Unresolved Regulatory Details — Settling the Record Against Primary Sources

As of 2026-09-08 · Updated 2026-09-08 · Section: Investment, Economic Zones & Licensing · 日本語版

Editor's note: This article covers a field in which the site's operating company has business interests. It is compiled from publicly available and primary sources.

This document records an attempt to settle seven items that had been left as open questions — "the annex could not be located," "two dates conflict," or "the legal basis is unclear" — by going back to primary sources (the Official Gazette, LawPhil, the Supreme Court E-Library, Senate legislative records, and primary PDFs from the relevant government agencies). For items that were resolved, the figures are transcribed directly from the original text. For items that could not be resolved, this document records why they could not be resolved, and who should be asked what.

0. Summary table

① EO 113 (2026) — The full annex tables of the 13th Regular Foreign Investment Negative List Resolved

1-1. The search process (why this looked like a "missing annex")

注 This PDF is a scanned image with no text layer (a PDF text extractor's get_text() returns 0 characters on every page). This is why it appeared to consist of "main text only" both in full-text searches and in law-firm alerts. The pages were read by transcribing the images directly.

1-2. The body of the EO (pages 1–2)

注 Publication date / effectivity date: the EO text itself does not state a publication date. Law firm Cruz Marcelo & Tenefrancia states publication on April 17, 2026, and effectivity on May 2, 2026; TTFC also gives May 2, 2026 as the effective date. The specific Official Gazette issue in which it was published could not be confirmed on our end (the Official Gazette site was unreachable). The 12th RFINL was EO 65, s. 2022, which this order replaces (TTFC).

1-3. LIST A: Foreign ownership limited by mandate of the Constitution and specific laws (25 items in full)

The heading reads "LIST A: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP IS LIMITED BY MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SPECIFIC LAWS." Footnote 1: the foreign-equity percentages in this list are subject to applicable treaties, international agreements, or executive agreements.

No foreign equity permitted

Up to 25% foreign equity

Up to 30% foreign equity

Up to 40% foreign equity

Up to 100% foreign equity

1-4. LIST B: Security, defense, health and morals, and protection of small- and medium-scale enterprises (7 items in full, all capped at 40% foreign equity)

The heading reads "LIST B: FOREIGN OWNERSHIP IS REGULATED FOR REASONS OF SECURITY, DEFENSE, RISK TO HEALTH AND MORALS, AND PROTECTION OF SMALL- AND MEDIUM-SCALE ENTERPRISES." List B contains only the "up to 40%" tier — no other percentage bands.

1-5. 注 Errors in the original text of the EO (note these when quoting)

These errors exist in the EO's own printed text. Note "as in the original" when translating or quoting them.

② Whether Japan is included among the PRA's Identified Countries 注 Unresolved (annex not published)

2-1. What could be confirmed

A full-text search of the 175-page Citizen's Charter found no match for "identified," any country name (e.g., China), or "restricted nationality." This confirms that the PRA has not published a list of country names.

2-2. What can and cannot be said about Japan

2-3. 注 A related practical point identified along the way (apostille)

The PRA's Citizen's Charter 2024 requires that documents issued abroad, if not in English, be translated into English and then either apostilled by the competent authority of the issuing country (excluding Austria, Finland, Germany, and Greece), or authenticated at the nearest Philippine embassy or consulate. For Japan, an apostille (via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is sufficient.

2-4. Why this remains unresolved, and what to ask

Reason: the PRA has not published a list of country names for its Identified Countries anywhere — not as an annex, not on its website, in its forms, in its Citizen's Charter, or in its advisories.

A draft inquiry to send to the PRA: 1. What is the official document number and issue date establishing the current list of "PRA Identified Countries" (by name)? 2. Is Japan currently included among the Identified Countries? 3. If so, would a koseki tohon be accepted as the Birth Certificate, a My Number card as the National ID, and Japan Pension Service records as the Social Insurance Record? 4. Can it be confirmed that "restricted by the DFA" (in the Citizen's Charter) and "PRA Identified Countries" are indeed separate concepts?

