ANTI-TRUST CASE AGAINST NESTLE PHILIPPINES FILED IN RTC QC

MORE ON THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY

"DOJ as competition authority"
by
Lito U. Gagni
BUSINESS MIRROR, Market Files, 20 September 2011
(Original article available here)

"CAN the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursue a similar line of complaint that the US DOJ advocated against a looming merger between AT&T and T-Mobile on issues of dominance that is now the subject of a controversy involving Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) and Digital Telecom, which owns Sun Cellular? This merger issue, we believe, is at the heart of an executive order that sought to make DOJ as a competition authority.

As of yesterday, the state attorneys general of New York, Washington, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio and Pennsylvania have joined the US Justice Department in its suit against the proposed acquisition by AT&T of T-Mobile.

One needs only to look at what is happening in the US to determine that the proposed acquisition by PLDT of Sun Cellular would mean a 70-percent control of the frequency, the digital roadway, which smacks of dominance and goes against the grain of letting competition dictate the tempo of the business game. This is why it is important to look at what’s happening in the US in the business of telcos to know that PLDT’s acquisition of Sun would have the same impact as that of AT&T’s on T-Mobile and should, therefore, be an occasion for the DOJ to pursue its mandate as the competition authority.

No less than President Aquino sounded the alarm on the return of the monopolies. Remember that it was during the dark days of the monopoly of PLDT when 98 percent of the population was waiting for a line and 2  percent was waiting for a dial tone. This quotable quote from Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew was what possibly moved then-President Fidel V. Ramos to open the telco industry to other players.

That opening of the telecom industry to other players is what allowed the Philippines to become an investment destination and now we are reaping the benefits of that Ramos vision to rid the sector of the monopolistic situation. As a result, thousands of jobs were created, with the business-process outsourcing industry leading the way. It is thus unfortunate to know that the telco sector is again being threatened by the PLDT-Sun deal. Perhaps, the DOJ can look at the options open to prevent a repeat of the problem. For starters, it may want to google the AT&T-T-Mobile deal and discover how US state attorneys are doing it.

xxx"

POINT OF LAW: ANTI-TRUST WORTHY?

"Is It Antitrust Worthy?"
by
Francis Ed Lim
PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, Point of Law, 15 September 2011
(Original article available here)

"Since President Aquino mentioned a new antitrust law in his first State of the Nation Address, much work has been done on the antitrust bills filed in Congress.

Legislative hearings have been concluded and proponents say that after decades of waiting (since the Eighth Congress, I’m told), we will finally have a unified, up-to-date and comprehensive antitrust or competition law.  

What are antitrust laws? Antitrust or competition laws are laws that regulate and maintain market competition by prohibiting or regulating anti-competitive behavior. Three acts that antitrust laws normally seek to prohibit are monopolies, cartel-like behavior and abuse of dominant market position.

In an economic sense, antitrust laws are in place to promote a freer market and more open trade, which will result in substantial efficiency and welfare gains for everyone.

A hot topic

The proposed acquisition of Digitel by PLDT has sparked even more interest on an antitrust law for the country. Globe, a competitor, argues that the transaction will lead to PLDT controlling close to 70 percent of the market and will eventually lead to higher prices and rates. However, PLDT and Digitel maintain that the deal will result in continued “unli” benefits, to use telco lingo, for consumers.

Aside from the PLDT-Digitel deal, Nestlé has its own antitrust controversy: Allegedly, it has been engaging in predatory pricing to drive out competition from the market. Expectedly, Nestlé contends that its products are not the cheapest in the market and that competition among lower-priced products remains intense.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima also had reportedly ordered a review of antitrust cases filed against Fraport AG (Fraport), a German company, and its local partner Philippine International Air Terminals Co. (Piatco), in connection with the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3.

Interestingly, perhaps in an attempt to respond to these antitrust controversies, the President issued Executive Order No. 45, which created an Office of the Competition Authority in the Department of Justice, to help enforce our antitrust laws.

Current law

This is not to say that our country has no antitrust laws at all. From myriad sources of law, one can find snippets of an anti-competition framework that serves as some sort of precedent for the current bill.

