Board Meetings in the early 21st century (SEC rules on Board Meetings Through Teleconferencing or Videoconferencing)

By Siesta-friendly

Now that telecommunication equipment have drastically improved and will continue to do so, certain government rules have been upgraded and made compatible, as it were, with current technology.

With business and business folk becoming more international and more company transactions being allowed to be done by remote, meetings can’t be avoided amongst parties in different places, even different parts of the globe. Accordingly, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued SEC Memorandum Circular No.15 (dated November 20, 2001) precisely to regulate board meetings. This likewise dispenses with the costs of having to fly in and lodge the participants just for the meetings.

Notice requirements

As before, the Corporate Secretary shall send out the notices of the meeting to all directors in accordance with the manner of giving notice as stated in the corporation’s by-laws. (Section 2) But now, the notice shall include the following:

a. Inquiry on whether the director will attend physically or through tele/videoconferencing;

b. Contact number/s of the Secretary and office staff whom the director may call to notify and state whether he shall be physically present or attend through tele/videoconferencing;

c. Agenda of the meeting;

d. All documents to be discussed in the meeting, including attachments, shall be numbered and duly marked by the Secretary in such a way that all the directors, physically or electronically present, can easily follow, refer to the documents and participate in the meeting. (Section 3)

If the director chooses tele/videoconferencing, he shall give notice to the Secretary at least 5 days prior to the scheduled meeting and inform the latter of his contact details. The Secretary shall then inform the director of the contact number/s the latter will call to join the meeting. On the date of the scheduled meeting, the Secretary shall confirm and note such the contact details as part of the minutes of the meeting. (Section 4)

In the absence of an arrangement, it is presumed that the director will physically attend the Board meeting. (Section 5)

Requirements at and after the Board Meeting

The Secretary of the meeting shall assume the following responsibilities:

a. to safeguard the integrity of the meeting via tele/videoconferencing

b. to find good tele/videoconference equipment/facilities

c. to record the proceedings and prepare the minutes of the meeting

d. to store for safekeeping and mark the tape recording/s and/or other electronic recording mechanism as part of the records of the corporation (Section 1)

At the start of the scheduled meeting, a roll call shall be made by the Secretary. Every director and participant shall state, for the record, the following:

a. Full Name

b. Location

c. If attending through tele/videoconferencing, shall also confirm that:

i. he can completely and clearly hear the others who can clearly hear him at the end of the line

ii. state whether he has received the agenda and all the materials for the meeting, and

iii. specify the type of tele/videoconferencing device used.

Thereafter, the Secretary shall confirm and note the contact numbers being used by the directors and participants not physically present. (Section 6)

All participants shall identify themselves for the record, before speaking and must clearly hear and/or see each other in the course of the meeting. If a person fails to identify himself, the Secretary shall quickly state the identity of the last speaker. If the person speaking is not physically present and the Secretary is not certain of the identity of the speaker, the Secretary must inquire to elicit a confirmation or correction.

If a motion is objected to and there is a need to vote and divide the Board, the Secretary should call the roll and note the vote of each director who should identify himself.

If a statement of a director/participant in the meeting via tele/videoconferencing is interrupted or garbled, the Secretary shall request for a repeat or reiteration, and if need be, the Secretary shall repeat what he heard the director/participant was saying for confirmation or correction. (Section 7)

The old procedure shall then be followed in that the Secretary shall require all the directors who attended the meeting, whether personally or through tele/videoconferencing, to sign the minutes of the meeting to dispel all doubts on matters taken up during the meeting. (Section 8)

Will virtual stockholders’ meetings come next? Will per diems be different for virtual attendees? If you’re the virtual attendee, you might not be able to partake of the scrumptious meals at director’s meetings, but you could at least be in bed in your pyjamas and no one may ever know.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

THE POISON TREE (On Inadmissible evidence)

By Obiter07

The Supreme Court has used this phrase “fruit of the poisonous tree” in a number of cases. It is not an agricultural term, but something that was coined with respect to the inadmissibility of evidence illegally obtained. It is a legal doctrine that serves to enforce the prohibition against illegal searches and seizures as enshrined in the Constitution.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Art. III of the Constitution read:

“Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law …

SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge. . .

SEC. 3. . . .

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. . ..”

So what is this tree and why is its so- called fruit poisonous? As held in EJERCITO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al. [G.R. Nos. 157294-95. November 30, 2006.]:

“The "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle, which states that once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible, xxx”

This means that any evidence that is to be used against the accused must have been obtained through legitimate means. Anything that can be traced to an unlawful search or seizure may not be used as evidence against the accused. How does this work in practical terms?

