Intellectual Property

“My words and my ideas are my property, and I’ll keep and protect them as surely as I do my stable of unicorns.”  ― Jarod Kintz

Intellectual property, very broadly, means the legal rights which result from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary and artistic fields. [i] Countries have laws to protect intellectual property for two main reasons, one is to give statutory expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations, the second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development. [ii]  Generally speaking, intellectual property law aims at safeguarding creators and other producers of intellectual goods and services by granting them certain time-limited rights to control the use made of those productions[iii]

Intellectual property protection in the Philippines is recognized by the Philippine government as vital to the development of domestic and creative activity, facilitates transfer of technology, attracts foreign investments, and ensures market access for our products.[iv]  Republic Act 8293 also known as the  Intellectual Code of the Philippines is the consolidated law of the Philippines that protect the rights of the owners/creators. Many amendments were made in order to fully protect the rights of owners or creators, the most recent one is Republic Act 10372. Some provisions of the old law were either removed or amended in order to improve the law, however these changes creates confusion on the people. Some of the confusions are:

Am I still allowed to import books, DVDs, and CDs from abroad?

Many Filipinos import products which are not available here in our country. Most of these are food, books, DVDs , CDs and the like. One of their reasons is that it is lot more cheaper in abroad than here in our country, another reason is the availability of the products here in the Philippines. Section 190.1 of RA 8293 or the Intellectual Code of the Philippines talks about the importation of copyrighted products here in our country. Under this provision, an individual can import a copy of a work here in the Philippines even without the authorization of the creator, provided that it must for his personal use only. On the other hand section 190.2 of the same law gives the limitation of importation of these products, it says that importation of these products must not infringe the right or violate any rights of the owner of the copyright and doing of this unlawful such act will result to some punishment. However this provision was removed in RA 10372, the repealed law of RA 8293.

            The removal of the provisions creates confusion to the consumers. They think that removal of the provisions prohibits the importation of any copyrighted work here in the Philippines. The framers of the law explain that the removal does not mean prohibition, unless it removes the limitations on the importation of these pieces of work. However the explanation is somewhat contrary to the main purpose of the law. The Intellectual Property Law is created for the protection of the right of the owner or creator of a work, the reckless importation (without limitation in the quantity) will prejudice the right of the creator. On the other hand the  removal of section 190.2 doesn’t mean that violators will be free from punishment if they do acts that will infringe the right of the owner.

Is the reproduction of copyrighted material for personal purposes punishable by this law?

             Nowadays free downloading of music and movies from the internet is the most popular trend. They will download their favorite music in internet and save it in their personal computer or personal player, or some will save or burn it in a CD and make multiple copies. This act is a clear violation of the Economic Right of the owner. Economic Right is the right of the owner/creator that his work will not be reproduced without his authorization or any consent from him. Section 177 of the Intellectual property law provides for the exclusive economic right of the owner. The act of downloading the copyrighted material and reproducing it (even for personal use) prejudice the right of the owner in terms of prejudicing the sale or market consumption of the material. Instead of buying it, people will tend to download it for free or get a copy of the material from someone who download it for free. Downloading it even for non-profit purpose still violate the right of the owner. Let’s say that you download a movie from the internet, you save it in your laptop for your personal viewing  and your friend know that you have the copy of the movie, he asked you for a copy and you gave it to her for free (non-profit), still this is reproduction of the material which is prohibited in section 177 of the law. Reproduction means creating of a copy of the material without the authorization of the owner or the creator. The example above is a clear example of reproduction, which is punishable under this law.

Is the possession of, for example, a music file procured through an infringing activity a violation of this law?

            Downloading of copyrighted materials from the internet  and saving it in your computer and transfer it in your personal player is illegal per se, because this is a clear reproduction of the copyrighted material. The economic right of the owner of materials protects them for illegal reproduction of their work. The possession of the copyrighted material can be a evidence against the person. Section 217.3 of the Intellectual Property law explains that the possession of the material which he knows to be an infringing copy of the work is criminally liable. Even when it is for personal use or for non-profit activities still it is violation of the law. 

