Amended IP Code “disadvantageous” to students, teachers, researchers – says copyright expert-lawyer Ping Peria

Share:
LinkedIn1
Google+0

Exclusive

By Raïssa Robles

Intellectual-Property---pos

A few weeks ago, writing about amendments to RA 8293 was farthest from my mind. RA 8293 is a mind-bending law. I was drawn to the story when my hubby Alan told me about a post written by Winthrop Yu on Facebook.

Yu, the senior vice-president for advocacies of the Philippine Internet Commerce Society, said:

Yu was referring to Congress’ approval of amendments to RA 8293, which only Interaksyon seems to have monitored. Here is a link to their story. By the way, the “Al” whom Yu was referring to in his Facebook post is Al Alegre, Executive Director of the Foundation for Media Alternatives.

That was what started me wading through the legal jungle that is RA 8293. I had a lot of help from:

  • Alan who has lectured on Internet Politics in Berlin for many years;
  • Harvard University law graduate JJ Disini, who teaches Technology and the Law at the University of the Philippines College of Law;
  • Ricardo Blancaflor, Director General of the Intellectual Property Office;
  • as well as from two other senior lawyers at the IPO who asked not to be named.

I will try to explain and elaborate on what they all told me and they are free to correct me.

Amended IP Code has negative impact on education sector

But first, let me mention a very important update from a lawyer who has closely been following copyright developments here and abroad for years.  Atty. Elpidio V. Peria is an expert on the subject and is the Executive Director of Biodiversity, Innovation, Trade and Society (BITS) Policy Center, Inc. based in General Santos City.

He was among those I wanted to interview on the amendments to RA 8293 but he was busy.

I’m glad that today, he posted on his foundation website how the IP Code amendments will be “disadvantageous  to ordinary users, students and researchers.”

Atty. Ping Peria wrote:

What about (the impact on)  students and researchers? On this I remember my son in Philippine Science High School in Davao City who had failing grades in one subject once and when I asked him, he said he cannot cope with the reading requirements as they were limited from photocopying in their library the required readings in class to only ten (10) pages per day, the assigned readings are usually more than the ten (10) pages limit and the queue is very long for photocopying oftentimes he didn’t bother queuing. I raised this in a Parent’s meeting one time and I said that the school should prioritize the learning of the students above all else and the respect of intellectual property rights of the authors of books will have to come later after they have graduated and they can afford to buy these books on their own, after all there is a long-standing principle in copyright law called fair use.

But lo and behold, now I cannot say that anymore as, with these amendments to the IP Code, the right to fair use of students and researchers has been limited. When before, the right to fair use to make “multiple” copies for classroom use, scholarship, research and similar purposes is not considered an infringement of copyright, that word “multiple” is now replaced with the word “limited”, and who sets this limitation, it is the Intellectual Property Office.

The Intellectual Property Office explained that there is no problem with the word “limited” as they can set the number of how many these are in the implementing rules and regulations to take into account the concerns of the copyright holders and the users, students and researchers.

But that is not the point of the provision of the law on fair use since the amendment shifts the power to make that decision on the copyright holder and the Intellectual Property Office. The previous wording of the law, the word “multiple”, gives to the user, student and researchers the right without even the permission of the copyright holder and the Intellectual Property Office, to make such reproduction or copying as that is the nature of the right of fair use.

Atty. Peria was referring to the amendments in Section 185.1 [highlighted in red]:

Sec. 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. –185.1 The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple 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 the a computer program to achieve the inter-operability 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 inter-operability.

To read the rest of Atty. Peria’s highly authoritative piece, please click on this link. 

Why Congress erased your right to bring home books, software, music and movies

And now, to resume where I left off in Part 1 of  my  piece entitled – Congress erased every Filipino’s right to bring home music, movies and books from abroad.

Let me start by talking about the right of every Filipino overseas to bring back home legally acquired books, software, music and movie DVDs and CDs. This has been enshrined in the Intellectual Property Code for the last 15 years under Section 190.1 of RA 8293.

This is now gone:

Section 190. Importation for Personal Purposes. –

190.1. Notwithstanding the provision of Subsection 177.6, but subject to the limitation under the Subsection 185.2, the importation of a copy of a work by an individual for his personal purposes shall be permitted without the authorization of the author of, or other owner of copyright in, the work under the following circumstances:

(a) When copies of the work are not available in the Philippines and:

(i) Not more than one (1) copy at one time is imported for strictly individual use only;

or
(ii) The importation is by authority of and for the use of the Philippine Government;

or
(iii) The importation, consisting of not more than three (3) such copies or likenesses in any one invoice, is not for sale but for the use only of any religious, charitable, or educational society or institution duly incorporated or registered, or is for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for any state school, college, university, or free public library in the Philippines.

(b) When such copies form parts of libraries and personal baggage belonging to persons or families arriving from foreign countries and are not intended for sale: Provided, That such copies do not exceed three (3).

190.2. Copies imported as allowed by this Section may not lawfully be used in any way to violate the rights of owner the copyright or annul or limit the protection secured by this Act, and such unlawful use shall be deemed an infringement and shall be punishable as such without prejudice to the proprietor’s right of action.

Section 190.1, under the law now awaiting President Aquino’s signature, is all gone.

I asked DG Blancaflor why they felt the need to remove this particular section

Blancaflor replied:

Our approach has always been ‘international exhaustion of economic rights’. It’s not as if we took it out of the air. We have treaty obligations in effect.

This is how a lower-ranking IPO official explained the concept of ‘international exhaustion of economic rights’ to me and why this particular section had to be deleted from RA 8293 (the emphases are mine):

In the copyright world, there are two kinds of exhaustion – ‘international exhaustion’ and ‘national exhaustion’. Under the principle of international exhaustion, “when a copyrighted work has been sold or distributed the copyright owner’s right over that work becomes exhausted. Once you sell the book, the buyer can do anything with that book. He can sell it again or destroy it.

Once you have publicly distributed or sold your copyrighted work anywhere in the world, your rights are exhausted. Another person (anywhere in the world) can import it (under the principle of international exhaustion).

In contrast, under the principle of national exhaustion, “the distribution should happen here in the country itself. This means, the right (of a foreign copyright owner) will not be exhausted unless the book is sold here in the Philippines.

Some people are suggesting that because of Sections 190.1 and 190.2 there is an implication of national exhaustion. Which means once a copyright owner distributes his work in some other countries in the world, unless it hasn’t been distributed in the Philippines, then importing it (to Manila) is illegal.

The work has to be sold in the Philippines for the rights to be exhausted…Some sectors claim therefore that we are adopting the national exhaustion principle, therefore they have a right of importation by implication.

When I asked which sectors he was referring to, the source said:

There was some clamor from some sectors to add exhaustion as part of the economic rights (of copyright owners). Our take is that the international treaties like those of WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations agency which administers treaties) gives member countries of WIPO the flexibility as to the exhaustion principle that states may adopt. To us, it would be to the benefit of the Philippines if we adopt a liberal exhaustion principle – which is international exhaustion.

Those two (deleted) provisions will simply generate controversy – whether or not there is right of importation (by the copyright holder).

If any other country produces (the same) work at a cheaper price, we can legally import it.

To explain how this works, the source gave the following example.  Suppose a very expensive medical book was published in the US and suppose the publisher licensed someone in India to reprint the same and sell these at a much lower price in India. Invoking the principle of “international exhaustion“, someone in the Philippines can now import these legitimate Indian reprints of the same book.

On the surface, the prospects of obtaining cheaper imported books not only in medicine  but also in engineering and other specialized fields sound very attractive.

But UP Law professor notes how foreign copyright holders can stop cheaper imports of their products

However, Prof. Disini outlined for me another scenario which would defeat the very purpose for deleting Section 190.1 and stop  importation of cheaper books.  He said:

The amendments to RA 8293 say the Secretary of Finance can issue rules regulating or prohibiting the importation of infringing articles. The question is, how do you know what is infringing and what is not? If you are the Bureau of Customs, you won’t know.

What could happen is, if you are a foreign book publisher, you can send a letter to the Bureau of Customs and say:

‘We don’t allow anyone except our exclusive distributor to import these books into the Philippines. On that basis, if anybody imports, it’s in violation of the license we gave. We don’t allow anyone of our licensees to export books except us.’

From the standpoint of the Bureau of Customs, when something arrives – even if authentic but if it does not come from the publisher, they can block it.

Another example – Microsoft could send Customs a letter –

‘We don’t allow the any importation of any Microsoft products into the country because our license prohibits the end users from importing the same.’

Once Customs has been informed there are certain products that cannot be imported except by certain persons identified by the publisher or copyright owner – if somebody importing is not the identified as the authorized party, then the copyright owners can claim that the material is infringing.

I’m not saying that automatically, these (amended) provisions will result in that. But if used properly in the way I outlined, it could lead to that.

If Section 190.1 and 190.2 were still there, I could say ‘ I don’t care. Under the law I’m allowed.’ Now (under the amended law) you can no longer say it.

It’s different when you have a right that’s written down. When Congress amends a law, removing certain privileges or rights from you, the presumption is that it was removed intentionally. It was the intention of Congress to deny you that right.

Prof. Disini noted that the Philippines already allows parallel importation even without deleting Section 190.1. He said this can be seen by the fact that importation of used books for local resale is allowed.

However, he reiterated that under the amended law, foreign copyright owners could write Customs to block the importation of their own books coming in as used books. Unless, he said, “the Secretary of Finance will ensure that parallel importation will be preserved.”

