Amendments to Intellectual Property Code

Introduction

Intellectual property is defined in Ballantine’s Law Dictionary as those property rights which result from the physical manifestation of original thoughts.  Mere ideas or mental conceptions are not considered as intellectual property because they are not yet transformed into a physical object.  Only those creations of the mind which are transformed to physical form are considered intellectual property and protected by law.  In the Philippines, Republic Act 8293 or better known as Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines is the law which governs the protection of intellectual property.  It was approved on June 6, 1997 and became effective on January 1, 1998.  Its purpose is to protect and strengthen the intellectual property system in the Philippines in relation to what is deemed appropriate according to global standards of intellectual property protection.

The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines recognizes eight intellectual property rights: Copyright, Related Rights, Patents, Mark, Geographical Indications, Industrial Designs, Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits, and Protection of Undisclosed Information.  The protection of this law extends to any person whether a national of the Philippines or not, or domiciled in the country or not.  As long as such has a real and effective industrial establishment in a country which is a party to any convention, treaty, or agreement, which the Philippines is a party of, or their country extends reciprocal rights to nationals of the Philippines, they are entitled to this protection.

On February 28, 2013, President Benigno Aquino signed into law Republic Act 10372 which amends certain provisions of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.  This law consists of thirty two sections which expanded or deleted some of the topics in the current Intellectual Property Code.  While this law was being deliberated in congress, various clamours from the public calling for its veto were being pushed because of the consequences it carries. 

The government in its effort to explain such amendment released an explanation in a form of infographics guidelines on the possible effect of such amendment.  This paper aims to determine whether the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines and its amendments coincide to the explanation given by the government and its purpose are still amply protected.

FAQs

In lieu of the protest against the amendments to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines and the clamour from the public to not pass them, the government in its effort to ease any building tension from the public published a statement in a question and answer form which will answer the queries the public has regarding the amendment.  The statement coming from the government was titled “FAQs on the amendments to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines” which can be found in the government’s website gov.ph.  It contains six question and answer segment which the government identified as the frequently asked question over the said topic.  The purpose of this FAQ’s was to clear out any confusion the public has over the amendment to the Intellectual Property Code.

Browsing through the statement of the government regarding the effects of the amendment, on the first reading it may appear that the amendment works to our advantage.  It highlighted such facts that one can now import as many number of copies of Books, CDs, and DVDs subject to customs rules as long as they are legally purchased because the original limitation to three copies was removed by the amendment.  It explained that reproduction of copyrighted materials for personal use is legal.  Even the possession of infringed music files is not violative of the law when the person has no knowledge of the infringement.  Mall owners are not liable to infringement as long as they did not benefit on the infringement activities of their tenants.  It said that jailbreaking or rooting by themselves are not illegal.  They cleared the issue over search and seizure that the IPO still needs to obtain a warrant in conducting a search.  These things might appear simple and appear no issue at all.  It took the government only six questions to downplay the strong clamour from the public over the possible constitutional violations this amendment will bring.

These FAQs appear so simple and so concise that the bigger issues are not really discussed.  It seems to be a deception by the government to hide the vast power it gives to itself and its agencies and downplay the possible abuse of power it confers to such.

Evaluating the FAQs

In my opinion, the explanation by the government over the amendment to the Intellectual Property Code is not as accurate as they want to picture it to be.  Though the explanation by the government might create an impression that there is nothing to worry about the amendments to the Intellectual Property Code, I believe that there is more to what the government is trying to downsize from its FAQs.

These questions that they tried to answer do not truly explain the issues over such amendments.  They tried to answer issues raised by critics in a light manner that will create conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the amendments.  Though their intention in introducing this law might be good, the end that they like to achieve does not justify their means.  It is in my humble opinion that the Filipino people will be greatly affected by this law not only financially since we will be forced to buy original expensive copyrighted items, but also the intellectual growth of our country will be impaired. 

Over my study of the amendments to the Intellectual Property Law and the explanation by the government, I was so inclined to believe that this will be for the better of everyone.  I was having a hard time to realize the negative implications of this amendment.  I have researched several articles over the internet regarding the pro’s and con’s of the amendments, yet I find to justify myself of the advantages that the amendment can bring.  That was until I came across the article written by Raissa Robles regarding the amendments.

