GOVERNMENT prosecutors said on Thursday they are “gravely concerned” on the proposed measure that seeks to rein in monopolistic greed through an antitrust, or anticompetition, law.
“After a diligent comparative review rooted in global best practices and informed by the enforcement experience by the department, we sincerely believe that the present House Bill is designed to fail in its stated objectives and will, instead, crystallize the existing monopolistic and oligopolistic practices in the economy today,” Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said a letter to Speaker Feliciano Belmonte dated April 28.
De Lima’s letter came shortly before the House of Representatives formally approved on second reading its version of the anti-trust bill, which was subsequently passed on third and final reading last week.
The anti-trust bill, now approved by both House and Senate, was supposed to check monopolistic behaviors and protect small businesses from being disadvantaged or bullied by bigger companies.
De Lima, likewise, took to task the House leadership for drastically altering the Malacañang version it sent to the Lower House, pursuant to a directive of President Aquino under Executive Order 45, which also created the DOJ-led Office of Competition (OFC).
She said changes to the Malacañang draft was “unilaterally made without the requisite study and consultations”, thus undermining “the current competition regime under the OFC.”
“The bill is also littered with terms and concepts that are not consistent with law and jurisprudence or not in accord with the tenets of competition policy and law,” she stressed.
Minority congressmen, led by Abakada Partylist Rep. Jonathan de La Cruz, had earlier said the “good faith” provision in the proposed Fair Competition Act of 2015 provides an “escape clause” for big companies, should they abuse their dominant position by running to the ground their smaller competitors in the guise of “acting in good faith.”
Both the House and the Senate versions provide that individuals and companies may resort to undercutting their competition, as long as it was done “in good faith.”
The House version even contains a new section not found in the Senate version called “Forbearance,” which allows any individual or company to apply for suspension of the application of the law to dodge, among others, possible prosecution.
The Competition Commission, acting as the regulator, was also given expanded powers under the House version exposing its members to corruption and bribery.
De la Cruz has stressed that the good faith provision “has no place in an anti-competition act, just like what we are discussing right now.”
In the aftermath of the bill hurdling third and final reading, De La Cruz further said: “By ignoring the clear need to level the playing field and open up competition and fair play, the House has thrown away the opportunity to establish a culture of excellence innovation and entrepreneurship.”
“We are back to the corrosive monopolistic tendencies abetted by undue reliance on good faith,” he added.
Bicameral conference members from both the Lower House and the Senate are expected to sit down this week to reconcile the conflicting provisions of the two versions.
Joel R. San Juan