Tax Exemption on Donations Helps COVID-19 Efforts

Legal Updates

Author Atty. Mary Elizabeth M. Belmonte, Atty.Harlem P. Ma-at

The spread of COVID-19 has sparked fear among Filipinos and has forced the Philippine government to implement the Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) over the entire Luzon and other parts of the country. Yet, this has not dampen the bayanihan spirit of Filipinos. Businessmen and ordinary citizens have stepped up and have donated, and, in fact, are still donating, goods and services to frontliners and fellow citizens to help one another survive this pandemic.
 
Acknowledging the significant increase in donations, the Secretary of Finance issued Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 09-2020 on 06 April 2020, exempting donations or gifts made for the sole and exclusive purpose of combatting COVID-19 during the period of state of national emergency under Republic Act No. 11469 (Bayanihan to Heal As One Act) from donor’s tax. The said RR also allows the donor/taxpayer to deduct the amount of donations from its gross income subject to income tax.
 
The tax exemption and deductions granted were based on Sections 4(z) and 4(ee) of Republic Act No. 11469 which state that the President is authorized to adopt the following measures to respond to the crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic:
 

“(z) xxx the grant of any benefit, in order to ease the burden on individuals under the Community Quarantine;
 
(ee) Undertake such other measures as maybe reasonable and necessary to enable the President to carry out the declared national policy subject to the Bill of Rights and other constitutional guarantees.”

 
To guide those who will avail of the tax exemption, below are frequently asked questions regarding the RR No. 09-2020.
 

What kinds of donations are eligible for donor’s tax exemption?
 

(a)     Cash donations;

(b)     Donations of all critical or needed healthcare equipment or supplies;

(c)     Relief goods such as, but not limited to, food packs (rice, canned goods, noodles, etc.) and water; and

(d)     Use of property, whether real or personal (shuttle service, use of lots or buildings).

What do you mean by critical or needed healthcare equipment or supplies?

This phrase includes the following:

(i)      Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) which refers to gloves, gowns, masks, goggles, face shields, surgical equipment and supplies, laboratory equipment, and its reagents, medical equipment and devices, support and maintenance for laboratory and medical equipment, surgical equipment and supplies;

(ii)     Medical supplies, tools, and consumables such as alcohol, sanitizers, tissue, thermometers, hand soap, detergent, sodium hydrochloride, cleaning materials, povidone iodine, common medicines (e.g., paracetamol tablets, mefenamic acid, vitamins tablet and suspension, hyoscine tablet and suspension, oral rehydration solution, and cetirizine tablet and suspension);

(iii)    Testing kits; and

(iv)   Other supplies as may be determined by the Department of Health and other relevant government agencies.

Can I deduct the full amount of donations I made against my gross income?

Yes. You may deduct the full amount of donations, enumerated above, against your gross income provided that the donations were made for the sole and exclusive purpose of combatting COVID-19 during the period of state of national emergency and the same were given to any the following donees:

(i)     The  National Government or any entity created by its agencies (including public hospitals) which is not conducted for profit, or to any political subdivision of the said Government, including fully owned government corporations; or

(ii)    Accredited non-stock, non-profit educational and/or charitable religious cultural or social welfare corporation, institution, foundation, non-government organization, trust or philanthropic organization and/or research institution or organization; or

(iii)    Private hospitals and/or non-stock non-profit educational and/or charitable religious cultural or social welfare corporation, institution, foundation, non-government organization (even if non-accredited), trust or philanthropic organization and/or research institution or organization; or

(iv)   Local private organizations, civic organizations, and/or international organizations or institutions provided that they shall (1) actually, directly, and exclusively distribute and/or transfer said donations/gifts to, and/or (2) partner as conduit/logistical machinery with, the accredited NGOs and/or national government or any entity created by any of its agencies not conducted for profit, or to any political subdivision of the said Government.

To avail of the exemption and deduction, do I still have to submit a Notice of Donation to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)?

No. The submission of Notice of Donation to the BIR is dispensed with for donations made in relation to RR No. 09-2020.

