.png)
The Philippine Competition Act (PCA), signed into law in 2015, is the country’s first comprehensive antitrust legislation. Like China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, it aims to promote fair market competition and prevent anti-competitive conduct such as abuse of dominance, restrictive agreements, and cartels. The PCA works hand in hand with intellectual property (IP) laws administered by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL).
One of the biggest areas of intersection is the abuse of intellectual property rights (IPRs) by dominant firms. While IP laws grant exclusive rights to innovators and creators, competition law ensures that these rights are not exercised in ways that stifle market competition.
The PCA prohibits dominant companies from engaging in practices that unfairly restrict competition. This includes using technology, data, or platform power to exclude competitors. For instance, self-preferencing practices (such as an online marketplace giving priority to its own products over third-party sellers) may be considered anti-competitive.
In the Philippines, IPOPHL has been increasingly vigilant against unfair use of copyright and trademark rights. For example, a dominant copyright collecting society cannot force music licensees into package licensing (taking all songs in a portfolio) if it is unreasonable or restrictive. This parallels cases in China where music rights groups faced scrutiny for bundling rights in ways that limited licensees’ options.
Under IPOPHL regulations, copyright and patent holders must exercise their rights fairly and in good faith. Similar to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) issues abroad, the Philippines recognizes that certain technologies (e.g., telecom standards) must be licensed under FRAND terms (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory). A refusal to license or seeking injunctions against willing licensees can be scrutinized as abuse.
For example, in ABS-CBN vs. TV Plus piracy cases, copyright enforcement was upheld, but IPOPHL has also emphasized that enforcement must not be excessive to the point of blocking innovation or market entry for legitimate players.
The PCA also addresses anti-competitive behavior by government agencies, particularly when local government units (LGUs) issue regulations that favor one business over another. IPOPHL works alongside the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) to ensure that no government policy unduly restricts fair market entry.
A practical example is when LGUs issue exclusive permits for cable operators or internet service providers, effectively blocking competition. The PCC, supported by IPOPHL’s stance on fair IP licensing, has intervened in several such disputes to restore a level playing field.
Beyond patents and trademarks, copyright enforcement is a growing concern. IPOPHL has issued strong warnings against piracy—especially online piracy involving streaming, music, and e-books. However, copyright holders must avoid practices that hinder access to culture and education. For example, educational copyright licensing must balance the creator’s rights with fair use provisions under the Philippine Intellectual Property Code.
✅ In summary, while IPOPHL safeguards intellectual property rights, it also ensures they are not weaponized to block competition. The balance between protection and fair competition is now central to Philippine business regulation.