International LAws On ADR

Republic of the Philippines
TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

School of Law
G. Romulo Boulevard, Tarlac City 2300
In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Course
Alternative Dispute Resolution
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1008 …………………………………………………..1
II. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 523 …………………………………………………..15
III. CONVENTION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES

BETWEEN STATES AND NATIONALS OF OTHER STATES ……………24
IV. CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF

FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS ……………………………………………...31
V. UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL

ARBITRATION …………………………………………………………………..36
1
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1008 February 4, 1985

CREATING AN ARBITRATION MACHINERY IN THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES
WHEREAS, the construction industry provides employment to a large segment of the

national labor force and is a leading contributor to the gross national product;
WHEREAS, it is of vital necessity that continued growth towards national goals shall
not be hindered by problems arising from, or connected with, the construction industry;
WHEREAS, there is a need to establish an arbitral machinery to settle to such disputes
expeditiously in order to maintain and promote a healthy partnership between the
government and the private sector in the furtherance of national development goals;
WHEREAS, Presidential Decree No. 1746 created the Construction Industry Authority
of the Philippine (CIAP) to exercise centralized authority for the optimum development
of the construction industry and to enhance the growth of the local construction
industry;
WHEREAS, among the implementing agencies of the CIAP is the Philippine Domestic
Construction Board (PDCB) which is specifically authorized by Presidential Decree No.
1746 to "adjudicate and settle claims and disputes in the implementation of public and
private construction contracts and for this purpose, formulate and adopt the necessary
rules and regulations subject to the approval of the President";
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by
virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby authorize the creation of an
arbitration machinery in the construction industry of the Philippines, and do hereby
order and ordain:
Sec. 1. Title. This Executive Order shall be known as the "Construction Industry
Arbitration Law".
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to
encourage the early and expeditious settlement of disputes in the Philippine
construction industry.
Sec. 3. Creation. There is hereby established in the CIAP a body to be known as the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). The CIAC shall be under the
administrative supervision of the PDCB.
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. The CIAC shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered into by parties involved in
construction in the Philippines, whether the dispute arises before or after the
completion of the contract, or after the abandonment or breach thereof. These disputes
may involve government or private contracts. For the Board to acquire jurisdiction, the
parties to a dispute must agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.
The jurisdiction of the CIAC may include but is not limited to violation of specifications
for materials and workmanship; violation of the terms of agreement; interpretation
and/or application of contractual time and delays; maintenance and defects; payment,
default of employer or contractor and changes in contract cost.
2
Excluded from the coverage of this law are disputes arising from employer-employee
relationships which shall continue to be covered by the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Sec. 5. Composition of the Board. The Commission shall consist of a Chairman and two
(2) members, all to be appointed by the CIAP Board upon recommendation by the
members of the PDCB.
Sec. 6. Functions of the Commission. The Commission shall perform, among others that
may be conferred by law, the following functions:
1) To formulate and adopt an arbitration program for the construction industry;
2) To enunciate policies and prescribe rules and procedures for construction arbitration;
3) To supervise the arbitration program, and exercise such authority related thereto as
regards the appointment, replacement or challenging of arbitrators; and
4) To direct its officers and employees to perform such functions as may be assigned to
them from time to time.
Sec. 7. Compensation of the Commission. The members of the Commission shall receive
such per diems and allowances as may be fixed by the CIAP from time to time.
Sec. 8. Term. The term of office of the members of the Commission shall be six (6) years;
provided, however, that of the Commission members first appointed, the chairman
shall hold office for six years; the other member for four (4) years; and the third for two
(2) years. The appointment to any vacancy in the Commission shall only be for the
unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor.
Sec. 9. Quorum. The presence of a majority of the members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
Sec. 10. Deliberations. The decisions of the Commission shall be arrived at by majority
vote.
Sec. 11. Secretariat. The Commission shall have a Secretariat to be headed by an
Executive Director who shall be responsible for receiving requests for arbitration, and
other pleadings, for notifying the parties thereto; and, for fixing and receiving filing
fees, deposits, costs of arbitration, administrative charges, and fees. It shall be the duty
of the Executive Director to notify the parties of the awards made by the arbitrators.
The Secretariat shall have among others a Publication and a Training Division.
Sec. 12. Authority to appoint. The Commission is hereby authorized to appoint the
Executive Director, the consultants, the arbitrators, as well as personnel and staff.
Sec. 13. Authority to Collect Fees. The Commission is empowered to determine and
collect fees, deposits, costs of arbitration, as well as administrative and other charges as
may be necessary in the performance of its functions and responsibilities. The CIAC is
also authorized to use its receipts and deposits of funds to finance its operations subject
to the approval of the PDCB, the provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sec. 14. Arbitrators. A sole arbitrator or three arbitrators may settle a dispute.
Where the parties agree that the dispute shall be settled by a sole arbitrator, they may,
by agreement, nominate him from the list of arbitrators accredited by the CIAC for
appointment and confirmation. If the parties fail to agree as to the arbitrator, the CIAC
3
taking into consideration the complexities and intricacies of the dispute/s has the
option to appoint a single arbitrator or an Arbitral Tribunal.
If the CIAC decides to appoint an Arbitral Tribunal, each party may nominate one (1)
arbitrator from the list of arbitrators accredited by the CIAC for appointment and for
confirmation. The third arbitrator who is acceptable to both parties confirmed in writing
shall be appointed by the CIAC and shall preside over the Tribunal.
Arbitration shall be men of distinction in whom the business sector and the government
can have confidence. They shall not be permanently employed with the CIAC. Instead,
they shall render services only when called to arbitrate. For each dispute they settle,
they shall be given fees.
Sec. 15. Appointment of Experts. The services of technical or legal experts may be
utilized in the settlement of disputes if requested by any of the parties or by the Arbitral
Tribunal. If the request for an expert is done by either or by both of the parties, it is
necessary that the appointment of the expert be confirmed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Whenever the parties request for the services of an expert, they shall equally shoulder
the expert's fees and expenses, half of which shall be deposited with the Secretariat
before the expert renders service. When only one party makes the request, it shall
deposit the whole amount required.
Sec. 16. Arbitration Expenses. Arbitration expenses shall include the filing fee;
administrative charges, arbitrator's fees; fee and expenses of the expert, and others
which may be imposed by the CIAC.
The administrative charges and the arbitrator's fees shall be computed on the basis of
percentage of the sum in dispute to be fixed in accordance with the Table of
Administrative Charges and Arbitrator's Fees.
Sec. 17. Deposit to Cover Arbitration Expenses. The CIAC shall be authorized to fix the
amount to be deposited which must be equivalent to the expected arbitration expenses.
The deposit shall be paid to the Secretariat before arbitration proceedings shall
commence. Payment shall either be shared equally by the parties or be paid by any of
them. If one party fails to contribute his share in the deposit, the other party must pay
in full. If both parties fail to tender the required deposit, the case shall be considered
dismissed but the parties shall still be liable to pay one half (1/2) of the agreed
administrative charge.
Sec. 18. Reports. The Commission shall within three (3) months after the end of the
fiscal year, submit its annual report to the CIAP. It shall, likewise, submit such periodic
reports as it may be required from time to time.
Sec. 19. Finality of Awards. The arbitral award shall be binding upon the parties. It shall
be final and inappealable except on questions of law which shall be appealable to the
Supreme Court.
Sec. 20. Execution and Enforcement of Awards. As soon as a decision, order to award
has become final and executory, the Arbitral Tribunal or the single arbitrator with the
occurrence of the CIAC shall motu propio, or on motion of any interested party, issue a
writ of execution requiring any sheriff or other proper officer to execute said decision,
order or award.
Sec. 21. Rule-Making Power. The CIAC shall formulate and adopt necessary rules and
procedures for construction arbitration.
4
Sec. 22. Separability Clause. The provisions of this Executive Order are declared to be
separable and if any provision on the application hereof is held invalid or
unconstitutional, the validity of the remaining provision not otherwise affected shall
remain in full force and effect.
Sec. 23. Repealing Clause. All provisions of existing laws, proclamations, decrees, letters
of instructions and executive orders contrary to or inconsistent herewith are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 24. Effectivity Clause. This Executive order shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 4th day of February, in the Year of Our Lord, Nineteen
Hundred and Eighty-Five.
5
I. PURPOSE
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the

State to encourage the early and expeditious settlement of disputes in
the Philippine construction industry.
II. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION (CIAC)
FEDERAL BUILDERS, INC. vs POWER FACTORS, INC.

G.R. No. 211504 March 8, 2017 BERSAMIN, J.:
An agreement to submit to voluntary arbitration for purposes of vesting jurisdiction over a

construction dispute in the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) need not be
contained in the construction contract, or be signed by the parties. It is enough that the
agreement be in writing.
FACTS: Federal Builder’s Inc. (Federal) was the general contractor of the Bullion
Mall under a construction agreement with Bullion Investment and Development
Corporation (BIDC). Federal engaged Power Factors Inc. (Power) as its subcontractor
for the electric works at the Bullion Mall and the Precinct Building for ₱l8,000,000.00.
Power sent a demand letter to Federal claiming the unpaid amount of

₱ll,444,658.97 for work done by Power for the Bullion Mall and the Precinct Building.
Federal replied that its outstanding balance under the original contract only amounted
to ₱1,641,513.94, and that the demand for payment for work done by Power after June
21, 2005 should be addressed directly to BIDC.
Later on, Power filed a request for arbitration in the Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC) invoking the arbitration clause of the Contract of
Service reading as follows:
15. ARBITRATION COMMITTEE - All disputes, controversies or differences, which

may arise between the parties herein, out of or in relation to or in connection with this
Agreement, or for breach thereof shall be settled by the Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC) which shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over the aforementioned disputes.
Federal moved to dismiss the case on the ground that CIAC had no jurisdiction
over the case inasmuch as the Contract of Service between Federal and Power had been
a mere draft that was never finalized or signed by the parties. Federal contended that in
the absence of the agreement for arbitration, the CIAC had no jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case.
CA explained that the CIAC Revised Rules of Procedure stated that the agreement

to arbitrate need not be signed by the parties; that the consent to submit to voluntary
arbitration was not necessary in view of the arbitration clause contained in the Contract
of Service.
ISSUE/HELD: Whether CIAC has jurisdiction over the present case/NO

6
RATIO: The parties had an effective agreement to submit to voluntary arbitration;

hence, the CIAC had jurisdiction
The need to establish a proper arbitral machinery to settle disputes expeditiously

was recognized by the Government in order to promote and maintain the development
of the country's construction industry. With such recognition came the creation of the
CIAC through E.O. No. 1008.
Under the CIAC Revised Rules of Procedure Governing Construction

