A CRITIQUE ON THE SALIENT POINTS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10372, (An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, Otherwise Known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”, and for Other Purposes)

INTRODUCTION

            For so many years, the concept of safeguarding intellectual property never occupied any strategic importance in the pedestal of private rights until when the so-called intellectual property owners rose up in arms against the plague of piracy.  Back then, there was never an issue on the violation of these rights as people would ordinarily and casually reproduce or copy any book, or movie that caught their fancy, using any or all available means of reproduction.  These acts however became profit-oriented as unscrupulous and ingenuous individuals made it their cash cow.  Indeed, they made a killing in reproducing the articles by large quantities and offered them to the public who instantly patronized them as they were sold cheaper than the original copies.

            Regardless of the consequences, the people involved in the trade persisted since money comes quick and easy for them.  Despite the existing laws that penalize infringement activities, still these people would not be deterred.  The lack of other viable job alternatives and the instant cash profits made piracy and infringement activities more appealing to both crooks and vendors.  For the average pirated optical media or counterfeit goods vendor, selling IPR-infringing products may simply be a means of existence. There is a chance that the vendor does not fully comprehend the illicit nature of his activities, but more likely he simply does not care that what he is doing is illegal. And for the organized crime syndicates that often supply the vendors with the pirated optical media and fake goods, the relatively low risk and high profit margins provide all the reasons they need to spurn the laws and continue producing and distributing their knock-offs. [1]

            The proliferation of this practice has grown exponentially and nearly crippled the earnings through royalties of the performers and artists or the copyright owners in general.  This illegal activity allegedly earned tons of money for the reproducers or syndicates.  As a result, the artists lost millions in possible earnings, and finally losses in projected revenues by the government.    

            Undeniably, the Philippines has become a hotbed of a flourishing trade of counterfeit goods.  The organized crime syndicates more often than not don’t get caught, or if ever the law enforcement authorities get them, they simply get easily off-the-hook.  This pathetic but common occurrence may be attributed to the lack of political will on the part of authorities to really solve the menace of piracy.  Indeed, catching these crooks is one problem, and hailing them to jail is still another problem.  A case of lack of relevant intellectual property laws?  Certainly not.  The Philippines has sufficient laws, chief of them, the Intellectual Property Code, spelling out the different provisions intended primarily for the protection of intellectual property rights.

   

LAW ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and ITS AMENDMENTS

In 1997, the Congress of the Philippines passed Republic Act No. 8293 aimed at protecting “xxx the rights of scientists, inventors, artists and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations xxx.” [2] Sixteen (16) years later, Republic Act No. 10372 came into law, amending certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8293.

The amendments were aimed at increasing the strength of the old law (RA No. 8293) particularly in the area of enforcement of intellectual property rights.   The more prominent amendments to Republic Act No. 8293 being those that relate to the right accorded to Filipinos arriving from abroad to bring in imported books, CDs and DVDs of movies and music without being subjected to delays in the counters due to questioning thereat by customs authorities; likewise appearing in the amendments is the provision on internet file-sharing.

             Among other things however, the following concepts or provisions in the amendatory law seemed to ruffle the feathers of some citizens.  They say that there appears to be a curtailment of their rights.

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) website’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) list six (6) items of concern, as well as their rather short explanations thereof.  On the question whether one may still be allowed to import books, DVDs, and CDs from abroad, it answers that the original limitation of three copies and the rule under Section 190.1 of the old Intellectual Property Code that the importation of a copyrighted work must be preceded by an assent or authority by the owner of the copyright before the materials or the copyrighted work are to be brought into the Philippines have been removed is not fairly accurate in the sense that under the old law, specifically under the now-deleted Section 190.1, it is stated therein that the three-copy limitation on the importation of works (books, CDs, DVDs) without authorization from the author would only be applicable if these copies were only for the use of any religious, charitable, or educational institutions.  Clearly, this is not the idea contemplated in the IPO’s answer.   The answer was not qualified, thus, misleading.

The amendments to the particular provision proffer the idea that there is no more need to secure authority from the copyright owner even if the importation of copyrighted works is not intended for personal purposes, qualified by the caveat that the same is however subject to the economic rights of the copyright owner as pronounced under Section 177 of the Intellectual Property Code or RA No. 8293, must be taken with a grain of salt.  It only means that the importation of these things are perfectly legal, even if they are in substantial quantity so long as the same are not pirated copies of original works.  If there is no substantial reason or wisdom to amend that particular provision, one wonders why, still, Congress made such deletion. 