The words ‘personal purpose’ were deleted from the IP Code

The IPO source I talked to claimed that even under the amended law,  Filipinos flying into Manila can still bring in books, music and movies “so long as (they’re) for personal use, only because we have the fair use provision.”

There’s just one problem with the source’s explanation . Nowhere does the updated law mention importation for personal use as part of the fair use clause.

Section 184 lists specific instances that fall under the fair use clause:

CHAPTER VIII
LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT

Section 184. Limitations on Copyright. – 184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:

(a) The recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made accessible to the public, if done privately and free of charge or if made strictly for a charitable or religious institution or society; (Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49)

(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned; (Sec. 11, third par., P.D. No. 49)

(c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of articles on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature, which are delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has not been expressly reserved: Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec. 11, P.D. No. 49)

(d) The reproduction and communication to the public of literary, scientific or artistic works as part of reports of current events by means of photography, cinematography or broadcasting to the extent necessary for the purpose; (Sec. 12, P.D. No. 49)

(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public, sound recording or film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and of the name of the author, if appearing in the work, are mentioned;

(f) The recording made in schools, universities, or educational institutions of a work included in a broadcast for the use of such schools, universities or educational institutions: Provided, That such recording must be deleted within a reasonable period after they were first broadcast: Provided, further, That such recording may not be made from audiovisual works which are part of the general cinema repertoire of feature films except for brief excerpts of the work;

(g) The making of ephemeral recordings by a broadcasting organization by means of its own facilities and for use in its own broadcast;

(h) The use made of a work by or under the direction or control of the Government, by the National Library or by educational, scientific or professional institutions where such use is in the public interest and is compatible with fair use;

(i) The public performance or the communication to the public of a work, in a place where no admission fee is charged in respect of such public performance or communication, by a club or institution for charitable or educational purpose only, whose aim is not profit making, subject to such other limitations as may be provided in the Regulations; (n)

(j) Public display of the original or a copy of the work not made by means of a film, slide, television image or otherwise on screen or by means of any other device or process: Provided, That either the work has been published, or, that the original or the copy displayed has been sold, given away or otherwise transferred to another person by the author or his successor in title; and

(k) Any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings or for the giving of professional advice by a legal practitioner.

 

Section 185 defines fair use:

Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work. – 185.1. The 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, which is understood here to be 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. 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 educational 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.

Notice that this list does not include “personal purpose” or personal enjoyment.

Section 212 is the only other section which states that “personal purpose” is part of fair use. But again, that section was deleted by Congress and replaced with something that no longer includes “personal purpose” as part of fair use. Below is the deleted section:

CHAPTER XV
LIMITATIONS ON PROTECTION

Section 212. Limitations on Rights. – Sections 203, 208 and 209 shall not apply where the acts referred to in those Sections are related to:

212.1. The use by a natural person exclusively for his own personal purposes;

212.2. Using short excerpts for reporting current events;

212.3. Use solely for the purpose of teaching or for scientific research; and

212.4. Fair use of the broadcast subject to the conditions under Section 185. (Sec. 44, P.D. No. 49a)

I asked the IPO source why there was no more mention of importation for personal purpose listed under “fair use”. He suggested I talk to DG Blancaflor to get an official statement on the matter.

Here is how my interview with DG Blancaflor went:

R: Why did you remove Sections 190.1 and 190.2?

Blancaflor: Our approach has always been international exhaustion of economic rights. It’s not as if we took it out of the air. We have treaty obligations in effect.

R:What if a balikbayan or OCW comes home with a suitcase full of his personal collection of music CDs and DVD movies. Will he be stopped at the airport and his collection seized?

Blancaflor: I will have to answer specific cases. Case to case. I cannot– I have to make a disclaimer especially with those kinds of questions. The defense might use it. I will have to discuss each case.

I’m now in the position that I make official statements for IPO. If it comes out, that there’s a case filed within our office, that official statement of mine might be used by one party against the other.

If you can formally write me.

R: But can you just explain why those sections were deleted? Atty. (name withheld upon request) already explained to me the principle of international exhaustion.

Blancaflor: We are following international obligations of international exhaustion. Of economic rights.

If there is evidence to the effect it is properly bought, we cannot rule infringement.

R: Can they be questioned at the airport?

Blancaflor: No of course not. We are looking at certain items like optical media products which are governed by other laws. There are rules on that one.

R: Why did RA 8293 give Filipinos flying in a specific exemption? That they can bring home copyright materials – and that includes books, movies and music – as part of their personal baggage?

Blancaflor: When we introduced this (new amendment) 10 years ago, there was a move from external rights holders – from foreign rights holders of music – what they wanted was – for somebody to bring in goods, these should pass through them. In other words, (under the principle of) national exhaustion. That would explain why that section was removed.

This time, you asked me – What happens now if you bring in? As long as it’s not infringed. If it’s properly bought.

In the old law there was an insinuation of national exhaustion. We are for the intelligent norm of international exhaustion. As long as you have to prove – it’s legal – we will not rule against it. We have now removed the insinuation of national exhaustion. It even strengthens their position if they can prove they legally bought it.

R: But under the present RA 8293, they don’t even have to prove that. They have the privilege to bring in their personal baggage, no questions asked.

Blancaflor: You know – we have to – the Customs (Bureau) is part of our national committee on intellectual property rights. We can easily come out with a directive – that is the least of our worries.

R: They would be open to extortion at the airport

Blancaflor: I wish people would not draw conclusions that Customs will use this to milk people. They should read the law in its entirety. That portion was deleted to erase once and for all (the insinuation of national exhaustion).

It allows parallel importation. If I will buy that book from the US, under Section 190.1, I’m only limited to three… We removed Section 190 because we wanted to follow international exhaustion. Here (under the present RA 8293), you are only limited to (bringing in) three copies.

If you bring in five or six (books) so long as you are able to prove you properly bought it (you can do so under the amended RA 8293).

Whether we like it or not, our state of development is still low. We are still heavy on books.

If you have (Section)  190, then we can’t have parallel importation of books. Because you will exceed three. We removed that. These are what you call exceptions to the general law of copyright.

Under 190 (of RA 8293) if you exceed three or four, you are already liable. (Under the amended RA 8293) We are now allowing parallel importation.

From DG Blancaflor’s explanation, I get the following sense.

First, the government wants to encourage parallel importation of cheaper books. It says the only way it can do so is to delete Section 190.1 which expressly allows individual importation for personal purpose. The government wants to encourage bulk importation by formal entities and not by individuals.

Second, the government says it can write a directive allowing Filipinos coming from abroad to still bring home books, music and movies in their personal baggage.

However, in my view, such a directive can always be quietly modified or even erased later on. Besides, how can the government do the second thing – write a directive – when the lawmakers inserted the following additional amendment that “prevents” importation or exportation of “prohibited” materials”:

SEC. 190. IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF INFRINGING MATERIALS – Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation OR EXPORTATION [underlining mine] of articles the importation OR EXPORTATION of which is prohibited under this ACT and under treaties and conventions to which the Philippines may be a party and for seizing and condemning and disposing of the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported OR BEFORE THEY ARE EXPORTED. (Sec. 30, P.D. No. 49)

As Professor Disini observed in my separate interview with him:

You already have an explicit right, then you make that right silent. Why did Congress remove that right when you had that right before? On what basis can you put that (right back) in the IRR (Implementing Rules and Regulations) when Congress removed that right?.

To illustrate the impact of removing Section 190.1, Prof. Disini gave one of his relative as an example:

At the height of his loneliness, he buys music CDs. In a matter of one year, he bought 200 CDs at US$15 each. If he wants to bring home the CDs, under Section 190.1, he could. Now it’s not anymore clear if he can. Now he can be stopped at the airport and told it’s not allowed. I’m almost certain he won’t be allowed. That was the beauty of Section 190.1.

 

My take on the deletions

In my years of covering lawmakers, I have observed that they can balance competing interests if they want to. A law is often the result of such balancing acts. And they find the words to do that.

I am pretty sure that given the brain power in the Senate, the senators could have found a way to convey the idea that the Philippines follows the principle of international exhaustion BUT at the same time recognizes the right of every Filipino to physically bring home copyright material obtained overseas for personal purpose.

Frankly, I don’t see any contradiction between the two. It can be argued that by buying such copyright material abroad, Filipinos have in fact internationally exhausted the economic right of the original copyright holder.

One of the perks of working and traveling overseas is buying books, music and movies that would never be available in Manila. Now, we all will have to worry whether such items could be questioned at the airport or restricted in the future by directive.

DG Blancaflor said deleting Section 190.1 is meant to be able to import academic and highly specialized books more cheaply. However, Prof. Disini has pointed out how deleting Section 190.1 could in fact discourage parallel importation.

Who is right in this case?

And what about software, including  digital games as well as game consoles bought abroad?

Amending RA 8293 was meant to take us off the US 301 Watch List

I just learned Friday night that one of the IPO’s underlying reasons for asking Congress to delete Section 190.1 was in order to persuade the US government to drop the Philippines from the 301 Watch List.

Below is the 2012 report of the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) listing what it claims are the Philippines’ intellectual property rights violations.

It shows that the USTR leaned on our government to amend RA 8293.

But even if we amend it, would that be enough to get us off the 301 Watch List?

I highly doubt it, because  the USTR has a lengthy list of laws it wants us to amend.

