The Tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute.

In resolving this dispute at hand, the Tribunal must first answer the question whether it has jurisdiction
over the case since the other substantive issues raised in the pleadings and annexed as evidence shall
determine afterwards the contention on whether or not the foreign arbitral award may be recognized or
refused.

We find for the Claimant.

The Tribunal agrees, as the Claimant contends, that matters pertaining to recognition and enforcement
of foreign arbitral awards shall be governed by Rule 13 of Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) Special Rules of Court stating,

‘Rule 13.1. Who may request recognition and enforcement. - Any party to
a foreign arbitration may petition the court to recognize and enforce a
foreign arbitral award.’ (emphasis ours)

Furthermore, the same rules provide the for the recognition of the foreign arbitral award,

‘Rule 13.4. Governing law and grounds to refuse recognition and

enforcement. - The recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral
award shall be governed by the 1958 New York Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York
Convention") and this Rule. (emphasis ours)

The court may, upon grounds of comity and reciprocity, recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award
made in a country that is not a signatory to the New York Convention as if it were a Convention Award.

Clear and unambiguous from the words of the rules, the respondent’s opposition to the petition for
enforcement of the arbitral award in the Philippines on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is bereft of
merit. The Philippines, the country where the arbitral award is sought to be enforced and respondent
country Russia, are signatories to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereafter referred to as “New York Convention”). Rule 13.4 clearly states
that the New York Convention and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules shall govern the
enforcement. Therefore, where the enforcement power of such arbitral award is granted, it follows that
the jurisdiction is properly vested within this court.

Even assuming that Russia is not a signatory to the New York Convention, as alleged by the respondents,
the second paragraph of Rule 13.4 provides that upon grounds of comity and reciprocity, the court may
still recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award made that country that is not a signatory to the said
convention and treat such award as if it were a Convention Award. Therefore, by virtue of the New York
Convention and this rules, the jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts to enforce foreign arbitral awards as
far as the other requirement of the relevant laws has been met, cannot be denied. Hence, jurisdiction is
still within this court.
Respondent further contends that The Tribunal’s conclusions are confirmed by the representations of
the Government of the Russian Federation in the Explanatory Note which it submitted to the State
Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation when the ECT was submitted for ratification.
The following extracts from the Note are particularly relevant: Prior to the entry into force of the ECT,
the majority of the Contracting Parties agreed to apply the treaty on a provisional basis. In this respect,
it was decided that such provisional application of the ECT would be implemented to the extent that it
would not be inconsistent with the constitution, laws and regulations of the country in question. At the
time for the signing of the ECT, its provisions on provisional application were in conformity with the
Russian legal acts. For that reason, the Russian side did not make declarations as to its inability to accept
provisional application (such declarations were made by 12 of the 49 ECT signatories). [. . .] The
provisions of the ECT are consistent with Russian legislation. [. . .] The legal regime of foreign
investments envisaged under the ECT is consistent with the provisions of the existing Law of the RSFSR
on Foreign Investments in the RSFSR, as well as with the amended version of the Law currently being
discussed in the State Duma, and does not require the acknowledgement of any concessions or the
adoption of any amendments to the abovementioned Law. The ECT is also consistent with the provisions
of Russian bilateral international treaties on the promotion and protection