THE SUFFICIENCY/DEFICIENCY OF FAIR USE IN COPYRIGHT

THE SUFFICIENCY/DEFICIENCY OF FAIR USE IN COPYRIGHT

“You grow great crops in great soil. And the soil is the commons. Increasingly, we have monopolistic companies that try to take as much as they can for themselves. And we have a patent and copyright regime that makes sure that nothing goes back into the commons unless by an extraordinary act of generosity. This is not fertile soil for innovation.”
– Tim O’Reilly

 

A lot of people are gifted and talented in showcasing their art of work such as literature, musical works, cinematographics, drawings, art products and many more. Their respective passion benefits their readers, viewers and art work savvies. Moreover, the author’s expressions cumulated to a work or piece of art gives them the right over such expression.  However, widespread copying, even digitally is occurring nowadays. Hence, their work should be fully protected. One of the reasons of the creation of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines” in which some provisions are amended by Republic Act No. 10372.[i] The violators of this law commits copyright infringement as defined under Republic Act No. 10372 to wit:

SEC. 216. Infringement. – A person infringes a right protected under this Act when one:

(a) Directly commits an infringement;

(b) Benefits from the infringing activity of another person who commits an infringement if the person benefiting has been given notice of the infringing activity and has the right and ability to control the activities of the other person;

(c) With knowledge of infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.[ii]

 

Along with the abovewritten provisions are remedies for copyright infringement as enumerated under Section 216.1 of Republic Act 10372.[iii] Nonetheless, the lawmakers have given users of original material leeway to reproduce those but with limitations by virtue of “fair use clause” which states:

“SEC. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. – 185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including limited number of copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of a computer program to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use under the criteria established by this section, to the extent that such decompilation is done for the purpose of obtaining the information necessary to achieve such interoperability.[iv]

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:

(a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit education purposes;

(b) The nature of the copyrighted work;

(c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[v]

 

There are the limitations in which the public should take into consideration and be aware of so as not to lead them in to infringement. Said fair use has its advantage and disadvantage. In relation with that, this paper is expected to deal with sufficiency and deficiency of fair use in copy right.

 

Sufficiency of Fair Use in Copy Right

Limited Number of Copies for Classroom Use

This parcel of provision under Republic No. 10372 benefits both the copyright holder and the user. As for the holder of the copyright, it is crystal clear that this provision is considered as their protection against those people who will copy their work without their consent. Consent here from the holder is not anymore needed before the copying of a published work can be consummated.[vi] However, it should just be limited and not the entire work itself.[vii]

On the other hand, the user of a published material gains benefit as what this law guarantees. It especially helps those who are financially underprivileged who cannot afford to buy the original material. With this, they can just photocopy limited parts of the work that will be needed for their classroom use. In effect, they will not spend a large amount of money for the price of the published material as they will just get limited copies from that. Moreover, it also allows those students who need a basis or sources to be copied by them for such scholastic purposes. However, they are allowed only for limited copies for specific research work for their homework.

 

Limited Number of Copies for Research

One of the factors considered for the fair use of copyright is the purpose of its use as enshrined in Republic Act 82 93.[viii] Research as for non-profit educational purposes is considered as one of the fair use in copyright.[ix] Students from different levels of school especially those who are doing their thesis or research papers highly gained from this law. Thesis making is very costly from printing, photocopying and even to the extent of buying published materials just to get the related literature they needed for such requirement. Good thing, they are given protection from photocopying limited number of copies of original works. This law is a great help to cost cut their expenses in finishing their thesis or research. In this regard, the work of the copyright holder as the user copy limited number of it helps in the creation of another work or of a derivative work or output.

Hence, these open the possibility of another derivative work of using one’s work. The finished research work or thesis by those students who used a published work or a copyrighted work is considered now a new work that may be copyrighted by those students who authored or made the same. The allowable limited copy rule might cause disadvantage at some point to those who pray for their reproduction for scholarly works but at the end of the work, they still eventually creates a new work that may be copyrighted or should I say already considered as a copyrighted work explicitly because an author has already a statutory right at the moment of creation of his/ her respective work.

