One of the most wonderful gifts given to man other than life is intelligence and the human mind. It is the rationality and intelligence of man that distinguishes man from animals and brutes. Among the thousand species in the world only man is capable of rational thinking that is why we are called the “rational beings.” Over a million years already that man has shown its marvels and greatness transcribed in the world’s history. The human intelligence has come up with millions of great inventions and ideas since time immemorial that changed and affected the world. Most of these were useful to man but some brings death and destruction. From the most simple inventions and ideas to the most complex and intricate ones, all of these are the products of the brilliance of the human mind.

The Filipino people were never left behind when it comes to the contributions to the ideas and inventions to the human history. Several Filipinos has invented several inventions that were recognized in the whole world.  There are also several Filipinos that made their legacy and mark in the world’s history because of their brilliant ideas.

It has been said that there should not be a monopoly of ideas. Ideas should be shared to the whole world in order that others, who might find such ideas useful in their lives, may utilize them. This is same with inventions. But on the other hand the people where these inventions and ideas came from should also be protected with their rights as the inventors and the authors.

In order to protect the rights of the Filipino authors and the inventors the Philippine legislature has made the Philippine copyright law enshrined in the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, officially known as Republic Act No. 8293 which was approved on June 6, 1997 and took effect on January 1, 1998. The law is partly based on United States copyright law and the principles of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

In order to ensure the effective implementation of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, the Intellectual Property Office or the IPO was also established and also its several branches. The primary reason or purpose of the establishment of the IPO and its several branches is that to ensure the effective implementation of the law. So the there would be an office whose only obligation is to focus on the implementation of the intellectual property law. Copyright implementation is done with the coordination of the IPO and the Copyright Division of the National Library of the Philippines.

The intellectual property code has divided the copyrighted works into 17 classes, namely: Literature (books, pamphlets, etc.),  Periodicals (newspapers, tabloids, magazines, etc.), Public speeches and other public speaking works (speeches, lectures, sermons, etc.),  Letters, Television or movie scripts, choreography, and entertainment in shows,  Musical works (lyrics, songs, song arrangements, etc.),  Art products (drawings, paintings. sculptures, etc.),  Ornamental designs and other forms of applied art (not necessarily industrial designs),  Geographical, topographical, architectural, and scientific works (maps, charts, plans, etc.),  Scientific and technical drawings,  Photographs and cinematographic works made in a process similar to photography,  Audio-visual works and cinematographic works made in a process similar to making audio-visual works, Pictures used in advertising (includes logos), Computer programs,  Other works not covered in classes A-N of a literary, scholarly, scientific, or artistic nature,  Sound recordings, Broadcasts.

The intangible rights of the copyright owners had never escaped the reach of the violators. The law should protect these rights of the copyright owners. That is why the legislators made the intellectual property law. However, on the other hand, together with the copyright owners, there are the public users. There are privileges granted to the public users in using the copyrighted works. There are times that the rights of the copyright owners overlap the privileges of the public users. But it is elementary in law that in case of conflict of between the rights granted and the privileges, the rights would always prevail because these rights are granted by law but the privileges are only the opportunities given by law and may be revoked anytime. Because of this, the public consumers are left the weaker part compared to the copyright owners whose rights are conferred by law. The law failed to provide clearly the guidelines and limitations on the use of the public of the copyrighted works. Since in some of it there are no clear distinctions, it resulted to confusions and resulted to cases filed in the regular courts.

As to my view, the copyright law of the Philippines is already obsolete and already does not provide for the needs of time. In the present time, because of the busyness and lack of materials of the people, most would tend to use or refer to the ideas of the other people.  But beyond their knowledge these ideas are copyrighted works by the authors. Unknowingly to them, they are already violating the laws without any malicious intent.

Most of the Filipino people are ignorant when it comes to laws. That is an ugly truth. People do not now the laws of the country. Unlike the criminal laws and civil laws which are very popular, intellectual property laws are not that popular to the public. People are less knowledgeable of certain special laws in the country. People would only tend to know those laws that directly affect their lives. But these intellectual property laws are not known to most of the common people.

