More incentives for stand-alone trust corporations

In an effort to encourage more banks to spin off their trust operations, thereby allowing Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to better supervise the activities of trust entities, the Monetary Board issued BSP Circular No. 884 on July 22 concerning the guidelines on the establishment and operation of trust corporations. The new circular aims to increase the competition in the asset management business by introducing provisions authorizing foreign entities to purchase, own or acquire voting stocks of trust corporations.

Trust corporations essentially performs the same functions as the trust departments of banks by engaging in trust, other fiduciary business and investment management activities, as trustee. These are stock corporations authorized to administer any trust or hold property in trust or on deposit for the use and benefit of others, and/or act as a financial consultant, investment adviser or portfolio manager.

While as early as 2011, the BSP allowed the establishment of stand-alone trust corporations by banks and non-bank entities through BSP Circular No. 710, the July 22 BSP report on entities with trust authority shows that banks continue to manage trust operations through their trust departments. Based on the report, the BSP has granted authority to engage in trust business to 40 banks compared to just seven non-bank financial intermediaries.

The new circular does not prohibit banks to continue conducting its trust operations through its departments, but it provides incentives and relaxed some rules in a bid to address the reservations of banks and non-bank entities in establishing stand-alone trust corporations.

For instance, under the new circular, the Monetary Board may now authorize foreign banks and regulated non-bank foreign entities engaged in finance, asset management and other similar activities acceptable to the BSP to purchase, own or invest in up to 100% of the voting stock of stand-alone trust corporations. However, only qualified foreign banks and regulated non-bank entities may acquire more than 40% of the voting stock of trust corporations. Further, only widely-owned and publicly listed foreign banks and regulated non-bank foreign entities may acquire controlling interest in trust corporations.

Meanwhile, individuals and non-regulated corporations are allowed to invest in up to 40% of the voting stock of a trust corporation. But in case of foreign individuals and non-regulated foreign corporations, their investments are subject to an aggregate ceiling of 40% of the trust corporation’s total outstanding voting stock.

BSP Circular No. 884 likewise relaxed the rules on minimum capital requirements of trust corporations. They are now allowed to have an initial paid-in capital of only P100 million at the time of incorporation compared to the P300 million required capital under the old circular. They are given a five-year transition period to increase their capital to P300 million which is expected to give trust corporations enough time to expand its operations and afford the higher capital requirement.

Another incentive under the new circular is the reduction of the basic security deposit requirement to not less than P500,000 or 0.03% to 0.2% of the book value of the assets under management, whichever is higher, depending on the trust rating of the trust corporation. Prior to the issuance of this circular, trust corporations are required to deposit with the BSP eligible government securities for the faithful performance of its activities equivalent to the required capital of the trust corporation or at least P300 million, significantly reducing the resources it could use in the trust operations.

The BSP circular also introduced a new provision which permits trust corporations to establish branches and marketing offices upon prior approval of the Monetary Board. Although these entities are only allowed to carry out its trust and other fiduciary operations in its principal place of business as specified in its articles of incorporation, the branches and marketing offices may promote and present the trust corporation’s products to a wider customer base.

Based on the new guidelines, trust corporations would not be subject to reserve requirements and other credit-related prudential controls applicable to bank operations such as the single borrowers’ limit and limit on loan accommodations to directors, officers, stockholders and their related interests.

Based on the foregoing, the new rules and regulations provided significant incentives and benefits to existing and potential market players. The question is whether these would be enough for BSP to achieve its objectives of attracting more market players, increasing the competition in the trust business and inducing development of new trust products and services for the benefit of the investing public.

Shiree Amor P. Roma is an Associate of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).

sproma@accralaw.com

source:  Businessworld

WB-WSP, PPP Center set guidelines on water supply, sanitation contracts

PUBLIC-PRIVATE Partnership (PPP) Center Executive Director Cosette V. Canilao underscored the need for a standardized set of guidelines in order to consistently establish criteria when water districts and local government units (LGUs) select private partners for infrastructure projects.

Such guidelines, she said, will “facilitate consistency in establishing the technical, financial and operational criteria” for water PPP deals.

Hence, the PPP Center and the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) jointly initiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) among government agencies to harmonize interventions by various PPP institutions and to reconcile processes and requirements for PPP initiatives in the water sector.

