The Philippine Department of Energy (DOE) confirmed last week that the country will need an additional 20 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity to meet its target of sourcing half of its power mix from renewables by 2040. Energy Secretary Sharon S. Garin announced that this volume will be tendered through several further rounds of the Green Energy Auction Program (GEA). The national grid operator NGCP is closely coordinating the necessary transmission infrastructure.

A reliable auction roadmap through 2035

The Philippines is pursuing a clear path: 35 % renewables in the power mix by 2030 and 50 % by 2040. Since 2022, the DOE has completed four GEA rounds, expected to deliver more than 20 GW of capacity by 2035. In February 2026, the DOE additionally unveiled a ten-year auction pipeline covering a further 25 GW of capacity – with an estimated investment volume of PHP 2.5 trillion (approximately EUR 34.7 billion).

The next rounds, GEA-6 through GEA-9, are scheduled for 2026 and 2027 and cover a broad range of technologies: onshore wind, floating and ground-mounted solar, rooftop solar, biomass, waste-to-energy and battery energy storage systems (BESS). In parallel, GEA-5 marks the first auction dedicated exclusively to offshore wind, with 3.3 GW (delivery 2028–2030). The DOE estimates the archipelago’s offshore wind potential at up to 178 GW.

100 % foreign ownership permitted

DOE Circular No. 2022-11-0034, together with DOJ Opinion No. 21 (2022), removed the historical 40 % cap on the exploration, development and utilisation of solar, wind, hydro and ocean/tidal energy. Foreign investors may now hold 100 % equity in the project company. Other areas – such as geothermal projects or large hydro on public land – remain subject to differentiated rules. Land ownership remains structurally reserved to Philippine entities and must be addressed through long-term lease or usufruct arrangements.

Practical hurdles

Multi-stage permitting, transmission capacity and land access remain real-world constraints. On the positive side, NGCP now accepts advance-build solutions, allowing winning bidders to begin construction of connection infrastructure ahead of the formal schedule.

On the horizon: a mandatory certification regime for solar components

In parallel, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), acting through its Bureau of Philippine Standards (BPS), is preparing a mandatory certification regime for solar components – PV modules, inverters, charge controllers, BESS and cables, for both residential and commercial installations. Locally manufactured products will be required to carry the Philippine Standard (PS) Quality Certification Mark, while imports will require an Import Commodity Clearance (ICC). Products without the required certification will no longer be permitted for sale and may be subject to seizure. For D-A-CH manufacturers with established quality standards, this development should be competitively favourable – early engagement with the BPS procedures is nevertheless advisable.

What this means for D-A-CH companies

For equipment manufacturers, component suppliers, EPC contractors, project developers and institutional investors, this opens up a clearly structured market with a politically anchored demand pipeline through 2035. Anyone considering market entry should engage early with the structuring of the project vehicle, the Service Contract under the Renewable Energy Act, RPS compliance, BPS certification and the fiscal incentives available under the CREATE MORE regime.

—

Your point of contact in the Philippines: Lutz Kaiser

Villanueva Gabionza & Dy Law Offices

20th/F Corporate Center
139 Valero St., Salcedo Village
Makati City 1227, Philippines

CELL: +63 995 985 4957
TEL: +63 2 8813 3351
FAX: +63 2 8816 6741

www.vgdlaw.ph
kaiser@adwa-law.com

Since June 2025, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) have expressly advised against the use of NRIC numbers for authentication purposes. In February 2026, the PDPC further announced stricter enforcement measures against private organisations that continue to use full or partial NRIC numbers for authentication.

The authorities have now published supplementary guidance to assist organisations in transitioning to more secure authentication methods. In particular, the guidance includes:

• examples of alternative authentication methods,
• considerations regarding the security aspects of the respective solutions,
• as well as practical recommendations for different use cases involving the sending of and access to electronic documents.

Organisations in Singapore should review their existing login, access, and document processes, especially where NRIC data is still being used in combination with dates of birth or other easily accessible information.

The updated guidance issued by the PDPC and CSA is available here:

—

Your point of contact in Singapore: Dr. Andreas Respondek

Respondek & Fan Pte Ltd

1 North Bridge Road
#16-03 High Street Centre
Singapore 179094

CELL:      +65 9751 0757
TEL:        +65 6324 0060
FAX:       +65 6324 0223

www.rflegal.com
respondek@rflegal.com

Thailand has recently introduced stricter anti-corruption regulations for private companies involved in high-value public procurement projects. The new regulations apply to projects valued at more than THB 300 million (approximately EUR 7.85 million). The updated “Notification on Procurement Thresholds and Minimum Anti-Corruption Standards (No. 2),” issued by the Anti-Corruption Committee and published in the Government Gazette on 10 April 2026, will enter into force on 10 May 2026 and replaces key aspects of the 2024 framework.