 

For Non-Profit Education Purposes

The purpose of this provision is commendable. This is a big protection for the copyright holder from someone who will take advantage of “fair use clause” under Republic Act No. 10372.  It is mentioned in the book of Ernesto C. Salao that “Fair use is using somebody else work fairly”.[x] It is very apparent that the objective of the lawmakers of this law is to aid the needed assistance of people in the academe and not for the benefit of those who use such work for profit. Should it be intended for profit, it will definitely defeat the goal of this law and would kill the hardwork of copyright holders. The right of the author shall always be protected not only because they are the ones who gave time and effort to be able to craft such copyrighted expression but also because the law provides limitations on using a copyrighted work.

In other words, the limitations set out by the crafters of the law should be observed by those students and persons who utilize such copyrighted work. However, the observance of the limitations cannot be easily accomplished that is why congress should regard a higher penalty to those who commit infringement.

 

Defense against Copyright Infringement

Republic Act No. 8293 as amended by Republic Act No. 10372 is not just done in order to protect the copyright holder but also given a shield for users of such through the provision of “fair use”.[xi] In a way, it serves as an exemption for copying the original works of the holder but definitely in a limited use only as enumerated under RA 10372.[xii] The defense of “Fair Use” can be invoked by the user so as not to commit copyright infringement. Using another person’s or individual’s work for any of the enumerated purposes allowed in fair use is to be treated as a valid cause and the equilibrium as to the right of the author for his work and to the right of persons to use the former’s work as his defense in case of infringement cases. The law allows individuals to use someone else copyrighted work to be copied in any of the purposes enumerated in fair use, primarily because it is essential that a knowledge or work beneficial to the populace be disseminated. In other words, the work of another should be of knowledge to everyone and should be open for scrutiny or improvement provided such work would be beneficial to the economic growth or to the development of the lives of the people or even to the additional knowledge of the students.

Anent, fair use gives us the opportunity to evolve from a cocoon to a caterpillar by using an existing work that had been copyrighted. It limits the right of the author to preclude others from using his or her work in order to promote growth in knowledge, economy, life, health and any aspect of life that is susceptible from change and progress.

 

Deficiency of Fair Use in Copy Right

Limited Number of Copies for Classroom Use

As mentioned above under the sufficiency of fair use in copy right, it is a big help for those who cannot afford to buy the original work of the copyright holder. In the contrary, this may also be considered as a disadvantage for those said to be underprivileged as above written. Students for this matter can just photocopy few or limited parts of a publish material such as from a book for instance. School books as of today appears to be expensive and cannot be easily be bought by poor students. In some public schools, there are just few original books available in their library that will not be fitted to the number of students. In effect, poor students will have a difficult access from the books. The remedy of photocopying the whole pages of the book cannot be utilized as it will infringe the right of the copy right holder. Such problem might be one of the factors that can affect the academic performance of said students. One way or another, it serves as a shortcoming of this law.

 

By all means we should not forget that the supreme law of the land protects the right of students to education. Such protection is stated under Section 17, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution to wit:

 

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.[xiii]

 

The above written provision should for this matter be taken into consideration. Further, objective for a law that will be created should be congruent to the economic stability of most of the students of a country.

 

Implementing Rules and Regulations for “Limited Number of Copies”

The implementing rules and regulations for “limited number of copies” for certain purposes mentioned under Republic Act No. 8293 as amended by Republic Act No.10372 is not yet released. As observed from Republic Act No. 10372, the word “multiple” copies from Republic Act No. 8293 was changed to the word “limited” number of copies. As to how many copies are allowed to be photocopied from the original work is still a question since the implementing rules and regulations for this has not yet been published. Defense for fair use as to amount of copies allowed remains to be uncertain and might not fully protect the users due to unspecified number of copies.

Hence, substantial and important parts of the work of the author that he intends not to be photocopied might be infringed, because the lack of provision as to how and what part should only be allowed to be copied thereto.