Furthermore, the new provision (Section 190) giving to the Bureau of Customs the power to determine what is infringing and what is not seems to be self-serving.  While it is admitted that the regulation of importation or exportation of goods or articles is better left to the administrative agency concerned, the Bureau of Customs that is, the same however may not fully sub serve the intent of such particular provision.  This is dangerous.  For instance, an Overseas Filipino Balikbayan decides to bring home his collection of various CDs or VCDs of his favourite movies he bought knowing that the new law does not illegalize the importation of multiple copies of these materials.  The danger lies in when the Bureau of Customs, according to its determination, declares that the materials are infringing and therefore confiscates the same without clear parameters.  What if it turns out that the same really is not infringing? What happens now to the hapless OFW or balikbayan?  He is at the mercy of the authorities, and therefore, the possibility of extortion is very wide and open.

The law could have been phrased better.  It should not have given the Bureau of Customs that right to determine what is infringing or what is not. This, aside from the fact that there is a great possibility of confusion as to the determination of what constitutes infringement and what does not with respect to the books, CDs or DVDs of music or movies.  Thus, with this very possible perplexity, the purpose by which the amending law was crafted might be rendered illusory as when a copyright owner says that a copyright work cannot be brought home in the country because it constitutes infringement on his rights.  The law, instead of qualifying further or explaining the provision only ended up muddling the issue.

  Likewise misleading is the explanation on whether or not the reproduction of copyrighted material for personal purposes constitutes infringement.  It says that there is no infringement if one transfers music from lawfully acquired CD into a computer and then download the content to a portable device.  The act constitutes infringement only if one makes multiple copies of the CD to sell.  What if one makes multiple copies of the same, not to gain profit therefrom, but to distribute them to his relatives and some friends so that the latter could also enjoy the optical media, does infringement arise?  The explanation on this matter is not clear.

In the fourth question thereof, it says that jailbreaking, or the process of removing the limitations put in place by a device’s manufacturer or rooting, which is the process of gaining root access to a device [3], by themselves are not illegal.  It continues, “[H]owever, downloading pirated material, or committing infringement with a jailbroken phone increases the penalty and damages imposed on the person found guilty of infringement.” This is ambiguous.  It visualizes a jailbroken phone in the possession of an original buyer. 

But consider the following scenario:  if a jailbroken phone is subsequently sold by its first owner so that he can acquire a newer model or another brand, which practice is not uncommon in the Philippines, to an unsuspecting buyer and the latter downloads his favourite music from the internet to his phone without knowledge that it is jailbroken, would he be liable?  Apparently, yes, as the answer to the FAQ seems to explain.  And there lies the problem.  First, it avoids liability for the person who was responsible for the jailbreaking, and instead penalizes the subsequent buyer of the gadget.  It seems unfair.  But that is how the answer was worded.  In very simple terms, the use of a jailbroken phone, even when the user does so without knowledge thereof, increases the penalty for him, but not with respect to the one who rooted the phone.

As to the possible liability that mall owners may have for the infringement activities of their tenants on the pretext that they should be responsible for whatever happens inside their buildings, I interpose no opposition thereto.  Nonetheless, it is observed that these activities are not confined in the malls.  It is common knowledge that the same is more prevalent in the sidewalks where sales are more brisk.     

            And lastly, one of the more contentious provisions under the amendatory law is the provision giving the Intellectual Property Office police power to visit businesses and conduct searches based on reports, information, and complaints.  I find this rather disturbing.  For one, it may run counter to constitutional precepts of freedom from illegal or warrantless searches as it arrogates upon the Intellectual Property Office the authority to conduct vests to business establishments solely on the pretext that it has received reports that an illegal activity is taking place inside those businesses.  This practice is clearly proscribed in the Constitution.  Warrants, at all times, and must be acquired first before any conduct of searches or “visits” is to be considered illegal.  Also, since the pretext is to conduct visit based on a supposed report, again the possibility of corruption or extortion is not at all farfetched.  It didn’t help either that the IPO says that a warrant wouldn’t be required if it is accompanied by the Bureau of Customs or the Optical Media Board, which agencies could perform a search and seizure on their own right without a warrant.  Again, here, the possibility of abuse and misuse of this power is not a long shot.  And I leave it to the reader to make his own hypothesis on how abuses or excesses of authority could happen under the circumstances.   