Comparing the FAQs, the amended provisions, and the points raised by Raissa in her article, it led me to the realization that the government should have not passed the law yet.  As good as the government wants to eliminate piracy in the country, I think they should have considered first the current state of living of our fellow Filipinos.  We don’t need this kind of law as of the moment.  Piracy is not an illegal act which is of elemental concern which needs to be taken cared with the heavy arm of the law.  Yes, there might be some losses being incurred because of the supposed to be profits generated in original items, but there are also benefits gained from the current state of Intellectual Property Rights that we have as of the moment.  And I believe that the benefits outweigh the cost as of the moment in having lax implementation of the law regarding pirated materials.

I share the same sentiment of Raissa Robles that a lot of us in the Philippines started learning computers through pirated softwares.  Though I don’t have the data to back up my statement, I’m saying it through experience and observation of the current state of living of Filipinos.  I’ll focus my attention on this paper on musics and videos as an example.  Original CDs and Videos are a bit pricey compared to their pirated counterpart which cost a lot lower.  Though I don’t know how much the going rate of pirated CDs and DVDs is nowadays because I have stopped buying these things, but I bet is will surely be a hell lot lesser than the original ones.  So, for an average Filipino who is earning less, and below the poverty line, in able to enjoy this entertainment, they are forced to patronize these pirated items in able to squeeze them to their budget.  If the government will restrict access to these pirated materials, the poor people can’t afford to buy the original ones.  This will lead to impairment of their growth on whatever learning they can get over such items.

The biggest issue that the government downplayed in their FAQs is the issue about the expanded power granted to the Intellectual Property Office. The government said that there is nothing wrong with the visitorial power of the IPO because this is constitunional.  They even said that if a search and seizure is to be implemented, a proper warrant must be obtained in accordance with the law.  With this having said, I am confused on what will be the point of the visiting power and its difference with search and seizure.  What is the purpose of granting the IPO of such visitorial power?  The only possible effect that I can think of from this power is a fishing expedition on the part of the IPO.  Since according to the government’s explanation, a warrant is still needed for a search and seizure, the visitorial power of the IPO will aid the latter in obtaining a warrant against the subject.  This is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court prohibits fishing expedition by authorities in gathering pieces of evidence against the accused.

This visitorial power is subject to abuse by the IPO since what is needed is only an allegation or a report from an author a copyrighted material of possible infringement then the IPO can automatically act on it.  The problem with it is that the innocent individuals may be prejudiced on their private rights because of mere allegation of possible violation of the Intellectual Property Law.  The law now allows the IPO to conduct investigation through their visitorial power.  Now they can enter the premise of an accused without the necessary warrant which is required in conducting search in seizures.  In effect, the visitorial power granted to the IPO is above the power of search and seizure since it is upon the discretion of the IPO to conduct a visit based on mere reports.

The explanation by the government regarding the importation of Books, CDs, and DVDs does not tell the bigger picture of what has been amended.  What has been highlighted from the FAQs is that the original limitation of three copies of copyrighted materials has been removed.  But the problem is, that is not the issue regarding importation.  It would have been better if they did not delete the provision which allows people to bring materials for personal use.  With such deletion, it creates a possibility that the personal properties of people can easily be confiscated when they do not conform as a legitimate copyright material.  There may seem no problem to this because pirated products are considered illegal goods but they still remain personal properties of the owner.  By allowing this things to be confiscated even if they are for personal use only will violate the constitutional guaranty given by section two of article three of the Constitution which guaranty the people to be secure of their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

By the deleting the phrase for personal use only in the Intellectual Property Code, it opens the possibility of the government through the IPO to conduct a seizure of property of an individual without due process.  This amendment does not respect the right of the people over their personal properties.  The government may argue that pirated materials are illegal and therefore must be confiscated for violating the law but such materials still consist of the private property of a person.  Proper warrant should be obtained first before seizing pirated materials.  Pirated materials are not of a great value that the primordial right given by the Constitution must be disregarded.

