1 EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF )

2 THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

3 First Regular Session )
4
5
6 SENATE
7
8 S.B. No. 1111
9
10
11 INTRODUCED BY: SENATOR ATTICUS FINCH
12
13
14 AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9285, OTHERWISE KNOWN
15 AS THE “ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 2004” AND OTHER PURPOSES
16
17 EXPLANATORY NOTE
18
19 In 2004, the Congress of the Philippines enacted the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act declaring
20 the policy of the State to encourage and actively promote the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
21 as an important means of achieving speedy and impartial justice, and declogging of court dockets. The
22 Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 serves as the law adopting the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on
23 International Commercial Arbitration as well as the 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition
24 and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention). The Congress is not alone in the
25 promotion of arbitration interests in the Philippines. Consistent with the law, the Department of Justice
26 formulated the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. No
27 less than the the Supreme Court promulgated the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
28 Resolution to fulfill its supportive role in arbitration. It has recognized arbitration as undeniably one of the
29 viable solutions to the longstanding problem of clogged court dockets and a medium for attracting foreign
30 investors to do business in the country that would ultimately boost our economy.
31
32 Since then, the arbitration field has evolved. Amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law had been
33 made, and developments continue to emerge. One such developing trend is the mechanism for
34 emergency relief. When disputes surface and arbitration clauses are sought to be given effect,
35 commencement of arbitration is the next step. This may be done depending on whether the parties opted
36 for an institutional or ad hoc arbitration. Institutional arbitrations are usually commenced through a notice
37 of arbitration submitted to the arbitral institution, copy furnished the other party. Ad hoc arbitrations are
38 commenced by informing the other party of the referral of the dispute to arbitration via letter. Constitution
39 of the arbitral tribunal then follows. Appointments are made, and challenges to these appointments may
40 further be lodged. Within this period, the needs of the parties for relief are not suspended. With the fast-
41 paced nature of commercial dealings, indeed, these needs are heightened. Demands for the preservation
42 of assets of the other party, injunctions, and maintenance of status quo, among others, are called for.
43 However, precisely because the arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted, parties are forced either to
44 seek relief from courts, rendering nugatory the very purpose of arbitration, or to sit in wait in prejudice to
45 their own interests. Hence, particularly in the field of institutional arbitration, parties are afforded sufficient
46 remedies in the form of emergency relief even before an arbitral tribunal is constituted.
47
 1 Undoubtedly, emergency relief mechanisms expand the benefits of arbitration. Acknowledging its
2 benefits, notable arbitral institutions have made provisions for emergency arbitrator procedures. These
3 include the the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution
4 (ICDR)/American Arbitration Association (AAA), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC)
5 and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Other neighboring jurisdictions like Hongkong
6 and Singapore have made amendments to their respective arbitration laws to accommodate and keep
7 abreast of this development. It is time for the Philippines to follow suit.
8
9 This bill seeks to address a seeming lacuna in the laws of the Philippines, where parties who
10 were able to secure an emergency relief from arbitral institutions are unable to enforce the same in our
11 country simply because there is no law providing the basis therefor. Judges are paralyzed and parties are
12 rendered helpless in this jurisdiction. Conflicts of law problems thus abound in this particular issue,
13 contrary to the evident intention of uniformity in the previous adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Such
14 lacuna further defeats a fundamental principle in arbitration, the principle of party autonomy, specifically in
15 cases where the parties expressly stipulate on emergency reliefs yet they cannot expect appropriate
16 assistance in the Philippines even if the emergency award is fully enforceable in the seat of arbitration.
17 Consequently, instead of facilitating trade and serving its intended purpose, Philippine arbitration may
18 prove ineffective by falling behind this fundamental development in the field of arbitration.
19
20 Emergency relief mechanisms provide an alternative avenue for the immediate needs of parties
21 than seeking recourse solely in courts or merely waiting for the constitution of arbitral tribunals. Yet, its
22 progress is unduly restrained by inconsistent supports from various jurisdictions. The benefits of
23 arbitration are thus not maximized. Providing a mechanism for emergency relief and its enforcement
24 would thus be in faithful compliance to the avowed policy of the law of achieving a speedy and impartial
25 justice.
26
27 Hence, approval of this measure is earnestly sought.
28
29 SENATOR ATTICUS FINCH
30
 EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF )
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
First Regular Session )