            In the amended law, it says that it must be proven that the person has the knowledge of the infringing activity or had the knowledge that the copyrighted material is illegally acquired. The presumption of innocence is still applicable. The person who has the possession of the material must be benefited from it before he can be considered liable.  Here the important factor is the knowledge of the person that the material is from infringement activity.

Is jailbreaking or rooting my phone or device illegal?

            Free applications is the one of many benefits a person can get if he jailbreaked his phone, laptops or other gadgets with operating system.[v] Jailbreak is defined as is the process of removing the limitations on Apple devices running the iOS operating system through the use of software and hardware exploits – such devices include the iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and second generation Apple TV, jailbreaking permits root access to the iOS operating system, allowing the download of additional applications, extensions, and themes that are unavailable through the official Apple App Store.[vi]

Many ipad owners prefer to jailbreak their gadget to avail free applications and programs. The downloading of copyrighted program is the illegal act, not the act of jailbreaking. The act of jailbreaking per se is not illegal, is it a personal choice of the owner in removing the limitations provided by the operating system of the gadget. The main risk of jailbreaking your gadget is the removal of the warranty. Jailbreaking is one kind of Decompilation. Section 185.1 of Intellectual property law describe decompilation as the reproduction of the code and the translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other program. Decompilatin per se is not illegal or may be considered as a fair use of copyrighted work, but the act must not prejudice the right of the owner. One example of this act is that the decompilation must not affect the potential market value of the copyrighted work. Getting free applications is a clear example of this act, the market value of the product is affected, because some gadgets which are jailbreaked can avail the programs free of charged. The illegal act is the downloading of the free application not the jailbreaking of the gadget. Jailbreaking is not a violation of the Intellectual property Law.

Are mall owners liable for infringement activities of their tenants?

An infringer is a person who crosses boundaries without the owner's permission is a trespasser.[vii] In patent law, infringement is a form of trespass, and a person whose product, process, apparatus, or composition infringes the scope of a valid claim is comparable to a trespasser and is called an infringer.[viii]

In cases of owners of the establishment where infringement activities happen, they are not automatically liable. In Republic Act 10372, its says that ,when a mall owner or lessor finds out about an infringement activity, he or she must give notice to the tenant, then he or she will be afforded time to act upon this knowledge, the law requires that one must have both proven knowledge of the infringement, and the ability to control the activities of the infringing person, to be held liable. The mall owner must also have benefitted from the infringement.[ix] One clear example of this the selling of pirated DVDs in malls, mall owners must have the knowledge of the activity, he must give notice to the tenant and have ample time to act upon the knowledge of the illegal activity.

Under the new law, an infringer is also anyone who “benefits from the infringing activity of another person” and if this person “has been given notice of the infringing activity and has the right and ability to control the activities of the other person” or if a person “purposely and with the intent to enable or induce infringement by another person and materially contributes to it.”[x] In the case of a mall owner with a tenant who is selling pirated movies, the Philippine IP Office has explained that for it to be secondarily liable, the mall owner must (1) benefit from the infringing activity; (2) must have been given a notice of the infringing activity and a grace period to address the complaint; and (3) has the right and ability to control the activities of the tenant of who is doing the infringement.[xi]

Knowledge of the illegal act must be proven before an owner can be held liable. Under the Intellectual Property law a claim of innocent infringement is not a defense against a finding of infringement.[xii] An innocent infringer is liable for the infringement, but a court may reduce — or, in some instances, remit altogether he amount of damages[xiii] The burden of proving innocent intent is on the defendant and is a heavy one, the defendant must prove that it did not know and should not have known that its conduct constituted infringement, further, the defendant “must not only establish its good faith belief in the innocence of its conduct, [but] it must also show that it was reasonable in holding such a belief.”[xiv]

The secondary liability provision can affect third-party business providers such as mall owners, concert, event organizers, and bazaar operators. It can also have an impact on the business of online intermediaries operating in the Philippines such as hosting providers and peer-to-peer file sharing websites.[xv]

Is it legal for the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to visit businesses to conduct searches based on reports, information, and complaints?

