By Danilo P. Padua, PhD
It’s the holidays, and people are trying to find what they could buy within their means or whatever disposable income they have for the season.
A couple of days back, I entered a “specialty shop” full of impressively-packaged merchandise: coffee, tea, milk, jams/jellies, flour, other drinks, etc. It is neat and orderly. It is not big, but one will appreciate its good lay out, and the cool demeanor of the staff.
I think the store does not cater to the average Filipino consumer. It was intended for the better-heeled clients.
As I walked around, I examined the labels and found they are mostly not in English or without English translations as is the practice for imported/exported products. They are generally in scripts that I can not decipher.
I was told the stuffs are mostly from China. I don’t know if one of the staff was joking when she blurted, “Ito ang isang indikasyon na sasakupin na tayo ng ibang bansa.” To which I casually retorted, “hindi natin pababayaan na mangyari yan.” She just smiled.
But that is not the point. What am driving at, is why this is being allowed. Is it due to negligence by Philippine authorities, or is it due to smuggling? Either way, there are lapses in the way authorities are dealing with this.
That store selling food and drink products with no understandable labels for most, is not alone. I have had the occasion to visit other stores with the same situation. The products were usually from China and Korea, sometimes Japan and even Vietnam.
We have an existing law, R.A. 7394 -The Consumer Act of the Philippines, which is supposed to protect the consumer. It was enacted way back in 1992 under the administration of former Pres. Corazon Aquino. This law talks about six fundamental rights of consumers: right to safety, right to information, right to representation, right to redress, and right to consumer education.
The law identifies three main agencies with regulatory powers: DTI, DOH and DA. Other agencies are involved as deemed relevant.
While the said law is a landmark piece of legislation, in a way it is falling short three of the consumer rights that it is avowing to protect; the right to safety, right to information, and right to redress. One proof of this is the unabashed display of products in the shelves of the stores mentioned above. Am sure, the concerned products had not gone thru the proper channels and regulatory processes.
Another is the online transactions of imported products that blossomed during the pandemic, where such products are passed on to the consumers with all their original labels intact and without any translations.
Proper labeling is another aspect being addressed by the consumer act. Twice, I was flabbergasted receiving health products ordered online from Japan and Vietnam with labels that I could not read. I considered them “mislabeled” for being unintelligible to me. My right to information was effectively curtailed; my health safety somehow compromised. And there are many customers who had experiences even worse than mine.
When I first reached Western Europe in 1987, there was already a law in effect mandating any imported product with labels in their own languages. I think even now, year 2025, we still don’t have a similar law.
Without being able to read, how can one know that the product contains elements that may cause allergy, possibly aggravates health condition, or if the product is already expired or not?
The consumer act also grants consumers the ability to seek just compensation or remedies for defective products, poor services, and unfair trade practices. This right to redress appear to be out of reach to consumers ordering online. I experienced receiving merchandise which were not in accordance to the ordered items advertised in Facebook. I notified staff of the delivery service company but got a reply that they are just delivering items entrusted to them. My orders, advertised in other media platforms, were delivered as seen.
The above instances were not expressly covered by R.A. 7394, online business transactions being not in vogue then when it was enacted. The 33-year old law must now be amended to cover among others, online marketing/selling so penalties, if ever, could be instituted. With a revised law, consumers could be better protected.**
