1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Philippines merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in the Philippines? Notification thresholds Effective 1 March 2026, the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) raised the thresholds for mandatory merger notifications in the Philippines from PHP 8.5bn to PHP 9.1bn for the turnover threshold and from PHP 3.5bn to PHP 3.8bn for the size of transaction threshold. These thresholds are described further in Question 4 below. Guidelines on Merger Remedies On 9 May 2024, the PCC approved the Guidelines on Merger Remedies (Guidelines), which describes PCC’s approach in assessing remedies for mergers and acquisitions that were found during review to likely result in substantial prevention, restriction, and lessening of competition (SLC) in identified relevant markets. The Guidelines discuss the design, selection, and implementation of merger remedies. Under the Guidelines, parties may proposed remedies for the PCC’s consideration at any stage of merger review. The proposed merger remedies must comply with the following general

The Philippines has launched a safeguard investigation on imports of ceramic tiles, notifying the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Committee on Safeguards on 10 February 2026 that it initiated the investigation on 5 February 2026. The point of contact is the Bureau of Import Services, and interested parties have five days from publication of the notice to present evidence and views. The investigation seeks to determine whether increased imports are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to the domestic industry.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has reported that the Philippines has submitted a notification that it has initiated a preliminary safeguarding investigation on corrugating medium. The Philippines has invited interested parties to submit comments on the proposed measure within five days of publication, including views on whether its imposition would be in the public interest.

This Practice Note is part of a multi-jurisdictional guide addressing essential aspects of forming specific business entities in global jurisdictions. Leading law firms in the Multilaw global law firm network answer key questions on this topic. This guide discusses key considerations when forming a corporation in the Philippines. Current as of 13 January 2023. Author: Carina C. Laforteza, SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan, a Multilaw member firm Common entities 1. What form of entity is the subject of this questionnaire? What other forms of entities are commonly used in this jurisdiction and are the subject of another questionnaire response? Corporation—a juridical entity organised under the Revised Corporation Code of the Philippines and registered with the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission: • stock corporations—corporations which have capital stock divided into shares and are authorised to distribute to the holders of such shares, dividends, or allotments of the surplus profits on the basis of the shares • non-stock corporations—those not falling within the definition of a stock corporation 2. Identify other types of entities in your jurisdiction

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 July 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into vertical restrictions on online sales of consumer electronic products imposed by Philips (Case AT.40181). Latest developments On 24 July 2018, the Commission issued its infringement decision against Philips, imposing a fine of €29.828m (following an ‘informal settlement’), for imposing fixed or minimum resale prices on their online retailers in breach of Article 101 TFEU. Parties Philips is a Netherlands based company that manufactures a range of consumer electronic products. Background The Commission opened its investigation in February 2017 as a result of information obtained during its e-commerce sector inquiry. Market(s) Markets for the manufacture, distribution and retail of consumer electronic products. Decision The Commission found that Philips engaged in fixed or minimum resale price maintenance (RPM)

The fraudulent practice of disguising spam as legitimate email in an attempt to coax recipients into revealing private financial data.

The practice of placing a company into an insolvency process with the business/assets being transferred to a new company owned by some or all of the previous management, often engineered to avoid paying unsecured creditors.

The UK regulator for content, goods and services charged to a phone bill or pre-pay account. See website: Phone-paid Services Authority. The Phone-paid Services Authority is an agency of Ofcom and regulates premium rate phone numbers and services in the UK. Services are regulated against its 14th Code of Practice, (Code 15 is in force from 5 April 2022) both of which can be found along with guidance on the Phone-paid Services Authority’s website.

Law360, London: The Court of Appeal dismissed Phones 4u's claims on 11 July 2025 that the UK's biggest phone operators colluded to drive the retailer out of business, upholding findings that there was no evidence of anticompetitive behavior between the networks.

‘Phonographic Performance Limited’ (PPL) is a UK-based music and performance rights licensing company that collects royalties for performers and recording right holders. PPL licenses recorded music that is played in public or broadcast over the radio, television or internet.

Measures taken to prevent unauthorised access to nuclear material.

STOP PRESS: In A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [2026] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court overruled its previous majority decision in P v Cheshire West and Chester Council; Surrey County Council v P [2014] UKSC 19. In its unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court rejected the 'acid test' for determining the objective element of whether a person is deprived of their liberty and held that the assessment under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires a broader analysis, taking into account the whole range of factors in the particular case. This landmark decision has significant implications for local authorities and deprivation of liberty practice in the UK. We are reviewing this content accordingly. In the meantime, for more information, see Case Analysis: Supreme Court departs from Cheshire West ‘acid test’ for deprivation of liberty (A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the