Among them is the law that they say “limit(s) the patentability of certain chemical forms unless the applicant demonstrates increased efficacy.” This is the law that prevents foreign pharmaceuticals from extending their patent on drugs just by  tweaking the drug formula a little.

Below is the entire list of things-to-do that the USTR requires in order for our country to be removed from the 301 Watch List:

Philippines

The Philippines remains on the Watch List in 2012. The United States is encouraged by the significant decline in the incidence of unauthorized camcording of motion pictures in theaters that followed the enactment of the Anti-Camcording Act of 2010. Philippine officials also improved enforcement efforts, leading to the closure of at least two significant notorious markets. In addition, the Philippine Supreme Court promulgated long-awaited IPR procedural rules in 2011. The United States is hopeful that effective implementation of these rules will help streamline the judicial process for IPR cases. The United States encourages the Philippines to strengthen the criminal enforcement of IPR by improving the quality of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Philippines should also clarify its procedures for obtaining provisional measures, including by improving predictability with respect to search and seizure orders. The United States urges the Philippines to enact long-pending legislation to amend its copyright law and ensure that it fully implements the WIPO Internet Treaties. The United States remains concerned about amendments to the Patent Law that limit the patentability of certain chemical forms unless the applicant demonstrates increased efficacy. The United States encourages the Philippines to provide an effective system for protecting against the unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. The United States also remains concerned about policies that inhibit U.S. exports of IPR-intensive products to the Philippines, including measures that limit the market for imported pharmaceutical products. The United States looks forward to continuing to work with the Philippines to address these and other matters.

You can read more about the Watch List here.

If we accede to all these, what do Filipinos get in return?

Cheaper goods? Not likely.

Coming next: Part 3 – this will take some time because I first have to finish my other writing assignments, which were interrupted by this topic :) 

Comments

  1. @raissa, pardon for being off topic but i just would like to ask this – Could the Sabah issue now be a part of a grand scale sabotage as is headlined in the Philippine Star? Or could this be a part of PNoy’s “billiard” tactics considering Malaysia’s coddling of the fugitive in the Aman scam?

    • I doubt the confrontation is part of Pnoys tactic. Sa mga nababasa ko na balita mas malapit na ang dahilan ng confrontation sa sabah ay ang pagiging broker ng malaysia sa peace agreement ng MILF at PH Gov.

      Napapansin ko din na halos parehas ang pahayag ni Misuari at Sultan Kiram III na hindi daw sila kinunsulta regarding sa peace agreement na itanggi naman ng gobyerno.

      Pero kung ako ang tatanungin sana suportahan ni Pnoy ang claim ng sultanate ng sulu kasi legitimate naman ito, huwag lang po yung armed confrontation (hindi ako agree jan). Daanin na lang din sa proper peaceful forum tulad ng international court.

      Kung tutuusin ang may kasalanan naman talaga ay ang British East India Company. Kaya agree ako dun sa sinabi ni David Cameron na “Britain is responsible for many of the world’s historic problems”.

      Note:
      Saludo na sana ako dun sa Akbayan party list sa pagkundina sa China kaso nabasa ko yung pahayag ni Walden Bello na give up sabah sa rappler. Nadismaya ako :(

      Sana din maging maingat yung ibang mga kandidato na tatakbo this election 2013 sa pagpapahayag ng kanilang opinyon, huwag ng gamitin itong insidenteng ito sa pamumulitika baka magkaroon ng strain ang relation ng PH at Malaysia.

  2. Just want to ask clarification, naguluhan ako eh bawal na ba ang parallel importation pag implemented na ang amendments? May nangyari kasi sa isang Software retailer na nagbebenta talaga ng original software at games na mura na nireklamo ng isang “official” distributor daw na smuggled daw mga binebenta nila dahil nga parallel importing ang ginawa. kinakatakutan ko eh baga magkaroon ng monopoly with regards sa pagbebenta ng original software dito sa bansa natin at imbes na magmura ang mga presyo eh dumoble o triple ang presyo.

  3. @CPMERs……My point is this…. The 1987 Constitution was re rewritten and ratified by not NOTICING the implications and defects on HOW to amend the Constitution. Whether by 3/4 votes of both Houses voting separately ( which is much clearer meaning or interpretation ) or 3/4 votes of both Houses voting jointly. It was reduced into writing ” pero nakaligataan daw ng mga MAMBABATAS dahil akala nila ” unilateral congress ” pa daw ang pinagbutuhan nila o Batasang Pambansa pa ni Marcos ang nass isip nila ” . KATANGAHAN ng mga FRAMERs , ang talagang katotohanan ay PINABAYAAN NILA na ganoon ang isinulat para sa ganoon Kung may pagapkakataon na amendahan ang constitution ” for the allowance to have a President run for re-election and he GOT the numbers of both houses di ” LUSUT ” sya. NOW…

    Lawyers like Atty. Disini and Atty. Guerrero said with the deletion of Section 190.1.. Allowing us to import certain numbers of books and etc., are not clear if the Bureau of Customs will allow the said numbers of books and etc. With the deletion on new amended law on IP. Atty. Blancaflor ang @ saxnviolin said otherwise, that OFW s can import more books for personal usage without interference from an immigration agent and free duties and taxes . Concurred also by [email protected] ,,,,for an ordinary people like me , I believe to what [email protected] was posting ……so….

    WHY NOT REDUCED into WRITING or ADD an additional provision on the new amended Intelectual Property Law stating CLEARLY/EXPRESSLY that Filipinos leaving abroad can IMPORT said numbers of books and etc. for personal use without paying any taxes or duties and so forth…… PARA CLARO sa lahat ng Mamayang Pilipino……….MAHIRAP PO BANG GAWIN ITO ? Sabagay kung ang FRAMERs ng Constitution mga nahihirapan magsulat ng claro sa ating Saligang Batas , sila pa kaya sa Congreso di napakahirap talaga, at mawawalaan ng trabaho ng ating mga ABOGADO pati.. he he

    • A clearer provision and interpretation of the new amended Law on IP which is consistent with other Departmental Orders from the Finance Department will it be a hindrance for the approval of the said Law.?

      Imagine if this Blog was not around , people abroad especially the OFWs before having their vacation here, are already preparing ” pasalubungs ” like books, CDs, DVDs copies and etc,, and the first question that will enter on their mind and ask their kababayan or MATEs their ” sa bagong batas , pwedi pa kaya kami mag uwi ng mga Ito? Ilang piraso kaya? Ano naman ang isasagut ng mga kakwarto , ganito… Hindi namin alam Kung ilan, BUTI pa wag kanalang magadala o ISA nalang para sigurado ka at sayang Kung makumpiska sa immigration o baka makulung ka pa niyan ……Hindi na iyan magdadala kasi ” hard earned money ang pinangbili tapos , uncertain sya if it will not be confiscated….

      By not having a PUBLIC HEARINGs on the new Law and due to the CLOUDY Provisions , OFWs will not bring said personal effects,,.. is this not a Violation of their Basic Rights , Depriving them even at one return trip to the Philippines by not bringing home personal properties ” na pinagpawisan nyang bilhin kay Nanay , Ate, kay Kuya at lalong lalo na sa kanyang mga Tatay ”

      Ang gugulo nyo mga MAMBABATAS . Dapat sa inyo makulung lahat sa Muntinlupa . Pirma kayo ng pirma ng mga panukala na malabo at laging napabor sa mga ILITISTA at UPPORTUNISTA sa ating BAYAN.

      • You are right on the points @Victin Luz! I clap to no end on your recommendation to send ’em to Muntinlupa!

        Common sense, when bills affects basic rights of people, their culture and lives, a PUBLIC HEARING from the private and public sectors must be accommodated. No hurried passing of such bills should be done by Congress and the Executive Departments.

        That is why it is not right to ask justices of the SC, etc., to find out if such bills are constitutional,etc. We do away advisory opinions from the Judicial officials.

        Wake up members of CONGRESS!

    • victin luz, I wish customs would give their side of the story and as sort of public relations exercise, join us here in raissa’s blog. they keep quiet instead of raising public awareness.

      • Papaano magbibigay ng COMMENTS ang mga taga DOF at BC @moonie sila siguro naguguluhan na din kung ano ang gustong palabasin ng mga MAMBABATAS ( VILLAR at iba pa ) tayo pa kaya ang hindi naguguluhan lalo na siguro ang mga kababayan nating taga ibang Bansa mga OFW, lalong magulo sa kanila ang lahat….. UNGAS ……iyang si VILLAR talaga … Dapat wag iboto ang asawa dahil malamng ang lalaki din ang NASA likod pag nailoklok si MRS.

        • I think they know more than we do. and hope they’re not laughing (or crying) at our kaguluhan. being closer to the pulse, the head honcho at BC can certainly instruct staff with first class info. cheers.

        • @baltazar & moonie,

          salamat uli sa information na binigay nyo tungkol sa mga pocketbooks na iuuwi ko. Ngayon ay malakas na ang loob ko na makipagusap at ipilit ang aking karapatan pag nagkataon.

          Sa isang banda, tungkol sa comments/clarifications na dapat ibigay ng taga DOF/BC ay ito naman ang himig ko dyan:

          1. Hindi sila makapagbigay ng paliwanag dahil sa di din nila alam ang nilalaman at kung hanggang saan ang sakop ng batas na ito. Tulad ng mga sinabi ng iba pang CPMers dito. Ipasa ang trabaho na yan sa mga dapat gumawa nyan. Sabihin nila na magantay lang sila ng direktiba/memo sa nakatataas pag kailangan ng ipatupad ito.

          2. Ayaw din nila na manggaling sa kanila ang paliwanag at baka sila ang masisi sa huli kung sakaling magkaloko-loko at magalit ang taong bayan sa kanila. Hayaan na lang ang mga mambubutas ang gumawa nuon. Na dapat naman talaga nuong ginagawa pa lang ito at nagkaroon ng public hearing. Bakit kailangan pa na isiwalat sa blog na ito ang tungkol dito? At saka pa lang sila nagkukumahog na gumawa ng press statement at conference at mga tv interviews. Kung ito ay napagusapan o napaliwanag ng mabuti bago pa lang ay di ganito. Sino ang may kasalanan o pagkukulang?

          3. Mas mabuti sa kanila ang magulo o di malinaw na situation para pag naging batas na ito ay mas marami silang mapeperwisyo dahil sila at mga tao ay hindi alam ang eksaktong lawak/sakop nito. E di nga naman mas may pagkakataon sila na makapangurakot/makapangtakot/makapangipit ng mga dumarating/umaalis sa atin bansa.

          Yung sinasabi na meron mga advisories sa mga embassies natin ay mabuti yun at may patnubay ang mga tao. Pero kung anduon ka na sa actual na situation sabihin mo man yan at magkaroon ng matagal na diskusyunan o pagtatalo bago ka nila hayaan umalis/umuwi, isipin na lang ang perwisyo idudulot syo ng tensyon, inis, galit dahil sa abal na gagawin syo bago ka finally makalipad o makalabas ng airport.

    • @Victin Luz #27

      I suggest that you go to Chan Robles Virtual Law Library and name it you’ll get even US Federal Laws, statutes and codes, US Supreme court decisions including our local laws and our supreme court decisions.

      Go to our Philippine Constitutions indexes and you’ll find any topic regarding our constitution including amendments and revisions.

      ARTICLE XVII Amendments and Revisions

      Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:

      (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or

      (2) A constitutional convention.

      Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

      The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.cralaw

      Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.cralaw

      Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.cralaw
      Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

      It is very explicit that congress alone can initiate an amendment/s of our constitution. The word congress means the lower house unless otherwise it is stated that senate is mentioned in any statement thereof.

      There is no use of discussing in-depth any law/s, amendments or any impending revision/s because our authorities don’t really cares and enforce it. Why worry if you are in the US you can send balikbayan boxes marked personal effects without being opened. We even shipped Jasmine rice in balibayan box when I was there.

      We have tons and tons of laws enacted but never been implemented nor enforced. Take for instance the anti littering law, we only realizes when rainy season comes and floods inundates many major streets this is because of indiscriminate throwing of trashes that clogs our street drainage system. Does our authorities cares? Hell no! Try to observe while on any streets of metro manila.

      This applies to the proposed amendments of the IPC, who cares? only in this blog. I bet you after all is said and done it will be same as before. I can still pirated DVD’s in Quiapo the only difference is it is not like before that it is in the open.

      • Tama po [email protected] clementejak,…..when I am still working , it was true ” balewala lahat mga kabalbalan sa politica at mga batas na malabo ang pagkasulat na pinag papapalitpalitan ng mga kuro kuro ng ating mga kababayan na ang karamihan nga noon ay walang nangyayari o dili kaya , wala ding say say o nagyayari ” But when I accidentally came into this BLOG of @Raissa during the trial of Corona , and had seen the results of our efforts discussing everything and with those so many opinions READ by your end , in our OWN little understanding of everything that CPMERS had said, we also came up with a definite solution or ” kung Mali or Tama si Corona ” and our humble assessment especially how the senators caster their individual votes ay TAMA din pala kami ..

        On this BLOG we FIND the truth on a certain issues that we were not able to acquire on the daily national papers. Here, in the long process of posting comments explaining opinions and ideas with each other’s ” makikita mo sa katagalan o sa una palang kung sino ang nagsasabi ng totoo , sino ang nagsisisnungaling at kung saan nakiling ang ating kapwa CPMERs ” . By summing it up , you wil find the TRUTH of a certain iSSUE.

        Like the RH BILL , lumabas na mas mababaw ang batayan ang RCC against the RH kaysa sa batayan ng mga PRO RH.. Sa Celdran case, lumabas din ang katotohanan kung sino ang dapat sisihin sa hindi pag amyenda sa ART.133 of the RPC.. Sa 1.6 m pesos bonus ni ENRILE , lumabas din lahat ang katotohanan Kung sino sino ang mga may kasalanan asa mata nang Tao na halos lahat pala sila ay nakinabang Hindi sa taong 2012 kundi mga sumunud pang TAON, iba Iba mga lang ang tinanggap , pero sa mata ng Tao at sa DIYOS pareparehas din NAKAW sa kaban ng bayan ang mga lahat na perang tinanggap nila. Marami pa po sir kagaya ng ginawang KAPALPAKAN ni SOTTO in plagiarism .

        Dito lang po namin natutunan lahat mga iyan [email protected]……….. and it is only now that I read the Philippine Constitution at hearth…. Iniintindi kung maige at ngayon kulang napagtanto tanto na marami palang kamaliang ginawa at ginagawa ng ating MAMBABATAS sir.

        • Maari ngang wali ring saysay ang lahat na mga Ito but at least , I have something to tell to my children and to my grandchildren to come about the TRUTH of everything and anything in the Philipppines… .. I know , you Sir and most of the CPMERs here that in the END our only WEALTH is our Children, our Children’s children.. and TREASURING our children they must know the TRUTH especially the Past.

        • Off topic but pertains to this comment:

          “It is very explicit that congress alone can initiate an amendment/s of our constitution. The word congress means the lower house unless otherwise it is stated that senate is mentioned in any statement thereof.”

          The equation as spelled out in Article VI of our Constitution (the bicameral nature of the Legislative Department):

          The Congress = Senate + HOR (each House doing business separately)

          Please read my comment here…with an interesting analogy:

          http://philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/2009/06/this-animal-called-con-ass.html?showComment=1244902347020#c2866163387061986274

      • @clementejak,

        Off topic but pertains to this comment:

        “It is very explicit that congress alone can initiate an amendment/s of our constitution. The word congress means the lower house unless otherwise it is stated that senate is mentioned in any statement thereof.”

        The equation as spelled out in Article VI of our Constitution (the bicameral nature of the Legislative Department):

        The Congress = Senate + HOR (each House doing business separately)

        Please read my comment here…with an interesting analogy:

        philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/2009/06/this-animal-called-con-ass.html?showComment=1244902347020#c2866163387061986274

      • @clementejak…… Sir I think @Baycas was right ,,,the word Congress must be interpreted Lower and the Upper house . So they have to vote separately when amending the Constitution particularly authorizing an incumbent President for a second term or for re-election.BILATERAL congress po at a tayo Sir.

        • “Bicameral” po tayo. Dalawang chambers: Senate at House of Representatives (HOR). Ang dalawa ang siyang tinatawag na “CONGRESS”.

          Mahilig ang ilang mga tao na magbigay ng ibang kahulugan sa dati nang nakagawian o sadyang default setting na isinasaad ng batas. At bawa’t batas ay may IRR (implementing rules and regulations) na siyang gagabay sa lahat: nasa gobiyerno o kasama ng madla.

          Nakatutulong ba sa bayan o hindi, may pansarili bang agenda o wala, nagmamarunong ba o hindi, o nanggugulo lang ba talaga o hindi ang mga taong ito? ‘Yan ang mga katanungang sila lang ang makasasagot.

          Ang “all the members of the Congress” ang isang halimbawa na pilit binibigyan ng AMBIGUITY ng mapanlarong kaisipan na nagdudulot ng kalituhan at walang kuwentang pangamba…

          Pakibasa po rito kung paano gumalaw at magtrabaho ang bicameral legislature:

          http://philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/2009/06/this-animal-called-con-ass.html?showComment=1244901483915#c6392711829680708554

        • “Bicameral” po tayo. Dalawang chambers: Senate at House of Representatives (HOR). Ang dalawa ang siyang tinatawag na “CONGRESS”.

          Mahilig ang ilang mga tao na magbigay ng ibang kahulugan sa dati nang nakagawian o sadyang default setting na isinasaad ng batas. At bawa’t batas ay may IRR (implementing rules and regulations) na siyang gagabay sa lahat: nasa gobiyerno o kasama ng madla.

          Nakatutulong ba sa bayan o hindi, may pansarili bang agenda o wala, nagmamarunong ba o hindi, o nanggugulo lang ba talaga o hindi ang mga taong ito? ‘Yan ang mga katanungang sila lang ang makasasagot.

          Ang “all the members of the Congress” ang isang halimbawa na pilit binibigyan ng AMBIGUITY ng mapanlarong kaisipan na nagdudulot ng kalituhan at walang kuwentang pangamba…

          Pakibasa po rito kung paano gumalaw at magtrabaho ang bicameral legislature:

          philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/2009/06/this-animal-called-con-ass.html?showComment=1244901483915#c6392711829680708554

  4. WPS Update: China formally rejects UN arbitration on West PHL Sea issue

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/295671/news/nation/china-formally-rejects-un-arbitration-on-west-phl-sea-issue

    Though its too early to celebrate, congratulations to Pnoy admin and DFA especially Sec. Del Rosario. In my opinion the act of rejection of china symbolizes that they do not have evidence to prove their claim in WPS. Any action that they take now can be concluded as “hegemony”.

    Its not only a win for Philippines but also for our ASEAN brothers as well.

    Sana ang PH Air force at coast guard ay patuloy na binabantayan ang scarborough shoal at reed bank, baka kasi magtayo na naman ang china ng structure doon.

    • PR China with it’s rejection of Philippine complaint at UN Arbitration Agency is clearly arrogance and solely wants to determine it’s own claim & bullying as the executor and judge for all of it.

      China is definitely weakening it’s preposterous claims. Other claimants and the UN as body must warn China and do all actions to STOP CHINA from being a bully. What will stop China from claiming all other areas or countries in the Asia Pacific Region!

      Shall it reach the situation where other countries will pull out their ambassadors and cut off diplomatic relations with China? Stop all commercial trading with China? Freeze all China assets in other countries? Prohibit it’s leaders from traveling abroad? Restrict it’s Int’l air lines from landing in other countries? Impose trade sanctions?

      All of the above will be as a results of China’s being not acting according to UN laws and principles of being a member of that Body, including International laws.

      • Sa totoo lang kung tama ang aking memorya, kaya nabuo ang UN ay para matigil ang giyera sa buong mundo after WWII. Kaso kung hindi naman maipapatupad ng UN ang kasunduan na kanilang pinanukala at pinirmahan tulad ng UNCLOS eh ano pang silbi na maging miyembro nito?

        Ayokong umabot ang panahon na ang Pilipinas ay kailangan pang gumawa ng Nuclear Missile para lang irespeto ng ibang malalaking bansa tulad ng china.

        Mas malaki talaga ang mawawala kung aabot sa armed confrontation ang scarborough shoal at siguradong maraming bansa ang gustong lumahok upang mawala ang utang nila sa china

        By the way i searched this video after i read the news from ABC.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDqTrW4x3Mw

        Listen carefully the part of the video from 1:10 to 1:33. It seems there is a huge communication breach regarding the PH and US for the chinese hackers to steal the forwarded messages.

        Eto yata yung mga abbreviated emails na nakuha ng mga hackers:
        CARAT = Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training na ginanap sa Palawan?
        Hamilton = Hamilton Class Cutter?
        EXECOM = Executive Committee for the U.S. and Philippine Mutual Defense Board (MDB) and Security Engagement Board (SEB)

        Sources:
        http://globalnation.inquirer.net/41985/philippine-us-naval-exercises-slated-in-mindanao-sea

        http://us-pacific-command.blogspot.com/2009/03/us-philippines-discuss-way-ahead-for.html

    • Shouldn’t there be a law also to limit our inventors and creators, etc., for inventions or creations very beneficial to our people should not be outright allowed to be subject of sale to foreigners but only to Filipino buyers to protect the beneficial advantages of the people? Like if someone invented water energy substituting gasoline or oil for running or operating mechanical engines, etc.?

      • kailangan ng isang sagad buto na pagiging makabayan para ang isang imbensyon ay ipagbili sa kapwa pilipino.

        Halimbawa:

        Sa hirap ng panahon ngayon ang isang gawa na binibili ng 1,000pesos ng pilipino at may offer din ang isang banyaga ng 5,000pesos. Napakahirap isipin at pagpasyahan, di ba?

        O kaya naman ang kakumpitensya ang bibili sa hustong halaga pero di nya gagamitin dito para may monopolya pa din sya.

        O kaya tulad ng suggestion mo @leona, ipagbibili sa pinoy nga tapos paglipas ng ilang panahon benta na din sa banyaga… may kita pa sya nuon. Naging negosyo na tuloy. At kawawa ang orihinal na gumawa.

        Pero yan ang realidad ng buhay ngayon

    • It would be best for inventors to go to patent office to have their creations patented. after checking if the creations were originals and not duplicates of something else, patent maybe granted. and for a period of time inventors can have exclusive rights to their creations until patent period is over. subscription may have to be paid and renewed. in pharmaceutical areas, patent of drugs is only for a number of years, and then, drugs divert or default to public domain. any pharmaceutical company can then reproduce the drugs and since the drug is out of patent, they can be sold at cheaper prices.

      • we live in modern times. inventions can easily be superseded and made obsolete by better and smarter inventions. we used to have karomatas, now we have cars. coloured t.v. instead of the black and white one, etc, etc.

  6. Blancaflor replied:
    Our approach has always been ‘international exhaustion of economic rights’. It’s not as if we took it out of the air. We have treaty obligations in effect.

    What treaty was he referring to?

    • Again, I read back Atty. Peria’s comments on this IP law amendments. At the last paragraph of his statements as given here by Raissa, he said –

      ‘Surely, this law has severely disadvantaged the broader right of the people for access to knowledge, since education is accorded the highest priority as a matter of state policy and exclusive rights to particular individuals are given only when they are beneficial to the people in general. These amendments are not beneficial to the people in general and we have not even started looking at other aspects of modern life, downloading of material over the internet, and the criminal and penal aspects of the amendments. That we will look into in the next posting.’

      Meaning SEC. 13 of Article XIV Constitution on the State ‘protecting and securing the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creation, particularly when “BENEFICIAL” to the people xxx ” If not beneficial, then the State should not protect and secure! but protect the people to access to KNOWLEDGE which should be accorded the highest priority as a matter of STATE POLICY.

      Meaning, the amendments to IP law is flawed. To severely disadvantage the people’s right to education. Will any TREATY the Philippines entered into or signed, be able to proceed to amend IP law despite running counter the SEC. 13 Article XIV? Supreme Court again?

      If it can be avoided, proposed bills like suspiciously contrary to constitutional provisions should not be signed into law. Review is a better precaution and less controversial and expensive, etc.

      How is the review carried out? Veto.

      • That’s what I am pointing out, Leona, since intellectual property rights are state-granted rights with a condition, that they be limited and that they should be beneficial and the Constitutional provisions I have
        pointed out indicate where our priority is, which is EDUCATION, which in a certain way, is similar to this modern notion of ACCESS to KNOWLEDGE. The IP Code amendments seem to have upset this balance and appears to run counter to this State Policy.

  8. From the USTR report:

    “I am pleased to congratulate the Governments of Spain and Malaysia on the progress that resulted in their removal from the Special 301 Lists. ….

    It’s a surprise that the Americans removed Malaysia on the watch list when the fact is, Singaporeans who want copycats would just traverse the Woodlands-Johor Bahru causeway and viola, name the movie or software and you’ll have it. There was also a time ( I confess) that I bought programming reference materials from there in impressively packaged DVD. Equally surprising is Spain where most of the currently active hackers are based on.

  9. Raissa’s ending notes “If we accede to all these, what do Filipinos get in return?” A warning! The Watch List of USTR as reported has thousands ‘requests or urgings’ for other countries to toe the line of American policy. One example from the List reported by Raissa is the –

    Statement by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Russia’s Suspension of U.S. Meat Imports

    regarding US meats exported to EU and Russia. Also to China and Taiwan. US meats, acc to these countries, are being fed with a drug known as ‘ractopamine’ causing sick animal later, lame, unhealthy and dies later. Thus these countries blocked all US meats exported. Some American companies refuses to use this drug on their animals like pigs but FDA says it is safe and the meats not harmful, etc.

    Are we also importing US meats like beef, pigs, turkeys, etc.? I’m sure not horse meat. With this drug, US pigs and beef gives more lean meat, for weight and more dollars like $2 more for the added weights the animals have before being slaughtered. The diverse findings of the experts remains unresolved clearly. A confusion maybe. US wants the suspension of their imported meat lifted by these countries, who believe their people should not eat such drugged meat. Who knows the dead pig later due to the drug was slaughtered for export.

    US beef is delicious but the dinner doesn’t see ractopamine drug in it.

    • Off-topic:
      In fact Philippines should export pork, beef and chicken here in US. Kahit maliit or mukhang underweight ang pork from PH 100% sure naman na mas malasa!

      Im not sure kung nag-e-export na ang Philippines to US ng poultry products pero dito sa Southern California wala pa akong nakikita na ibinebenta. Kahit nga fish wala pa pero may nakikita akong galing sa thailand and vietnam.

      Hopefully soon payagan naman ng USDA ang pagpasok ng masmadaming Pinoy poultry and meat products tutal madami naman kaming pinoy (consumers) dito eh :)

      • If the Philippine beef is to be used in the US for manufacture of leather shoes, okay. The quality of toughness is appropriate for that. Now the pork is a different matter. That could end up on dinner plates in the US okay, as long as the quality meets US standards.

        • As an afterthought, Americans protest if chicken farmers grow their birds in inhumane conditions (ahahaha). I’m not sure the Philippines would get past the fact that chicken fighting is a sport, to allow chickens to be shipped to the US. Americans would be afraid they were eating the losers.

      • What ‘drugs’ should be fed/used on chickens by Filipino growers of chickens for export use?

        Our fighting COCKS surely uses many drugs for fighting, for stamina, to stop or slow down bleeding, vitamins, and many other drugs. This class cannot be exported as the meat is so hard, it’s like eating the rubber tires of an 18-wheeler truck! Stretched & developed muscles meat of gladiator fighting cocks!

        No can do. Our ‘chickens’ are only 5 ft in height while American chickens are 6 -7 ft. tall. No one will want to buy pygmy chickens compared to NBA chickens! Just a follow-through about this.

