Batas IT

Telecommunications in the Philippines

2007-08-17T19:46:00.000-07:00

Republic Act No. 7925 otherwise known as the Public Telecommunications Policy of the Philippines sets the framework in the regulation of public telecommunications in the country. Among others, the law provides the following:

Sec. 3. Definitions and Interpretations. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be used:
a) Telecommunications - any process which enables a telecommunications entity to relay and receive voice, data, electronic messages, written or printed matter, fixed or moving pictures, words, music or visible or audible signals or any control signals of any design and for any purpose by wire, radio or other electromagnetic, spectral, optical, or technological means.

b) Public telecommunications entity - any person, firm, partnership or corporation, government or private, engaged in the provision of telecommunications services to the public for compensation.
x x x
Sec. 16. Franchise. - No person shall commence or conduct the business of being a public telecommunications entity without first obtaining a franchise.
The Commission, in granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), may impose such conditions as to duration and termination of the privilege, concession, or standard or technical aspects of the equipment, rates, or service, not contrary to the terms of the franchise. In no case, however, shall the CPCN be shorter than five (5) years, nor longer than the life of the franchise. A CPCN expiring at the same time as the franchise shall be deemed to have been renewed for the same term if the franchise itself is also renewed or extended.

Limits to foreign ownership in public utilities, others

2007-08-17T18:59:00.000-07:00

In relation to information technology, it is important to note the following sections of Article 12 (National Economy and Patrimony) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. sets (or allows Congress to provide) limits on foreign ownership and participation in certain industries like telecommunications and broadcasting.

SEC. 10.
The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities.

SEC. 11.
No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.

Electronic Procurement in the Philippines

2007-08-05T06:45:00.000-07:00

Following the mandate provided in the E-Commerce Act, Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform Act, provides for the procurement of common supplies electronically from a common portal known as G-EPS or PhilGEPS. The service is now one of the few examples of government transactions done electronically. Below are the relevant sections of the GPRA.

ARTICLE III
Procurement by Electronic Means
Sec. 8. Procurement By Electronic Means. — To promote transparency and efficiency, information and communications technology shall be utilized in the conduct of procurement procedures. Accordingly, there shall be a single portal that shall serve as the primary source of information on all government procurement. The G-EPS shall serve as the primary and definitive source of information on government procurement. Further, the GPPB is authorized to approve changes in the procurement process to adapt to improvements in modern technology, provided that such modifications are consistent with the provisions of Sec. 3 of this Act.

To take advantage of the significant built-in efficiencies of the G-EPS and the volume discounts inherent in bulk purchasing, all Procuring Entities shall utilize the G-EPS for the procurement of common supplies in accordance with the rules and procedures to be established by the GPPB. With regard to the procurement of non-common use items, infrastructure projects and consulting services, agencies may hire service providers to undertake their electronic procurement provided these service providers meet the minimum requirements set by the GPPB.

Sec. 9. Security, Integrity and Confidentiality. — The G-EPS shall ensure the security, integrity and confidentiality of documents submitted through the system. It shall include a feature that provides for an audit trail for on-line transactions and allow the Commission on Audit to verify the security and integrity of the systems at any time.

The RPWeb and Electronic Governance

2007-08-02T06:19:00.000-07:00

The E-Commerce Act also called for the installation of an electronic network to be known as the RPWeb and designed to facilitate the open, speedy and efficient electronic transmission, conveyance and use of electronic documents among all government agencies. While this mandate remains to be not fully implemented, this became basis for the use of electronic procurement in government as provided under Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform Act. Read the relevant provision of the E-Commerce Act below:

