Study guide – IPL

Students’ Take: MCPIF (SB 53), Data Privacy Act (RA 10173)

For summer of SY 2013-2014, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) for Monday-Wednesday class: (a) Can the proposed MCPIF be improved? [07-May-2014] and (2) for Tuesday-Thursday class: (a) Gray areas in the application of the Data Privacy Act [08-May-2014]. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

M-W T-Th

No submissions: [MW] Arroyo (1), Carreon (1); Withdrawn: [MW] Luego

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.

List of changes in the Philippine Insurance Code (PD612 viz RA 10607)

The Insurance Code during the Marcos period was promulgated under Presidential Decree 612. Presidential Decree 612 was amended by Presidential Decrees 1141, 1280, and 1455. The Insurance Code supposedly was revised under Presidential Decree 1460 (The attachment thereto [or the copy of the alleged revision] is not usually available online, if it exists). Presidential Decree 1460 was amended by Presidential Decree 1814 and Batas Pambansa 847 (Presidential Decree 1814 is one of the Presidential Decrees in question under the landmark case of Tanada v. Tuvera, GR L-63915, 24 April 1985 [Decision] and 29 December 1986 [Resolution], and it remains a question whether such laws and issuance were subsequently published, as government promulgations online are not consistent in the details as to where and when such laws have been published. Whether they were actually published would be a matter that would need verification).

Republic Act 10607 was promulgated on 15 August 2013 and was meant to revise the Insurance Code of the Philippines. It referred to a revision of Presidential Decree 612 and not 1460.

Reading the revisions made by Republic Act 10607, in one legal document, is convenient for many, while further piecemeal amendments thereto are not yet present. For someone who has read the Insurance Code or has studied it, the absence of indications of which parts have been amended or merely renumbered provides an additional task in determining the same. This is quite important as legal literature may have expounded matters relevant to the provisions, and the verification task is necessary so as to reuse prior literature for provisions which were not modified, else merely renumbered. Considering that the old law provides for 424 sections, and the new law provides 448 sections, the act of verification takes time.

To help reduce the redundancy of efforts to verify the same, here is a list to determine the changes, whether substantial or not.

Continue reading

Electronic Evidence for Criminal Cases

Ang vs. Court of Appeals, GR 182835, 20 April 2010; Second Division, Abad [J], provided:

Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings. [A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Rule 1, Section 2]

On the other hand, eight years prior to the Ang case, an En Banc Resolution of the Court of 24 September 2002 (AM 01-7-01-SC “RE Expansion of the Coverage of the Rules on Electronic Evidence”), was signed by then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. (retired 20 December 2005); Associate Justices Josue Bellosillo (retired 13 November 2003), Reynato S. Puno (subsequently Chief Justice [8 December 2006], retired 17 May 2010), Jose C. Vitug (retired 15 July 2004), Artemio V. Panganiban (subsequently Chief Justice [20 December 2005], retired 7 December 2006), Leonardo A. Quisumbing (retired 6 November 2009), Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (retired 5 October 2009), Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (resigned due to health reasons, 30 April 2009), Renato C. Corona (subsequently Chief Justice [17 May 2010], impeached 29 May 2012), Conchita C. Morales (retired 19 June 2011), and Romeo J. Callejo Sr. (retired 28 April 2007) Associate Justices Vicente V. Mendoza (retired 5 April 2003) and Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (retired 28 February 2008) took no part therein.

The En Banc Resolution of 24 September 2002 appears to have been published in Manila Bulletin, at page 4, on 27 September 2002.


This was previously discussed in a previous post entitled “Phantom Resolution.” Proof of publication of the 2002 resolution was not yet available at the time the previous post was published, and hence, the following portion in the previous article:

C. One possible option

Thus, it would appear that the only way that the matter may be resolved, whether the Resolution has been made applicable in 2002, would lie upon the availability of proof of publication in a newspaper of general circulation or the Official Gazette. Ultimately, is there a copy of a 2002 issue of the Philippine Star (since its applicability was reported therein), containing the Resolution itself that would resolve the matter altogether?