A key feature of the new regulation is the introduction of stricter compliance deadlines. Anti-corruption policies and certifications must remain valid from the submission of the bid until the contractor receives the final payment; if expiration is imminent, prompt renewal and resubmission are required.

The revised standards impose additional obligations on both government agencies and bidders. Procuring entities must now include minimum anti-corruption requirements in their terms of reference, while bidders are required to submit updated self-assessment forms together with supporting evidence to demonstrate compliance.

Another significant change is the expanded scope of the term “conflict of interest.” The definition now extends beyond traditional business and family relationships to include benefits provided through close business associates and unregistered partners, with clearer illustrative examples being provided.

In light of these developments, companies should reassess their internal policies and closely monitor compliance deadlines in order to avoid risks relating to eligibility to participate and payment.

—

Your point of contact in Thailand: Dr. Andreas Respondek

Respondek & Fan Ltd

United Center, 39th Floor, Suite 3904 B
323 Silom Road
Bangkok 10500, Thailand

CELL:     +66 89 896 4048
TEL:       +66 2 635 5498
FAX:       +66 2 635 5499

www.rflegal.com
respondek@rflegal.com

Since April 2026, the new Indian Income Tax Act, 2025, is in force and replaces the Income Tax Act, 1961, with all its amendments. The new act is much shorter (281,000 words instead of 505,000), has a more modern layout—numerous tables interrupt the running text—and is meant to be clearer, simpler, and a better read. One detail: so far, tax authorities called the fiscal period from April 2024 to March 2025 “Assessment Year 2025-26,” now it will be “Tax Year 2024-25,” which is easier to grasp. The tax policies and tax rates shall remain as before, changes will be in the detail. And of course, all section numbers change and we will need all new tax forms. One shall see whether the new act renders life easier for the taxpayer. And if Chancellor Merz wants to take India as an example and replace the German Einkommensteuergesetz of 1934 (!): The Income Tax Act, 2025, is not exactly a coaster, the German act still much shorter at 147,000 words.

—

Your point of contact in India: Dr. Jörg Schendel

Suman Khaitan & Co.

W-13, West Wing, Greater Kailash Part-II
Delhi 110048, Indien

CELL:     +91 97 11 08 04 03
TEL:       +91 11 49 50 15 00
FAX:       +91 11 49 50 15 99

www.sumankhaitanco.in
germandesk@sumankhaitanco.in
schendel@adwa-law.com

As of the end of 2025, Vietnam’s total birth rate stood at approximately 1.93 children per woman, falling below the replacement level of 2.1. This reflects an increasingly evident nationwide decline in childbirth rates. Notably, Ho Chi Minh City currently records the lowest birth rate in the country, at approximately 1.51 children per woman, highlighting the urgent need for the development and implementation of appropriate policies to encourage childbirth.

National Legal Framework

In response to the declining birth rate, the Law on Population 2025 and its guiding Decree No. 168/2026/ND-CP introduced several financial and welfare support measures for women giving birth. Under these regulations, women who give birth to two children before the age of 35 are entitled to a minimum cash allowance of VND 2 million (approx. USD 76) per childbirth.

In addition to financial support, maternity benefits have also been expanded. Female employees are entitled to 6 months of maternity leave for their first childbirth and 7 months for their second childbirth. In cases of giving birth to twins, an additional month of leave is granted for each child from the second child onward.

Additional Policies in Ho Chi Minh City

At the local level, the People’s Council of Ho Chi Minh City issued Resolution No. 32/2025/NQ-HDND, effective from 01.09.2025, which specifies that women lawfully residing in Ho Chi Minh City, including both permanent and temporary residents, who give birth to two children before the age of 35, are eligible for a one-time support payment of VND 5 million (approx. USD 200).

In addition to Ho Chi Minh City, several provinces and cities in the Southern and Central regions with similarly low birth rates are also considering and implementing supplementary childbirth support policies, including direct financial incentives and tax-related benefits for families having two children.

—

Your point of contact in Vietnam: Christian A. Brendel

Brendel & Associates Law Co., Ltd.