What the government failed to explain in their FAQs is that the amendment expanded the definition of infringement and the how to commit it.  In the amendment, a person commits an infringement if he directly commits and infringement; benefits from the infringing activity of another person who commits an infringement; and with knowledge of infringing activity, contributes to the infringing activity of another.  With this expansion in the scope of infringement, it is as if everyone will be liable to infringement.  By the mere possession of an infringed item, a person can be held liable because of the benefits he derives over it.  The law is silent whether the benefit it is talking about is financial benefit or merely the pleasure of using it.  Thus, it will be hard to escape liability if caught owing an infringed item because at some point there is benefit derived over it.

Conclusion

It is no secret that the end goal of the government in amending the Intellectual Property Code is for the utmost protection of the rights of Artists, Inventors, and Authors, whose creations are protected by the law.  The amendments introduced aims to eliminate piracy which is so rampant nowadays.  I do agree that piracy should be eliminated.  But I do not agree with the government on their method on how to fight it.

As cited in the article of Raissa Robles, in China, record companies lowered their prices in able to compete with the pirated products and make them more affordable to the public.  I think this approach should not only be implemented not only in China but in the whole world.  Why is it that the cost of purchasing copyrighted products in China will be cheaper than in our Country?  I think it is immoral for these companies to bill other countries more and bill China less on their product because they cannot eliminate piracy in China.  It is as if they choose the countries who to bully and impose a bigger price tag on their products.

If the government is really serious in helping to promote the rights of these Artists, Inventors, and Authors, I think the approach of enforcing the strong hand of the law against the consumers will not work for the better of everyone.  Infringement of products from time immemorial has been a problem that the government is trying to solve with the same solution.  And the government is continuing and will continue to lose on its battle against copyright infringement because the formula that they are applying is not the proper solution.  It is hard to believe that the welfare of the Artist, Authors, and Inventors are the concern of the government in signing this amendment into law.  The amendments clearly show that it favor foreign companies who makes reproduction of copyrighted materials.  It is a fact that foreign companies are losing a lot due to copyright infringement.  I believe that the passing of this law is brought by a strong pressure from these firms to protect their personal interest to the prejudice of the Filipinos.  Our consumers should not be burdened by laws restricting their rights to own products due to the government’s failure to eradicate infringement.

What the government is doing is imposing hefty rules and regulations over consumers who have limited purchasing power and force them to shell out their money to buy expensive products.  For an average Filipino, this is not possible.  The government would want to impose on the Filipinos through this amendment that if you cannot afford to purchase a copyrighted product, then you have no right to own and enjoy them through other means.  We should always remember that through this infringed products, benefits are also derived.  Taking pirated computer software as an example, many poor Filipinos who cannot afford to buy an original product are now computer literate and technologically updated because of this.

Instead of these amendments to the Intellectual Property Code restring the right of ownership to consumers of infringed materials, the government should have pushed for a reduction in the prices of these items to make it more affordable to an average Filipino.  We have to face the fact that as of the moment, our Country is a third world country whose poverty level is continuing to increase year by year.  If in China, original items are being sold at a lesser price that should also be done here in the Philippines and in other parts of the world.

By making original products more affordable is the only way I can see on how to truly eliminate infringement and protect the rights of Artists, Authors, and Inventors.  As for the moment, due to economic difficulties, majority of the Filipinos cannot afford to buy original products and therefore most will rely on piracy.  The amendments to the Intellectual Property Code have its advantages and disadvantages.  The amendments may put us in better position in the international community but in passing any law, we should always consider the welfare of the people as the utmost priority of the government.  And in my opinion, this amendment does not prioritize the welfare of the people and therefore should be struck down.

Bibliography

Republic Act 10372: An Act Amending Certain Provision of Republic Act 8293. Official Gazette of the Philipines

FAQs on the amendments to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Official Gazette of the Philippines.  Retrieved May 19, 2013, 7:09pm. http://www.gov.ph/2013/03/08/faqs-on-the-amendments-to-the-intellectual-property-code-of-the-philippines/

Raissa Robles.  Congress erased every Filipino’s right to bring home music, movies and books from abroad.  Retrieved May 18, 2013, 10:25pm.  http://raissarobles.com/2013/02/14/congress-erased-every-filipinos-right-to-bring-home-music-movies-and-books-from-abroad/