Are there other supporting documents I must submit in order to avail of the exemption and deduction?

Yes. Attached to this artile is a summary of documentary requirements for each donee-recipient.

Will donations made in kind be subject to VAT?

No. Donations made in kind, particularly (a) donations of all critical or needed healthcare equipment or supplies and (b) donations of relief goods, will not be treated as transactions deemed sale subject to VAT.

Will I still be able to claim any input VAT on donations made in kind?

Yes. Any input vat attributable to the purchase of goods donated in kind shall be creditable against any output VAT of the donor.

Will donations made after the ECQ be still eligible for the exemption and deduction under RR No. 09-2020?

Yes. As long as it is made during the three-month effectivity of Republic Act No. 11469,  or until 24 June 2020, unless it is extended or withdrawn by Congress or ended by Presidential Proclamation.

With RR No. 09-2020 in place, we hope that more Filipinos will be encouraged to make donations in whatever way they can.


Link:  Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 09-2020 – List of Supporting Documents

2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure and Revised Rules of Evidence

Legal Updates

Author Atty. Enrico Errol D. Angeles  

On October 8 and 15, 2019, the Philippine Supreme Court issued the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules of Evidence and the Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (collectively the “New Rules”), respectively.  The New Rules will be effective on May 1, 2020 and shall cover (i) all cases filed after the said date; and, (ii) all pending proceedings except to the extent that, in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice.

Some of the highlights and major changes under the New Rules:

1.      The New Rules allows filing of a Reply only if the defendant attaches an actionable document to the Answer.

2.      The New Rules gives emphasis to the counsel’s signature in a pleading as it constitutes a certification.  Courts are empowered to impose appropriate sanctions if the requirement of signature on the certification is violated.

3.      The New Rules mandates that every pleading stating a party’s claim or defense shall also state: (i) the names of witnesses; (ii) summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies and their respective judicial affidavits; and, (iii) documentary and object evidence.

4.      The New Rules permits other modes of filing and service, such as through accredited couriers, facsimile transmission, and transmission by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by the Supreme Court.

5.      The New Rules authorizes the courts to determine motu proprio whether or not it can render judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment.

6.      The disqualification by reason of mental incapacity and immaturity of witnesses was deleted in the New Rules, since questions concerning credibility is best addressed to the sound discretion of the court.

It is evident that developments in procedural laws, jurisprudence and digital technology, as well as international conventions, have been incorporated in the New Rules. The Supreme Court also took cognizance of well-known problems and difficulties attending litigation, and addressed the same in certain provisions of the New Rules.  Definitely, the New Rules is a step in the right direction to update and streamline court proceedings, decongest court dockets and deliver just, speedy, and inexpensive justice deserved by all parties.

With the ongoing pandemic, however, it has become obvious that more can and should be done to take advantage of and fully utilize other readily available technology to further ease doing litigation and adapt it to the new “normal”.  It is thus hoped that within the next few weeks, as quarantines that have been imposed are loosened, the Supreme Court will issue measures utilizing technology to address the current challenges in doing litigation.  

Business and Contractual Disruptions During ECQ – Dealing with Force Majeure Events

Legal Updates

Author Atty. Kristine R. Bongcaron  

The measures relating to the implementation of the Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) over  Luzon and the varying degrees of community quarantine in other areas have resulted in the complete or partial suspension of operations and/or closure of various businesses. This situation has in turn resulted in delays and/or inability of parties to meet their respective local or offshore contractual obligations.

With the effects of the ECQ on business operations, it is expected that legal provisions and contractual stipulations relating to force majeure events and extraordinary changes in circumstance that affect the capacity of parties to perform contractual obligations will be put to test.

Force majeure and its effects

Black’s Law Dictionary defines force majeure as superior or irresistible force, and force majeure risk as when business is disrupted due to a factor beyond control.[1] In the Philippines, a fortuitous event may either be an “act of God,” or natural occurrences such as floods or typhoons, or an “act of man,” such as riots, strikes or wars.[2]

Article (Art.) 1174 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (the “Civil Code”) exempts obligors from liability for non-fulfillment of obligations as stipulated in contracts on account of such events due to their unforeseeable or inevitable nature. Said general rule however does not apply when: (a) it is specified by law; (b) it is otherwise declared by stipulation; and (c) the obligation requires the assumption of risk.