            Due process of law is a Swiss knife that an individual use against the Police power of the state. It is the safeguard of the people from the arbitrary use of the power of the government. One fundamental right of the people is not to be arrested without warrant of arrest or not to be searched without search warrant or any valuable reason, however this is not absolute.

Warrantless search is allowed in our country provided that it must not infringe the right of person to due process of law. Our constitution provides circumstances where in a warantless search can be made. One example of this is the warrantless search in customs, where all the imported products are being examined before it can enter the Philippines market. Many copyrighted products enter into our market, like computers, ipad, dvds and other materials. These products are being examined in customs, to make sure that it is legally transported here in the Philippines.

  The amended law of RA 8293 broaden the power of the Intellectual Property Office to conduct warrantless search based on reports and complaints. The IPO may visit establishments based on reports and complaints; this in itself is constitutional, however, if the IPO intends to perform a search and seizure, it must comply with constitutional requirements, such as having a search warrant. [xvi]

---

[i]  WIPO, 2004. Citing Websites. In  Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. Retrieved May 19, 2013 from http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch1.pdf

[ii] ibid

[iii] ibid

[iv] Citing website. In Wikipedia: Intellectual Property. Retrieved May 19, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_Philippines

[v] Citing Website. In Wikipedia : Jailbreaking. Retrieved May 20, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking

[vi] ibid

[vii]Citing Website. In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 20,2013 from  http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_infringement

[viii] Citing website. Retrieved May 19, 2013 from  http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i040.htm

[ix]  Estavillo, Maricel. March 7,2013. In Tech meets IP : Copyright infringement under the new IP law . Retrieved May 20,2013 from http://www.interaksyon.com/infotech/copyright-infringement-under-the-new-ip-law

[x] ibid

[xi] ibid

[xii] Citing Website. In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 20,2013 from  http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_infringement

[xiii] ibid

[xiv] ibid

[xv] Estavillo, Maricel. March 7,2013. In Tech meets IP : Copyright infringement under the new IP law . Retrieved May 20,2013 from http://www.interaksyon.com/infotech/copyright-infringement-under-the-new-ip-law

[xvi]Citing Website. In Official Gazette. Retrieved May 20, 2013 from  http://www.gov.ph/2013/03/11/infographic-faqs-on-the-amendments-to-the-intellectual-property-code-of-the-philippines/
 
DISCLAIMER:  Please note that this article is for general information and educational purposes only. All articles contained here in this website are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of any member of the bar, my school or any other organization that I may or may not be affiliated with or connected to. In accordance with the law, this is not intended to constitute legal advice, and nothing in the articles or comments should be taken as such.

Insights: Privacy, Free will of the People

“Civilization is the process of setting man free from men” – Ayn Rand

"Privacy" is defined as the state of being private. Private derives from privatus, Latin for belonging to oneself, not public or pertaining to the state. It is the right to separate oneself from, or to unite with, others-the right to exclude or include-by one's own voluntary choice. [i]The Right of person to be left alone is traced way way back in history, it is considered as the most fundamental right of every person. It is the right to separate oneself from, or to unite with, others-the right to exclude or include-by one's own voluntary choice. All rights are moral principles that sanction the individual's ability to act upon private choices in a public or social context-free from violent interference.[ii]  In an article entitled “The Right of Privacy”[iii] done in Harvard Review it states that “in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the "right to life" served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession -- intangible, as well as tangible.” This specifically discusses the true meaning of true freedom and privacy. In the Philippines this means free from illegal and inhumane intrusion from the government, from every sector that will infringe the right of privacy. It is true that no man is an island, in one point of individual’s life he needs to be with someone and to blend with other to attain development. But this must not be reason to infringe one’s right to be left alone in his personal life or personal choice. Ours is a country of freedom, country of people’s will. Government is run by the people not the other way around. People have their own free will to make their own choices. But when such rights are "being evaded, denied, negated and violated by the dominant philosophical theories and political practices of our time," it is no wonder that so much confusion surrounds the concept of privacy. [iv]  