Raissa Robles.  Copyright owners have more rights than heinous crime victims with Congress’ IP Code changes – lawyers say.  Retrieved May 18, 2013, 10:20pm.  http://raissarobles.com/2013/03/06/copyright-owners-have-more-rights-than-heinous-crime-victims-with-congress-ip-code-changes-lawyers-say/

RA 10173 and its effect on Ople vs Torres

Introduction

            The right to privacy is the right to be let alone in the words of Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis.  It is a fundamental human right which gives one person the right to be free of unsanctioned intrusion from another person on matters which the public is not necessarily concerned.  This right is the most valued among all the other rights that man possesses.  Through time immemorial, man has come up with ways on how to protect such right.  From creating secret codes in communication, to building high fences around the houses, to being secretive in information which to disclose, are some of the ways how man has protected its privacy from other people.  There is even a saying in Constitutional Law, quoting British Parliamentarian William Pitt, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement".  Various protection for this most valued right were developed over the years of man’s legacy to ensure that this right shall not be violated.  Laws carrying strict penalties were passed to ensure that such right shall be amply protected.

Though there is no specific provision that will speak of the right to privacy, such right is incorporated to various laws of our land ranging from the Bill of Rights in our Constitution to the Civil Code and to some Special Penal Laws.  To name a few, our constitution has recognized this right to privacy by providing in our Bill of Rights that the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable.  This right protects us from illegal accumulation of information through eavesdropping on private conversations.  Thus, the Anti-wire Tapping Law was passed.  In our Civil Code, the right to privacy is protected by providing that every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of another person.  Without the right to privacy, people can easily intrude to another person’s life without any hesitation and fear of any penalty.

Throughout the years, technology has been the number one consistent threat to privacy.  With the evolution of technology, the threats to privacy became sophisticated.  Our personal information are made available out in the open without us knowing it.  In order to eradicate this threat to our privacy, proper safeguards must be put in place.  This has been the main issue why the national identification system introduced in 1998 by the Administrative Order 308 issued by then President Fidel Ramos was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  But in 2012, our legislature has successfully passed a law for the protection of our personal information gathered in the public and private sectors.  This paper will try to determine whether the constitutional issues raised in the case of Ople vs Torres has been answered by Republic Act 10173 and whether the country will benefit in having a national id system.

Ople vs. Torres

           

            In the landmark case of Ople vs. Torres, the then Senator Blas Ople filed a petition before the Supreme Court to declare the Administrative Order no. 308 issued by then President Fidel Ramos as unconstitutional.  Senator Ople raised the issues that the said Administrative Order no. 308 is a usurpation by the President of the powers of the legislature and said Administrative Order violates the right to privacy which is well amply protected in the Bill of Rights.

           

The objective of this Administrative Order no. 308 is to create a national computerize identification reference system that will eradicate fraudulent transaction with the government by properly and efficiently identify persons seeking basic services on social security.  The said order will require the collection of personal information from the population reference number generated by the National Statistics Office.  The end goal of this Administrative Order is to provide convenience in transacting business between Filipino citizens and foreign residents with the government.

            Senator Ople in his petition filed before the Supreme Court, said that the President has usurp the power of Congress because the establishment of a National Computerized Identification Reference System requires a legislative act.  In addition to that, the Senator also said in his petition that only the Congress has the right to appropriate funds for government agencies and therefore the appropriation in the said Administrative Order is another usurpation of the power of Congress.  He therefore prayed that the said Order by President Ramos be struck down as unconstitutional.

           

The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Puno held that the said Administrative Order is unconstitutional because it encroaches on the power of the legislative since it establishes for the first time a National Computerized Identification Reference System which might affect the primacy of national security and the extent of privacy against dossier.  The Court pointed out the lack of proper safeguard in protecting the information that will be gathered from the public as one of the reasons for striking down the Administrative Order.  Several justices made their own separate opinion either joining the opinion of Justice Puno or in dissenting to it.  One of the dissenters, Justice Kapunan stated that striking down the said order as unconstitutional is premature at that point.  One of the requisites in order for a law to be struck down is that there should be an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights.  In the said case, there has yet none.  The said Administrative Order was still in the process of being implemented as the implementing rules and regulations are still being drafted.  But despite the heavy dissent of the other Justices, the vote to declare it unconstitutional won.  Many of the Justices who voted against the said order favoured the possibility of abuse of discretion among the data collectors because of lack of laws to safeguard data privacy.