 

Conclusion

The amendments provided in Republic Act No. 10372 may be sufficient in nature to be able to give the indispensable protection of the creators or authors of their expressions. Such amendments may also give the populace the benefit of someone else copyrighted work in a fair use, beneficial to him for school or research work. However, the amendments mentioned therein would not be possible if there is no implementing rules and regulations to speak of. That is why it is very important to have the implementing rules in order to implement the amendments necessary for the needed protection and fair use of the authors and the students respectively.

In the case of Pacita Habana, et al. v. Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading, G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999, where the apparent textual, thematic and sequential similarity between petitioner’s book (DEP) and Respondent’s book (CET), the Supreme Court held that “It does not necessarily require that the entire copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it be copied. If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished, there is an infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is appropriated. In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted work is an important consideration to constitute infringement. The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity by an appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore protected by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy which is synonymous term in this connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole right to do which is conferred by the statute.”.[xiv]

This jurisprudence decided by the Supreme Court points out the importance of the substance of a copyrighted work that must be protected and not to be copied in any matter. It is irrelevant whether the infringer copies or reproduces the copyrighted work largely or just in part, what is essential in determining whether there is per se an infringement lies whether the substance of the work or expression had been diminished.

 

Disclaimer: This research paper is only for purposes of compliance for Technology and the Law subject.

 

[i] An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”, and for other purposes, Republic Act No. 10372,  (2013).

[ii] An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”, and for other purposes, Republic Act No. 10372, Sec. 216  (2013).

[iii] Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8293, Sec. 216 (1997). / An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”, and for other purposes, Republic Act No. 10372, Sec. 216.1 (2013).

[iv] An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”, and for other purposes, Republic Act No. 10372, Sec. 185 (2013).

[v] Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8293, Sec 185.1 (1997).

[vi] Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8293, Sec 187.1 (1997).

[vii] An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”, and for other purposes, Republic Act No. 10372, Sec. 185 (2013).

[viii] Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8293 (2013).

[ix] Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8293, Sec. 185.1 (1997).

[x] Ernesto C. Salao, Essentials of Intellectual Property Law, A Guidebook on Republic Act No. 8293 and Related Laws, p. 265, 2^nd ed., 2012.

[xi] An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”, and for other purposes, Republic Act No. 10372,  (2013).

[xii] An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the “Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines”, and for other purposes, Republic Act No. 10372,  (2013).

[xiii] 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article II, Sec. 17.

[xiv] Pacita Habana, et al. v. Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading, G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999.

THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE DATA PRIVACY ACT AND ITS IRR

THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE DATA PRIVACY ACT AND ITS IRR

“I really believe that we don’t have to make a trade-off between security and privacy. I think technology gives us the ability to have both.”

– John Poindexter

 

Along with the evolution of human kind is the evolution of technology especially with regard to the progress of information computerization. Modernization of the processing of information is very much apparent nowadays. As being in the digital era, it became part of our daily life as private citizen and even widely utilized in public and private sectors. Such advancement is also evident in the Philippines like in government agencies and private institutions. It is mentioned in a News Report that the Philippines was ranked 86^th out of 144 countries 2013, ranked 78^th out of 148 economies in 2014 (data from the report’s Networked Readiness Index (NRI)) and climbed to 76^th out of the 143 economies (assessed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) for the Global Report 2015) with regard to its improvement in information and communications technologies (ICT).[i] The mentioned statistics of the Philippines when it comes to ICT is a palpable manifestation that the Philippines is running towards rapid progress in high technology together with other modern countries. Because of such advancement, college courses under Information Technology is one of the released list of Commission on Higher Education (CHED) as regards to in-demand degrees for 2014-2018.[ii] Consequently, 23 percent (23%) of college students enrolled Technology Courses, one of which is about Information Technology, for the Academic Year (AY) 2014-2015 according to Higher Education Data Infographics of CHED.[iii] In this modern trend, life gets to be easier and promising.

