Practice question
After a public service is classified as critical infrastructure, an otherwise eligible private foreign investor seeks 70% ownership. The investor establishes that its home country's law permits Philippine nationals to hold more than 50% in a qualifying economic activity in the services sector. An objector insists reciprocity can exist only in the identical Philippine infrastructure industry. Which is the best analysis?
- The identical-industry objection is too narrow because the statute permits rights of similar value in other sectors and IRR 45 specifies qualifying alternatives.
- The objection is correct because other sectors are always irrelevant.
- Reciprocity is unnecessary because the investor is privately owned.
- Reciprocity automatically authorizes all foreign state-owned investors as well.
- The investor's 70% proposal falls below the reciprocity threshold.
Legal references
- RA 11659, Section 25; https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2022/ra_11659_2022.html
- 2023 IRR of RA 11659, Section 45; https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/97017
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.