SENATE

S.B. No. 1111

INTRODUCED BY: SENATOR ATTICUS FINCH

AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9285, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE “ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 2004” AND OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

1 Section 1. Section 19 of R.A. ___ is hereby amended to read as follows:

2
3 “SEC. 19-A. Section 14. Penalties for Gender-Based Online Sexual Harassment. -The penalty of
4 prision correccional in its medium period or a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos
5 (₱100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00), or both, at the
6 discretion of the court shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of any gender-based online
7 sexual harassment.
8
9 If the perpetrator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically deemed
10 revoked, and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof, including the editor or reporter in the
11 case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in the case of broadcast
12 media. An alien who commits gender-based online sexual harassment shall be subject to
13 deportation proceedings after serving sentence and payment of fines.
14
15 Exemption to acts constitutive and penalized as gender-based online sexual harassment are
16 authorized written orders of the court for any peace officer to use online records or any copy
17 thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime: Provided, That such
18 written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under
19 oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses may produce, and upon showing that there
20 are reasonable grounds to believe that gender-based online sexual harassment has been
21 committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the
22 conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such crime.
23
24 Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof of any person that is in violation of the preceding
25 sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
26 administrative hearing or investigation.
27
28
29
 1 SEC. 19-BLiability of Employers.— In addition to liabilities for committing acts of gender-based
2 sexual harassment, employers may also be held responsible for:
3
4 (a) Non-implementation of their duties under Section 17 of this Act, as provided in the penal
5 provisions; or
6
7 (b) Not taking action on reported acts of gender-based sexual harassment committed in the
8 workplace.
9
10 Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section, shall upon conviction, be penalized with a
11 fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (₱5,000.00) nor more than Ten thousand pesos
12 (₱10,000.00).
13
14 Any person who violates subsection (b) of this section, shall upon conviction, be penalized with a
15 fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (₱10,000.00) nor more than Fifteen thousand pesos
16 (₱15,000.00).”
17
18 The paragraphs of this Section are renumbered accordingly.
19
20 Section 2. A new chapter is hereby inserted as Chapter 5 to read as follows:
21
22 Chapter 5 – EMERGENCY RELIEF
23
24 “SEC. 32. The parties are free to provide or stipulate for emergency relief mechanisms that will
25 govern the procedure for the application, award, and effects of emergency reliefs, or adopt
26 emergency mechanisms provided for by agreed arbitral institutions. In default thereof, the
27 provisions of this Act on the procedure for emergency mechanisms and its Implementing Rules
28 and Regulations shall apply.
29
30 SEC. 32. These Emergency Relief provisions are not intended to prevent any party from seeking
31 urgent interim or conservatory measures from a competent judicial authority at any time prior to
32 making an application for such measures, and in appropriate circumstances even thereafter,
33 pursuant to these Rules. Any application for such measures from a competent judicial authority
34 shall not be deemed to be an infringement or a waiver of the arbitration agreement. Moreover, it
35 is not necessary for the parties to have complied with any requirement to engage in mandatory
36 mediation to seek Emergency Relief.
37
38 SEC. 33. Emergency Relief Procedure.
39 a. A party in need of emergency relief prior to the appointment of a Tribunal may seek such relief
40 after notifying the agreed arbitral institution, if any, and all other parties in writing of the relief
41 sought and the basis for an Award of such relief;
42
43 b. Within 36 hours after its appointment, the Emergency Arbitrator shall disclose any
44 circumstance likely, on the basis disclosed in the application, to affect the Arbitrator’s ability to be
45 impartial or independent. Any challenge to the appointment of the Emergency Arbitrator shall be
46 made within 24 hours of the disclosures by the Emergency Arbitrator.
47
48 c. Within two business days after appointment, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the
49 Emergency Arbitrator shall establish a schedule for the consideration of the request for
 1 emergency relief. The Emergency Arbitrator will have the authority to rule on their own jurisdiction
2 and shall resolve any disputes with respect to the request for emergency relief. The Emergency
3 Arbitrator may conduct the emergency proceedings in any manner determined by the Emergency
4 Arbitrator to be appropriate in the circumstances, taking account of the nature of such emergency
5 proceedings, the need to afford to each party, if possible, an opportunity to be consulted on the
6 claim for emergency relief (whether or not it avails itself of such opportunity), the claim and
7 reasons for emergency relief and the parties’ further submissions (if any). The Emergency
8 Arbitrator is not required to hold any hearing with the parties (whether in person, by telephone or
9 otherwise) and may decide the claim for emergency relief on available documentation.
10
11 d. The Emergency Arbitrator shall determine whether the party seeking emergency relief has
12 shown that immediate and irreparable loss or damage will result in the absence of emergency
13 relief and whether the requesting party is entitled to such relief under applicable law. The
14 Emergency Arbitrator shall enter an order or award granting or denying relief, as the case may
15 be, and stating the reasons therefor.
16
17 e. Any request to modify the Emergency Arbitrator’s order or award must be based on changed
18 circumstances and may be made to the Emergency Arbitrator until such time as the Tribunal is
19 appointed in accordance with the parties’ Agreement. Thereafter, any request related to the relief
20 granted or denied by the Emergency Arbitrator shall be determined by the Tribunal appointed/
21
22 f. The Emergency Arbitrator may grant whatever interim measures are deemed necessary,
23 including injunctive relief and measures for the protection or conservation of property and
24 disposition of disposable goods. At the Emergency Arbitrator’s discretion, any interim award or
25 order for emergency relief may be conditioned on the provision of adequate security by the party
26 seeking such relief.
27
28 g. The Emergency Arbitrator may modify or vacate the interim award or order. Any interim award
29 or order shall be binding on the parties when rendered. The parties shall undertake to comply