The legislature should make a new law regarding intellectual property rights and compose the wordings of the law in the simplest terms possible to be understood by the public. Sometimes it is the wordings of the laws itself that brings ambiguity that gives rise to some suits. It should be distinct in providing for limitations and guidelines in the use of the copyrighted works by the public users. It should not bring confusion to the public. The law should be clear and unambiguous for it to be administratively feasible.

In making the new intellectual property law, the lawmakers should take into heavier consideration the using public. On the first place these copyrighted works are intended primarily to be shared to the public and to be used by the people other than the author itself. Ideas are to be shared and not to be kept in one’s self. That is why in making the law, the law makers should be more liberal in favor of the public users. The legislature should make a new intellectual property law in a more liberal nature in favor to the public providing for clear guidelines of the use of the copyrighted works to avoid unnoticed violations of the public users of the intellectual property law.  The law should provide for balanced rights between the copryright owners and the using public. If it should not be possible, it would be better to provide for more rights in favor of the public users, since the copyrighted works and intended for the public consumption.

Time is never going backwards or stagnant, it is always going forward. The laws should always meet the needs of time. As I see right now, our intellectual property law is stagnant. The legislature should make a new law to meet the needs of our present time. It should be forward.

Copyright is an almost world-wide legal sys ch regulates the creation, ownership, control and use by the public of products resulting from certain specified creative (and not so creative) activities that are directed by the human brain. Examples include writing books, sculpting metal, developing computer software, filming a clip fo an online blog, drawing a shape for an advertisement, composing a short silly e-mai or a paper airplane made by a sevenyear-old. The resulting products of such activities are called “expressions” or “works” in the legal terminology of copyright.

There are two primary international copyright agreements, the Buenos Aires Convention and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (also referred to as just the Berne Convention) requires protection for all creative works in a fixed medium be automatic, and last for at least 50 years after the author's death for any work except for photographic and cinematographic works. Photographic works are tied to a minimum of 25 years. Cinematographic works are protected for 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within 50 years after the creation. The Berne Convention also allows for the rule of the shorter term, stating that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work". Not all countries have applied this rule however.[1]

There are three main consequences of the Berne Convention for individual member countries, for the copyright goods produced within them, and, of course, for users:, as well  a) there is automatic world-wide protection for most copyrighted works;  b) foreign (non-national) copyright holders must receive the same level and type of protection as local (national) copyright holders receive; the technical legal term is “national treatment”;  c) copyright laws in all countries must protect copyrighted expressions at a level above what are called “minimum standards”.[2]

The Buenos Aires Convention was a treaty signed by most North and South American countries, which allows for protection of all creative works as long as they contain a notice informing that the creator claims copyright on it. The Buenos Aires Convention also instituted the rule of the shorter term, where the length of the copyright term for the work in a country was whichever was shorter - the length of the term in the source country, or the protecting country of the work.

All Buenos Aires countries are now also parties to the Berne Convention, but elements from Buenos Aires are still used in the modern era, such as the rule of the shorter term.

The Berne Convention alone lists more than 30 specific copyright-protected categories of works which result from a broad spectrum of activities.35 These copyrightable products include many types of written works, such as novels, recipes, newspaper articles, e-mails, instruction manuals, bus schedules, and even the code in a computer program. All of these works are misleadingly called “literary works” in copyright law, misleading because even the commonplace phrases found on a tube of toothpaste can be designated as a “literary work”.

The Berne Convention’s third main requirement is that all members must establish and enforce a wide number of minimum copyright standards within their own borders. There are various mandatory minimum standards in the Berne Convention. They include the follo ing: all countries must include national treatment protections in its own laws. All countries must protect a broad variety of expressions and products. All countries must not require any formal registration requirements for a work to become copyrighted; protection must commence as soon as a work is created.

All countries must ensure that authors, actually owners, of copyrighted works get a number of exclusive rights, such as the right to copy their works and related rights, including those related to translations, which have just been mentioned in the prev

There is not a definitive or complete list of products that are unprotected (or more accurately, “unprotectable”) by copyright. As the reach and power of copyright expands globally, some products that were generally excluded from protection even a few years ago, such as computer software, are now often classified as copyrighted works.