Foremost is Article XII, Section 19, of the Constitution, which mandates the State to regulate or prohibit monopolies when required by public interest and at all times to prohibit combinations in restraint of trade and other unfair competition practices.

There are implementing pieces of legislation, like the Revised Penal Code which, in Article 186, punishes monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.

Meanwhile, the Civil Code under Article 28 authorizes the collection of damages arising from unfair competition in agricultural, industrial or commercial enterprises or in labor.

There are other laws that attempt to penalize anti-competition activities. However, with very few exceptions, many of these laws have but skeletal provisions and do not provide meaningful guidance to the market on how our competition policy should be implemented.

Salient features

What is clear from the bills (at least after the Senate and House committee hearings) is that they do not prohibit monopolies per se, perhaps taking their cue from the Constitution and our Asean neighbors.

At the core of the bills are more detailed provisions on anti-competitive agreements (like price-fixing, market allocation), abuse of dominant position (like predatory pricing), anti-competitive mergers and more detailed enforcement mechanism.

Unlike its Senate counterpart, the House version proposes to create a five-man Philippine Competition Commission as a single venue for anti-competition issues. Similarly, the House version proposes to adopt non-adversarial methods of enforcement, like a request for binding ruling to make the law more business-friendly.

Anti-antitrust law

There are, of course, those who are against an antitrust law. Some economists argue that the need for an antitrust law stems from the wrongful notion that an unhindered and unregulated market leads to coercive monopolies. They assert that no unfair monopoly can ever be created by means of free trade in a free market economy.

Surely, there are policy issues yet to be decided in the plenary sessions of both Houses before an antitrust law becomes part of our statute books.

A basic policy issue, of course, is whether we really need a new antitrust law. If so, do we adopt the American system or the European model? What acts should be outlawed and what type of enforcement mechanism should be adopted considering the stage of our economic development? Should the law go for a separate competition commission or just create an office in the DoJ? How should the competition authority interface with other government agencies, like the Department of Energy, Department of Trade and the Securities and Exchange Commission on antitrust-related matters that, by law, are currently under their jurisdiction?

The big question is, whether a new antitrust law will finally see the light of day or will the bills suffer the same fate as the preceding measures?

Your guess is as good as mine.

(The author, formerly the president and CEO of the Philippine Stock Exchange, is now the co-managingpartner and head of the corporate and special projects department of Accralaw. He may be contacted at felim@accralaw.com.)"

The DOJ Anti-Trust Mandate from PNoy

Globe urges DOJ to follow lead of US counterpart in telecom deal

by Mary Ann Ll. Reyes
Philippine Star, 05 September 2011
(Original article available here)

"MANILA, Philippines - Globe Telecom has urged the Department of Justice (DOJ), which has recently been named by President Aquino as Competition Authority, to follow the lead of its US counterpart in opposing a planned merger that will create a monopoly in the telecommunications market.

According to Globe corporate communications head Yoly Crisanto, “government intervention is necessary to ensure that there is a level playing field and allow healthy competition to boost the quality of services for the benefit of consumers.”

But PLDT dismissed Globe’s assertion, saying that the legal and factual contexts of these cases are different. “Our view is the Digitel transaction complies with Philippine law and will serve the public interest through better and more affordable telecom services in more areas of the country,” PLDT spokesperson Ramon Isberto said.

The US Justice Department has filed a civil antitrust lawsuit at the US District Court in Washington against AT&T for its $39 billion purchase of T-Mobile USA, a move described by industry observers as raising the stakes in antitrust jurisprudence.

Crisanto said this development is seen as a welcome input to the Aquino administration’s strong anti-monopoly stance which is incidentally aligned with his “matuwid na daan” or a straight path approach to issues involving corruption and the protection and promotion of public interest.

Based on Associated Press reports, the US Justice Department believed that the proposed merger would “stifle competition and lead to higher wireless prices, less innovation and fewer choices for consumers” and these were reiterated in a news conference by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, saying that the merger would result in “tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services.”

Globe said the AT&T, T-Mobile merger, under review by the Federal Communications Commission, bears a striking resemblance to the local PLDT-Digitel merger which is likewise under review by the Philippine regulator, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).

