Philippine Accounting Standards

Effective
PAS Title
Date
Presentation of Financial Statements [superseded by PAS 1
PAS 1 01/01/05
(Revised)]
Amendment to PAS 1: Capital Disclosures 01/01/07
PAS 1 (Revised) Presentation of Financial Statements 01/01/09
Amendments to PAS 32 and PAS 1: Puttable Financial
01/01/09
Instruments and Obligations Arising on Liquidation
Amendments to PAS 1: Presentation of Items of Other
07/01/12*
Comprehensive Income
PAS 2 Inventories 01/01/05
PAS 7 Cash Flow Statements 01/01/05
Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and
PAS 8 01/01/05
Errors
PAS 10 Events after the Balance Sheet Date 01/01/05
PAS 11 Construction Contracts 01/01/05
PAS 12 Income Taxes 01/01/05
Amendments to PAS 12 – Deferred Tax: Recovery of
01/01/12
Underlying Assets
PAS 14 Segment Reporting [superseded by PFRS 8] 01/01/05
PAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment 01/01/05
PAS 17 Leases 01/01/05
PAS 18 Revenue 01/01/05
PAS 19 Employee Benefits 01/01/05
Amendments to PAS 19: Actuarial Gains and Losses, Group
01/01/06
Plans and Disclosures
PAS 19 (Amended) Employee Benefits 01/01/13*
Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of
PAS 20 01/01/05
Government Assistance
PAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates 01/01/05
Amendment: Net Investment in a Foreign Operation 01/01/06
PAS 23 Borrowing Costs [superseded by PAS 23 (Revised)] 01/01/05
PAS 23 (Revised) Borrowing Costs 01/01/09
PAS 24 Related Party Disclosures [superseded by PAS 24 (Revised)] 01/01/05
PAS 24 (Revised) Related Party Disclosures 01/01/11
PAS 26 Accounting and Reporting by Retirement Benefit Plans 01/01/05
Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements [superseded
PAS 27 01/01/05
by PAS 27 (revised)]
PAS 27 (Revised) Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements 07/01/09
Amendments to PFRS 1 and PAS 27: Cost of an Investment
01/01/09
in a Subsidiary, Jointly Controlled Entity or Associate
PAS 27 (Amended) Separate Financial Statements 01/01/13*
PAS 28 Investments in Associates 01/01/05
PAS 28 (Amended) Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures 01/01/13*
PAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies 01/01/05
Disclosures in the Financial Statements of Banks and Similar
PAS 30 01/01/05
Financial Institutions [superseded by PFRS 7]
PAS 31 Interests in Joint Ventures 01/01/05
PAS 32 Financial Instruments: Disclosure and Presentation 01/01/05
Financial Instruments: Presentation 01/01/07
Amendments to PAS 32 and PAS 1: Puttable Financial
01/01/09
Instruments and Obligations Arising on Liquidation
Amendment to PAS 32: Classification of Rights Issues 02/01/10
Amendments to PAS 32: Offsetting Financial Assets and
01/01/14*
Financial Liabilities
PAS 33 Earnings per Share 01/01/05
PAS 34 Interim Financial Reporting 01/01/05
PAS 36 Impairment of Assets 01/01/05
PAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets 01/01/05
PAS 38 Intangible Assets 01/01/05
PAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement 01/01/05
Amendments to PAS 39: Transition and Initial Recognition of
01/01/05
Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities
 Amendments to PAS 39: Cash Flow Hedge Accounting of
01/01/06
Forecast Intragroup Transactions
Amendments to PAS 39: The Fair Value Option 01/01/06
Amendments to PAS 39 and PFRS 4: Financial Guarantee
01/01/06
Contracts
Amendments to PAS 39 and PFRS 7: Reclassification of
07/01/08
Financial Assets
Amendments to PAS 39 and PFRS 7: Reclassification of
07/01/08
Financial Assets – Effective Date and Transition
Amendments to Philippine Interpretation IFRIC–9 and PAS
06/30/09
39: Embedded Derivatives
Amendment to PAS 39: Eligible Hedged Items 07/01/09
PAS 40 Investment Property 01/01/05
PAS 41 Agriculture 01/01/05
Financial Reporting Standards for Non-publicly Accountable
PAS 101 01/01/05
Entities [superseded by PFRS for SMEs]
Amendment to PAS 101: Change in Effective Date 01/01/05

 PFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards

 PFRS 2 Share-based Payment
 PFRS 3 Business Combinations
 PFRS 4 Insurance Contracts
 PFRS 5 Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations
 PFRS 6 Exploration for and evaluation of Mineral Resource
 PFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures
 PFRS 8 Operating Segments
 PFRS 9 Financial Instruments
 PFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements
 PFRS 11 Joint Arrangements
 PFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities
 PFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement
 PFRS 14 Regulatory Deferral Accounts
 PFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers
In the week since it was signed, North Carolina’s controversial new law restricting transgender
rights has drawn fierce criticism from across the country. Elected officials from Seattle to San
Francisco to New York have ordered their employees to steer clear of the state. Big businesses
like American Airlines and Wells Fargo have said they are worried about the law. Small
businesses have said they will skip conventions in North Carolina.