Arbitration (CIAC Revised Rules), all that is required for the CIAC to acquire jurisdiction
is for the parties of any construction contract to agree to submit their dispute to
arbitration.
Also, Section 2.3 of the CIAC Revised Rules states that the agreement may be
reflected in an arbitration clause in their contract or by subsequently agreeing to submit
their dispute to voluntary arbitration. The CIAC Revised Rules clarifies, however, that
the agreement of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration need not be signed or
be formally agreed upon in the contract because it can also be in the form of other
modes of communication in writing.
The liberal application of procedural rules as to the form by which the agreement
is embodied is the objective of the CIAC Revised Rules. Such liberality conforms to the
letter and spirit of E.O. No. 1008 itself which emphasizes that the modes of voluntary
dispute resolution like arbitration are always preferred because they settle disputes in a
speedy and amicable manner.
The jurisdiction of the CIAC is over the dispute, not over the contract between
the parties. Section 2.1, Rule 2 of the CIAC Revised Rules particularly specifies that the
CIAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over construction disputes, whether
such disputes arise from or are merely connected with the construction contracts entered
into by parties, and whether such disputes arise before or after the completion of the
contracts. Accordingly, the execution of the contracts and the effect of the agreement to
submit to arbitration are different matters, and the signing or non-signing of one does
not necessarily affect the other. In other words, the formalities of the contract have
nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the CIAC.
PHILROCK, INC. vs CIAC and Spouses VICENTE and NELIA CID

G.R. No. 132848-49 June 26, 2001 PANGANIBAN, J.:
Courts encourage the use of alternative methods of dispute resolution. When parties agree to
settle their disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts, the Construction
Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) acquires primary jurisdiction. It may resolve not only
the merits of such controversies; when appropriate, it may also award damages, interests,
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.
FACTS: Cid spouses filed a Complaint for damages against Philrock and seven of
its officers and engineers with the Regional Trial Court.
On the initial trial date, RTC issued an Order dismissing the case and referring
the same to the CIAC because the Cid spouses and Philrock had filed an Agreement to
Arbitrate with the CIAC.
7
Thereafter, preliminary conferences were held among the parties and their
appointed arbitrators. At these conferences, disagreements arose as to whether moral
and exemplary damages and tort should be included as an issue along with breach of
contract, and whether the seven officers and engineers of Philrock who are not parties
to the Agreement to Arbitrate should be included in the arbitration proceedings. No
common ground could be reached by the parties, hence, both the Cid spouses and
Philrock requested that the case be remanded to RTC.
RTC declared that it no longer had jurisdiction over the case and ordered the
records of the case to be remanded anew to the CIAC for arbitral proceedings.
Pursuant to Order of RTC, the CIAC resumed conducting preliminary

conferences.
Philrock argued that the RTC Order was based on a mistaken premise that 'the
proceedings in the CIAC fell through because of the refusal of Philrock to include the
issue of damages therein,' whereas the true reason for the withdrawal of the case from
the CIAC was due to Philrock's opposition to the inclusion of its seven officers and
engineers, who did not give their consent to arbitration, as party defendants.
On the other hand, Cid manifested that she was willing to exclude the seven
officers and engineers of Philrock as parties to the case so as to facilitate or expedite the
proceedings.
The parties then proceeded to finalize, approve and sign the Terms of Reference,
which stated that 'the parties agree that their differences be settled by an Arbitral
Tribunal.’
Philrock avers that the CIAC lost jurisdiction over the arbitration case after both
parties had withdrawn their consent to arbitrate. The RTC Order remanding the case to
the CIAC for arbitration was allegedly an invalid mode of referring a case for
arbitration.
The CIAC rendered its Decision directing Philrock to pay Cid Spouses.
Before the CA, Philrock contested the jurisdiction of the CIAC.
CA upheld the jurisdiction of the CIAC over the dispute between petitioner and
private respondent. Under EO 1008, the CIAC acquires jurisdiction when the parties
agree to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. Thus, in the present case, its
jurisdiction continued despite its Order referring the case back to RTC. The CIAC’s
action was based on the principle that once acquired, jurisdiction remains "until the full
termination of the case unless a law provides the contrary." No such "full termination"
of the case was evident in the said Order; nor did the CIAC or private respondents
intend to put an end to the case.
Besides, according to Section 3 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Construction

Arbitration, technical rules of law or procedure are not applicable in a single arbitration
or arbitral tribunal. Thus, the "dismissal" could not have divested the CIAC of
jurisdiction to ascertain the facts of the case, arrive at a judicious resolution of the
dispute and enforce its award or decision.
ISSUES/HELD: Whether the CIAC could take jurisdiction over the case of Cid
spouses against Philrock after the case had been dismissed by both the RTC and the
CIAC/YES
8
RATIO: Section 4 of Executive Order 1008 expressly vests in the CIAC original and
exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or connected with construction
contracts entered into by parties that have agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary
arbitration. It is undisputed that the parties submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of
the Commission by virtue of their Agreement to Arbitrate.
Petitioner claims that the Agreement was withdrawn because of the exclusion of
the seven engineers of petitioners in the arbitration case. This withdrawal became the
basis for the CIAC Order dismissing the arbitration case and referring the dispute back
to the RTC. Consequently, the CIAC was divested of its jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case.
This contention is untenable.
First, Cid spouses removed the obstacle to the continuation of the arbitration,
precisely by withdrawing their objection to the exclusion of the seven engineers.
Second, Philrock continued participating in the arbitration even after the CIAC
Order had been issued. It even concluded and signed the Terms of Reference, in which
the parties stipulated the circumstances leading to the dispute; summarized their
respective positions, issues, and claims; and identified the composition of the tribunal of
arbitrators. The document clearly confirms both parties’ intention and agreement to
submit the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION (NIA) vs

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (4th Division), CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
ARBITRATION COMMISSION, and HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS
CORPORATION (HYDRO)
G.R. No. 129169 November 17, 1999 DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
The date the parties entered into a contract and the date of completion of the same, even if these
occurred before the constitution of the CIAC, did not automatically divest the CIAC of
jurisdiction as long as the dispute submitted for arbitration arose after the constitution of the
CIAC.
FACTS: In a competitive bidding held by NIA in 1978, HYDRO was awarded

Contract for the construction of the main civil works of the Magat River Multi-Purpose
Project. HYDRO substantially completed the works under the contract in 1982 and final
acceptance by NIA was made in 1984. HYDRO thereafter determined that it still had an
account receivable from NIA.
After unsuccessfully pursuing its case with NIA, HYDRO filed with the CIAC a
Request for Adjudication of the claim. HYDRO nominated six arbitrators for the
arbitration panel, from among whom CIAC appointed Engr. Lauro M. Cruz. NIA
nominated six arbitrators, from among whom CIAC appointed Atty. Custodio O.
Parlade, and made a counterclaim for P1,000,000 as moral damages; at least P100,000 as
exemplary damages; P100,000 as attorney's fees; and the costs of the arbitration.
The two designated arbitrators appointed Certified Public Accountant Joven B.

Joaquin as Chairman of the Arbitration Panel. The parties were required to submit
copies of the evidence they intended to present during the proceedings and were
provided the draft Terms of Reference.
9
After reaching an accord on the issues to be considered by the arbitration panel,

the parties scheduled the dates of hearings and of submission of simultaneous
memoranda.
Later on, NIA filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction over the
disputes. NIA contended that there was no agreement with HYDRO to submit the
dispute to CIAC for arbitration considering that the construction contract was executed
in 1978 and the project completed in 1982, whereas the Construction Industry
Arbitration Law creating CIAC was signed only in 1985; and that while they have
agreed to arbitration as a mode of settlement of disputes, they could not have
contemplated submission of their disputes to CIAC.
ISSUE/HELD: Whether CIAC has no authority or juridiction to hear and try this
dispute between the herein parties AS E.O. NO. 1008 had no retroactive effect / NO
RATIO: Executive Order No. 1008, otherwise known as the "Construction Industry
Arbitration Law" which was promulgated on 4 February 1985, vests upon CIAC
original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with
contracts entered into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines, whether
the dispute arises before or after the completion of the contract, or after the
abandonment or breach thereof. The disputes may involve government or private
contracts. For the Board to acquire jurisdiction, the parties to a dispute must agree to
submit the same to voluntary arbitration.
The complaint of HYDRO against NIA on the basis of the contract executed
between them was filed on 7 December 1994, during the effectivity of E.O. No. 1008.
Hence, it is well within the jurisdiction of CIAC. The jurisdiction of a court is
determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the action.
CIAC has jurisdiction over all disputes arising from or connected with
construction contract whether the dispute arises before or after the completion of the
contract. Thus, the date the parties entered into a contract and the date of completion of
the same, even if these occurred before the constitution of the CIAC, did not
automatically divest the CIAC of jurisdiction as long as the dispute submitted for
arbitration arose after the constitution of the CIAC. Stated differently, the jurisdiction of
CIAC is over the dispute, not the contract; and the instant dispute having arisen when
CIAC was already constituted, the arbitral board was actually exercising current, not
retroactive, jurisdiction.
NIA also contended that the CIAC did not acquire jurisdiction over the dispute
since it was only HYDRO that requested for arbitration. It is undisputed that the
contracts between HYDRO and NIA contained an arbitration clause wherein they
agreed to submit to arbitration any dispute between them that may arise before or after
the termination of the agreement.
Moreover, it is undeniable that NIA agreed to submit the dispute for arbitration
to the CIAC. NIA through its counsel actively participated in the arbitration
proceedings by filing an answer with counterclaim, as well as its compliance wherein it
nominated arbitrators to the proposed panel, participating in the deliberations on, and
the formulation of, the Terms of Reference of the arbitration proceeding, and examining
the documents submitted by HYDRO after NIA asked for the originals of the said
documents.
10
See: Section 4, EO 1008
III. COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos

Chairman of the Commission
Engr. Antonio A. Abola Engr. Emilio Lolito J. Tumbocon

Member of the Commission Member of the Commission
IV. ARBITRATORS
A. The Arbitrators shall be persons in whom the business sector, particularly the
stake holders of the construction industry and the government can have confidence.
They shall possess the competence, integrity, and leadership qualities to resolve
any construction dispute expeditiously and equitably.
The Arbitrators shall come from different professions. They may include
engineers, architects, construction managers, engineering consultants, and businessmen
familiar with the construction industry and lawyers who are experienced in
construction disputes.1
See: LIST OF ACTIVE/AVAILABLE CIAC-ACCREDITED ARBITRATORS (As of 14

January 2020), http://ciap.dti.gov.ph/sites/default/files/publications/CIAC%20List
%20of%20Accredited%20Arbitrators%20as%20of%2014%20January%202020_0.pdf
B. Only CIAC-accredited arbitrators may be nominated by the parties and appointed by

