SY & PARTNERS
(A Member Firm of Nishimura & Asahi)
Local Experience.
International Expertise.
Sy & Partners, in strategic alliance with the international law firm Nishimura and Asahi, offers tailored legal solutions that combine local knowledge with international best practices and experience to cater to your commercial and legal needs.
Awards and Updates
Sy & Partners is proud to announce that Atty. Glenn Tuazon has been recognized as Top Litigator of the Year during the 9th GLA Global Arbitration and Litigation Conference 2026, held in Bangkok, Thailand.
Sy & Partners has been recognized by Asia Business Law Journal as a winner at the 2025 Philippines Law Firm Awards in Japan Practice and Private Equity & Venture Capital, reinforcing the firm’s strength in complex cross border transactions.
Newsletter
Latest News
Written by Glenn Tuazon
Most businesses do not spend much time thinking about disputes until one lands on their desk.
That is understandable. Management’s focus should be on running and growing the business. But the disputes we are seeing today look very different from those we saw even a few years ago.
In 2026, three trends stand out. They affect how disputes arise, how they are fought, and often, who wins.
1. Documents Matter More Than Ever
Companies often assume that disputes are won by having the better legal argument. In practice, they are usually won by having the better documents.
As courts and tribunals become increasingly comfortable with electronic evidence and digital processes, emails, chat messages, internal reports, and electronic approvals are playing a central role in disputes.
We regularly see situations where a company’s position is sound, but critical emails cannot be located, key personnel have left the organization, or no one can explain the context behind an important decision made years earlier.
The issue is not always the absence of evidence. More often, it is the inability to preserve it, locate it, or explain it.
Three practical steps:
First, review your document retention practices. Many companies have retention policies on paper but inconsistent implementation in practice. Make sure important project files, approvals, contracts, board materials, and correspondence can still be located years later.
Second, implement litigation holds early. Once a dispute becomes reasonably foreseeable, companies should take steps to preserve potentially relevant documents before they are routinely deleted, overwritten, or lost. Waiting until a complaint is filed may be too late.
Third, preserve institutional knowledge, not just documents. An email often tells only part of the story. Someone must still be able to explain what happened, why a decision was made, and what the parties understood at the time. Just as importantly, those individuals are often the ones who can identify the relevant documents in the first place. When key employees leave, companies should consider whether important project histories, negotiations, and dispute-sensitive matters have been properly documented before that knowledge walks out the door.
The takeaway: Winning a dispute often starts years before the dispute is filed.
2. Compliance Problems Are Turning Into Disputes
Some of the biggest disputes today do not start as disputes.
They start as a whistleblower complaint. A data incident. An employee concern. A governance issue. A regulatory inquiry.
Businesses today face increasing expectations relating to transparency, reporting, disclosure, and data governance. As a result, issues that once remained internal are more likely to lead to litigation, arbitration, regulatory proceedings, or investigations.
Most companies already know compliance is important. But the more useful question is whether the organization can identify and respond to problems before they escalate.
Three practical steps:
First, establish a clear escalation process. Employees should know where concerns are reported, and management should know who is responsible for assessing them. Many disputes become expensive simply because warning signs were ignored, misunderstood, or passed between departments.
Second, investigate early. Delay can become a source of liability in its own right. In employment matters, for example, delays in addressing complaints or delays in constituting the proper investigating body may themselves create legal exposure. The same principle applies elsewhere. The earlier a company understands the facts, the more options it has to manage risk.
Third, document the company’s response. Sometimes the most important fact is not whether a complaint ultimately proved true or false. It is whether the company responded appropriately after learning about it. In many situations, the fact that the company acted, investigated, and followed a proper process can help avoid separate claims arising from inaction itself. In employment disputes, for example, a prompt and properly documented response may help defend against allegations that the employer failed to provide a safe and workable environment.
The takeaway: Compliance is not simply about satisfying regulators. It is often the first line of defense against disputes.
3. More Investment Means More Disputes
The Philippine government continues to encourage investment and business expansion through various economic and investment initiatives.
This means more acquisitions, more joint ventures, more strategic partnerships, and more commercial relationships. Wherever there is investment, disputes inevitably follow.