Data Privacy Act of 2012

            Republic Act no. 10173 or better known as Data Privacy Act of 2012 was passed by the Senate and House of Representatives on June 6, 2012 and signed by President Benigno Aquino on August 15, 2012.  The said law aims to ensure that personal information in information and communications system in the government and in the private sector are secured and amply protected.  This law gives security to individuals that their personal data will be kept and properly secured.

            The passing of this law has been considered as a victory to the people’s privacy because of the protection this law offers to the public.  The number one advantage this law offers is it ensures protection to privacy.  The scope of this law extends to both natural and juridical persons.  The coverage of its jurisdiction extend to acts done or practice in and outside of the Philippines as long as it relates to personal information about a Philippine citizen or resident or has a link with the Philippines.

An independent body which will be known as the National Privacy Commission will be created.  The Commission will be in charge of the administration and implementation of the provisions of this provided in the Data Privacy Act.  The Commission shall be headed by a Privacy Commissioner who shall act as Chairman and two Deputy Privacy Commissioner to be appointed by the President of the Philippines with a term of three years, renewable for another three years.  The Commission shall be attached to the Department of Information and Communications Technology.  Utmost confidentiality at all times will be expected from the Commission with regard to personal information that comes to their knowledge.

The collection of personal information must be for a specified and legitimate purpose only and determined and declared beforehand.  They should be processed fairly and must be kept up to date.  The information collected can only be retained for as long as it is necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the data was collected.  This law has provided for the standard in processing the personal information.  They must contain at least one of the conditions enumerated such as the data subject has given his consent; it is necessary to the fulfilment of the contract; necessary for compliance in legal obligations; it is necessary to protect important interest of the data subjects; it is necessary to respond to national interest; and the processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interest.

Parameters have been set in order to prevent any unlawful use of personal data without the consent of the individual.  Even the lawful heirs are given the right to exercise the rights of a data subject when the latter is deceased or incapacitated or incapable of exercising their rights.  The processing of sensitive personal information and privileged information are likewise prohibited in this law except for the following instances that it enumerated.  The law is complete since the criteria for the lawful processing of personal information are properly laid down in order to prevent any confusion in the implementation of this law.  Penalties have been included in order to ensure that those who will break the law will think twice before doing it because of the stiff penalties they might face when they get caught.  Imprisonment for a period as short as one year and as long as six years has been meted out for violations of any of the provisions of this act.

             

Effect of RA 10173 to Ople vs. Torres

            In the case of Ople vs. Torres, the main issues raised and which was highly talked about by the public was the possible threat to privacy which the National Identification Reference System might create.  The people feared that the information which will be gathered from the public might be use illegally.  In 1998, when that case was decided, there were no laws to protect the public from unlawful use of information.  In my opinion, if the said case was decided in today’s time where we have the Data Privacy Act of 2012, the decision by the Supreme Court might have a different result.

            The way I see it, the protection offered by RA 10173 answers the worries that the justices have mentioned in the Ople vs. Torres case.  Although one of the reasons for striking down the Administrative Order 308 is the usurpation of legislative duties by the executive, not all the justices supported the view that there was indeed usurpation of duties.  In a dissenting opinion by Justice Kapunan, he justified the legality of the President to issue the said administrative order because the agencies involve are under the umbrella of the executive department.  Therefore, the President has the power to issue orders affecting those agencies involve.  This constitutional issue is a matter of interpretation.  There is no concrete way on how to judge the said issue.  In my opinion, I share the dissent of Justice Kapunan that it should not be considered as usurpation of duties.  Justice Kapunan and Justice Puno have offered two legitimate interpretation of whether it is usurpation by the President of the legislative duties.  But at the end of the day, the only reason why the said Administrative Order was struck down was because of the majority vote made by the Justices to declare it unconstitutional and therefore the opinion of Justice Puno became the case law.  But given another situation were in the Data Privacy Act of 2012 was present during the deliberation of the case, I believe that the constitutionality of the Administrative Order will be upheld.  The benefits of a national id system during that time can’t just be allowed to pass by.