Between AT&T and T-Mobile, the merger will compete nationwide in 97 of the 100 largest cellular marketing areas.

Globe noted that the PLDT-Digitel merger, on the other hand, will give it 70 percent of the total market and excess frequencies at a ratio of 4.5 vs. 1 of Globe.

AT&T is being accused of “hoarding spectrum”, sitting on top of a 700MHz spectrum acquired in 2008 auctions and its Advanced Wireless Services spectrum to roll out 4G LTE service. AT&T is said to be planning to cover 97 percent of the US population with 4G service if the merger is approved.

The AT&T purchase of T-Mobile, however, was alleged to have been a move to solve its spectrum issues brought about by the surge in mobile broadband use. In fact, this issue of acquiring additional frequencies by merging is the target of investigation set by one of the famous ’50 questions’ asked by the FCC of AT&T.

Globe pointed out that consistent with his anti-monopoly position, President Aquino said, when asked in an interview about the PLDT case at the NTC, that “our interest here is to ensure that there is no monopoly and that we promised a level-playing field, and about 85 million mobile-phone users can’t be tied to one provider.”

Last June 9 this year, President Aquino signed Executive Order 45 designating the DOJ as the Competition Authority.

He created the Office for Competition under the Office of the Secretary of Justice “to carry out duties and responsibilities such as the investigation of all cases involving violations of competition laws and the prosecution of violators to prevent, restrain and punish monopolization, cartels and combinations in restraint of trade as well as enforce competition policies and laws to protect consumers from abusive, fraudulent or harmful corrupt business practices.”

Office of Competition rules nearly ready

"Office of Competition rules nearly ready"

Published in BusinessWorld Online, 04 July 2011

Hit the stands on 05 July 2011

(Original article available online here)

"THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT expects to soon begin tackling competition issues with guidelines implementing the Palace-ordered mandate likely out next week, a Cabinet official yesterday said.

Justice Secretary Leila M. de Lima said the rules that will govern the planned Office for Competition under her department are still being finalized.

“We are still discussing the guidelines. We hope to release it by next week,” Ms. de Lima said.

Among the issues the competition office will study is Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.’s (PLDT) planned purchase of rival Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Digitel).

“[T]here are [alleged] anti-trust issues in the deal,” Ms. de Lima said.

Executive Order 45, signed by President Benigno S.C. Aquino III on June 9, designated the Justice department as the country’s Competition Authority. It was tasked to investigate violations of competition laws and prosecute violators; “supervise competition in markets” by enforcing such laws; as well as prepare, publish and disseminate studies and reports on competition to inform and guide industry and consumers. It will target monopolies, cartels and other “combinations in restraint of trade”.

The order also formed an Office for Competition under the Justice secretary’s office to carry out the Competition Authority’s functions.

Ms. de Lima said the guidelines, which are being deliberated by an internal panel composed of herself, Justice undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, among others, will adhere to the provisions of Mr. Aquino’s directive.

“We also had to keep in mind that for this year, the budget [for the competition office] will come from the DoJ (Department of Justice) budget and it will only be next year that a full allocation will be made for the office,” she added.

Ms. de Lima has said that the competition office , likely to be staffed by current state lawyers, would also engage the services of technical consultants and advisers from the private sector."

Previous related BusinessWorld post here.

DOJ formulating guidelines for competition office

"DOJ to formulate guidelines on competition authority"

Published in Positive News Media, 23 June 2011

(Original article available online here)

"MANILA, June 23 (PNA) – Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Leila De Lima will meet all the officials of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to formulate guidelines in investigating all cases involving violations of competition laws and prosecute violators to prevent, restrain and punish monopolization, cartels and combinations in restraint of trade. 

“We need to come up with guidelines on competition authority, the unit that will handle anti-trust cases because of Executive Order 45,” De Lima said.

Under E.O. 45, the DOJ is empowered to act as “Competition Authority” that would “investigate all cases involving violations of competition laws and prosecute violators to prevent, restrain and punish monopolization, cartels and combinations in restraint of trade.”

The DOJ is also mandated under E.O. 45 to “enforce competition policies and laws to protect consumers from abusive, fraudulent, or harmful corrupt business practices and monitor and implement measures to promote transparency and accountability in markets.”