30 with such an interim award or order without delay.
31
32 h. The emergency arbitrator shall have no further power to act after the arbitral Tribunal is
33 constituted. Once the Tribunal has been constituted it may modify or vacate the interim award or
34 order of emergency relief issued by the Emergency Arbitrator. The Emergency Arbitrator may not
35 serve as a member of the Tribunal unless all the parties agree otherwise.”
36
37 Section 2. A new chapter is hereby inserted as Chapter 6 to read as follows:
38
39 Chapter 6 – ENFORCEMENT OF EMERGENCY RELIEF
40
41 “SEC. 34. Any emergency relief granted, whether in or outside the Philippines, by an emergency
42 arbitrator under the relevant arbitration rules is enforceable in the same manner as if they were
43 orders made by a court and, where leave is so given, judgment may be entered in terms of the
44 order or direction.”
45
46 “SEC. 35. The courts may not grant leave to enforce any emergency relief granted outside the
47 Philippines unless the party seeking to enforce it can demonstrate that it consists only of one or
48 more temporary measures (including an injunction) by which the emergency arbitrator orders a
49 party to do one or more of the following:
 1 (a) Maintain or restore the status quo pending the determination of the dispute concerned;
2 (b) Take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, current
3 or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself;
4 (c) Provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award made by an
5 arbitral tribunal may be satisfied;
6 (d) Preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to resolving the dispute;
7 (e) Give security in connection with anything to be done under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);
8 (f) Give security for the costs of the arbitration.
9
10 If leave is granted, the competent court may enter judgment in terms of the emergency relief.”
11
12 The old Chapter 5 on Domestic Arbitration is hereby renumbered as Chapter 7, and its provisions
13 and the succeeding chapters are likewise renumbered to accommodate the inserted chapter.
14
15 Section 3. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). - Within one (1) month after the approval of
16 this Act, the secretary of justice shall convene a committee that shall formulate the appropriate
17 amendment to the current rules and regulations of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004
18 necessary for the implementation of this Act. The committee, composed of representatives from:
19
20 (a) the Department of Justice;
21 (b) the Department of Trade and Industry;
22 (c) the Department of the Interior and Local Government;
23 (d) the president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;
24 (e) A representative from the arbitration profession; and
25 (f) A representative from the mediation profession; and
26 (g) A representative from the ADR organizations
27
28 shall within three (3) months after convening, submit an amended IRR to the Joint Congressional
29 Oversight Committee for review and approval. The Oversight Committee shall be composed of the
30 chairman of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, chairman of the House Committee on
31 Justice, and one (1) member each from the majority and minority of both Houses.
32
33 The Joint Oversight Committee shall become functus officio upon approval of the IRR.
34
35 Section 4. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations which are
36 inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
37
38 Section 5. Separability Clause. - If for any reason or reasons, any portion or provision of this Act shall
39 be held unconstitutional or invalid, all other parts or provisions not affected shall thereby continue to
40 remain in full force and effect.
41
42 Section 6. Effectivity. - This act shall take effect fifteen days (15) after its publication in at least two (2)
43 national newspapers of general circulation.
 1 2. In no more than 1000 words, critically analyze and discuss the quote: "Philippine courts would
2 do well to adopt the first and most basic rule in most legal systems, namely, to allow the parties to
3 select the law applicable to their contract, subject to the limitation that it is not against the law,
4 morals, or public policy of the forum and that the chosen law must bear a substantive relationship
5 to the transaction."
6
7 With the continued rise of globalization, the various stages of a contract may take place in
8 different places and may be entered into by different nationals. Otherwise put, a contract may be imbued
9 with foreign elements necessitating the application of different laws. A conflicts of laws situation thus
10 arises through the variance in the municipal laws of the countries involved. 1 With respect to the validity of
11 contracts, there are two primary aspects that must be looked into: extrinsic validity and intrinsic validity.
12 Extrinsic validity pertains to the forms and solemnities of contracts, while intrinsic validity pertains to
13 stipulations, provisions, and covenants written in the contract.
14
15 In the Philippines, extrinsic validity is governed by the principle of lex loci celebrationis, or the law
16 of the country in which the contract was executed. 2 However, this rule is not uniformly followed, and the
17 governing rule varies in different countries.
18
19 On the other hand, the intrinsic validity of contracts in the Philippines is governed by the principle
20 of lex contractus, as provided in the case of Phil. Export v. V.P. Eusebio Construction Inc, 3 where the
21 cited doctrine can be found. Lex contractus pertains to the proper law of the contract. It may either be the
22 law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, in which case it is the lex loci voluntatis, or the law intended by
23 the parties, expressly or implicitly, in which case it is the lex loci intentionis.4 This is in harmony with the
24 principle of freedom of contracts followed by the Philippines, expressed in Article 1305 of its Civil Code.
25 Thus, in determining the intrinsic validity of a contract, reference must be made as to the contract itself to
26 see if the parties stipulated as to their choice of law. This does not mean, however, that the parties can
27 stipulate on just about any law they would like to govern. While the cited doctrine follows the principle of
28 autonomy of contracts, note must be taken of its added qualification: the chosen law must bear a
29 substantive relationship to the transaction. This “substantive relationship” may be shown by various
30 connecting factors or points of contact, an essential element of conflict rules. 5 This may either be the
31 situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. 6
32
33 In the absence of such express agreement, the implied intention of the parties may be
34 ascertained. As the Eusebio case discussed, this is where the rule on the laws of the State which has “the
35 most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties” comes in. 7 In the same manner,
36 connecting factors or points of contact are likewise determinative. As held in Saudi Arabian Airlines vs.
37 Court of Appeals,8 these connecting factors may be any of the following:
38 1. The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;
39 2. the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;

