RAMOS, Paul Reinald S.

2A

A Reaction Paper: Arbitral Autonomy Principle in the Philippine Jurisprudence

Arbitration, as a mode of settling disputes, has long been practiced since the
Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. But it does not necessarily mean that because it
has been used and observed from way back then, that it did not undergo a lot of tirades
as to its effectivity and practical use. The author notes in the article that arbitration in the
Philippines traces its roots from other international state actors such as the United States
and the England; evidently the westerners really had a huge role not only in our politics
and history but as a part of it, the Filipino way of settling disputes.

The Arbitral Autonomy Principle states that an arbitral clause is independent from
the entirety of its contract. It is not assumed as a secondary contract from the principal.
Meaning to say, even if a contract to which an arbitral clause is attached is declared null
and void, still the arbitral clause is valid. This protects the right of the parties to arbitrate
amongst themselves with the presence of an arbitrator to settle their disputes instead of
going through the regular courts process.

As a student of law, I believe that this principle is of great help to everyone who
executes a contract with an arbitral clause. It shall achieve its purpose of achieving and
amicable settlement. Not only that resources will be saved but time and efforts as well.

Arbitration in the Philippines (as an alternative dispute mechanism) has already

grown into an institution. Legislation had been adopted and enacted to promote party
autonomy and allow such parties to make their own arrangements in settling their
respective disputes. Truly, although arbitration has its origin even from the time of the
ancient Greeks up to the American’s concept of arbitration, the concept of arbitration in
the Philippine setting has developed into its own kind. Its role in putting an end to
controversies is now more recognized through the provision of rules regarding arbitration.

Today, Philippine courts conduct seminars among judges all over the country on
alternative dispute resolutions to develop a more synchronized and unified system of
settling disputes.
RAMOS, Paul Reinald S.
2A

A Reaction Paper: The Evolution of Arbitration in the Philippines

The Civil code served as the first source of provisions on arbitration in the
Philippines but since there were only five provisions regarding it, the enactment of R.A.
no. 876 or the Arbitration Law paved the way to give more teeth to arbitration as an
institutional method of settling a controversy between disputing parties. Although Filipinos
are generally referred to by some writes as those who would prefer to go through regular
judicial recourse, eventually arbitration, together with other alternative dispute
mechanisms, has been institutionalized in 2004 through R.A. no 9285 or the Alternative
Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.
The passage of the ADR Act served as an introduction of alternatives to litigation
to most people. It granted the disputing parties to settle and resolve their issues outside
the court in a more expeditious manner. One highlight of the ADR Act of 2004 is the
provision on the policy of judicial restraint. Here, the arbitral tribunal is allowed to rule on
its own jurisdiction first before the regular court shall act upon the matter. This is very
different from how it used to be before the passage of the law. Before, courts may issue
injunctions on arbitral tribunals right before these tribunals can rule on the issue or
controversy they are dealing with—this is clearly considered now as undue intervention
by the courts. Truly, there has a been a major shift on how arbitration played its role; there
has been more respect towards it since then and it has been greatly considered by most
as an effective alternative to the lengthy processes of litigation in the regular courts.
Another feature of the ADR Act of 2004 is the recognition of appointing authority
in the legal system, whether the arbitration is institutional or ad hoc. This has allowed
arbitration to pursue without being enjoined by related pending cases. Also, thru R.A. no.
9285, despite the pendency in court of a challenge as to the arbitrator’s qualifications or
disqualification or such which relate to his impartiality, the arbitral tribunal may continue
with the arbitral proceedings and make and award.
Perhaps, there are still other areas in arbitration which need attention to make it a
more reformed and preferred mode of settling disputes. Although major shifts and
substantial changes has been effected thru the passage of the ADR Act of 2004,
monitoring of possible adjustments should be made by authority. This is possible
especially that arbitration has received supports both from the legislative and judicial
branches of the government. As a student of law, I believe that there still has to be a wider
dissemination of information as to the effects of ADR specifically arbitration to make it a
viable substitute ore preemptive measure to litigation in regular courts.