            If there be any good points in the law as a consolation however, and which should be welcomed with nary a hint of doubt, the new law brings about a most-welcome and fresh innovations, to wit, the accreditation of collective management organizations (CMOs), whose job will be to ensure the protection of the rights and financial benefits of copyright owners; as well as the non-commercial reproduction of copyrighted works for use by people with hearing, eyesight and reading problems.  This is really a good provision which an IRR could explain with eloquence well.   

WHAT COULD BE DONE AND HOW

                        The boldness with which piracy trade is being conducted by the organized crime syndicates indisputably requires a more stringent approach through laws that afford the necessary shield against infringement.  This should not purport however that laws are to be hastily crafted as to possibly impair otherwise vested rights, or shall I say, rights which have already been afforded by an earlier law.  If this were so, then, it is not a law that the citizens need.  It is only a law that could have been the product of a knee-jerk and spontaneous response to the ever-growing and persistent threat of piracy or infringement of intellectual property.  Republic Act No. 10372, in this light, seems to be one which did not further the cause of intellectual property owners.  Rather, it seems to have defeated the very purpose for which Republic Act No. 8293 has guaranteed to them, that is, to PROTECT and SECURE the exclusive rights of scientists, et. al.

            There is a need to fully harmonize the importance of intellectual property laws with the growing needs of the people in this age of great technological advancement.  The executive agencies tasked with the enforcement of these laws should possess the necessary tools and political will to bring about at least a very acceptable reduction of the proliferation of these illegal activities. 

In the same manner, the legislature should continually craft laws that seek to adapt with the quickly changing times, most particularly for the protection of intellectual property rights.  Likewise, for the judiciary to encourage the members of the Bar to practice in the field of intellectual property litigation so that technically equipped practitioners would be adequate for the protection and or defense of intellectual property rights. 

And finally, the government must enlist the help of the citizenry and the artists themselves, being indispensable participants and stakeholders in the furtherance of the government’s initiative, so that more and more people would recognize and comprehend the importance of intellectual property not only for their own benefit, but also for the benefit the country’s economy.

CONCLUSION

The law has not been welcomed with open arms by the people.  The opposition thereto is far and wide.  Some are even demanding for its repeal for various grounds, including its constitutionality.

            This apprehension is accurately summed up by Ms. Alona Anonas-Carpio in her published article in the Philippine Graphic which I quote, “Cynical as this may sound, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Libel Law, too was created and passed to protect people from intentional damage to their reputations. However, that law has been used as a tool of punishment and harassment for its sins of omission and vagueness.

Perhaps the people cannot be blamed for being suspicious about the removal of limits that protect consumers even as they limit their ability to pack their bags with intellectual property rights-protected goodies. After all, it is the loopholes that break a law.”[4]

The foregoing observations or comments notwithstanding, the new law at least should be given time to prove its worth.  After all, the said law is, well, intended to arrest the evils of piracy.  For now, it is better to let it unleash its potential.  If in the long run, it proves to be counterproductive, then at least, Congress at Malacañang’s behest, with its vast powers, can still craft another law that could finally offer the much needed shot in the arm of the beleaguered intellectual property industry.  

But just the same, we better be wary.  There is no substitute to vigilance where private or personal, or Constitutional rights are at stake. 

“I personally think intellectual property is an oxymoron. Physical objects have a completely different natural economy than intellectual goods. It's a tricky thing to try to own something that remains in your possession even after you give it to many others.”
John Perry Barlow 
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/intellectual_property.html#yC6Vs38hYqg8otUk.99

REFERENCES:

1.  http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=pilr. Last Accessed May 17, 2013.

2. Section 2, Declaration of State Policy, Republic Act No. 8293, Intellectual Property Code of the   Philippines.

3.http://www.howtogeek.com/135663/htg-explains-whats-the-difference-between-jailbreaking-rooting-and-unlocking/.   Last Accessed May 19, 2013.

4.http://www.philippinegraphic.ph/index.php/tech/112-while-we-were-not-looking-ip-law-amendments. Last accessed May 19, 2013.

5. Republic Act No. 10372, (An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293,

    Otherwise Known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”, and for Other Purposes)

DISCLAIMER:

            Again, the contents of this blog are opinions of this writer only and are not intended in any way to influence the opinions of others relative to the same topic.  Further, the reader is advised not to rely on the points of law raised herein to avoid any misconceptions.  Finally, the writer apologizes for any error, grammatical or otherwise, that may be spotted by a probing reader.

