2007 - Intellectual Property Office

Transcription

STRENGTHENING THE IP SYSTEM: THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST
PIRACY AND COUNTERFEITING IN THE PHILIPPINES
(2005-2006)
(Comment of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines submitted to the United
States Trade Representative’s Office in relation to the annual Special 301: Philippines)
OUTLINE
I. Introduction
II. A Comprehensive Strategy to Strengthen the IP Regime
A. The Context
B. Major Challenges
C. Objectives and Strategies
III. The 2005-2006 Action Plan and Its Implementation
A. Strengthened Institutional Linkages and Inter-Agency Coordination
1. Presidential Mandate for IP Philippines as Oversight Agency
2. Inter-Agency Coordination
3. A Central Database for Anti-Piracy and Counterfeiting
4. Agreements on Institutional Linkages
a) Optical Media Board (OMB)
b) National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
c) Department of Justice (DOJ)
d) National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)
e) Bureau of Customs (BOC)
f) Public-Private Partnerships for Intellectual Property Rights
B. Sustained and Focused Enforcement
1. Bureau of Customs (BOC)
2. Optical Media Board (OMB)
3. Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group/Anti-Fraud and Commercial Crimes Division (PNPCIDG/AFCCD)
4. National Bureau of Investigation-Intellectual Property Rights
Division (NBI-IPRD)
5. Special Sectoral Campaigns
a) Software Piracy
b) Cable Piracy
c) Copyright Piracy
1
C. Effective Prosecution and Adjudication
1. Convictions
2. Department of Justice-Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Property
Piracy (DOJ-TFAIPP)
3. The Judiciary
a) Specialized IP Trial Courts
b) Monitoring Appellate Courts
4. Bureau of Legal Affairs
D. Public Outreach: IP Information and Education Campaign
1. Information Dissemination Projects of IP Philippines
2. Media Management
3. Radio Broadcasting
4. Internet
5. Department of Education: Mainstreaming IP Education
E. Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building
1. The Intellectual Property Research and Training Institute (IPRTI)
3. Intellectual Property Rights Protection Training Program
(IPROTECT)
F. Enhancing the Policy Environment
1. Internet Treaties
2. Bills on Cybercrime
G. International Cooperation
IV. Conclusion and Looking Forward
2
I. INTRODUCTION
“Intellectual piracy is dishonesty and is, therefore, immoral. It is an
affront to individual and national integrity and inimical to our
revenue collection activities, investment promotions and to overall
economic progress. It has no place in a civilized society.”
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Republic of the Philippines
(Speech delivered in the Intellectual Property
Coalition Country Report Launching, Manila
Peninsula Hotel – 24 February 2005)
Protecting Intellectual Property Rights Is In The National
Interest
The year 2005 proved to be a turning point for Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) in the Philippines. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines
(GRP) formulated and implemented a comprehensive strategic action plan
(2005-2006) to strengthen the intellectual property (IP) regime in the country.
Started in July 2005, the plan has seven components: establishing institutional
linkages and strengthening inter-agency coordination; sustaining enforcement;
improving prosecution and adjudication; enhancing awareness and public
education; institutional strengthening and capacity building; enhancing the
policy environment and broadening international cooperation.
After 18 months of executing the 2005-2006 strategic action plan the GRP
has greatly enhanced the IPR regime in the country. On 15 February 2006, the
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) recommended to lower
the Philippines from the Priority Watch List (PWL) and placed the country in the
Ordinary Watch List during the USTR’s OCR. On 28 April 2006 the USTR
affirmed its findings in the regular review under Special 301.
After the official announcement of the OCR results, President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo made the following policy statement in a luncheon for the
National Committee for IPR (NCIPR);
“Fighting piracy is fighting poverty because it enables Filipino
excellence and enterprise to rise in the global arena, expanding
opportunities and jobs along the way. Upholding IPR promotes
diffusion of knowledge, develops local talent and creativity, and at
the same time encourages more foreign investors to endow their
strong qualities in the Philippine market….
While we appreciate the U.S. government’s recognition of our
efforts to protect IPR, we must not lose sight of the fact that
protection of IPR is first and foremost in the interest of the Filipino
people.”
3
With this statement, the President
boosted the GRP’s IPR campaigns. In the
same occasion, the President gave specific
instructions
on
strengthening
enforcement and prosecution to the
Philippine
National
Police
(PNP),
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
the Department of Justice (DOJ), the
Bureau of Customs, the Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI) and the
Intellectual Property Office of the
Philippines (IP Philippines). She also
reiterated her earlier directive designating the IP Philippines as the oversight
agency for the anti-piracy and counterfeiting efforts and the lead agency for
crafting a National Intellectual Property (IP) Policy and Strategy to ensure that IP
becomes an effective tool for national development. (Annex “A”)
With these presidential pronouncements, there was no doubt that IPR
protection is a national priority of the Administration and the campaign against
piracy shall and will be sustained.
Recognition of the GRP’s accomplishments was not limited to the US
government. In October 2006, the European Commission (EC) released its report
that violations that infringe on intellectual property rights in the Philippines
remain less alarming compared to those committed in China. The EC counts the
Philippines as the least among countries that violate copyright laws covering IPR,
and cited its numerous and consistent efforts to uphold laws and regulations. The
EC survey had 290 respondents from 63 countries. It was conducted to assess the
state of IPR infringements in a certain country and how the violations are being
addressed as a guide for European businesses.
The latest Presidential policy directive came out on 16 November 2006
entitled: “Sustaining Our Gains In Protecting Intellectual Property Rights”, to the
secretaries of DTI, DILG, Finance (DOF), DOJ and the Education (DepEd), the
Press Secretary, Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (BOC), Director
General of the IP Philippines, chairmen of Optical Media Board (OMB) and
National Book Development Board (NBDB), Director General of PNP, directors
of NBI and The National Library (TNL).
In this memorandum, the President again emphasized that: “protecting
and promoting IPR is a strategic and critical component to the country’s socioeconomic development and the government’s efforts to raise the level of
competitiveness of Philippine businesses.” Moreover, along with the reminder
that there is still a pressing need to sustain the gains from the past year and a
half, the President issued specific directives to the agencies concerned based on
the 1st Semester 2006 IPR Enforcement Report.
This Comment from the GRP provides updated statistics and information
on the execution of the Strategic Action Plan (2005-2006). But, first, a brief
review of the Plan is in order. (Annex “B”)
4
II. A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO STRENGTHEN THE IP
REGIME (2005-2006)
A. The Context
In 2005, representatives of the concerned government agencies and the
private sector crafted a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the IP regime in the
country. The Strategy identified the major challenges in protecting and
promoting IPR, laid down the specific objectives, and enumerated specific
strategies to achieve each objective.
B. Major Challenges:
1. Dispersed mandates for strengthening the IP system among different
government agencies resulting in lack of cohesiveness in government
actions;
2. Absence of retrievable data and information about IPR matters,
particularly on enforcement and prosecution, resulting in lack of
transparency in operations, weak follow through and inadequate facts
to guide strategic and tactical operations and policy making;
3. Low public awareness and lack of knowledge of the importance of IP in
the national economy and in people’s daily lives resulting in a lack of
respect for IPR; and
4. Lack of institutional and personnel capacities of the IP community
(practitioners, enforcers, prosecutors, judges, etc.), resulting in
difficulties in implementing the IP Code and related laws.
C. Objectives and Strategies:
1. To strengthen institutional
coordination by:
linkages
and
inter-agency
a. Establishing a more proactive IP Philippines as the coordinator of
inter-agency efforts in strengthening the IP regime;
b. Setting up an active Secretariat in IP Philippines that will drive the
inter-agency coordination;
c. Forging firm agreements with government agencies on roles,
jurisdictions and responsibilities; and
d. Forging public-private partnerships with IP owners and
associations, business chambers and industry associations for
advocacy, education and monitoring work.
5
2. To establish a central repository of data and information for
strategic and tactical decisions, monitoring and transparency
in government operations by:
a. Putting up a web-based interactive management information
system that ensures the flow of data and information from other
agencies into a database at the IP Philippines accessible to all
stakeholders and the public; and
b. Publishing regularly data and information gathered in different
media and disseminates these to IP stakeholders.