There is not a definitive or complete list of products that are unprotected (or more accurately, “unprotectable”) by copyright. As the reach and power of copyright expands globally, some products that were generally excluded from protection even a few years ago, such as computer software, are now often classified as copyrighted works. The exclusive rights which copyright owners are awarded gives them what we could call a “lock down” over expressions. Without any serious legal restrictions, owners alone decide whether and how these expressions become available, to whom, and at what price.  This power and control, both over the copyrighted property and people, has a global-wide impact.

In a strict legal sense, there is no such thing as “global copyright law”. National copyright laws, such as the Malaysian Copyright Act (1987) to take one example, are what lawyers call “national and territorial in scope. This means that such laws cover a single political unit or territory, usually a self-governing country. Each national law has sovereignty or jurisdiction over that sole particular political unit.[3]

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_agreements

[2] http://copysouth.org/portal/sites/default/files/primer-alan-story-cover-text.pdf

[3] http://copysouth.org/portal/sites/default/files/primer-alan-story-cover-text.pdf

Technology of man has evolved so rapid through the lapse of time. Long before, our forefathers used stones as their tools. Then came fire which was used in different ways like cooking, heating and alike. Through the years the technology of mankind has evolved. Man has discovered the use of metals, plastics, papers, wood and many others. Before man lived in caves, then man learned to build houses by the use of wood and leaves. Thousand of years had passed and we can now see high rise buildings condominiums and different kinds of structures which depicts beautiful and intricate architecture. Communication also has evolved much. From time people use ravens or birds to send their message to the time man has used telegraphs. And now, we can send messages in an instant without waiting for a long time for our message to reach its destination. Life of man has become easier and comfortable. The world offers all kinds of comfort through our modern technology. This simple means that man does not settle for less at he always wants more. The intelligence of man has brought us this far in all aspects especially in terms of technology.

Now come the age of computers and internet. Everything is instant. Messages reach their destinations in just one click. Information can be acquired in just one click. One can see his/her loved ones even miles away or on the other side of the world without necessarily going to such place, just in one click. In the internet, everything can be done just in one click. We have now several social networking site which gives us the opportunity to meet people in different people not just in one’s place but also from different parts of the world. In the business world, everything is already computerized for purposes. Now bulk of files and documents may be avoided by the use of computers. Business transactions can now be made through the use of computer and internet. And one can also have his own business as long as he has a computer and internet connection. Also, education will not be left behind in the evolution of technology. Some students do not already use books and other school materials in school because of modern technology. In just a single “IPAD” or a “TAB” a student or teacher can have all his/her books and reading materials. This can be acquired through the internet. People need not go to huge libraries and carry towers of books to do their research. In just one click in the internet you can already have the information that you want. If you do not know something and you don’t want to ask others for fear of being embarrassed of being called an ignorant, Filipinos has this expression “I.M.G.” which means “I-google Mo Gago”, and boom, you will be informed. In other words, the everyday life of mankind as espoused to the use of INTERNET!

Because of this evolution and now the age of internet, many people have taken advantage of the use of internet in different ways. Some in a good way, but still others in a way that would offend other people and worse in a way which violates the rights of others. Along with the evolution of technology, laws should also evolve to cater the needs and exigencies of time.   That is why nations all over the world made their own laws governing the use of internet. Laws that would create the rights of the internet users or what they call now the “netizens” and also to protect these rights from violations of those people who would tend to violate these rights of others.

Here in the Philippines, our lawmakers made several laws that create rights of internet users and penalties for violations of these rights. We have, Republic Act No. 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Law, the Rules on Electronic Evidence, Republic Act No. 10173 “An Act Protecting Individual Personal Information In Information and Communications Systems In The Government And The Private Sector, Creating For This Purpose A National Privacy Commission And For Other Purposes”, and the most controversial Republic Act 10175 “An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing For The Prevention, Investigation, Suppression And The Imposition of Penalties Therefore And For Other Purposes” also popularly known as the “CYBERCRIME CRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012” or “CYBERCRIME LAW”.

