What Fujifilm concocted is poison disguised as a dish. It should not be allowed in the Filipino buffet table
Exploring Japanese cuisine reveals how just a few condiments—dashi, mirin, soy sauce, and vinegar—can elevate a meal from simple to sublime.
These ingredients are pivotal; for instance, combining soy sauce with mirin can transform chicken into teriyaki, while using dashi instead of soy sauce with mirin turns it into oyakodon.
This culinary finesse, where the choice and balance of ingredients are key, serves as a fitting metaphor for understanding competitive dynamics in business environments.
In the business realm, particularly in public bidding processes, the strategy of selective inclusion mirrors the culinary practice of Lutong Hapon (literally, “Japanese Cooking”). The case of SUNFU SOLUTIONS, INC. vs. FUJIFILM PHILIPPINES, INC. is a prime example.
It showcases how manipulating the ‘ingredients’—in this case, the qualifications of participants in a bid—can distort the outcomes much like how a chef uses specific condiments to achieve a desired flavor profile.
In this case, Fujifilm issued First Tier Certifications to Sunfu and another bidder.
This is not an industry practice, and the dubious conduct clearly points to Fujifilm’s plan to back two horses and guarantee that its product ends up as the choice of the government procuring agency.
Indications of anti-competitive behavior are strong because without informing Sunfu, Fujifilm issued another First Tier Distributor to another bidder, and Fujifilm conveniently disowned their own First Tier Certification issued to Sunfu when the time came for the latter to undergo post-qualification.
Fujifilm led by Ryo Nagaoka, Evan Reyes, and Anil Jacob John therefore gamed the bidding process and decided who should win the bid.
The stratagem made a mockery of the bidding intended to provide the public with the best choice of a product, decided through a fair and competitive process, and not through a machination which virtually ensured that a particular bidder and a particular product would secure the inevitable win.
This manipulative practice must be stopped, punished severely, like a suspension of the privilege to sell in government tenders.
Only such drastic penalty would deter further gaming of our already very complicated procurement system that is susceptible to underhanded tactics and maneuvers.
To be sure, the Philippine Competition Act is a step in the right direction and the Philippine Competition Commission has been expanding time and resources in reviewing mergers and acquisitions. But anti-competitive practices are not limited to agreements among industry players.
While collusion and conspiracy are features of anti-competitive practices, the concept actually involves wide set of activities including unilateral actions.
Such is the case with Fujifilm’s shady bidding stratagem. There is no better case to test the PCC’s resolve than to make this Japanese company take heed.
As summarized in the pleading of the lawyers for Sunfu Solutions, the PCC must, in the interest of the public, examine the process at which Fujifilm misled and manipulated the bidding process.
Fujifilm issued and revoked certifications which like the Japanese money issued during the war, is called Mickey Mouse money, seemingly with nothing or no authority to back up such useless pieces of paper.
The PCC has initially refused to conduct the requested full administrative investigation, opining that the complained conduct of Fujifilm fall short of the prohibited anti-competitive practices.
This begs the question, because only a comprehensive review would reveal the magnitude and extent of the manipulative practice. Sunfu has elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, where the matter could be looked into with fresh eyes.
The horrific scenario demonstrates the strategic implications of legal compliance and the risks of engaging in or falling victim to “Lutong Hapon” in bidding processes.
The grave harm done is hardly limited to the bidders though, as the government agency and the Filipino pubic ultimately pay the steep price of a rigged bid with pre-determined options of products and suppliers.
The SUNFU vs. FUJIFILM dispute illustrates how the manipulation of bidding processes—“Lutong Hapon” in public tenders—can undermine competitive integrity, much like how the absence or presence of certain condiments can define a dish.
What Fujifilm concocted is poison disguised as a dish. It should not be allowed in the Filipino buffet table.