CIAC as arbitrators. A replacement arbitrator shall likewise be a CIAC-accredited
arbitrator.2
C. Arbitrators are not permanent employees of CIAC.3
D. A sole arbitrator or three arbitrators may settle a dispute.
Sole Arbitrator
1
SECTION 8.1, CIAC REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING CONSTRUCTION ARBITRATION
2
3
11
Each party shall name not more than six (6) nominees from the CIAC accredited
arbitrators in the order of their preference for appointment as Sole Arbitrator.
If any or both of the parties shall fail to submit the names of their nominees
within the period/s prescribed by CIAC, a Sole Arbitrator shall be appointed by CIAC.
CIAC shall appoint as sole arbitrator the common nominee of the parties
who is available and not disqualified.
In the absence of a common nominee or in cases where the common nominee is
disqualified or is not available, CIAC shall return the lists of nominees to the parties
and ask them to make an agreement on a common nominee/s within 48 hours.
If the parties still fail to agree on a common nominee, CIAC may appoint a Sole
Arbitrator or an Arbitral Tribunal.
If CIAC decides to appoint a Sole Arbitrator, it may select an arbitrator who is
not a nominee of any one of the parties and who is not disqualified and is available for
appointment.4
Arbitral Tribunal
Each party shall name not more than six (6) nominees from the CIAC accredited
arbitrators in the order for their preference for appointment as Arbitrators.
CIAC shall choose and appoint as members of the Tribunal, one Arbitrator from
the claimant’s nominees and another from respondent’s nominees. CIAC shall also
choose and appoint the Third Arbitrator and notify the parties thereof for their
confirmation in writing within five (5) working days from receipt of the notice. If no
confirmation is received within such period, the Third Arbitrator appointed by CIAC
shall be deemed accepted by the parties. The Third Arbitrator chosen and appointed by
CIAC shall be the Chairman of the Tribunal.5
E. A foreign arbitrator not accredited by CIAC may be appointed as a co-arbitrator or

chairperson of an arbitral tribunal for a construction dispute under the following
conditions:6
1. the dispute is a construction dispute in which one party is an international party
i.e. one whose place of business is outside the Philippines. For this purpose, the
term international party shall not include a domestic subsidiary of such
international party or a co-venturer in a joint venture with a party which has its
place of business in the Philippines.
2. the foreign arbitrator to be appointed is not a national of the Philippines and is
not of the same nationality as the international party in the dispute.
4
5
6
12
The foreign arbitrator must be :

1. nominated by the international party or
2. is the common choice of the two CIAC-accredited arbitrators one of whom
was nominated by the international party.
The nomination must be accompanied by a resume or bio-data of the nominee

relevant to qualifications as a construction arbitrator and a signed undertaking of the
nominee to abide by CIAC arbitration rules and policies.7
V. PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE / TERMS OF REFERENCE
Terms of Reference
Contents
The TOR shall include the following particulars:8

1. the full names of the parties, and their respective counsels, if any;
2. the addresses and contact numbers of the parties/counsels;
3. summary of the parties' respective claims;
4. full statement of admitted facts and documents;
5. the issues to be resolved in question form;
6. the Arbitrators' full names;
7. the place where arbitration proceedings shall be held;
8. the breakdown, schedule of payments, and sharing of arbitration fees;
9. such other particulars as may be required by the Arbitral Tribunal for the proper
and speedy adjudication of the case.
VI. APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS
7
SECTION 9.4.1, CIAC REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING CONSTRUCTION
ARBITRATION
8
ARBITRATION
13
If the request for an expert is by the Arbitral Tribunal, the cost of such
service(s) shall be considered part of the arbitration expenses which may be ordered to
be paid by the losing party or by both parties as the Arbitral Tribunal in his/their
award may adjudge, in the absence of a provision in the TOR signed by the parties
relative to the sharing of these expenses; provided, however, both parties consented to
the hiring of an expert. 9
VII. FREEDOM TO SETTLE

The parties shall be free to settle the dispute(s) anytime even if the same is
under arbitration. In such case, the actual expenses incurred for arbitration shall be
charged against the deposit. If the deposit is insufficient, the parties shall equally
shoulder the balance.10
The parties may either jointly withdraw or move that their compromise
agreement be the basis for rendering an award by the Arbitral Tribunal, if the latter
have already been appointed. Where the arbitrators have been appointed and
proceedings have commenced, the arbitration fees to be charged the parties shall be in
accordance with the stage of proceedings.11
If the parties settle their dispute(s) during the course of the arbitration, the
Arbitral Tribunal, upon their request, may set forth the agreed settlement as an Arbitral
Award.12
A compromise agreement settled by mediation in the course of arbitration or
by direct negotiation between the parties shall be treated as an arbitral award if so
moved by the parties and subject to the approval of the Arbitral Tribunal, after a
summary hearing, that the same is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy.13
VIII. – THE ARBITRATION AWARD

The award shall be rendered promptly by the Arbitral Tribunal within thirty
(30) days from the time the case is submitted for resolution but not more than six (6)
months from the date of signing of the TOR, or in cases where a TOR is absent, not
more than six (6) months from the date of the last preliminary conference called for the
purpose of finalizing and/or signing of the TOR.
9
ARBITRATION
10
SECTION 21.7, CIAC REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING CONSTRUCTION
ARBITRATION
11
ARBITRATION
12
ARBITRATION
13
ARBITRATION
14
There shall be no extensions of time unless approved by the CIAC. 14
IX. – EXECUTION OF FINAL AWARD

Notwithstanding the Commission’s disagreement with the substance or merit
of the award/decision, if execution is ripe or proper under the CIAC Rules, it shall
release the writ of execution issued by the arbitrator/s.
Hence, once an award/decision becomes executory, the release of the writ of
execution by the Commission is purely ministerial, regardless of whether or not the
arbitrator/s considered the comments of the Commission, or any of its members, on
points of substance in the award during scrutiny.15
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 523 March 22, 2006
INSTITUTING THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT
14
ARBITRATION
15
ARBITRATION
15
WHEREAS, Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution guarantees the right of all persons
to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
bodies;
WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 9285, otherwise known as the “Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) Act of 2004”, declares that it is the policy of the State to actively
promote and encourage the use of ADR as an important means to achieve speedy and
impartial justice and to declog court dockets;
WHEREAS, the use of the alternative modes of dispute resolution has proven to be
effective in amicably and speedily resolving disputes filed before judicial and quasi-
judicial agencies;
WHEREAS, there is a need to promote the use of ADR to achieve speedy resolution of
all disputes before all administrative bodies in the Executive Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the

Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:
SECTION 1. Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution. All administrative bodies shall

promote the use of alternative modes of dispute resolution such as, but not limited to,
mediation, conciliation and arbitration as part of their practice in resolving disputes
filed before them.
SEC. 2.Training. All agencies of the Executive Department shall train in the field of
ADR at least two (2) senior officials who shall be designated to organize, develop and
implement the use of ADR in their agency.
SEC. 3. Management of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Executive Agencies. The

Office of the President shall manage the development of the ADR practice in the
executive agencies. It shall:
coordinate/direct the development of rules, regulation and procedures to implement

ADR policies in each agency;
assist in providing training resources for the development of the use of ADR in each
agency;
3.3 monitor and evaluate the compliance with and efficiency of the use of ADR in each
agency;
educate and encourage the public in the use of ADR;
perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry into effect the purpose of this
order.
SEC. 4. Principles to Promote Just and Efficient Administrative Dispute Resolution.
4.1 All executive agencies are mandated to review periodically their administrative
dispute resolution processes and develop specific procedures to reduce delay in
decision-making, to institutionalize the use of ADR processes prior to litigation, to
facilitate self-representation, and expand non-lawyer counseling and representation
where appropriate;
16
All executive agencies shall review their administrative dispute resolution processes
that may create or induce prejudice on the part of the decision-makers that may result
in injustice to persons who appear before administrative dispute resolution bodies;
regularly train all fact-finders, administrative hearing officers, and other decision
makers to eliminate such prejudice; and establish appropriate mechanisms to receive
and resolve complaints of such prejudice from persons who appear before
administrative dispute resolution bodies;
An agency may propose the enactment of new laws to minimize litigation so as not
unduly burden the courts. The agency’s proposed legislation and regulations shall
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and
shall promote simplification and burden reduction.
SEC. 5. Funding. Funding for managing ADR programs shall be included in the yearly
appropriations of each agency.
SEC. 6. Transitory Provision. Until the general policies and implementing rules and
guidelines are issued by the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee, all existing ADR
policies in administrative bodies, if any, shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Nothing in this order shall be construed to require any administrative body to act in a
manner contrary to any existing laws, rules, or regulations.
SEC. 7. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Executive Order is declared invalid
or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions not affected thereby shall continue to be
in full force and effect.
SEC. 8. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 7th day of April, in the year of Our Lord Two
Thousand and Six.
I. BASES
Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution
SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act of 2004 or Republic Act No. 9285
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. -…the State shall encourage and actively promote the
use of ADR as an important means to achieve speedy and impartial justice and
declog court dockets.
II. PROOF OF THE USE OF ADR IN EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

A. Questionnaire
Employer: Department of Agrarian Reform
1. In the case of your administrative body, is the EO 523 applicable? YES

17
See: Section 1
2. If your answer in number 1 is yes, does your agency follow Section 2? YES
See: Section 2
3. Who are the two (2) senior officials designated to organize, develop and implement
the use of ADR in your agency?
The two Senior Officials designated to organize, develop and implement the
use of ADR in the DARPO Tarlac are the Head/Chief of the Legal Division and the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of the Province. They are the designated
persons in authorities vested with primary jurisdiction to encourage and actively
promote the use of ADR as an important means to achieve speedy and impartial
justice and declog court dockets.
Memorandum Circular No. 13, Series of 1983 of the Ministry of Agrarian

Reform was issued to all field Regional Directors and Team Leaders, District
Officers, Lawyers and Field Personnel to facilitate amicable settlement of agrarian
cases insofar as boundary disputes, rights and obligations of tenants and landowners
ejectment and abandonment of tenants, validation of illegal transactions such as
transfer of ownership and possession and waiver of rights in favor of other persons,
voluntary surrender, sale or waiver in favor of former landowners and compromise
agreement executed by the parties involved were some of the common cases.
4. Has the Office of the President coordinated or directed the development of rules,
regulation and procedures to implement ADR policies in your agency? YES.
If yes, please specify the rules, regulation and procedures if free to disclose.
By virtue of a Letter of Instructions No. 1314 issued by President Ferdinand

Marcos, directing all concerned government agencies including the Minister of
Agrarian Reform to enforce the statutory requirement of Conciliation in the
settlement of land disputes.
ADR mechanisms were incorporated as a viable means of settling disputes

involving the implementation of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
under R. A 6657, R.A 3844 and P. D 27. The passage of Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law in 1988 and the creation of Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) led to the drafting of rules of procedure in the
settlement of agrarian disputes, which were periodically revised in view of the
various amendments to the CARL.
Thus, the DARAB Rule of Procedure required the parties to a dispute to first
undergo mediation or conciliation at the barangay level under a Barangay Agrarian
Reform Council (BARC), and failing to reach an amicable settlement at the BARC
within a thirty day period obtain a certification of such failure prior to the filing of a
complaint or petition with DARAB, through a Adjudicator of the province where the
land subject of the dispute is located (Rules II and IV).
The 2009 DARAB Rules of procedure grant the parties an opportunity to reach
an amicable settlement during the Preliminary Conference on the case (Section 2 and
6, Rule IX and Section 8, Rule X and Section 5 and Section 6, Rule IX respectively).
The rules also provide that when the parties fail to arrive at an amicable settlement
during the Preliminary Conference, the Adjudicator hearing the case may consider
18
the submission of the case to alternative modes of dispute resolution (Section 6a,
Rule IX 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure).
See: Section 3
5. Has the Office of the President assisted in providing training resources for the
development of the use of ADR in your agency? YES
If yes, kindly give an example of training resource.
The Office of the President through Bureau of Agrarian Legal assistance-Legal

