Monthly Archives: August 2012

Students’ take: Fan Art, File Downloads, and Data Privacy Act of 2012 +Case Digests (1S, SY12-13)

For the first semester of SY 2012-2013, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing the legal implications of (1) the Data Protection Bill, (2) Fan Art, and (3) File Downloads. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) Data Protection Bill (21 July 2012); (2) Fan Art (1 September 2012); (3) File Downloads (17 September 2012)

No verifiable post(s): Pante (3), Torres (2,3)

Note: Four days after the deadline of task #1, the consolidated bill (Senate Bill No. 2965 and House Bill No. 4115) was passed as Republic Act 10173.

Batch 13’s contents are mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Ten cases in the class syllabus were also required to be summarized. These are the students’ case digests of said cases:

Case Digests (End of First Semester, SY 2012-2013).

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: HR and social media, and Cyberwar (Summer 2012)

During summer 2012, my students in Technology and the Law were given the task of discussing (1) remedies on cyberattacks/cyberwar and (2) the propriety of utilizing social media as a means for human resource selection and monitoring. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) Hacking (4 May 2012), (2) HR and Social media (25 May 2012)

No verifiable post(s): Austria (2), Banico, (2), Masilang (1). Unposted, but submited: Austria (1), Valdez (1, 2)

Batch 12′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: Laptop search in ports, Private information on legal repositories, and Online OG (2S, SY11-12)

During the second semester of SY 2011-2012, my students in Technology and the Law were given the task of discussing (1) whether laptop searches in airports are valid, (2) whether persons/litigants can ask online repositories containing decisions of the Supreme Court to remove information therein as it affects their rights of privacy, and (3) whether publication in gov.ph is sufficient publication under the law. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) Gov.ph and the Official Gazette (10 December 2011), (2) Information in legal posts (3 March 2012), (3) Laptop searches (15 March 2012)

No verifiable post(s): Badillo (3), Cureg (1,2,3) Olano (1,2,3), Sala (1,2,3), Salaum (1), Tolentino (3). Unposted, but submitted: Badillo (1), Buhay (1,2,3), Gonzalbo (2), Oleriana (1,2,3), Tolentino (2)

Batch 11′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.

Phantom resolution

This article looks into the applicability of the Rules on Electronic Evidence on criminal cases, in light of the promulgation of the Ang vs. Court of Appeals decision in 2010.


I. The Rules on Electronic Evidence
II. The declaration in Ang vs. Court of Appeals
    A. Impact of and musings about the Ang declaration
III. Does it really exist?
    A. Online copy from the Office of the Court Administrator
    B. The impact of Garciliano vs. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information
    C. One possible option


Continue reading

Students’ take: Private information on legal repositories, Wikileaks, and Media’s social network preference (1S, SY11-12)

For the first semester of SY 2011-2012, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing the legal implications of (1) Private information on legal repositories, (2) Wikileaks, and (3) Media’s social network preference. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

Media preference on social network (18 July 2011), Wikileaks and the Right to Information (2 September 2011), Information in legal posts (18 September 2011)

No verifiable post(s): Cervantes (3), Gacutan (3), Lopez (1), Martinez (2,3), Mercado G (1,2), Nabua (2,3), Penachos (3), Rivera (1), Serrano (1,2,3), Suanino (2,3), Valencia (1,2,3), Vasquez (1). Unposted, but submitted: Adriano (1,2,3), Alejo (3), Castillejo (3), Cervantes (2), Delos Reyes (2,3), Faustino (2,3), Lim (2,3), Mercado G (3), Vasquez (2,3).

Batch 10′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.

The blog and understanding how works are shared herein

This provides an introduction to this website, its collection of articles and documents, and how they are shared.