Sec. 28. RPWEB To Promote the Use Of Electronic Documents and Electronic Data Messages In Government and to the General Public - Within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, there shall be installed an electronic online network in accordance with Administrative Order 332 and House of Representatives Resolution 890, otherwise known as RPWEB, to implement Part IV of this Act to facilitate the open, speedy and efficient electronic online transmission, conveyance and use of electronic data messages or electronic documents amongst all government departments, agencies, bureaus, offices down to the division level and to the regional and provincial offices as practicable as possible, government owned and controlled corporations, local government units, other public instrumentalities, universities, colleges and other schools, and universal access to the general public. The RPWEB network shall serve as initial platform of the government information infrastructure (GII) to facilitate the electronic online transmission and conveyance of government services to evolve and improve by better technologies or kinds of electronic online wide area networks utilizing, but not limited to, fiber optic, satellite, wireless and other broadband telecommunication mediums or modes. To facilitate the rapid development of the GII, the Department of Transportation and Communications, National Telecommunications Commission and the National Computer Center are hereby directed to aggressively promote and implement a policy environment and regulatory or non-regulatory framework that shall lead to the substantial reduction of costs of including, but not limited to, lease lines, land, satellite and dial-up telephone access, cheap broadband and wireless accessibility by government departments, agencies, bureaus, offices, government owned and controlled corporations, local government units, other public instrumentalities and the general public, to include the establishment of a government website portal and a domestic internet exchange system to facilitate strategic access to government and amongst agencies thereof and the general public and for the speedier flow of locally generated internet traffic within the Philippines.

The physical infrastructure of cable and wireless systems for cable TV and broadcast excluding programming and content and the management thereof shall be considered as within the activity of telecommunications for the purpose of electronic commerce and to maximize the convergence of ICT in the installation of the GII.

Electronic documents as evidence

2007-07-27T20:24:00.000-07:00

Under Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the subject of an inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the document itself, except of course in certain cases. The difficulty comes in when this rule is applied to electronic documents. The E-Commerce Act tried to address this with Section 10 of the law but the standing rule now is contained in the Rules on Electronic Evidence promulgated by the Supreme Court on 20 July 2001 and made effective on 1 August 2001. Among others, the Rules provide:

Rule 3, Section 2. An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules

Rule 4, Section 1. An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately.

Rule 4, Section 2. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the equivalent of the original.

Computer programs as copyright

2007-07-09T06:47:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not, the Philippines is actually one of the first few countries to give express protection to computer programs from the moment of creation. Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 49, promulgated on November 14, 1972 and entitled as the Decree on Intellectual Property, specifically listed "computer programs" as among the protected classes of works over which the creator had exclusive rights. That was just a little over a year after the declaration of Martial Law, a time when the term "computer" was still alien to many.

The same protection under Presidential Decree No. 49 remains under Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Below is the relevant section of the latter law:

SEC. 172. Literary and Artistic Works

172.1 Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works", are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in particular:

(a) Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings;

(b) Periodicals and newspapers;

(c) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery, whether or not reduced in writing or other material form;

(d) Letters;

(e) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works or entertainment in dumb shows;

(f) Musical compositions, with or without words;

(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art;

(h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of applied art;

(i) Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science;

(j) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;

(k) Photographic works including works produced by a process analogous to photography; lantern slides;

(l) Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings;

(m) Pictorial illustrations and advertisements;

(n) Computer programs; and

(o) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose.

Penal provisions of the E-Commerce Act

2007-07-08T08:59:00.000-07:00

One of the most important features of the E-Commerce Act is that it provided a penalty on "hacking"or "cracking". It addressed the absence or lack of an applicable law which investigators of the ILOVEYOU virus incident had to face. Unfortunately, the law also provided a penalty for "piracy" which in one forum Business Software Alliance (BSA) lawyers interpreted as in addition to the penalties imposed in Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. It is unfortunate because the penal provision does not seem to incorporate the fair use exception provided under the IP Code. Below are the penal provisions:

SEC. 33. Penalties. - The following Acts shall be penalized by fine and/or imprisonment, as follows:

(a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices, without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption, destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic document shall be punished by a minimum fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;

(b) Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction, dissemination, distribution, importation, use, removal, alteration, substitution, modification, storage, uploading, downloading, communication, making available to the public, or broadcasting of protected material, electronic signature or copyrighted works including legally protected sound recordings or phonograms or information material on protected works, through the use of telecommunication networks, such as, but not limited to, the internet, in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights shall be punished by a minimum fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;

(c) Violations of the Consumer Act or Republic Act No. 7394 and other relevant or pertinent laws through transactions covered by or using electronic data messages or electronic documents, shall be penalized with the same penalties as provided in those laws;
(d) Other violations of the provisions of this Act, shall be penalized with a maximum penalty of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or six (6) years imprisonment.