3. To intensify public outreach and advocacy for key players of
the IP community through:
a. Seminars, workshops and events for different stakeholders;
b. Active engagement with media in information campaigns about the
importance of IP to national development;
c. Enhancing the IP Philippines website to disseminate information
about IP and adding enforcement data, events and news articles;
and
d. Mainstreaming IPR education in public elementary and high
schools and universities.
4. To improve institutional and personnel capability for IPR
implementation by:
a. Implementing a systematic HRD program for the different interagency IP units (enforcement operations, evidence gathering,
prosecution, judicial decision-making); and
b. Institutionalize IP education modules for IP community in the PNP
through the PNP Academy and the Philippine Public Safety
Colleges, the Local Government Academy and the Philippine
Judicial Academy.
5. To continue enhancing the legal and policy environment for
IPR by:
a. Lobbying vigorously for amendments to the IP Code to include
obligations under the WIPO Internet Treaties, and the passage of
the cybercrime bill; and
b. Promoting actively the enactment and implementation of local
government ordinances, taking advantage of the police power of
local governments.
6
III. THE 2005-06 ACTION PLAN AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION:
A. Strengthened
Coordination
Institutional
Linkages
and
Inter-Agency
The lack of leadership, systems and procedures in the inter-agency task
force led to weak coordination, gaps in enforcement and prosecution, lack of data
and information for effective decision-making, transparency of operations and
monitoring execution of policies. Strengthening linkages and inter-agency
coordination was the priority in the Action Plan.
1. Presidential Mandate for IP Philippines as Oversight Agency
In 2005, IP Philippines firmly established its role as coordinator of the
NCIPR.1 The Director General convened and presided over the inter-agency body
regularly to monitor the progress of the action plan, strategize, gathers
information on IPR enforcement, prosecution, capacity building efforts and other
public awareness activities.
Recognizing the need for closer coordination and affirming the
coordinating role of the IP Philippines, the President made two directives in a
Cabinet meeting on 17 January 2006. The first, which was addressed to the
secretaries of Justice, Interior and Local Government, Malacanang Press Office/
Presidential Spokesperson, the Director General of the Philippine Information
Agency, Head of Government Mass Media, the Director General of the PNP and
Chairman of OMB, directed the “Optical Media Board in coordination with
pertinent agencies to undertake steps necessary to boost operations and focus on
the filing of cases and conviction of violators of the Copyright Law.” It also stated
that “convictions shall be published and widely disseminated to the public.” The
second presidential directive was addressed to the Director General of the IP
Philippines. The directive designated the IP Philippines’ Director General as “the
oversight for the government’s anti-copyright piracy efforts, and directed him to
report to the Cabinet as the need arises.” Both directives are contained in two
separate memoranda dated 17 January 2006, and signed by the Cabinet
Secretary.
With these two presidential directives, IP Philippines had a firmer
mandate from the President to strengthen its coordinative and oversight role in
an expanded NCIPR to include the government’s mass communications
infrastructure. More important, IPR issues are now on the agenda of the Cabinet.
2. Inter-Agency Coordination
As the lead coordinator of the inter-agency body for strengthening the IP
regime, IP Philippines formed a Secretariat for inter-agency coordination that is
Section 5. Functions of the Intellectual Property Office. - 5.1 To administer and implement the
State policies declared in this Act, there is hereby created the Intellectual Property Office which
shall have the following functions: (g) – Coordinate with other government agencies and the
private sector efforts to formulate and implement plans and policies to strengthen the protection
of intellectual property rights in the country.
1
7
under the direct supervision of the Director General. The Director General
convened and presided over the inter-agency body regularly to monitor the
progress of the action plan and gather information on IPR enforcement,
prosecution, capacity building efforts and other matters. The Director General
also made public statements on behalf of the inter-agency body, thus informing
the public that the government has a united front against piracy.
The Secretariat has a full time Executive Director, a lawyer of IP
Philippines, who is supported by two administrative staff and one
communications staff. A team of computer programmers from the IP Philippines’
Management and Information Service (MIS) is also detailed to the Secretariat to
develop the software to be used for the IPR enforcement database. The
Secretariat performed the following functions:
a. Organized the monthly meetings of the NCIPR, quarterly meetings of
the Public-Private Partnership Council for Intellectual Property Rights
(P³CIPR) and the Strategic Planning Workshop of the NCIPR2,
prepared the minutes of these meetings and monitored the follow
through actions of different agencies. Ten (10) NCIPR meetings and
three (3) P³CIPR meetings was convened in 2006.
b. Set up and managed the data and information retrieval system that
collated data from different agencies and populated the database; and
processed, synthesized and consolidated reports from the various
agencies for the NCIPR.
c. Assisted in coordinating the participation of the various government
agencies in the RP-US Trade Investment Council (TIC)
Videoconference in 2006.3
d. Arranged and documented the meetings of the Director General with
the heads of other agencies, such as the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court (SC), the secretaries of DOJ, DILG, the Chairman of the OMB,
the Commissioner of the BOC, the Commissioner of the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC), and heads or senior officials
of other government agencies. It also facilitated and documented
consultative meetings of the Director General with IP owners, IP
owners associations, private investigators, and other IP owners to
institutionalize partnerships between government and the private
sector.
3. A Central Database for Anti-Piracy and Counterfeiting
Although members of the inter-agency task force shared information in
the past, there was no central repository of data and information that can be used
for strategic and tactical decision making. Moreover, the lack of reliable data and
On 28-30 November 2006 at the Holiday Inn Clark, Mimosa, Clark, Pampanga.
17 January 2006 at the 25th Floor, American Business Center, Ayala Life, FGU Center, Ayala
Avenue, Makati City.
2
3
8
information made communicating to the public about the seriousness of
intellectual property theft and deterring criminality difficult to sustain.
Establishing a central database of relevant data and information remains a
fundamental task for the anti-piracy campaign. This database will help ensure
transparency in the operations of government agencies and greatly assist in
monitoring of cases in court.
Thus, in July 2005, the IP Philippines started developing a database.
During the software development stage, IP Philippines set up a system of data
retrieval from the different law enforcement agencies, prosecution arm and the
courts. Daily monitoring of media reports was also part of the information
system. Linkage with several private investigation agencies hired by IP owners
was also established by the Director General of IP Philippines in an effort to
include them in the information loop.
The database, which will be housed in IP Philippines, is a secure
interactive web-based application that provides real time updating of cases and
document tracking from any internet-enabled location through a standards
compliant browser. On 17 March 2006, the IP Philippines gathered the official
Information Technology (IT) representatives from the different members of the
NCIPR, and conducted the first training session on the new software at the IP
Philippines office IT training room.
On 19 December 2006, the IP
Philippines turned over the system
to the end-users (DOJ, BOC, OMB,
NBI and PNP). Under the
Instrument of Acceptance, IP
Philippines will provide the said
government agencies with the
system after the sign-off of the
instrument of Acceptance, and the
end-user agency ensures that the
system is always used and the
database that supports it is
continually
populated.
IP
Philippines shall also regularly monitor the proper use of the system and shall be
responsible for its maintenance. For the meantime, the database will be used by
the DOJ, BOC, OMB, NBI, PNP and IP Philippines. However, the plan is to
include in the network courts handling IP cases. (Annex “C”)
The database will be launched on 22 February 2007.
4. Agreements on Institutional Linkages
The lack of coordination among agencies in the past was mainly due to the
absence of clearly defined roles, jurisdiction and responsibilities. Strengthening
linkages and coordination would mean agreeing on terms of reference. Thus, IP
Philippines, as lead coordinator, forged agreements with different agencies.