Case samples

In VALDEZ vs. PEOPLE [G.R. No. 170180. November 23, 2007.], the factual milieu was as follows:

“Bautista testified that at around 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. of 17 March 2003, he was conducting the routine patrol along the National Highway in Barangay San Benito Norte, Aringay, La Union together with Aratas and Ordoño when they noticed petitioner, lugging a bag, alight from a mini-bus. The tanods observed that petitioner, who appeared suspicious to them, seemed to be looking for something. They thus approached him but the latter purportedly attempted to run away. They chased him, put him under arrest and thereafter brought him to the house of Barangay Captain Orencio Mercado (Mercado) where he, as averred by Bautista, was ordered by Mercado to open his bag. Petitioner's bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants, eighteen pieces of eggplant and dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and cellophane. It was then that petitioner was taken to the police station for further investigation.”

The Court, in acquitting the accused made a number of findings in disallowing the evidence against him. The evidence against the accused may only be admissible if incident to a lawful arrest. None of the circumstance where an arrest without warrant is lawful was found to obtain in the case at bar.[1]

The accused has just alighted from the bus. Even if it were true that he ran from the tanods, flight is not synonymous with guilt. “It is not unreasonable to expect that petitioner, walking the street at night, after being closely observed and then later tailed by three unknown persons, would attempt to flee at their approach.” Under the circumstances, “petitioner's flight lends itself just as easily to an innocent explanation as it does to a nefarious one.”

The accused has the right “to be secure against any unreasonable searches on and seizure of his own body and any deprivation of his liberty being a most basic and fundamental one, the statute or rule that allows exception to the requirement of a warrant of arrest is strictly construed. Its application cannot be extended beyond the cases specifically provided by law."

The same legal principle was relied upon in another case where the accused was accosted as he alighted from a ship and his personal effects searched [PEOPLE vs. AMINNUDIN, G.R. No. 74869. July 6, 1988.]. The authorities had every opportunity to secure a warrant to arrest and search but failed to do so. They had advanced knowledge of his identity and even the ship he was to board and seized him based on the “furtive finger” of an informant. There was no basis for a warrantless arrest and therefore no basis for the ensuing search and seizure of the marjiuana he was allegedly carrying.

Without the evidence of the marijuana seized from the accused, there is no basis for the charge against him. That evidence cannot be admitted since it is “the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase.” The search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.

The Court stated that those “who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes, again, said, "I think it a less evil that some criminal should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part."

Warrantless Searches

There are recognized exceptions where “a search may be validly made without warrant and articles may be taken validly as a result of that search.” These include “a warrantless search … made incidental to a lawful arrest, as when the person being arrested is frisked for weapons he may otherwise be able to use against the arresting officer. Motor cars may be inspected at borders to prevent smuggling of aliens and contraband and even in the interior upon a showing of probable cause. Vessels and aircraft are also traditionally removed from the operation of the rule because of their mobility and their relative ease in fleeing the state's jurisdiction. The individual may knowingly agree to be searched or waive objections to an illegal search. And it has also been held that prohibited articles may be taken without warrant if they are open to eye and hand and the peace officer comes upon them inadvertently. ROAN vs. GONZALES, et al. [G.R. No. 71410. November 25, 1986.]”

But arms seized after a shoot-out from a compound cannot be used in evidence against the accused where soldiers raided a compound in search of loose firearms, ammunition and explosives [RIZAL ALIH, et al. vs. CASTRO, et al., G.R. No. L-69401. June 23, 1987]. The search cannot be justified based on the receipt of “superior orders” which cannot countermand the Constitution. The Court adverted to U.S. Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan:

"The Constitution is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.

xxx

“It is no exaggeration that the basest criminal, ranged against the rest of the people who would condemn him outright, is still, under the Bill of Rights, a majority of one.”

The respondents had every opportunity to get a search warrant from the courts but failed to do so. This failure makes the arms seized inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding against the accused. The Court made a statement how a man’s home is his castle:

"It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may enter; the rain may enter. But the King of England may not enter. All the forces of the Crown dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

However, the Court did allow the arms to be kept in custody pending a determination of their legality.

One may ask why the accused should go free despite an illegal search if illegal arms and drugs are found nonetheless. In the same aforecited case, the Court relayed Judge Learned Hand’s observation: "Only in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong, will the wrong be repressed."