The NBA even hinted it might move its 2017 All-Star Game, scheduled to take place in
Charlotte.

And then there’s the federal lawsuit filed against North Carolina by two transgender individuals
and an array of civil liberties groups.

But the issue only reached full fiasco level on Tuesday, when, in equally fiery statements, the
state’s Republican governor and its Democratic Attorney General lambasted one another.

“Not only is this new law a national embarrassment, it will set North Carolina’s economy back,”
said Roy Cooper, the AG, who also refused to defend the state against the lawsuit.

“We’re talking about discrimination here,” he said.

[Transgender students’ access to bathrooms is at front of LGBT rights battle]

Shortly after Cooper’s dramatic press conference, Gov. Pat McCrory — who signed the law
March 23 and has staunchly defended it — accused Cooper of breaking his oath of office.

“As the state’s attorney, he can’t select which laws he will defend and which laws are politically
expedient to refuse to defend,” McCrory said in a video statement. One GOP state senator called
on Cooper to resign.

Underlying the spat is the fact that Cooper and McCrory will face off in the November election,
considered one of the most competitive and crucial gubernatorial races in the country.

As criticism of the law intensifies inside and outside North Carolina, it increasingly appears as if
the state will have to wait until Election Day to resolve its expanding rift over the issue.

People protest outside the North Carolina Executive Mansion in Raleigh, N.C., Thursday, March 24, 2016.
(AP/Emery P. Dalesio)

The saga began last month when Charlotte, North Carolina’s largest city, passed a sweeping civil
rights ordinance.

The left-leaning city’s ordinance expanded protections for individuals on the basis of marital
status, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Among those protections: a
guarantee that transgender people would be allowed to use their preferred restroom.
Even before Charlotte’s city council had voted 7-4 to pass the ordinance, however, McCrory — a
former mayor of Charlotte — was promising to override it.

“The only issue I think the state needs to be involved in is the issue regarding locker rooms and
restrooms, that’s the one that draws concern that has ramifications beyond city limits,” McCrory
said in an email to council members, according to ABC11.

He wasn’t alone in his opposition.

At the time of the vote, more than 12,000 people had signed an online petition concerned the
ordinance would encumber small business owners and put women and children at risk in
Charlotte bathrooms.

But supporters called that argument absurd.

[As a transgender high school student, going to the bathroom is scary]

“It’s very unfortunate because it’s a myth,” Devin Lentz, a Raleigh resident and transgender
woman, told ABC11. “The idea that it’s a danger or that it’s something people need to worry
about because it poses a threat is, it’s just not true.”

Lentz said that the bathroom issue was real, but that the danger was the other way around.

“If you take a transgender woman and force her to go into the men’s room, which appears to be
what the governor wants to do, what you’re going to do is put her in danger, she’s much more
likely to be assaulted and harassed,” she said. “Transgender people, especially transgender
women are assaulted, harassed, raped, murdered at really heartbreaking levels.”

(Reuters)

McCrory’s call for a state law overriding the Charlotte ordinance had the overwhelming support
from his party.

The only problem: the legislature wasn’t in session. Moreover, it wasn’t scheduled to reconvene
until after the Charlotte ordinance went into effect.
So, on March 21, leaders of the Republican-controlled legislature invoked a seldom-used
constitutional provision to call themselves into session just two days later.

“We aim to repeal this ordinance before it goes into effect to provide for the privacy and
protection of the women and children of our state,” Lt. Gov. Dan Forest and House Speaker Tim
Moore said in a joint statement announcing the special one-day session, which cost the state cost
$42,000.

[Backlash builds against N.C. law on transgender bathroom use]

Comments on local news websites captured the deep divides in the state.

“We are lucky to have legislators willing to protect taxpayers who have to take a leak in
Charlotte,” wrote one man.

“But they aren’t. Transgender people need protection, and they are about to take it away,”
responded another person.

“Transgender people don’t need protection. They need help to stop pretending they are
something they are not and can never ever be no matter what has been added or removed,”
chimed in a third.

“I hate to break this to you but you are probably already using public restrooms with
transgendered people,” replied a fourth person. “Are you really that concerned if someone squats
when urinating?”

On March 23, a bizarre and frantic day at the Raleigh statehouse, the legislature passed the bill.
Although a handful of Democratic representatives voted in favor, Democratic state senators
walked out of the chamber in protest.

“We choose not to participate in this farce,” Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue said, according to
CBS.

That same night, McCrory signed the bill into law.

Inside the N.C. legislature's session that overturned LGBT protections

Play Video1:04

In doing so, McCrory set himself apart from a handful of Republican governors across the
country who have recently vetoed or promised to veto similar measures.