        • ahahahahahahaha, you made my day leona. American chickens taste like cardboard, unfortunately. I think they are cloned in some microwave transmorgafier hidden in the middle of Kansas. I won’t bother telling you or Martial what is pumped into our corn that is fed to the cattle, or in the tomatoes to make sure they are really red and don’t spoil for 26 years.

  10. Gusto ko malaman kung ako ba ay apektado dahil sa maraming akong collection ng pocketbooks. Mga 50 piraso na ibat-ibang authors. Bilang isang OFW ito ang libangan ko pagkatapos ng aking trabaho. Ito ay nabili ko sa mga tyangge at minsan ay swap sa iba pang kilala ko at lahat ay 2nd hand na. Kaya wala ako resibo at wala namang resibo na ibinibigay kapag bumili ako.

    Pwede ko ba iuwi lahat ito? Pwede ba makumpiska dahil nga wala ako resibo sa lahat ng mga pocketbooks na iuuwi ko?

    • @curveball
      In taxation, as applied to items entering our air ports especially those that are considered personal effects, the receipts no longer matter because the customs has predefined the duties each for a brand new and used item. Books/novels – no problem (at least for now that things about this IP are still dangling) as long as they are original and of course different from each other. ( take note: maximum 3 – for the same title for the time being). In my experience, customs would mind mostly those big electronic appliances – like TV. I have books that always tag along with me wherever I go because they are indispensable references for me . Such are books with notices EXPORT OF THIS BOOK OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES PUNISHABLE BY LAW, soft-bound and printed in newsprint class papers. I bought it from the National Bookstore during the 80s. I don’t feel guilty bringing them always because just like what @saxnviolins mentioned somewhere here, the money I paid to the copyright owner when I bought the books gives me the right to posses those books regardless of my location. Personal effects don’t fall on the import/export items – again until things are clearly defined in the law.

      • Maraming salamat @Baltazar.

        Dahil sa marami na akong nakita at nabalitaan na mga immig at customs officials na nanggigipit ng mga pinoy sa mga paalis at parating sa airport, kahit sa maliit na dahilan lamang kaya gusto ko na makasiguro.

        Gagawa sila ng dahilan para ma-off load ang tao kaya sila ay mapipilitan na maglagay o di na makasakay.

        • Use technology. When they extort you ,get your mobile device, take a video then post to a social network. I believe what happened in 2006 between GMA’s daughter and an immigration officer where the latter scolded the girl for complaining about preferrential treatment for foreigners then was sacked, have given them a darn good lesson. Well, not that the girl was a Tech savvy and took a video of the whole event, but the point is we should not be afraid of those robbers in broad daylight. With these new technologies at hand, everybody is a cameraman nowadays. Give them a day in the social network and the lesson will spread virally as well. When I was just starting working abroad, I realized that even the lowliest security guard in the customs section have their own share in the looting modus – and i have experienced it. That’s why, at the height of the Amalayer video fever, I took side with the little girl because I’ ve experienced an abuse by a security guard – but I don’t condone the girl’s palengkira attitude though.

        • “Nanggipit” ‘o nanggugupit! Many of our ka babayans will undergo this at the Customs area. A sort of ‘justifying’ to do some ‘hanap-buhay’. No one can deny this except those housed at the mental asylums.

          As DG Blancaflor said something about being ‘heavy’, we are still also heavy on nanggigipit ‘o nanggugupit’ [ for books, etc. etc. ]. He knows and we know.

        • lawyers, laypersons, and ordinary citizens are joining in the discussion here in raissa’s blog, airing their opinions and views and giving insights. yet we never got to hear anything from customs. what’s with them? they already treat people passing through them as potential thieves, illegal importers, drug mules and terrorists, human traffickers, and also source of extra income. it would be good to hear from them once in a while. and not just in the airport.

        • Mga hinayupak na mga taga Customs @moonie,….doon mga sa Balabak town , Palawan and other parts of the province smuggling of imported canned goods and biscuits are RAMPANT , na galling sa Sabah hindi nila mabantayan at doon napakaraming palusot doon ,kahit human trafficking rampant @moonie , to prove na rampant ay Sina KIRAM mga nasa Sabah now with out our Arm Forces or intelligence knowing it or preventing it . NGAYON gusto nila a law to REGULATE copyrights… Mga hinayupak talaga , pag naapprove ang isang batas ang nagka bulilyaso , ang sasabihin ng Gobyerno natin it was the VOICE of the representative of the People who approved such Law..

  11. Law professor Berne Guerrero weighs in on the amendments to the IP Code.

    http://berneguerrero.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/hb3841-and-sb2842-ph-ipc/

    On the :
    D. Removal of the allowance of limited importation under Section 190.1, RA 8293 and new import/export rules – says:

    The deletion of Section 190.1 indicates the intention of the legislature to remove or withdraw the allowance as provided therein. Upon the effectivity of the law when it is signed, anyone who shall import the same, albeit legitimate copy or copies of a work in the jurisdiction of origin, would now violate the rights of those foreign copyright owners as their permission has not been sought for the importation of the same to the Philippines.

    The position that the Bureau of Customs would allow importation of the same, notwithstanding the removal of said provisions, is not encouraging. Considering the directive of the Bureau would not have any statutory anchor, such directive would be in violation of property rights without due process of law, of foreigners who are entitled protection of Philippine laws pursuant to treaty obligations, and could be rendered unconstitutional. An administrative issuance cannot provide privileges not provided by law to the detriment of property rights of those entitled to it and those who rely upon the fact that such rights are not limited, or no longer limited, under law. Further, a laxed implementation of the amended law by government entities would render the Philippines accountable anew on enforcement of intellectual property rights, and see itself on prominent rank of violators in IP watchlists.

    It should be noted that the equivalent provisions in the US Code remain intact. [46]

    E. Rules relevant to importation and exportation (Section 190.3)

    Section 15 of the consolidated bill provides:

    Sec. 15. Section 190.3 of R.A. No. 8293 is hereby renumbered and amended as the sole provision under Section 190 to read as follows:

    Sec. 190. Importation and Exportation of Infringing Materials. — Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations for preventing the importation or exportation of infringing articles prohibited under Part IV of this Act and under relevant treaties and conventions to which the Philippines may be a party and for seizing and condemning and disposing the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported or before they are exported.

    The promulgation of rules and regulations for preventing the importation or exportation of infringing materials by the Bureau of Customs is necessary. Nevertheless, due to the nature of the assurances being made in relation to the deletion of Sections 190.1 and 190.2, I do not feel comfortable with the potential implication of the seemingly innocent provision above. I could not help but wonder if this seemingly innocent provision would subsequently allow the replication of the US policy of laptop searches, without suspicion, on Philippine borders or ports, [47] and for the Philippine Government to subsequently claim a similar application of the doctrine in Papa vs. Mago, GR L-27360, 28 February 1968, En Banc, Zaldivar [J][48], notwithstanding its impact to the Constitutional right to privacy.

    On – Technology Circumvention as Aggravating circumstance (Sections 216 and 217) – says:

    The provision pertaining to the circumvention measures indeed refer to aggravating circumstances, consistent with the assurance with the Intellectual Property Office. Nevertheless, due to the dynamics and the gray areas pertaining to copyright holders’ rights in relation to allowances due to limitations of Copyright and fair use, circumvention measures can be argued not merely as a tool for the subsequent commission of copyright infringement but that circumvention measures provide for the cause of the copyright infringement itself (on the argument that such is an intimate component of the work). These situations are not difficult to appreciate. The unintended consequences of the US equivalent, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),[60] should already have been taken into consideration as anti-circumvention provisions are being introduced in the Philippines through this consolidated bill. The EFF report was already available on the Internet a year before this present legislation was reintroduced, after substituting its predecessor bills, in the Philippine Congress.[61] Issues relevant to anti-circumvention and safe harbors are somehow contentious, [62] [63] and discussion thereon continues. [64]

    B. Safe harbor (Sections 216 and 217, RA 8293; in relation to Sections 30 and 33, RA 8792)

    Persons liable for infringement under RA 8792 would be, under Section 217.1, “[a]ny person infringing any right secured by provisions of Part IV of this Act or aiding or abetting such infringement”; and under Section 217.3, “[a]ny person who at the time when copyright subsists in a work has in his possession an article which he knows, or ought to know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the purpose of: (a) Selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or exposing for sale, or hire, the article; (b) Distributing the article for purpose of trade, or for any other purpose to an extent that will prejudice the rights of the copyright owner in the work; or (c) Trade exhibit of the article in public.”

    Persons liable for infringement under RA 8792 would be, under Section 33(b), persons who commit “Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction, dissemination, or distribution, importation, use, removal, alteration, substitution, modification, storage, uploading, downloading, communication, making available to the public, or broadcasting of protected material, electronic signature or copyrighted works including legally protected sound recordings or phonograms or information material on protected works, through the use of telecommunication networks, such as, but not limited to, the internet, in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights ….”

    Nevertheless, service providers, as referred to in Section 5(j), RA 8792 [65], would not be liable for infringement if they do not commit the acts prohibited under the last paragraph of Section 5(j), RA 8792, or if the conditions under Section 30(b), RA 8792 [66] would have been satisfied.