The Cybercrime law was recently promulgated by our legislature with the intention of protecting certain rights in the world of internet. But this was made in to law despite all criticisms it had. As early as it was yet a bill many people and several groups criticized this law. It was said that several of its provisions was a violation of the constitution and hence unconstitutional. That is way some people had protested to its passage and it was under a Temporary Restraining Order. This law is still confidential and highly debatable.  

Many people and even some of the lawmakers do not like the provisions contained in the Cybercrime Law. That is why Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has drafted the Bill No. 3327 also known as “MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM (MCPIF)”. This bill is intended to replace the controversial Cybercrime Law. This law is intended for the same purpose, to create the rights of the internet users, to protect these rights and to punish those acts which violate these rights. But the question is “if Bill No. 3327 will be enacted as a law, is it a better law compared to the Cybercrime Law? Which of the two is better that would serve to protect the interest of the internet users?”

WHICH OF THE TWO IS BETTER? If a person would be given a chance to choose between two vitamins, one that contains vitamin C only and the other that contains vitamins from A to Zinc which is more complete he would most probably choose the latter because in just one vitamin it contains all the vitamins and nutrients that his body needs. Why settle for less if you can have more? Following this line of thinking, I would say with all conviction that Bill No. 3327 or the MCPIF being introduced by Senator Miriam Santiago will be a better law compared to the Cybercrime Law. Generally, it is a more comprehensive compared to the cybercrime law. It expressly states in its provisions the rights and freedom in the use of internet and the rights and privileges guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, and those rights and privileges provided by the treaties and conventions which are made applicable in the Philippines. It also states the punishable acts with more clarity as compared to those stated in the cybercrime law which brings ambiguity in its definitions. Together with punishable acts are the penalties which are more appropriate.

Primarily, the cybercrime law was protested because of its being overbreadth and void for vagueness hence it is unconstitutional. It is overbreadth and void for vagueness because it tends to punish certain cyberacts or internet act as punishable which in truth and in fact it should not be punishable. Laws should not be so broad enough to bring confusion to mind of the people and it also should not be vague so that it could be easily understood by the lay people. This is what happened in the cybercrime law. It brought confusion to the mind of the people as to what are the specific acts that are punishable under the law. Beause it gave an impression to the people that almost all the internet activities may be punished. The MCPIF does not suffer this kind of problem for it is clearer.

Another reason for its being unconstitutional its violation of the right of the people to privacy because the authority can intrude to the privacy of the people without even the observance of the right of the people to due process. The cybercrime law does not provide for the procedural right of the people to due notice and hearing before the authority can intrude to the right of privacy of the people. While the MCPIF provides protection to the right of the internet users to their privacy.

In connection with the statements made in the previous paragraph, another reason for its being unconstitutional is its violation to the right of the users to due process of the law which is expressly guaranteed by the 1987 Constitutional. This violation is not committed in the MCPIF.

The cybercrime law also violates the right against illegal searches and seizures for allowing real-time collection of traffic data in the absence of a valid warrant. This is not allowed in MCPIF. The MCPIF specifically provides for the due process in collection of the said data through by providing strict guidelines for any collection of any data owned by private internet users. It also provides that a search a warrant should be secured first before they can collect data. It also obliges the authority to notify the internet user before the authority can seize anything. The right to seize by the authority is also not without limitation. The authority can only seize data and not physical properties of the internet users.  In observance of the people’s right to privacy the MCPIF mandates the authority to secure the collected and seized data that no other may obtain it without authority. These data, though already seized, must be protected from those people who would like to have them to be used against the owner of the data. It is still their private data and should not be used other than those purposes intended and allowed by the law.

One of the freedoms that is most exercised in the cyberworld is the freedom of expression and of speech. That is why it is also well protected by MCPIF. But this protection is not without exception. The MCPIF also punishes libel committed trough the internet. This is to protect the Filipino people from the libelous statements against them committed in the internet by those who abuse their right of speech and expression.  Comprehensive as it is, MCPIF does not define “libel” in an overbreadth and vague manner which the cybercrime law. The cybercrime law was very much suffered criticizisms because of the overbreadth and vagueness of its provisions with regard “libel”. It is so general that it will cover as much as I would which on the first place it would supposed to be covered and it also vague for one may not readily know if his or her act would fall under such offense.

