Search for:

Recent Developments

On 27 December 2018, the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) issued the Rules of the Leniency Program (Rules). The Rules fully implement the PCC’s Leniency Program as provided under the Philippine Competition Act.

The Rules offer persons and entities that are former or current participants in cartels immunity from suit or reduction of administrative fines, in exchange for voluntary disclosure of information regarding the cartels. The PCC hopes that the Rules will discourage and assist in the investigation and prosecution of cartels.

The Rules took effect on 18 January 2019.

Businesses are provided with an opportunity to avoid or reduce liability from previous or current cartel participation by complying with the conditions for leniency. The Rules provide a significant disincentive for cartel participation, as businesses should be wary that other participants may be considering availing of leniency. Similarly, businesses considering availing of leniency should expedite application into the program participation, since the Rules implement a “first to file” program, which may allow only one beneficiary of immunity from suit and one beneficiary of reduction of fines for each reported violation.

Who may apply?

An entity that is a former or current participant to a cartel (i.e., horizontal arrangements involving price-fixing, bid-rigging, output restriction and market sharing) may apply for leniency, in exchange for voluntary disclosure of information regarding the cartel. If the entity is granted leniency, its officers, directors, trustees, partners, employees and agents who came forward and cooperated with the PCC may also be granted leniency. Entities may not jointly apply for leniency.

Current or former directors, officers, trustees, partners, employees or agents of the participant entity (Related Individual) may apply for leniency independently of their employer.

Forms of leniency

Leniency can in the form of (a) immunity from suit or (b) reduction of administrative fines.

Immunity from suit

Immunity from suit covers immunity from criminal and administrative liability under the Philippine Competition Act, as well as from civil actions initiated by the PCC and third parties.

An entity that reports a cartel to the PCC prior to a fact-finding or preliminary inquiry by the PCC may be eligible for immunity if it is shown that:

(a)​ The PCC has not received information about the cartel from any other source (e.g., those granted immunity);
(b) Upon discovery of the illegal activity, the entity promptly and effectively terminated its participation;
(c) Its report is truthful and complete;
(d) It fully and completely cooperates with the PCC’s investigation; and
(e)​ It did not coerce another to participate in the cartel and clearly did not lead or initiate it.

If the report is made after a fact-finding or preliminary inquiry, the PCC may still grant immunity to the reporting entity if it complies with these conditions and shows that (a) the PCC has no evidence that will likely convict the entity; and (b) granting immunity would not be unfair to others.

For each reported violation, the PCC will grant immunity from suit to only one entity and its Related Individuals who come forward and cooperate with the PCC.

Reduction of Administrative Fines

If the reporting entity does not qualify for immunity, it may qualify for reduction of administrative fines if:

(a)​ It is the first to come forward and qualify;
(b) Upon discovery, it promptly and effectively terminated its participation;
(c) Its report is truthful and complete;
(d) It fully and completely cooperates with the PCC’s investigation; and
(e)​ It has no evidence that will likely convict the entity; and
(f)​ Granting leniency would not be unfair to others.

For each reported violation, the PCC will grant reduction of fines to only one entity and its Related Individuals who come forward and cooperate with the PCC.

Marker System / Procedure

The applying entity may request for a “marker” from the PCC to protect the entity’s place in the applicant queue. Once the marker is granted, the entity must submit information and evidence about the anti-competitive agreement within the required period; otherwise the next entity in the marker queue that submits the required information and evidence will be considered for leniency.

Conditional leniency will be granted if the information or evidence allows the PCC to carry out a targeted investigation or adjudication of the cartel or adds significant value to the investigation. The conditional leniency may be revoked if the entity does not fully and genuinely cooperate with the PCC until all the relevant cases are finally resolved.

For individuals

When an entity obtains a marker, a Related Individual who comes forward and cooperates with the PCC will be considered to have the same marker. The Related Individual may then be granted conditional leniency together with the entity.

When the entity’s leniency application is abandoned, withdrawn or denied, a Related Individual who previously came forward and cooperated with the PCC will take the place of the entity in the queue and will be considered to have independently applied for leniency.

A Related Individual may apply for leniency independently of his or her employer, even if the latter does not apply for leniency. The revocation of the leniency in favor of an employer will not necessarily result in the revocation of leniency in favor of a Related Individual.


The identity of the entities applying for and which have been granted leniency will be kept confidential, unless the PCC determines that the entity’s testimony or statement is necessary for any case filed by the PCC in relation to the cartel.

How it affects you

The Rules signal the PCC’s intention to actively prosecute cartel violations. In other jurisdictions, leniency programs have proven to be effective mechanisms in enforcing competition laws, as evidenced by the increased number of prosecutions for competition law violations arising from leniency applications.

Businesses who may be aware of or complicit in possible cartels should familiarize themselves with the Rules and be apprised of the procedures to avail of the benefits of leniency and minimize, if not eliminate altogether, potential liabilities. Considering the “first to file” policy approach to leniency under the Rules, and the heavy criminal and administrative penalties for engaging in cartels, it is expected that many corporations and individuals will soon be coming forward with information regarding possible cartels.

Businesses may want to put in place competition compliance programs or mechanisms at the soonest possible time, in order to determine risk areas, which may result in potential liability, and assess their qualification for leniency. Quisumbing Torres may assist in the formulation and review of competition compliance programs and in the leniency application process.


Maria Christina Macasaet-Acaban is a partner, and the head of the Corporate & Commercial Practice Group, the Healthcare Industry Group, and the Competition Focus Group, in Quisumbing Torres, a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International. She is a member of Baker & McKenzie International's Asia Pacific Healthcare Steering Committee, and the Asia Pacific Competition Steering Committee. She has 19 years of experience advising and representing multinational corporations on domestic and cross-border transactions.


Alain Charles Veloso is a partner in Quisumbing Torres’ Corporate & Commercial Practice Group. He has 11 years of legal practice, advising several investment banks, funds, and multinational corporations with regard to their transactions in the Philippines, including private and public M&A transactions, debt, and equity capital markets transactions, and structuring and establishment of their Philippine presence, as applicable.


Michael Macapagal is a senior associate in Quisumbing Torres’ Dispute Resolution Practice Group and is a member of the Compliance and Competition focus groups. He has nine years of legal practice involving arbitration, construction, healthcare disputes, compliance, civil and criminal litigation, labor law, intellectual property law, public private partnerships, project finance and joint venture matters.