9
These agreements were arrived at with the heads of agencies and, except for
matters that require time to do, were immediately implemented.
a)
Optical Media Board (OMB): Strong linkage was established
with the OMB Chairman, Mr. Eduardo B. Manzano. There were regular meetings
and communication between the IP Philippines’ Director General and the OMB
Chairman. OMB regularly submitted monthly accomplishment reports to the IP
Philippines inter-agency secretariat. Moreover, the Chairman himself, or if
unavailable, his Executive Director, attended the meetings of the NCIPR.
b)
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI): Strong linkage with
the NBI was also established by the IP Philippines. Regular communication lines
have been established between the Director General and the former NBI Director
Reynaldo G. Wycoco, and his successor, Mr. Nestor M. Mantaring. The
Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPRD) of the NBI regularly submitted postoperations report to the IP Philippines’ inter-agency Secretariat, and attended the
NCIPR meetings.
c)
Department of Justice (DOJ): In May 2005, the Director
General of IP Philippines met with Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez and
obtained the commitment of the Secretary to fully support the government’s antipiracy drive. The Secretary agreed to strengthen the Task Force on AntiIntellectual Property Piracy (TFAIPP), monitor the status and progress of cases
being prosecuted nationwide and have his deputy, an Undersecretary, head the
TFAIPP.
d)
National Telecommunications Commission (NTC): The
Director General discussed IPR concerns with former NTC Commissioner Ronald
O. Solis in a teleconference. Among the proposals mentioned was an agreement
regarding jurisdiction.
Thus, NTC and IP Philippines saw the need to draw up an administrative
mechanism to effectively and expeditiously resolve cases involving cable
television (CATV) piracy. Thus, on 16 June 2006, Commissioner Solis and IP
Philippines’ Director General signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
In entering into this MOA, NTC
and IP Philippines were motivated by
their earnest desire to coordinate their
respective actions to address the issue of
CATV piracy in the Philippines, which
has adverse effect on trade and business
in the country, and ensure maximum
efficient regulation/supervision over the Radio/TV Broadcast and CATV
industry.
The Joint Public Hearing on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the NTC-IP Philippines MOA is scheduled on 21 February 2007 at the IP
Philippines Multi-Purpose Hall.
10
e)
Bureau of Customs (BOC): The change of leadership at the BOC
went smoothly with the appointment of Mr. Napoleon L. Morales as
Commissioner on 05 May 2006.
Deputy Commissioner Alexander M. Arevalo, who was then the officer-incharge, continues to play an active role in IPR enforcement through his
management of the IT systems in the BOC. Full computerization/automation of
the BOC is underway. The project is now in full swing. Initially, each
office/division is given an initial one (1) unit of computer hooked with the
system.
Moreover, during his stint as BOC Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner
Arevalo, has begun the process of making the IP unit a permanent unit within the
Bureau with its own plantilla positions and budget. In the proposed
Rationalization Plan (in line with Executive Order No. 366) submitted to the
Department of Finance, the permanent IP unit will have at least twenty-five (25)
personnel to engage in border protection of IPR.
A permanent IP unit will strengthen the institutional and organizational
links across the whole organization and nationwide coverage on IPR matters. The
operation of the IP unit covers major ports in the Philippines including out-ports.
Moreover, the unit closely monitors suspected shipments with IPR violations
through the Automated Customs Operational System (ACOS) selectivity screen.
Significantly, the Bureau’s computerized risk management system will be
upgraded with the help of the European Commission’s approved Euro 1.3 Million
grant. Also included in this grant are the valuation database (international)
system for value-referencing in connection with the risk management system,
and training ware. This selectivity system will allow for better and more
intelligent selection of cargoes earmarked for inspection, and early detection of
possible IPR violations of incoming shipments.
On 28 April 2006, IP Philippines Director General met with
Commissioner Morales.
The BOC Commissioner was also appointed by the President as the head of
the Task Force on Anti-Smuggling (TFAS), created by Executive Order 509, to
curb smuggling in the country. It is the first time that customs chief was assigned
to lead a coordinated anti-smuggling campaign. What is significant is that IPR
infringement is included in the top priorities of the TFAS.
Although there is no need for a formal memorandum of agreement with
the BOC in terms of coordination, IP Philippines considers crafting one because
of its proposal to have direct access to the database of BOC. The BOC also has
several big-ticket items that will enhance tremendously its institutional capability
to enforce customs law in general, and IPR in particular.
f)
Public-Private Partnerships for IPR: The Director General of
the IP Philippines signed in November 2005, on behalf of IP Philippines, a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Intellectual Property Coalition (IP
11
Coalition).4 The MOA provides for joint projects on IP education and advocacy,
such as promoting the “IP Seal” of good housekeeping and promoting passage
and implementation of the Ordinance Template (To Curtail the Sale, Rental,
Transfer, Distribution, Manufacture and/or Production of Pirated, Counterfeit or
Fake Goods, Articles or Services), which imposes strict adherence to the
Philippine IP law as a condition before municipality or city government issues
business permits. The activity, which started in 2003, resulted in the passage of
IP ordinance in the cities of Quezon, Iloilo, Cebu, Baguio, Naga, Balanga, Davao
and Muntinlupa and the municipality of Tuba, in Benguet.
Recognizing its importance, the DILG supported the move through the
issuance of a policy directive (Memorandum Circular No. 2003-229 dated 08
December 2003) to all local government units to pass IPR ordinances in 2003.
Among the other private associations with whom the inter-agency
secretariat has established linkages were the different IP associations of
practitioners, SME associations, universities, and local and regional associations,
such as the Philippine Software Industry Association (PSIA), Business Software
Alliance (BSA), Philippine Cable Television Association (PCTA) and Cable and
Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia (CASBAA).
To institutionalize a mechanism for consultation, coordination and
cooperation between the government and the private sector for strengthening the
IP system, the Director General convened and presided the first meeting with IP
owners and associations on 06 April 2006. The purpose of the meeting was to
present IP Philippines’ proposal to establish the Public-Private Partnership
Council for Intellectual Property Rights (P3CIPR). Several advocacy projects that
can be undertaken were identified during the meeting. It was also agreed that a
new version of the old Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Action Panel
(IP-REAP) be established where the private sector can engage government
agencies in a forum for exchange of information and cooperation. The P3CIPR
will hold this forum quarterly and will not limit itself to enforcement issues like
the old IP-REAP.
In 2006, three (3) P³CIPR meetings were convened.
4 The IPC is composed of the following: Class A Members [Representative Stakeholder
Organizations] – Asosasyon ng Musikong Pilipino Foundation (AMP), Association of Video
Distributors of the Philippines (AVIDPHIL), Brand Protection Association (BPA), Business
Software Alliance (BSA), Council to Combat Counterfeiting and Piracy of Patents, Copyrights and
Trademarks (COMPACT), Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (FILSCAP),
Organization of Filipino Composers (KATHA), Motion Picture Association (MPA), Movie
Producers Distributors Association of the Philippines (MPDAP), Philippine Association of
Recording Industries, Inc. (PARI), Philippine Software Industry Association (PSIA), Quezon City
Chamber of Commerce and Industry (QCCCI), American Chamber of Commerce of the
Philippines (AMCHAM), and Philippine Internet Commerce Society (PICS). Class B Members
[Individuals and Corporations] – Mr. John Lesaca, Mr. Nathan C. Zulueta, Mr. Gregorio M.
Lainez, Ms. Katrina R. Belamide, Mr. Eduardo D. Sazon, Mr. Raphael T. Manalaysay, Atty.
Teodoro Kalaw, Ms. Flordeliza Pinlac, Atty. Numeriano F. Rodriguez, Jr., Mr. John S. Suarez, Mr.
Juan Martin S. Barredo, Mr. John Benedict A. Sacriz and Microsoft Corporation.
12
B. Sustained and Focused Enforcement
For the past several years, there have been sustained operations by the
different law enforcement agencies; however, closer coordination was needed
towards common strategic objectives. With improved coordination, enforcement
operations in 2006 took a noticeable emphasis towards focused enforcement in
strategic areas of “notoriety” and production centers. A better information
retrieval system also helped the inter-agency assess its performance and adjust
its plans accordingly.