In the world of progress and advancement, technology plays a big role in the evolution of our society towards economic stability. Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the new demands of society, [v] these developments of the law was inevitable. [vi] Running a government is no easy task. Law enforcement, service delivery and social security benefits availment entail voluminous documents that have compelled states to devise tools that simplify and manage these tasks.[vii] These changes give reason for the government to act and create laws for the protection and development of our society, one example of this is the creation of the National Identification System. Mandatory nationwide identification systems have been implemented in a number of countries including Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Germany, Italy, Peru and Spain. While these schemes vary by country, individuals are typically assigned an ID number, which is used for a broad range of identification purposes.[viii]  The concept of a national identification system was first instituted in countries with populations coming from diverse ethnic groups. The idea was to use the ID as a means of identifying people of a certain race, politics or religion.[ix] In the Philippines it is introduced to provide Filipino citizens and foreign residents with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic service and social security providers and other government instrumentalities.[x] The creation of this law will help the government and also the citizen to transact business, this law requires a computerized system to properly and efficiently identify persons seeking basic services on social security and reduce, if not totally eradicate fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations.[xi] This will help our country to be globally competitive in other countries. In other countries, the adoption of an Identification System has provided a useful tool in minimizing, if not eradicating, bureaucratic red tape.[xii] Red tape is the delaying in the processing of documents and transactions which is very usual to our country. According to the framers of this administrative act, this will help our country in many aspects. But in exchange of this progress the right of people in their privacy must be surrendered in the government. Historically, national ID systems have been used to discriminate against people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and political views.[xiii] It is true that privacy may be voluntary sacrificed , normally in exchange for perceived benefits and very often with specific dangers and losses, although this is a very strategic view of human relations.[xiv] But this should not be used as a weapon against the people who are true owner of their freedom. The promulgation of the Identification System will ask the people to make some of their private information to put in public, like their address, name and other important information. In broad terms, a national identification (ID) system is a mechanism used by governments to assist public agencies in identifying and verifying the identities of citizens who are availing of government services or making public transactions.[xv] National identity systems present difficult choices about who can request to see an ID card and for what purpose. Mandatory IDs significantly expand police powers. Police with the authority to demand ID is invariably granted the power to detain people who cannot produce one. Many countries lack legal safeguards to prevent abuse of this power.[xvi] It requires systematic invasions of people's privacy-through regulations and prohibitions of their associations, or by outright surveillance of their peaceful activities.[xvii]

Civil libertarians and human rights activists reject the idea of a national ID card based on three reasons: “functionality creep,” the potential for misuse due to identity fraud, and the privacy issue. [xviii]According to human rights activists, an ID system can be a double-edged sword because it can suffer from “functionality creep” which means it can serve purposes other than its original intent. Thus, even if the original rationale for an ID system is simply to cut government red tape, a government may eventually use it as a mechanism for repression against political opponents or to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.[xix] Mandatory national ID cards violate essential civil liberties. They increase the power of authorities to reduce your freedoms to those granted by the card.[xx]

In line with these threats some people ask for the nullification of the said administrative order. In the particular case of Ople vs Torres [xxi] they specifically discussed the harm that will be done if this national id system will be implemented. In this case they said the threat comes from the executive branch of government which by issuing Administrative Order. 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 Administrative Order No. 308 gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens. [xxii] It is further discussed that  Administrative Order. No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal information which will be gathered about our people will only be processed for unequivocally specified purposes.  The lack of proper safeguards in this regard of  Administrative Order No. 308 may interfere with the individual's liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities to track down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous persons to access confidential information and circumvent the right against self-incrimination; it may pave the way for "fishing expeditions" by government authorities and evade the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.  [xxiii]