Proof of publication was submitted by one of my students (from current Batch 16) who is enrolled in the “Technology and the Law” subject (Saturday). It appears that a copy of published Resolution is available at the Manila Bulletin Library at Muralla corner Recolletos Streets, Intramuros, Manila, Philippines.

Students’ Take: Contacts viz RA 10173, Competing advertising in sponsored events, and Direction of Copyright Reform

For first semester of SY 2013-2014, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) Contacts viz RA 10173 (6 July 2013); (2) Competing advertising in sponsored events (30 August 2013); (3) Direction of Copyright Reform (18 October 2013). These are their opinions on the subject matters:

No verifiable post(s): Cortes (1), Diaz (1), Nones (1); Non-compliant post as to provider: Delos Reyes (1); Withdrawn: Imperio

Batch 15’s contents are mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.

Students’ Take: RA 10173 viz a National ID system, and Malacanang’s FAQ on the effects of RA 10372

For summer of SY 2012-2013, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) RA 10173 viz a National ID system, and (2) Malacanang’s FAQ on the effects of RA 10372. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) RA 10173 viz a National ID system (7 May 2013); (2) Malacanang’s FAQ on the effects of RA 10372 (21 May 2013);

Submitted, but no verifiable post(s): Gabronino (1,2); Withdrawn: Agnir, Alicayos

Batch 15’s contents will be mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.

HB3841 and SB2842 #RepublicAct10372


Licensed under CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 3.0 Philippine license.
[ Download PDF of original article ]


Senate Bill 2842,[1] and its counterpart House Bill 3841,[2] were passed by Congress. It would appear that the consolidated bill [3] was transmitted to the President on 29 January 2013. [4] The consolidated bill has not been signed into law yet, as of writing, [5] [6] but sentiments against the legislation were made public on 14 February 2013,[7] and responded to by the Philippine Intellectual Property Office. [8]

Update: The consolidated bills were signed into law (Republic Act 10372) on 28 February 2013.


I. Development
II. Organizational matters: Sections 6, and 7; and proposed Section 9-A, RA 8792
    A. Warrantless Search
III. Definitions: Sections 171.3, and 171.9; and proposed Sections 171.12 and 171.13, RA 8792
    A. Communication to the public
    B. Reproduction
    C. Technology Measures, and Rights Management Information
IV. Assignment, Licensing, and Transfer: Sections 180, 181, and 183, RA 8792
    A. Statement of Accounts under the proposed Section 180.5
    B. Collecting Society accreditation
V. Limitations of copyright: Sections 184, 185, 188, and 190, RA 8792
    A. Limitation for the benefit of the blind, visually or reading-impaired persons
    B. Fair Use
    C. Reprographic reproduction of copies for libraries
    D. Removal of the allowance of limited importation under Section 190.1, RA 8293
    E. Rules relevant to importation and exportation
VI. Deposit: Section 191, RA 8792
VII. Term of Moral Rights: Section 198, RA 8792
VIII. Neighboring Rights: Sections 203, 204, 208, and 212, RA 8792
    A. Performers’ Rights
    B. Rights of Producers of Sound Recordings
C. Limitations on other rights (Section 212)
IX. Infringement and Institution of Actions: Sections 216, 217, 218, and 226; and the proposed Section 220A, RA 8792
    A. Technology Circumvention as Aggravating circumstance (Sections 216 and 217)
    B. Safe harbor (Sections 216 and 217, RA 8293; in relation to Sections 30 and 33, RA 8792)
    C. Disclosure of Information (Section 220A)
        1. Valid search and seizure; reasonable suspicion
        2. Public funds for public purpose, not for private gain
X. IP Policies for academic institutions: Proposed new Section 230
XI. Conclusion


Continue reading