The combined enforcement efforts of the Intellectual Property UnitBureau of Customs (IPU-BOC), Optical Media Board (OMB), Anti-Fraud and
Commercial Crimes Division/Criminal Investigation and Detection GroupPhilippine National Police (AFCCD/CIDG-PNP) and Intellectual Property Rights
Division-National Bureau of Investigation (IPRD-NBI) in January to December
2006 resulted to the confiscation of 2,879,505 pieces and 7,559
boxes/sacks of fake goods with an estimated value of P
1,352,829,346.96. Historically, the months of January to March are “slow”
months in terms of enforcement due to low consumer demand after the
Christmas holidays. Yet, the amount of goods seized is substantial.5
NO. OF OPERATIONS
AGENCY
Inspection
Search
Warrant
Plant
Audit
QUANTITY
Warrant,
Seizure &
Detention
Pieces
Boxes/
Sacks
Container
ESTIMATED
VALUE
(Php)
NBI
419
-
546,464
350
-
290,964,640.00
PNP
281
-
374,859
1,438
-
131,291,496.96
-
1,642,143
-
207,807,400.00
26
416,392
5,771
-
722,765,810.00
26
2,979,858
7,559
0
1,352,829,346.96
OMB
942
88
14
BOC
TOTAL
942
788
14
There were a total of 1,467 reported enforcement operations conducted in
212 areas around the country. Of these activities, 706 were inspections of retail
outlets and production areas, 724 were by search warrants, 14 plant audits and 23
were warrant of seizure and detention (WSD). Of the two hundred-thirteen (213)
raids, sixteen (16) raids were conducted in Binondo, three (3) raids in Quiapo,
three (3) raids in 168 Shopping Mall and seven (7) raids in Metrowalk. Thus, one
hundred seventy-nine (179) raids were conducted in other areas. The focused
enforcement operations have resulted in visible reduction of pirated and
counterfeited goods in “notorious” areas.
5
P 65,714,734.00.
13
SUMMARY OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES IN STRATEGIC AREAS
NO. OF AREAS RAIDED (Notorious)
PERIOD
AGENCY
QUIAPO
01 January to
31 December
2006
Sub-Total
BINONDO
NBI
2
9
PNP
1
7
OMB
1
3
METRO
168
Makati
Cinema
WALK
MALL
Square
OTHERS
GREENHILLS
1
1
16
7
2
8
3
Grand Total
0
1
59
1
42
2
78
4
179
213
Specified in the sections below are the data about the campaign of each
enforcement agency:
1. Intellectual Property Unit-Bureau
[January-December 2006]
of
Customs
(IPU-BOC)
The IPU-BOC issued twenty-six (26) warrant, seizure and detention
(WSD) and confiscated 416,386 pieces and 6 units and 2,103 boxes,
2,216 cases, 1,451 cartons and 1 crate of fake goods with an estimated
value of P722,765,810.00.6
Moreover, substantial progress in IPR enforcement in the BOC was
anticipated along with the implementation of “big ticket” projects that will
strengthen the BOC as a whole. These efforts come at the heels of the laudable
efforts made by the Bureau in recent years with respect to strengthening border
controls, like the promulgation of Customs Administrative Order No. 6-2002 and
the creation of the IP Unit.
Significantly, a team of BOC personnel conducted its largest raid on 16 March 2005 against 168
Shopping Mall in Binondo, Manila. The raid was carried out by 500 customs agents, which seized
at least 20,000 sacks of smuggled goods. The notorious mall of about 800 tenants has been
totally closed down while inventory of the smuggled items, a large part of which are counterfeits,
is taken.
6
14
Table 1. IPU-BOC Enforcement Performance
NO. OF OPERATIONS
MONTH
QUANTITY
ESTIMATED
VALUE
(Php)
Warrant of Seizure
and Detention
Pieces
Boxes
January
2
15,048 & 6
units
-
6,036,000.00
February
2
18,500
225
1,850,000.00
March
1
17,472
-
5,031,150.00
April
1
128,461
-
242,117,930.00
May
1
33,996
-
123,210,910.00
June
5
4,724
596
258,932,750.00
July
2
184,608
1,282
4,406,400.00
August
3
3,432
1,378 cases
43,010,100.00
September
2
-
1 crate & 1
carton
2,500,000.00
October
3
1,094
-
3,921,000.00
November
3
9,051
838 cases
28,307,850.00
December
1
-
1,450
cartons
3,441,720.00
26
416,386
pcs & 6
units
2,103 boxes
2,216 cases
1,451 carton
1 crate
TOTAL
722,765,810.00
Significantly, about $2 million worth of digital versatile disc-replicating
equipment, capable of making 400,000 pirated copies a day, were intercepted by
the BOC on 25 January 2007, for misdeclaration and for violating provisions of
Republic Act No. 9239 (Optical Media Act of 2003).
The smuggled goods, consisting of four “top-of-the-line” machines, video
packaging materials and gadgets used in producing pirated copies, were in two
(2) 40-footer and two (2) 20-footer container vans from Hong Kong, United
States and Taiwan.
According to BOC Commissioner Napoleon Morales, the seizure is a joint
concerted effort of the BOC and other government agencies, including the Optical
Media Board (OMB), which safeguards the local movie and television industries
from violators of IPR law. “This is automatically considered as illegal shipment as
it was not granted the required import authority,” Commissioner Morales said.
“We can issue a warrant of seizure and detention (WSD) on this basis. After the
15
necessary procedures are acted out, we will see to the condemnation of these
products in coordination with the OMB.”
On his part, OMB Chairman Eduardo Manzano, who witnessed the
inspection of the seized cargo with Commissioner Morales lauded the BOC and
said that this was not the first time that both government agencies cooperated to
intercept illegal importations of such nature. “This is a true testament to the
harmonious working relationship of the BOC and the OMB,” he said. Moreover,
Chairman Manzano said that he has a team of consultants from the OMB and
from the Motion Picture Association of the Philippines to conduct an inventory of
the three seized container vans.
“The Motion Picture Association (MPA) and our member companies
congratulate the Bureau of Customs and the Optical Media Board on the seizure
of machines that would have turned out millions of pirated DVDs,” said Mike
Ellis, Senior Vice President and Regional Director, Asia-Pacific for the Motion
Picture Association. “The Optical Media Board under the guidance of chairman
Edu Manzano continues to show tremendous leadership in addressing the piracy
problems of the Philippines at source and we are committed to fully supporting
them in their operations.”7
2. Optical Media Board (OMB) [January-December 2006]
The OMB conducted 1,044 operations (942 by inspections, 88 by search
warrants and 14 plant audits) and seized 1,642,143 optical discs valued at
P207,807,400.00.
Table 2. OMB Enforcement Performance
MONTH
7
NO. OF OPERATIONS
Search
Plant
Inspection
Warrant Audit
ESTIMATED SEIZED OPTICAL
DISCS
Search
Inspection
Total
Warrant
ESTIMATED
VALUE
(Php)
January
57
4
0
61,300
6,425
67,725
3,386,250.00
February
2
0
1
1,750
0
1,750
87,500.00
March
149
1
3
252,172
20,235
272,407
13,620,350.00
April
3
62
0
6,800
59,500
66,300
3,315,000.00
May
164
0
0
355,550
0
355,550
17,777,500.00
June
60
17
0
40,500
6,600
47,100
2,355,000.00
July
15
1
0
31,500
12,000
43,500
2,175,000.00
http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/philippinescustomsseizurejan07.pdf.
16
August
47
0
6
62,190
0
62,190
8,609,500.00
September
84
0
0
75,600
0
75,600
13,080,000.00
October
84
1
0
161,600
0
161,600
30,898,000.00
November
119
0
3
245,900
0
245,900
46,662,500.00
December
158
2
1
242,521
0
242,521
TOTAL
942
88
14
1,537,383
104,760
1,642,143
65,840,800.00
208,203,650.00*
*Other articles/equipment (10,443 pieces) with an estimated value of
P396,250.00 were also seized by the OMB in various operations, which includes:
10,100 empty CD/DVD (P101,000), 9 DVD players (P22,500); 41 televisions
(P155,000); 2 personal computer (P58,000); 9 amplifiers, 250 CD casing, 30
speakers, 2 sub-woofers, (P59,750).
Consistent with its mandate to call upon the country’s law enforcement
agencies for assistance in the implementation and enforcement of its powers
vested under R.A. No. 9239, the OMB entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Philippine National Police (PNP) on 27
November 2006. Under the MOU, OMB deputized members of the PNP, under
the control, supervision and responsibility of their immediate Chiefs of Police and
Provincial Directors, to conduct unannounced inspections and all other necessary
enforcement actions such as but not limited to the application and enforcement
of search warrants over any and all optical and magnetic media establishments
found and/or operations within their territorial jurisdiction.