Assistance and Statistics Division provides training resources and competent trainers
to capacitate the lawyers in regional and field offices including those persons vested
proper authority to facilitate ADR.
The DAR at present utilizes more aggressive alternative dispute resolution

techniques in mediation to reduce conflicts maturing into court cases. The general
objective of training lawyers/ legal officers is to persuade the contending parties to
settle their disputes amicably or out of court before the DAR.
Thus, the Office of the President through its chosen bureau shall be
continuously providing aid and support to meet this goal through various capacity
development trainings on the Agrarian Legal Services and Agrarian Legal Assistance.
See: Section 3
6. Has the Office of the President monitored and evaluated the compliance with and
efficiency of the use of ADR in your agency? YES
If yes, how is your agency being monitored and evaluated?
The Bureau of Legal Assistance under the Secretary of DAR who has primary
responsibility to report to the Office of the President, have direct Supervision,
Monitoring and Evaluation (SM&E) mechanism and tool to be undertaken by the
management units to ensure effective and efficient implementation and compliance
of the use of ADR in the Department.
Monthly and Quarterly reports are submitted to the higher ups by the field
offices involving cases under Agrarian Legal Services (ALS) and Agrarian Legal
Assistance (ALA). Meanwhile, ALS is divided into two (2) components: Legal
Advisory and Enforcement.
Legal Advisory involves legal services provided to agrarian reform

beneficiaries (ARB) and landowner clients such as mediation and representation in
judicial and quasi-judicial courts. As per measurement for the agency’s final
scorecards on its Major Final Outputs (MFO), clients who rate the legal service as
good or better and requests for legal services which are responded to within 15 days
are included.
Enforcement, on the other hand, includes agrarian cases acted upon for the
adjudication or resolution of annual Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) caseloads.
Adjudication within 3 months of agrarian related cases is asserted under its MFO.
19
See: Section 3
7. Is your ADR process being reviewed periodically? YES
Under RA 6657, DAR is vested not only with primary jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate reform matters and to extend free legal assistance to farmer-
beneficiaries affected by agrarian cases but also to assess, review, enhance and
monitor the process and implementation of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
This is to effect the improvement and development of administering social
justice in the country and to introduce speedy dispute resolution to all agrarian cases
as a means of facilitating genuine reform and economic growth in rural development
See: Section 4
8. Is there a funding for your ADR programs? YES
This funding shall support the implementation of ADR to all agrarian reform
cases, to effectively enact supporting laws, procedures and policies to strengthen the
ADR and mediation system conference and its focus on arbitration as the sole ADR
vehicle.
See: Section 5
B. Examples of Department Orders and Memorandums by Department of Education

1. DO 22, S. 2007 – COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 523,
WHICH INSTITUTED THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT
2. DM 46, S. 2009 – CREATING THE DEPED ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP (ADR-TWG)
3. DM 100, S. 2010 – ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE

RESOLUTION (ADR) SYSTEM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
4. DO 15, S. 2012 – DEPED POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(ADR) SYSTEM-MEDIATION
REVOKING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 523 (s. 2006) AND CONFERRING UPON
THE OFFICE FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION THE MANAGEMENT,
DEVELOPMENT, COORDINATION, AND OVERSIGHT OF ALTERNATIVE
20
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right of all persons
to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
bodies;
WHEREAS, Republic Act (RA) No. 9285, or the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
2004 (ADR Act of 2004), declares that it is the policy of the State to actively promote and
encourage the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR);
WHEREAS, the use of ADR has been proven to be effective in amicably and speedily
resolving disputes filed before judicial or quasi-judicial bodies and administrative
agencies;
WHEREAS, there is a need to promote the use of ADR to achieve speedy resolution of

disputes before the agencies under the Executive Department;
WHEREAS, the ADR Act of 2004 created the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution
(OADR), an attached agency of the Department of Justice (DOJ), to, inter alia, promote,
develop, and expand the use of ADR in the private and public sectors; assist the
government to monitor, study, and evaluate the use of ADR by the public and private
sectors; and recommend to Congress necessary statutory changes to develop,
strengthen, and improve ADR practices in accordance with world standards;
WHEREAS, Executive Order (EO) No. 523 (s. 2006), entitled “Instituting the Use of
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Executive Department of the Government” vested
upon the Office of the President (OP) the management and development of ADR
practice in the executive agencies;
WHEREAS, with the establishment of the OADR pursuant to Sections 49 and 50 of the

ADR Act 2004 and the issuance of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) on 4
December 2009, it is now necessary to transfer to the OADR all authority over the
development, management, and oversight of ADR programs and services in all
agencies under the Executive Department;
WHEREAS, public interest requires that the delivery of ADR services to the public by
government agencies adheres to the highest standards of competence, professionalism,
integrity, and internationally accepted best practices;
WHEREAS, it is imperative that each agency under the Executive Department regularly
submit to the OADR reports, information, feedback, and recommendations on the
status of their respective ADR programs, plans, and policies in order for the OADR to
fulfil its duty to coordinate the development, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation of government ADR programs; and
WHEREAS, Section 31, Chapter 10, Title III, Book III of EO No. 292, or

the Administrative Code of 1987, vests on the President the continuing authority to
reorganize the Executive Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, President of the Philippines, by

virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:
21
SECTION 1. Authority of the OADR. All powers, functions, and duties previously

vested by EO No. 523 upon OP over the development, use, implementation, promotion,
monitoring, coordination, expansion, evaluation, and study of ADR programs and
services in the Executive Branch, including all its departments, administrative offices,
quasi-judicial agencies, and government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs)
(hereinafter collectively referred to as agencies), are hereby transferred to the OADR.
Such ADR services and programs shall include, but not be limited to, providing dispute
resolution services; conducting ADR trainings; engaging in program and system design;
and, managing, overseeing or administering ADR programs.
SECTION 2. Powers and Functions. Pursuant to the powers and functions provided for
in Sections 49 and 50 of the ADR Act of 2004 and its IRRs, the OADR shall oversee,
monitor, coordinate, and evaluate the development of ADR programs and services in
all agencies. In the exercise of this authority, the OADR shall:
a) Coordinate and oversee the development of rules, regulations, and procedures to

define and implement ADR policies;
b) Provide guidelines for the training, accreditation, monitoring, and evaluation of ADR
providers and practitioners to ensure adherence to the highest professional and ethical
standards;
c) Provide guidelines for the establishment, design, management, conduct, and

monitoring of ADR programs to streamline, improve, and render more efficient the
delivery of dispute resolution services in conformity with internationally accepted best
practices;
d) Monitor and evaluate the use of ADR by agencies, and require compliance with any
standards or guidelines issued by the OADR;
e) Require agencies to establish and approve ADR programs or require changes to

existing ADR programs to conform to standards or guidelines issued by the OADR;
f) Require agencies to provide information regarding current or planned ADR program

as well as copies of ADR decisions, awards or settlements issued or approved by these
agencies or the courts, subject to such guidelines as the OADR may issue to protect the
confidentiality of ADR proceedings and the parties thereto;
g) Coordinate with and request information from the Judicial Department or any of its
courts with regard to court-annexed ADR programs;
h) Prepare annual reports on the status of ADR use in agencies, and cause its
publication in the OADR website;
i) Assist agencies in providing training resources for the development and the use of
ADR; and,
j) Perform such other functions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry into effect
the purpose of this order.
SECTION 3. Use of Alternative Modes of Dispute Resolution. All agencies shall

continue to promote the use of alternative modes of dispute resolution such as, but not
limited to, arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and early neutral evaluation as part of
their practice in resolving disputes filed before them.
22
SECTION 4. Mandatory Submission of Reports to the OADR. Within three (3)

months from the effectivity of this Order, each agency shall submit a status report to the
OADR on the following:
a) Designation of a senior official and an alternate responsible for developing,

coordinating, and managing ADR programs and/or other ADR related activities in
their respective offices; and,
b) Compliance with the directives under Section 4 of EO No. 523, including the
particulars of any such ADR program that may have been implemented in their
respective offices in the meantime.
Thereafter, all agencies shall, once every six (6) months or within such other period as
the OADR may determine, continue to submit periodic reports and provide data on
their respective ADR programs as may be required by the OADR.
SECTION 5. Contents of regular reports of agencies. To assist the OADR in

coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating the use of ADR in the public sector and to
recommend to Congress such changes as may be made to ADR laws, the agencies shall,
as part of their regular progress reports to the OADR, periodically review their ADR
processes and recommend to the OADR the following:
a) Specific procedures to reduce delay in decision-making; institutionalize the use of

ADR process prior to litigation; facilitate self-representation; and, expand non-lawyer
counselling and representation where appropriate;
b) Any necessary changes to existing laws to develop, strengthen, and improve ADR
practices in their respective agencies in order to encourage the settlement or resolution
of the disputes at the agency level so as to minimize the necessity of seeking court relief;
c) Specific proposals regarding the establishment, management, monitoring or

improvement of ADR programs and policies, and the training, accreditation, and
assessment of ADR providers in their respective agencies; and,
d) Such other programs, standards, guidelines or practices as may be required or

expedient to implement the basic policy of the law to actively promote party autonomy
in the resolution of disputes and encourage and actively promote the use of ADR.
SECTION 6. Submission of Annual Report to the President. The OADR shall

regularly submit to the President, through the Executive Secretary, an Annual Report
on the policies, programs, and activities relative to the implementation of this Order.
SECTION 7. Funding. Agencies shall include in their proposed annual budget an

allocation for the development, management, and operation of their respective ADR
programs. Funding for such programs shall be included in the yearly appropriations of
each agency.
SECTION 8. Non-applicability to the Katarungang Pambarangay System. This Order

shall not apply to the management, oversight, and implementation of the Katarungang
Pambarangay System, and shall not be interpreted to repeal, amend or modify the
jurisdiction of the Katarungang Pambarangay System under Republic Act No. 7160,
otherwise known as the “Local Government Code of 1991.” This notwithstanding, all
ADR training programs relative to Katarungang Pambarangay System shall be
submitted to the OADR for prior approval.
23
SECTION 9. Jurisdiction of OADR in ADR activities outside the Executive

Department. Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting the jurisdiction, authority,
powers, and functions of the OADR as set forth in Sections 49 and 50 of the ADR Act
and Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of its IRRs such as, but not limited to, the promotion,
development, and expansion of the use of ADR in the private sector, to the extent
provided by law.
SECTION 10. Repealing Clause. This Order revokes E.O. No. 523 (s. 2006) and other
executive and administrative orders and issuances inconsistent herewith.
SECTION 11. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Order is declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the remaining provisions not affected thereby shall continue to be in
full force and effect.
SECTION 12. Effectivity. This Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
DONE, in the City of Manila, this 18th day of October, in the year of our Lord, Two
Thousand and Twelve.
CONVENTION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES BETWEEN

STATES AND NATIONALS OF OTHER STATES
The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID or the

Centre) is established by the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes
24
between States and Nationals of Other States (the ICSID Convention or the
Convention).The Convention was formulated by the Executive Directors of the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank).
On March 18, 1965, the Executive Directors submitted the Convention, with an
accompanying Report, to member governments of the World Bank for their
consideration of the Convention with a view to its signature and ratification. The
Convention entered into force on October 14, 1966, when it had been ratified by 20
countries.
As at April 10, 2006, 143 countries have ratified the Convention to become
Contracting States. In accordance with the provisions of the Convention, ICSID
provides facilities for conciliation and arbitration of investment disputes between
Contracting States and nationals of other Contracting States.
The Request for Arbitration – Institution Rules
 Filed by the Claimant – usually the investor; could be the State (or in some
circumstances, a subdivision or agency of a State)
 Claimant pays a non-refundable lodging fee of 25,000 USD – helps prevent

frivolous claims
 ICSID reviews the request in light of the Convention and the instrument of
consent
 The request is registered unless it is “manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the