Republic Act 10173 (DATA PRIVACY ACT): A MECHANISM TOWARDS A SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES

INTRODUCTION

            “I believe that any violation of privacy is nothing good”, thus said Lech Walesa, former President of Poland, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and human rights activist.  To him, and to other civil libertarians, privacy in all of its aspects is an absolute right which no one may justifiably intrude into, not least by the government itself or by its agents.  The possible rationale for this supposition is that this right to privacy is a constitutionally-enshrined and protected right which is recognized the world over.  Therefore, to violate such constitutional concept is incongruous to what free society is all about. 

            With the fast-paced and ever changing world however, it is no longer that easy to assert the concept of a fully free society without acceding to some allowable state restrictions on privacy rights.   Germane to the concept of privacy of information or data privacy, or the right to personal privacy is the concept of national security.  It is within this backdrop that I attempt to discuss the significance, or the lack of it, of the national identification system in relation to the Republic Act No. 10173 or the Data Privacy Act.   

           

THE PRESENT THREAT TO PHILIPPINE SECURITY

            The Philippines is home to a chopsuey of acronym-based groups, a number of whom are composed of self-styled freedom fighters.   There are those that espouse communist or socialist agenda; there are those radical fundamentalist groups; those who advocate secession or independence from the seat government’s power; those who sponsor extremist ideologies and those who are simply, well, political groups led by vicious warlords.  Of these are the diverse arms-carrying groups, led by these political, socialist, or religious ideologues.  Most often than not, these groups abdicate peace by weapons that injure, maim, or kill innocent civilians.  Moreover, most of the time, authorities remain clueless as to the identity of the perpetrators.  Even with the vast network of intelligence equipment to help the security forces, still, few or none at all ever comes to being solved.  These groups, sad to say, are just there, always waiting for the right time to perpetrate another misdeed.        

 Among these groups are the so-called Muslim fighters in the South divided into the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the dreaded Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and the New People’s Army (NPA).  Just lately though, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front inked a peace covenant with the government which paved the way towards a lasting peace in Mindanao, or at least in the areas where they have a strong presence.  Others still, are just plain criminal elements, or terror groups, or just manifest transgressors of law, peace and security of the nation.  Even then, these groups still do not constitute the entire security threat pie alone.  

With the rapid advancement in the technological sphere, and because of the seeming effortless acquisition of new technology, which are in abundance commercially, and likewise in the thriving black market, enterprising people with motives for gain or terror became easily the newest kids on the crime block.  This new class of security threat had already caught the attention of law enforcement and security forces in most parts of the world.  These so-called cybercrime groups have now reached our country’s shores.  Even our very own Philippine National Police (PNP) admits that the country has now become a “haven for transnational organized crime syndicates involved in cyber pornography, cybersex dens, illegal online gambling, credit card fraud, and identity theft due to weak laws against cyber crimes xxx” (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2011).  These threats need to be addressed through a law or laws intended to  insulate innocent and law-abiding citizens from criminal gangs involved in cybercrimes and identity thieves and by the same token pursue, ferret out and prosecute the latter, if so warranted.

Surely, this cannot be ignored as they have far-reaching implications with respect to the safety and security of the nation as well as with the Philippine economy eventually.  These gangs can be tracked, tailed, subjected to surveillance and ultimately unmasked through a law that has teeth but at the same time tailored according to constitutional precepts to make it palatable to the people at large.  Apparently, it is on this pretext that Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 308, otherwise known as “Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System” had been foisted upon the people that it prompted no less than a sitting Senator of the Republic to question the same, and won his case, in the Court.                 

NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM

            In 1996, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 308. This administrative issuance aims to facilitate transactions of basic government services in all government offices and instrumentalities through a computerized system.  Alongside its primary goal, this order is aimed to reduce bureaucratic red tape, fraudulent transactions, and peripherally, arrest the tide of corruption in government institutions.  At the very least, perhaps. 

Ideally, A.O. No. 308 was intended to rationalize the diverse field of government agencies providing essential services to the general public.  The said order however never realized its potential as it was thumbed down by the Supreme Court in its 1998 ruling in the case of Blas F. Ople v. Ruben Torres, et. al. (G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998).  The Court, speaking through former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, declared Administrative Order No. 308 null and void for being unconstitutional as it violates the right to privacy.  According to the Court, the said AO No. 308 “does not tell us in clear and categorical terms how these information gathered shall be handled. It does not provide who shall control and access the data, under what circumstances and for what purpose. These factors are essential to safeguard the privacy and guaranty the integrity of the information.”

