Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Anti-trust bills timely

"Anti-trust bills timely"
by Willie S. Baun
Originally published in People's Journal, 01 February 2011, STREETLIGHTS, p. 4

"Multinational companies, particularly those dealing in "fast-moving goods," have enjoyed an array of privileges that otherwise would not be available to them, not even in their own countries.

What makes the FMCGs so profitable in the domestic market, apart from the usual bias for the "imported," is the participation of local distributors.

Numerous small enterprises take on the difficult job of bringing the FMCGs to the buying public, and set their profit margins based on standard retail prices and bulk-discount costs.

In effect the MNC plays commissary that merely takes care of administrative matters but somehow gets the lion's share of the income earned by the distributors.

'In and of itself,' observed a trade official, 'this is already a rather one-sided business deal.' It was added when flagrantly abused by a giant MNC to the graver prejudice of the distributors - the alarm bells should ring against anti-trust.

Two distributors in particular claim to have fallen under the mercy of one such MNC due to its alleged predatory pricing in direct conflict with the corporate codes enforced by the Department of Trade and Industry.

As this case wider currency in business circles, so has "Anti-Trust" attained buzzword standing. Soon enough, I believe, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago would be asked to include FMCG distributors and other such outsource companies in appropriate bills they have proposed.

Legal proceedings between the MNC and the distributors showed the multi-national may have perjured. That, moreover, the MNC's counter-affidavits and joint counter-affidavits versus the predatory pricing charge are inconsistent with one another and with the facts of the matter at bar.

When their attention was reportedly called, the MNC executives seemed unmindful of the resulting perjury charges. 'Their rebuttals were at best amusing, and, at worst dismissive. Yeah, as in 'we didn't know or realize we were lying!''

They also posited that 'privilege' and 'right' were synonymous and took issue with the distributors for the focusing on semantics. Cited in the MNC's defense, the Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary defined 'privilege' as a 'right, immunity, or exemption only by a person beyond the advantages of the most.'

On the other hand, Black's Law Dictionary, the authority on legal terms and legal definitions, indicates 'privilege' as a 'particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens.'

Common sense, of course, tells us that a right is inherent while a privilege is bestowed. Then again, there's no guarantee that common sense is precisely what it says it is.

In any case, here's Mr. Webster just once more; Anti-trust, adj., Pertaining to the regulation of or opposition to trusts, cartels, pools, monopolies, and other organizations and practices in restraint of trade.

So there, Jose, and trust JPE and Miriam to get it right all the way."

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Monday, February 28, 2011

Senate anti-trust forum provides key trade insights

Senate anti-trust forum provides key trade insights

Metrofile, The Daily Tribune, 27 February 2011

"02/27/2011

Senators from the committee on trade and commerce invited noted experts from a variety of fields to share valuable insights on existing anti-trust practices in the country. According to Sen. Manny Villar, the need for such a forum cannot be overstated. “We need to cover all the bases by conducting public hearings and hosting a series of lectures, so we may all understand the intent of the law and its benefits,” he pointed out. The proposed anti-trust law seeks to penalize unfair trade and anti-competitive practices in restraint of trade, unfair competition and abuse of dominant power. Consequently, it intends to encourage competition in the market place, which will help reduce prices and increase the quality of products and services. “Our committee is dead-set on passing the bill,” Villar further noted. The senators listened to the resource speakers who provided key inputs that are expected to make the final version of the law more effective. Among them were Undersecretary Zenaida Maglaya of the Department of Trade and Industry, lawyer Anthony Abad from the Ateneo Center for International Economic Law, and prominent lawyer and consumer advocate Lorna Patajo-Kapunan. After her presentation, a number of local distributors of a multinational corporation (MNC) from the audience approached Kapunan and the senators who were in attendance. It was learned later on that these distributors were driven to bankruptcy by what they deemed to be grossly unfair practices of this MNC. “This is precisely why we need carefully-worded and well-crafted legislation,” Kapunan said in response. “Our current laws not only allow our local businessmen to be bullied and exploited, but the level of leniency actually encourages it,” she emphasized. The committee is also tackling related bills on anti-trust legislation, namely, the Competition Act of 2010, co-authored by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Senators Ralph Recto and Antonio Trillanes IV, Senate Bill 123, authored by Sen. Sergio OsmeƱa III, Senate Bill 1838 filed by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, and Senate Proposed Resolution 123 urging inquiry into cartels and monopolies sponsored by Villar."

Original article appears on Tribune Online here.

More anti-trust buzz


Click on image to enlarge and to read full article.
Originally published in People's Journal, 27 February 2011.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Senators at anti-trust public forum



Image source: Philippine Senate official website/ PRIB Photo by Albert Calvelo/ 10 February 2011

"ANTI-TRUST FORUM: Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, together with Sen. Manny Villar, chair of the committee on Trade and Commerce, attend the second day of “Understanding Anti-Trust”, a forum presented by the Committees on Trade and Commerce, Economic Affairs and the Special Oversight Committee on Economic Affairs. Also in photo is Senate Deputy Secretary for Legislation, Atty. Edwin B. Bellen. (PRIB Photo by Albert Calvelo/10 Feb 2011) "
(Original photo release with text appears here).

*Resource speakers for the Senate anti-trust public forum were Usec Zenaida Malaya of the Department of Trade and Industry, Atty. Anthony Abad, and Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Anti-trust public forum press releases

Some press releases from the recently concluded "Understanding Anti-Trust" Public Forum held at the Philippine Senate last 10 February 2011:

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Impact of vertical price restraint on Filipino consumers

Foreign multinationals in the Philippines, such as Nestle Philippines, which are in the habit of setting minimum prices for their products to be sold by local distributors and retailers, without factoring actual distribution costs, actually threaten to short-change consumers.


When the multinational sets a low price, the local distributor and retailer has to work harder to erase that market impression that a cheap product is of inferior quality. The Filipino SME, which is typically the distributor or retailer for such giants like Nestle, are pressured to more aggressively market the goods so that consumers will associate those goods with a high level of service and high quality.


In the end, unfortunately, only the manufacturer benefits from such vertical arrangements. On the part of the distributor, profit margins remain at a minimum as they have to pour in more for marketing and promotional initiatives – in addition to the distribution and operational costs. Bearing costs for these aspects also means that the distributor may no longer have the means, manpower, and capabilities to actually provide the high level of service associated with how the products are marketed. The Filipino end user, or consumer, ends up paying more for goods because of aggressive marketing, only to receive lower quality service simply because the distributor is not equipped to provide anything better in the first place.


These vertical agreements, most commonly executed through the practice of vertical price restraint, are prejudicial to all parties concerned – except for the manufacturer. Otherwise, such arrangements will just result in productive inefficiency. Productive inefficiency occurs when there is higher production costs incurred, with no competitive forces to reduce costs to the lowest possible level. This is precisely why there is such a strong and urgent need to pass a stronger and tougher anti-trust law to monitor and safeguard against such vertical arrangements.