Centre” (Article 36(3) ICSID Convention)
Constitution of the Tribunal – Process
1. Determine the number of arbitrators and the method of their appointment

2. Selection and appointment of Tribunal members
3. Acceptance of appointment and constitution of the Tribunal
Tribunal Selection and Appointment
Parties can select anyone who meets qualifications in Article 14:

 High moral character
 Recognized competence in the fields of law, commerce, industry or finance
 Independent judgment
Nationality Art. 39, Rule 1 (3)
Majority shall be nationals of States other than the State party to dispute and the
State of investors’ nationality (unless parties otherwise agree)
25
Jurisdiction of the Centre

Article 25
(1) The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of
an investment, between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of
a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another
Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the
Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent
unilaterally.
(2) “National of another Contracting State”means:
(a) any natural person who had the nationality of a Contracting State other than
the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such
dispute to conciliation or arbitration as well as on the date on which the request was
registered pursuant to paragraph (3) of Article 28 or paragraph (3) of Article 36, but
does not include any person who on either date also had the nationality of the
Contracting State party to the dispute; and
(b) any juridical person which had the nationality of a Contracting State other
than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit
such dispute to conciliation or arbitration and any juridical person which had the
nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute on that date and which,because
of foreign control, the parties have agreed should be treated as a national of another
Contracting State for the purposes of this Convention.
Acceptance of Appointment & Declaration – Constitution of the Tribunal
-ICSID seeks acceptance from appointees (Arbitration Rule5(2))
As soon as he has received the fee for lodging the request, the Secretary-General
shall transmit a copy of the request and of the accompanying documentation to the
other party.
-Declaration of Arbitrator (Arbitration Rule 6):
 To keep information confidential

 To judge fairly as between the parties
 Statement of relationship with parties or other circumstance if needed
 Continuing obligation to disclose any such relationship or circumstance that
arises subsequently
First Session of the Tribunal – Practical Considerations
 To be held within 60 days from Tribunal constitution (unless otherwise agreed)

 Date fixed by Tribunal in consultation with the parties and Secretary-General
 Held in any venue agreed by parties – (Washington, D.C. as default)
 ICSID encourages parties to consider video or teleconference to reduce costs
26
First Session – Procedural Matters
 Parties are provided a draft agenda and draft Procedural Order No. 1 for comments
ahead of the session
 Main items discussed include:
 Applicable arbitration rules
 Procedural language(s)
 Place of proceedings
 Procedural Calendar
 Written and oral pleadings
 Public access to documents and hearings
 Other Procedures
 Disqualification
 Expedited Preliminary Objections
 Preliminary Objections
 Bifurcation
 Provisional Measures
 Production of Documents
 Non-disputing Parties
Written Pleadings
 Normally two rounds of pleadings:

 Claimant’s Memorial
 Respondent’s Counter-memorial
 Claimant’s Reply
 Respondent’s Rejoinder
 Same structure for jurisdiction, merits and quantum phases
 Any person or entity that is not a party to the dispute can request to participate
and file an amicus curiae submission
 Tribunal discretion to accept the submission based on whether:
 The submission will assist in determination of a factual or legal issue by bringing

a different perspective, particular knowledge or insight
 The submission addresses a matter within the scope of the dispute
 The non-disputing party has a significant interest in the proceeding
27
The Award
Article 48
(1) The Tribunal shall decide questions by a majority of the votes of all its
members.
(2) The award of the Tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by the
members of the Tribunal who voted for it.
(3) The award shall deal with every question submitted to the Tribunal, and shall
state the reasons upon which it is based.
(4) Any member of the Tribunal may attach his individual opinion to the award,
whether he dissents from the majority or not, or a statement of his dissent.
28
(5) The Centre shall not publish the award without the consent of the parties.
Rule 46. Preparation of the Award

The award (including any individual or dissenting opinion) shall be drawn up and
signed within 120 days after closure of the proceeding. The Tribunal may, however,
extend this period by a further 60 days if it would otherwise be unable to draw up the
award.
Rule 47. The Award

(1) The award shall be in writing and shall contain:
(a) a precise designation of each party;
(b) a statement that the Tribunal was established under the Convention, and a
description of the method of its constitution;
(c) the name of each member of the Tribunal, and an identification of the
appointing authority of each;
(d) the names of the agents, counsel and advocates of the parties;
(e) the dates and place of the sittings of the Tribunal;
(f) a summary of the proceeding;
(g) a statement of the facts as found by the Tribunal;
(h) the submissions of the parties;
(i) the decision of the Tribunal on every question submitted to it, together with
the reasons upon which the decision is based; and
(j) any decision of the Tribunal regarding the cost of the proceeding.
(2) The award shall be signed by the members of the Tribunal who voted for it; the date
of each signature shall be indicated.
(3) Any member of the Tribunal may attach his individual opinion to the award,
whether he dissents from the majority or not, or a statement of his dissent.
Rule 48. Rendering of the Award

(1) Upon signature by the last arbitrator to sign, the Secretary General shall promptly:
(a) authenticate the original text of the award and deposit it in the archives of the
Centre, together with any individual opinions and statements of dissent; and
(b) dispatch a certified copy of the award (including individual opinions and
statements of dissent) to each party, indicating the date of dispatch on the
original text and on all copies.
(2) The award shall be deemed to have been rendered on the date on which the certified
copies were dispatched.
29
(3) The Secretary-General shall, upon request, make available to a party additional
certified copies of the award.
(4) The Centre shall not publish the award without the consent of the parties. The
Centre shall, however, promptly include in its publication’s excerpts of the legal
reasoning of the Tribunal.
Special Features of ICSID Convention Awards
 Awards are final and binding

 Annulment – no appeal in local courts
 Member States must recognize monetary awards without further process
 Monetary award enforceable as a final judgment in any Contracting State
ICSID System is Self-Contained

 No domestic court review of decisions or awards
 Post-award remedies under the ICSID Convention:
 Article 49(2) Rectification/ Supplementary Decision
 Article 50 Interpretation
 Article 51 Revision
 Article 52 Annulment
Annulment Article 52 of the ICSID Convention

When?
• 5 grounds for annulment, Article 52(1)(a) to (e)
Time limits
• 120 days after the award is rendered
• In case of corruption of a Tribunal member, 120 days after discovery and
within 3 years of award
Who decides?
• Ad hoc Committee of 3 members appointed from Panel of Arbitrators
Stay of enforcement
• Stay of enforcement may be granted during proceeding
Decision
• Decision on annulment can annul award in full or in part
Annulment – Grounds
30
• The Tribunal was not properly constituted

• The Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers
• Corruption on the part of a Tribunal member
• A serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure
• The award fails to state the reasons on which it is based
Annulment is not Appeal
Article 53 of the ICSID Convention
 Limited & extraordinary remedy

 Maintains integrity of the process
 Can annul the original award in its entirety or in part
 Either party may resubmit the dispute to a new Tribunal
Compliance with ICSID Awards

• Compliance is important to maintain confidence in the process
• Could be considered by providers of political risk insurance
• Non-compliance is a breach of ICSID Convention and could lead to a State-
to-State dispute for treaty violation before the ICJ
31
CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN

ARBITRAL AWARDS (The New York Convention of 1958)
I. Introduction
The New York Convention of 1958 or the United Nations Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards was ratified by the Philippine
Senate under Resolution No. 72. Its enabling law is the Alternative Dispute Act of 2004
specifically sections 42 to 48 of the said law.
The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

(the Convention) seeks to provide common legislative standards for the recognition of
arbitration agreements and court recognition and enforcement of foreign and non-
domestic arbitral awards. The term “non-domestic” appears to embrace awards which
although made in the state of enforcement are treated as “foreign” under its law
because of some foreign element in the proceedings. e.g. another State’s procedural
laws are applied.16
The main goal of the convention is to promote non-discrimination against

foreign and non-domestic arbitral awards before competent courts of the contracting
parties.
II. What is “Recognition” and “Enforcement”
Recognition is a confirmation or formal admission that a person, entity or thing has a

particular status.17 While Enforcement is the act or process of compelling compliance
with a law, mandate, or command.18
III. Application of the Provisions of the New York Convention of 1958
This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards
made in the territory of a State other than the State where the recognition and
enforcement of such awards are sought, and arising out of differences between persons,
whether physical or legal. It shall also apply to arbitral awards not considered as
16
First paragraph in the Introduction of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards
17
Black’s Law Dictionary
18
Black’s Law Dictionary
32
domestic awards in the State where their recognition and enforcement are sought. 19
The convention applies to:
1. Foreign arbitral awards

2. Non-domestic arbitral awards
May be:
(i) Award made in the enforcement State but under the
Arbitration law of another State;
(ii) Made in the enforcement State and under its arbitration law
but involving a foreign or an international element;
(iii) Award not governed by any arbitration law
The words “whether contractual or not” in Article II means that the Convention
covers not only disputes arising out of contract but also tort. (Article II (1) of the
Convention)
IV. Obligation of the Contracting State pursuant to the Convention
The Convention provides the Contracting State’s obligation to recognize arbitral

awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the
territory where the award is relied upon.20
Consequently, the Contracting State shall have the obligation to recognize any
agreement by the parties which allow said parties to submit to arbitration all or any
differences which may arise or have arisen between them which is a matter capable of
settlement by arbitration. Said “agreement in writing” shall include arbitral clauses in a
contract signed by the parties
The Convention require courts of contracting parties to give full effect to

arbitration agreements by requiring courts of parties to deny access to court in
contravention of their agreement to refer the matter to an arbitral tribunal. Thus, the
court of a contracting State, shall refer the case to said arbitration, unless said court
finds the agreement void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
V. Refferal to Arbitration
The convention provides that if an action is brought before a court of a Contracting

State, said court shall refer the parties, at the request of one of the parties, to arbitration
19
Article I of the New York Convention of 1958
20
Article III of the New York Convention of 1958
33
if:
a. There is an arbitration agreement which is valid under the Convention;

b. There must be a dispute;
c. Dispute arises from legal relationship of the parties and is within the scope of
the arbitration agreement;
d. Arbitration agreement must be in writing;
e. Said agreement is not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being
performed;
f. Capable of settlement by arbitration
The use of the word “the court … shall, at the request of the parties, refer” makes
the duty to refer mandatory.
VI. When is the arbitration agreement “null and void”, “inoperative”, and
“incapable of being performed”
1. Null and void – agreement is affected by some invalidity form the beginning,
like lack of consent due to misrepresentation, duress, fraud or undue influence
2. Inoperative – agreement has ceased to have effect. (if parties revoked said
agreement)
3. Incapable of being performed – if agreement cannot be effectively implemented
by reason of vagueness of the terms, contradicting intention of parties to arbitrate
etc.
VII. How to obtain the recognition and enforcement of the award pursuant to
the Convention
The party applying for recognition and enforcement shall:
1. Supply the authenticated original award or its duly certified copy and
2. Supply the original written agreement of the parties to settle dispute through
arbitration.
3. Establish that the State which foreign arbitration was made is a party to the
New York Convention.
VIII. Refusal to recognize and enforce the arbitral award