Moreover, the enforcement efforts of OMB also resulted to three (3)
convictions in 2006 and one conviction (1) in January 2007. Significantly, in one
case,8 the Judge of the Silay Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) sentenced
five (5) sellers of pirated DVD and VCD to three (3) years imprisonment, and
ordered them to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each for violation of the Optical
Media Act of 2003. The convicts were arrested in simultaneous raids conducted
by the Silay police (among the PNP units in Negros Occidental deputized by the
OMB to help in the campaign against pirated optical media products) in Silay
City on 20 December 2006, with more than 1,000 pirated optical media products
in their possessions. Moreover, in another case,9 the accused was sentenced to
suffer an imprisonment for a period of ninety (90) days and to pay the cost of the
suit.
People vs. Asmawe Tantowa, Abdulah Mama, Maraque Orot, Pandaw Orot, Oding Baro case
(Criminal Case No. 28267-C) for violation of RA No. 9239 (Optical Media Act of 2003). See: Table
5. Data on Convictions (2001-2007).
9 People vs. Macacuna Gandarosa Y Basheron and Alinor Pangcatan Y Abobakar case (Criminal
Case No. 119, 756-G-04 and 757-G-04) for violation of RA No. 9239 (Optical Media Act of 2003).
See: Table 5. Data on Convictions (2001-2007).
8
17
Significantly, OMB Chairman Manzano was named the Motion Picture
Association’s top “Asia-Pacific Copyright Enforcer” in the inaugural presentation
of the award at the CineAsia film industry trade-show in Beijing on 07 December
2006. Presenting the award to Chairman Manzano, Mr. Mike Ellis, Senior Vice
President and Regional Director, Asia-Pacific for the Motion Picture Association
said, “One of the MPA’s closest allies in the fight against copyright theft is Edu
Manzano. His hard work has resulted in the seizure of millions of pirated optical
discs and the substantial raising of the awareness of intellectual property rights
issues in the Philippines.” “The MPA salutes the dedication and hard work of Edu
and his team, and we look forward to continued progress in the fight against the
damage caused by piracy to not only MPA member companies, but also to the
Philippines’ domestic creative industries, crime levels, tax revenues and
international reputation.” Accepting the award, Manzano said, “We have a long
way to go before we can say we’ve got the piracy problem under control in the
Philippines, but we are fighting the good fight. What we need to do is work
together, industry and government, to punish the bad guys for their crimes, and
to help the good guys – our customers – to understand that paying for
entertainment is worthwhile. This award is a wonderful acknowledgment not of
my own efforts to bring piracy under control in the Philippines, but of the
tremendous efforts of the OMB’s investigators and administrators, who work –
often at great personal risk – to protect copyright, to protect ideas, and to protect
the economy and future of the Philippines.”10
Recently,11 the OMB highlighted its
3rd Anniversary with a disc shredding
ceremony at the Camp Aguinaldo
Parade Ground of more or less two
hundred (200) sacks of pirated
optical media confiscated in different
raids in Metro Manila with an
estimated value of P16,650,000.00.12
OMB Chairman Eduardo B. Manzano
led the destruction of the pirated
discs, which was witnessed by Intellectual Property Philippines Deputy Director
General Pacifico A. Avenido Jr. and other key officials of the government (Deputy
Commissioner Celso P. Templo of the Bureau of Customs and Chairperson Maria
Consoliza P. Laguardia of the Movie and Television Review and Classification
Board), American Embassy Manila (Mr. Larry L. Memmott, Counselor for
Economic Affairs and Mr. David J. Rovinsky, Second Secretary, Economic
Section) and the private sector (Atty. Espiridion Laxa, Chairman of the Film
Academy of the Philippines, Atty. Ramon Chuaying of Universal Records, Atty
10 MPA News Release: Philippines Anti-Piracy Chief Manzano Receives Top Asian Copyright
Protection Award 08 Dec 2006 [http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/eduaceawardrel.pdf.
11 09 February 2007.
12 On 10 February 2006, more than one million pieces of pirated CDs, DVDs and VCDs
confiscated in different raids in Metro Manila were destroyed in the Optical Disc Destruction
Ceremony of OMB at the parade grounds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in Camp
Aguinaldo, Quezon City.
18
Marivic Benedicto of VIVA Records, Mr. Manolo Lopez of Solar and Mr. Eduardo
Sazon of AVIDPhil).
3. Anti-Fraud
and
Commercial
Crimes
Division/Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group-Philippine National Police
(AFCCD/CIDG-PNP) [January-December 2006]
The AFCCD/CIDG-PNP, the designated IP unit of the PNP, served 281
search warrants and arrested 46 persons, seizing a total of 374,859
pieces and 1,438 boxes of counterfeited/pirated goods worth
P131,291,496.96. This figure is just from the IP unit of the PNP and does not
include the operations conducted by field units.
Moreover, among the priority areas of the AFCCD in its campaign against
IPR violations is book piracy. On 06 December 2006, an operation was
conducted by AFCCD against Stall 36 located at U.P. Shopping Center, U.P.
Campus, Diliman, Quezon City, resulting in the confiscation of assorted books,
photocopy machines, and ring binders with an estimated value of P 500,000.00.
Representative of Eisevier Incorporated, MCGraw-Hill Companies, Pearson
Learning Incorporated, Thompson Education Incorporated and John Wiley &
Sons Incorporated witnessed the raid. The occupant of the stall, Ms. Trinili
Faeldan Gabayno, was arrested, and cases for copyright infringement were filed
against her with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
Under a new leadership, the current thrust of the PNP is to eradicate
piracy and counterfeiting in the country. To drive this forward, the campaign
plan, which will also form part of the PNP National Intellectual Property
Strategy, is underway.
Table 3. AFCCD/CIDG-PNP Enforcement Performance
MONTH
NO. OF
SEARCH
WARRANTS
SERVED
QUANTITY
Pieces
Boxes/
Sacks
ESTIMATED
VALUE
(Php)
January
6
6,005
6
368,565.00
February
1
83,448
-
295,164.00
March
13
211,213
-
18,782,635.00
April
9
15,876
-
86,070.00
May
23
9,518
-
708,310.00
June
59
4,489
-
17,010,219.50
19
July
6
233
-
3,272,000.00
August
8
1
1,386
14,350,000.00
September
14
2,034
-
30,729,653.96
October
4
26,432
-
6,200,000.00
November
26
8,883
46
27,228,879.50
December
112
6,927
-
12,262,000.00
281
374,859
1,438
131,291,496.96
TOTAL
4. Intellectual Property Rights Division-National Bureau
Investigation (IPRD-NBI) [January-December 2006]
of
The IPRD-NBI received 128 complaints and filed 549 cases directly with
the Department of Justice. It has served 419 search warrants and seized a
total of 546,464 pieces and 350 boxes/sacks of counterfeited/pirated
goods with an estimated value of P 290,964,640.00.
Table 4. IPRD-NBI Enforcement Performance
MONTH
NO. OF
SEARCH
WARRANTS
SERVED
QUANTITY
Pieces
Boxes/
Sacks
ESTIMATED
VALUE
(Php)
January
30
36,196
-
5,216,300.00
February
49
15,851
-
10,392,720.00
March
14
3,606
-
650,000.00
April
11
14,318
-
27,000,000.00
May
93
8,384
-
37,280,000.00
June
71
27,936
350
18,992,450.00
July
7
301,270
-
309,970.00
August
23
20,430
-
21,450,000.00
September
5
Undetermined
-
86,000,000.00
20
October
23
21,589
-
8,889,200.00
November
52
89,866
-
47,561,000.00
December
41
7,018
-
27,223,000.00
TOTAL
419
546,464
350
290,964,640.00
Moreover, IPRD-NBI is also an active partner of the Pilipinas Anti-Piracy
Team (PAPT), an initiative seen to restrain software piracy in the country. On 10
November 2006, the Division raided a computer stores in Cebu for selling pirated
software. Items used in the suspected illegal reproduction of software programs
including several computers and pirated CD-ROM installers, along with various
versions and editions of Microsoft Windows and Office applications, were
confiscated during the raid. Total value of seized items was estimated at P
2,000,000.00.13
Another raid was conducted in Makati City on 07 December 2006 against
a Japanese construction firm for alleged use of pirated software, wherein P
3,000,000.00 worth of computers and pirated software were seized. Speaking for
the Business Software Alliance (BSA), Mr. Tarun Sawney, Director for AntiPiracy in Asia, said that companies should treat their software like assets,
ensuring that each program has proper license to avoid violating the law.