I. The Blog
    A. How it started
    B. Content transition
    C. Host transition
II. Content and its default protection
    A. What I do not purport to own
    B. What I claim, and its basis
    C. What rights are exercised by a copyright owner
    D. The period of exercising such rights
    E. Remedies and penalties for infringement
    F. Reason for the protection under law
III. Shared under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 PH license
    A. Why I share my work
    B. Details of the permission provided under the license terms
    C. If you need additional permission


Continue reading

Notes Repository (AUSL 2002-2006; Haystacks)

It was during the second year of my law school studies (SY 2003-2004) that I started to create a new format for my case notes, since I observed that some cases in the previous year were reiterated in the higher subjects. Resort to previously made digests was inappropriate, since the issues focused were different. I created these notes, which I called “Haystacks,” to outline all legal details provided in the cases’ discussions, to serve as source documents when I would need to create case digests, appropriate to the issues relevant to the subjects in which the cases could be reiterated anew.

Haystacks

Continue reading

Notes Repository (AUSL 2002-2006; Narratives)

Case digests would have been sufficient to focus on relevant doctrines articulated in the cases required in class. However, the short form designed for handwritten digests was inadequate to respond — as to certain details — to certain questions a professor would ask during recitations. Hence, I had to prepare longer narrations of the case (i.e. as much as possible, on a chronological manner), with the holding somehow combining the case doctrine and the ultimate outcome of the case.

Narratives

  • Corporation Law, Commercial Law Review (SY 2005-2006, Prof. Zarah Villanueva-Castro) (PDF, 883.0 KB)
  • Negotiable Instruments Law, Commercial Law Review (SY 2005-2006, Prof. Zarah Villanueva-Castro) (PDF, 524.3 KB)
  • Insurance Law, Commercial Law Review (SY 2005-2006, Prof. Zarah Villanueva-Castro) (PDF, 492.3 KB)

Continue reading

Law Compilation (AUSL Constitutional Law I, 2011)

I started to teach a minor subject “Technology and the Law” during the first semester of SY 2008-2009, in Arellano University School of Law. It was only in June 2011, for the first semester of SY 2011-2012, when I was offered to teach a foundation subject, that is Constitutional Law I. I compiled the relevant laws outlined in the preliminary chapters of the syllabus therein for my own preparation. Such compilations are shared similarly below.

  • Annex 2 (PDF, 779.9 KB)
    • Contains the English text of 1899 Malolos Constitution, McKinley’s Instructions (7 April 1900), The Philippine Bill of 1902, The Philippine Autonomy Act (1916, Jones Law), The Philippine Independence Act (1934, Tydings-McDuffie Law), 1935 Philippine Constitution, 1943 Philippine Constitution, 1973 Philippine Constitution, Proclamation 1 (1986), Proclamation 3 (1986), Proclamation 58 (1987), and the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
  • Annex 3 (PDF, 919.2 KB)
    • Contains the English text of the Treaty of Paris of 1898, Treaty Between Spain and the United States for the Cession of Outlying Islands of the Philippines, Convention regarding the Boundary between the Philippine Archipelago and the State of North Borneo, Republic Act 3046, Republic Act 5446, Republic Act 5446, Presidential Decree 1596, Presidential Decree 1599, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982.
    • Should include Republic Act 9522, among others, on the next update.
  • Annex 4 (PDF, 169.4 KB)
    • Contains Commonwealth Act 63, Republic Act 106, Republic Act 2639, Republic Act 3834, Commonwealth Act 473, Republic Act 530, Presidential Decree 725, Republic Act 8171, Republic Act 9139, and Republic Act 9225.

Notes Repository (AUSL Project Phoenix 2008)

When I passed the bar in 2007, Atty. Jaime “Jimmy” N. Soriano took me under his wing, at the e-Law Center of the Arellano University School of Law. In 2008, in anticipation of the 2008 bar examination, Jimmy pursued a project, called “Project Phoenix,” which was aimed to assist a very special set of bar examinees for that year. He tasked me to gather doctrinal updates or reiteration, for Political Law and Civil Law, from cases decided in 2007. The contents of the documents below were the one submitted to Jimmy.

I take this opportunity to thank Jimmy, who has been an older brother to me. May he rest in peace.

[+] Atty. Jaime N. Soriano (3 January 1961 – 30 July 2012)

For those who may not be aware, he introduced Creative Commons in the Philippines (being its first Project Lead in the country); and was a primary proponent (being the copyright holder of optical-based legal resource “PhilJuris”) of the free online legal resource “LawPhil ,” the latter being maintained and further developed by the Arellano Law Foundation .