To exempt the obligor from liability for a breach of an obligation due to force majeure, the following requisites must likewise concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.[3]

Extraordinary changes in circumstances

In addition to Art. 1174, other Civil Code provisions limit or exempt liability due to extraordinary changes in circumstances. These are treated in the same manner as fortuitous events.

        a. Doctrine of unforeseen events

           Article 1267 states that when the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the 
           obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part.

           This provision states the doctrine of unforeseen events. This is based on the theory that the parties stipulate in the light of certain
           prevailing conditions, and once these conditions cease to exist, the contract also ceases to exist.[4] Considering practical needs
           and the demands of equity and good faith, the disappearance of the basis of a contract gives rise to a right to relief in favor of the
           party prejudiced.[5]

       b. Impossibility of the performance of  obligations

           Art. 1266 provides that the debtor in obligations to do shall also be released when the prestation becomes legally or physically
           impossible without the fault of the obligor. Note that, for the obligation to be considered impossible under this provision, its physical or
           legal impossibility must first be proven.[6]

       c. Extraordinary inflation or deflation of currency

          Art. 1250 on the other hand provides that in case an extraordinary inflation or deflation of the currency stipulated should supervene,    
          the value of the currency at the time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment, unless there is an agreement
          to the contrary. 

          It is important to note that a worldwide trend in increase in prices will not necessarily result in the justified application of this 
          provision.[7] This will however be applicable in cases of extraordinary inflation. Extraordinary inflation exists when there is a      
          decrease or increase in the purchasing power of the Philippine currency which is unusual or beyond the common fluctuation in the
          value of said currency, and such decrease or increase could not have been reasonably foreseen or was manifestly beyond the
          contemplation of the parties at the time of the establishment of the obligation. [8] 

      d. Lease of rural lands

          Particular to lease of rural lands, Art. 1680 states that lessee shall have no right to a reduction of the rent on account of the sterility of
          the land leased, or by reason of the loss of fruits due to ordinary fortuitous events; but he shall have such right in case of the loss of
          more than one-half of the fruits through extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous events, save always when there is a specific 
          stipulation to the contrary.

          Extraordinary fortuitous events, in this case, are understood to be: fire, war, pestilence, unusual flood, locusts, earthquake, or others
          which are uncommon, and which the contracting parties could not have reasonably foreseen.[9]

Recommendations

It is recommended that business owners review their contracts affected by the ECQ, and determine the relevant force majeure rules that apply (contractual stipulations or by operation of law as above discussed). A review of the relevant force majeure provisions will also assist in compliance of obligations (such notice and mitigation of adverse effects) to address complications brought about by COVID-19 and the imposed quarantine measures.

Business owners, including their counsels, should likewise keep themselves abreast of all laws, regulations and measures issued by competent government agencies. Knowing is key in anticipating contractual fall-outs arising from the ECQ. ECQ-related guidelines and measures issued by authorities would normally contain provisions relating to directives that inhibit business operations, with resulting penalties and remedies, but also the principles and key considerations for the “lockdown” that result to business owners not having any other options but to close or cease operations. 

One approach that is best suited to a company that intends to continue operation and keep their business relationships prior to the ECQ is to map out a plan that either mitigates the impact of the ECQ or voluntarily compensates the counterparty from the effects thereof. This is contract management. While doing this, it is, of course, essential that a company also lays out a general plan involving remedies and courses of actions. This is dispute management.  

The idea of compensation must be looked at from a perspective of one’s inability to actually mitigate the impact during the period of crisis resulting to non-performance of an obligation. In such a case, the party unable to fulfill obligations must be prepared to approach the other party and explore acceptable alternative schemes to satisfy its end of the deal. 

