A.) HKIAC RULES

The law of the arbitration clause potentially governs matters

including the formation, existence, scope, validity, legality,

interpretation, termination, effects and enforceability of the

arbitration clause and identities of the parties to the arbitration

clause. It does not replace the law governing the substantive

contract. (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Procedures

for the Administration of Arbitration under the UNCITRAL

Arbitration Rules EFFECTIVE 1 JANUARY 2015)

It is stated on the agreement of PEC and CC that any unresolved dispute shall

be resolved by arbitration administered by the HKIAC subject to the laws of Hong

Kong. However, it should also be noted that under clause 31.10 of the said

contract, the substantive law of the contract is Philippine law. Therefore, if at all,

HKIAC would only have jurisdiction as to the formation, existence, scope, validity,

legality, interpretation, termination, effects, and enforceability if the

ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND IDENTITES OF THE PARTIES. It cannot replace

the substantive Philippine law which governs the contract itself. As stated,

The arbitration agreement is a contract in its own right and

separable from the substantive contract in which it sits. This reflects

the parties’ presumed intention that their agreed procedure for

resolving disputes should remain effective even if the substantive

contract is found ineffective. The doctrine of separability means that

it is possible for an arbitration agreement to be governed by a

different law than the governing law of the substantive contract.

(The governing law Q&A, International arbitration report 2014 –

issue 2; Norton Rose Fulbright – 2014)