---

[1] Under present Rules, an arrest without a warrant may only be made in the following instances:

“Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. xxx”[ Rule 113]

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

DINNER TABoo (Ostentatious Displays)

By Obiter07

One would suppose that there is no need for a law or rule in order for a head of state (especially one in the third world country) to avoid an unseemly extravagance as dining out in fancy restaurants (and spending USD15,000 and USD20,000) while the people go hungry or while the nation mourns a beloved president. Indeed, no one probably thinks there are laws applicable in such a situation. But interestingly enough, the New Civil Code covers such a circumstance, its drafters foolish though in believing that the government would be the one to take up the cudgels on behalf of the people:

“ARTICLE 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.”

The framers did not seem to think that it would be the government’s executive herself who would violate this statute. Of course, no court order should be necessary where a semblance of a good conscience would ordinarily take over.

Modest Lives and Simple Living

Republic Act No.6713 or "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" further provides:

“Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.”

Having steaks, caviar and fine wine are not modest by any standard. Section 4 of the same Act further provides:

“Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. - (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:

xxx

(h) Simple living. - Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.”

Bribery

A case can even be made for the illegal receipt of gifts or possibly indirect bribery. The same Act provides:

“SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. — In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

xxx

(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. — Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.”

The Revised Penal Code bars gifts given to a public officer by reason of his office:

“ARTICLE 211. Indirect bribery. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, suspension and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 871, approved May 29, 1985.)”

For some, it appears that no controversy seems too great now, as if they will never be called to account for their ways. It should not matter who gave the dinner and that no taxpayer’s money was spent. The appearance of it all should be reprehensible enough for a country with so many people who go hungry. For as a people’s rage has shown once before, there will come a time of reckoning for such dinners and other mockeries. And they will learn that crime does not pay, not even for dinner or for the just desserts they will have to face.

And just as a worthy footnote, Republic Act No. 6713 was signed into law by President Corazon C. Aquino.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

The Greatest Triumvirate

By Siesta-friendly

As triumvirates go, we had the best

The cardinal, the martyr’s wife, the people no less

We gave the world peaceful revolution

Gifted ourselves a new constitution

As cardinals go, ours was most involved

In our oppression and slumber, he helped us evolve

Into a powerful and faithful force

Behold the tanks and soldiers change their course

As housewives go, ours was most dutiful

Sacrificed her family and a life plentiful

She of courage, humility and grace

Lifted a people to another place

Sadly the people are the weakest link

Faltering, wavering, and teetering on the brink

Of morality, its decency cut

By greed, selfishness, when once it was not

The cardinal and the housewife remain

In memory now, but their lives have not been in vain

If only somehow we then could conspire

For God, the country as well each other.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Gloria Arroyo and her National Artists (On the New Order of National Artists of the Philippines)

By Siesta-friendly

Reading the Guidelines for conferring the title of National Artist of the Philippines on the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) webpage, one learns that the “Order of National Artists aims to recognize:

1. Filipino artists who have made significant contributions to the cultural heritage of the country.
2. Filipino artistic accomplishment at its highest level and to promote creative expression as significant to the development of a national cultural identity.
3. Filipino artists who have dedicated their lives to their works to forge new paths and directions for future generations of Filipino artists.”

Reading Pres. Gloria Arroyo’s newly proclaimed National Artists for 2009, one might wonder when the culture of corruption was officially acknowledged as part of our cultural heritage.

Yes, there could be a New Order of National Artists of the Philippines. That seems to be the only way to explain the newly named National Artists most of whom were chosen in blatant disregard of the rules, spirit and intent in awarding the title of National Artist.

What are the selection process and committees for?

The Guidelines clearly state that “[T]he order is jointly administered by the NCCA and the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) and conferred by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation by both institutions”. Yet, of the 7 National Artists on Arroyo’s list, only 3 were chosen by the NCCA or CCP. 4 of the 7 were not recommended by the NCCA or the CCP.

So what guidelines were followed in choosing these 4: Cecile Guidote-Alvarez (wife of Presidential Adviser for climate change Heherson Alvarez), Carlo Magno Jose J. Caparas (famous for his comic strips and massacre films), architect Francisco “Bobby” Mañosa and fashion designer Jose “Pitoy” Moreno?

The Guidelines also state that “NCCA and CCP Board members and consultants and NCCA and CCP officers and staff are automatically disqualified from being nominated”. So what is NCCA Commissioner and Executive Director Cecile Guidote-Alvarez doing on Arroyo’s list as National Artist for Theater? Ms. Guidote-Alvarez is also the Presidential Adviser on Culture Affairs. She could be the National Artist for Conflict of Interest.