34
At the request of the party against whom the award is invoked or through an
application to set-aside or suspend the award, the party-applicant may ask for its non-
recognition and non-enforcement only if said party furnishes to the competent
authority where the recognition is sought, proof that:
1. One of the parties to the written agreement is incapacitated to be a party in

the contract pursuant to law applicable to them;
2. Said agreement is not valid under the law which the parties have subjected it
to;
3. Party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the
appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise
unable to present his case (violation of due process);
4. Excess of the tribunal’s authority;
5. The arbitral authority was not in accordance with the arbitral procedure
agreed upon or not in accordance with the laws of the country where the
arbitration took place;
6. Award is not yet binding;
7. Award has been set-aside (annulled or vacated) or suspended by a competent
authority or;
8. Recognition or enforcement of the award is found to be against public policy
by the court where recognition is sought.21
(See Section 45 of Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004)
Note: The convention does not govern or include setting aside of an arbitral award
because said act pertains to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in the country of
origin. The setting aside has extra-territorial effect as it is a ground for refusal to be
recognized under the above mentioned article.
IX. The Convention Encourages Recognition and Enforcement
Article VII (1) of the Convention removes conditions for recognition and
enforcement in national laws that are more stringent than the conditions in the
Convention and at the same time allowing continued application of any national
provisions that give more favorable rights to a party seeking to enforce award. Further,
said article recognizes the right of a party to avail itself of any law or treaty of the
country where the award is sought to be relied upon, including where such law or
treaties offer a regime more favorable than the convention.
21
Article V of the New York Convention of 1958
35
In other word, said provision is called “More favorable right provision” which
provides freedom of a party to base its request for enforcement and recognition of an
arbitral award on the domestic law concerning enforcement of the award or other
treaties instead of the New York Convention.
X. Authority of the Court where the Award is sought to be recognized and

enforced or set-aside or suspended.
The competent court, or the Regional Trial Court pursuant to RA 9285, has the
authority to vacate its decision or order the party to provide appropriate security.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
BACKGROUND OF THE MODEL LAW

36
By the late 1970s, the increase in the worldwide use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) in general, and mediation or conciliation in particular, led to the
desire to create uniform rules that govern the process of international commercial
mediation.
As a result, the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial was

adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)
on June 21, 1985, at the end of the eighteenth session of the Commission. The General
Assembly, in its resolution 40/72 of December 11, 1985, recommended “that all States
give due consideration to the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, in
view of the desirability of uniformity of the law of arbitral procedures and the specific
needs of international commercial arbitration practice”. The Model Law was amended
by UNCITRAL on July 7, 2006, at the thirty-ninth session of the Commission. The
General Assembly, in its resolution 61/33 of December 4, 2006, recommended “that all
States give favorable consideration to the enactment of the revised articles of the
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, or the revised
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, when they enact or
revise their laws.22
UN General Assembly recommended that all states give due consideration to the
Model Law in view of the desirability of uniformity of the law of arbitral procedures
and the specific needs of international commercial arbitration practice. The twin
objectives of the law are the harmonization of national arbitration laws for international
arbitration and the setting up of rules, which will meet the present requirements of
international arbitration. 23
Hence, as signatory to the Arbitration Rules of the UNCITRAL Model Law on

International Commercial Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in the New York Convention on June 21, 1985,
the Philippines committed itself to be bound by the Model Law.
REASONS FOR ITS ESTABLISHMENT
The Model Law was developed to address considerable disparities in national

laws on arbitration. The need for improvement and harmonization was based on
findings that national laws were often particularly inappropriate for international cases.
22
UNCITRAL, (2016). UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments
as adopted in 2006. Retrieved March 18, 2020 from http://www.uncitral.org.
23
Mamangun, R. Comparative Analysis of the Philippine Arbitration Law and the UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration. Retrieved March 18, 2020 from https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/the-
philippine-arbitration-law-and-the-uncitral-model-law-5124.
37
Moreover, the Model Law is designed to assist States in reforming and modernizing
their laws on arbitral procedure so as to take into account the particular features and
needs of international commercial arbitration. It covers all stages of the arbitral process
from the arbitration agreement, the composition and jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal
and the extent of court intervention through to the recognition and enforcement of the
arbitral award. It reflects worldwide consensus on key aspects of international
arbitration practice having been accepted by States of all regions and the different legal
or economic systems of the world.24
1. Inadequacy of domestic laws.
Recurrent inadequacies to be found in outdated national laws include

provisions that equate the arbitral process with court litigation and fragmentary
provisions that fail to address all relevant substantive law issues. Even most of
those laws that appear to be up-to-date and comprehensive were drafted with
domestic arbitration primarily, if not exclusively, in mind. While this approach is
understandable in view of the fact that even today the bulk of cases governed by
arbitration law would be of a purely domestic nature, the unfortunate
consequence is that traditional local concepts are imposed on international cases
and the needs of modern practice are often not met.25
2. Disparity between national laws.
Problems stemming from inadequate arbitration laws or from the absence

of specific legislation governing arbitration are aggravated by the fact that
national laws differ widely. Such differences are a frequent source of concern in
international arbitration, where at least one of the parties is, and often both
parties are, confronted with foreign and unfamiliar provisions and procedures.
Obtaining a full and precise account of the law applicable to the arbitration is, in
such circumstances often expensive, impractical or impossible. 26
3. Uncertainty about the local law.
Uncertainty about the local law with the inherent risk of frustration may
adversely affect the functioning of the arbitral process and also impact on the
selection of the place of arbitration. Due to such uncertainty, a party may hesitate
or refuse to agree to a place, which for practical reasons would otherwise be
24
Jain, S. (2015, November 10). Framework Governing International Commercial Arbitration: UNCITRAL Model
Law and Principles. Retrieved March 20, 2020 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2777728.
25
26
38
appropriate. The range of places of arbitration acceptable to parties is thus

widened and the smooth functioning of the arbitral proceedings is enhanced
where States adopt the Model Law, which is easily recognizable, meets the
specific needs of international commercial arbitration and provides an
international standard based on solutions acceptable to parties from different
legal systems.27
SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE MODEL LAW
Article 1. Scope of application. (1) This Law applies to international

commercial arbitration, subject to any agreement in force between this State and
any other State or States. (2) The provisions of this Law, except articles 8, 9, 17
H, 17 I, 17 J, 35 and 36, apply only if the place of arbitration is in the territory of
this State.
Article 1 of the Model Law defines the scope of application of the Model Law by
reference to the notion of “international commercial arbitration”. 28 The Model Law
defines an arbitration as international if the parties to an arbitration agreement have, at
the time of the conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different States
(article 1 (3)).29 The vast majority of situations commonly regarded as international will
meet this criterion. In addition, article 1 (3) broadens the notion of internationality so
that the Model Law also covers cases where the place of arbitration, the place of
contract performance, or the place of the subject-matter of the dispute is situated
outside the State where the parties have their place of business, or cases where the
parties have expressly agreed that the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement
relates to more than one country.
Another aspect of applicability is the territorial scope of application. The

principle embodied in article 1 (2) is that the Model Law as enacted in a given State
applies only if the place of arbitration is in the territory of that State. However, article 1
(2) also contains important exceptions to that principle, to the effect that certain articles
apply, irrespective of whether the place of arbitration is in the enacting State or
elsewhere (or, as the case may be, even before the place of arbitration is determined).
These articles are the following: articles 8 (1) and 9, which deal with the recognition of
arbitration agreements, including their compatibility with interim measures ordered by
a court, article 17 J on court-ordered interim measures, articles 17 H and 17 I on the
recognition and enforcement of interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal, and
articles 35 and 36 on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.
27
28
UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 1.
29
UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 1 (3).
39
PARTY AUTONOMY
The entire scheme of the Model Law provides for a wide scope of party
autonomy. The most important principle on which the Model Law should be based is
the freedom of parties to tailor the rule of game to their specific needs.
The Model Law expressly permits the parties to specify the international nature
of the arbitrable subject matter; choose institutionalized arbitration and rules; agree on
the manner in which written communications are deemed received; determine the
number of arbitrators; determine the procedure for arbitrator appointment; agree on a
procedure for arbitrator challenge; determine the procedure for conduct of the arbitral
proceedings; determine the language(s) to be used; agree to the manner and time
frames governing presentation of claims; agree to oral hearings; agree as to defaults and
experts appointed by the tribunal; choose the law(s) which will govern the proceedings;
and authorize the arbitrators to decide ex aequo et bono or as amiable compositeur. 30
DELIMITATION OF COURT ASSISTANCE AND SUPERVISION
Article 5. Extent of court intervention. In matters governed by this Law, no

court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law.
Article 6. Court or other authority for certain functions of arbitration

assistance and supervision. The functions referred to in articles 11(3), 11(4),
13(3), 14, 16(3) and 34(2) shall be performed by ... [Each State enacting this
model law specifies the court, courts or, where referred to therein, other
authority competent to perform these functions.]
Article 5 of the Model Law guarantees that all instances of possible court
intervention are found in the piece of legislation enacting the Model Law, except for
matters not regulated by it. Protecting the arbitral process from unpredictable or
disruptive court interference is essential to parties who choose arbitration (in particular
foreign parties).
Moreover, Article 6 of the Model Law envisages court involvement in the

following instances. A first group comprises issues of appointment, challenge and
termination of the mandate of an arbitrator (articles 11, 13 and 14), jurisdiction of the
arbitral tribunal (article 16) and setting aside of the arbitral award (article 34). These
instances are listed in article 6 as functions that should be entrusted, for the sake of
centralization, specialization and efficiency, to a specially designated court or, with
30
40
respect to articles 11, 13 and 14, possibly to another authority. A second group
comprises issues of court assistance in taking evidence (article 27), recognition of the
arbitration agreement, including its compatibility with court-ordered interim measures
(articles 8 and 9), court-ordered interim measures (article 17 J), and recognition and
enforcement of interim measures (articles 17 H and 17 I) and of arbitral awards (articles
35 and 36).
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
Chapter II of the Model Law deals with the arbitration agreement, including its
recognition by courts.
Arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all

or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a
defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. An arbitration agreement may be
in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. 31
The Arbitration Agreement shall be in writing
An arbitration agreement is in writing if:
1) Its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration agreement
or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct, or by other means;
2) In an electronic communication, the information contained therein is accessible

so as to be useable for subsequent reference; “electronic communication” means any
communication that the parties make by means of data messages; “data message”
means information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic, magnetic, optical or
similar means, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange (EDI),
electronic mail, telegram, telex or telecopy.
3) It is contained in an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the

existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.
4) A reference in a contract to any document containing an arbitration clause

constitutes an arbitration agreement in writing, provided that the reference is such as to
make that clause part of the contract.32
31
32
41
Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court
A court before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an

arbitration agreement shall, if a party so requests not later than when submitting his
first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration unless it
finds that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
Where an action referred to in the preceding paragraph has been brought, arbitral
proceedings may nevertheless be commenced or continued, and an award may be
made, while the issue is pending before the court.33
COMPOSITION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
Chapter III of the Model Law contains a number of detailed provisions on