Electronic Signatures in the E-Commerce Act

2007-07-08T08:39:00.000-07:00

The Electronic Commerce Act not only recognizes that "(E)lectronic documents shall have the legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing", it also provides that an electronic signature, as defined in the law, "shall be equivalent to the signature of person on a written document". Below are the relevant sections of the law:

Sec. 8. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures. - An electronic signature on the electronic document shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written document if that signature is proved by showing that a prescribed procedure, not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic document, existed under which -

(a) A method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and toindicate said party’s access to the electronic document necessary for his consent or approval through the electronic signature;

(b) Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic document was generated or communicated, in the light of all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement;

(c) It is necessary for the party sought to be bound, in order to proceed further with the transaction, to have executed or provided the electronic signature; and

(d) The other party is authorized and enabled to verify the electronic signature and to make the decision to proceed with the transaction authenticated by the same.

Sec. 9. Presumption Relating to Electronic Signatures. - In any proceedings involving an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that -

(a) The electronic signature is the signature of the person to whom itcorrelates; and
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of signing or approving the electronic document unless the person relying on the electronically signed electronic document knows or has notice of defects in or unreliability of the signature or reliance on the electronic signature is not reasonable under the circumstances.

The Electronic Commerce Act of 2000

2007-07-04T15:12:00.000-07:00

On June 14, 2000, then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada enacted into law the Philippine Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. The law, which was in response to the clamor of the IT industry, was designed to facilitate domestic and international transactions, recognize the authenticity and reliability of electronic documents, and to promote universal use of electronic transactions in the government and by the general public. Below are the sections of the Act on the recognition of electronic documents.

CHAPTER II

LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC WRITING
OR DOCUMENT AND DATA MESSAGES

Sec. 6. Legal Recognition of Data Messages. - Information shall not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the data message purporting to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is merely referred to in that electronic data message.

Sec. 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents. – Electronic documents shall have the legal effect, validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing, and -

(a) Where the law requires a document to be in writing, that requirement is met by an electronic document if the said electronic document maintains its integrity and reliability and can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference, in that -

(i) The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and any authorized change, or any change which arises in the normal course of communication, storage and display; and

(ii) The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

(b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the document not being presented or retained in its original form.chanrobles law firm

(c) Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original form, that requirement is met by an electronic document if -

(i) There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time when it was first generated in its final form; and

(ii) That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented: Provided, That no provision of this Act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing laws on formalities required in the execution of documents for their validity.

For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws.
This Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data messages or electronic documents, except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence.

Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998

2007-07-04T14:42:00.000-07:00

Do you still remember the ILOVEYOU virus? (See a report by CNN here) A virus later on found to have been written by a Filipino student/programmer, Onel de Guzman, wreaked havoc across the globe in the early part of 2000. With the help of foreign experts, the Philippine National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) identified the perpetrator but didn't know what to charge him with. At that time, there was no law yet penalizing "hacking".

For a while they used this law, the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, for the reason that the program is designed to steal passwords. The law, Section 9 (Prohibited Acts) of which is found below, was meant to "protect the rights and define the liablilities of parties in such commercial transactions by regulating the issuance and use of access devices" like automated teller machine cards (ATMs). Later on, the NBI, or was it the Department of Justice (DOJ), decided the law could not be used.