            The proposed National Computerized Identification Reference System could have been a good law were it not for these apprehensions by some parties including the Court.  These apprehensions may still be assuaged though by refining the questioned provisions or through another law that could better explain the same.

But, first things first.  Before we could proceed any further, it is indispensable that we discuss, or at least try to, some of the merits or demerits, the pros as well as the cons, the good side and the bad, the advantages or disadvantages of the National ID system.  By this, we may be able to recognize the possible beauty of the system, more so if it be guaranteed by a fool-proof law. 

Proponents of the system see in the law a tool for easy access by any individual transacting business with or availing of the services of government offices and instrumentalities.  There they appreciate a mechanism to consolidate all available data from every government office into one super-data infrastructure on a national level.  The end result would be that of efficiency in government transactions.  Opponents of the system have a different look however. They see an unlimited potential for abuse or misuse of the system as will prevent, say, identity theft resulting in fraud or fraudulent transactions.  Foremost of these raised fears is the issue of invasion of privacy.  Free societies and democratic institutions want unbridled and unrestrained rights.  They often see State agents getting hold of various information about them as prying into the privacy of their lives.  And they simply do not like living under constant fear of unwarranted intrusion into their private lives.  For one reason or another, these people do not trust the State with much of the data or information that the vast powers of the State may get their hands into.  This is the kind of threat to privacy that the Court has taken into great consideration in Ople v. Torres.  Such threat, the Court declares, “comes from the executive branch of government which by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the people to surrender their privacy by giving information about themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of basic services.  Given the record-keeping power of the computer, only the indifferent fail to perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308 gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens”.  But, is this really the case?  Is this fear unfounded?  Or, is it more apparent than real?  If so, how will the government refine the system to preclude abuse or misuse?  Will it bring more harm than its perceived good?  Alternatively, will it render truth to what the American essayist and cyber libertarian political activist John Perry Barlow has once said that, “[R]elying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds”.   

SUFFICIENT MECHANISM TOWARDS A NATIONAL ID SYSTEM

The government’s setback in the declaration by the Court of the unconstitutionality of Administrative Order No. 308 prompted some legislators to file various bills in both Houses of Congress touching on the revival of the national identification system. These bills however are still pending in either House.  In August 15, 2012, Republic Act 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 was approved into law.  It created a National Privacy Commission composed of experts in the field of information technology and data privacy, to monitor the strict implementation of the provisions of the law in accordance with international standards on data protection and privacy. 

The meat of the said law is the processing of personal information and sensitive personal information and the congruent rights of the person called the data subject.  Thus, there are the rules on access and the possibility of subsequent disclosure to authorized persons only, and key principles on their storage or retention either for scientific, historical, and statistical purposes have been carefully laid out.

The law states in Section 2 thereof, thus, “[T]he State recognizes the vital role of information and communications technology in nation-building and its inherent obligation to ensure that personal information in information and communications systems in the government and in the private sector are secured and protected”.   This policy direction gives, in itself, an assurance of protection to persons whose information or data are gathered or processed for lawful use.

Along this line, the law has set parameters under which the processing of personal information is to be made as well as on how must the personal information controller or processor, as defined in the law, must operate with the end in view of facilitating government services sans any modicum of abuse and without sacrificing the policy objectives of the said law.  First of these is that no information should be processed absent any consent by the data subject.  Another is that subject to some recognized exceptions, the law prohibits the processing of sensitive personal information and privileged information. Parenthetically, exclusionary rule applies rendering inadmissible any evidence gathered on privileged information.

The law likewise spells out the rights of the data subject which include, inter alia, informing a person whether a personal information pertaining to him shall be, is being, or has been processed as well as the methods utilized for automated access if allowed by the data subject.  Clearly, the data subject is given much freedom to exercise his rights under the said law like the right to have reasonable access to every data or information and their attendant circumstances as to rule out any iota of doubt on the processes with which his personal information is/are being handled.  Needless to say, a data subject may even demand that his personal information which are found to be false or are being used for fraudulent purposes be removed from the personal information controller’s filing system.  On this note, the provision on the transmissibility of the rights of the data subject to his lawful heirs and assigns in case of his death or incapacity bears much significance as it entitles the latter an unrestricted privilege to demand the same rights as if it were the data subject himself still enforcing the said rights.   This way, no party in interest could claim a denial of his or his predecessor’s rights under the Data Privacy Law.