appointment, challenge, termination of mandate and replacement of an arbitrator.
Number of Arbitrators
Article 10 of the Model Law provides that the parties are free to determine the
number of arbitrators. Failing such determination, the number of arbitrators shall be
three.34
Appointment of Arbitrators
Article 11 of the Model Law provides that the parties are free to agree on a
procedure of appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators.
Failing such agreement, (a) in an arbitration with three arbitrators, each party
shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two arbitrators thus appointed shall appoint the
third arbitrator; if a party fails to appoint the arbitrator within thirty days of receipt of a
request to do so from the other party, or if the two arbitrators fail to agree on the third
arbitrator within thirty days of their appointment, the appointment shall be made, upon
request of a party, by the court or other authority specified in article 6; (b) in an
arbitration with a sole arbitrator, if the parties are unable to agree on the arbitrator, he
shall be appointed, upon request of a party, by the court or other authority specified in
article 6.
33
34
42
However, where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties,

a party fails to act as required under such procedure, or the parties, or two arbitrators,
are unable to reach an agreement expected of them under such procedure, or a third
party, including an institution, fails to perform any function entrusted to it under such
procedure, any party may request the court or other authority specified in article 6 to
take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure
provides other means for securing the appointment, which shall be subject to no
appeal.
The court or other authority, in appointing an arbitrator, shall have due regard to
any qualifications required of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties and to such
considerations as are likely to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial
arbitrator and, in the case of a sole or third arbitrator, shall take into account as well the
advisability of appointing an arbitrator of a nationality other than those of the parties. 35
Grounds for Challenge
Article 12 of the Model Law provides that when a person is approached in

connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose any
circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or
independence. An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the
arbitral proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such circumstances to the parties
unless they have already been informed of them by him.
An arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to

justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence, or if he does not possess
qualifications agreed to by the parties. A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed
by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he
becomes aware after the appointment has been made.
Termination of Mandate
Article 13 of the Model Law provides that the parties are free to agree on a
procedure for challenging an arbitrator.
Failing such agreement, a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall,

within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or
after becoming aware of any circumstance referred to in article 12(2), send a written
statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal. Unless the challenged
35
43
arbitrator withdraws from his office or the other party agrees to the challenge, the
arbitral tribunal shall decide on the challenge.
If a challenge under any procedure agreed upon by the parties or under the
procedure of mentioned in the preceding paragraph is not successful, the challenging
party may request, within thirty days after having received notice of the decision
rejecting the challenge, the court or other authority specified in article 6 to decide on the
challenge, which decision shall be subject to no appeal; while such a request is pending,
the arbitral tribunal, including the challenged arbitrator, may continue the arbitral
proceedings and make an award.36
Moreover, Article 14 of the Model Law states that if an arbitrator becomes de jure
or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without
undue delay, his mandate terminates if he withdraws from his office or if the parties
agree on the termination. Otherwise, if a controversy remains concerning any of these
grounds, any party may request the court or other authority specified in article 6 to
decide on the termination of the mandate, which decision shall be subject to no appeal.
Appointment of Substitute Arbitrator
Article 15 of the Model Law provides that where the mandate of an arbitrator
terminates under article 13 or 14 or because of his withdrawal from office for any other
reason or because of the revocation of his mandate by agreement of the parties or in any
other case of termination of his mandate, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed
according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being
replaced.37
JURISDICTION OF ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
Principle of Competence-Competence
UNCITRAL Model Law recognizes the principle of Competence-Competence i.e.,

competence to decide one’s own competence. The fact that the arbitral tribunal has the
competence to rule on its own jurisdiction and to define the outlines of its jurisdiction,
only means that when such issues arise before it, the Tribunal can and possibly, ought
to decide them. Section 16 of the Act of 1996 corresponds to Article 16 of the
UNCITRAL Model law. Every country which has adopted the Model Law has conferred
36
37
44
powers on the arbitrators to rule on own jurisdiction and define the outlines of their
jurisdiction.
Competence-competence is a widely accepted feature of modern international

arbitration and allows the Arbitral Tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction including
ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration-
agreement, subject to final review by a competent court of law, i.e. subject to Section 34
of the Act. Like the arbitration agreement, it has or may have both positive and negative
effects, even if the latter have not yet been fully accepted in a number of jurisdictions.
The positive effect of the competence-competence principle is to enable the arbitrators to
rule on their own jurisdiction as is widely recognized by international conventions and
by recent statutes on international arbitration. However, the negative effect is equally
important. It is to allow the arbitrators to be not the sole judges, but the first judges of
their jurisdiction. In other words, it is to allow them to come to a decision on their
jurisdiction prior to any court or other judicial authority, and thereby to limit the role of
the courts to the review of the award. 38
CONDUCT OF ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS
Chapter V provides the legal framework for a fair and effective conduct of the
arbitral proceedings. Article 18, which sets out fundamental requirements of procedural
justice, and Article 19 on the rights and powers to determine the rules of procedure,
express principles that are central to the Model Law.
Equal treatment of parties
Article 18 of the Model Law embodies the principle that the parties shall be
treated with equality and given a full opportunity of presenting their case. 39
Determination of rules of procedure
Article 19 of the Model Law guarantees the parties’ freedom to agree on the
procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the proceedings, subject
to a few mandatory provisions on procedure, and failing such agreement, the arbitral
tribunal may, subject to the provisions of this Law, conduct the arbitration in such
manner as it considers appropriate. The power conferred upon the arbitral tribunal
38
39
45
includes the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of
any evidence.40
Place of Arbitration
Article 20 of the Model Law provides that the parties are free to agree on the
place of arbitration. Failing such agreement, the place of arbitration shall be determined
by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the
convenience of the parties. However, the arbitral tribunal may, unless otherwise agreed
by the parties, meet at any place it considers appropriate for consultation among its
members, for hearing witnesses, experts or the parties, or for inspection of goods, other
property or documents.41
Commencement of Arbitral Proceedings
Article 21 of the Model Law provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties,
the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on
which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the
respondent.42
Language
Article 22 of the Model Law provides that the parties are free to agree on the
language or languages to be used in the arbitral proceedings. Failing such agreement,
the arbitral tribunal shall determine the language or languages to be used in the
proceedings. This agreement or determination, unless otherwise specified therein, shall
apply to any written statement by a party, any hearing and any award, decision or other
communication by the arbitral tribunal.43
Moreover, the arbitral tribunal may order that any documentary evidence shall
be accompanied by a translation into the language or languages agreed upon by the
parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal.
Statement of Claims and Defense
40
41
42
43
46
Article 23 of the Model Law provides that within the period of time agreed by
the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal, the claimant shall state the facts
supporting his claim, the points at issue and the relief or remedy sought, and the
respondent shall state his defense in respect of these particulars, unless the parties have
otherwise agreed as to the required elements of such statements. The parties may
submit with their statements all documents they consider to be relevant or may add a
reference to the documents or other evidence they will submit. 44
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, either party may amend or supplement
his claim or defense during the course of the arbitral proceedings, unless the arbitral
tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow such amendment having regard to the delay
in making it.
Hearings and Written Proceedings
Article 23 of the Model Law provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide
whether to hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument, or
whether the proceedings shall be conducted on the basis of documents and other
materials. Subject to any contrary agreement by the parties. However, unless the parties
have agreed that no hearings shall be held, the arbitral tribunal shall hold such hearings
at an appropriate stage of the proceedings, if so requested by a party.
The parties shall be given sufficient advance notice of any hearing and of any
meeting of the arbitral tribunal for the purposes of inspection of goods, other property
or documents.
All statements, documents or other information supplied to the arbitral tribunal

by one party shall be communicated to the other party. Also any expert report or
evidentiary document on which the arbitral tribunal may rely in making its decision
shall be communicated to the parties.
Default of a Party
Article 25 of the Model Law provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties,
if, without showing sufficient cause, (a) the claimant fails to communicate his statement
of claim in accordance with article 23(1), the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the
proceedings; (b) the respondent fails to communicate his statement of defense in
accordance with article 23(1), the arbitral tribunal shall continue the proceedings
without treating such failure in itself as an admission of the claimant’s allegations; (c)
44
47
any party fails to appear at a hearing or to produce documentary evidence, the arbitral
tribunal may continue the proceedings and make the award on the evidence before it. 45
MAKING OF AWARD AND TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS
Under Article 28 of the Model Law. the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute
in accordance with such rules of law as are chosen by the parties as applicable to the
substance of the dispute. Any designation of the law or legal system of a given State
shall be construed, unless otherwise expressed, as directly referring to the substantive
law of that State and not to its conflict of laws rules.46
Failing any designation by the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall apply the law
determined by the conflict of laws rules which it considers applicable.
The arbitral tribunal shall decide ex aequo et bono or as amiable compositeur

only if the parties have expressly authorized it to do so.
In all cases, the arbitral tribunal shall decide in accordance with the terms of the
contract and shall take into account the usages of the trade applicable to the transaction.
Decision-making by panel of arbitrators
Article 29 of the Model Law provides that in arbitral proceedings with more than
one arbitrator, any decision of the arbitral tribunal shall be made, unless otherwise
agreed by the parties, by a majority of all its members. However, questions of
procedure may be decided by a presiding arbitrator, if so authorized by the parties or
all members of the arbitral tribunal. 47
Settlement
Article 30 of the Model Law states that if, during arbitral proceedings, the parties
settle the dispute, the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the proceedings and, if requested
by the parties and not objected to by the arbitral tribunal, record the settlement in the
form of an arbitral award on agreed terms. An award on agreed terms shall be made in
45
46
47
48
accordance with the provisions of article 31 and shall state that it is an award. Such an
award has the same status and effect as any other award on the merits of the case. 48
Termination of proceedings
Article 32 of the Model Law provides that the arbitral proceedings are
terminated by the final award or by an order of the arbitral tribunal.
The arbitral tribunal shall issue an order for the termination of the arbitral
proceedings when:
(a) the claimant withdraws his claim, unless the respondent objects thereto and
the arbitral tribunal recognizes a legitimate interest on his part in obtaining a fi nal
settlement of the dispute;
(b) the parties agree on the termination of the proceedings;
(c) the arbitral tribunal finds that the continuation of the proceedings has for any
other reason become unnecessary or impossible.
The mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates with the termination of the
arbitral proceedings, subject to the provisions of articles 33 and 34(4).49
CORRECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF AWARD; ADDITIONAL