Among those who were covered by the MOU are the Local Water Utilities Administration; National Water Resources Board; Philippine Associate of Water Districts; the Department of the Interior and Local Government; and the PPP Center.

Under the MOU, a PPP Technical Working Group composed of said agencies will work together for a focused set of training, technical assistance, as well as policy process guidance to water districts and LGUs pursuing PPPs in the water and sanitation sector.

“This will ensure a level playing field for prospective private partners,” Canilao said.

She added that the agencies covered by the MOU acknowledged that they needed help in  navigating through viable and legally appropriate PPP options for the water and sanitation sector, and how the pact will serve as the appropriate platform for their shared objective of having water districts and LGUs pursue properly structured and competitively procured PPP projects.

The memorandum is part of the PPP Center’s mandate to initiate PPP policy and process reforms, as well as the provision of technical assistance and capacity building to implementing agencies.

It is currently assisting a few local water projects, such as the Baggao Water Supply PPP Project, which is now in the procurement stage for a private partner.

At the national level, its pipeline includes the Bulacan Bulk Water Supply Project and the New Centennial Water Source (Kaliwa Dam) Project, both also under procurement stages.

The government has awarded 10 contracts since it launched the PPP Program in late 2010, namely:

• The P2.2-billion Daang Hari-South Luzon Expressway project bagged by Ayala Corp. in 2011;
• The P16.42-billion first phase of the PPP School Infrastructure Program (PSIP), which went in 2012 to the consortium formed by Megawide Construction Corp. and Citicore Holdings Investment Inc., as well as the BF Corp.-Riverbanks Development Corp. Consortium;
• The P15.68-billion Ninoy Aquino International Airport expressway, given to San Miguel Corp. unit Vertex Tollways Development Inc. in 2013; and
• The P3.86-billion PSIP Phase II contract, partially awarded in 2013 to Megawide and the BSP & Co., Inc.-Vicente T. Lao Construction consortium;
• The P5.69-billion Modernization of the Philippine Orthopedic Center project that went to the Megawide-World Citi Inc. consortium also in 2013.
• The P1.72-billion Automatic Fare Collection System contract awarded to the AF Consortium of Ayala and Metro Pacific Investments Corp. (MPIC) in 2014;
• The P17.5-billion Mactan Cebu International Airport New Passenger Terminal project bagged in 2014 by Megawide Construction Corp. and GMR Infrastructures Ltd.;
• The P64.9-billion Light Rail Transit Line 1 Cavite Extension deal, awarded in 2014 to Light Rail Manila Consortium of Ayala and MPIC;
• The P2.5-billion Integrated Transport System Southwest Terminal, won by Megawide and partner Walter Mart Property Management Inc. of billionaire and retail magnate Henry Sy in January; and
• The P35.42-billion Cavite-Laguna Expressway bagged by MPCALA Holdings Inc. of MPIC in June.

It intends to plug the gap in the country’s transportation facility in the next decade by rolling out massive infrastructure projects that are seen to spur economic growth.

source:  Business Mirror

Aquino: Social services, infrastructure projects benefit more Filipinos

President Benigno Aquino 3rd said his administration has been delivering substantial vital social and basic services and infrastructure projects that benefit more Filipinos without raising taxes. 

“We didn’t raise taxes except for sin tax. We improve what they call the tax collection—or tax administration, the collection efficiencies from 12 (percent) to 13.6 (percent),” he said in an interview on ANC aired on Tuesday night. 

President Aquino bared his administration aims to increase the enrollment coverage of the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) and build more classrooms during the remaining months of its term. 

“We started out with 66,000 as a backlog. I think we will finish something like 180,000 classrooms to take care of the old, (those) damaged by all of the disasters, the K-12 (Basic Education Program) requirements and so on and so forth,” he said. 

The Chief Executive noted that family-beneficiaries of the government’s anti-poverty initiative, the conditional cash transfer (CCT) program, have already reached 4.4 million. 

“CCT… (from) 780,000 households to 4.4 million households then expanding it to high school. We had the first batch graduate last year. Over 300,000 (graduates) and over 13,000 ‘yung honor students,” he said. 

Further, President Aquino cited the country’s irrigation infrastructures which were also funded without raising taxes. 

“For repair and maintenance, they (National Irrigation Administration) would do it 200 percent of target. Actually, more than 200 percent,” he added. PNA

source:  Manila Times

Mactan-Cebu International Airport takes off due to PPP deal with GMR

LAPU-LAPU CITY—Some P35 billion have been infused for the modernization of the Mactan-Cebu International Airport (MCIA) here.

The amount shows a stark contrast to the P15.35 billion that President Aquino approved for the Clark International Airport’s (CIA) new terminal to be finished in 2022.

Andrew Acquaah-Harrison, chief executive advisor of GMR Megawide, said MCIA is presently handling 7.1 million passengers annually, but in the fourth year of its modernization, MCIA will be handling 11 million passengers and will have a terminal capacity for 12.5 million.

The CIA is presently handling close to 1 million passengers in its terminal which has a capacity of 4 million and with the completion of the first phase of the new terminal in 2017 will add another 3 million.

Harrison said GMR has taken over the MCIA operation and upgrade after winning the bid and signing a public-private partnership (PPP) agreement with the government in November 2014.

The CIA’s new terminal is fully funded by the national government in the General Appropriations Act  in contrast to the MCIA’s PPP.

Harrison said that at present, MCIA is handling 260 flights per day and 12 to 13 movements per hour, which is an improvement after only less than a year of their operations.

Harrison said Hyderabad International Airport, also known as Rajiv Gandhi International Airport was the first airport developed by GMR in India.

Harrison said PPP is an advocacy.

“I’m not saying that everybody should believe in it, but what we want to demonstrate is PPP is a successful route to economic growth and development and you will see that our story is a testimony to that success,” he said.

“Let’s not forget that the airport hub is a business and in this business, 66.67 percent of our income comes from aeronautical, anything to do with aircraft airline passenger charges. Nonaeronautical is retail that’s around 29.99 percent and around 3 1/2 percent comes from innovation, like advertising and other creative ideas,” he added.

“And in order to remember that, we have to focus on the needs of the airlines,” he stressed. Often people mistake an airport customer to be the passengers. It is not, he pointed out.

“Airports’ primary customers are the airlines because without the airlines there are no passengers,” he said. “People will not show up at the airport and say we’re gonna travel to Mactan because the staff there are really nice but they travel because they have a particular airline they fly with,” he explained.

“Concessionaires and businesses, they are important stakeholders in the airport community and they have to feel that they are part of the airport, and of course, passengers,” he said.

All of that translate into an airport product which is user experience,” he added.

“Our view is we must focus on this user experience, and if we focus on that, we will be successful and we will be profitable, but if we focus just on profitability and ignore this user experience we won’t succeed.

“We see ourselves as part of the tourism ecosystem working with local governments, resorts, hotels, tour operators, the Department of Tourism to market Cebu more aggressively,” he said.

“So for example, we are planning a road show in China to visit six cities where we can demonstrate the beauty of the Philippines, how close it is to get to the Philippines and the affordability of the Philippines.”

Harrison said, “We will try to put the Philippines on the map in the way perhaps very different on how it was done so far, but that’s not to undermine the efforts that were put in before.” He said if these efforts will not be made, “the capacity of the airport can never be realized.”

source:  Business Mirror

5 groups vie for P108-B airports PPP

THE DEPARTMENT of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) has cleared five out of six groups seeking to participate in its next big-ticket public-private partnership (PPP) project, the auction of airport contracts for the Bacolod-Silay, Iloilo, Davao, Laguindingan and New Bohol air gateways.

In a bid bulletin issued Friday, the department said it prequalified consortiums led by Filipino conglomerates and their international partners vying for the contracts valued together at about P108 billion.

Those that made the cut were San Miguel Corp. and South Korea’s Incheon International Airport (SMHC-IIAC Airport Consortium); Metro Pacific Investments Corp. with a unit of Aéroports de Paris and TAV Havalimanlari Holdings A.S. (Philippine Airports Consortium); Aboitiz Equity Ventures with VINCI Airports (Maya Consortium); Megawide Construction Corp. and India’s GMR Infrastructure (GMR Infrastructure and Megawide Consortium), and Filinvest Land Inc., Japan Airport Terminal Corp. and Sojitz Corp. (Filinvest-Jatco-Sojitz Consortium), the DOTC said.

A sixth group, Union Equities-Acsa Consortium, was disqualified by the DOTC.

The prequalification documents were submitted last Aug. 17. This exercise is meant to determine which groups are qualified to submit technical and financial proposals for the project. Those bids are expected to be opened by January 2016 and the DOTC expects to award the project by February 2016.

The DOTC said the operations and maintenance (O&M) of the regional airports, selected partly for their tourism potential, would be bid out in two bundles.

The first bundle consists of the P20.26-billion Bacolod-Silay and the P30.40-billion Iloilo airport projects. The second bundle will include the P40.57-billion Davao, the P14.62-billion Laguindingan and the P2.34-billion Bohol airport projects.

The winning concessionaires for each bundle will handle the O&M of the airports for 30 years and will undertake the expansion of the facilities as most of the airports are operating beyond their design capacity. These improvements are needed to enhance passenger safety and convenience as well as to ensure more efficient airport operations.

This is the second airport PPP deal after the P17.5-billion Mactan Cebu International Airport was rolled out and eventually awarded in 2014 to the Megawide-GMR consortium.

Apart from this project, the DOTC had said it was studying the possible O&M auction of Manila’s Ninoy Aquino International Airport, the country’s busiest air gateway. This comes amid the broader goal to replace Naia, which suffers from heavy congestion, with a new international gateway.

source:  Inquirer

The second P in PPP

IT INCREASINGLY appears that regaining the 6- to 7-plus percent growth enjoyed by the Philippine economy in recent years may be much harder than some believe. It will certainly take much more than simply ramping up public expenditures, the commonly cited culprit for the first-quarter slowdown. It will be hard enough even just to ramp up government spending, for two reasons.

First, one hears of widespread fears among government bureaucrats of auditors’ scrutiny and court sanctions, in the wake of controversies surrounding pork barrel funds and the Disbursement Acceleration Program. This has supposedly prompted much greater spending caution, translating to bureaucratic delays in executing government projects.

Second, government agencies are said to be unaccustomed to much higher levels of activity now made possible by government’s largely successful efforts to plug massive corruption leaks of the past.

More than government spending, our weak infrastructure now looms large among the traditional barriers to higher economic growth in the Philippines. Four were highlighted in a 2007 Asian Development Bank study: (1) tight government finances due to weak revenues, (2) inadequate infrastructure, especially in electricity and transport, (3) weak investment due to poor governance and political instability, and (4) a small and narrow industrial base due to various market failures. The first and third have since seen much improvement, while the fourth is changing due to a surge in manufacturing since 2010, with China quickly losing its status as “factory to the world.” But it is in the second where in spite of high-profile completed and oncoming projects, the gap, both with our neighbors and with respect to our own urgent needs, has grown uncomfortably large.

Anyone living or working in Metro Manila knows how harrowing an experience it has lately become to travel within the city, whether by public transport or private vehicle, at any time of the day. Those of us who depend heavily on Internet and telecommunications facilities for our work constantly find ourselves cursing our slow, erratic and unreliable communication links. Those in parts of the country with limited electric power capacity suffer from intermittent power outages that impair business operations, not to mention the discomfort and occasional damage suffered by all. All these severely weigh down on everybody’s productivity, and add up to stunted economic growth, held well below what our economy should potentially be capable of given solid fundamentals and strong domestic demand.

For nearly three decades now, the popular prescription has been: If government can’t do it, then let the private business sector step forward. At the outset, the impetus behind public-private partnerships, particularly in the provision of infrastructure facilities, was lack of government finances in the face of tremendous needs. For decades, we’ve lagged well behind our dynamic neighbors in energy, water, transport and telecommunications facilities. Government’s hands used to be tied with a heavy debt burden, weak revenue collections, and a deficit that constantly tested the threshold levels imposed by the country’s official creditors.

But things are very different now. Government can now afford to spend a lot more than it ever could before. Still, our infrastructure gaps have grown so huge that this newfound fiscal space is nowhere near enough to provide the hundreds of billions of pesos we will need to close them.

Apart from limited taxpayer money, where else could the money come from? It can conceptually come from our large pool of savings held by banks and other financial institutions, all looking for ways to invest the huge sums in their hands.

China, Korea, Malaysia and Singapore have made good use of infrastructure bonds, debt instruments with which government borrows money from the public. Through the stock market, private savers can also invest directly in publicly listed infrastructure firms (the Manila Water Co. is an example), which may also borrow directly from banks. The modern financial system has found various ways, from simple loans to complex derivatives, by which savings of large and small savers alike may be channeled to fund large infrastructure projects. These are usually built by private entities that must inevitably step in, given the formidable obstacle of lack of government funds, even through the longer term. And as recent experience shows, an equally formidable obstacle is government’s inability to execute, operate and maintain such projects at the required magnitudes. Private partnership is vital to fill not only the financing gap, but the implementation gap as well.

A major difficulty remains: Persisting constitutional restrictions on foreign investment in public utilities keep the field of potential private players too narrow. This is a problem because (1) even the largest locals will be unable to muster the financial muscle needed to fill the huge needs, and (2) we are getting to a situation where too few entities practically own (hence control) the country, private and public facilities alike. What we need, then, is to open more opportunities for ordinary Filipinos to take part in funding our infrastructure, including effective ways to harness overseas remittances and personal savings (the way postal savings have been a major financial force in Japan, for example). And for practical reasons, we also need to open the door wider so foreigners can expand the pool of private sector partners who can help take us out of our massive infrastructure backlog—and fast.

* * *

cielito.habito@gmail.com

source:  Philippine Daily Inquirer

Lack of clear laws may place bidders for gov’t projects at a disadvantage

With the Commission on Election’s parallel biddings for the refurbishment of the existing Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines and the lease of new optical mark reader (OMR) units, the implementation of Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise known as the “Government Procurement Reform Act”, is again put to a test.

The challenges that the implementation of the law is facing continue with the various public-private partnership (PPP) projects under procurement.

These PPP projects include the Regional Prison Facilities in Nueva Ecija to be implemented by the Department of Justice with indicative project cost of P50.18 billion; Laguna Lakeshore Expressway Dike Project of the Department of Public Works and Highways with indicative cost of P122.8 billion; Davao Sasa Port Modernization Project of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DoTC) and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), which reaped strong opposition from the local business sector “because it is too costly” at P18.99 billion; and the South Line of the North-South Railway Projects to be implemented by the DoTC, which is touted as the biggest PPP deal to date, costing P170.7 billion.

The government procurement process covers the phases identified under the Republic Act (RA) 9184 and its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) -- from preparation of bidding documents, invitation to bid, receipt and opening of bids, bid evaluation, post-qualification, until the contract is awarded and implemented. In all these phases, the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the procuring entity is at the helm.

The chances are relatively high, particularly in huge projects, that a bidder will raise a question at any phase of the process.

PROTEST MECHANISM UNDER RA 9184 AND THE REVISED IRR
In the spirit of transparency, competition, and accountability, RA 9184, under Article XVII thereof, provides the mechanism in the event of any such protest.

Decisions of the BAC at any stage of the procurement process may be questioned by filing a request for reconsideration within three (3) calendar days upon receipt of written notice (that is, notice of eligibility, disqualification) or upon verbal notification (during opening of bids). The BAC shall decide on the request for reconsideration within seven (7) calendar days from receipt thereof. If the BAC denies the request for reconsideration, parties may still file a protest against the decision by writing to the Head of the Procuring Entity (HOPE). Note that a request for reconsideration is a requisite before filing a protest.

The protest must be filed within seven calendar days from receipt of the BAC decision denying the request for reconsideration. The protest may be made by filing a verified position paper, accompanied by a non-refundable protest fee, with the HOPE. The HOPE shall resolve the protest, strictly on the basis of the records of the BAC, within seven calendar days from receipt of the protest.

RA 9184 states that “up to a certain amount to be specified in the IRR, the decisions of the Head of the Procuring Entity shall be final.” The IRR, however, does not specify any amount to ascertain when the decision of the HOPE is considered final; it only states, albeit vaguely: “Subject to the provisions of existing laws on the authority of Department Secretaries and the heads of agencies, branches, constitutional commissions, or instrumentalities of the GOP (Government of the Philippines) to approve contracts, the decisions of the Head of the Procuring Entity concerned shall be final up to the limit of his contract approving authority.”

So, who is the “Head of the Procuring Entity”?

The answer to this question is vital because it determines the eligibility of the protesting bidder to proceed to the next remedy provided under RA 9184, which is judicial intervention.

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION UNDER RA 9184 AND REVISED IRR
Court action may be resorted to only after the protests contemplated in Article XVII of RA 9184 shall have been completed. Cases filed in violation of the process specified in the said article shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Without prejudice to any law conferring on the Supreme Court sole jurisdiction to issue temporary restraining orders and injunctions relating to government infrastructure projects, RA 9184 confers on the Regional Trial Court jurisdiction over final decision of the Head of the Procuring Entity. Court actions shall be governed by Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 65 refers to petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

HEAD OF THE PROCURING ENTITY
RA 9184 defines “Head of the Procuring Entity” as “(i) the head of the agency or his duly authorized official, for national government agencies; (ii) the governing board or its duly authorized official, for government-owned and/or-controlled corporations; or (iii) the local chief executive, for local government units.” The definition however has a proviso: “in a department, office or agency where the procurement is decentralized, the Head of each decentralized unit shall be considered as the Head of the Procuring Entity subject to the limitations and authority delegated by the head of the department, office or agency.”

There appears to be no issue on who the HOPE is in national government agencies, government-owned and/or-controlled corporations, and local government units, as it is specified in the law. The protesting bidder may resort to court action after the HOPE in such offices renders his decision, which is considered final, on the protest.

The determination of the HOPE in departments, offices or agencies where procurement is decentralized, however, poses a problem for a protesting bidder; this is true in procurements by bureaus and field offices of departments, offices or agencies, with regionalized procurements.

While RA 9184 says that the “Head of each decentralized unit” shall be considered as the HOPE, it also says that the “decisions of the HOPE shall be final up to the limit of his contract approving authority.” The law appears to require a determination of the contract approving authority of the HOPE, i.e., Head of the decentralized unit, under existing laws, before a protesting bidder may resort to court action from the HOPE’s decision.

This is no mean feat for a protesting bidder, who, with the limited time to seek judicial intervention, must first determine the limit of the contract approving authority of the HOPE before considering the latter’s decision on the protest “final”.

One likely source for such information may be the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), which provides for the limitations on the authority of particular departments or offices on certain contracts.

Other sources may be the laws creating particular offices or agencies of the government, rules and regulations, or other issuances on their authority. While RA 9184 refers to the Government Procurement and Policy Board (GPPB) as the repository of all information relating to government procurement, GPPB’s Web site can only hold so much information as may be made available to it by the departments, offices and agencies of the government.

If the contract approving authority of the HOPE is lesser than the project cost, i.e., Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC), RA 9184 suggests that a protesting bidder cannot resort to court action from the final decision of the HOPE, but must exhaust his remedies within the decentralized department, office or agency. This, unfortunately, is not clearly stated in RA 9184 and the IRR, which only vaguely suggest under Section 56 thereof, that “subject to the provisions of existing laws on the authority of Department Secretaries and the heads of agencies, branches, constitutional commissions, or instrumentalities of the GOP to approve contracts, the decisions of the Head of the Procuring Entity concerned shall be final up to the limit of his contract approving authority.”

This lack of clarity in the law certainly puts an unwitting bidder at a disadvantage. But then, there is no better recourse for a bidder to gain a chance of hope in his protest relating to government procurements than to know the HOPE.

(References: RA 9184 and its Revised IRR; Pipeline of Projects (ppp.gov.ph); DCCCII President Antonio F. dela Cruz, as quoted in BusinessWorld article “DoTC, PPA invited to local consultations on Sasa Port modernization”, June 22, 2015; BusinessWorld article “Biggest PPP deal to date lures firms”, July 16, 2015; Executive Order No. 292)

Myra S. Montecalvo-Quilatan is a Senior Associate of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (Davao Branch).

(082) 224-0996

msmontecalvo@accralaw.com

source:  Businessworld