DOE and PPA Strengthen Ties to Accelerate Offshore Wind Development through Port Infrastructure Modernisation
The Department of Energy (“DOE“) is collaborating with the Philippine Ports Authority (“PPA“) to support and expedite the development of Offshore Wind (“OSW“) energy projects in the country through the strategic repurposing and modernisation of the country’s port infrastructure. This partnership initiative primarily aims to increase the renewable energy (“RE“) capacity of the country and thereby position itself as a frontrunner for OSW development in Southeast Asia.
DOE has identified three priority or critical ports to be reused and upgraded to accommodate and manage the installation, commissioning, and operational requirements of OSW projects. Considering their proximity to high-potential OSW energy service contracts (“OWESCs“), these ports are the (i) Port of Currimao in Ilocos Norte (“Currimao Port“); (ii) Port of Batangas in Sta. Clara, Batangas City (“Batangas Port“); and (iii) Port of Jose Panganiban in Camarines Norte (“Jose Panganiban Port“). Under section 3(h) of the DOE Department Circular No. DC2023-05-0013, an OWESC is an RE contract issued and awarded by DOE for the exploration, development and/or utilisation of wind energy in offshore areas, which include estuaries and other bodies of water.
The Currimao Port is located near 13 OSW projects with DOE-approved OWESCs, with a total potential capacity of 9,489 Megawatts (“MW“). The Batangas Port is strategically located near 29 OSW projects with a combined potential capacity of 24,300 MW. Finally, the Jose Panganiban Port is near 14 OSW projects, with a total potential capacity of 8,150 MW.
According to DOE Secretary Raphael P.M. Lotilla, apart from boosting the OSW energy sector, the modernisation of these ports is also intended to create long-term jobs, develop opportunities for local industries, and provide sustained growth in the RE sector in the country.
Singapore and the Philippines Enter into MOU to Collaborate on Carbon Credits Aligned with Article 6 of Paris Agreement
On 15 August 2024, Singapore and the Philippines signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU“) to collaborate on carbon credits in alignment with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (“Article 6“). Article 6 allows countries to cooperate to achieve emission targets set out in their Nationally Determined Contribution (“NDC“).
Under the MOU, both countries will aim to:
- work towards a legally binding Implementation Agreement that sets out a bilateral framework for the international transfer of correspondingly adjusted carbon credits, including the criteria for transfer of carbon credits under Article 6; and
- identify potential Article 6-compliant mitigation projects which can support both countries to achieve their respective NDCs. The Philippines has strong potential for carbon credit projects such as nature-based projects (e.g. blue carbon and forestry projects), renewable energy projects, and transition credits from the early retirement of coal-fired power plants.
The MOU signals the commitment of both countries to advance high-integrity carbon markets and promote sustainable development.
The MOU was signed by Singapore’s Minister of Sustainability and the Environment and Minister-in-Charge of Trade Relations Ms Grace Fu, and Philippine’s Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources Ms Maria Antonia Yulo-Loyzaga during President Tharman’s State Visit to the Philippines, which marked the 55th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Singapore and the Philippines.
Singapore aims to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and is committed to advancing global climate action through international collaboration with like-minded partners.
NPC Issues Guidelines on Personal Data Processing in Legal Proceedings Based on Section 13(f) of Data Protection Act
On 12 August 2024, the National Privacy Commission (“NPC“) issued NPC Advisory No. 2024-02 (“Advisory“) which sets out the guidelines on personal data processing and clarifies the application of section 13(f) of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (“DPA“).
Section 13(f) of the DPA provides that the processing of sensitive personal information and privileged information is lawful when it is necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or the establishment, exercise, or defence of legal claims, or when provided to government or public authority.
The Advisory clarifies that processing of personal data based on section 13(f) of the DPA requires that (i) the processing is necessary, and (ii) the processing is for the protection of lawful rights and interests or the establishment, exercise, or defence of legal claims. A processing activity is necessary when it is adequate, relevant, suitable, and not excessive in relation to a legitimate purpose.
The Advisory applies to all natural or juridical persons relying on section 13(f) of the DPA as lawful basis for processing personal data.
Philippines Hosts Loss and Damage Fund Board, Enacts Loss and Damage Fund Board Act
On 9 July 2024, the Philippines was elected to host the Loss and Damage Fund (“LDF“) Board. The LDF is a global finance mechanism created to assist developing countries in responding to loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, through mobilising new and additional resources. The LDF Board was established to operationalise the fund. In addition to being voted as a host, the Philippines also sits on the LDF Board, representing the Asia Pacific Group, along with the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
To advance climate and disaster risk resilience and as part of its commitment to host the LDF Board, the Philippines passed into law Republic Act No. 12019 or the Loss and Damage Fund Board Act (“Act“). The Act grants juridical personality and legal capacity to the LDF Board in the Philippines to enable it to discharge its roles and functions. The LDF Board has the capacity to: (i) enter into contracts; (ii) acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property; (iii) institute legal proceedings; (iv) negotiate, conclude, and enter a hosting arrangement with the World Bank as interim trustee and host of the Fund’s secretariat; and (v) undertake activities as necessary for discharging its roles and functions. The Act likewise grants privileges and immunities to the LDF Board as may be provided under relevant treaties, international agreements, and subsequent agreements between the Philippines and the LDF Board.
IPOPHL Issues Memorandum Circular to Amend Rules on Trademarks, Service Marks, Trade Names, and Marked or Stamped Containers
On 1 July 2024, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (“IPOPHL“) issued Memorandum Circular No. 23 series of 2024, introducing significant amendments to the rules on trademarks, service marks, trade names, and marked or stamped containers. These amendments revised the existing guidelines under IPOPHL Memorandum Circular 2023-001 and are intended to modernise and streamline the regulations governing intellectual property (“IP“) in the country. The updates reflect IPOPHL’s ongoing commitment to enhance the protection and registration processes for trademark-related IP rights in the Philippines.
The amendment requires that requests for trademark renewal must now include payment of not only the renewal fee but also fees for issuance and publication related to the renewal of registration. The amendment also clarifies that a certificate of renewal shall only be issued upon approval of the renewal request. Prior to the amendment, the certificate was to be issued upon payment of the required fees.
Philippine Competition Commission Issues Guidelines on Merger Remedies
On 1 July 2024, the Philippine Competition Commission (“PCC“) issued the Guidelines on Merger Remedies (“Guidelines“) which outlines its approach in evaluating and assessing merger parties’ (“Transacting Parties“) proposed remedies to address competition concerns arising from merger and acquisition (“M&A“) transactions. Specifically, the Guidelines provide a framework for the design, selection, and implementation of merger remedies.
Under the 2017 Rules on Merger Procedure, Transacting Parties may propose remedies to address competition concerns at any time during the merger review process. The Guidelines discuss two broad types of merger remedies that may be proposed: behavioural and structural. Behavioural remedies involve imposing restrictions on the post-transaction conduct of the parties while structural remedies affect the market’s structure by creating, restoring, or maintaining firms that can compete independently.
Parties proposing merger remedies should observe the following:
- The remedies must be directed and tailored to address the competitive harm(s) identified during the merger interview.
- The remedies must be effective in addressing the competitive harm(s).
- The remedies must be proportionate to the harm(s) being addressed.
- The parties must comply with other conditions or requirements as may be imposed by PCC.
The Guidelines also address remedies for M&As in digital markets, such as firewall protections and mandatory licensing provisions to address data access concerns.
Please note that whilst the information in this Update is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as a substitute for specific professional advice
