Philippines

By Francisco Lim and Eric Recalde Screen Shot 2017-11-13 at 7.30.44 pm

ACCRALAW

Email: felim@accralaw.com
Email: errecalde@accralaw.com

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-11-16 at 5.08.41 pmThe Philippine Competition Commission is taking strides towards a competition law regime that is responsive to business while still promoting competition

 

The state of Philippine competition regulation has been slowly taking shape barely over two years after the passage of the Philippine Competition Act (RA 10667). Since the effectivity of the law in August 2015, the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) has taken stride towards its full implementation. ACCRALaw for its part has actively participated in developing a competition law regime that is responsive to business and at the same time promoting competition, as envisaged in the law.

Just like the competition regulation of other jurisdictions, the Philippines regulates and/or penalises whatever form of anti-competitive acts of persons and entities that have effect on Philippine competition, be that in the form of agreements, abuse of dominant position or mergers and acquisitions (M&As).

Immediately following its formation in February 2016, the PCC issued transitory circulars to provide guidelines on how to treat M&As covered by the mandatory notification for merger control review under the law. These circulars were meant to address uncertainties in the M&As pending the issuance of the law’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR). Four months later, the PCC finally issued the IRR. Essentially, the IRR spelled out the notification thresholds and the procedure for the two-phase merger control review. To supplement the IRR, the PCC issued Merger Review Guidelines on substantive merger analysis, and a few clarificatory notes. Currently, it is deliberating on a Merger Procedure that will set in a more detailed fashion the rules for the two-phase merger control review, taking into account its experiences and issues encountered for the past year. Through its interactions, ACCRA has actively assisted PCC in crafting such procedure in a manner that will avoid delay in the conclusion of M&A transactions and at the same time permit the PCC to adequately review them.

It will be noted the IRR did not provide details or guidelines on when an act may constitute as anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominant position. Based on prior consultations, the PCC intimated it will not provide those details or guidelines and will rather evaluate the act considering the broad parameters set in the law (and reiterated in the IRR) and, presumably, the interpretations of other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the PCC has recently issued its Rules of Procedure in the investigation and hearing of purported anti-competitive agreements and conduct of persons and entities, their remedies and sanctions that may be imposed on them.Screen Shot 2017-11-13 at 7.34.28 pm

In light of the mandate of the law to assist the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) in preparing and formulating a national competition policy, the PCC has started consultations with various sectors. Francis Lim, a senior partner of ACCRA, has assisted the PCC in this endeavour. In particular, we pointed out the various provisions of the constitution, laws and various government regulations that serve as roadblocks to free competition and need to be revisited and, if necessary, modified or recalled. One of these is the regulations of the Philippine Contractors’ Accreditation Board limiting the participation of foreign contractors in construction activities in the Philippines. The PCC, noting that such regulations have no explicit legal basis, has intervened in a pending case before the Supreme Court and requested for the declaration of invalidity of the said regulations.

Shortly after the issuance of the IRR, we published a book entitled The Philippine Competition Act: Salient Points and Emerging Issues. We anticipated that the law, at its infancy stage, will give rise to several issues, which we pointed out in our book and gladly shared with PCC. The officals will likely guard the PCC’s prerogatives, specifically the robustness of its authority to interpret the law, conduct investigations and review M&As. On the other hand, as private practitioners, we in ACCRA endeavour to protect our clients based on our understanding of the law and if necessary to take an advocate’s position relative to a point of law as applied to a particular set of circumstances. Mutual respect and openness are essential in this case.

For example, in relation to the timing when the merger notification should be made, the law does not specifically provide guidance. It only forbids parties to a notifiable transaction “from consummating their agreement until 30 days after providing notification to the Commission in the form and containing the information specified in the regulations issued by the Commission”. In the IRR, the PCC requires the parties “to notify the Commission before the execution of the definitive agreements relating to the transaction”. It has later explained by way of a Clarificatory Note that definitive agreements may refer to “a share purchase agreement, asset purchase agreement, joint venture agreement or other similar agreement”, and parties may notify on the basis of a binding preliminary agreement, such as “a memorandum of agreement, term sheet or letter of intent”. This naturally caused some difficulty for some especially those who were involved in a global deal, wherein the global definitive agreement was signed before filing with the prescribed notification for each jurisdiction. While there were certain jurisdictions that recognised notification pre-execution of definitive agreement, parties in those cases were only given the option to make such notification to avoid delay in the closing of the transaction. They were not mandated to immediately make such notification. If they wish, they can do so post-execution of the definitive agreement but before consummation of the underlying transaction. ACCRA pointed this out in previous interaction with PCC and formally presented by way of comment on the draft Merger Procedure, which as mentioned was still under consideration by the PCC. We understand that the PCC based on its exposure draft would soon permit the parties to file notification within a certain period following the execution of the definitive agreement. The parties’ failure to notify within the prescribed period following execution of the definitive agreement will merit sanctions but not the same sanction should they proceed and consummate the agreement without the PCC approval. It will be the latter scenario when the heftier 1-5 percent penalty (based on the value of the transaction) prescribed by law will apply. These demonstrate the openness of the PCC to suggestions and resolved to adopt a business-friendly procedure in the discharge of its mandate to review M&A transactions.

