The result conformed to that of Galasintu and Loveera's, (2021) that consumer safety is generally recognized and minimum requirements for product safety are progressively established. Moreover, in the same literature, consumer product safety standards are established by the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and there are stringent rules on the implementation of consumer products and safety standards. However, while the respondents may feel product safety is being addressed, they might not believe the penalties are strong enough to truly deter violations. This creates a potential gap - good progress on product safety, but a need to strengthen deterrents to further discourage businesses from selling unsafe products. This was also consistent with the study of Lefevre and Chapman, (2017) that there must be a regulatory reform that will be implemented in a more holistic approach that would involve harsher penalties. As such, there must be further advocacy for a more holistic approach to enforcement, including potentially stronger penalties.

In terms of deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable sales Acts or practices, a grand mean score of 4.30 was obtained with an interpretation of “highly implemented”. Further, the mean score of the respondents ranged from 4.16 to 4.30. The result implies that respondents generally believe that businesses are providing truthful information about their products. This means that consumers trust businesses with the information they provide when buying the products. However, the result also indicates that the respondents believe that the Consumer Act of the Philippines is not effective in addressing broader issues involving sales acts and practices. This means that the consumers perceive the Act as inadequate to tackle issues on broader deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable sales acts or practices such as concealment of material information, false representation or fraudulent manipulation of consumer products or services. While there are already guidelines in place, consumers perceive the Consumer Act of the Philippines as less effective in tackling broader issues like misleading advertising, unfair contracts, or exploitative sales tactics. Dar, (2022) highlighted that broader deceptive sales practices exist, which require specific and specialized guidelines to address. As such, this gap between information disclosure and broader deceptive practices suggests the Consumer Act needs strengthening in areas beyond just truthful labeling.

In terms of consumer product and service warranties, a grand mean score of 4.26 was obtained with an interpretation of “highly implemented”. Further, the mean score of the respondents ranged from 4.08 to 4.41. The result entails that respondents believe that businesses are fulfilling their obligations under the Consumer Act of the Philippines. This means that consumers trust businesses to honor warranties and resolve warranties. However, the result also infers that the respondents perceive that they are not adequately informed about the terms and circumstances of warranties as guaranteed under the Act to minimize their losses or avoid the process of claiming warranties altogether. This means that consumers would also trust businesses even if they are inadequately informed about the guarantees and warranties of the products that they are buying or the businesses may not honor the warranty duly provided under the law. The result agreed with the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Consumer Act of the Philippines, (1992) since it outlines the establishment of explicit expectations for warranty fulfillment. Consumers feel companies are honoring warranties, but they might not fully understand the terms of those warranties prior the purchase. This lack of awareness is particularly true as per the studies of (Sartor, 2020; Hassandoust and Techatas-sanasoontorn, 2020) that one of the significant deter-minants of consumer behavior is consumer awareness and educational attainment. This can be inferred that the majority of the consumers are unaware of the terms and conditions because they are not well-versed with the language of the law or would have an inherent trust in the retailer due to their perception of value for money.

In terms of labelling and fair packaging, a grand mean score of 4.28 was obtained with an interpretation of “highly implemented.” Further, the mean score of the respondents ranged from 4.19 to 4.44. The result implies that the respondents believe that there is an implementation of the Consumer Act of the Philippines in terms of labeling and fair packaging. This means that consumers are protected, especially in the area of insurance of relevant and accurate labels, clear, and easily comprehensible information, effective monitoring of labeling and packaging standards, price tag requirements, and against misleading or deceptive packaging techniques. However, the result also suggests that the respondents believe that some businesses do not comply with the implementation of labeling and fair packaging since their products may not contain product labels or the price is not properly shown. This means that some businesses sparingly comply with the minimum requirements set forth by the law. Overall, the respondents feel confident that the Act safeguards them from deceptive packaging tactics. This is a positive sign, indicating some success in preventing misleading or confusing packaging designs. The result was consistent with the implementation of the Department of Trade and Industry, which the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) implements and enforces the issuances of PS and ICC marks on imported and domestic products, respectively. Further, consumers might have perceived a gap between the Philippine Consumer Act goals and its enforcement regarding proper price tags.  This indicates issues like unclear pricing information, hidden fees, or misleading price displays.  This was also notable as mentioned in the study of Peng et al. (2016) that in online purchases, the prices are not readily transparent thus; consumers are more susceptible to fraudulent business practices.

Moreover, in the Act, while there may be a provision on price tag requirements for products sold physically, the law is still silent on the requirement for transparent prices in online shopping platforms. Also, following the recommendations of Leninkumar, (2017) to enforce the product labeling provisions is needed to protect consumers, as well as to increase consumer trust, intention, and satisfaction. It should also be noted that while product labeling, in general, is strictly enforced, the provision of proper price tags under the Act's mandate is not prevalent on online e-commerce platforms. Overall, the result suggests that the Act might be effective in tackling broader deceptive packaging practices but needs improvement in ensuring accurate and transparent price information displayed on products. By addressing price tag discrepancies, the Act can be even more effective in empowering respondent consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.