In order to answer controversies surrounding the said Administrative order the government seek another  remedy to answer these shortcomings, this lead them to create a new law, the  Republic act no. 10173 also known as the “ Data Privacy Act of 20112”.  This law is passed to make sure the protection of the personal information of the people. This will help to answer all the gray areas and weakness of the National Identification system.    This was approved by President Benigno Aquino Jr. last August 15, 2012. It is an act protecting individual personal information in Information and Communication System in the Government and Private Sector, creating for this purpose a National Privacy Commission and for other purposes. The National Privacy Commission will administer and implement the provisions of this Act and to monitor and ensure compliance of the country with International Standard sets for data protection and the scope of this law is applies to the processing of all types of personal information and to any natural or juridical person involved in personal information processing including those personal information controllers and processors who, although not found in the Philippines.[xxiv]  It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justifies such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions.

It is true that the government found a good way to answers all the questions and doubts circulating the implementation of the National Identification system by adopting the new law (RA 10173), however Ra 10173 will not provide sufficient mechanism to the introduction of National Identification System in the Philippines. There are also many vague and gray areas in this law that will not protect the right of the people in their privacy. Many of the sections of the law gives the reader more questions about the law itself, one clear example is section 3 (b) of the law, it talks about the “Consent of the data Subject”. It states that the consent must be freely given, it must be in writing and authorized, it may also be given in behalf of the data subject by an agent. The big question is what about forgery? How can they make sure that the written authorization is not forged? If this will happen, the consent is not freely given and against the will of the person. Also in the use of the National Identification System the government will use the advent of biometrics and microchips technology also has profound implications. Critics argue that the potential for abuse and invasion of privacy is even greater with the use of biometrics since it is vulnerable to identity fraud.[xxv] The citizen is no longer in control of his personal information. [xxvi] It is clear that mere consent will suffice to get information but what about if the information is transferred from one person to another, section 17 (Transmissibility of Rights of the data Subject) of the law answers the question of transferability, but how can they prove the authenticity of the consent of the transferred information? How they can disapprove the use of the information if the information is already transferred and out of their hands? These questions alone are clear violation of the right of privacy. The transfer of personal information without consent is a clear infringement of their right to be left alone. Another big question about the process of the personal information that was discussed in section 8 of the same law, it says that it shall be allowed subject to compliance and it must be collected for specific purpose. Who will decide if the purpose is legitimate? How can they tell that this purpose is legitimate and not be used for some other illegitimate purpose? Section 13 talks about the Sensitive Personal Information and Privileged Information, again the question is how can they make sure that these information are secured and not to be used in wrong purpose? What is the scope of the word “specific purpose”?  To what extent this purpose will be used that will not be a violation of the right of the person in their privacy? How can the government make sure that the information in their hands are safe and be only used in legitimate purpose?

The advocates of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 said that the new law is expected to strengthen the country's booming Information Technology-Business Process Outsourcing (IT-BPO) industry, as it makes Philippine legislation in line with international data privacy standards. The measure will allow the industry to expand in other segments such as healthcare and HR outsourcing.[xxvii] From a technical perspective it will encourage companies in our sector to strengthen existing security protocols and further deter any attempts at data theft.  More likely, this is the best practice in the IT-BPO industry that will ensure that the Philippines remains competitive and in fact leads breakthrough initiatives for the industry. [xxviii] Section 4 of the said law  discusses that it applies to personal information controllers and processors who, although not found or established in the Philippines, use equipment that are located in the Philippines, or those who maintain an office, branch or agency in the Philippines. But what if the perpetrators are those not found in the Philippines neither uses equipment that are located in the country and do not maintain an office, branch or agency in the Philippines? Are they exempted even though they are processing personal information of a Filipino citizen? Section 6 (Extraterritorial Application) of the law answers this question, however it has also weakness or loophole. This particular section discusses that the law will only apply to entities that has link or, in any other way, has connection with our country, the Philippines. So, for example, when an entity that has no link in the Philippines processes personal information about a Filipino citizen they will not have recourse, another infringement of privacy.

           

Data Privacy Act provides penalties to its perpetuators or violators. Chapter 8 of the law provides for the penalties for the Unauthorized Processing of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information (Section 25), Accessing Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information Due to Negligence (Section 26), Improper Disposal of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal information (Section 27) and other violations of the law. Violators and perpetuators are penalized by imprisonment and fines, hence, it makes the law a special penal law. If a person’s right to privacy was violated by virtue of this law and all the necessary pieces of evidence are electronic evidence, then how can that person support his allegation? The Rules on Electronic Evidence specifically states in its section 2 that it shall only apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases. The victims have no other recourse because they do not have enough evidence to support their allegations. How they can protect their right if doesn’t have any evidence that will support their allegations?

            From the preceding paragraphs, it discusses the loopholes or the weakness and vagueness of the said law. In simplest term the implementation of the new law will not be sufficient enough to protect the fundamental right of privacy of the people. The introduction of National Identification System will be a violation of the right  of the people to be left alone.  The Constitution specifically protects the people from all possible intrusion to its private life. As a counterweight to the great powers of the government, the Bill of Rights would pose a constant standard of measurement to determine the validity of any government act which may limit rights and liberties, or intrude into privacies of persons, or otherwise impair their freedom. [xxix] As the Supreme Court rule in the Case of Ople vs Torres[xxx]. “The concept of limited government has always included the idea that governmental powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. This is indeed one of the basic distinctions between absolute and limited government. Ultimate and pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the absolute state. In contrast, a system of limited government safeguards a private sector, which belongs to the individual, firmly distinguishing it from the public sector, which the state can control. Protection of this private sector — protection, in other words, of the dignity and integrity of the individual — has become increasingly important as modern society has developed. All the forces of a technological age — industrialization, urbanization, and organization — operate to narrow the area of privacy and facilitate intrusion into it. In modern terms, the capacity to maintain and support this enclave of private life marks the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society.”  There are many other ways to be globally competitive and attain development without putting the right of the people in stake. The government must be the one who protect its citizen from any harm, not the government itself that will take away this freedom from its citizens.

            Philippines is a progressing country, it is in the stage that many opportunities lies ahead for its development. The main weapon of our country to be globally competitive is the people itself, the Filipino Citizen. Like Ayn Rand said, Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men[xxxi], towards development, men must be free to make its own will, to make decisions in itself, their right to think on their own. . It was a requirement of human cognition and civilization. [xxxii] Government must see that taking the freedom from the people to attain development is not the right way, it will only create more problems that answers.

The world may change and technological and scientific advances may alter the way the government observes and monitors its citizens and other persons, the manner it interacts with them, or simply the modes and forms by which it conducts its business[xxxiii]. New threats to society may be posed by modern means of communications and transportation and other gizmos, all of which may necessitate corresponding changes and updates in the government arsenal needed to safeguard society and to maintain order[xxxiv] but this must not be a reason to take away such liberty from its citizens, the liberty to be left alone and the freedom from unwarranted governmental intrusions into private enclaves [xxxv]

---

[i] Sciabarra, Chris. (n.d). Citing Websites. In Privacy and Civilization. Retrived May 4, 2013, from http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/58/Privacy.php

[ii] ibid

[iii] Warren and Brandeis, December 15, 1890, Citing Websites. In The Right To Privacy. Retrived May 4, 2013, from  http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

[iv] Sciabarra, Chris. (n.d). Citing Websites. In Privacy and Civilization. Retrived May 4, 2013, from http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/58/Privacy.php

[v] Warren and Brandeis, December 15, 1890, Citing Websites. In The Right To Privacy. Retrived May 4, 2013, from  http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

[vi] ibid

[vii]Senate Economic Planning Office, December 2005, Citing Websites. In Policy Insights: National Identification System: Do we need one? Retrieved May 4,2013 from http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PI%202005-12%20-%20National%20Identification%20System%20-%20Do%20We%20Need%20One.pdf

[viii] Electronic Frontier Foundation, (n.d). Citing Websites. In Mandatory National IDs and Biometric Databases. Retrived may 4,2013, from  https://www.eff.org/issues/national-ids

[ix] Senate Economic Planning Office, December 2005, Citing Websites. In Policy Insights: National Identification System: Do we need one? Retrieved May 4,2013 from http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PI%202005-12%20-%20National%20Identification%20System%20-%20Do%20We%20Need%20One.pdf

[x]Citing website. In Chan Robles Virtual library. Retrieved May 4,2013  from http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativeorders/administrativeorderno308.html

[xi] Ibid

[xii] Senate Economic Planning Office, December 2005, Citing Websites. In Policy Insights: National Identification System: Do we need one? Retrieved May 4,2013 from http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PI%202005-12%20-%20National%20Identification%20System%20-%20Do%20We%20Need%20One.pdf

[xiii] Electronic Frontier Foundation, (n.d). Citing Websites. In Mandatory National IDs and Biometric Databases. Retrived may 4,2013, from  https://www.eff.org/issues/national-ids

[xiv] Citing Website. In Wikipedia: Privacy. Retrieved May 4,2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

[xv] Senate Economic Planning Office, December 2005, Citing Websites. In Policy Insights: National Identification System: Do we need one? Retrieved May 4,2013 from http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PI%202005-12%20-%20National%20Identification%20System%20-%20Do%20We%20Need%20One.pdf

[xvi]Electronic Frontier Foundation, (n.d). Citing Websites. In Mandatory National IDs and Biometric Databases. Retrived may 4,2013, from  https://www.eff.org/issues/national-ids

[xvii] Sciabarra, Chris. (n.d). Citing Websites. In Privacy and Civilization. Retrived May 4, 2013, from http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/58/Privacy.php

[xviii] Senate Economic Planning Office, December 2005, Citing Websites. In Policy Insights: National Identification System: Do we need one? Retrieved May 4,2013 from http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PI%202005-12%20-%20National%20Identification%20System%20-%20Do%20We%20Need%20One.pdf

[xix] Ibid

[xx] Electronic Frontier Foundation, (n.d). Citing Websites. In Mandatory National IDs and Biometric Databases. Retrived may 4,2013, from  https://www.eff.org/issues/national-ids

[xxi] Citing Websites. In The Lawphil Project. Retrived May 4,2013 from http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jul1998/gr_127685_1998.html

[xxii] Ibid

[xxiii] ibid

[xxiv] GbSb, (n.d), Citing Websites. In What is RA 10173 or Data Privacy Act of 2012 - Scope and Penalties,  Retrived May 4, 2013 from http://gb-sb.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-is-ra-10173-or-data-privacy-act-of.html

[xxv] Senate Economic Planning Office, December 2005, Citing Websites. In Policy Insights: National Identification System: Do we need one? Retrieved May 4,2013 from http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PI%202005-12%20-%20National%20Identification%20System%20-%20Do%20We%20Need%20One.pdf

[xxvi]  Ibid

[xxvii] Leal, Michelle Reijinia. December 7, 2012. Citing Websites. In Personal : RA 10173 Data Privacy Act. Retrieved May 4, 2013 from http://michelleleal10.blogspot.com/2012/12/ra-10173-data-privacy-act.html

[xxviii] Ibid

[xxix] Gorospe, Rene, (2006) Constitutional Law Notes and readinds on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and suffrage, Volume 1,  page 62

[xxx]  Citing Websites. In The Lawphil Project. Retrived May 4,2013 from http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jul1998/gr_127685_1998.html

[xxxi] Sciabarra, Chris. (n.d). Citing Websites. In Privacy and Civilization. Retrived May 4, 2013, from http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/58/Privacy.php

[xxxii] Ibid

[xxxiii] Gorospe, Rene, (2006) Constitutional Law Notes and readinds on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and suffrage, Volume 1,  page 650

[xxxiv] ibid

[xxxv] ibid

DISCLAIMER:  Please note that this article is for general information and educational purposes only. All articles contained here in this website are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of any member of the bar, my school or any other organization that I may or may not be affiliated with or connected to. In accordance with the law, this is not intended to constitute legal advice, and nothing in the articles or comments should be taken as such.