BACKGROUND: Tobacco industry interference (TII) in Philippine tobacco control policies is well-documented and has been implicated for gaps in WHO FCTC implementation and recession in public health gains. The push for “pro-tobacco” legislation, measures aimed at protecting the industry’s commercial interests, has been especially active in the last decade, following the popularity of electronic smoking devices. Anti-TII policies are not sufficiently set up to the level of preventing or mitigating “pro-tobacco” legislation due, in part, to a lack of understanding of the contemporary conflict-of-interest (COI) regime—its scope, gaps, and ideal state.
METHODS: Policy mapping was conducted to determine the normative definition of "conflict of interest" under Philippine laws, as applicable to public officials, utilizing a survey of laws (e.g., Republic Acts, Presidential Decrees) and jurisprudence (Supreme Court decisions) from 1900-2024, as well as administrative issuances of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Legal remedies operationalizing COI were determined from three levels: civil, administrative, and criminal proceedings.
RESULTS: Philippine COI regime imposes obligations against certain "substantial" commercial interests relative to public positions, with stricter prohibitions for high-level officials (e.g., President, Secretaries) and relatively homogenous for other public officers. For the latter set, the 65-year old Republic Act No. 3019 and 36-year old Republic Act No. 6713 apply. These laws are not congruent with Article 5.3 standards, thereby facilitating TII. CSC guidelines fill the gap to a limited extent, but the lack of disciplinary jurisdiction over congressional members challenges enforcement.
CONCLUSIONS: Aligning the Philippine COI regime with Article 5.3 requires statutory amendments, specifically capturing the tobacco lobby and front-groups, which may be justified by the sui generis nature of tobacco trade to address pro-tobacco arguments on competition/restraint of trade. Public health discourse should be amplified to foster an enabling policy environment for advocacy. Any legislative amendment must integrate enforcement mechanisms that address TI's circumvention tactics.