    Considering, however, that Section 216 (b), as proposed to be amended, provides that:

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

    xxx

    (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;

    xxx

    the safe harbors provided under Section 30(b), RA 8792 would be negated by mere notice of the infringing activity, without any reasonable parameters on the period to respond before such service provider would become liable. Without such parameters, the liability becomes immediate upon notice, and infringement would have committed between the intervening period between the notice and the resultant takedown of the alleged infringing work. Further, there is no remedy for a copyright holder whose work was wrongfully taken down, as there are no counter-notices provided in the proposed legislation; providing a quandary, else potential liabilities, to the service provider.

    • [email protected]

      Professor Guerrero said:

      “The position that the Bureau of Customs would allow importation of the same, notwithstanding the removal of said provisions, is not encouraging. Considering the directive of the Bureau would not have any statutory anchor, such directive would be in violation of property rights without due process of law, of foreigners who are entitled protection of Philippine laws pursuant to treaty obligations, and could be rendered unconstitutional.”

      I think that foreign copyright owners should first tie up with a local counterpart to protect their interests in the Philippines. Foreign copyrights must secure a Philippine copyright whose local owner or administrator would implement any legal action. Government functionaries must be provided with sufficient legal basis to protect foreign copyright owners through their local offices or partner.

    • The deletion of Section 190.1 indicates the intention of the legislature to remove or withdraw the allowance as provided therein. Upon the effectivity of the law when it is signed, anyone who shall import the same, albeit legitimate copy or copies of a work in the jurisdiction of origin, would now violate the rights of those foreign copyright owners as their permission has not been sought for the importation of the same to the Philippines.

      Begging to differ. It is Philippine law which originally required permission of the copyright owner to import to the Philippines (or export to the Philippines from say, the USA.). There is no such provision in the copyright law of the US.

      I had a few books that I brought to Spain, in a hand carried bag. Two were brand new, and two from Strands (second hand). The US authorities did not ask me whether or not I had permission from the copyright holder. Neither did the Spanish authorities.

      There is no difference, physically, and logically, in taking the books from the US to Canada, or to Spain, or the Philippines. It is moving the copy given to you by the copyright owner out of the US. The only difference is the way that copy is treated under Philippine law. You need permission of the copyright owner to possess it, when in the Philippines, or entering the Philippines.

      Nobody is asked that question when bringing in books to the US, or bringing them in to another country;

      The reason for that is that there is no violation of property rights of the copyright owner when you transport the copy that the copyright owner handed to you, from one place to another. Certainly there is no violation when transporting from one residence of yours (US) to another (the ancestral home of your grandparents in the Philippines.)

      Again, as earlier stated by futboliztaz below, once the copyright owner (usually publisher) hands you the book, it loses control over that copy. You can bring it to Spain or the Philippines, use it as toilet paper, use it as confetti in a Makati rally. It is only Philippine law which earlier added the additional requirement that you need permission from the copyright owner over the control (bringing of books to the Philippines) of the copy that the copyright owner already handed to you.

      It is otra cosa if you make a copy from that copy (xerox). It is the act of copying that the copyright owner has control of; not the possession and/or transport of the copy it made and handed to you. You need permission to make many copies, unless, the copying comes under fair use. The fair use doctrine only comes in when you make copies. You do not need that doctrine with regard to the copy made by the copyright owner, handed by it to you.

      The new version, seen in this light, is actually advantageous to the OFW coming home.

      • Hi,

        I never said that –
        that “anyone who shall import the same, albeit legitimate copy or copies of a work in the jurisdiction of origin, would now violate the rights of those foreign copyright owners as their permission has not been sought for the importation of the same to the Philippines.”

        What I said was – what if certain publishers will give exclusive licenses to some Philippine distributors. And what if these publishers now write to Customs and say – only books passing through their licensees in the Philippines should be allowed in.

        Substitute software developers for publishers as well as foreign recording companies and movie producers or distributors. What if they tell Customs only those passing thorugh their licensed distributors in the PH should be allowed into Manila via the airport and ports.

        that’s the scenario I said.

        • I am quoting Berne Guerrero, first paragraph of the post above.

          With regard to your assertion above:

          what if certain publishers will give exclusive licenses to some Philippine distributors. And what if these publishers now write to Customs and say – only books passing through their licensees in the Philippines should be allowed in.

          You need permission of the Philippine government to import. You do not need permission of the copyright holder. And certainly the Philippines does not need permission from the publisher to allow books in. What the Philippines allows in or not is the sole prerogative of this sovereign state. No government, much less a mere publisher can dictate on the Philippines.

          What about the rights of the publisher as a copyright holder?

          Those are not being disturbed. I am bringing books (or CDs) issued by that copyright holder. The right of the copyright holder is only infringed if I copy, not if I possess and transport copies that said copyright holder itself handed to me.

          if I buy in bulk from Barnes and Noble, I own those copies that the copyright holder made. He has no business telling me what to do with it – whether I bring it to the Philippines, or feed it to my grill. What is in issue here is my property rights over the physical books; not the right of the copyright holder to copy, or withhold permission from someone who wishes to copy. I am not copying. I am enjoying my rights to my property. So are they going to tell me when to read those books? How many times to listen to the CD?

          The Philippines will have authority to deal with the books I bring in. Usually, the only issue here would be the import duties. I pay them, and that’s that. It is not, and never was illegal to bring in personal effects.

        • What is the section that Berne Guerrero was commenting on?

          Sec. 190. Importation and Exportation of Infringing Materials. — Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby empowered to make rules and regulations forpreventing the importation or exportation of infringing articles prohibited under Part IV of this Act and under relevant treaties and conventions to which the Philippines may be a party and for seizing and condemning and disposing the same in case they are discovered after they have been imported or before they are exported.

          This section refers to rules to be made regarding infringing materials Books printed by the copyright holder itself are not infringing. So my bringing in books bought from Barnes and Noble, or even second hand ones bought from Strands do not come under this section. They are copies made by the copyright holder itself, and certainly not infringing.

          This article actually will prevent some guy who buys bootleg DVDs from Chinatown, NY , to sell in the Philippines, or some guy availing of cheap labor, printing DVDs in the Philippines, to sell in the streets of New York.

        • How about if the exclusive LICENSEE in the Philipppines of the copyright owner abroad will be the one to COMPLAIN to the Bureau of Custom thru the Deapartment of Finance that such numbers of BOOK’s owned personally by OFW’s being brought in here are too much and to be considered as Smuggling and and UNFAIR BUSINESS COMPETITION on the part of those having an exclusive LICENSE.

          The determination of UNFAIR BUSINESS COMPETITION and the number of books allowed by a Balikbayan’s still lies with the Bureau of Customs at the first instance..

          What was happening at Port Irene might happen eventually to the Port of Entry of the OFW’s bringing so many numbers of book’s because the amended Law on IP was BLURED and it did not past by Public Scrutiny or Public Hearings.

          Lawyers in the blog and those outside have of different interpretation of the amended Law, how much more to us , especially those OFW’s who know nothing about new Law also those CUSTOM PERSONNEL’s manning the Port of Entry, are they educated enough to implement the correct or lawful interpretation of the Law or have the latter as their CLOAK for CORRUPTION. ” LAGAY LAGAY ” para ang gutom na gutom na OFW’s who wanted to go home to CAGAYAN immediately, their questionable numbers and properly obtained personal BOOK’s etc.. will be released at the Immigartion.

        • [email protected]

          You are damn right. Unless the book you bought in the USA warns that “this book is non-exportable”, you can bring it into the Philippines any way you desire. I have yet to see a book in the Philippines or abroad which says that same is non-exportable, although Baltazar said @21.1 that he used to carry outside the Philippines books with such notice as “Export of this book outside of the Philippines is punishable by law”. And you don’t even have to worry about duties and taxes. They are tax and duty free per Department of Finance Order No. 57-2011 to promote entry into the Philippines of educational, scientific and cultural materials.

        • @sir Rene, …….totoo ang sinasabi ni ma’am @Raissa ….. How can you reconcile what BLANCLAFOR said ten ( 10 ) copies can be imported as agains that Department of Finance Order no. 57-2011 which is limited only to ( 12 )copies for an institution and ( 6 ) copies non-institution both for personal usage.. …… And looked sir the Repealing Clause of that Department Order of Secretary Purisima: all other DOF circulars, issuances and Bureau of Customs issuances or provision thereof which Are inconsistent with this order Are hereby revoke, repealed and modified accordingly….. SO……

          1.) After the new amended law on Intelectual Property is approved by the President , thereby under that new Law at Sect. 190 giving the power of DOF and BC to issue Rules and Regulation to the said law , therefore the Department of Finance can issue new Department ORDER no. 58 or any number repealing again DOF no. 57-2011 … Increasing or decreasing the number of books that can be personally imported in the Philipppines free of taxes and duties respectively.

          2.) or DOF thru BC after the new Law on IP is approved by PNOY, a new IRR will be issued by them re- tuning the new Law particularly increasing or decreasing the number of personal books to be imported here to the extent of disallowing anything under a new PROVISO and having a Repealing Clause and/or Separability Clause , repealing, revoking and modifying other DOF orders like DOF 59-2011 which will become inconsistent with the new IRR of the new amended IP Law….

        • thanks [email protected],…..i will be there in MANILA IN TWO WEEKS TIME , kita kita tayo naman Sir, Maam, he he and where?if you have time and we will go to the office Raissa and ALLAN , he he ok ka

        • [email protected]

          IMO, with or without the new Code , an OFW can bring home 10 or more books legitimately acquired abroad. Following the DOF Order, only six would be for personal use and the rest would be considered for commercial purposes. Meaning that the OFW concerned should comply with the requirements on importation of books for commercial purposes. Otherwise, duties and taxes would be levied on the extra number of books.

