Practice question
An acquisition was made before the Act’s approval. Officials claim Section 21 necessarily orders immediate divestment solely because of that preexisting holding, although no separate violation is established. Which is correct?
- Every old holding is automatically criminal
- The proviso protects continued ownership of the specified pre-Act holdings; a separate violation must not be presumed solely from their age.
- Every old holding receives immunity from every future unlawful act
- The proviso applies only to furniture
- The acquisition date can never matter
Legal references
- Philippine Competition Act, RA 10667, Sections 3 and 20-23: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2015/ra_10667_2015.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.