On March 1, South Dakota’s Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed a bill that would
have been the first in the nation to restrict transgender students’ access to school restrooms and
locker rooms.
Daugaard said the statewide mandate “does not address any pressing issue concerning the school
districts of South Dakota.”

“Instead of encouraging local solutions, this bill broadly regulates in a manner that invites
conflict and litigation, diverting energy and resources from the education of the children of this
state,” he continued.

On Monday, Georgia’s GOP governor came to a similar conclusion, promising to veto a similar
bill.

“I have examined the protections that this bill proposes to provide to the faith based community
and I can find no examples of any of those circumstances occurring in our state,”
announced Nathan Deal. “I do not think that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect
the faith-based community in Georgia.”

That leaves North Carolina as the first, and so far only, state to pass such a measure.

Local newspapers have rejected the title in disgust.

In an editorial ominously titled “McCrory joins a dark list of Southern governors,” the Charlotte
Observer shamed the governor.

[‘Wrong beyond repair.’ ‘The worst in us.’ N.C. papers blast transgender bathroom law.]

“This week, as then, North Carolina needed a leader who understood the damage this law might
do — most importantly to its vulnerable citizens, but also to the face we present to businesses
and workers considering our state,” the paper wrote. “Instead we got a late-night bill signing
Wednesday and some campaign tweets. We got a state newly stained, and a governor joining a
sorrowful list of those who decided not to lead us forward, but to bow to the worst in us.”

The Daily Tar Heel went further.

“This bill is wrong beyond repair,” wrote the University of North Carolina’s student paper. “This
law is a chapter in America’s horror story.”

Unsurprisingly, the Charlotte mayor who championed the anti-discrimination ordinance blasted
the law.

The General Assembly is on the wrong side of progress,” said Jennifer Roberts. “It is on the
wrong side of history.”

That argument was bolstered by a cascade of city and state officials from across the country, who
said they were ordering their employees to avoid nonessential publicly funded travel to North
Carolina.
“We are standing united as San Franciscans to condemn North Carolina’s new discriminatory
law that turns back the clock on protecting the rights of all Americans including lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender individuals,” said San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee in a statement
released last Friday. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo followed
suit on Monday.

“In New York, we believe that all people — regardless of their gender identity or sexual
orientation — deserve the same rights and protections under the law,” Cuomo said in a
statement. “From Stonewall to marriage equality, our state has been a beacon of hope and
equality for the LGBT community, and we will not stand idly by as misguided legislation
replicates the discrimination of the past.”

Even the White House weighed in, calling the N.C. law “mean-spirited.”

That same day, The American Civil Liberties Union, along with LGBT advocacy groups
Lambda Legal and Equality North Carolina, filed a federal lawsuit against North Carolina on
behalf of two transgender people and a lesbian law school professor.

[Liberal groups sue North Carolina over transgender bathroom law]

“Lawmakers made no attempt to cloak their actions in a veneer of neutrality, instead openly and
virulently attacking transgender people, who were falsely portrayed as predatory and dangerous
to others,” the lawsuit claims.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper speaks at a March 29, 2016, news conference announcing
his office won’t defend the state’s new law preventing local governments from prohibiting
discrimination. (Harry Lynch/The News & Observer via AP)

Cooper, who as AG is one of the defendants on the suit, announced on Tuesday that his office
would not defend the state in the suit.

He said that he had defended laws that he didn’t agree with in the past, but this time was
different.

“This is a unique and different situation, and as attorney general there are often times situations
where you have to make choices with different agencies that are conflicted,” he said in his press
conference. “Here, this is the right choice.”

Cooper said that the law conflicted with his own office’s non-discrimination policies, and that
the bathroom restrictions were already hurting the state’s economy.

“We know that businesses here and all over the country have taken a strong stance in opposition
to this law,” he said.

Republican State Sen. Phil Berger called on Cooper to quit.

“He is telling everybody that it’s more important to him to apply for and work towards the job he
wants than the job he has,” Berger said, according to ABC11. “If he wants to run for governor,
he’s perfectly free to do that. But he can’t do that and ignore the job he’s being paid for now.”

Gov. McCrory also accused Cooper of playing politics.

Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, speaks during an interview in the library at the executive
mansion in Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S., on Wednesday, March 23, 2016. (Jerry n/Bloomberg)

Morning Mix newsletter

Stories that will be the talk of the morning.

“Some have called our state an embarrassment. The real embarrassment is politicians not
publicly respecting each other’s positions on complex issues,” he said.

“North Carolina has been the target of a vicious, nation-wide smear campaign,” McCrory
continued. “Disregarding the facts, other politicians, from the White House to mayors and city
council members and yes our Attorney General, have initiated and promoted conflict to advance
their political agenda. Even if it means defying the constitution and their oath of office.”

Polls taken before the transgender law turmoil showed the gubernatorial race as neck-and-neck.

It’s unclear how the dueling politicians’ defiant positions have affected the outlook. Come
Election Day, however, people across the nation will be following North Carolina’s returns very
closely.