When asked for her comment on Virgilio Almario’s decision to decline his nomination as National Artist while the latter was then still NCCA Executive Director, Ms. Guidote-Alvarez merely stated the obvious by saying she was “not Almario”. Of course she’s not. Mr. Almario has a sense of what is improper.

Mr. Almario, being truly deserving of the title, was made National Artist in 2003. If an artist is confident of his/her achievements, he/she will not be worried about not receiving the honor in the future, from any president.

Criteria

Now we go to Arroyo’s National Artist for Visual Arts and Film. The Guidelines provide that the “Order of National Artists shall be given to:

1. Living artists who are Filipino citizens at the time of nomination, as well as those who died after the establishment of the award in 1972 but were Filipino citizens at the time of their death;
2. Artists who through the content and form of their works have contributed in building a Filipino sense of nationhood;
3. Artists who have pioneered in a mode of creative expression or style, thus, earning distinction and making an impact on succeeding generations of artists;
4. Artists who have created a substantial and significant body of works and/or consistently displayed excellence in the practice of their art form thus enriching artistic expression or style; and
5. Artists who enjoy broad acceptance through:

· prestigious national and/or international recognition, such as the Gawad CCP Para sa Sining, CCP Thirteen Artists Award and NCCA Alab ng Haraya;

· critical acclaim and/or reviews of their works;

· respect and esteem from peers.”

Exactly which criterion did Carlo J. Caparas meet? He has never been known as an illustrator so the visual arts nod is incomprehensible. And to place him on the same level as filmmakers Lino Brocka, Ishmael Bernal, Gerry de Leon and Eddie Romero taints the renown associated with such names.

Dagdag-Bawas

Adding insult to injury, Arroyo took out composer Ramon Santos’s name from the list of nominees. If he was meant to make way for Carlos J. Caparas, all the more that the latter’s inclusion does not make sense knowing the former’s accomplishments.

Arroyo’s skill for adding-subtracting votes knows no bounds. What began during the presidential elections has been honed through the years by sheer lack of shame and manifest arrogance.

The President is already given the prerogative of conferring the Presidential Medal of Merit. She can abuse that prerogative all she wants. Why venture into the highest Cultural Order, abuse presidential power and mess with the Order of the National Artist? What are rules for?

She may be the nation’s poster girl for the culture and art of corruption but she should at least try to disprove it sometimes.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Visa Avert: The Special Resident Retiree's Visa (SRRV)

By Siesta-friendly

The Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA) exists by virtue of E.O. 1037 (issued July 4, 1985) which was meant to create the Philippine Retirement Park System. In the EO, the following was declared a national policy:

“[t]he development and promotion of the Philippines as a retirement haven as a means of accelerating the social and economic development of the country, strengthening its foreign exchange position at the same time providing further best quality of life to the targetted [sic] retirees in a most attractive package”. [emphasis supplied]

The PRA thus came up with the Special Resident Retiree's Visa (SRRV). However, looking at the benefits granted to SRRV holders, the aim of providing a “retirement haven” and the “best quality of life” to retirees “in a most attractive package” seems to have been missed.

We can’t know the motives behind the PRA’s policies but we can show you why we believe the SRRV benefits are not pursuant to the declared national policy. The information below may be obtained form the PRA website.

The Deposit

First, it’s important to know that a crucial consideration in availing of the SRRV is the locked-in deposit required as follows:

1. If the applicant is a pensioner and at least 50 years old – a time deposit of USD10,000.00 plus a monthly pension of USD800.00 for a single applicant and USD1,000.00 for a married couple.

2. If the applicant has no pension and is:

a) 35 to 49 years old – USD50,000.00 time deposit,

b) 50 years old and above – USD20,000.00 time deposit,

c) A former Filipino citizen and at least 35 years old, regardless of the number of dependents – USD1,500.00, or

d) Foreign ambassadors who served and retired in the Philippines, or a current and former staff member of an international organizations including the Asian Development Bank and at least 50 years old - USD1,500.00

The applicant can bring with him, without additional deposit, his spouse and an unmarried child below 21 years old or, if the spouse is not joining, 2 unmarried children under 21 years of age. Additional children with the same qualifications may also be allowed to join provided there is an additional deposit of USD15,000.00 per child. Former Filipino citizens are exempt from this requirement.