          Please take note that the Philippine govenment encourages and facilitates importation of educational, scientific and cultural materials by exempting the books from customs duties and internal revenue taxes, whether for commercial or personal purposes. But to take advantage of tax free importation in commercial quantity, the importer must comply with certain requirements, which requisites are absent in importation for personal purpose. So, I think that same policy would stay regardless of IP law.

  12. IPO Director General Ricardo Blancaflor sent me an e-mail this morning replying to my replies, but not yet to this piece.

    He also gave a press conference this morning.

    I am glad he is clarifying things.

    Much as I would like to write and post Part 3 of this series and reply to his reply, I am constrained by the fact that I have two work deadlines which I have to take care of first. I had postponed these deadlines in order to write on the IP Code amendments.

    But I can no longer postpone them since one deadline is this afternoon. Yikes.

    • Maraming salamat sa mga gawaing makabayan Raïssa.

      Pro bono pa man din ang mga trabaho mo dito, at hindi mapapag-kaila na pam bansa ang kahalaga-an ng iyong mga kasulatan at ganuon din sa iyong mga mambabasa na sumusubaybay sa iyong blog.

      Mabuhay ka

      • I agree and join the SALAMAT. Very extraordinaire and meticulous hard work Raissa is doing. My clapping to no end!

        • Me too @maam Raissa ,…….I learn a lot from your blog. I consumed most of my time as a retiree by reading , googling about LAW’s and trying HARD to understand other’s comments to mention RENE IPIL, MEL, LEONA, PINAY 710, JORGE BERNAS , VANDIER , CHA , CHIT and to all of you CPMERs especially my IDOL BAYCAS, and POSTED comments on my own little knowledge and understanding .

          Thanks Ma’am Raissa on bringing in detailed , controversial and important topic to US…BAYAN KO

        • y lalo na ako, miron, saling pusa pero DAMI DAMI kong napagalaman sa inyong lahat matatalinong CPMers lalo na kina raissa at alan. maraming salamat din.kaya lang hirap intindihin ang mga LEGAL TERms hihihihi used ko ang online dictionary.

        • Thank you ever so much for all the exemplary posts dealing with issues affecting our lives.
          MABUHAY KA RAISSA AND ALLAN.

      • Oo nga pala, belated Happy Valentine’s Day Raïssa.

        Bating kapatid (baka habulin ako ng itak ni Alan).

        :smile:

  13. CPMERs…… REMEMBER the double insertion BUDGETARY appropriation of a MULTI MILLION ROADWAY PROECT before the 2000 election…….BY Senator Manny VILLAR as alledge by Senator ENRILE and Senator Lacson………With the battery of brilliant Lawyers under the payrol of VILLAR so as ENRILE and the other Senators who approved the BILL and now forwarded for PNOY’s signature, HINDI NILA NAPUNA ang mga INCONSISTENCIES and INFIRMITIES of the new law amending I.P. ” DAPAT ba NATING PANIWALAAN ang mga SENADOR na mga Ito ”

    People’s Money ang pinangagalingan ng SAHOD NILA….DO NOT VOTE VILLAR for SENATOR , she is not deserving and the facts , they were also of a DYNASTY CLAN.

    • Speaking of they are of a dynasty clain, Fr. Joaquin Bernas gives his piece about this dynasty the reasons why the Constitution did not provide a self-executing law on it –

      http://opinion.inquirer.net/47067/the-antidynasty-campaign

      No one of the delegates wanted to define what is a dynasty. Here is my take, for one cent on a anti-dynasty law, either as a constitutional provision or statute [I prefer the former ] :

      “No candidate for any political elective or appointive office, related in any degree in the ascending or descending line by consanguinity or affinity, including a spouse and children or down the degree lines, to any incumbent official elected or appointed official, shall be qualified as a candidate for election or appointment to any government office.”

      • Mam Leona @ ok po iyan , pero Hindi po ba pweding ang exception , like after one full term ( 3 years ) of your non candidacy we will allow them to RUN again. Para sa ganoon ay iyong FREEDOM to VOTE and TO BE VOTED will stay.

        • Or two ( 2 ) consecutive terms , one of the term must be of full term of non candidacy and one or any of the ( 2 ) terms can be distinguish by the LAW if said term or one term is only a continuance of an elected official tenure of office but who will be found earlier not qualified and removed.

          Like ROMAN’s case in Bataan and Hagedorn case in Palawan, when such continuance of the term of the elected officials they replaced was not considered as 4th term for both Roman and Hagedorn and neither considered AGAIN as their First term .

        • hahaha…as long as there is no incumbent at any one time or situation, on my 5 cents defintion. Actually, you ‘exception’ is not an exception but a separate issue on ‘term limits’.

          Ex: A is a mayor,first timer. Next election, he does not run but his wife “W” runs for the same office Is wife W qualified to run?

          In the same ex above, “A” runs for governor. Is A and B- the wife both qualified to runfor governor and mayor, in my 5 cents definition? Under my defiintion, it seem both qualified. Suppose, both wins, there’s is political dynasty? It seems YES! I need to make my definition one peso worth siguro!

        • Sorry mam @leona …we will allow them to RUN again after the PAHINGA means , i was referring to all the relatives you had mention not qualified,,,, the relatives that can be substituted or the former elected officials are allowed ONLY after PAHINGA say of 2 consecutive terms.

          Substitution by the wife , children or any relatives of what DEGREE ,will be only after 2 consecutive terms of different incumbent family .

        • Sorry mam @leona …we will allow them to RUN again after the PAHINGA means , i was referring to all the relatives you had mention not qualified,,,, the relatives that can be substituted or the former elected officials are allowed ONLY after PAHINGA say of 2 consecutive terms.

          Substitution by the wife , children or any relatives of what DEGREE ,will be Allowed only after 2 consecutive terms of different incumbent family .

  14. Kudos to the new law, blind people who can’t afford Braille material can make in their own format copies of copyrighted works for their own use!

    • It’s one of the good points.

      HOwever, it seems audio books that started as meant for the blind cannot be reproduced by the blind anymore without infringing copyright.

      Why?

      • About our blind students here is a statement –

        “Braille textbooks are the key to a blind student’s successful integration into a regular school,” writes Resources for the Blind Incorporated (RBI), a non-government Christian organization that serves the visually impaired, on its website. “With Braille textbooks, a blind child has access to all the same information that the sighted students have. Without a Braille textbook, they have to find a way to get the information second hand.”

        They need more lots of it… Braille textbooks.

  15. im an OFW and is always apprehensive towards authorities in the airport. my reason is that i was offloaded twice by the immigration officials. twice almost offloaded. the hassles of explaining to some arrogant officials makes me feel much apprehensions to our authorities. i was offloaded for same reasons that there are times when I travel thru visit visas sponsored by companies complete with round tickets, confirmed hotel bookings since the trip purpose is short and only to meet prospective job personnel. once i also tried to travel via visit visa complete with round trip ticket and hotel bookings. also they wont let me pass since they always ask for OEC even if im only on visit visa. they wont believe me as a tourist with lots of interrogations regarding my capacities. and whenever i show them the memorandom from BI head regarding the “absolutenes” of my right to travel so long as all papers are presented, naah the more they will be offended since it has note “to avoid red tape” occurence.

    now, with respect to this law amendment, the purpose is for the good but yet it has to be clear. we or id say almost everybody will accede to this law so long as it will be much clear. my worries will be be that ill be travelling now on a monthly basis and the hassles of time consuming inspection of elctronica gadgets will surely affect our flight schedule since we have plane to catch.

    my pc n phones are loade with personal files (shared, downloaded movies, music) of which is my only pleasure everynight after a hard day work as most of OFW do. i am an avid follower in the sideline of this blog eversince and my day or night seldom be completed without reading all the comments in every blog as ive learned so much form here. thanks a lot to ms raissa & CPMers.

      • i download movies both from abroad and in PI. i admit im a bit guilty of downloading but this is one of the perks in working abroad away from families (as one commeter stated) and also due to limited sources in PI especially in the province. i believe most of OFW (say middle east) normally share videos to our compatriots since most filipinos loves entertainment and normally watch movies and even series from US for personal nightly relaxation.

        the thing that matters me most is that even if we would delete all personal files, we might not be able to freely pass the immigration or custom authorities easily. this will be another hassles for frequent travellers aside from delayed flights taht normally happen, long queus for baggage which also somtime takes time nd catching flights problem.

        i know there are still good people in authorities but as most OFWs concern as insinuated, the opportunity for crooks to harass us will now bw more possible. once they insist their power we can never agree. as ive said ive had bad experience with BIs. I just hope this law will be cleared to give us OFW hassle free pass going in or out of the country. thanks maam raissa.

      • Download movies from ‘abroad’?

        Hindi lingid o sikreto sa mga OFWs o OCWs na makaka-bili rin ng mga pelikulang Filipino sa mga Asian (Filipino) shops.

        Ang halaga magmula sa $5 kada DVD o VCD. Hindi lang instik, pati kababayan din.

        —

        Download? paki check sa Channel 131 (google).

        —

        Ask any filpinos (or their kin, asso or acquain) caught bringing pirated disk movies to the US (for example). suwerte mo kung kumpiskado lang, eh iyong iba – multa at interview.

        ganuon din sa mga fake apparels o accessories (watch o signature hand bags), malas mo kung suot suot mo at nakursunadaan ka ng customs for interview.