 

Nonetheless, along with the positive effects of such, comes with the negative ones such us when right to privacy of a person is violated as regards personal information in an online system.  Privacy is one of the rights safeguarded by our supreme law of the land, the 1987 Philippine Constitution to wit:

 

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.[iv]

 

Further, aside from the security given by the Philippine Constitution for the privacy of personal information of Filipinos, the Data Privacy Act of 2012, entitled as “Personal Information in information and communication Systems in the Government and the Private Sector”[v] was also promulgated. In 2016, National Privacy Commission the Philippines released draft guidelines entitled, Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (“IRR”).[vi] It states in its introductory provision that:

 

Pursuant to the mandate of the National Privacy Commission to administer and implement the provisions of the Data Privacy Act of 2012, and to monitor and ensure compliance of the country with international standards set for data protection, the following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated to effectively implement the provisions of the Act[vii]

 

This IRR is said to address the concern of the Filipino Citizens in times of violation of their right to privacy when we speak of their personal information in an online system without their consent. Consent per se from the concerned individual, who was victimized by an unauthorized person who has taken his personal information, is one of the topics that was given importance by the Commission. Even though consent is given, precaution should still be taken into consideration for the reason that collection of personal information may still be taken advantage and exceeded the needed data. In this regard, penalties for the offenders of this crime are guaranteed by this law.

Said law might have few shortcomings that may be taken into account. Hence, the succeeding discussion will be dealing with the deficiencies of Data Privacy Act of 2012 and its IRR.

Notification of Data Breached

According to the draft of IRR of the Data Privacy Act, notification within 24 hours shall be given to the Commission and affected data subjects by the personal information controller or personal information processor if security breach or sensitive personal information is believed to have been acquired by an unauthorized person. It is important also that the notification be fast and speedy, primarily not to prevent the breach but to possibly stop or actually catch the perpetrator or the person who breached the other person’s data without his consent.[viii] In such case, the crime was already consummated to the effect that the right to privacy of the concerned individual has been violated. One of the issues that can be contemplated in this case is the delay of notification to the Commission or data subject. It is provided in the proposed IRR that investigation of the delay of notification with regard to the information security breach will be conducted by the Commission.[ix] In such situation, period for investigation is not provided. Such duration for investigation is indispensable for the speedy disposition of the case of the data breached.  Also, it is enshrined in the proposed IRR, specifically section 40 paragraph b thereof, that a personal information controller may be exempted from giving notification of a certain breached data where in his reasonable judgment, such notification would not affect public interest or the interest of the data subject.[x] I find this exemption open to many questions as for one instance, how would the personal information controller know that a specific data is not the interest or would not prejudice the rights or encroach the privacy of a data subject? It is but proper not to give discretion to such controllers on deciding whether or not one’s data does not damage his rights. I interpret this exemption as a loop hole for giving such discretion to the personal information controllers to that effect. The data privacy act in itself is a special law, thus one of the characteristics of a special law is that it is a mala prohita or prohibitum, therefore, its provisions must all be mandatorily implemented and no room for discretion nor intent to be established.[xi]

The implementing rules and regulation (IRR) of the data privacy act entail a breach of data notification of a data subject within 24 hours from such breach under normal situation. However, the crafters of the IRR are aware that the 24-hour notification requirement in case of a breach of data may be delayed in some cases or circumstances. Hence, it could be difficult to implement this because of the absence of some additional provision that these should be mandatorily pursued and implemented. It would be a great tool to relieve our data subjects from the agony of the delayed notification, wherein he or she precluded to prevent or somehow stop any unauthorized access to his or her personal data. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the 24-hour notification is sufficient for the data subject’s safety and security as measurement to give action on his or her breached personal data suppose a faster notification may somehow prevent a breach from happening. Seconds and minutes are very important to our lives. A second may bring a big change in your entire life whether good or bad. That is the reason why the data subjects need a faster notification from a breach of data.

Consent as One of the Conditions for Processing Information of the Data Subject

Under section 12 of the Data Privacy Act of 2012, prior consent is one of the essential conditions or requirements that must exist before the subject data’s information may be processed.[xii] The word used was only ‘consent’.[xiii] It was not specifically distinguished whether or not consent must be given expressly or may be given impliedly. Implied consent is a form of consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather inferred from a person’s actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation, whereas, express consent is clearly and unmistakably stated rather than implied.