In terms of liability for product and services, a grand mean score of 4.28 was obtained with an interpretation of “highly implemented”. Further, the mean score of the respondents ranged from 4.04 to 4.26. The result implies that the respondents believe that the Act is highly implemented in terms of liability for products and services, especially in holding businesses accountable for imperfections, compensation and redress mechanisms, ensuring product recalls on products with imperfections, enforcement of liability provisions, and increasing consumer trust by holding accountability to erring business owners. Overall, the result suggests that the Act might be working well in establishing a framework for holding businesses liable, however to address the challenges the respondents face in actually claiming compensation for defective products or services is needed. By simplifying redress mechanisms and increasing public awareness, the Act can be more effective in empowering them to enforce their rights and hold businesses accountable when they cause harm.

The result agreed with the current implementation of the Department of Trade and Industry, (2023) since the agency is already implementing mechanisms to ensure redress mechanisms against product and service imperfections. However, this is also true that the consumers might perceive difficulty in obtaining compensation or redress despite the Act holding businesses accountable. This could be due to complex procedures, lack of awareness about available channels for complaint, or limited legal aid for consumers. Specifically, while there are avenues for redress, as mentioned, the Consumer Act of the Philippines, (1992) does not prescribe monetary damages but only issues fines ranging from PhP500.00 to PhP300,000.00. Additionally, the current redress mechanisms are limited.

In terms of Advertising and Sales Promotion, a grand mean score of 4.33 was obtained with an interpretation of “highly implemented”. Further, the mean score of the respondents ranged from 4.23 to 4.43. The result implies that the respondents believe that there is proper implementation of the Consumer Act of the Philippines in terms of effectively preventing misleading advertisements and fraudulent sales promotion practices. This means that the consumers believe that the Act addresses issues about the conduct of sales promotion, addressing and resolving complaints regarding misleading advertisements and fraudulent sales promotion practices, imposition of penalties, and consumer awareness through advocacies on ethical advertising. However, the result also infers that the respondents believe that there are gaps in addressing the issues concerning sales promotion. The result indicates some success in promoting truthful marketing practices. Overall, the result implies that the Act might be working well in preventing misleading advertising but could benefit from providing more specific regulations or guidelines for sales promotions. By offering clearer definitions and expectations, the Act can be even more effective in protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive sales tactics. Following the study of Bastani et al. (2019), there was already an existing framework for addressing complaints against misleading advertisements and the implementation of the Department of Trade and Industry, (2014) in ensuring the policies for sales promotions. However, consumers perceive a gap in the Act's effectiveness regarding specific sales promotion practices. This could be due to a lack of clear guidelines on acceptable promotional tactics, leading to confusion on what constitutes a fair sale or potential loopholes businesses might exploit. They proposed an expansion of these frameworks and established a consumer complaint center for specific fraudulent sales promotion practices.

In terms of regulation of repair and service firms, a grand mean score of 4.27 was obtained with an interpretation of “highly implemented”. Further, the mean score of the respondents ranged from 4.17 to 4.48. The result implies that the respondents believe that the Consumer Act of the Philippines is properly implemented to regulate repairs and service firms. This means that consumers can be assured that the Act has mechanisms in place to assure that service and repair shops are accredited. However, the result also infers that the respondents are unaware of the regulations, particularly the requirements of a legitimate repair and service firm before seeking their services. Further, it can be inferred that the respondents believe that the government lacks the monitoring and enforcement of these repair and service firms since as of 2023, only 43 service and repair firms in Capiz are accredited. This means, that while there are already guidelines to ensure the proper implementation of the Act in terms of regulation of service and repair firms, there are some firms that do not conform to the standards required by law due to a lack of monitoring and enforcement.  Overall, the result suggests that the Act might have effective regulations in place, but there's a need to strengthen enforcement efforts and public education. By actively monitoring compliance and educating consumers about their rights, the Act can be more successful in protecting the respondents from unfair practices within the repair and service industry.

The result was particularly evident in implementing the Presidential Degree 1572 as amended by the Consumer Act of the Philippines, wherein specific safeguards are in place to ensure the delivery of quality services (Consumer Act of the Philippines, 1992). Specifically, service and repair enterprises require accreditations from the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure the quality of services they provide. However, the consumers might perceive a lack of active enforcement by the government to ensure service firms comply with regulations. Additionally, they might not feel fully informed about their rights when it comes to repair and service providers. This is particularly true with this specific provision due to the specialized and technical nature of these service and repair firms. This lack of awareness could leave them vulnerable to unfair practices.