But many of the most significant disputes do not arise during the transaction itself. They emerge one, three, or five years later.
By then, management teams may have changed, memories have faded, and key personnel may no longer be around. Yet the parties are suddenly trying to reconstruct what was said, promised, or disclosed years earlier.
Three practical steps:
First, document key assumptions before signing. If an issue is important enough to be discussed during negotiations, it is important enough to appear in the transaction documents. Parties often spend months discussing a particular risk, assumption, or expectation, only for it to disappear from the final contracts. Years later, no one remembers the conversation. If a point matters, make sure it is reflected in a representation, warranty, disclosure, covenant, recital, or another contractual provision.
Second, treat due diligence as a dispute-prevention exercise, not a deal-closing exercise. The objective is not simply to complete the transaction. It is to identify issues that may become tomorrow’s claims. The uncomfortable questions are often the ones that matter most.
Third, maintain a post-closing record. Important disclosures, transition arrangements, management decisions, and communications should be organized and retained. When disputes arise years later, these materials often become some of the most persuasive evidence available.
The takeaway: Most investment-related disputes are won or lost long before the statement of claim is filed.
Final Thoughts
The most important dispute development in 2026 is not a single law or court decision. It is the changing nature of disputes themselves.
Businesses today face disputes that are more document-driven, more compliance-related, and more closely tied to investment activity than ever before.
The response is straightforward: preserve documents, preserve knowledge, investigate issues early, and document important decisions before they become contested facts.
Those steps are not complicated. But they often make the difference between entering a dispute from a position of strength and spending years trying to reconstruct what happened after the fact.
Republic Act No. 12289, or the Accelerated and Reformed Right-of-Way (ARROW) Act, was signed into law on 12 September 2025 by President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. This landmark reform strengthens and modernizes the legal framework governing right-of-way (ROW) acquisition for national infrastructure projects and selected private entities performing public services.
1. Policy Objectives
RA 12289 seeks to:
- Accelerate infrastructure implementation by streamlining ROW processes and minimizing delays tied to valuation disputes, expropriation bottlenecks, and procedural gaps;
- Ensure prompt and fair compensation to landowners and project-affected persons (PAPs), grounded in a consistent, nationally applied valuation framework aligned with the Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act (RA 12001); and
- Reinforce transparency and accountability, deterring corruption and enhancing investor confidence in the country’s infrastructure pipeline.
2. Key Amendments to Right of Way Act
a. Expanded Coverage of ROW Acquisition
Section 3 of RA 10752 is extensively amended to include not only national government infrastructure projects but also private entities providing public services (e.g., electricity distribution/transmission, water and wastewater systems, petroleum pipelines, telecommunications, airports/seaports, and irrigation systems.
A distinction is made between entities with legislative franchises vested with eminent domain, and those with purely administrative franchises, which do not automatically carry expropriation authority.
b. Modernized Valuation Framework
The ARROW Act introduces a uniform valuation scheme:
- Primary Basis: Schedule of Market Values (SMV) under RA 12001
- Fallback Basis:
- BIR zonal valuation
- Assessed value of improvements
- Replacement cost for eligible machinery, structures, crops, and trees
For untitled lands, documentary requirements include tax declarations, affidavits of disinterested residents, DENR certifications, RPT certificates, and technical descriptions.
c. Revised Expropriation Guidelines
When filing an expropriation complaint, the implementing agency or authorized private entity must now deposit:
- 15% of the land’s market value;
- 100% of replacement cost for improvements (inclusive of depreciation); and
- 15% of market value for crops and trees.
These changes aim to deter frivolous expropriation filings and assure landowners of timely compensation.
d. Relocation of Informal Settlers
The Act mandates the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) and LGUs to collaboratively provide resettlement sites for informal settlers affected by national projects.
This codifies a more structured approach to social safeguards.
e. Updated Rules for PPP Projects
ROW acquisition for public-private partnership initiatives must now strictly follow the PPP Code of 2023 (RA 11966) and its IRR. This ensures uniform procedures and mitigates delays stemming from multi-agency approvals.
f. Accountability of Private Entities
Private entities violating the ARROW Act may face civil or criminal sanctions, with liability extending to responsible officers (presidents, directors, trustees, or managers).
g. Subsurface Rights Acquisition
The ARROW Act modernizes subsurface acquisition rules:
- Entry and use now permitted beyond 40 meters below ground (previously 50 meters).
