Philippines: Regulating vaping
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Philippines: Regulating vaping

Earlier in 2014, the DOH issued Administrative Order No. 2014-0008, requiring all manufacturers or distributors of e-cigarettes or vapes to apply for Certificate of Product Registration (CPR) after passing quality checks before the products can be sold in the Philippine market, classifying the products as health or consumer products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Local government units (LGU's), such as Baguio City, however, are free to pass their own ordinances independent of the FDA.

baguio.jpg

Notwithstanding this administrative order (AO), vape outlets continue to proliferate without seeking CPRs from the FDA. Hence, on June 14 2019, the DOH issued Administrative Order No. 2019-0007, entitled Revised Rules on Electronic Nicotine and Non-Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS/ENNDS). This order prescribed regulations on the manufacture and sale of nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems, popularly known as e-cigarettes, which are being marketed as safer alternatives to combustible cigarettes and was published on July 9 2019, taking effect on July 24 2019. The DOH gave makers, sellers, distributors, importers and exporters of ENDS/ENNDS three months or until October to comply with the revised regulations and register with the FDA, or their products could be confiscated, and they run the risk of being barred from selling these products in the Philippines.

AO 2019-0007 supports Executive Order No. 26 issued by President Duterte which imposed, from 2017, a ban on cigarette and tobacco smoking in public places, by including vaping or the use of e-cigarettes or electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) implemented nationwide. The DOH also wants containers of ENDS products to incorporate the labelling warning requirements imposed on cigarettes, but the regulations are not yet clear on how this would appear.

On November 7 2019, the FDA announced the temporary suspension on the implementation of AO 2019-0007 to comply with the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the regional trial court of Pasig City on September 26 2019, enjoining the DOH and FDA from implementing the AO. The action was filed by Planet Vape, a seller, which prides itself as "a one-stop shop that caters to all types of vapers – from newbies to modified users…"

With this development, the FDA is placing all applications for a licence to operate and product registration on hold until the court resolves the issue. It is reported that there are industry association and consumer groups lobbying in favour of vaping, for example, the Philippine E-Cigarette Industry Association (PECIA), the Philippine E-Liquid Manufacturers Association of the Philippines, Inc. (PEMA) and the consumer groups, The Vapers Philippines (TVP), Vapers Association of the Philippines (VAP), and the United Vapers Alliance (UVA) consisting of vape users and manufacturers. These organisations are for regulating the vaping industry, and claim that e-cigarettes are safer alternatives to smoking, should not be treated similarly to tobacco products and that individuals have the "right to vape." In an interview on a TV show, the UVA president claims to be representing small businesses, and working with the FDA and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for the issuance of the necessary regulations for e-cigarettes. There is also a move to remove the regulation of ENDS from the FDA which imposes stricter controls, to the DTI which regulates consumer products. However, the DTI's jurisdiction is limited to prime commodities or basic necessities such as food, cement, steel, etc.

There are a number of pending proposed laws filed with the Philippine Congress, all designed to regulate ENDS such as: House Bill (HB) Nos. 532, 4325, 4810, 3330, 7289, 1744, 7935, 7993, and Senate Bill (SB) Nos. 1538, 1744, and there may still be other bills. These bills have different definitions of ENDS, and the commonality is in the reference to ENDS as a product with or without tobacco. Some have viewed these bills as a way of weakening the regulations on tobacco products.

Public health or the right to trade? It seems that the vaping community and its champions have to really show convincing evidence that vaping is indeed the safer alternative to smoking, and should not be as heavily regulated as the tobacco industry.

hechanova-editha.jpg

Editha R

Hechanova


Hechanova & Co., Inc.Salustiana D. Ty Tower104 Paseo de Roxas AvenueMakati City 1229, PhilippinesTel: (63) 2 812-6561Fax: (63) 2 888-4290editharh@hechanova.com.ph 

www.hechanova.com.ph

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article