i3-CThere are still a lot of things to be done. The PCC has yet to issue (together with relevant sector regulators) needful rules and regulations to promote competition, protect consumers and regulate activities of entities falling under their respective jurisdiction. It has not yet promulgated other criteria that may be applied to a sector or across some or all sectors that will likewise trigger merger notification, or has yet to stipulate an increased transaction value threshold. For some, the existing notification threshold of P1 billion is too low, in light of the increased values of Philippine transactions. It has not also fully demonstrated how it would protect confidential business information gathered during its investigation. Its ability to protect such information is a major concern for some of the parties in an M&A transaction that makes them hesitant providing them in the course of investigation. We understand that the PCC is in the process of providing a secured record keeping system to allay this concern of parties under investigation.

In relation to its mandate to investigate anti-competitive acts, the PCC is currently evaluating the actions of certain industry players. Apparently, these entities failed to rectify their practices within the two-year transition period to align with the law. This ended in August this year. This is the reason why the PCC recently issued its Rules of Procedure, as mentioned earlier, to provide guidance to parties under investigation of their rights and remedies. The same rules likewise spell out the specific administrative fines. Specifically, the basic fine for an anti-competitive act is up to 30 percent of the relevant turnover, unless the entity does not compete in the relevant market in which case the rate is reduced to 20 percent. This basic fine may be adjusted to arrive at the final fine, depending on the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors cited in the rules. The final fine will be tripled if the violation involves the trade or movement of basic necessities and prime commodities. In the interest of fairness and equity, the rules explicitly recognise the authority to depart from the above-described methodology of setting the fine.

It is also likely that the PCC will soon revisit the 50 percent market share threshold giving rise to a presumption of market dominance in evaluating conduct of entities under investigation. In such a case, the PCC is mandated to “consider the structure of the relevant market, degree of integration, access to end-users, technology and financial resources, and other factors affecting the control of a market”. However, it is still not settled whether the PCC can lower or is only permitted to increase the 50 percent threshold. The congressional deliberations are not very helpful on this issue. Active discussion on PCC’s authority to increase the threshold does not necessarily imply the absence of its authority to lower such threshold. This is crucial since a lower threshold raises the presumption of market dominance, and opens itself to investigation whether its actions may be regarded as abuse of such dominance as mentioned in the law. This imposes a burden on the concerned entity to dispute such presumption taking into account the factors mentioned in the law. A related issue is whether the list of acts deemed to be in abuse of dominant position cited in the law is exclusive or merely illustrative. A plain reading of the law suggests it is. However, the IRR shows the list is only illustrative, and does not rule out other actions that may be considered in conflict with law. Congressional deliberations appear to support the position taken in the IRR.

In such a short period of time, the PCC has done a lot. At the rate it is going, it is apparent the PCC will soon take the above measures in order to fully implement the law. It is the job of the regulated persons and entities to do their share by adjusting their actions to align with the law. They should likewise bring to the attention of PCC, with assistance of advisers like ACCRA, the actions and interpretations of PCC that they consider to be excessive or too cumbersome to business.

 

ACCRALAW LOGO

 

 

 

 

 

