“Merging SMC and MPTC’s separate proposals into one unified project eliminates the healthy competitive tension that drives innovation, fair pricing, and improved service”
San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and Metro Pacific Tollways Corporation (MPTC) are merging to build a new tollway linking Cavite and Batangas.
This is the beginning of the partnership between these two behemoths; more projects are underway.
This is more than just a business deal; it sets a dangerous precedent and clearly violates Republic Act 10667, the Philippine Competition Act.
The plan for a 96-kilometer tollway seems poised to benefit travelers.
Yet, this alliance between Ramon S. Ang of SMC and Manuel V. Pangilinan of MPTC raises many concerns.
Imagine two giants shaking hands, but the tremor is felt by the common people.
This merger could mean higher toll fees, like a hidden tax on the everyday commuter.
It could also mean fewer choices, akin to a marketplace where only one seller remains. The future of fair competition in the Philippines is at stake, with consumers potentially paying the price.
The proposed tollway, linking Cavite to Batangas and connecting to the Cavite-Laguna Expressway, is a testament to what can be achieved when two powerful entities pool their resources.
But behind this veneer of progress lies a blatant attempt to sidestep competitive practices and monopolize the infrastructure sector, a clear violation of the Philippine Competition Act.
The Act explicitly aims to “enhance economic efficiency and promote free and fair competition in trade, industry, and all commercial economic activities.” This merger stands in stark opposition to those goals.
Section 14 of RA 10667 prohibits agreements between competitors that restrict competition, such as price-fixing and market-sharing.
We witness a classic case of market allocation: Ang and Pangilinan are not merely joining forces for the common good; they are consolidating their dominance over a crucial geographic area, effectively sidelining any potential competitors.
This is not about collaboration for mutual benefit; it’s about eliminating competition to tighten their grip on the tollway market.
Moreover, Section 15 of the Act prohibits abuse of dominant position, including “limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers” and “applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions.”
By merging their separate projects into one mammoth enterprise, these tycoons are not just stifling competition—they’re setting the stage to control pricing and access, dictating terms that could be unfavorable to consumers and other businesses.
Under Section 20 of the Act, mergers and acquisitions that substantially prevent, restrict, or lessen competition are scrutinized.
This project, under the guise of efficiency, is a prime example of how such consolidations can be detrimental.
Merging SMC and MPTC’s separate proposals into one unified project eliminates the healthy competitive tension that drives innovation, fair pricing, and improved service.
This alliance demonstrates an alarming disregard for the principles of fair competition.
The Philippine Competition Commission must not just investigate but rigorously investigate this merger, as it reeks of an anti-competitive agreement that will likely lead to higher toll fees, less accountability, and fewer consumer choices.
The supposed benefits of this merger are dwarfed by the potential for abuse of market power and the creation of a monopoly.
Furthermore, this merger circumvents the spirit of Section 17 of RA 10667, allowing the PCC to review mergers and acquisitions that may result in substantially lessening competition.
This backdoor dealing between Ang and Pangilinan undermines the regulatory framework designed to protect the public from the overreach of corporate power.
The cozying up of these rivals under the pretext of a collaborative infrastructure project is not just a business strategy—it’s a direct assault on the competitive principles enshrined in Philippine law.
This tollway may pave the way for better roads, but it also paves the way for monopolistic practices that ultimately harm the Filipino people. The PCC must scrutinize this merger and set a strong precedent that no entity, regardless of its power or influence, is above the law.
Ang and Pangilinan may have found common ground in their quest to dominate, but their merger buries the spirit of competition.
This isn’t a partnership for progress; it’s a pact for profit at the expense of fair play and consumer welfare.
The Philippine Competition Act was designed to prevent precisely this kind of market manipulation, and it’s high time we see its provisions enforced with the full force of the law.