Hence, consent may be given impliedly or expressly. This ambiguity may arise in a given situation, as for an instance:

W ask for permission from Z to process his data system in order for Z to be admitted to W’s company premises and Z subsequently entered such premises thereby giving his consent impliedly. Anent, is such consent by Z contemplated under section 12 of the Data Privacy Act of the required consent?

As above mentioned, under section 12 of the data privacy act, the condition of consent was not specifically clarified whether it must be expressed or implied.[xiv] Also, are special power of attorney or consent given by the data subject through an agent considered under such condition? For an instance, W is the agent of Z, thus W gave his consent through Z his agent to permit A to access his personal data. Is the consent given by W through his agent in fact valid under the Data Privacy Act? The law left us to interpret the same and if only such situation comes, we may contend such argument to that effect.

Moreover, it was not indicated whether a consent must specify the items consented, and whether it must be specific consent on a specific data. Let’s say, C consented to B to process his personal data to be able the latter to know who is the father of the former. However, upon processing the data of C, B also knew who the mother of C.  What if C do not want to divulge who his mother was?  Is the consent to a data which leads to another data of the same person considered still under such consent? As a critic to this loop hole, my stand is that this provision regarding giving of consent of the data subject must be specific on specific items, not only to protect other data’s of the person but also to provide a reliable system of privacy.

Forged Consent

The law does not specifically categorize or illustrate the methods on how to validate if the consent under section 12 of the said act was freely given and not tainted with fraud or forgery.  Perhaps this could lead to several problems to the data subject. Hence, how can we validate if such consent was in fact truly given by the data subject and was in fact authentic?  For example, G forged the signature of Y to unable the latter to process his personal data, then subsequently Y succeeded by forging the same. Eventually due to the fraudulent act by Y in obtaining the former’s consent, G’s personal data is now open for public scrutiny or would even be wasted or possibly devastated.  What the lawmakers must have done is to provide a conceivably guidelines for verification or dependable method in sequence to the data subject’s freely giving his or her consent. Procedure for consent confirmation is very important to protect one’s personal data and to prevent any attempt to defraud another. One of the salient provisions in the IRR of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 is to give to the data subject additional right to object or deny consent to further proceeding from processing his or her data, this new right is of good instrument to prevent forgery of a data subject’s consent. However, I noticed that the data subject might suffer a delay of notification therefore it might be too late for him or her to withhold his consent to further processing. This right of the data subject must be coupled with a provision that the notification must again be fast and no room for delays in order for the data subject to prevent someone from encroaching his or her privacy rights over his personal data. Whenever a right is concerned, there should be no room for mistake or delay for it comes a great responsibility to preserve the rights of others.

Conclusion

The elevated technological development makes our country one of the fastest growing country in Asia. However, due to the fast and high altitude of upgrade of the technologies, almost everything comes out easy and useful in our everyday lives like helping us to grow individually as a person or even afford us to meet our work load systematically. Further, any person is capable to search out information of anyone or anything or even getting hold of some vital private information or data of another person. Primarily because of these changes and modernization, our government in this case, the legislature made applicable laws to ensure the safety and security of the people. Therefore, it resulted to the creation of the Data Privacy Act of the Philippines. Anent, because of this innovation of our information or communication technologies, privacy right may be infringed or violated.

As part of the democratic country and as a concerned citizen who want its beloved country to be more progressive, it is a humble recommendation that the government must assess each provision of said Act and its implementing rules in order to thoroughly see and observe the gaps that will prevent its continuous protection and recourse for Filipino people who will be offended by evildoers with regard to breach of data and other offenses that is covered by this Act. In addition, the Commission shall be careful in hiring privacy officer and other privacy staff who are real experts on such field in order to smoothly perform its duties and responsibilities as demanded by their job description. Seminars and training should be a tool to facilitate practical exercises for privacy employees of the Commission for them not to commit mistake or negligence for that matter. The execution of this law should not without bias and not without being unjust in order to be fairly guaranty the citizen’s protection for violation of privacy.

