Certifying the already certified

A friend of mine bought a motorcycle helmet some years back. It looked sturdy and safe enough for the road. He used it for a while, then the rules changed. All helmets had to carry local certification. Without it, a helmet was deemed noncompliant. A helmet that seemed safe suddenly became illegal because it did not carry the right local stamp.

What justified the rule? Safety. And safety is hard to argue against. No one wants riders using substandard helmets. A helmet is not a fashion accessory. It is safety equipment. But that story illustrates a recurring regulatory instinct: when faced with a safety concern, government responds by requiring local certification as the controlling test of legality.

The question is whether that instinct always produces more safety, or whether it sometimes mainly produces paperwork. That same instinct has returned. This time the subject is solar energy equipment.

The Department of Trade and Industry’s Bureau of Philippine Standards, or DTI-BPS, is reportedly moving toward mandatory product certification for solar components, including photovoltaic modules, inverters, batteries, and cables. On its face, that sounds reasonable. Solar equipment should be safe. It should not expose households, businesses, installers, or the power grid to defective products.

But that is not the real question. The real question is this: When solar equipment has already been tested under international standards by credible and internationally accredited laboratories, what exactly does another Philippine certification pathway add?

Solar photovoltaic modules are commonly tested under IEC 61215 and IEC 61730, two international standards covering design qualification, module safety, durability, electrical performance, and behavior under stress. These are not simple checklist exercises. They involve demanding technical tests that take significant time and resources to complete. If a solar panel has already passed these tests through a recognized laboratory, if an inverter has been tested by an internationally accredited body, if traceable documentation exists, should the default Philippine response be recognition and verification? Or should the default be: start over here?

This is where safety begins to shade into duplication. The Philippine Solar and Storage Energy Alliance has already issued an industry alert about the proposed mandatory certification. The concern is not whether Philippine regulators should protect consumers. Of course they should. The concern is whether protection requires pretending that credible foreign testing never happened.

The industry is right to ask the question. If the Philippines cannot yet perform the full IEC test suite locally to the same international standard, then mandatory local certification risks becoming certification without real testing. It would not create safety. It would create paperwork placed on top of safety already performed elsewhere. Are we testing products, or are we testing patience?

This matters more now than it would have a decade ago. Solar is no longer a boutique technology. It is part of the country’s energy security strategy. It is used by households trying to reduce electricity bills, businesses managing power costs, and developers building renewable capacity. It is part of the broader effort to reduce dependence on imported fuel. The government has said repeatedly that renewable energy deployment needs to accelerate.

A certification bottleneck on solar components works against that goal directly. The government has already created Green Lanes for strategic investments under Executive Order 18, specifically to cut through avoidable regulatory delay for projects that matter to national development. Renewable energy plainly belongs in that policy universe. But a Green Lane for solar investment becomes less meaningful if the panels, inverters, and batteries the project needs are waiting in a warehouse for a local stamp.

There is a precedent for doing this better. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has adopted reliance mechanisms for medicines and medical devices. Under these pathways, the FDA recognizes assessments made by reference drug regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions, using those assessments to streamline local review rather than repeating the full scientific evaluation from zero.

Of course, the FDA does not simply accept everything. It still requires local registration, labeling compliance, supply-chain traceability, and recall systems. But it recognizes that trusted foreign regulators have already done rigorous work, and it builds on that work rather than ignoring it.

That is the discipline DTI-BPS should consider for solar equipment. Recognition is not surrender. Verification is not duplication. Retesting should be a risk response, not a default setting.

There are real risks that intelligent regulation should address. Fake certificates exist. Suppliers sometimes substitute components after testing. Products tested in one configuration are occasionally sold in another. These are arguments for intelligent verification, not automatic repetition of the entire certification process.

DTI-BPS can require importers to submit traceable documentation and verify certificates directly with the issuing body. It can maintain a registry of compliant products. It can hold importers, distributors, and suppliers accountable for warranties, recalls, and consumer complaints. It can conduct market surveillance and test samples when there is genuine doubt. It can penalize false documentation heavily. What it should avoid is treating every internationally certified product as though it were uncertified until BPS says otherwise.

The better regulatory rule should be: recognize credible foreign certification first, verify authenticity, impose local accountability, and retest only when risk justifies it.

If the problem is fake documentation, verify the certificate. If the problem is altered product models, match the test report to the exact product. If the problem is installation quality, regulate installers. If the Philippines lacks the laboratory capacity to run the full test suite, build that capacity honestly. But do not use its absence as a reason to delay safe products already tested elsewhere.

The Ease of Doing Business law and the Anti-Red Tape Authority were created because agencies have a documented habit of multiplying steps, signatures, permits, and clearances without adding protection. If internationally accredited test reports already exist and can be verified directly, the regulatory question should be specific: what additional Philippine risk remains that those reports do not address?

The motorcycle helmet in my friend’s hands was not made safer by a local stamp that required it to be tested again. It was made legally compliant. Those are different things. A solar panel tested under internationally recognized standards by an accredited laboratory does not become safer because it passes through another certification process that may add months and cost without adding technical scrutiny. It becomes more expensive and slower to deploy.

The country needs more reliable energy. It needs faster renewable deployment. It needs cheaper and cleaner power. It also needs consumer protection. These goals are not in conflict. The conflict arises when consumer protection becomes paperwork protection. Safety should be a filter against danger, not a tollgate for paperwork.

Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippine Press Council.

[e-mail]