1
1 EDGARDO L. PARAS, PHILIPPINE CONFLICT OF LAWS 6 (8th ed. 1996).
2 2
ELMER T. RABUYA, THE LAW ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS 46 (2006).
3
3 434 SCRA 202, 215. (13 July 2004).
4
4 Supra note 3, at 380.
5
5 Continental Micronesia, Inc v. Basso, 771 SCRA 329, 346.
6
6 Id.
7
7 Id note 3.
8
8 297 SCRA 469, 491.
 1 3. the situs of a thing;
2 4. the place where an act has been done or the locus actus;
3 5. the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of
4 contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised;
5 6. the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex
6 loci intentionis;
7 7. the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done, or the lex fori; and
8 8. the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship
9 and of its master or owner as such.
10
11 While followed by most legal systems, there are other theories on what should govern the intrinsic
12 validity of contracts.9 First, there is the lex loci celebrationis where the place of execution governs. While
13 advantageous since the place of execution may readily be ascertained, this theory makes possible the
14 evasion of the national law and the place of execution may have very little substantial connection with the
15 transaction.10 Second, the theory of lex nationalii where the nationality of the parties governs. However,
16 since as discussed above, the nationality of the parties may be different, and thus, its application to
17 conflicts problems may be limited. Third, the theory of lex loci solutionis, where place of performance
18 governs. According to Prof. Minor, different laws may govern the various elements of a contract: lex loci
19 celebrationis as to perfection; lex loci considerationis as to sufficiency and validity of the consideration;
20 and lex loci solutionis as to questions of performance. 11
21
22 However, a piecemeal application of different laws may appear too burdensome and may unduly
23 hamper, instead of facilitate, commercial relations between the parties. It may even effectively hinder
24 parties from seeking judicial relief as it would necessitate hiring counsels of various nationalities or
25 expertise, depending on the particular aspect of the contract involved. Otherwise, if the particular
26 governing law is not properly pleaded or proven, the doctrine of processual presumption may then
27 apply,12 thereby defeating the parties’ intentions and freedom of contracts. Thus, it is submitted that the
28 rule followed by the Philippines and by most jurisdictions, lex contractus, should be universally applied.
29 This finds support albeit with exceptions in the thesis of Lim Yew Nghee on the Proposed ASEAN Choice
30 of Law Regime.13 It makes for easier validation of contracts as it aids uniformity of applicable laws as to
31 the various elements of a contract.
32
33