Of equal importance also is the provision on the subcontracting the processing of personal information to a third party under Section 14 thereof, viz. the personal information controller ensures proper safeguards to maintain the confidentiality of the processed information.  Evidently, liability falls with the controller.  This requirement diminishes any or all excuses and finger pointing on the part of the responsible persons on account of the subcontracting the processing of personal information should questions of accountability arise in the process.

 

             

DATA PRIVACY LAW:  A SECURITY PERSPECTIVE

It is submitted that the concept of privacy must be understood in the context of what it might mean to the concept of efficiency and security of government services.  This being said, the appropriate question would be:  what must be the general consideration for the right of privacy to concede to some other rights?  What must the citizens of this country contribute to a great extent so that the security of the entire nation is not compromised?  

The concept of security, within a national security perspective, is best brought to the minds of the citizenry that security and safety is both the responsibility of the State and its people.  Thus, in exchange for safety and security in their homes or in their places of work, the citizenry should be able and willing to surrender a certain degree of personal privacy.  An individual’s basic right to privacy is not absolute.  It must be subject to some exigencies, more particularly where the interest of national security demands some sacrifice on the part of all stakeholders therein.  It is not claimed herein that the right to privacy occupies a lower position in the hierarchy of constitutional rights.  It is maintained nonetheless that this right should allow another right to temporarily overtake it with the end in view of cushioning any negative impact to the country’s economic and political maturity. 

Indeed, it takes two to tango.  While arguably it is the government’s responsibility to protect its own citizens and even those aliens who set foot in the country, it is likewise in the best interest of the general welfare that the people should do their share towards that goal by being not so squeamish with regard to their privacy.  For after all, no government survives without an active citizenry, who equally shares the responsibility in fulfilling a secure and safe locality. 

The people should fully put its trust in their government.  After all, if people with not-so-good intentions can attack or compromise the privacy of any individual, why can’t freedom-loving people allow the State or state agents to perform a mandated task with a little interference from themselves.  If in any case, the performance of such task is clothed with legality or made in furtherance of a larger but lawful objective, why not entrust the same to them?  If we had nothing to hide ourselves, then we should not fear the government’s watchful eye.  If we commit no transgression against the government and our fellowmen, then we are assured that our privacy is not being violated even as we sleep.

 It is quite disturbing that we always find fault in everything that the government does and find a weakness in every law that it implements.  Indeed, it amazes me no end To NOT allow the government some elbow room within which to execute its authority and utilize all available resources within constitutional bounds and in the end we cry for the government’s help when it is our turn to become victims of injustice caused by our overzealousness to protect our personal privacy. 

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding any opposition, it is respectfully submitted that now is the time to pursue more vigorously, not only the adoption, but also the full implementation of a national identification reference system as envisioned under the abovementioned administrative order in view of the ever present and persistent threat to the safety and security of the citizens in particular and the politico-economic stability in general.  This may sound to be security paranoia at its best, but I hasten to say that in the current scheme of things, I’d rather that the government or its agents would pry into my not-so private personal data, than those criminal gangs eager to pounce and make a very quick cash on unsuspecting prey like a dyed-in-the-wool civil libertarian but whose intransigence or obstinacy renders him fair game to ill-motivated individuals or groups.    

            Taken in its entirety, I believe that the foregoing considerations relatively provide a sufficient mechanism towards the introduction of a national identification system.  These provisions of the Data Privacy Act afforded the much-needed shot in the arm of the floundering campaign to establish finally an ID system akin to a one-stop-shop. 

            This might not be a panacea, or the cure-all sort of law, but at least we should try it.  And really, that time is now.

REFERENCES:

1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_Wa%C5%82%C4%99sa.  Accessed May 02, 2013.  

2.http://globalnation.inquirer.net/16203/philippines-now-haven-for-transnational-cyber-crime- groups%E2%80%94police. Last accessed May 3, 2013.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Perry_Barlow.    Accessed May 3, 2013.

4.  http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativeorders/administrativeorderno308.html#.UYbzvRcwqUQ . Last      accessed May 3, 2013.

5.   http://www.gov.ph/2012/08/15/republic-act-no-10173/. Last accessed May 3, 2013.

6.   http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jul1998/gr_127685_1998.html

DISCLAIMER: 

           

            The contents of this blog are only the opinions of this writer and are not intended in any way to serve as a legal advice.