Likewise, the DOJ is also tasked to “supervise competition in markets by ensuring that prohibitions and requirements of competition laws are adhered to, and, to this end, call on other government agencies and/or entities for submission of reports and provision for assistance.”

The DOJ under E.O. 45 carries the responsibility to “prepare, publish and disseminate studies and reports on competition to inform and guide the industry and consumers; and promote international cooperation and strengthen Philippine trade relations with other countries, economies, and institutions in trade agreements.” (PNA)"

Competition office to deal with monopolies

"Monopoly madness"

Published in People's Journal Online, 23 June 2011

(Original article available here).

"Bigness, as the old saying goes, is badness.

Monopolies stifle innovation because it diminishes, if not eliminates, competition. The result: poor-quality products or shoddy services.    

They are, therefore, inimical to the public interest, particularly consumer welfare.

A monopoly in the telecom sector is one such scenario.

Earlier, Globe Telecom raised the bogey of a return to the bad, old days of monopoly in the telecom sector.

Globe’s fears about the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. gobbling up of Digital Telecommunications, resulting in a vast “control of spectrum,” a scarce resource that is crucial to the delivery of services in the telecommunications highway, are understandable .

This spectrum is at the heart of the argument of Globe in protesting what it said was the vesting of a wide swath of the roadway to PLDT after it devoured Digitel.

The spectrum is much like the lanes at the North Luzon Expressway. By letting PLDT control more than the majority of the lanes, Globe argued that it would be put at a disadvantage in the face of considerable costs just to stay afloat since the very lifeblood of the telecom business -- the spectrum -- is in the hands of the telecom titan.

Globe hearkened to the dark days of the monopoly which deprived the country of a magnet for foreign investors. Why? Because the mighty PLDT refused to give access to other telecom carriers.

As a result, the telecom sector endured the dark days when 98 percent of the population were waiting for a telephone line and the other two percent were waiting for a dial tone.

Quite thankfully, the Ramos administration took pains to implement a vibrant business model for the telecom sector, paving the way for the entry of new players. 

But here’s a whiff of good news: Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said she would meet officials of the Department of Justice to formulate guidelines for the investigation of cases involving violations of competition laws.

De Lima  wants to prosecute violators of these laws in a bid to crack down on monopolization, cartels, and the restraint of trade.

“We need to come up with guidelines on competition authority,” De Lima was quoted by a major broadsheet as saying. “The unit will handle anti-trust cases under Executive Order 45,” she said.

EO 45 empowers the DoJ to investigate all cases involving violations of competition laws and prosecute violators.

Under the latest EO, the Justice department is also mandated to “enforce competition policies and laws to protect consumers from abusive, fraudulent or harmful corrupt business practices.”

It is likewise tasked to supervise competition in markets by ensuring that prohibitions and requirements of competition laws are followed. Thus, the DoJ requires government agencies and other entities “to submit reports and provisions for assistance.”

The department also has the responsibility to “prepare, publish, and disseminate studies and reports on competition” to inform and guide the industry, and consumers about their rights and responsibilities."

DOJ hopefully puts teeth in competition office

"Justice department to put teeth into anti-monopoly guidelines"

by Tetch Torres

Published 22 June 2011, INQUIRER.net

(Original article available here).

"MANILA, Philippines—Justice Secretary Leila De Lima will meet officials of the Department of Justice (DoJ) to formulate guidelines for the investigation of cases involving violations of competition laws.

The secretary wants to prosecute violators of these laws in a bid to crack down on monopolization, cartels and the restraint of trade.

“We need to come up with guidelines on competition authority,” De Lima said. “ The unit will handle anti-trust cases under Executive Order 45,” De Lima said.

EO 45 empowers the DoJ to investigate all cases involving violations of competition laws and prosecute violators of these laws.

Under the latest EO, the DoJ is also mandated to “enforce competition policies and laws to protect consumers from abusive, fraudulent, or harmful corrupt business practices.”

The DoJ is likewise tasked to supervise competition in markets by ensuring that prohibitions and requirements of competition laws are followed. The DoJ, thus, requires government agencies and other entities “to submit reports and provisions for assistance.”

The DoJ also has the responsibility to “prepare, publish and disseminate studies and reports on competition” to inform and guide the industry, and consumers about their rights and responsibilities."

Government competition office taking shape

"Government competition office to take shape next week"

Published in BusinessWorld Online, 21 June 2011

(Original article available here)

"THE NEW Office for Competition established by recently issued Executive Order (EO) No. 45 is expected to take shape next week when the Department of Justice holds a meeting among its officials to iron out details of its mandate and its organization, the head of the department told reporters on Tuesday.

"Early next week, I will convene a meeting with undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and key officials of the department to come up with clear guidelines and a blueprint for the Competition Office, the unit in the Department of Justice which will handle competition and antitrust cases," Justice Secretary Leila M. de Lima said.


President Benigno S. C. Aquino III last June 9 signed EO 45, which designated the Department of Justice (DoJ) as the Competition Authority and established the Office for Competition under it.


As Competition Authority, the DoJ is tasked to investigate violations of competition laws and prosecute violators; "supervise competition in markets" by enforcing such laws; as well as prepare, publish and disseminate studies and reports on competition to inform and guide industry and consumers.


Among others it will target monopolies, cartels and other "combinations in restraint of trade."


EO 45 also formed an Office for Competition under the Office of the Secretary of Justice as the Competition Authority’s arm to carry out its functions.


The same order said the Justice secretary will designate the head of the office, which will be manned by legal and technical experts, as well as "consultants and resource persons."


"It should be an official from the DoJ who should head that [office]," Ms. de Lima said.


"Most of the personnel who will work in it are our state counsels and lawyers," she added, noting that the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel could be tapped to assist the new body.


"Under the executive order, we can engage the services of technical consultants and advisers in the fulfillment of the mandate. We will discuss who we can appoint as consultants," Ms. de Lima said.


She noted that some officials in the department have already told her of their willingness to work for new office.


Last week, Ms. de Lima said the new office was designed to ensure "economic justice for all."


"It is the consumer that would suffer if we have monopolistic actions...in any industry," the Justice chief had said. -- NRM"
 

TXTM8's take on the competition authority vs competition policy

"New Kid on the Anti-Trust Block: Department of Justice"

by Mars Veloso

Published 17 June 2011, TXTM8

TXTM8 is Consumer Advocacy Group for Telecommunication Issues in the Philippines

(Original article available here).

"Aside from the glaring fact that prominent newspaper columnists seem to be lobbying for either Globe or PLDT, let’s review the external pressure placed upon the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to approve/disapprove the share swap agreement between PLDT and Digitel:

1. The Senate Public Services Committee has undertaken an independent review… and has decided that it was without power to interfere.
2. At least three (3) congressional resolutions have been passed to probe the deal. Unfortunately, Congress is in recess.
3. The Department of Science and Technology (DOST) has been tasked to jointly review the deal with the NTC.
4. The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) is being pushed to study the effects of the “merger” on the public welfare.
5. And now, via Executive Order No. 45, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been designated as the country’s “competition authority.”

What is glossed over however from this series of high-profile developments in the media is that the NTC itself is sitting on a gold mine. It has in its possession a relevant, existing, well-researched competition policy document which highlights best practices from around the world to guarantee that competition can thrive even in monopoly-rich environments. Is attention being given to this document? Senators Osmena, Arroyo, and Recto appear to have understood the relevance of this document during the recently concluded senate inquiry. The NTC has acknowledged its existence… and that it is still “being studied.” No mention is made of the fact that this document has lingered in the NTC’s archives for four or five years.

Now that a monopoly is being subtly re-engineered, today is the best time to ensure that the document’s contents become pre-conditions to the approval of the share-swap agreement. Today is the best time to make the relevant government agencies aware that a sector-specific competition policy document actually exists… and that it was created by the very entity charged to enforce it: the NTC!

The execution of such a policy document can serve as the middle ground for the regulator; a virtual “win-win” scenario in the controversial application process now being undertaken by PLDT and Digitel. If properly implemented, the telecom giants win by having their “merger” approved and the public wins by the very fact that true competition is finally allowed to exist in the market. The only question is: will the NTC finally execute? Or will it falter once more?"

