Content Review Policy

CorporateCode.ph uses a structured review process to improve the accuracy, clarity and reliability of its legal content. The level of review may vary according to the complexity, risk and purpose of the material.

Pre-publication review

Before publication, content should be checked for legal basis, source quality, citation accuracy, internal consistency, readability and alignment with the article’s stated scope. Key provisions, case holdings, required approvals, filing steps and time-sensitive information receive particular attention.

Risk-based review

Pages involving foreign-ownership limits, capital requirements, corporate approvals and vote thresholds, filing deadlines and penalties, delinquency or revocation, or intra-corporate disputes may require a higher level of review than general definitions or historical background.

Reviewer roles

A reviewer may verify sources, challenge unsupported conclusions, identify missing exceptions and check whether the article distinguishes binding law from commentary. Reviewer attribution is used only when the person’s identity, role and contribution are accurate and authorized.

Ongoing review

Published content may be revisited after legislative amendments, new SEC rules or memorandum circulars, a new Foreign Investment Negative List, major court decisions, agency updates, reader reports or scheduled editorial checks. Priority is given to pages that receive significant traffic or could affect important corporate decisions.

Review limitations

Editorial review reduces errors but does not guarantee that a page is complete, current or suitable for every factual situation. Readers should always consult the full official sources and obtain professional advice where necessary.

Documentation

Review records should identify the page, the claim or requirement checked, the official source and version, the source-check date, the change made and any unresolved issue. A source check verifies the stated material against a source; it is not a claim that the entire page has received legal review. A legal-review credit should identify the reviewing lawyer, the specific page and scope reviewed, the completion date and authorization to display the credit. For tools and checklists, the record should also identify the rule or list version and the cases used to test it. Material corrections should be described in a reader-visible note. These records support accountability and future maintenance.