“Software programs are vital to one’s business and should be deemed as
important as other tool in one’s business. Some companies think they could save
with pirated software, but in reality, they are putting their business in a lot of
risks,” said Sawney.14
The IPRD-NBI relentlessly continues the crackdown against software
piracy in 21 December 2006, when it enforced a search warrant issued by a
Regional Trial Court in Manila against an establishment in Mandaluyong City for
alleged use of pirated software. The raiding team was able to seize 47 computers
loaded with unauthorized copies of software belonging to Microsoft and
Symantec Corporations with an estimated value of P 4,500,000.00. Atty. Jose
Justo Yap, head of IPRD-NBI said: “The NBI has been constantly striving to
combat software piracy through continuous raids and vigilance in order to reduce
the negative impact of piracy on companies and businesses operating in the
Philippines.”15
5. Special Sectoral Campaigns:
a)
Software Piracy – The NBI, OMB and PNP, together with the IP
Coalition, have banded together to launch the “Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team”
(PAPT), a campaign that aims to curb software piracy in the Philippines. BSA, the
http://papt.org.ph/news.aspx?id=2&news_id=44&paging=1
15 http://papt.org.ph/news.aspx?id=2&news_id=48&paging=1
13
14
21
foremost organization promoting the use of original and licensed software, is
supporting the campaign. At the launch, the five organizations signed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) that spelled out the objectives and action
plans of the campaign.16
The BSA lauded the government for taking the lead in going after violators
of software copyright.17
DRIVE VS. SOFTWARE PIRACY – The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Optical Media Board (OMB), and the
Philippine National Police (PNP), with the support of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Intellectual Property
Coalition (IP Coalition), have banded together to form the Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team (PAPT), a government-driven
campaign that aims to reduce software piracy in the country. In photo during the launch are (from left): BSA Vice
President and Regional Director for Asia Jeffrey Hardee, NBI Director Nestor Mantaring, OMB Chairman Edu
Manzano, PNP Director General Arturo Lomibao, and IP Coalition Chairman John Lesaca.
The PAPT was created to increase awareness and respect for IPR, promote
the use of licensed software and promote the faster growth of the Philippine
software industry, which will help generate tax revenues for the government.
In 2006, the PAPT has conducted numerous successful raids across the
country against establishments using or selling pirated software, resulting in the
confiscation of 50 million pesos worth of illegal software.
As reported by PAPT on its website, operatives of the IPRD-NBI seized
computers loaded with pirated software from a Japanese firm providing electrical
and mechanical services in Makati City. The estimated cost of the items seized
amounted to more than 3 million pesos according to PAPT. Another raid was
conducted by the AFCCD/CIDG-PNP on 30 November 2006 against a drug
The PAPT started with a 30-day countdown that began on 16 August 2005.
According to Jeffrey Hardee, BSA Vice President and Regional Director for Asia, “we are proud
to support this government-driven campaign against the use of pirated and unlicensed software.
We laud the agencies leading this initiative for recognizing the need to reduce, and consequently
eliminate piracy.”
Moreover, Mr. Tarun Sawney, BSA Director of Anti-Piracy for Asia, also recognized the
efforts of the PAPT. “We are pleased to see the progress made by the government in its campaign
to reduce software piracy. Within just 2 months since the launch of the campaign, the team has
confiscated over P19 million worth of illegal software programs in its crackdown nationwide. This
is substantial progress indeed and we encourage the team to continue these endeavors,” he said.
He also recognized the increase in awareness of the business sector of the importance of using
licensed software. Mr. Tarun also said “we have received a great number of calls from companies
willing to comply and some voluntarily asking advice in auditing their software programs. This is
very promising and we encourage more companies to evaluate their programs and legalize if need
be.”
16
17
22
testing center and laboratory for the alleged use of unlicensed software in their
business. The police seized a total of 41 computers loaded with various pirated
software titles belonging to Adobe Systems, Microsoft Corporation and Symantec.
The total items seized amounted to almost PhP 5 million.
Significantly, a businessman has publicly apologized to all honest software
dealers for selling computers loaded with pirated software through an advertorial
in a major daily. In his statement, the businessman acknowledged the role of IPR
protection in the success of the IT industry.18
On government acquisition of legitimate software, Executive Order No.
262, series of 2000 entitled “Providing Policies, Guidelines, Rules and
Regulations for the Procurement of Goods/Supplies by the National
Government” was promulgated in order to ensure procurement and acquisition
of legitimate or licensed software. The E.O. prohibits government from
purchasing illegal software and allows only suppliers of legitimate software to
participate in government biddings.
In 2002, Republic Act No. 9184 otherwise known as the “Government
Procurement Reform Act” was enacted. Under this law, the Bids and Awards
Committee shall determine the eligibility of prospective bidders for the
procurement of goods. The documents in satisfaction of the eligibility
requirements to be submitted by bidders shall be made under oath to prevent the
procurement of counterfeit or unlicensed software. The stringent screening of
bidders makes sure that only legitimate bidders dealing in genuine and good
quality products shall be qualified to enter into contract with the government.
b)
Cable Piracy – In his November 2005 meeting with Mr. Simon
Twiston Davies, CEO of the Cable Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia
(CASBAA), IP Philippines’ Director General said that he is “fully supportive” of
the efforts of the CASBAA, and considered the recent waves of raid against pirate
cable companies as “a good step to curb cable piracy.” Thus, IP Philippines and
the Hong Kong-based CASBAA have agreed to take further steps to address the
problem of cable piracy in the country through a series of joint undertakings and
stricter enforcement drive. CASBAA also offered to help organize trainings and
seminars for law enforcers and cable regulators on how to identify and combat
cable piracy.
On 02 January 2006, Discovery Communications-Europe, National
Geographic Channel, AXN Holdings, Turner Entertainment Networks, Asia,
ESPN Sports, MTV Asia, Walt Disney Television Singapore, ESPN Star Sports,
Home Box Office, AXN Holdings LLC and Satellite Television Asian Region
(STAR), Ltd., which are members of CASBAA, filed with the DOJ twelve (12)
criminal complaints for violation of Republic Act No. 8293 (IP Code of the
Philippines) against the officers and/or directors of the Maguindanao Skycable
CATV, Inc., which is doing business in Cotabato City. The IPRD-NBI estimated
the value of the seized items at P 8.3 million.
18
23
In a resolution dated 21 November 2006, the investigating prosecutor
found probable cause against the officers and/or directors of said cable company
for violation of RA No. 8293. Ninety-four (94) Informations (indictments)
against them will be filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City.
c)
Copyright Piracy – Repeal of PD 1203: IP Philippines Director
General urged book publishers and sellers to strictly observe the IP Code by
reprinting the work of authors legally. This call came following the issuance of
Resolution No. 3 at the 140th Regular Board Meeting held on 12 October 2005 by
the NBDB directing the NBDB Secretariat to remind book publishers and sellers
that Presidential Decree 1203 of 1977, which allowed the reprinting of
educational books even without the permission of their copyright-holders, has
long been repealed with the implementation of the IP Code in 1998.
To provide the general public access to good quality copyrighted materials
that are legally reproduced, NBDB Chairman, Dr. Dennis T. Gonzalez, urged all
copyright owners in the book industry to join and strengthen the Philippine
Reproduction Rights Organization (PRRO), a collecting society of authors and
publishers. He also urged local publishers and booksellers to engage in joint
ventures with foreign publishers and booksellers and to encourage their foreign
partners to set up offices in the Philippines.
The NBDB is a policy-making body. Republic Act No. 8047 provides that
the Governing Board shall “formulate policies, guidelines and mechanisms to
ensure that editors, compilers and especially authors are paid justly and promptly
royalties due them for reproduction of their works in any form and number and
for whatever purpose.”
Strengthening the Philippine Reproduction Rights Organization (PRRO):
In a two-day live-in seminar entitled “Operating a Reproduction Rights
Organization” sponsored by the International Federation of Reproduction Rights
Organizations (IFRRO) and the NBDB in 5-6 September 2005, major publisher
and book industry associations have agreed to financially support the PRRO.