9
1 Supra, note 1.
10
2 Supra note 1, at 384.
11
3 Supra.
12
4 Id note 3.
13
5 Lim Yew Nghee, TOWARDS A UNIFORM CONFLICT OF LAWS REGIME IN ASEAN GOVERNING
6 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS uniformization of choice of law rules in contract and
7 tort (2000) (retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304661344?accountid=9630).
 1 4. In no more than 1000 words, critically analyze and discuss the definition of public policy in the
2 enforcement of a foreign judgment and the definition of public policy in the enforcement of a
3 foreign arbitral award.
4
5 Generally, foreign judgments include not only judgments rendered by foreign courts but also
6 awards, interim measures, and other protections rendered by foreign tribunals and institutions. However,
7 a distinction must be made as to the recognition of foreign judgments rendered by foreign courts, and
8 foreign arbitral awards rendered through arbitration. In the Philippines, recognition and enforcement of
9 foreign judgments are generally governed by the Rules of Court, whereas recognition and enforcement of
10 arbitral awards are governed by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, 14 as well as the 1958
11 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention),
12 among others.
13
14 Under both systems of laws and rules, public policy is a ground to refuse recognition. As held in
15 the case of Republic v. Gingoyon, 15 a foreign judgment on the mere strength of its promulgation is not yet
16 conclusive, as it can be annulled on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
17 collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact, and it is likewise recognized in Philippine jurisprudence
18 and international law that a foreign judgment may be barred from recognition if it runs counter to public
19 policy. For arbitral awards, Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention provides that a court may refuse to
20 enforce an award if doing so would be contrary to the public policy of the State in which enforcement is
21 sought.16
22
23 The distinction between the two is important because while public policy may be a ground for
24 refusal of recognition and enforcement under both, the exact definition of public policy differs as to foreign
25 judgments on one hand, and foreign arbitral awards on the other. Public policy within the context of
26 foreign judgments and laws is generally defined as “the manifest will of a state, that which it desires on
27 account of its own fundamental principles of justice, its own conception of morals, and its deep-rooted
28 traditions for the common-weal.”17 As can be gleaned, the public policy definition in this context is very
29 broad, so much so that if applied to foreign arbitral awards, any violations of law may be considered as
30 against public policy and may constitute as ground to refuse enforcement. In fact, the Court of Appeals
31 previously interpreted the same to mean any “disregard of Philippine law.” This was in the 2006 case of
32 Luzon Hydro Corporation v. Hon. Baybay and Transfield Philippines,18 where the Court of Appeals
33 refused to enforce an award which applied the principle of “costs follow the event” simply because the
34 principle cannot be found in Philippine law and is not among the grounds for which costs of litigation are
35 awarded.
36
37 Public policy within the context of foreign arbitral awards was first defined by the Supreme Court
38 of the Philippines in the 2018 case of Mabuhay Holdings Corporation v Sembcorp Logistics Limited. 19 In
39 that case, the Court held, citing Justice Laurel, that “[t]he term "public policy" is vague and uncertain in

