BALAODAN, Fernando Jr.

2A

A Reaction Paper
Arbitral Autonomy Principle in Philippine Jurisprudence
Kristoffer James E. Purisima

The article focused on the subject of autonomy with regard to Arbitration. The
Principle of Arbitral Autonomy in view of the ruling in the PIATCO case enumerates
the following: (a) That arbitral proceedings can only be applied to the contracting
parties; and (b) that the interest of justice would best be served if the court hears and
adjudicates a case in a single, complete proceeding when a dispute involves non-
parties to a contract. This would also result in a situation where if the principal
contract is void, the arbitral agreement too is void. However, Purisima noted that this
ruling betrays the principle of arbitral autonomy. I agree with the author, as arbitral
agreements are placed for purposes of coming into a settlement, the PIATCO ruling
would limit an issue or case into a two-ended situation either proceeding or
dismissing a case grounded on the validity of a contract. Such situation now in my
own opinion deviated further from the very reason why arbitration exists and that is
to promptly resolve an issue. However, if the questions of validity or invalidity of a
contract is cognizable by an arbitrator for as long as there is a valid arbitral
agreement absent any allegations of fraud, then resolution of issues or cases may
still be achieved at a higher rate. Thus, I believe that as much as possible,
arbitrations must maintain its autonomous character subject to other exceptions.

Based on the foregoing, it may also be construed that the Court lacks
confidence to arbitral tribunals, that they are incapable of reaching a firm decision.
However Purisima stated the court is at a wrong at the same time emphasizing that
the arbitral tribunals are triers of facts, they are tasked to determine and investigate
the facts and circumstances of the dispute and relying thereon, reach a conclusion
as to the legal liability of both. That the court also are not entirely barred from
countering the decisions of arbitrators provided they are reasonable. I believe this to
be true, if there is an arbitral agreement then at the time being it should be left in the
hands of the arbitrators and the parties regardless of the presence of questions with
regard the validity or invalidity of the contract, however, if it is the arbitral agreement
that is subjected to the question of validity, then I agree that the court may take
cognizance of the same for if it be invalid and yet it proceeded, then again any
settlement would be rendered invalid.

Taking everything into consideration, I concur with the author that the court is
drunk in a way that the notion still exist that its reach should cover everything
involving things subject to decisions, as the author mentioned, the court envisioned
itself as a government messiah. This now would go against or to the disadvantage of
an autonomous arbitration. Thus, it must again be noted and recognized that given
the proper push, the arbitration system may stand on its own as prompt and
independent judicial system.