foreign corporations allowed to lease lands in the Philippines?
Yes. Foreign investors investing in the Philippines can now lease private lands up to 75 years. Based on R.A. No. 7652, entitled “Investor’s Lease Act”, lease agreements may be entered into with Filipino landowners. Lease period is 50 years, renewable once for another 25 years. For tourism projects, the lease shall be limited to projects with an investment of not less than US$5M, 70% of which shall be infused in said project within 3 years from signing of the lease contract.
23. Are arbitration clauses accepted in the Philippines? Yes. Consistent with UNCITRAL Model Law, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act of 2004 was recently enacted. The Law promotes the use of different modes of ADR for the speedy and impartial dispensation of justice. The ADR Act expressly adopted under Section 19 thereof the UNCITRAL Model Law as the law governing international commercial arbitration in the Philippines. /in short, the ADR Act has now opened the window for the Philippines to be a venue for international commercial arbitration and mediation.
24. Can foreign corporations participate in bidding for projects by the Philippine Government? Yes. Under the “Government Procurement Reform Act of 2003”, all procurement shall be done through competitive bidding, a method of procurement which is open to participation by any interested party.
x x x."
See - Implementing Rules and Regulations
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7916,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
“THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE ACT OF 1995”
f.1. “Industrial Estate (IE)” refers to a tract of land subdivided and developed according to a comprehensive plan under a unified continuous management and with provisions for basic infrastructure and utilities, with or without pre-built standard factory buildings and community facilities for the use of a community of industries.