Moving forward, prudent business owners must consider writing into their agreements force majeure provisions to define and/or control liability in case such events occur during the lifetime of their contracts so as not to be dependent on legal provisions alone. It is also helpful to stipulate on the definition of force majeure, procedures for notice to the other party, measures for mitigation, and extended periods for completion of obligations. Likewise, parties may want to include force majeure as a cause for modification of the instrument and/or termination of contracts.

These considerations will of course depend on the type of contract. For instance, service agreements may benefit from additional provisions defining periods for extension in fulfilling obligations the performance of which was affected by the fortuitous event. Distribution agreements may expand their definition of force majeure  to expressly cover delays in transportation and inability to obtain supplies of raw materials. Construction agreements may include modifications in determining delays on account of force majeure.

It has been recognized that operations and expected profits of a business venture are subject to hazards due to the occurrence of fortuitous events.[10] If such were to happen parties are at risk not only of not reaping any profits from their investments but of incurring losses. This cannot be more apparent now. As always, having measures in place to address difficulties arising from fortuitous events and being ready to implement them at the appropriate time provide much needed leeway for companies to adjust once fortuitous events come to pass.

[1] 2nd Edition, Black’s Law Dictionary. https://www.freelawdictionary.org/?s=force+majeure. Last accessed on 16 April 2020, at 8:47 p.m.

[2] Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs. Globe Telecom, Inc. G.R. No. 147324, 25 May 2004.

[3] Florencia Huibonhoa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95897, 14 December 1999.

[4] Rebus sic stantibus in public international law; Naga Telephone Co., Inc. vs the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107112, 24 February 1994.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Delfin Gonzalez, Jr. vs. Magdaleno M. Peña, G.R. No. 214303, 30 January 2017.

[7] Florencia Huibonhoa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95897, 14 December 1999.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Par. 2, Art. 1680 of the Civil Code.

[10] Nielson and Company, Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, G.R. No. L-21601, 28 December 1968.

Shifting to E-Commerce During the Enhanced Community Quarantine

Legal Updates

Author Atty. Kathleen Mae C. Tuason  

On March 17, 2020, Luzon, Philippines has been placed under Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Under the ECQ, the Philippine Government mandated, amongst others, that a strict home quarantine be implemented all over the island of Luzon, all forms of mass transportation be suspended, and food and health services be regulated.[1]

The ECQ was later on reinforced under Republic Act No. 11469 or the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act, which provides that the President shall have the power to adopt various temporary emergency measures to respond to the crisis brought about by the pandemic, including  ensuring the availability of essential goods by adopting measures as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate and/or minimize disruption to the supply chain, especially for basic commodities and services, and the regulation and limitation of operation of all sectors of transportation, and regulation of traffic on all roads, including access thereto.

As a result, many business establishments such as restaurants, pharmacies, supermarkets, and other brick and mortar stores have been partially or fully closed for the duration of the ECQ. To address this challenge, many business owners, especially those which offer basic necessities to the public, have opted to employ the use of online platforms to address consumer demand. Such online platforms include offering their products through electronic commerce (e-commerce) websites and applications (i.e. Lazada, Shopee, and Zalora), mobile-based delivery companies (i.e. Grab, Foodpanda, and Lalamove), social networking applications (Facebook and Instagram), and through other websites and online platforms. The increased propensity of usage of these platforms gives rise to many legal and regulatory issues faced both by consumers and sellers alike. 

In the Philippines, the laws and regulations governing businesses and transactions conducted online are still limited. For instance, the primary law applicable for e-commerce transactions would still be Republic Act No. 7394 or the Consumer Act of the Philippines which was enacted way back in 1992, and thus has not yet contemplated present issues and challenges governing e-commerce transactions.The Consumer Act of the Philippines defines “sale” or “distribution” as an act made by a manufacturer or seller, or their respective representative or agent, to make available consumer products, services or credit to the end consumers under a consumer sale transaction, and provides for the prohibition against deceptive sales acts or practices and penalties for the same. Under said law, an act or practice shall be deemed deceptive whenever the producer, manufacturer, supplier or seller, through concealment, false representation of fraudulent manipulation, induces a consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction of any consumer product or service. This would include instances when a consumer product or service is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model when in fact it does not – a deceptive practice usually encountered by consumers when dealing with online sellers of goods.