Possible implications of EO 45

"Palace evasive over EO 45 effect on PLDT-Digitel deal"

by Aytch S. de la Cruz

Published 17 June 2011, The Daily Tribune Online

(Original article available here).

"Malacañang yesterday refused to venture an opinion whether the freshly issued Executive Order (EO) 45 that aims to stop monopolistic practices by big-time business groups would have an impact in the impending merger being hatched by leading telecommunications firms, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) with rival Digitel Telecommunications (Digitel).

Economic managers along with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) were previously ordered by President Aquino to look into all the possible consequences that may develop in the event PLDT and Digitel push through with the merger following the complaints lodged by Globe Telecom.

Until now, however, Malacañang has yet to update media on the results of the supposed study and whether or not Aquino has made a decision in response to the concerns raised by Globe Telecoms insofar as the state of competition among the industry players is concerned.

Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning (PCDSP) Secretary Ramon Carandang said he is uncertain whether EO 45 which empowers the Department of Justice (DoJ) to act as “Competition Authority” would have an effect in the looming PLDT-Digitel merger.

“I’m not sure if that particular EO will have an impact on the merger. We’re still trying to figure out how to respond to that. Again, let me bring up the issue we raised before: Will it have negative impact on consumers? Will it have a negative impact on the competitive environment in the telecoms industry? Those were the issues we’re looking at right now and we’re going to make a decision based on that,” Carandang told reporters during a press briefing.

Aquino through his EO 45 has mandated the DoJ to “investigate all cases involving violations of competition laws and prosecute violators to prevent, restrain and punish monopolization, cartels and combinations in restraint of trade.”

Carandang said this particular order aims to strengthen the Aquino administration’s campaign against monopoly, cartel, and other anti-competitive practices that weakens the country’s business environment.

“It (EO 45) is just one of many things — I know there are pending bills in Congress — which seek to address also anti-monopolistic practices. So this is all part of what is going to be different measures, different policies put in place in order to maintain a level playing field,” explained Carandang.

Globe’s primary argument in opposing the impending merger between PLDT and Digitel is that it might result in a lopsided distribution of communication frequencies thus making the competition among telecom-munications industries unhealthy.

EO 45 failed to specify the industries it would cover but Carandang assumed that the order would generally “apply to all situations, whether maybe accusations or suspicions of monopoly or cartel behavior.”

Interestingly, it is the NTC, not the President, that is empowered to settle the issue between PLDT and Globe, and this new EO comes after Globe’s letter to the president signed by Globe chairman, Jaime Augsto Zobel seeking the awarding of the frequency, which should be auctioned by the NTC and not awarded by the president.

Carandang also said that while DoJ serves as the lead agency in this particular endeavor, other government institutions such as the Department of Trade and Industry and other economic agencies are expected to participate in determining situations where monopoly and cartel exist.

“The DoJ will handle one aspect to that which is the legal aspect. There are the economic and the industry aspects as well — the competitive aspects, there’s the consumer aspect. So the decision whatever it may be will have to be done based on a more holistic approach,” Carandang explained.

“We cannot look at it based purely on legal (aspects), so it’s an interagency decision, the concerned Cabinet agencies will be weighing in on these issues,” he added.

EO 45 has mandated the DoJ to “enforce competition policies and laws to protect consumers from abusive, fraudulent, or harmful corrupt business practices and monitor and implement measures to promote transparency and accountability in markets.”

DoJ is also tasked to “supervise competition in markets by ensuring that prohibitions and requirements of competition laws are adhered to, and to this end, call on other government agencies and/or entities for submission of reports and provision for assistance.”

Moreover, the DoJ under the same order carries the responsibility of preparing, publishing and disseminating studies and reports on competition to inform and guide the industry and consumers as well as promote international cooperation and strengthen Philippine trade relations with other countries, economies, and institutions in trade agreements.

EO 45 also created the Office for Competition under the Office of the Secretary of Justice to carry out the duties and responsibilities set forth in the Section 1 of EO 45. It shall be manned by such number of staff including legal and technical experts, consultants and resource persons to effectively and efficiently pursue its mandate."