14
1 AN ACT TO INSTITUTIONALIZE THE USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM
2 IN THE PHILIPPINES AND TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
3 RESOLUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES [Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004], Republic
4 Act No. 9285 (2004).
15
5 Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 166429, February 1, 2006, 517 PHIL 1-22.
16
6 Mabuhay Holdings Corporation v Sembcorp Logistics Limited, G.R. No. 212734, 5 December 2018
17
7 Supra, note 1 at 46.
18
8 CA-G.R. SP No. 94318, 26 November 2006
19
9 Id at 17.
 1 meaning, floating and changeable in connotation.” Thus, it clarified what is deemed contrary to public
2 policy in an arbitration case, ruling:
3
4 “Mere errors in the interpretation of the law or factual findings would not suffice to warrant refusal
5 of enforcement under the public policy ground. The illegality or immorality of the award must
6 reach a certain threshold such that, enforcement of the same would be against Our State's
7 fundamental tenets of justice and morality, or would blatantly be injurious to the public, or the
8 interests of the society.”
9
10 The Court thus adopted the narrow and restrictive approach to public policy followed by most
11 arbitral jurisdictions. While violations of public policy entail violations of law, not all violations of law
12 entail violations of public policy. Essentially, public policy thus requires a grave, if not the gravest,
13 injustice in order to constitute a ground for refusal of arbitral awards in the Philippines. It was in
14 consonance with the pro-enforcement policy of the New York Convention, though reservations must
15 be made as to the other pronouncements in that case as the Court may have “gone too far in its pro-
16 arbitration policy.”20
17
18 Hence, in the Philippines, public policy for purposes of enforcement of arbitral awards is different
19 from public policy for purposes of recognition of foreign judgments and even voiding a contract.
20 However, it is submitted that the same high threshold of public policy definition be made to apply to
21 foreign judgments as well. While its application in foreign arbitral awards finds support in the pro-
22 enforcement policy, there appears no rhyme or reason not to extend its application to foreign
23 judgments, considering that there is a presumption of validity accorded to foreign judgments.
24 Asiavest Merchant Bankers v. Court of Appeals21 thus instructs that a court, whether in the
25 Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of its
26 jurisdiction. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself acknowledges that the rules of comity, utility and
27 convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of
28 foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious. 22 Thus, it
29 may be better to apply the same public policy definition in refusing recognition of foreign judgments.

20
1 Jay Patrick Santiago and Nusaybah Muti, ‘The Philippines’ Pro-Arbitration Policy: A Step Forward Gone
2 Too Far?’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, April 9 2019,
3 http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/04/09/the-philippines-pro-arbitration-policy-a-step-
4 forward-gone-too-far/
21
5 G.R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001.
22
6 Mijares v. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, [April 12, 2005], 495 PHIL 372-399.