The right against double jeopardy is also violated because the cybercrime law allows the prosecution of a single offense or act against the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and also other special laws. This is not allowed under the MCPIF.

One of the problems not only of the Philippines but also the whole world is terrorism. Terrorists have also evolved and grow together with technology. Terrorists has also plotted they terrorist attacks not only by the use of bombs, guns and other explosive devices but also through the internet. In other words, terrorism has already penetrated in the cyberworld. Terrorists have used the internet to do terrorism. That is why the internet must be fortified from the evil that is brought by terrorism. Because of this the MCPIF ensures that the Philippines have available defenses that would the country from the possible attacks of the terrorists and also other people or state through cyber technology. This is ensured by the MCPIF in its provisions.

Indeed the MCPIF is better compared to the Cybercrime Law. I would strongly agree with the author of Bill No. 3372 that the Cybercrime Law must be repealed. It would be great redundancy in the law if both laws will be upheld. MCPIF covers everything essential that the cybercrime law that covers and more is offered by the former.

Many petty crimes have been committed through the internet. One of which is cyber bullying. Like what happened to the lady in the famous “AMALAYER VIDEO” the girl was deeply scrutinized when she yielded on the lady guard in the train station. Many questions could be raised in such circumstance. Those people who saw the video has made different comments some where in favor of her but mostly are against what she did. the video became a short time sensation in the country. It was even shown on the national television in different stations. Because of the criticisms made by other people, the lady was deeply embarrassed. She is indeed a victim of cyber bullying. The question now is “is the person who uploaded the video in the internet liable for the embarrassment brought to the lady in the video?”. This is just one of the circumstances that should be addressed by the government. Petty things indeed these are but still the rights of the people are at stake here.

Prostitution is already committed through the internet. There are so many sites that offers pornography and live video streaming of people, male and female alike, that are immoral and obscene. Even the children are exploited in this kind of crime. Many cybersex dens have been apprehended already. This should already be stopped.

Every person is very much vulnerable in the cyberworld. There is no person that could prevent other people from making untoward acts in the internet world. So enters the laws that are promulgated to protect the people.

The government through its lawmaking bodies are the ones who are empowered to create the laws the would protect its people. But laws should not be shallow and made half-hazard way. Every law shall be well thought of by the lawmakers for rights of the people are at stake. Rights of the people should be well protected and punishments should also be clearly stated without ambiguity. These punishments should be clear enough because it is of no good to punish a person who does an act does not know that what he or she does is punishable by law.

It is also an elementary rule in law making that it should be in consonance with the highest law of the land the Constitution and should never go against it. Any law that goes against the constitution should never be allowed. The people are weak enough to defend their rights on their own that is why there are laws made that protect these people from any mischievous acts done against them. These acts can now be very much committed through the internet. There must be a substantive law that would protect the people in the internet world. A law that would best protect and serve the interest of the internet users and the whole nation. And in my own opinion Republic Act.10175 is not the proper law. The cybercrime law does not well protect the interest of the internet users. There are so many loopholes and insufficiencies in the said law. There are so many violations against the Constitution that made me to think that it was not  drafted with scrutiny. The lawmakers maybe drafted it in a fast and urgent manner just to say that the Philippines have a law governing the cyberworld.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that the Bill No. 3327 also known as “MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM should be made into law repeal Republic Act No. 10175 because for me this bill if made a law will best protect the interest of the people and the nation in the world of internet. This bill does not only cover the criminal and civil aspect of the law but also it covers other areas like the intellectual property law. This would be, if not the best but a better guidelines for internet users in the present and also in the future. The internet is so vulnerable to different kinds of crimes and offenses.

The Philippines is one of the countries that has the most number of internet users especially when it comes to social networking sites like facebook, twitter, multiply and the like. This is already the truth that could not be denied and prevented. The government should deal with this and protect these millions of internet users in the Philippines through the passage the Bill No. 3327 also known as “MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM.