Lunes, Mayo 26, 2014

THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE IPL CODE ESPECIALLY IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE AMENDMENTS IN THE RA 10372


INTRODUCTION

RA 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code took effect on January 1, 1998. [i] Subsequently on February 28, 2013, President Aquino signed into law RA 10372, which amended certain provisions of RA 8293. This amendment had caught the attention of netizens, lawyers, writers, and even professors recognized as experts in their intellectual property field. Some were disappointed with the decision of the president in signing these amendments into a law. Some even asked for the repeal of the law due to unconstitutional issue. Some said the amendments were problematic and confusing.

“Netizens and lawyers on Wednesday said they were disappointed with President Benigno Aquino III for signing the “problematic” amendments to the Intellectual Property Code into law, leaving such issues as the expanded powers of the IP office unanswered.”[ii]

Democracy.Net.PH said, “It is regrettable enough that the President has signed into law the IP Code amendments, whose flaws have been pointed out by leading legal experts. It is even more regrettable that the President approved the law without any public indication that the arguments against the bill had been duly considered.” [iii]

Professor Disini, a UP College of Law professor said that the amendments introduced by RA 10372 violated some provisions of the Constitution.

“Disini said that a number of the amendments violate the due process clause, the right of citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the equal protection clause as guaranteed by the constitution.”[iv]

The practical implication of the amendment to the IPL Code will be later discussed in this page. Amendments were actually introduced by RA 9150, RA 9502 and RA 10372. However, this page will focus on the amendments made by RA 10372. But before that, let as try to know the meaning of Intellectual Property.

The Intellectual Property (IP) refers to any creation or product of the human mind or intellect. It can be an invention, an original design, a practical application of a good idea, a mark of ownership such as trademark, literary and artistic works, among other things.[v]

Why is Intellectual Property so important? One reason is that intellectual property contributes enormously to our country’s economy. Small or big industries need it for the protection of their rights. Their ideas and works which are the source of their wealth and income are protected and they would greatly benefit from it.

Another reason is that artists become fully compensated for their artistic or literary works. They would be encouraged to do more and to share more their talents, ideas and other artistic works. These works would surely contribute positively to the country’s economy.

On the other hand, consumers or buyers are guaranteed that they purchase the genuine products and not paying for imitations or fake items. No one can imitate the trade name or trademark of another otherwise he would be held liable for infringement. Thus buyers are secured and safe in their transactions.

            Another question that should be dealt with is this: How to protect Intellectual Property? For an individual or industries- whether big or small- should learn how to keep their ideas or innovations a secret until they have filed a patent application. The artists, inventors and creators should remain vigilant against illegal selling, reproduction, copying, and distribution of items to protect their intellectual property.

The Philippine Government values the importance of intellectual property that’s why it had made several laws on intellectual property. Some of which is the Intellectual Property Code which was made effective on January 1, 1998. An amendment was made thereafter, the RA 10372 and was signed into law on February 28, 2013. Other amendments on RA 8293 was also made by other laws.

Furthermore, the Philippine Government also entered into treaties and other international agreements for the protection of rights and interest of every Filipino citizen.

But is amendment of RA 8293 really necessary? The answer to this question will be read in the Conclusion part. Let me first discuss more about this law and some of its amendments.

I learned in my Intellectual Property Law (IPL) class that the IP Code consists of four (4) parts:
(1)   The Intellectual Property Office
(2)   The Law on Patents
(3)   The Law on Trademarks, Servicemarks and Trade Names
(4)   The Law on Copyright
When my professor discussed the amendatory law, RA 10372, I noticed that amendments were made in part 1 (The Intellectual Property Office) and part 4 (The Law on Copyright). However, most of the amendments were made in part 4 (The Law on Copyright). Let us examine the changes introduced by this law.

AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY RA 10372

Importation
First, the law on importation in Section 190 of RA 8293 was amended by Sections 14 and 15 of RA 10372. The provisions of sections 190.1 and 190.2 were deleted and retained section 190.3. Sections 190.1 and 190.3 allow the importation of copyrighted material but with certain allowances. An individual may import one or even three copies depending on the circumstances.

When the Congress deleted these allowances, one could no longer bring more than one material to the Philippines. Thus, the rule is: only one. Reading from the lines of the amendatory law, the Bureau of Customs no longer has the right to allow importation of more than one material. This is because the Bureau has to abide by the rules and procedures of the law. To allow importation of more than one is illegal. It is against the law.

If that would be the case, information would be very expensive. Knowledge would be very hard to acquire it. It is very difficult to disseminate information from only one source. We cannot photocopy, copy or reproduce it. Otherwise, it will be an infringement case. Foreign authors should be the one to sell their work directly to the Philippines and thus, the expensive cost to pay.

Definition of Reproduction
Second, the definition of reproduction under section 171.9, RA 8293 was amended by Section 5, RA 10372.  The words ‘temporary or permanent’ was added in the definition[vi] which makes the law so tight and strict. This may also provide some problem since there is no distinction between ‘permanent’ or ‘temporary’.

Term of Moral Right
Third, the term of moral right was also revised. Under RA 8293, the rights of an author shall last during his lifetime and for fifty (50) years after his death. [vii] Under the new law, such right shall now last during the lifetime of the author and in perpetuity after his death. [viii] The term is now indefinite.

To explain further, the previous law implies that once a material becomes a public domain, there is no more moral right to speak of One’s name can be written therein and pretend to be the author. However, the new law does not allow so. Today, even the material becomes a public domain, the name of the author is still necessary to be written therein.

Powers of the Intellectual Property Office
Another amendment introduced by RA 10372 was the new powers of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). This amendment was not under part 4 (The Law on Copyright) but under part 1 (The Intellectual Property Office) of the Intellectual Property Code. Section 2 (7D) of RA 10372 gave the power to the IPO to conduct visits during reasonable hours to establishments and businesses engaging in activities violating intellectual property rights and provisions of this act based on report, information or complaint received by the office.[ix] I am disturbed by this amendment. This practice is proscribed in our Constitution.

This violates the due process clause and the unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by our Constitution. As a rule, before authorities can enter a private place or search papers and effects therein, they must first show a valid search warrant. Warrants, at all times, must first be secured before any search, visit or investigation may be conducted. Otherwise, it is considered illegal. This is a rule in accordance with the rights and procedure guaranteed by the constitution.

The amendatory law seems not to have observed this right. Instead, the law gives the IPO Director General or Deputies Director General to seize the papers and effects of establishments and businesses engaging in activities violating the intellectual property rights even without a search warrant. This is clearly a violation of the constitution.

To quote the statement of Attorney Disini in a blog, he said:
 If you are a victim of copyright infringement, under the new law you can ask a government agency (the IPO) to enter a privately owned space in order to search, to look around.  
Let’s take another situation – let’s take the case of rape or murder. Let’s say you’re related to someone who was murdered. You know that certain evidence about the suspected murderer is located in a particular place. As a victim’s relative, you cannot just go to the place and enter. You need a warrant.

Why is it that Congress will give the victim of intellectual property rights violations more rights than the victim of heinous crimes? What about securing evidence against suspected terrorists? They need to get warrants.

But for suspected copyright infringements, authorities are allowed ”visits” which invade the privacy of alleged infringers. Are these crimes so terrible that we are willing to set aside constitutional principles? I think there’s a disconnect there.”[x]

“Disini is one of the legal experts who personally sent a memorandum to MalacaƱang due to the public outcry following the exposure of the law’s problematic provisions as laid down by blogger-journalist Raissa Robles.”[xi]

            Fair Use
There was also a change in the concept of Fair Use. RA 8293 states that fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use. [xii]

Under the new law, the word decompilation has a longer definition thus: “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.”[xiii]

The amendatory law can also be viewed positively in some ways. Additional rights are granted to some group of individuals. Such amendments were made to cope up with the changes brought about by the modern times.  Technological products or inventions are introduced in this modern times and it is just and fair enough that some technological words or changes be also inserted and observed in our law.