Most of the justices decided to go against the said Administrative Order because of the lack of safeguard in our country for the protection of personal information.  In the separate opinion of Justice Vitug, he recognized the importance of having a nationwide computerized identification reference system.  He suggested that in order to enjoy the benefits of this nationwide id system, the country should install specific safeguards and control measures that may be calculated best to ward-off probable ill effects of any such device.  For this reason, I strongly believe that the Data Privacy Act will sway the votes of most of the Justices during that time to favor in upholding the constitutionality of the said order.  Proper safeguards were introduced in the Data Privacy Act for the protection of personal information collected from the public.

Now that RA 10173 is in place, I don’t see any reason why the Administrative Order 308 should be struck down in today’s time.  The issue of whether it is usurpation by the President of the Legislative powers is a debatable matter.  Both the affirmative and the negative sides raised good issues why it is or it is not a usurpation of Legislative power.  I also believe that it is premature to declare the said order unconstitutional because it is very basic in law that when the law provides for requisites in order for a given act fall under the scope of the said law, all requisites must be present.  Here, I share the opinion of the other justices who recognized the fact that there is still no actual controversy which involves the said Administrative Order.  Therefore lacking one important requisite, any decision on the constitutionality of the said order is premature.

One of the fears of the Justices about having a computerized id system is that the advancement in technology brings an increase in threat to privacy.  Since technology has been the consistent threat to privacy through the years, they suggested that the development of technology might bring an uncontrollable threat to privacy.  This I don’t agree.  I believe that side by side with the advancement in technology comes the development in privacy protection particularly that of collecting personal information.  The fear that advancement in technology might expose people to the public about information which they hold private can also be eradicated by safeguard measures to privacy.  As an example, nowadays, in purchasing stuff online using credit cards, most websites have a verified secured web page in order to assure the buying public that their credit card information will not be stolen during the process of buying online.  Couple of years ago, we don’t have this kind of protection to the buying public.  Thus, as time goes by, and technology develops, protection to privacy likewise develops.  We should not be in constant fear that our privacy will be violated by the changing times and development in technology.  There will always be other means that will protect our privacy as technology develops over time.

Therefore it is with my strong opinion that Republic Act 10173 or better known as Data Privacy act of 2012 has answered the constitutional issues presented by the Supreme Court in the case of Ople vs. Torres.  Thus, I believe that constitutionality of the said Administrative Order will be upheld because of the Data Privacy Act.

Conclusion

Data Privacy Act of 2012 has given us measures that will entail protection to our privacy which is highly valuable to us.  The fear of possible encroachment to our privacy brought about by the introduction of a National Computerize Identification Reference System should be set aside.  Instead of worrying about something that has not yet happened, we should focus more on the benefits that a national id will give us.  A law has already been passed to set up the parameters in securing that our privacy will be protected.  Now is the time for our country to have a national id system.  Many countries have adopted a national id system and are already reaping the benefits of it.

Studies have shown in other countries that the introduction of a national id system has helped in preventing crime or lessen its occurrence.  This is because the introduction of a national id system will help to track offenders easily since personal information was collected from them.  Their whereabouts can easily be traced.  

We should always keep in mind that only those who are hiding something illegally should fear a national id system.  Those who have clean hands should not worry a bit for the law will further protect their welfare rather than abuse it.  The contention that the government might abuse this power given to them should be set aside.  We should always believe in our government that what they do is always for our welfare and that it is their utmost priority.  After all, we were the ones who ultimately put them into such power.  Thus, we should trust our government first rather than doubt it at once.

It’s is already time for our country to maximize our potential and improve our standings in the world.  There will always be pro’s and con’s in whatever decision our government will do.  But in this case of introducing a national id system, the benefits are clearly greater than the cost.  Therefore, it is in my humble opinion that I suggest the creation of a National Computerize Identification System to maximize the potential of our government and to minimize any fraud in its day to day transactions with the people.  The only question now is up to what extent personal information should be collected.

Bibliography:

Republic Act 10173: Data Privacy Act of 2012. Official Gazette of the Philippines.

Justice Puno, (1998). Ople vs. Torres. Supreme Court of the Philippines.

Senate Economic Planning Office. National Identification System: Do we need one? Retrieved May 1, 2013. http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PI%202005-12%20-%20National%20Identification%20System%20-%20Do%20We%20Need%20One.pdf