 

http//: www.accralaw.com

Email: felim@accralaw.com

Email: errecalde@accralaw.com

[sharethis]
Tags: Anti-trust, Competition, The Philippines
Related Articles by Firm
Protection of women employees in the Philippines
According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap (GGG) Report conducted in 2016, the Philippines is the most gender-equal country in the Asia-Pacific region, having closed nearly 79 percent of its gender gap ...
PHILIPPINES: The internet and doing business in the Philippines
Earlier this year, the Philippines Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an opinion stating that an online gaming system with absolutely no physical presence in the Philippines shall be considered as “doing business” in the Philippines and was thus required ...
Philippines: Psychological disorders in the workplace
The problem of mental health presents a particular conundrum under labour relations and standards ...
Clarifying the role of contractors and subcontractors
Recent changes to labour laws in the Philippines attempt to clarify the status of contractors and subcontractors in certain industries ...
Fake news and its web of legal issues in the post-truth era
Oxford Dictionaries’ Word of the Year for 2016 is “post-truth” — an adjective defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. ...
Dollar-denominated securities in relation to Corporation Code’s provisions on capital
The Philippines Stock Exchange (PSE) issued rules on December 2, 2016 governing the listing, trading and settlement of US dollar-denominated securities (DDS)....
Cyber bullying in the Philippines
The pen is mightier than the sword or so the adage goes. When this was once said, it was to highlight the power of thoughts and ideas over brute force and violence as a way to effect change. Today, the ...
Uber/GrabCar drivers: Independent contractors or employees?
The buzz about the legality of Uber and GrabCar operating in the Philippines might have died down, but now there is another legal issue surrounding them: whether their drivers are employees or ...
Price fixing in the context of the Philippine Competition Act
In light of the enactment of the Philippine Competition Act (PCA) in 2015, competitors, manufacturers, retailers and sellers or suppliers, in general, should be ...
Implementation of the data privacy act in Philippines now in full swing
Since 2012, the Philippines has had a comprehensive law governing personal data privacy. However, full implementation ...
Taxability of service fees received by non-resident foreign companies from online advertising in the Philippines
The use of the internet for the promotion of goods and services, particularly social media (Facebook, Twitter and ...
Levelling the playing field in the Philippines
Before the enactment of the Philippine Competition Act in 2015, the Philippines was the only founding member of Asean that did not have a comprehensive competition law in place. Francisco Ed Lim, Patricia-Ann T Prodigalidad, Eric R Recalde of <...
Age discrimination in the workplace
Republic Act No. 10911 (also known as the ‘Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act’) lapsed into law on 21 July ...
Green jobs: greening the Philippine labour sector
With the threat of climate change, the international community created the Paris Agreement which aims to stop global warming and preserve ...
Interplay of domestic law on compulsory licensing and international agreements on medicine prices
The price of pharmaceutical products in the Philippines appears to be on the high side compared to that in other Asian ...
Restrictive covenants in employment contracts
One of the means of keeping afloat in today’s competitive market is to hire employees who are ‘fit’ for a particular job. However, before employers ...
Make our system work: litigation practice expedited
The perception that litigation is a slow and arduous process has drawn many of us closer to the idea of alternative modes of dispute resolution. ...
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Order No. 18-A: The Rules and Regulations on Contracting
On December 4, 2011, Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Order No. 18-A (D.O. 18-A), the new Rules Implementing Articles 106 to 109 ...
An overview of Philippine Data Privacy Law
Republic Act No. 10173, or the Philippine Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA10173), was signed into law on August 15, 2012. This is the ...
New competition law for the Philippines
The Philippine Competition Act (PCA) went into effect on August 5, 2015. The law applies not only to acts committed in the Philippines but ...
Related Articles
Anti-Trust & Competition: China - Anti-monopoly enforcement in China’s healthcare industry
The healthcare industry has gradually become one of the key focal points of the anti-monopoly law enforcement in China ...
Anti-Trust & Competition: Asia’s evolving competition landscape
After a period of rapid adoption of competition laws in Asia, only Bhutan and North Korea are compliance safe spaces ...
Projects & Energy Special Report: Thailand: New Minerals Act
A new Minerals Act (BE 2560 (2017) was published on March 2, 2017 and took effect on August 30, 2017 (180 days after the publication date) ...
Related Articles by Jurisdiction
Make our system work: litigation practice expedited
The perception that litigation is a slow and arduous process has drawn many of us closer to the idea of alternative modes of dispute resolution. ...
Fake news and its web of legal issues in the post-truth era
Oxford Dictionaries’ Word of the Year for 2016 is “post-truth” — an adjective defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. ...
Latest Articles
ZICO celebrates 30 years with charitable donation
Yokuk provides therapy and welfare services as well as educational support for children and adults suffering from various disabilities ...
Crime vs. Ethics: Changing corporate culture to reduce modern slavery
The second of four reports from Kroll and Liberty Asia on how to mitigate any hidden compliance and reputational risks relating to human trafficking issues …
The Assistant Registrar’s Role in the Judicial Hierarchy
The decision in Peter Low LLC provides the latest judicial pronouncement on the role and position of an Assistant Registrar in the judicial hierarchy ...