It is also our job as members of the growing society to contribute our knowledge in developing a safe and secured network of technology. One way of taking part in developing to the security of our Data Privacy Act is to state the loop holes and gray areas to the law makers who made the same. It is always better to voice out and to be involved in nation building. It is a process that human lives go with it.  Our privacy is one of the most protected rights in the constitution because as individual people we should be allowed to think, create, decide, speak on the things that are vital and necessary to what we want to accomplish not only in life but in heaven. It may involve our deep faith with our God, or may involve some career decisions that no other person may know, such as intellectual property rights on certain inventions for an instance. These imperative private or personal matters cannot be validly undertaken or regulated by the government, as our constitution secures as to make these pronouncements according to our principles and ethics. It is an inherent obligation on the part of our government to protect its citizens and to give sufficient effort to enhance the security on each and everyone’s property. Furthermore, the state has the obligation to increase the economic growth of the country and improve the lives of its populace. Hence, in order for the government to do this, it has to strengthen its security, in this case, its security of data and information. Therefore, having a strong security of data, we can further heighten the investor’s confidence where confidentiality of information and communication is being prioritized by our government. Thus, this may lead our country to economic growth, thousands of jobs, expansion and stability of corporation and businesses, and more food to put on the table. Our government, the crafters, the law makers who made the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and its drafted IRR, have done a commendable duty as their mandate, in providing us a first-rate law to protect us, especially their inhabitant’s interests and to strengthen each of citizen’s privacy. Nevertheless, the mandate of our government in providing us a law and will to protect us does not end here, but it only begins here.

Disclaimer: This research paper is only for purposes of compliance for Technology and the Law subject.

 

[i] Amy R. Remo, PH improves ICT Ranking, Inquirer.net, April 15, 2015, available at http://business.inquirer.net/190192/ph-improves-ict-ranking (last accessed on July 9, 2016).

[ii] Josh Bianc, CHED: List of In-Demand College Courses for 2014-2018, March 25, 2014, available at http://philnews.ph/2014/03/25/ched-list-of-in-demand-college-courses-for-2014-2018/ (last accessed on July 9, 2016).

[iii] Higher Education Data Infographics, available at http://www.ched.gov.ph/index.php/home/media/data/statistic/highereducationdatainforgraphics/

(last accessed July 9, 2015).

[iv] 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 3 (1).

[v] Data Privacy Act of 2012, Personal Information in Information and Communication Systems in the Government and the Private Sector.

[vi] Draft Released in the Philippines Implementing Rules for the Data Privacy Act, June 28, 2016, available at https://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2016/06/28/draft-released-in-the-philippines-implementing-rules-for-the-data-privacy-act/ (last accessed July 6, 2016).

[vii] Data Privacy Act of 2012, Personal Information in Information and Communication Systems in the Government and the Private Sector.

[viii] Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10173, known as the “Data Privacy Act of 2012”, NPC Draft Implementing Rules of the Data Privacy Act, June 17, 2016, available at http://www.endocrine-witch.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NPC-Draft-IRR-of-DPA-June-17-2016.pdf (last accessed July 9, 2015).

[ix] Id.

[x] Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10173, known as the “Data Privacy Act of 2012”, Section 40, NPC Draft Implementing Rules of the Data Privacy Act, June 17, 2016, available at http://www.endocrine-witch.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NPC-Draft-IRR-of-DPA-June-17-2016.pdf (last accessed July 9, 2015).

[xi] LEONOR D. BOADO, Notes and Cases of the Revised Penal Code, p. 16, 2012 ed.

[xii] Data Privacy Act of 2012, Personal Information in information and communication Systems in the Government and the Private Sector, Section 12.

[xiii] Consent, Wikipedia, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent (last accessed July 8, 2016).

[xiv] Data Privacy Act of 2012, Personal Information in information and communication Systems in the Government and the Private Sector, Section 12.