Philippines: Regulating vaping

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The move marks the latest step in Temu’s push to protect brands’ intellectual property by collaborating with industry groups and enforcement agencies. Managing IP learns about a rapidly scaling strategy and two success stories
A counterfeiting crackdown targeting fake FIFA World Cup merchandise and new partner hires by CMS, HGF and Winston Strawn were also among the top talking points
Law firms need to accept the hard truth: talent migration isn't personal; it's business as usual
Judge Alan Albright is to leave his role at the Western District of Texas, and could return to private practice
Stobbs has successfully seen off a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
After almost a quarter of a century, Marshall Gerstein has a new managing partner
Abbott winning another round against Sinocare and Menarini, and 'long arm' clarification on the UK's position within the UPC, were also among major developments
Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Gift this article