Priority national infrastructure projects may access depths of up to 18 meters, enabling subway and tunneling systems to proceed with fewer legal impediments
3. Implementing Agencies and Expanded Oversight
RA 12289 significantly broadens the inter-agency group tasked with drafting and implementing the IRR.
This now includes agencies such as:
- DA
- DILG
- DAR
- DENR
- Department of Economy, Planning, and Development, among others
This expanded oversight aims to reduce overlap, improve coordination, and ensure applicability across varied project landscapes.
4. Practical Impact and Market Outlook
a. Faster Infrastructure Rollout
The Act is expected to substantially reduce project delays, particularly those caused by TROs, land valuation disputes, and resettlement issues. Stakeholders anticipate accelerated timelines under the “Build Better More” agenda.
b. Increased Investor Confidence
International and domestic investors view the ARROW Act as a structural reform that enhances predictability in ROW acquisition, which is an area previously plagued by inconsistent enforcement and corruption vulnerabilities.
c. Improved Delivery of Public Services
The Act covers ROW acquisition for utilities critical to public welfare: water, telecom, energy, and transport systems. This is expected to enhance service reliability and expand coverage, particularly in underserved regions.
5. Conclusion
RA 12289 represents the most comprehensive reform to the Philippines’ ROW framework since 2016. With its strengthened valuation rules, enhanced coordination mechanisms, and broadened coverage, the ARROW Act is designed to reduce long-standing bottlenecks, protect landowner rights, and support national ambitions for large-scale infrastructure modernization.
On 24 August 2025, the Konektadong Pinoy Act (“KPA”) lapsed into law, as President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos neither signed nor vetoed the bill by Congress within the thirty (30) days from transmission to his Office. The initiative of the KPA is to significantly enhance digital inclusion and bridge the connectivity gap, particularly in underserved areas. The KPA will endeavor to modernize the digital infrastructure of the Philippines by encouraging bot local and foreign investment, promoting infrastructure sharing among data transmission industry participants (“DTIPs”), and ensuring fair competition.
The KPA represents a progressive step toward universal digital access in the Philippines. While the goals are laudable, implementation will require strong coordination among national and local governments, the private sector, and civil society. Early engagement can yield both compliance clarity and business advantage.
1. Key Features of the KPA
In pursuit of the above, and if enacted, the KPA will:
- Institutionalize a straightforward registration requirement for DTIPs;
- Repeal the requirement for DTIPs to obtain a congressional franchise requirement for;
- Allow DTIPs to deploy satellite technology and use associated spectrum/s in any/all segments of their broadband network without the need for a lease or rent capacity from public telecommunications entities;
- Mandate the formulation of the Spectrum Management Policy Framework to prescribe the national policies and guiding principles that govern the management of spectrum (which includes spectrum valuation and pricing, spectrum allocation, and spectrum assignment for public, private, and government use); and
Mandate minimum quality standards, data privacy safeguards, and usage limits to ensure equitable access and protect against abuse
2. Legal and Commercial Implications
While the objectives of the KPA are to be lauded, there certain implications to be noted:
- Potential Impact on Telecommunications and Internet Service Providers, as free public internet may influence consumer usage patterns and create new collaborative or competitive dynamics;
- Data Privacy and Security Considerations, particularly in light of mandatory public access points. In fact, a “group representing the country’s leading telcos warned that the version approved by the bicameral committee could ‘lead to national security vulnerabilities, weaken regulatory oversight and destabilize the telecommunications sector in the long run.’”[1]
- Increased Compliance Obligations for LGUs, government offices, and public institutions regarding connectivity infrastructure and reporting.
- Konektadong Pinoy bill faces review amid telco concerns”, by Alexis Romero, 17 June 2025 accessed at https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/06/17/2451146/konektadong-pinoy-bill-faces-review-amid-telco-concerns