Fortunately, under Republic Act No. 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (“E-Commerce Act”), the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act was expressly extended to cover e-commerce transactions. The E-Commerce Act states that violations of the Consumer Protection Act and other relevant laws through transactions covered by or using electronic data messages or electronic documents shall be penalized with the same penalties as provided under such law.

A more recent and updated regulation applicable to e-commerce transactions is the Joint Administrative Order No. 01 series of 2008 issued by the DTI, Department of Health, and Department of Agriculture (Joint Order), which requires online sellers (namely, retailers, sellers, distributors, suppliers or manufacturers engaged in electronic commerce with consumers) to adopt fair and reasonable business practices, including compliance with the Consumer Act of the Philippines, and further requires online sellers to provide for online disclosure of information, including accurate, clear and easily accessible information to identify themselves. Information required include the following:

1)   DTI and/or Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) registration;

2)   Name of the owner/proprietor of a retail establishment in case of a single proprietorship and names of
      directors and other officers in case of a corporation;

3)   Principal geographical address of the retailer, seller, distributor, supplier or manufacturer, and when
      applicable, of offices or agents in the Philippines;

4)   Website, e-mail address or other electronic means of contact, telephone and fax numbers, of the retailer, and
      when applicable, of its offices or agents in the Philippines;

5)   Any relevant local or foreign government registration/license numbers such as but not limited to the local
      government unit’s permit to operate, Taxpayer’s Identification Number (TIN), when applicable;

6)   Contact details about any business association or organization membership, when applicable; and

7)   Representative agent(s) in the Philippines for purposes of summons.

This Joint Order further requires that online sellers provide (a) sufficient, clear, accurate, and easily accessible information about the terms, conditions and costs of the consumer transaction, (b) reliable and secure payment mechanisms,  (c) an operation internal complaint-handling mechanism for consumer complaints, and (d)  procedures for filing consumer complaints with the concerned implementing agencies, both for online sellers located in the Philippines and abroad.

As to compliance with tax laws, Republic Act No. 10963 or the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN Law) provides that within five (5) years from its effectivity, and upon the establishment of a system capable of storing and processing the required data, the BIR shall require taxpayers engaged in e-commerce to issue electronic receipts or sales or commercial invoices in lieu of manual receipts subject to the rules and regulations to be issued by the Secretary of Finance upon the recommendation of the BIR Commissioner and after a public hearing has been held for this purpose. It is noted that the Government has yet to establish such system, and has until 2022 to do so.

Interestingly, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has issued Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 55-2013 which provides that existing tax laws and revenue issuances on the tax treatment of purchases (local or imported) and sale (local or international) of goods or services shall be equally applied with no distinction on whether or not the marketing channel is the internet/digital media or the typical or customary physical medium.

In efforts to address the lack of e-commerce regulations in the Philippines, the DTI, in cooperation with the University of the Philippines Law Center, will be drafting the 2022 Philippine E-Commerce Roadmap, and will be working on enhancing consumer and merchant protection policies, including the integration of e-commerce-specific regulations, and online dispute mechanisms. This is in response to the increase of e-commerce targets which is expected by the DTI to account of 40% to 50% of the Philippine Gross Domestic Product by 2022.[2] It is hoped that through the 2022 Philippine E-Commerce Roadmap, up-to-date laws and regulations and improved enforcement mechanisms be put in place in order to address timely issues involving the Philippine e-commerce business landscape.  


