Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Philippines: Arbitration's Under-Harnessed Potential
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Philippines: Arbitration’s under-harnessed potential
Zara Marie Dy
J.D. 2014
Silliman University
Atty. Norberto Denura
Law 109 – Legal Research & Writing
October 2010
Abstract
Arbitration has steadfastly journeyed through Philippine legislative history in the past few centuries with roots tracing back to the Spanish Ley Enjuicinamente de Civil or the Spanish Law of Civil Procedure (Lim, 2001), re-established mid-century through the Arbitration Law of 1953 which was based on U.S. Federal Arbitration Law, and further refined another half a century later with the Philippine Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act of 2004 which had incorporated some of the more pertinent provisions from the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, exemplified by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Philippine arbitration laws have continuously managed to survive and re-create itself to perpetually assume its place among the laws of the land. The alternative means for dispute resolution that these laws offer tip the scales with major strengths such as cost efficiency, impartiality and technical expertise of engaging arbitrators of your own choice, speed and flexibility in adaptation of laws and procedures, and confidentiality of extrajudicial hearings and awards, as mentioned in Parlade (2005). This paper explores the potential of ADR, focusing on the pitfalls of litigation in the Philippines and the burgeoning advantages arbitration provides.
Keywords: arbitration, alternative dispute resolution
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this paper, and as defined in the Philippine Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, the term:
A. “Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)” means a process or procedure employed to settle a dispute extra-judicially.
Zara Marie Dy
J.D. 2014
Silliman University
Atty. Norberto Denura
Law 109 – Legal Research & Writing
October 2010
Abstract
Arbitration has steadfastly journeyed through Philippine legislative history in the past few centuries with roots tracing back to the Spanish Ley Enjuicinamente de Civil or the Spanish Law of Civil Procedure (Lim, 2001), re-established mid-century through the Arbitration Law of 1953 which was based on U.S. Federal Arbitration Law, and further refined another half a century later with the Philippine Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act of 2004 which had incorporated some of the more pertinent provisions from the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, exemplified by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Philippine arbitration laws have continuously managed to survive and re-create itself to perpetually assume its place among the laws of the land. The alternative means for dispute resolution that these laws offer tip the scales with major strengths such as cost efficiency, impartiality and technical expertise of engaging arbitrators of your own choice, speed and flexibility in adaptation of laws and procedures, and confidentiality of extrajudicial hearings and awards, as mentioned in Parlade (2005). This paper explores the potential of ADR, focusing on the pitfalls of litigation in the Philippines and the burgeoning advantages arbitration provides.
Keywords: arbitration, alternative dispute resolution
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this paper, and as defined in the Philippine Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004, the term:
A. “Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)” means a process or procedure employed to settle a dispute extra-judicially.
References: Grenig, J. E. (2005). Alternative dispute resolution (2nd Ed.). Minnesota: West Publishing Co. Laygo, J. (2010). Arbitration: A brief. Makati: Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Lim, F. E. (2001). Commercial arbitration in the Philippines. The Ateneo Law Journal, 46(2). Chan Linte v. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co., et al., 42 Phil. 548 (1921). Charles Bernard H. Reyes v. Antonio Yulo Balde II, G.R. No. 168384 (2006). Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., G.R. Nos. 161957 and 167994 (2007). Philippine Veterans Investment Development Corp. (PHIVIDEC) v. Hon. Alejandro M. Velez, G.R. No. 84295 (1991). Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, G.R. No. 146717 (2006). Republic Act No. 9285, Philippine Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.