The retiree is not allowed to withdraw the deposit while he is an SRRV holder and the depository bank will not allow the withdrawal except upon written approval by the PRA (when the holder is ending the SRRV or in the 3 instances listed below). Think of it as a visa-and-hold-over-departure-order-(against the deposit)–in-one. As consolation, the interest from the time deposit may be withdrawn without PRA clearance.

Annual Fees

It doesn’t stop there. The annual fees are something else too. There’s the:

1. Investment Management Fee of: a) USD750 per year for the $50,000.00 Deposit, b) USD500 per year for the USD20,000.00, USD10,000.00 and USD1,500.00 Deposits;

2. A visitorial fee of 0.5 – 1% of the total amount withdrawn per year; and

3. A USD15 per year Harmonization Management Fee of 1.5% of the withdrawn amount of deposit per year.

Allowable Withdrawals

Now, let’s check out the only 3 allowed withdrawals from the time deposit. Meaning, your precious locked-in savings can only be spent in the following ways:

a. Purchase, acquisition and ownership of a condominium unit,

b. Long-term lease of house and lot, condominium or townhouse for not less than 20 years, and

c. Purchase, acquisition and ownership of golf or country club shares

However, former Filipinos can purchase a lot not exceeding 5,000 square meters in urban areas or 3 hectares in rural areas for business use or other purposes.

So, is it worth it? Let’s say your time deposit is USD50,0000, you can’t use a cent of that to invest in any business. You can’t even buy a car with it or anything else for that matter (beyond the 3 ways allowed).

So with that in mind, let’s see if the SRRV benefits are worth the deposit.

SRRV benefits

Let’s go through the benefits:

1. Option to Retire Permanently, i.e., to live, work and study in the Philippines.

2. Multiple Entry Privileges, i.e., being allowed to travel in and out of the anytime.

Last time we checked, a foreigner doesn’t need an SRRV to avail of the above 2 benefits. Let’s move on.

3. Exemptions from:

a) Income tax over pension and annuities;

b) Exit and re-entry permits of the Bureau of Immigration (BI);

c) Annual registration requirement of the BI;

d) Customs duties and taxes on the importation of household goods and personal effects up to USD7,000.00;

e) Travel tax, for a Philippine stay of less than 1 year from last entry date; and

f) The I-Card which evidences the alien’s registration with the Bureau of Immigration. The I-Card also serves as the Emigration Clearance Certificate (ECC), Re-entry Permit (RP) and Special Return Certificate (SRC) which are the exit and re-entry permits under 3 b).

So, how valuable are these exemptions?

3 a) does not exempt the SRRV holder from his own country’s income tax on pension and annuities.

3 b) is redundant as we’ve already pointed out.

3 c) and e) only take a couple of hours to accomplish, each year. Annual registration only costs PhP310.00 while issuance of the I-Card costs USD50 and USD20 per annual renewal. Plus, there’s a PRA ID card anyway for which retiree pays USD10 a year.

Truth be told, the Customs duties and taxes can be considerable. And travel taxes can amount to a few thousand pesos especially if you have dependents.

Now, knowing all that we have mentioned and if, for some reason you still find that getting the SRRV is worth it, then let us discourage, er, advice you further on what you will need to do.

SRRV Requirements

The application requirements (apart from the application form, valid passport and ID photos) are as follows:

1. Medical Examination Clearance which can be secured a) abroad (with English translation) duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy/Consular Office, or b) in the Philippines.

2. Police Clearance and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Clearance

a) Only the Police Clearance is needed if the applicant has stayed in the Philippines 30 days or less from date of last entry. It must be secured from the applicant’s country of origin (with English translation) duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy or Consular Office.

b) Police Clearance (from the applicant’s country of origin) and NBI Clearance are needed if the applicant has stayed in the Philippines more than 30 days from date of last entry.

3. Bank Certificate of Time Deposit Inwardly Remitted to any PRA Accredited Banks.

4. If a pensioner, the applicant must submit i) Certification of Retirement Benefits issued by the concerned government and/or private entity which clearly states identity, date of effectivity of the payment of pension and the amount of monthly pension; and ii) Proof of monthly pension remitted to the Philippines.

5. If married, the certificate of marriage and children’s birth certificate (or family register) must be submitted.

6. Non-refundable Application Fees of USD1,400.00 or equivalent Philippine Peso for the principal holder, USD300 for each of the spouse and minor dependent.

There are other ways (i.e, other visas) allowing for stay in the Philippines without obtaining the SRRV. There are study, work and investment visas. It’s up to the applicant to figure out which way is worth it.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST