The Philippine Dispute Resolution Center (PDRC) and the Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) have agreed in principle to a strategic partnership to develop and implement programs to 
institutionalize the use and practice of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the Philippines.
At their third online meeting on May 29, 2020, the OADR Management Committee led by its Executive Director, Irene Alogoc, and the PDRC team led by Secretary General Roberto Dio reviewed the terms of the draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) revised by OADR Director III Ma. Cristina Abalos-Naig. After a lively discussion, both sides agreed on the final terms of the MOA.
On May 31, 2020, the PDRC Executive Committee unanimously approved the revised draft MOA.
The MOA envisions PDRC to provide OADR with resource persons on policy formulation and in drafting legislation on ADR, with OADR and PDRC supporting each other in developing and implementing programs to institutionalize the use and practice of ADR. OADR and PDRC will hold monthly online meetings to identify these programs.
Among others, these will include ADR trainings and seminars to develop private and government ADR practitioners, e.g., those in the barangays and in the Department of Justice, forums and conferences on new developments, and joint research and studies. For its part, OADR committed to accredit ADR practitioners in PDRC’s list of accredited arbitrators.
The MOA will be effective upon signing by the parties, which is expected his month, unless terminated after giving 60 days’ notice. SecGen Dio was assisted by Trustee Joenar Pueblo and by Executive Director Francisco Pabilla, Jr.
CIAC Guidelines on the Conduct of Virtual Proceedings
PART 1
The coronavirus pandemic has disrupted everyone’s lives—how we live, how we work, how we play. It has disrupted day-to-day business operations and upended short-term plans and longterm goals. It has not spared any one—not even commercial arbitration—both here and abroad.
Both international and domestic arbitration institutions talk about the need to adopt a “new normal”, i.e., another way of conducting arbitration proceedings through online or virtual hearings. While not entirely new, because there have been instances in the past where a preliminary conference, a case management conference, or an oral hearing may have been conducted partly via telephone or video-conference, as when a counsel or a witness is not able to attend the in-person conference or hearing in the agreed venue, the use of online or virtual hearing for many arbitrations have not been the norm.
Because of this development, different arbitration institutions and organizations recently issued new guidance notes for video conference hearings . Among others, in March 2020, the Seoul Protocol on Video Conferencing in International Arbitration was drafted under the auspices of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) and the Seoul International Dispute Resolution Center (SIDRC). Later in the month, Delos Dispute Resolution came out with its own checklist on holding arbitration and mediation arbitration hearings in times of COVID-19.
In April 2020, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) issued its Guidance Note on Remote Dispute Resolution Proceedings, while the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) issued its Guidance Note on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Also in April 2020, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) released their Virtual Hearing Guides for Arbitrators and Parties.
In the Philippines, the CIAC issued on June 10, 2020 its Memorandum Circular No. 01-2020 (“CIAC Guidelines”), which provided guidelines on the conduct of online or virtual proceedings in CIAC arbitration and mediation. The CIAC Guidelines is different from its international counterparts as it takes into consideration the unique situation that CIAC is in, as an arbitration institution that enjoys a statutory-mandated primary arbitration jurisdiction over construction disputes in the Philippines, where broadband connection is notoriously slow. The CIAC Guidelines took effect on June 15, 2020.
Authority to conduct online/virtual case proceedings
At the outset, the CIAC Guidelines confirms that the arbitral tribunal has full authority to decide if online or virtual proceedings may be conducted. The CIAC Guidelines is silent if the parties should agree to hold virtual proceedings. Instead, it cites Section 21.2 of the CIAC Revised Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration (“CIAC Rules”), which grants the tribunal authority to “exercise complete control over all proceedings to insure a speedy, adequate, and justifiable disposition” of the disputes before them.
The CIAC Guidelines provides that, when the tribunal decides to order the holding of virtual proceedings, the failure or refusal of a party to participate will not stay the proceedings. If both parties fail to participate in the proceedings, the case will be deemed submitted for decision with no further hearings and will be decided on the basis of documentary evidence already submitted.
Restricted use of CIAC premises for case proceedings
The CIAC Guidelines recognizes the propriety of holding in- person conferences and hearings in the CIAC hearing rooms or in adequately spacious public venues, subject to compliance with social distancing rules and the use of face masks or shields. Considering the size of the CIAC hearing rooms, the CIAC offices may be used only for (a) executive meetings of the tribunal; (b) mediation meetings between the mediator and one or both of the parties; and (c) conferences and hearings before a sole arbitrator.
The CIAC Guidelines also recognize the propriety of holding partial virtual proceedings, where some, but not all, of the participants are in the same venue. The parties shall equally advance the cost of use of outside venues, without prejudice to the tribunal determining who shall ultimately bear such costs in their final award.