D&D Tower, 10th Floor, 458 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai
Ban Co Ward,
Ho-Chi-Minh-Stadt, Vietnam

CELL:     +84 98 978 4791
TEL:       +84 28 3911 2008
FAX:       +84 28 3911 2010

www.brendel-associates.com
info@brendel-associates.com

In Japan, legislation protecting employees against harassment by customers has been codified for the first time. The law took effect on October 1, 2025, and since then, various campaigns have been launched in many service sectors as well as in public transportation companies. Employers are thus legally obligated to implement active protective measures against harassment of their employees by customers—referred to in Japanese as “kasuhara.” It is not without reason that specific protection has proven necessary in Japan—a particularly comprehensive understanding of service is traditionally deeply rooted here. The notion that “the customer is God” (Okyaku-sama wa kami-sama) and the concept of service can border on self-sacrifice.

In recent years, labor unions in particular have increasingly criticized intrusive customer behavior and highlighted the psychological strain it places on employees.

The amendment to the Act on the Comprehensive Promotion of Labor Policy (Kōryō-hō) now defines impermissible Kasuhara as behavior that crosses socially acceptable boundaries and has a lasting negative impact on the work environment (Art. 30-2 et seq.). This results in mandatory compliance obligations for foreign companies in Japan. This applies not only to the service sector but also to after-sales service, particularly in the distribution of consumer products. Prevention systems must be established, which require the creation of specialized complaint offices and the development of manuals for handling acute cases.

If an incident is reported, the employer must immediately take measures to safeguard the health of its employees. Neglecting these obligations may violate the general duty of care under Article 5 of the Japanese Labor Contract Act (Rōke-hō), which entails civil liability risks.

—

Your point of contact in Japan: Michael Andreas Müller

Mueller Foreign Law Office

Shin-Kasumigaseki Building
3-3-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-0013, Japan

TEL:      +81 3 6805 5161
FAX:      +81 3 6805 5162

www.mueller-law.jp
info@mueller-law.jp

What at first glance appeared to be a failed product campaign for drinking cups quickly escalated into a corporate crisis that garnered nationwide attention in South Korea: On May 18, 2026 – the anniversary of the Gwangju Democracy Movement – Starbucks Korea promoted its “Tank” tumbler series with the slogan “Tank Day” and also used the phrase “Tak! on the desk.”

It was precisely this choice of words that made the case so explosive. In the public perception, the term “Tank” was immediately associated with the armored military vehicles used in 1980 during the violent suppression of the protests in Gwangju. The phrase “Tak! on the desk” was also associated with the infamous 1987 statement in which government officials attempted to downplay the death of student activist Park Jong-chul following torture. From the company’s perspective, it may have been an inadequately vetted advertising phrase. In the public eye, however, the campaign came across as a trivializing allusion to two highly sensitive symbols of Korean democratic history.

The reaction was swift: Criticism spread rapidly on social media, calls for a boycott followed, users posted screenshots of their account closures and attempts to get refunds, victims’ associations and memorial organizations rejected the initial apology as insufficient, and finally, President Lee Jae Myung also spoke out publicly in unusually strong terms. The campaign was halted that very same day; shortly thereafter, the CEO of Starbucks Korea lost his position, and the top leadership of the Shinsegae Group was also forced to issue a public apology.

It is particularly noteworthy that the crisis did not stop at reputational damage. The case almost immediately expanded to include structural issues: In the wake of the boycott, the refund conditions for prepaid Starbucks credit also came into focus. Consumers criticized the fact that credit is generally only refunded after at least 60%—and for smaller amounts, as much as 80% – has been used. This sparked a further debate on consumer protection, standard contract terms, and scrutiny by the Korea Fair Trade Commission.

The Starbucks case thus illustrates four stages of escalation in a concentrated form: 

First, a communication blunder; second, a historical and social transgression; third, a political escalation; and fourth, regulatory and contractual consequences. It is precisely this concentration of issues that makes the case so instructive for internationally active companies. It demonstrates that a locally formulated marketing message in a sensitive market can not only trigger bad PR but also touch on issues of governance, compliance, leadership, and market organization.

Why is this relevant for companies?

• Cultural and historical sensitivities should be systematically integrated into communication and approval processes.
• Local market knowledge must be embedded not only at the operational level but also at the management and governance levels.
• Crisis plans should account not only for media reactions but also for subsequent political and regulatory risks.

Anyone operating in South Korea – whether through a joint venture, subsidiary, or branch office – operates in an environment where historical events are not merely remembered but continue to have political, social, and legal repercussions. The Starbucks case is therefore not a marginal marketing incident but an example of how closely brand management, historical sensitivity, and regulatory follow-on risks are intertwined.

—

Your point of contact in Korea: Joachim Nowak

DAERYOOK & AJU LLC

7 – 16F, Donghoon Tower
317, Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu
Seoul 06151, Republik Korea

CELL: +82 10 9001 6430
TEL: +82 2 772 5948
FAX: +82 2 3016 5222

www.draju.com
nowak@draju.com