Atty. Johannes Benjamin R. Bernabe

The Philippine Competition Commission commemorated the fifth anniversary of its establishment on February 1 without much of a celebration. We have the pandemic to blame for that, even though the agency has continued to function and carry out its mandate during the past year’s lockdown. It is a bit of a shame because the PCC has been, in the five years of its existence, lauded in international circles for the quality of its rules and guidelines, and the soundness of its decisions particularly in the review of large mergers and acquisitions. Notably, as early as its third year, the PCC had been featured in the 2019 Global Trends Monitor published by PaRR, a competition news and analysis company, as the fifth-ranked competition agency in the Asia-Pacific region in terms of merger review, anti-trust enforcement and policy development.

Mergers and acquisitions have slowed down in the last eight months since the country went on lockdown to reduce the risk of spreading Covid-19. With the uncertainty of the extent of decrease in demand for goods and services looming large, most businesses not only have had to shelve any planned expansions but also more likely, struggled to find ways to survive. Bayanihan to Recover as One Act or Bayanihan 2 is meant, among others, to offer a reprieve to businesses through various incentives and accommodations, which ease their cost of doing business amid the public health crisis and beyond. Subsidies are coupled with streamlined regulatory processes to help affected businesses, particularly micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), get through the lockdown and participate in a post-pandemic economic recovery.

Much is being said about the need to adjust laws and regulations to facilitate business operations and economic recovery during the community quarantine and the “new normal” that comes after. Initiatives abound in both houses of Congress seeking to grant loans, subsidies and other financial packages in favor of affected businesses.

Cartels are more easily understood by lawyers and economists familiarizing themselves with competition law concepts. Even laymen have a general understanding of price-fixing and bid-rigging as acts among competitors that ought to be prohibited and penalized.

A debate which remains unsettled within not only the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC), but in other competition authorities around the world as well, is the extent to which “public interest” should influence the decisions and policies made by these agencies. While the answer may seem obvious, there are nuances that make a straightforward resolution more elusive than what meets the eye.

The search for a third telco may have presumptively concluded with the selection of Mindanao Islamic Telephone Co.  (Mislatel), and the approval given by the Senate to the transfer of controlling interest therein to a consortium led by Udenna Corp. and China Telecom. However, the challenge to ensure that the third telco lives up to the expectations of consumers for fast and reliable Internet and better overall quality of telecommunication services remains to be hurdled.

Grab’s acquisition of Uber is a landmark case for the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC). It is the first transaction that the PCC reviewed motu proprio (i.e., on the PCC’s own initiative) and, with the August 10 decision, resulted in a conditional clearance.

Putting a halt to cartels and other collusive acts lies at the heart of the Philippine Competition Commission’s (PCC) effort to improve consumer welfare.