Benel Lagua l November 4, 2022 l The Manila Times
FOR a long time, I worked with an agency attached to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and I have witnessed how DTI staff then conducted themselves professionally. It was an honor to have served at the DTI, which during my time vowed to be the “agency of choice” for public service.
One of the DTI’s mandates is consumer protection and it aimed to be a prime mover of consumer welfare. It is committed to protecting the rights and interests of the consumer in the same manner as it aims to sustain the growth and development of the Philippine economy.
At the policy level, it would seem like the department is doing enough to cover this mandate. Recently, for example, the DTI issued a policy advisory elucidating the eight basic consumer rights under relevant laws. The bigger question, however, is execution. Do consumers really have available avenues for redress whenever they feel aggrieved? Are the mechanisms for airing complaints cost-effective?
Let’s start by enumerating the eight basic consumer rights as pronounced by the DTI:
– First is the right to basic needs. This refers to consumer rights to have access to basic and essential goods and services such as food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, public utilities, water and sanitation.
— Second is the right to safety, which is the right to be protected against products, production processes and services that are hazardous to health or life.
– Third, consumers have the right to be given the facts to make an informed choice and to be protected against dishonest or misleading advertising and labeling.
– The fourth right is to choose. This refers to the right to be able to select from a range of products and services, offered at competitive prices with an assurance of satisfactory quality.
– Next comes the right to representation: how consumer interests are represented in the making and execution of government policy, and in the development of products and services.
– Sixth is the right to redress or to receive a fair settlement of just claims, including compensation for misrepresentation, shoddy goods or unsatisfactory services.
– The seventh right is to consumer education. This refers to the right to acquire knowledge and skills needed to make informed and confident choices about goods and services while being aware of basic consumer rights and responsibilities, and how to act on them.
– Finally, consumers have the right to live and work in an environment that is non-threatening to the welfare and well-being of present and future generation.
In its advisory, the DTI enumerated the legal bases of the eight basic consumer rights under relevant laws so that consumers can invoke them. That is well and good. However, what matters at the end of the day is how to ensure effective application of these rights. And when consumers are unfairly treated, are there ready systems and procedures that they can avail of without going through the legal (and expensive) adjudication process.
Allow me to cite two very simple cases. One, in a condominium corporation along EDSA, tenants were “required” to pay for cable services even if they did not use said service. It was an imposition that homeowners contested for a long time. The policy was recently reversed but outstanding bills for said cable service remain to be charged. I understand a group of homeowners has initiated a legal contest but does it really have to go that far? Isn’t this something that if elevated to a proper government agency can be resolved easily? Must consumers pay a price to get a simple ruling on a blatantly unfair imposition?
A second issue involves a wrong billing by Sky Cable for a service change I requested three years ago. At that time, I reported the same to Sky Cable customer service who assured it was a system glitch. It was quiet for more than two years and no longer present in the bill but this year, I suddenly started getting text messages from a contractor collection agent. I called customer service to complain about the nuisance. By taking initiative, the bill was resent and the charges reversed but with a balance corresponding to one-month free benefit for paying a year in advance. Customer service through an online message asserted that the statement was correct with little explanation on the advance incentive issue. Now they cannot even provide an e-mail address or the name of the party to whom I can formally address my concern.
Can service providers like Sky Cable be tasked to ensure consumers get full explanations for charges they are getting? I went to the DTI website and it has very good information about consumer rights. But for concerns like the Sky Cable bill, the amounts involved are small and should not have to go through elaborate processes. The trend of service providers limiting their interaction to faceless online messengers deprives customers of the right to know and get a proper hearing. Digitalization is a boom but has led to robotic forms of communication.
Writing this column reminded me of a former colleague, Atty. Vic Dimagiba, who was supervising undersecretary in the DTI’s consumer protection group until 2016. I now understand why after the DTI, Atty. Vic founded the non-profit Laban Konsyumer Inc. (LKI) to help protect consumers and empower their rights. LKI is the first national consumer organization recognized in the country.
It is not enough to list consumer rights. There is more interactive and detailed intervention to do in the trenches. Atty. Vic advocated for the creation of an external and exclusive consumer welfare body outside of the DTI that will enhance and further improve the protection of Filipino consumers nationwide.
Come to think of it, isn’t the DTI conflicted as it tries to protect consumers on one hand while also enabling businesses, represented by industry players, on the other hand? Perhaps Atty. Vic, learning from both his government and nonprofit stints, saw the wisdom in finding a better way. What good are rights, after, all if these cannot be enforced. And to the small consumer with little bargaining power except his inherent rights, it must be something that can be achieved at little or no cost.
Atty. Vic passed away last Sept. 13, 2022. He was an active and passionate consumer advocate who the country will sadly miss. I join our countrymen in thanking Atty. Vic for his long and dedicated service to the Filipino people. Consumerism will miss a staunch champion.
*** Benel de la Paz Lagua was previously EVP and chief development officer at the Development Bank of the Philippines. He is an active Finex member and an advocate of risk-based lending for SMEs. Today he is independent director in progressive banks and some NGOs. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of his office as well as Finex.