Sec. 9. Prohibited Acts. — The following acts shall constitute access device fraud and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) producing, using, trafficking in one or more counterfeit access devices;

(b) trafficking in one or more unauthorized access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for;

(c) using, with intent to defraud, an unauthorized access device;

(d) using an access device fraudulently applied for;

(e) possessing one or more counterfeit access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for;

(f) producing, trafficking in, having control or custody of, or possessing device-making or altering equipment without being in the business or employment, which lawfully deals with the manufacture, issuance, or distribution of such equipment;

(g) inducing, enticing, permitting or in any manner allowing another, for consideration or otherwise to produce, use, traffic in counterfeit access devices, unauthorized access devices or access devices fraudulently applied for;

(h) multiple imprinting on more than one transaction record, sales slip or similar document, thereby making it appear that the device holder has entered into a transaction other than those which said device holder had lawfully contracted for, or submitting, without being an affiliated merchant, an order to collect from the issuer of the access device, such extra sales slip through an affiliated merchant who connives therewith, or, under false pretenses of being an affiliated merchant, present for collection such sales slips, and similar documents;

(i) disclosing any information imprinted on the access device, such as, but not limited to, the account number or name or address of the device holder, without the latter's authority or permission;

(j) obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device, with intent to defraud or with intent to gain and fleeing thereafter;

(k) having in one's possession, without authority from the owner of the access device or the access device company, an access device, or any material, such as slips, carbon paper, or any other medium, on which the access device is written, printed, embossed, or otherwise indicated;

(l) writing or causing to be written on sales slips, approval numbers from the issuer of the access device of the fact of approval, where in fact no such approval was given, or where, if given, what is written is deliberately different from the approval actually given;

(m) making any alteration, without the access device holder's authority, of any amount or other information written on the sales slip;

(n) effecting transaction, with one or more access devices issued to another person or persons, to receive payment or any other thing of value;

(o) without the authorization of the issuer of the access device, soliciting a person for the purpose of:

1) offering an access device; or

2) selling information regarding or an application to obtain an access device; or

(p) without the authorization of the credit card system member or its agent, causing or arranging for another person to present to the member or its agent, for payment, one or more evidence or records of transactions made by credit card.

SC on the right to information

2007-07-02T07:58:00.000-07:00

In the matter of the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus of Camilo L. Sabio, Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government or PCGG (G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006), the Philippine Supreme Court again had occasion to explain at length the significance of the constitutional provision on the right to information. See the relevant text below:

Corollarily, Section 4(b) also runs counter to the following constitutional provisions ensuring the people’s access to information:

Article II, Section 28

Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

Article III, Section 7

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to enable them to exercise effectively their constitutional rights. Armed with the right information, citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. In Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr.[27] the Court explained that an informed citizenry is essential to the existence and proper functioning of any democracy, thus:

An essential element of these freedoms is to keep open a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people. It is in the interest of the State that the channels for free political discussion be maintained to the end that the government may perceive and be responsive to the people’s will. Yet, this open dialogue can be effective only to the extent that the citizenry is informed and thus able to formulate its will intelligently. Only when the participants in the discussion are aware of the issues and have access to information relating thereto can such bear fruit.
x x x

In other words, the right to information really goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and honesty in the public service. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in the government.[28] The cases of Tañada v. Tuvera[29] and Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission[30] have recognized a citizen’s interest and personality to enforce a public duty and to bring an action to compel public officials and employees to perform that duty.
x x x
To the extent that investigations in aid of legislation are generally conducted in public, however, any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in such investigations necessarily deprives the people of information which, being presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public concern. The citizens are thereby denied access to information which they can use in formulating their own opinions on the matter before Congress – opinions which they can then communicate to their representatives and other government officials through the various legal means allowed by their freedom of expression.

Limits to your access to public documents

2007-07-01T12:42:00.000-07:00

Despite what appears to be an "all" encompassing language used in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6713, the Implementing Rules adopted by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) was quick to set certain exceptions. This rule, qouted below, now governs access to public documents in any government agency in the country.

Rule IV

Transparency of Transactions and Access to Information

Section 1. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

Section 2. it is the responsibility of heads of departments, offices and agencies to establish measures and standards that will ensure transparency of and openness in public transactions in their respective offices, such as biddings, purchases, other internal transactions, including contracts, status of projects, and all other matters involving public interest.