In terms of consumer complaints, a grand mean score of 4.34 was obtained with an interpretation of “highly implemented”. Further, the mean score of the respondents ranged from 4.23 to 4.47. The result implies that the respondents believe that the Consumer Act of the Philippines is properly implemented in terms of ensuring effective consumer complaint-handling mechanisms. This means that consumers can easily access redress mechanisms for consumer complaints since they can easily approach the provincial office of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to file a complaint. However, the results show that respondents believe that during these consumer complaints handling, there may be biases and unfairness in the resolution of these complaints. This may be due to unfavorable resolution during the mediation process or due to contributory negligence on the part of the consumers making the complaint. This means that despite the presence of these redress mechanisms, consumers may feel that the system is unjust and may result in unfavorable decisions in their complaints. Specifically, the result infers that consumers believe there is a system in place for them to voice their concerns. This was especially true in the implementations and mechanisms in place by the DTI. Consumers can easily access their complaints by visiting their nearest provincial office and personally filing a complaint. This indicates some progress in establishing accessible channels for complaint filing. However, despite these mechanisms, consumers perceive a lack of impartiality when it comes to resolving complaints. This could be due to concerns about biases, lengthy or complex resolution procedures, or a lack of transparency in the process. Overall, the result suggests that the Act might need to establish a complaint mechanism, but there is a need to address concerns about the fairness of the resolution process. By ensuring impartial reviews, streamlining procedures, and increasing transparency, the Act can be more effective in giving Filipinos confidence that their complaints will be addressed justly.

This was particularly true, as noted by the Department of Trade and Industry, (2023) considering that the process is not part of every governmental transaction and thus may affect the knowledge and awareness of consumers in accessing these redress mechanisms. Moreover, there is a lack of platforms for online filing of consumer complaints which can also affect their perception of impartiality.

Challenges Encountered Influenced / Act as the Significant Predictors of the Level of Implementation of the Consumer Act of the Philippines

In this study, a predictive relationship between the challenges encountered in the Consumer Act of the Philippines (Act) implementation and the level of implementation was examined using a linear regression model. In Table 2, the predictors show the relationship between the levels of implementation of the Act. First, the primary predictor “The Consumer Act of the Philippines adequately protects my rights as a consumer” had a significant difference with the level of implementation of the Act since the p-value was 0.036, which was lower than the 0.05 level of significance. In other words, people who believe that the Act protects them well tend to experience a higher level of enforcement. This indicates that the Act itself is effective, or that awareness of the Act plays a role in its successful implementation, thus, it predicts the level of implementation of the Act. Second, the predictor, “The government effectively enforces the provisions of the Consumer Act of the Philippines to protect consumers” had no significant difference with the level of implementation of the Act since the p-value was .691, which was higher than the 0.05 level of significance. In other words, people's perception of enforcement does not necessarily correspond with how well it is being carried out. This suggests that people's awareness of enforcement efforts may be limited. Third, the predictor, “The process of filing complaints under the Consumer Act of the Philippines is straightforward and accessible” had no significant difference with the level of implementation of the Consumer Act of the Philippines since the p-value was .187, which was higher than the 0.05 level of significance. In other words, people's belief in how easy it is to file complaints does not necessarily correspond with the actual ease of the process. This means that regardless of how well the Act is enforced, the complaint filing process itself might have its complexities.

Fourth, the predictor, “The Consumer Act of the Philippines' provisions promotes fair competition among business” had no significant difference with the level of implementation of the Act since the p-value was .767, which was higher than the 0.05 level of significance. Simply put, people's belief in whether the Act fosters competition does not necessarily correspond with the actual level of competition in the market. This indicates that factors beyond the Act's implementation, such as the number of businesses in a particular industry, also play a role in competition. Fifth, the predictor, “There is public awareness about the provisions and benefits of the Consumer Act of the Philippines for them to make an informed purchasing decision” had a significant difference with the level of implementation of the Act since the p-value was .038, which was less than the 0.05 level of significance.

This means that consumers' knowledge about the Act's provisions and benefits is linked to how well the Act is enforced. For instance, if the Act is well-implemented and consumers are aware of their rights under the Act, they are more likely to be able to make informed purchasing decisions. This highlights the importance of public education campaigns to increase awareness on the Act and its benefits for consumers. Sixth, the predictor, “The Consumer Act of the Philippines needs to be updated to address emerging consumer protection issues such as online shopping and e-commerce” had no significant difference with the level of implementation of the Act since the p-value was .205, which was greater than the 0.05 level of significance. This means that whether people believe the Act needs an update for online shopping does not necessarily relate to how well the Act is enforced overall. The need for revisions might be a separate issue from the current implementation efforts.