[1] Rodriguez M., (2020-03-16), Home Quarantine, Suspended Transportation + What You Should Know About “Enhanced Community Quarantine”, retrieved from https://www.spot.ph/newsfeatures/the-latest-news-features/81419/enhanced-community-quarantine-luzon-a4362-20200316

[2] Ibanez, J. (2019-10-28), Trade dep’t drafting e-commerce regulations for 2022 road map, retrieved from https://www.bworldonline.com/trade-dept-drafting-e-commerce-regulations-for-2022-road-map/

Enhanced Community Quarantine – Court Operations and Processes

Legal Updates

Author Atty. Eduardo A. Martinez, Atty. Kristine R. Bongcaron


To mitigate the spread of the Corona Virus Disease 2019 or “COVID-19” in the Philippines, the entire Luzon region was placed under Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) from 17 March  until 13 April 2020.[1] The ECQ period was later on extended until 30 April 2020 upon the recommendation of the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Diseases.[2] Provinces and cities outside of Luzon have also been placed under lockdown or community quarantines in various degrees to control and minimize the spread of the infection.

In line with the appeal of the Government for the general public to stay home to control the further spread of COVID-19, the Supreme Court implemented guidelines to limit movement and travel of justices, judges and their skeleton staff.[3] It likewise issued guidelines on the procedure for filing motions, pleadings, and other court submissions during the ECQ period.[4]

A. Physical closure of courts

Under Administrative Circular No. 32-2020, all courts nationwide shall be physically closed except for urgent matters. Litigants, lawyers, prosecutors and the general public are  therefore advised to first contact the proper court through any of its identified hotlines, email addresses and Facebook accounts to determine if their matter is urgent.

A list of the hotlines, email addresses and Facebook accounts of all courts nationwide may be accessed through – http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/hotlines/.

B. Urgent matters that may be acted upon by the courts during ECQ

Note that under Administrative Circular No. 32-2020, a court will only act upon the concern raised if it determines that  it is an urgent matter. While not exhaustive, the Supreme Court in an earlier issuance identified matters as urgent:[5]

o   Petitions, motions and pleadings in relation to bail;

o   Petitions, motions and pleadings in relation to habeas corpus;

o   Promulgation of judgments of acquittals;

o   Reliefs for those who may be arrested during the ECQ period; and

o  Other related actions filed in relation to measures imposed at the local or national levels to address the declared health emergency
 

C. Suspension of court actions not deemed urgent matters

Accordingly, all court actions not considered urgent and scheduled during the period from 15 March 2020 until 30 April 2020 are suspended and shall be rescheduled.[6] For court actions with prescribed periods, these periods shall likewise be extended for thirty (30) calendar days counted from 1 May 2020.[7]

D. Electronic submissions to courts

With respect to the filing of petitions and appeals, complaints, motions, pleadings and other court submissions due up to 30 April 2020, the Supreme Court granted an extension of 30 calendar days from 1 May 2020.[8] Nevertheless, parties may still make submissions within the reglementary period on or before 30 April 2020 through  electronic means, if available.[9]

While the courts shall remain physically closed to all court users, the courts shall continue to operate from 9:00am to 3:00pm, Monday to Friday until April 30, 2020.[10] All electronic communications referred to above, must be transmitted by court users from 8:30am to 2:00pm.[11]

Particular to the electronic filing of criminal complaints, informations, and posting of bails, the Supreme Court under Administrative Circular No.33-2020 dated 31 March 2020 and OCA Circular No. 89-2020 dated 3 April 2020 further provided the following guidelines:

    1.    Filing of criminal complaints and informations

     o     Criminal complaints and informations, together with other supporting documents, may be filed through electronic transmission or email before the proper first or second level court during the duration of the public health emergency declared by the President in accordance with existing law.[12] Once the complaint or information is received by the court, the Clerk of Court shall refer the same to the judge on duty who shall personally evaluate the complaint or the resolution of the prosecutor, and its supporting evidence.[13]

·          
       o     The Judge shall personally evaluate the same within three (3) days from the filing of the Complaint or Information.[14] Thereafter  –

–   The Judge may either dismiss it outright, or

–   If the Judge finds probable cause, he or she shall issue a warrant of arrest or commitment order.

