6.5 Under S12.

1 of the Service Contract, the Respondent must

nominate the second arbitrator within 30 days from receipt of this
Request. If the Respondent fails to nominate an arbitrator within the
required time, Respondent fails to nominate an arbitrator within the
required time, the President of the ICC will appoint the second
arbitrator. The Claimants accordingly request that, in the event that
the respondent fails to nominate an arbitrator within 30 days from
receipt of notification from the ICC of the filing of this request, that
the President of the ICC proceed expeditiously to appoint the second
arbitrator.

6.6 Section 12.1 of the service Contract further provides that the two
party-appointed arbitrators must agree on the third arbitrator within
30 days of the selection of the second arbitrator. If the two party-
appointed arbitrators fail to agree on a third arbitrator within that
period, the President of the ICC, upon the request of either party,
must appoint the third arbitrator.

Seat of Arbitration

6.7 Section 12,1 of the Service Contract states that “unless the Parties
agree otherwise, the Philippines shall be the venue of the arbitration
proceedings.' It is submitted that while the contract provides for the
Philippines as the venue of hearings and related proceedings (unless
the parties agree otherwise), the legal seat of the arbitration remains
an open issue.

6.8 In PT Garuda Indonesia v Birgen Air, the Singapore Court of

Appeal explained the difference between the '”lace of arbitration” and
the “venue of hearing”:

There is a distinction between 'place of

arbitration' and the place where the arbitral
tribunal carries on hearing witnesses, experts or
the parties, namely the venue of hearing.' Where
the parties have agreed on the place of
arbitration it does not change even though the
tribunal may need to hear witnesses or do any
other things in relation to the arbitration in a
different location.

6.9. Similarly, under Philippine law, “venue relates to the place of

trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should
be brought and not to the jurisdiction of the court. Further, “venue is
waivable,” and is a mere procedural matter “intended for the
convenience of the parties.”

6.10 Thus, the parties have not yet agreed on the lega; place or seat of
arbitration.

6.11 Under Article 18(1) of the ICC Rules , the seat of

arbitration is fixed by the ICC International Court of
 Arbitration (the “ICC Court”) unless agreed upon by the
parties. In fixing the seat of arbitration when a party to that
arbitration is a State or State-owned entity, it ids the ICC
Court's practice to choose “ neutral location situated in a
country that has ratified the New York Convention."

6.12 Given the fact that the Respondent in this case is the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines, the Claimants submit
that the need is self-evident for the Court to fix the sear or arbitration
in a neutral location outside the Philippines. Indeed, even Philippine
arbitration law recognizes in the absence of an express agreement on
the seat of arbitration, a tribunal may adopt a seat pf arbitration
outside Metro Manila “ having regard to the circumstances of the
case.” The Claimants submit that Singapore would be an appropriate
seat of arbitration for these proceedings, it being both a neutral
jurisdiction and the in close physical proximity to the Philippines.

LANGUANGE OF THE ARBITRATION

6.13 Section 12.1 of the Service Contract provides that the “English
language shall be the language used” in the arbitration.

Rules of the Arbitration

6.14 Section 12.3 of the Service Contract states that except as

otherwise provided in S12, the arbitration shall be conducted in
accordance with the rules of arbitration of the ICC”then in effect” i.e.,
the 2012 ICC Arbitration Rules.

Applicable Law

6.15 Section 16.2 of the Service Contract provides that “[t]he laws of
the Republic of the Philippines shall apply top this Contract.”

6.16 In addition, the Claimants submit that the international law

forms part of the applicable law . Reference to international law ius
appropriate given numerous factors present in this case, including (I)
the Respondent is the government of a sovereign State.(ii) Article II,
Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution directly incorporates
customary international law as part of Philippine law (“[t]he
Philippines... adopt the generally accepted principle of internationally
law as part of the law of the land”), (iii) the nature of the Service
Contract involves the Republic's use of natural resources,(iv) the SC
38 production area is within the Philippines' Exclusive Economic
Zone, (v) the claimant SPEX is a Netherlands national, and (vi) the
claimant Chevron is a United States of America national.

7. INTENT TO REQUEST INTERIM MEASURES

7.1 The Claimants respectfully place the ICC, the members of the
Arbitral Tribunal, and the Respondent on notice that in light of the
grave, imminent, and irreparable threat to the Claimants posed by the
Respondent''s measures, including the COA Decision, it will be
seeking urgent interim relief from the Arbitral Tribunal as soon as it
is constituted.

7.2 The ICC is respectfully requested to bear in mind the Claimants'

urgent need for the relief when facilitating the constitution of the
Arbitral Tribunal.

8. FILING DETAILS

8.1 A bank transfer in the amount of USD3,000 has been made to the
ICC in payment of the advance on Administrative expenses
prescribed in Appendix III, Article 1(1) of the ICC Rules.

8.2 In accordance with Article 3(1) of the ICC Rules, this Request for
Arbitration is submitted in five copies.

9. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

9.1 The Claimants respectfully request that Arbitral Tribunal render

an award:

9.1.1 declaring that the Philippine Income Taxes paid by or on behalf

of the Claimants forms part of the Respondent's sixty per cent (60%)
share of the Net Proceeds from Petroleum Operations under the
Service Contract;

9.1.2. declaring that S6.3 of the Service Contract, which provides

inter alia that the Respondent “shall assume and pay” all the
consortium's Income Taxes, is a valid and enforceable clause;

9.1.3. declaring that the Respondent has already received in full its
60% share of the Net Proceeds from 2002 to 2009;

9.1.4. declaring that the Respondent has no right to demand or collect

from the Claimants any additional amount for the period of 2002 to
2009;

9.1.5 directing the Respondent to comply with its obligations under

SC 38 by prohibiting any and all of its organs, agencies,
instrumentalities, independent bodies and commissions (including
the Commissions on Audit), agents, and officials, from assesing or
collecting any amounts for Income Taxes exceeding those included in
the Respondent's 60% share, whether those that have already accrued
and have been paid by the Claimants, or those arising in the future
from Petroleum Operations under SC 38 or any extension thereof;

9.1.6 directing the Respondents to indemnify the Claimants for all

adverse economic consequences resulting from any enforcement of
the COA Decision;

9.1.7 for all appropriate fees and costs in relation to this arbitration
to be paid by the Respondent in favour of the Claimants ; and
9.1.8 such other relief that may be just and equitable under the
premises.

9.2 The Claimants reserve the right to amplify their claims and the
relief it seeks , and to provide further evidence and authority in
support of its case, during the course of this arbitration.

9.3 Submitted for and on behalf of the Claimants.