Seventh, the predictor, “The Consumer Act of the Philippines adequately protects vulnerable consumers such as the elderly and low-income individuals” had no significant difference with the level of implementation of the Act since the p-value was. .474, which was higher than the 0.05 level of significance. In other words, consumers' views on whether the Act needs an update for online shopping do not necessarily relate to how well the Act is enforced overall. This suggests that the need for revisions might be a separate issue from the current implementation efforts. Eighth, the predictor, “The penalties for businesses that violate the Consumer Act of the Philippines are sufficiently deterrent” had no significant difference with the level of implementation of the Act since the p-value was .238, which was higher than the 0.05 level of significance. Simply put, even if people believe the penalties are weak, it does not necessarily reflect how well the Act is being enforced. There could be other factors influencing enforcement, like resource limitations or bureaucratic hurdles. Ninth, the predictor, “Businesses are transparent about their products and services as mandated by the Consumer Act of the Philippines” had no significant difference with the level of implementation of the Act since the p-value was .595, which was higher than the 0.05 level of significance. Whether the business is transparent or not, does not necessarily reflect how well the Act is enforced due to various factors such as the protection of trade secrets or already strict standards with other government agencies dealing with products and services. Lastly, the predictor, “Businesses actively engage in initiatives to promote consumer welfare beyond legal requirements” had no significant difference with the level of implementation of the Act since the p-value was .309, which was higher than the 0.05 level of significance. In other words, even if the Act is well-enforced, it might not necessarily lead to businesses going above and beyond legal requirements to benefit consumers because of numerous factors, such as businesses prioritizing profit margins or a lack of awareness about how to promote consumer welfare beyond legal compliance.

Table 2: Linear Regression Analysis.

Legend: p-value > 0.05 = not significant; p-value <0.05 = significant. Source: Data from the researcher.

Analysis of the Focused Group Discussion

The analysis explored the key themes, emerging from the Focus Group Discussion on the current and level of implementation of Consumer Act of the Philippines. As such, the discussion centered on vari-ous aspects of the Act with participants offering insights on areas needing improvement. Three themes consistently emerged: varied implementation across consumer protection areas; information asymmetry, consumer vulnerability, and challenges of online consumer protection; and highlighting the importance of advocacy and accessibility.

The discussion revealed in the first theme that there was a disparity in the perceived effectiveness of different consumer protection concerns. Participants generally felt satisfied with the implementation of product warranties and service repairs. Conversely, concerns were raised regarding deceptive sales practices, online product quality control, and revised labeling for expired or fake products. This is particularly true in the study of the Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection (2017), where only 28% have marginal knowledge about their rights as a consumer and this lack of knowledge generally translates to varied implementation of consumer initiatives. As such, these inconsistencies highlight the need for targeted interventions to strengthen areas with weaker enforcement. In the second theme of the discussion, the recurring subject of lack of consumer awareness, particularly regarding product safety and proper labeling was revealed. Participants pointed out limited knowledge about identifying safe products, especially in far-flung barangays. Further, concerns were raised about misleading product descriptions and the prevalence of repackaged or expired products.

This is corroborated by the study of Chinomona and Sandada (2013), wherein there is a correlation between consumer trust and satisfaction and consumer protection. Furthermore Leninkumar, (2017) emphasized that product labeling provisions of consumer laws are among the crucial aspects of consumer protection in ensuring the products' safety and quality. This means that this information asymmetry leaves consumers vulnerable to exploitation, emphasizing the need for increased consumer education and stricter regulations for online platforms.

Another key discussion in the third theme was the e-commerce platforms upsurge that presents unique challenges for consumer protection. Participants highlighted difficulties with seller accountability on platforms like Shopee and Lazada. Issues like product discrepancies, fake goods, and delayed refunds necessitate stricter screening processes and regulations for online sellers. The result was echoed by the study of Ameen et al. (2020) that there should be a secure engagement with online sellers through thorough screening measures in the online marketplace. Further, this creates a sense of accountability by the sellers, increasing consumer protection. As such, there is an acknowledgment of the outdated nature of the Act, suggesting the need for digitalization and revisions to address consumer protection concerns. Lastly, the discussion highlighted the importance of advocacy and accessibility, which participants called for increased outreach in geographically isolated areas. Wahad et al. (2012) surmised that online platforms, like Online Dispute Resolution platforms provide a less expensive alternative to traditional processes and promote a more collaborative and friendly conflict settlement procedure through assisted discussions and mediation services (Kingsley AK., 2022).

Kim and Kim, (2021) recognized the power of social media to ensure consumer protection by allowing firms to engage in real time with customers, get feedback, and strengthen their connections with target market. Streamlining complaint processes through online filing systems and digitalization of consumer protection measures can improve accessibility and efficiency in addressing consumer complaints.

Table 3: Themes of the FGD.

Source: Data from the researcher

Insights to Plausible Future of the Consumer Act of the Philippines