“The IP Code is put in place to protect the creative minds of the Filipinos who have endless innovative works. Further, amending the IP Code is a significant stride in the government’s fight against piracy. The IP Code does not only protect the outputs of the creators, but also safeguards the general public from pirated merchandise, which may be cheaper but may have harmful effects.”[xiv]

Scope of Performer’s Rights
Section 18 of RA 10372 also amended section 203 of RA 8293 with respect to the scope of performer’s rights, giving such performer’s right a wider scope. It now includes right as to audio-visual works and fixation as additional to those already provided in the previous law.

Rights of Producers of Sound Recordings
Section 20 of RA 10372 also provided additional right to producers of sound recordings aside from those already mentioned under Section 208 of RA 8792. The scope of section 208.4[xv] was an additional right conferred to such producers.

Infringement
Section 216 of RA 8293 was also amended by section 22 of Ra 10372. In the amendatory law, it provides the definition of infringement. This provision is really necessary because it had provided several acts which constitute infringement.

This would clearly define the act of infringement. There would be no more confusion as to what the word infringement really mean is. Before in the previous law, it had only provided for certain liabilities of an infringer but without definition or enumeration of acts which would constitute infringement.

Criminal Penalties
Amendments were also made on Section 217 of RA 8293 on criminal penalties. Maximum penalty shall be imposed when a certain act is committed by the three instances. [xvi]

CONCLUSION

Is amendment of RA 8293 really necessary? I don’t think so.

There is a need to harmonize intellectual property to the changing world due to technological advancement. But it seems that RA 10372 is too confusing and does not necessary solve the issues on this becoming technological advanced country.

Some people demand for the repeal of the law. There are various critics and opposition by renowned intellectual property educators. These should not be set aside. It must be taken into consideration.

I am not saying that RA 8293 is perfect but is better than RA 10372. The previous law is not confusing and it does not violate constitutional right.

I know that the new law only aims for the good and benefit of every citizen. In fact it was enacted to meet the needs of the changing society due to the introduction of modern technology. However, there are some loopholes and we cannot just hide it. It’s for real. The lawmakers should all take these comments, critics, and suggestions into account.




[i] Section 241, Intellectual Property Code
[ii] Tuazon, JM; “NEW LAW UNDER FIRE | Critics slam ‘problematic’ IP code amendments”; http://www.interaksyon.com/infotech/new-law-under-fire-critics-slam-problematic-ip-code-amendments; last retrieved: May 22, 2014
[iii] “Democracy.Net.PH Statement on the Signing of President Benigno S. Aquino III of RA 10372 (Amendments to IP Code)”; http://democracy.net.ph/democracy-net-ph-statement-on-the-signing-of-president-benigno-s-aquino-iii-of-ra-10372-amendments-to-ip-code/; last retrieved: May 22, 2014
[iv] http://www.interaksyon.com/infotech/new-law-under-fire-critics-slam-problematic-ip-code-amendments
[v]About Intellectual Property,  http://www.ipophil.gov.ph/index.php/ip-knowledge/about-intellectual-property; last retrieved: May 22, 2014
[vi] Section 5, RA 10372
[vii] Section 198, RA 8293
[viii] Section 17, RA 10372
[ix] Section 2, RA 10372
[x] Robles, Raissa; “Copyright owners have more rights than heinous crime victims with Congress’ IP Code changes – lawyers say”, http://raissarobles.com/2013/03/06/copyright-owners-have-more-rights-than-heinous-crime-victims-with-congress-ip-code-changes-lawyers-say/; last retrieved: May 22, 2014
[xi] Tuazon, JM; “NEW LAW UNDER FIRE | Critics slam ‘problematic’ IP code amendments”; http://www.interaksyon.com/infotech/new-law-under-fire-critics-slam-problematic-ip-code-amendments; last retrieved: May 22, 2014
[xii] Section 185.1, RA 8293
[xiii] Section 12, RA 10372
[xiv]   “RA 8293: Protecting the Intellectual Property in the Philippines”; http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=94; last Retrieved, March 26, 2014
[xv] Section 208.4 provides:
            "SEC. 208. Scope of Right. – x x x
"208.4. the right to authorize the making available to the public of their sound recordings in such a way that members of the public may access the sound recording from a place and at a time individually chosen or selected by them, as well as other transmissions of a sound recording with like effect."
[xvi] Section 23, RA 10372