With a license issued by PRRO, colleges and universities can be allowed to legally
reproduce copyrighted materials for “course packs” and also collect royalties on
behalf of local and foreign authors, publishers and other copyright owners. The
availability of such “course packs” will discourage students from patronizing
establishments that engage in book piracy. Local book publishers share the belief
that this move will prevent students from patronizing book pirates especially if
the colleges and universities fix reasonable copy rate per page and pay royalties to
copyright owners.
In said seminar, the NBDB also presented “A Feasibility Study on the
Establishment of the Philippine Reproduction Rights Organization Secretariat in
UP Diliman Campus” to PRRO and IFRRO.
NBDB Chairman Gonzalez also urged the PRRO to establish bilateral
relations with other collecting societies or Reproductive Rights Organizations
(RROs) in order to provide students better access to a wide array of foreign
24
reference materials. He prodded the PRRO to start licensing colleges and
universities by 2006 so that affordable and legally reproduced copyrighted
materials from local and foreign sources will be available to students.19
In 2006, the NBDB made the following development interventions in its
commitment to strengthen the PRRO as provided for in the 2005-2010 National
Book Development Plan. The NBDB hosted the PRRO’s General Assembly and
election of Board of Trustees in 29 May 2006, which was attended by 23
members from both individual and corporate members.
The NBDB also signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
PRRO Board on 17 July 2006 for the creation of a project team within the NBDB,
which will function as interim PRRO Secretariat. The NBDB Project Team:
a) Drafted and submitted on 24 August 2006 a five-year PRRO Business
Plan to the PRRO board for review and approval;
b) Submitted to PRRO Board of Trustees on 24 August 2006 the proposed
amendments to its articles of Incorporation and by-laws;
c) Increased rights holders membership to 400 authors;
d) Facilitated the meeting of NBDB and PRRO representatives with Mr.
Paul Wee, Chief Executive Officer of the Copyright Licensing and
Administration Society of Singapore (CLASS) during the 27th Manila
International Book Fair held at the World Trade Center-Manila in 30
August 2006;
e) Facilitated the meeting of NBDB Chairman Gonzalez with Ms. Patricia
Judd, Executive Director of the Association of American Publishers
(AAP), and Mr. Olan De Vera, Chair of the Publisher Representatives’
Organization of the Philippines (PROP) at the NBDB conference room
on 16 November 2006.
The NBDB also organized a Forum on Intellectual Property Rights and
Copyright on 16 June 2006 at the Sulo Hotel in Quezon City. Invited resource
persons were IP Philippines Director General Cristobal and Atty Edmund Jason
G. Baranda of Villaraza and Angangco Law Office, Dr. Isagani Cruz, Mr. Lirio
Sandoval of the Book Development Association of the Philippines (BDAP) and
Atty. Dominaro D. Buhain of the Philippine Educational Publishers Association
(PEPA). The activity, which was attended by 50 participants from the book
industry, was organized to celebrate the 10th Philippine Book Development
Month.
This was announced at an IFRRO-sponsored Symposium entitled “Can a Reproduction Rights
Organization Curb Illegal Photocopying in the Philippines?” at the Manila International Book Fair
in 02 September 2005. Mr. Olav Stokkmo, IFRRO Secretary General, says that 50 countries
already have operational RROs.
19
25
Significantly, IP Philippines Director General Cristobal met with Mr. Ang
Kwee Tiang, Regional Director, International Confederation of Societies of
Authors and Composers (CISAC) on 17 October 2006. CISAC and IP Philippines
have agreed to jointly undertake the funding and capacity building of the
Philippine Reproduction Rights Organization (PRRO). They aim to assist the
PRRO develop into a fully operational collection society within 2007.
IPR and Copyright Inclusion in Department of Education’s (DepEd) High
School Curriculum: On 26 January 2006, the DepEd has approved the proposal
of NBDB Chairman Gonzalez, to include the analysis of “intellectual property,
copyright and intellectual property rights” to the list of standard learning
competencies for Economics in Secondary Education, to be implemented
beginning school year 2006-2007. Local textbook publishers will be informed by
the NBDB that new textbooks or new editions in High School Economics for the
public school system should include the above competencies.
Thus, on 23 June 2006 representatives from the IP Philippines (Director
Carmen G. Peralta – Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer
Bureau), Bureau of Secondary Education of the Department of Education
(Corazon L. Echano – Chief, Curriculum Development Division) and the NBDB
(Chairman Gonzalez and Mr. Edgardo Sabalvoro) discussed the preparation of
IPR Manuals for Teachers.
On 08 December 2006, the project concept, budget and MOA prepared by
NBDB, have been submitted to the IP Philippines. Thereafter, it was agreed that
the Bureau of Secondary Education of the DepEd (BSA-DepEd) shall be
responsible in the preparation and development of the IPR Teachers’ Manual, the
IP Philippines will take the lead in fund sourcing as well as in providing technical
assistance and resource speakers, and the NBDB shall provide secretariat support
during the ten-day IPR Seminar Orientation and Teachers’ Guide Development
Write Shop involving curriculum writers and Master Teachers in Economics from
DepEd. It is expected that new editions of textbooks in High School Economics
shall introduce competencies in intellectual property, copyright and intellectual
property rights to the list of standard learning competencies for Economics
Subject.
Enforcement Aspect: The elements of the AFCCD/CIDG-PNP together
with the representatives of the C&E Publishing, Inc., raided on 19 June 2006 the
premises of Rose Arts Printers in Sampaloc, Manila, serving two (2) search
warrants and seizing thirty-five (35) pieces of books, one (1) unit Risograph and
one (1) unit cutting machine, with an estimated value of P265,978.00.
Recently,20 the AFCCD/CIDG-PNP conducted an operation against Stall
36 located at the U.P. Shopping Center, U.P. Campus, Diliman, Quezon City,
wherein assorted books, photocopy machines, and ring binders with an estimated
value of P 500,000.00 were seized. The raiding team, accompanied by a
representative of Eisevier Incorporated, MCGraw-Hill Companies, Pearson
Learning Incorporated, Thompson Education Incorporated and John Wiley &
20
06 December 2006.
26
Sons Incorporated, also arrested Ms. Trinili Faeldan Gabayno, the occupant of
the stall. Cases for copyright infringement were filed against Ms. Gabayno with
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
C. Effective Prosecution and Adjudication
Improving prosecution and adjudication is one of the most challenging
tasks faced by the GRP. This is where all the efforts of the different government
agencies converge and work towards convicting a felon, or forcing a satisfactory
settlement out of court. Thus, the strategy is aimed at developing specialized
skills for the prosecution and the judiciary, setting up a system of monitoring
transparently the progress of litigation, and establishing mechanisms for
cohesive interaction of different agencies, such as regular case conferences
between prosecutors and law enforcers.
The President’s memorandum of January 2006 categorically stated
conviction’s is the target and that they be widely publicized through government
information agencies. The President reiterated this to the Secretary of Justice,
the OMB and heads of the enforcement agencies during the “appreciation
luncheon” in the presidential palace on 20 February 2006.
1. Convictions
From the data presently available more effective prosecution has resulted
in sixty-four (64) convictions from 2001 to 2007, nineteen (19) of which were
handed down in 2006 alone.
Table 5. Data on Convictions (2001 – 2007)
PRESIDING JUDGE
Hon. Judge Antonio
Jayobo, MTCC Silay,
Negros Occidental
21
CASE NO.
28277-C
TITLE
2007 DECISION
pp vs. Abdul Alonto et
al.21
09 January 2007
(RA 9239: Optical Media Act of
2003)
Reported by the Optical Media Board (OMB)
27
PRESIDING JUDGE
CASE NO.
TITLE
Hon. Ma. Angelica T.
Paras-Quiambao, RTC,
Branch 59, Angeles City
02-531,
02-532,
02-533 and
02-534
pp vs. Nick Q.
Navarro, Janeth B.
Navarro & Jayson C.
Canlas22
Paras-Quiambao, RTC,
Branch 59, Angeles City
Hon. Alfredo C. Flores,
RTC, Branch 167, Pasig
City
00-046
pp vs. Edmundo
Mangaya and Perla
Mangaya23
pp vs. Sally King,
Loreto Lee, Susan
Chua , Johnny Nubla
& Emilia Nubla24
pp vs. Manny
Marasigan
Hon. Antonio M.
