Uber Philippines has the “burden” to find a way to comply to the competition review, even though this may seem inconsistent with the stop order from another government agency, a top official of the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) said.
Commissioner Stella Alabastro Quimbo said that Uber would have to answer to both PCC and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board since both agencies have jurisdiction over the firm.
This developed weeks after Grab announced its regional takeover of Uber’s business in Southeast Asia, which raised a lot of concerns such as high booking fares and unnecessary cancellations among commuters in the Philippines.
The problem, however, is that Uber Philippines has found itself in a tough spot—following one regulator might come at the expense of disobeying the other.
The LTFRB slapped a cease-and-desist order against Uber, requiring the company to stop services from April 16 onwards. The PCC, however, ordered Uber to extend its services until PCC was done reviewing Grab’s acquisition for possible anti-competitive concerns.
PCC issued its order earlier than the LTFRB’s.
Quimbo said that finding a way around the deadlock would be the “burden of the parties.” Uber and Grab would then have to explain themselves to the antitrust body.
“In this case, though seemingly inconsistent, the parties (Grab and Uber) would have to figure out how to deal with the inconsistent orders,” she told the Inquirer in a phone interview.
“[Uber] can appeal, but whether LTFRB would agree to the appeal is another question,” according to lawyer Anthony Abad, one of the proponents behind the Philippine Competition Act.
Earlier this month, PCC ordered both ride-hailing firms to keep separate and independent operations to preserve the integrity of the review.
Uber extended its services in Singapore after being prodded by the competition authority in the city-state.