• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.197-227
• /
• 2009

This study describe the brief history and current statutes of Philippine arbitration. The practice of arbitration in the Philippines can be traced as far back as the barangay. From 1521, Spanish Civil Code became effective in the Philippines. During this period, the Supreme court was discouraged by the tendency of some courts to nullify arbitration clauses on the ground that the clauses ousted the judiciary of its jurisdiction. According to the growing need for a law regulating arbitration in general was acknowledged when Republic Act No.876(1953), otherwise known as the Arbitration Law, was passed. In 1958, the Philippines became a signatory to the New York Convention and in 1967 the said Convention was ratified. But no legislation has been passed. As a consequence, foreign arbitral awards have sometimes been deemed only presumptively valid, rather than conclusively valid. Fifty years after, the Philippine Congress enacted, Republic Act No. 9285, otherwise know as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. The enactment was the Philippines solution to making arbitration an efficient and effective method specially for international arbitration. To keep pace with the developments in international trade, ADR Act of 2004 also ensured that international commercial arbitration would be governed by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration and also fortified the use and purpose of the New York Convention by specifically mandating. If the international commercial arbitration will be revitalization in the near future in the Philippine, it will be shown that the model law's comprehensive provisions will give the beat framework for arbitration.. The writer expect that Philippines continues in its effort to be the premier site for international arbitration in Southeast Asia.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.179-195
• /
• 2009

필리핀의 중재제도를 규정하고 있는 법령은 다음과 같다. 즉 필리핀 민법(법률 제386호), 중재법(법률 제876호), 대체분쟁해결법(법률 제9285호), 국제상거래중재에 관한 국제 연합 국제상거래법위원회(UNCITRAL) 표준법 및 건설산업중재에 관한 대통령령(제1008호)이다. 2004년의 대체적 분쟁해결 제도(ADR) 에 관련된 필리핀 의회의 입법은 필리핀의 중재 실무와 절차에 광범위한 변화를 가져 왔다. 또한 국제중재실무에서 필리핀에 많은 도움을 주었다. 다른 한편으로는 상당한 변화를 가진 UNCITRAL 표준법의 채택과 국내 중재를 관장하는 법률속에 표준법 조항을 편입함으로써 필리핀은 분쟁해결의 대체안으로써 정책 결정의 실행에 대한 중재법의 인식과 ADR법에 있어서의 정책조문의 검토로 보다 실질적인 중재제도가 정착되는 기반을 조성하게 되었다. 국내에서 수행하고 있는 국제적인 중재는 아직까지는 비교적 적다고 생각된다. 그러나 ADR법 내에 규정된 강력한 ADR찬성정책과 ADR에 관대하고 특히 중재에 호의적인 대법원의 친중재적 판결로 인해 향후 수년내에 필리핀과 주변국과의 무역이 크게 증대될 것으로 전망된다.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.