Lunes, Mayo 5, 2014

MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM: HOW CAN THIS BE IMPROVED?

INTRODUCTION

Years ago, handwritten letters, voice tapes, and telegrams are the means of communication between families and friends. It takes some time before the letter can be read or before the voice tapes can be heard. Keeping in touch with love ones was quite difficult and more expensive. It needs several days or weeks before a response from them could be heard.
Nowadays, those means of communication had changed. Skype, Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites, yahoomail, gmail and chat were introduced by the modern technology.

“Today you could surf the Web using the mobile. Contact and talk to family and friends via Facebook. Get the news, gossip and false news via Twitter. Speaking of news and opinion, today you could probably read something crafted in Washington, Tokyo, Paris and Mexico.” [i]

Indeed, means of communication is now made easier and even cheaper. Indeed, the information and communication technology and the internet had brought a lot of changes in every Filipino’s life. Because of these changes, the introduction of bills, rules and laws about the modern technology and the internet is inevitable. This is to cope up with the changing needs of the society brought about by technological advancement.

On July 1, 2013 during the 16th Congress, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has filed a bill called Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF). This was passed to replace the controversial Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

“According to Santiago, a group of concerned netizens--composed of software designers, IT specialists, academics, bloggers, engineers, lawyers, human rights advocates--approached her office with a draft of the MCPIF. The group formulated the MCPIF through discussions in an open Facebook group, email, Google Hangout teleconferences, and social media channels like Twitter”.[ii]

In her blog, the Senator had also said:

“The dangerous ‘takedown’ clause of R.A. 10175, where the government may have a website or network blocked or restricted without due process of law, is absent in the MCPIF,” Santiago said. “My bill specifically provides for court proceedings in cases where websites or networks are to be taken down, and prohibits censorship of content without a court order.”[iii]

From the words of Senator Santiago, it seems that this bill is an excellent one. It was drafted with the help of concerned netizens who are experts in their own field. Also, the loopholes of RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 were corrected.

 But there lies several questions: Is this bill really necessary? Is there a need to change or amend the law that already exists? Is this better than RA 10175? Or does it solve the ‘problematic’ issue raised in the previous law?

 To answer this, let us first know the importance of this bill.

IMPORTANCE OF THE PROPOSED BILL

I like this proposed bill because the rights in the constitution like the freedom of expression and right to privacy are properly observed.

As can be seen in Part 3,Section 4 (a) of the bill, the State shall protect and promote the freedom of speech and expression on the Internet, the right of the people to petition the government via the Internet for redress of grievances, the right of any person to publish material on or upload information to the Internet. These are the very rights granted by the Constitution.

However, although free expression is protected, Section 52 places limits on certain types of speech “inimical to the public interest”:

(1) Internet libel: defined as “public and malicious expression tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, made on the Internet or on public networks”;

(2) Hate speech: defined as “public and malicious expression calling for the commission of illegal acts on an entire class of persons, a reasonably broad section thereof, or a person belonging to such a class, based on gender, sexual orientation, religious belief or affiliation, political belief or affiliation, ethnic or regional affiliation, citizenship, or nationality, made on the Internet or on public networks” and;

(3) Child pornography. [iv]

York, on his analysis on the MCPIF had said: “Section 4 of the bill pertains to freedom of expression, “protecting and promoting freedom of speech and expression on the Internet” and protecting the right of the people to petition the government via the Internet for “redress of grievances.”  The right of citizens to publish to the Internet without the requirement of a license is also specifically addressed.” [v]

In addition, section 8 of the MCPIF discussed the right to privacy of data.