They shall establish information systems that will inform the public of the following: (a) policies, rules, and procedures; (b) work programs, projects, and performance targets; (c) performance reports; and (d) all other documents as may hereafter be classified as public information.

Such information shall be utilized solely for the purpose of informing the public of such policies, programs and accomplishment, and not to build the public image of any official or employee or to advance his own personal interest.

Section 3. Every department, office or agency shall provide official information, records or documents to any requesting public, except if:

(a) such information, record or document must be kept secret in the interest of national defense or security or the conduct of foreign affairs.

(b) such disclosure would put the life and safety of an individual in imminent danger;

(c) the information, record or document sought falls within the concepts of established privilege or recognized exceptions as may be provided by law or settled policy or jurisprudence;

(d) such information, record or document compromises drafts or decisions, orders, rulings, policy, decisions, memoranda, etc;

(e) it would disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(f) it would disclose investigatory records complied for law enforcement purposes, or information which if written would be contained in such records or information would (I) interfere with enforcement proceedings, (ii) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (iii) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, or (iv) unjustifiably disclose investigative techniques and procedures; or

(g) it would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would (I) in the case of a department, office or agency which agency regulates currencies, securities, commodities, of financial institutions, be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in currencies, securities, or commodities or significantly endanger the stability of any financial institution, or (ii) in the case of any department, office or agency be likely or significantly to frustrate implementation of a proposed official action, except that subparagraph (f) (ii) shall not apply in any instance where the department, office or agency has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action, or where the department, office or agency is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final official action on such proposal.

Section 4. Every head of department, office and agency shall establish information systems and networks that will effect the widest possible dissemination of information regarding the provisions of the Code, and the policies and programs relative thereto.

Access to public documents

2007-07-01T06:19:00.000-07:00

Republlic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, provides for certain duties of public officials and employees. These include the duty to make accessible to and readily available for inspection by the public "all" public documents within reasonable working hours. See the relevant section of the law below:

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. — In the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are under obligation to:

(a) Act promptly on letters and requests. — All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request.

(b) Submit annual performance reports. — All heads or other responsible officers of offices and agencies of the government and of government-owned or controlled corporations shall, within forty-five (45) working days from the end of the year, render a performance report of the agency or office or corporation concerned. Such report shall be open and available to the public within regular office hours.

(c) Process documents and papers expeditiously. — All official papers and documents must be processed and completed within a reasonable time from the preparation thereof and must contain, as far as practicable, not more than three (3) signatories therein. In the absence of duly authorized signatories, the official next-in-rank or officer–in-charge shall sign for and in their behalf.

(d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions. — All public officials and employees must attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of their offices and must, at all times, act promptly and expeditiously.
(e) Make documents accessible to the public. — All public documents must be made accessible to, and readily available for inspection by, the public within reasonable working hours.

The Human Security Act of 2007

2007-06-28T15:58:00.000-07:00

Aside from defining and imposing a penalty on the crime of terrorism, the Philippine Human Security Act of 2007 extends further the instances wherein law enforcement officers may listen to, intercept or record private communications, the provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 notwithstanding. Below are the more important provisions of the law which will take effect on July 15, 2007.

SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications. – The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized.
SEC. 8. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization. – The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words of any person suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall only be granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals upon an ex parte written application of a police or of a law enforcement official who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council created in Section 53 of this Act to file such ex parte application, and upon examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce to establish: (a) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; (b) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, any such crimes, will be obtained; and, (c) that there is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such evidence.
SEC. 9. Classification and Contents of the Order of the Court. – The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals as well as its order, if any, to extend or renew the same, the original application of the applicant, including his application to extend or renew, if any, and the written authorizations of the Anti-Terrorism Council shall be deemed and are hereby declared as classified information: Provided, That the person being surveilled or whose communications, letters, papers, messages, conversations. Discussions, spoken or written words and effects have been monitored, listened to, bugged or recorded by law enforcement authorities has the right to be informed of the acts done by the law enforcement authorities in the premises or to challenge, if he or she intends to do so, the legality of the interference before the Court of Appeals which issued the written order. The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall specify the following: (a) the identity, such as name and address, if known, of the charged or suspected person whose communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words are to be tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded and, in the case of radio, electronic, or telephonic (whether wireless or otherwise) communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, the electronic transmission systems or the telephone numbers to be tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded and their locations or if the person suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is not fully known, such person shall be subject to continuous surveillance provided there is a reasonable ground to do so; (b) the identity (name, address, and the police or law enforcement organization) of the police or of the law enforcement official, including the individual identity (names, addresses, and the police or law enforcement organization) of the members of his team, judicially authorized to track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record the communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words; (c) the offense or offenses committed, or being committed, or sought to be prevented; and, (d) the length of time within which the authorization shall be used or carried out.

The Philippine Anti-Wiretapping Law

2007-06-27T15:15:00.000-07:00

In the Philippines, it is unlawful to record, or aid in the recording of, any private communication or spoken word without the authority of all the parties. It is also unlawful to knowingly possess or replay a record secured in the manner prohibited by law. Of course, not covered by this prohibition are recordings made by peace officers pursuant to a written order of a Philippine court relative to certain offenses like treason and espionage. Note that wiretapping under the law is not limited to "wired" communications like phone calls but also covers the "spoken word". See below the full text of the circa 1960's Philippine Anti-Wiretapping Law:

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:

It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.

Sec. 2. Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding Sec. or who violates the provisions of the following Sec. or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.

Sec. 3. Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding Sec.s in cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against national security: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.

The order granted or issued shall specify: (1) the identity of the person or persons whose communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case of telegraphic or telephonic communications, the telegraph line or the telephone number involved and its location; (2) the identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear, intercept, or record the communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words; (3) the offense or offenses committed or sought to be prevented; and (4) the period of the authorization. The authorization shall be effective for the period specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the order, unless extended or renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest.

All recordings made under court authorization shall, within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the order, be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope or sealed package, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority stating the number of recordings made, the dates and times covered by each recording, the number of tapes, discs, or records included in the deposit, and certifying that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are included in the envelope or package deposited with the court. The envelope or package so deposited shall not be opened, or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have been recorded.

The court referred to in this Sec. shall be understood to mean the Court of First Instance within whose territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are to be executed.

Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding Sec.s of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.

Sec. 5. All laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or accordingly amended.

Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 19, 1965

Science and technology in the Constitution

2007-06-25T16:00:00.000-07:00

Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution also has a whole sub-section on science and technology. It provides, among others, for priority and incentives to research, and for the protection of intellectual property rights. These sections state:

Section. 10.
Science and technology are essential for national development and progress. The State shall give priority to research and development, invention, innovation, and their utilization; and to science and technology education, training, and services. It shall support indigenous, appropriate, and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, and their application to the country's productive systems and national life.

Section. 11.
The Congress may provide for incentives, including tax deductions, to encourage private participation in programs of basic and applied scientific research. Scholarships, grants-in-aid, or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, researchers, scientists, inventors, technologists, and specially gifted citizens.

Section. 12.
The State shall regulate the transfer and promote the adaptation of technology from all sources for the national benefit. It shall encourage the widest participation of private groups, local governments, and community-based organizations in the generation and utilization of science and technology.

Section. 13.
The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the people, for such period as may be provided by law.

Our rights in relation to information

2007-06-25T15:48:00.000-07:00

Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, otherwise known as our Bill of Rights, provide for freedom of speech and a right to privacy of communication and to information. These sections provide:

Section. 3.
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Section. 4.
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Section. 7.
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

State policies on information and IT

2007-06-24T15:32:00.000-07:00

Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution spells out our state policies on information and information technology. Among others, the following sections are of note:

Section 9.
The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
Section 17.
The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development.

Section 24.
The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building.

Section 28.
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.