AWARD
Article 33 of the Model Law states the procedure in the correction, interpretation
and request for additional award. It provides that:
(1) Within thirty days of receipt of the award, unless another period of time has been
agreed upon by the parties:
(a) a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to
correct in the award any errors in computation, any clerical or typographical errors or
any errors of similar nature;
(b) if so agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the other party, may request
the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award. If
the arbitral tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall make the correction or
48
49
49
give the interpretation within thirty days of receipt of the request. The interpretation
shall form part of the award.
(2) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in paragraph (1)(a)
of this article on its own initiative within thirty days of the date of the award.
(3) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the other party, may
request, within thirty days of receipt of the award, the arbitral tribunal to make an
additional award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from
the award. If the arbitral tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall make the
additional award within sixty days.
(4) The arbitral tribunal may extend, if necessary, the period of time within which it
shall make a correction, interpretation or an additional award under paragraph (1) or
(3) of this article.
(5) The provisions of article 31 shall apply to a correction or interpretation of the award
or to an additional award.50
RECOURSE AGAINST AWARD
Under Article 34 of the Model Law, recourse to a court against an arbitral award
may be made only by an application for setting aside. An arbitral award may be set
aside by the court as specified in article 6 only if:
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that:
(i) a party to the arbitration agreement referred to in article 7 was under

some incapacity; or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the
parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of this
State; or
(ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the
appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise
unable to present his case; or
(iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling
within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on
matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the
50
50
decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so

submitted, only that part of the award which contains decisions on matters not
submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
(iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was
not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was
in conflict with a provision of this Law from which the parties cannot derogate,
or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Law; or
(b) the court finds that: (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of
settlement by arbitration under the law of this State; or (ii) the award is in conflict with
the public policy of this State.
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS
Under Article 35 of the Model Law, an arbitral award, irrespective of the country
in which it was made, shall be recognized as binding and, upon application in writing
to the competent court, shall be enforced subject to the provisions of this article and of
article 36.
Grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement
Article 36 of the Model Law provides that recognition or enforcement of an

arbitral award, irrespective of the country in which it was made, may be refused only:
(a) at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, if that party furnishes
to the competent court where recognition or enforcement is sought proof that:
(i) a party to the arbitration agreement referred to in article 7 was under

some incapacity; or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the
parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the
country where the award was made; or
(ii) the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper
notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was
otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling
within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on
matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the
decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so
51
submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted
to arbitration may be recognized and enforced; or
(iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was
not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement,
was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took
place; or
(v) the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set
aside or suspended by a court of the country in which, or under the law of
which, that award was made; or
(b) if the court finds that: (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of
settlement by arbitration under the law of this State; or (ii) the recognition or
enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of this State. 51
THE PHILIPPINE ARBITRATION LAW AND THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW
In a research paper made by Atty. Rainier Mamagun, he presented a

comparative analysis of the Philippine Arbitration Law and the UNCITRAL Model Law
on International Commercial Arbitration.
According to Atty. Mamagun the following are the major differences between
Philippine Arbitration Law and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration:
1) As to Subject Matter. With respect to the scope of application, the Philippine

Arbitration Law differs from the UNCITRAL Model Law in that the former applies to
any controversy existing between the parties involved. The submission or contract may
include questions arising out of valuations, appraisals or other controversies which may
be collateral, incidental, precedent or subsequent to any issue between the parties. 52 The
Model Law, on the other hand, applies only to international arbitration as provided for
in Article 1.53 The Model Law definition of “international commercial arbitration”
includes situations in which the parties have their place of business in different states,
or in which the place of arbitration or performance is a state different than that of the
parties’ place of business.
2) As to Qualifications of Arbitrators. Republic Act No. 876 differs from the

Model Law with respect to the requirements of the persons acting as arbitrators. Under
the latter, there are no specific requirements that ought to be possessed by the arbitrator
51
52
The Arbitration Law, 1953.
53
52
as the parties are free to agree on his qualifications. Under the Philippine Arbitration
Law, on the other hand, the minimum requirements for the appointment of a person as
an arbitrator are that he be of legal age, in full enjoyment of his civil rights and must
know how to read and write. An arbitrator is to be neutral and impartial. No party shall
select as arbitrator any person to act as his champion or to advocate his cause. A ground
for the disqualification of an arbitrator is his personal bias which might prejudice the
right of a party to a fair and impartial award. This bias is presumed where the arbitrator
is related by blood or marriage to a party within the sixth degree; or where he has
financial, fiduciary or other interest in the controversy or cause to be decided or in the
result of the proceeding.54 Under the Model Law, a person may be precluded by a
reason of his nationality from acting as an arbitrator, if such is agreed upon by the
parties (Art. 11).55
3) As to Court Intervention. The present Philippine Arbitration Law also differs

from the UNCITRAL Model Law on the aspect of court intervention. Republic Act No.
876 allows broad intervention by the courts. It allows the courts to intervene in arbitral
proceedings and review arbitral awards on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
committed by the Arbitral Tribunal and other grounds. 56 On the other hand, Article 5 of
the UNCITRAL Model Law expressly states that no court shall intervene except where
so provided in the law. The only way to question the award or action of the tribunal
will be an application for setting aside the award on the grounds provided for in Article
34 of the said law. 57
4) As to Status of Arbitration Proceedings. The Philippine Arbitration Law also

differs from the Model Law with respect to the status of the arbitration proceedings
when an action is brought before the courts. Under the former, a party to an arbitration
proceeding which questions its actions may go to court and secure a temporary
injunction prohibiting the arbitral tribunal from proceeding with the arbitration until
the court has ruled on the action. 58 On the other hand, under the UNCITRAL Model
Law where an action has been brought before a court, arbitral proceedings may
nevertheless be commenced or continued, and an award may be made, while the issue
is pending before the court.59
5) As to Disclosure Requirement. Another aspect wherein the Philippine

Arbitration Law differs from the Model Law is on the disclosure obligations of the
arbitrators. Under the former, no person shall serve as an arbitrator if he has financial,
fiduciary or other interest in the controversy or has a personal bias, which might
prejudice the right of any party to a fair and impartial award (Section 10). 60 This,
54
55
56
57
58
59
UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 8, par. 2.
60
The Arbitration Law, 1953, Article 10.
53
however, does not require prior disclosure as in the Model Law. Under the Model Law,
when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an
arbitrator, he shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as
to his impartiality or independence. An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment
and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such
circumstances to the parties unless they have already been informed of them by him. 61
6) As to the Place of Arbitration. With respect to the designation of the place of

arbitration there exists a marked difference between the Philippine Arbitration Law and
the UNCITRAL Model Law. The former does not provide for rules on the designation
of the place of arbitration, whereas the latter provides that where the parties have failed
to agree on the place of arbitration, the place shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal
having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties.
It further provides that the arbitral tribunal may meet at any place it considers
appropriate for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts of the
parties, or for an inspection of goods, other property or documents. 62 Under the Model
Law, the parties are given broad autonomy. Aside from the place of arbitration, the
parties can select their own rules of procedure, including the number of arbitrators, the
language of the arbitral proceeding, and the type of hearing which may either be an oral
or written presentation. Subject to certain mandatory provisions, the parties are free to
determine the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the
proceedings. They may do so by reference to a set of institutional or ad hoc arbitration
rules, or by developing specific procedural rules tailored to their particular needs. 63
7) As to the Applicable Law. Another area of difference between the two laws is
the designation of the particular law to govern the dispute. The Philippine Arbitration
Law does not specify the procedure for determining the law to govern the case. 64 This is
in marked contrast with the Model Law which provides that the arbitral tribunal shall
decide the dispute in accordance with such rules of law as are chosen by the parties.
This authorizes the parties to select not only a particular jurisdiction’s law, but the laws
of several jurisdictions, or even general international legal principles. Failing any
designation by the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall apply the law determined by the
conflict of laws rules which it considers applicable. In all cases, the arbitral tribunal
shall decide in accordance with the terms of the contract and shall take into account the
usages of the trade applicable to the transaction. 65
8) As to Correction or Interpretation of Award. The Philippine Arbitration Law

can be considered deficient for the reason that it does not extend to the arbitral tribunal
the right to correct or modify its award as first resort. 66 The Model Law, on one hand,
61
UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 12, par. 1.
62
63
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985.
64
65
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Article 28.
66
54
authorizes the parties to apply to the arbitral tribunal for correction or modification of
the award.67
REFERENCES
Primary Source/s
67
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985.
55
1) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985.
2) UNCITRAL Model Amendment Law, 2006.
3) Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2004.
4) The Arbitration Law, 1953.
Secondary Source/s
1) Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman, “International Commercial Arbitration” KL

Int. 1999.
Web Source/s
1) UNCITRAL, (2016). UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial

Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006. Retrieved March 18, 2020
from http://www.uncitral.org.
2) Mamangun, R. Comparative Analysis of the Philippine Arbitration Law and the

UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Retrieved March
18, 2020 from https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/the-philippine-arbitration-law-
and-the-uncitral-model-law-5124.
3) Jain, S. (2015, November 10). Framework Governing International Commercial

Arbitration: UNCITRAL Model Law and Principles. Retrieved March 20, 2020 from
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2777728.

International LAws On ADR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International LAws On ADR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the

I. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1008 …………………………………………………..1

II. EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 523 …………………………………………………..15

III. CONVENTION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES

IV. CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF

V. UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1008 February 4, 1985

WHEREAS, the construction industry provides employment to a large segment of the

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the

II. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION (CIAC)

FEDERAL BUILDERS, INC. vs POWER FACTORS, INC.

An agreement to submit to voluntary arbitration for purposes of vesting jurisdiction over a

Power sent a demand letter to Federal claiming the unpaid amount of

15. ARBITRATION COMMITTEE - All disputes, controversies or differences, which

CA explained that the CIAC Revised Rules of Procedure stated that the agreement

ISSUE/HELD: Whether CIAC has jurisdiction over the present case/NO

RATIO: The parties had an effective agreement to submit to voluntary arbitration;

The need to establish a proper arbitral machinery to settle disputes expeditiously

Under the CIAC Revised Rules of Procedure Governing Construction

PHILROCK, INC. vs CIAC and Spouses VICENTE and NELIA CID

Pursuant to Order of RTC, the CIAC resumed conducting preliminary

Before the CA, Philrock contested the jurisdiction of the CIAC.

Besides, according to Section 3 of the Rules of Procedure Governing Construction

This contention is untenable.

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION (NIA) vs

FACTS: In a competitive bidding held by NIA in 1978, HYDRO was awarded

The two designated arbitrators appointed Certified Public Accountant Joven B.

After reaching an accord on the issues to be considered by the arbitration panel,

See: Section 4, EO 1008

III. COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD

Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos

Engr. Antonio A. Abola Engr. Emilio Lolito J. Tumbocon

See: Section 5, EO 1008

See: LIST OF ACTIVE/AVAILABLE CIAC-ACCREDITED ARBITRATORS (As of 14

B. Only CIAC-accredited arbitrators may be nominated by the parties and appointed by

C. Arbitrators are not permanent employees of CIAC.3

D. A sole arbitrator or three arbitrators may settle a dispute.

See: Section 14, EO 1008

E. A foreign arbitrator not accredited by CIAC may be appointed as a co-arbitrator or

The foreign arbitrator must be :

The nomination must be accompanied by a resume or bio-data of the nominee

V. PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE / TERMS OF REFERENCE

The TOR shall include the following particulars:8

VI. APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS

See: Section 15, EO 1008

VII. FREEDOM TO SETTLE

VIII. – THE ARBITRATION AWARD

There shall be no extensions of time unless approved by the CIAC. 14

IX. – EXECUTION OF FINAL AWARD

See: Section 20, EO 1008

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 523 March 22, 2006

INSTITUTING THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the

SECTION 1. Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution. All administrative bodies shall

SEC. 3. Management of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Executive Agencies. The

coordinate/direct the development of rules, regulation and procedures to implement

educate and encourage the public in the use of ADR;

SEC. 4. Principles to Promote Just and Efficient Administrative Dispute Resolution.

SEC. 8. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

II. PROOF OF THE USE OF ADR IN EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Employer: Department of Agrarian Reform