Section 7 addresses the right to innovation, allowing for State protection and promotion of innovation, and prohibiting persons from restricting or denying “the right to develop new information and communications technologies, without due process of law...”[vi]  

To quote, Senator Santiago said: “MCPIF ensures due process by providing strict guidelines for any collection of any data, including the securing of warrants, obligating notification and limiting seizure to data and excluding physical property.”[vii]

Section 9 (c) of the bill states that no third party shall be granted access to the private data or networks of a person by an Internet service provider, telecommunications entity, or such person providing Internet or data services. But it had provided an exception, which is upon a final court order issued in accordance with Section 5 of the said bill.

Section 10 protects intellectual property in accordance with the Intellectual Property Cod of the Philippines (RA 8293).

Section 9 refers to the protection of the security of data and 9(b) guarantees the right of persons to employ means “whether physical, electronic or behavioral” to protect the security of his or her data or networks. Sections 9(c) and (d) refer to the rights of third parties over private data, requiring a court order issued in accordance with Section 5 of the Act to grant access, and preventing third parties from being given property rights to the data accessed. [viii]

According to Santiago, Senate Bill No. 53, also known as the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF), will protect the rights and freedoms of Filipinos in cyberspace, while defining and penalizing cybercrimes.[ix]

In another quote, the senator had said:"While it is important to crackdown on criminal activities on the internet, protecting constitutional rights like free expression, privacy, and due process should hold a higher place in crafting laws".[x]

The Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom promotes civil and political rights, and upholds and promotes Constitutional guarantees in cyberspace, as they would and should be in our daily lives. The #MCPIF is anchored on this principle: that the Constitution is our foundation as citizens of the Republic and equally as Filipino netizens in cyberspace. Our rights online are our rights offline.[xi]

Now that we know the importance of the bill, then we are ready to answer the questions above. I believe that this bill is really necessary. This will solve the ‘problematic’ issue raised in the RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.The basic rights granted in the Constitution, like the due process clause, right to privacy and freedom of expression, are all carefully observed. I believe that observing and granting all such rights is the most important of all.

HOW CAN THIS BILL BE IMPROVED?

The law however, has its loopholes. Senator Miriam said that the MCPIF does not suffer from overbreadth and vagueness in its provisions on libel, unlike the law it tries to replace. In fact, it treats libel as a civil liability rather than a criminal act, which is a step forward in the move to decriminalize libel. [xii]

 There is indeed a very clear definition of libel as specified in section 52(a)(i) of the proposed bill. However, to treat libel as a civil liability rather than a criminal act would lead to confusion and is questionable. The reasons on why it should be treated as a civil liability should be explained in detail in the law.

Article 355 in the Revised Penal Code specifically provides for the punishment of libel by writings or similar means which is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

Under the MCPIF, internet libel shall only give rise to civil liability and the amount shall be commensurate to the damages suffered. The difference of the two should be mentioned in the law which gave rise to their difference in penalty or punishment.

Also, internet libel becomes a lighter offense compared to oral defamation because the former results to a civil liability while the latter results to imprisonment as a punishment. Such result should be taken into consideration by the proposed bill.

It was also stated in the bill that the State promotes universal access to the internet.[xiii] However, this right of universal access cannot be prohibited or controlled by any individual or entity but only the courts. As mentioned in section 5 (b) of the bill, a person’s right to unrestricted access to the Internet may, upon discretion of the appropriate Cybercrime Court whose jurisdiction is defined in this Act, be suspended as an accessory penalty upon final conviction of the criminal offenses mentioned in section 5(b)(i) (ii) and (iii).

Simply put, only the court can restrict such right under the circumstances mentioned in the law.   To conclude, no one except the court can deny such right granted.

However, it seems that there is contrary provision in the law. Reading from the lines of the law, there are other reasonable grounds so that a person or entity can restrict the right of universal access granted to every individual.[xiv] There is indeed an inconsistency of the provisions of the law. It must be redrafted so that confusion will not later arise.

Hence, the law should be drafted this way:

Section 5. Promotion of universal access to the Internet. –

(a)                    The State shall, within its jurisdiction, protect and promote universal access to the Internet.

(b)                    The right mentioned above cannot be denied or suspended except by  the following:

(1)   The appropriate Cybercrime Court in the following instances:

(i ) The felonies of robbery, theft, estafa, falsification, malversation, and usurpation of authority or official functions, as defined in appropriate penal laws, committed by through or using the Internet or information and communications technology;

(ii) Any criminal offense defined and punishable in the following special penal laws: the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (RA 9208), the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713), the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (RA 9160), the Violence Against Women and Children Act (RA 9262), the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act (RA 7610), the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603), the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (RA 9775), the Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9732), or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173), committed through or using the Internet or information and communications technology; or

(iii) Any criminal offense defined and punishable by this Act.

(2)  Any person or entity offering Internet access for free, for a fee, or as an extra offering separate from the services already being offered, including but not limited to any hotel, restaurant, commercial establishment, school, religious group, organization, or association upon the following reasonable grounds:

The word “reasonable ground” mentioned Section 5(e) of the proposed bill is not clear. As to when a certain case or scenario is reasonable, the law is silent. The law should give examples of reasonable grounds or circumstances which could be used as a basis so that a person or entity can be qualified to restrict the right or freedom of the people to restrict internet access.

There may be some flaws but this bill is really a good one. I support this crowd sourced Act and hoping that in the near future, this will be passed into a law.


ENDNOTES:



[i] Juned, “Why Support the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom”. http://baratillo.net/2012/11/why-support-the-magna-carta-for-philippine-internet-freedom/comment-page-1/
[ii] “Magna Carta for Internet Freedom to Replace Anti-Cybercrime Law---”. http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2012/1130_santiago1.asp
[iii] “Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom-Miriam”. http://miriam.com.ph/newsblog/2012/11/
[iv] Jillian York,Electronic Frontier Foundation. “A Brief Analysis of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom”. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/brief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom
[v] Jillian York,Electronic Frontier Foundation. “A Brief Analysis of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom”. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/brief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom
[vi] Jillian York,Electronic Frontier Foundation. “A Brief Analysis of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom”. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/brief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom
[vii] N. Bordadora, Philippine daily Inquirer. “Santiago proposes Magna Carta for Internet”. http://technology.inquirer.net/20769/santiago-proposes-magna-carta-for-internet.
[viii] Jillian York,Electronic Frontier Foundation. “A Brief Analysis of the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom”. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/brief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom
[ix] N. Bordadora, Philippine daily Inquirer. “Santiago proposes Magna Carta for Internet”
http://technology.inquirer.net/20769/santiago-proposes-magna-carta-for-internet
[x] Engineer Pierre Tito Galla, PECE, ABS-CBN News. Com. “Our rights online are our rights offline”. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/opinions/03/03/14/our-rights-online-are-our-rights-offline
[xi] Engineer Pierre Tito Galla, PECE, ABS-CBN News. Com. “Our rights online are our rights offline”. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/opinions/03/03/14/our-rights-online-are-our-rights-offline
[xii] N. Bordadora, Philippine daily Inquirer. “Santiago proposes Magna Carta for Internet”http://technology.inquirer.net/20769/santiago-proposes-magna-carta-for-internet
[xiii] Section 2(h), Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom, Senate Bill 53. http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/
[xiv] Section5(e),Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom, Senate Bill 53. http://democracy.net.ph/mcpif/full-text/.