③ Subic's authority to issue ECCs 注 Partially resolved / requires inquiry

No access was made to the DENR, EMB, NSWMC, or DOTr domains at any point. Everything below comes from the SBMA, LawPhil, the Supreme Court E-Library, and media reports.

3-1. What could be established on a timeline

3-2. What the SBMA Ecology Center is currently issuing (as of August 2026)

From the SBMA's official website (mysubicbay.com.ph), the Ecology Center's list of application forms:

A decisive piece of corroborating evidence: the required-attachments section of the Environmental Clearance application form (ECD-RPD-29) asks for a "Copy of ECC/CNC issued to the Company for this particular area, scope or project." This presumes the ECC was obtained outside the SBMA.

3-3. 注 An error in the SBMA's own description of itself

The SBMA's official website describes the Ecology Center as "created under Section 96 of Republic Act No. 7227," but RA 7227 has only 24 sections in total, and there is no Section 96. The correct citation is Sec. 13(b)(10). This is likely a mix-up with a section number from the SBMA's implementing rules (SBMA IRR). Do not cite the statute based on the SBMA's own official description.

3-4. The current state of the record

• There is no trace, in any publication of the SBMA's own, indicating that it is currently issuing ECCs.
• No new arrangement, executive order, or legal amendment reviving the SBMA's ECC-issuing authority — following the 2009 revocation of the 2006 MOA — could be confirmed from the SBMA's own published materials.
• 注 However, the SBMA is still issuing the "SBFZ CNC." A CNC, under PD 1586 / DAO 2003-30, is properly the EMB's jurisdiction, and the legal treatment of this overlap remains undetermined.
• 注 How EMB Region III currently handles ECCs for Subic-zone projects (the intake process, the current division of roles with the SBMA, and the external legal effect of the SBFZ CNC) could not be confirmed from primary sources, because access to DENR domains was prohibited.

3-5. Inquiries formulated for legal counsel

1. Since the January 2009 revocation of the DENR–SBMA MOA, does the SBMA have any legal authority to issue ECCs? If so, what is the basis (statute, executive order, new MOA, or DAO)?
2. Does the SBFZ Certificate of Non-Coverage (SBFZCNC) the SBMA currently issues carry the same legal effect as a CNC issued by the EMB under PD 1586 / DAO 2003-30? If not, does a project within the Subic Bay Freeport Zone also need to obtain a separate CNC/ECC from the EMB?
3. Does the authority under RA 7227 Sec. 13(b)(10) to "adopt and enforce measures and standards for preventing environmental pollution" extend to the EIS system under PD 1586 (i.e., ECC issuance), or is it limited to pollution control (emission standards and enforcement)?
4. Does Paje v. Casiño (G.R. No. 207257, February 3, 2015) contain any precedential ruling on a special economic zone authority's ECC-issuing power? If not, is there other case law (including Court of Appeals decisions) addressing this point?
5. What is the current division of roles between economic zone authorities such as PEZA, the SBMA, and the CDC, on the one hand, and the DENR/EMB, on the other, regarding environmental permitting (including whether any One-Stop Shop agreements exist, and their legal nature)?
6. For a Japanese company setting up a new manufacturing facility within the Subic zone, which agency should be approached first, and in what order, for environmental permits, in practice?

④ The date CREATE MORE (RA 12066) was enacted Resolved

4-1. What was behind the conflicting dates

4-2. Conclusion

• The law's actual enactment date (presidential signature) is November 8, 2024 (Friday).
• November 11, 2024 (Monday) is the date of the "Ceremonial Signing" — a formal, public-facing event held at Malacañang Palace — not the law's enactment date.
• The DOF's "November 11, 2024" is not incorrect; it simply refers to the ceremony date. The two figures do not actually contradict each other.
• Legislative history: the bill combined Senate Bill No. 2762 and House Bill No. 9794. Both chambers passed it on September 10, 2024 (per LawPhil's certification of the enrolled bill).
• Effectivity: 15 days after publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation.

注 The original PDF from the Official Gazette (officialgazette.gov.ph) was unreachable — a direct request returned an access refusal, and even a proxied request hit a bot-verification wall. However, since "November 8, 2024" was obtained from the Senate's own official legislative record — a primary source — this is treated as settled.

⑤ The FIRB's 2025–2026 resolutions Largely resolved (only the resolution dates remain unconfirmed)

5-1. Resolutions published on firb.gov.ph/resources/resolutions/

注 What the FIRB site displays is the "Create Date/Last Updated" — i.e., the file upload date — not the date the resolution was actually approved. (This is evident because 004-25 and 011-25 share the same displayed date.) The actual resolution date can only be established from the body of each PDF, and this could not be obtained in this pass of research. This remains an unresolved item.

注 Many resolution numbers are missing (001–003-25, 005–010-25, 012–014-25, 001–004-26, and others). Since the FIRB does not publish resolutions approving incentives for individual companies, only policy resolutions are made public. It would be a mistake to read this as meaning "only 4 resolutions were issued in 2025."

5-2. FIRB advisories (2026, firb.gov.ph/resources/advisories/)

5-3. FIRB advisories (2025)

5-4. The policy trend that emerges

2025 was "the year of RA 12066 transition administration" (registration-transfer rules — 004-25; post-transfer monitoring — 011-25; a full overhaul of COR/CETI forms; and the FIRMS system upgrade). 2026 has been "the year of operational fine-tuning" (the Enhanced Deductions Regime DO, approval of the 2026 SIPP, and 90% WFH justified by the energy emergency).

注 The BOI-hosted PDF of Memorandum Order No. 47 (the 2026 SIPP) returned an access refusal and was unreachable even via alternate route. The content of the 2026 SIPP could not be covered in this document.

⑥ The implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for the fiscal regime for mining (RA 12253) Resolved

6-1. The IRR exists (the full original text was extracted)

6-2. Royalty rates (IRR Sec. 6)

"Margin" for royalty purposes means income from mining operations divided by gross output (IRR Sec. 4(L)).

6-3. Windfall Profits Tax (IRR Sec. 10)

注 For purposes of this calculation, the optional standard deduction (OSD, NIRC Sec. 34(L)) may not be used (Sec. 10(C)). 注 The windfall profits tax is not deductible from taxable income (Sec. 10(D)).

6-4. Other key rules

⑦ The August 13, 2026 wage-order injunction Resolved

7-1. What was halted

7-2. Who issued what, and when

注 The "order of August 13, 2026" was not a TRO — it was a writ of preliminary injunction. The TRO dates from July 30. This distinction is frequently conflated in media coverage.

7-3. The points at issue, and what followed

7-4. The current state (as of 2026-08-26)

• The writ of preliminary injunction remains in effect. The ₱85 increase (including the first ₱60 tranche) remains suspended.
• No ruling by the Pasig court on the DOLE's August 17 motion to lift the injunction had been reported as of this writing.
• Whether the Supreme Court has taken up the case (whether a petition for certiorari has been accepted, or any interim relief granted) also had not been reported as of this writing.
• 注 Unresolved details: the judge's name, the case number, and the full text of the injunction. These will only become available from primary sources once the ruling appears in the E-Library — that is, once an appellate-level decision is issued.

8. List of unresolved items and the reasons why

9. Primary sources used in this research (URLs)

注 Domains that could not be reached: officialgazette.gov.ph (403/bot verification), pna.gov.ph (access refused), the BOI's PDF at boi.gov.ph (access refused), and mb.com.ph (access refused). Domains that were not accessed at all (as a matter of research policy): DENR, EMB, NSWMC, DOTr. No attempt was made to reach them even via alternate route.

日本語の詳細版: 分野「行政・法制度」「未解決の制度細目」（本サイト日本語版）。