–   In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the Judge may order the prosecutor to submit, through electronic transmission, additional evidence within three (3) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within ten (10) days from the filing of the Complaint or Information.

         o      All court orders, pleadings, and other submissions electronically submitted must be in PDF format.[15] In addition, pieces of evidence which are not documentary in nature may be photographed and converted into PDF, but must be authenticated by a certification of the person submitting such evidence as a true photo reproduction thereof.[16] All pleadings must be under oath and indicate the case number, case title, and the caption, title or heading of the pleading.[17]


2.    Posting of Bail

                  o     The initial online submission of requirements for bail may be availed of by an accused who has been charged during or before the court prior to the start of this public health emergency period.[18]

     o     The Judge shall determine if the accused shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right. If so, and once the accused has submitted all the requirements for bail, which may also be electronically transmitted to the court, the Judge shall examine the same, and if complete and compliant, shall sign the approval of the bail and the consequent release order.[19]

     o    The Judge on duty may reduce the amount of bail initially fixed, upon motion of the accused and after giving the prosecutor the opportunity to comment within a non-extendible period of twenty-four (24) hours from the filing, which motion and order to file comment thereon may also be sent electronically.[20]

     o     Actions on the reduction of bail shall be decided within twenty-four (24) hours from the expiration of the period to comment on the motion for reduction of bail, with or without comment from the prosecutor.[21]

     o    The approval of the bail and the consequent release order shall then be electronically transmitted to the Executive Judge who, within the same day shall transmit the same to the proper law enforcement authority or detention facility to enable the release of the accused.[22]

–    Upon request, the accused, or his or her representative, shall likewise be furnished certified true copies of the approval of the bail and release order, within the same day of their issuance. [23]

–    The certified true copy or the electronically transmitted approval of Bail and release order shall be sufficient to cause the release of the accused.[24]


3.    Payment of court fees related to electronic submissions

               o     Payment of all court fees related to an electronically transmitted complaint or information, and all other court submissions for purposes of bail, shall be coursed through any branch of the Land Bank of the Philippines.[25]

    o     Payment shall be coursed only after the issuance of an online assessment by the respective Office of the Clerk of Court. [26]

    o    The online assessment shall include the amount to be deposited and the specific account where the amount shall be deposited. [27]

[1] Memorandum of the Executive Secretary dated 16 March 2020 on Community Quarantine Over the Entire Luzon and Further Guidelines for the Management of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Situation dated 16 March 2020 (the “Guidelines“); Section 3(b) of the Guidelines defines ECQ measure “where strict home quarantine shall be implemented in all households; transportation shall be suspended; provision for food and essential health services shall be regulated; and heightened presence of uniformed personnel to enforce quarantine procedures will be implemented”.

[2] Memorandum of the Executive Secretary dated 7 April 2020 on Extension of the Enhanced Community Quarantine Over the Entire Luzon Until 30 April 2020.

[3] Administrative Circular No. 32-2020 dated 20 March 2020; Administrative Circular No. 34-2020 dated 8 April 2020.

[4] Administrative Circular No. 33-2020 dated 31 March 2020 on Online Filing of Complaint or Information and Posting of Bail Due to the Rising Cases of COVID 19 Infection.
[5] 5, Administrative Circular No. 31-2020 dated 16 March 2020, on Rising Cases of COVID-19 Infection.

[6] 8, Administrative Circular No. 34-2020 dated 8 April 2020.

[7] 9, Administrative Circular No. 34-2020 dated 8 April 2020.

[8] 7, Administrative Circular No. 34-2020 dated 8 April 2020.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Administrative Circular No. 34-2020 dated 8 April 2020.

[11] Ibid.
[12] 2 and 8, Administrative Circular No. 33-2020 dated 31 March 2020.
[13] 2, Administrative Circular No. 33-2020 dated 31 March 2020.
[14] 3, Administrative Circular No. 33-2020 dated 31 March 2020.

[15] 5, OCA Circular No. 89-2020 dated 3 April 2020.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.
[18] 1 and 6, Administrative Circular No. 33-2020 dated 31 March 2020.
[19] 4, Administrative Circular No. 33-2020 dated 31 March 2020.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.
[22] 5, Administrative Circular No. 33-2020 dated 31 March 2020.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] 6, OCA 89-2020 dated 3 April 2020.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.

1 2 3 4 5 6
© Copyright 2023 MVGS Law | All rights reserved