Eugenio, Jr.
RTC, Branch 24, Manila
Hon. Antonio M.
Eugenio, Jr.
123511, 123512,
123513, 123514,
123515 and
123516
00-187015
2006 DECISION
Accused Nick Q. Navarro & Janeth B.
Navarro – Convicted on 24 January
2006; accused Jayson C. Canlas –
Dismissed on 24 January 2006
(RA 8203: Counterfeit drugs)
25 January 2006
(Unfair competition)
10 April 2006
(Trademark infringement and
Unfair competition)
05 June 2006
(Copyright infringement)
98-169591
99-171135
pp. vs Nestor C. Yao
pp. vs. Nestor C. Yao
alias “Jao Jee Hung”25
Hon. Antonio M.
Eugenio, Jr.
Hon. Rufino S. Ferraris,
Jr.
MTCC, Branch 7, Davao
City
Hon. Judge Antonio
Jayobo, MTCC Silay,
Negros Occidental
03-210765
03-210971
pp vs. Nestor M.
Batilo26
119, 756-G-04
119, 757-G-04
pp vs. Macacuna
Gandarosa Y Basheron
& Alinor Pangcatan Y
Abobakar27
pp vs. Asmawe
Tantowa, Abdulah
Mama, Maraque Orot,
Pandaw Orot, Oding
Baro28
PRESIDING JUDGE
Hon. Raul E. De Leon,
RTC, Branch 258,
Parañaque City
CASE NO.
03-0320, 030321 and 030322
TITLE
pp vs. Eugene Li29
Paras-Quiambao,
RTC, Branch 59, Angeles
City
00-1159,
00-1160,
01-595,
01-093 and
01-094
03-2400 & 032401
pp vs. Benjamin de
Castro @ Tisoy30
pp vs. Fu Lin
Gutierrez and Simon
Chan31
08 August 2005
(Trademark infringement)
54,469-04 and
54,680-04
pp vs. Manuel Lim
Yap and Crestita Tan
Yap32
pp vs. Manuel Lim
Yap and Crestita Tan
Yap33
29 November 2005
Hon. Sixto C. Marella,
Jr.,
RTC, Branch 138, Makati
City
Hon. Jaime V. Quitain,
RTC, Branch 10, Davao
City
Hon. Jaime V. Quitain,
City
28267-C
55,922-05 to
55,926-05 and
56,477-05 to
56,481-05
13 July 2006
24 August 2006
13 November 2006
2003)
20 December 2006
2003)
2005 DECISION
10 February 2005
(Copyright and Trademark
infringement and Unfair
competition)
23 June 2005
(Trademark infringement and
Unfair competition)
29 November 2005
Reported by RTC - Branch 59, Angeles City
24 Reported by Bengzon Negre Untalan Intellectual Property Attorneys (BNU)
25 Source: RTC – Branch 24, Manila
26 Reported by BNU
27 Reported by the Optical Media Board (OMB)
28 Reported by the OMB
22
23
28
PRESIDING JUDGE
CASE NO.
Hon. Edwin D. Sorongon,
RTC, Branch 214,
Mandaluyong City
Hon. Novelita VillegasLlaguno, RTC, Branch
22, Naga City
MC-00-3006 to
MC-00-3015
pp vs. Catherine
Marquez34
99-7554
pp vs. Romulo
Salvador
PRESIDING JUDGE
CASE NO.
Hon. Augusto V. Breva,
City
City
PRESIDING JUDGE
City
Hon. Antonio M.
Eugenio, RTC, Branch
24, Manila
PRESIDING JUDGE
Hon. Alfredo C. Flores,
RTC, Branch 167, Pasig
City
45,725-2000
45,723-2000
and 45,7242000,
44,666-2000
TITLE
27 November 2004
2003 DECISION
pp vs. Marietta Jeanne
R. Fanlo and Ed R.
Fanlo
30 January 2003
pp vs. Mae Joy
Barameda
21 April 2003
10 February 2003
TITLE
2002 DECISION
pp vs. Marietta Jeanne
R. Fanlo and Ed R.
Fanlo
pp. vs. Harold Chua35
17 September 2002
TITLE
2001 DECISION
CASE NO.
117584 and
117585
22 June 2004
TITLE
CASE NO.
45,726-2000,
45,723-2000,
45-724-2000
99-172794
2004 DECISION
pp vs. Elmer
Mosqueda
03 October 2002
(Copyright Infringement)
10 December 2001
2007: (1) 2006: (19) 2005: (23) 2004: (11) 2003: (4) 2002: (4) 2001: (2)
convictions
Total: 64
On 13 July 2006, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24 of Manila recently
handed down its decision on the criminal cases against a businessman engaged in
the illegal copying, sale and distribution of unlicensed software belonging to
Business Software Alliance (BSA) members Adobe Systems, Inc. and Microsoft
Corporation. Mr. Yao is facing three to six years imprisonment and a fine of
P200,000.00.36
Mr. Nestor Yao, managing director of GAINS Computer and
Telecommunications, Inc., was convicted on two separate counts of violating R.A.
No. 8293 (IP Code of the Philippines). Mr. Yao was charged in December 1998
and again in February 1999 for copying and illegally loading computers with
Reported by BNU
31 Reported by BNU
32 Reported by RTC-Branch 10, Davao City
33 Reported by RTC-Branch 10, Davao City
34 Reported by AFCCD/C IDG-PNP
35 Reported by Quisumbing Torres Law Office
36 http://www.bsa.org/philippines/press/newsreleases/speedy-judicial-process.cfm
29
30
29
software programs of Adobe Systems and Microsoft, breaching both corporations’
licensing agreements.
International trade group BSA, a non-profit organization dedicated to
promoting a safe and legal online world, lauded the court’s decision as this shows
the seriousness of software piracy and copyright theft. “We applaud the court for
its decision to convict Mr. Yao guilty of IPR violation. This conviction is indeed a
victory for the IP community and underscores the government’s efforts in
promoting respect for IP rights”, said Tarun Sawney, BSA Director for AntiPiracy, Asia.
Mr. Sawney also called for swift decisions of other IP cases involving
software. “We are also looking forward to the fast action of the judiciary to the
other software IP cases pending in court. With the commitment of the justices
system in steadfastly pursuing cases against IPR violators and the continued
efforts of the Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team, we are confident that the government is
in the right direction in its fight against piracy,” said Sawney.37
The case against Mr. Yao is the second conviction involving software
copyright infringement. On 03 October 2002, another businessman was
convicted for the same offense. Mr. Harold Chua, owner of Triac Marketing, was
sentenced to one-year imprisonment and a fine of P 50,000.00 for illegal copying
and selling of software products belonging to Microsoft Corporation.
“With this development, we are expecting more decisions to come out
involving software piracy cases. We hope that the Philippine Judicial system will
continue to have speedy decisions on software piracy cases as piracy brings
negative effects to the whole country”, added Sawney.38
2. Department of Justice’s – Task Force on Anti-Intellectual
Property Piracy (DOJ-TFAIPP)
On 09 June 2005, DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez issued a Memorandum
Order directing the Regional State Prosecutors, Provincial and City Prosecutors
to submit a list of all cases pending before their respective offices and courts
involving violation of the IP Code. As a result, the Secretariat has an inventory of
these cases at the DOJ.
To strengthen the TFAIPP, DOJ issued on 21 November 2005 Department
Order No. 657 dated 21 November 2005, reconstituting the TFAIPP, composed of
six (6) full time prosecutors directed to investigate and prosecute IP cases at the
head office. Ninety-four (94) prosecutors nationwide were also deputized to
conduct the same. The TFAIPP is under the supervision of Undersecretary
Ernesto L. Pineda.
In November 2005, IP Philippines organized the first training seminar for
the members of the TFAIPP. Continuing training was implemented during the 1st
37
38
http://www.bsa.org/philippines/press/newsreleases/businessman-convicted.cfm
http://www.bsa.org/philippines/press/newsreleases/speedy-judicial-process.cfm
30
quarter of 2006. The DOJ also agreed to conduct regular case conferences with IP
Philippines and law enforcement agencies to ensure effective and efficient
prosecution of IP cases. Thus, on 16 February 2006, the NCIPR Secretariat
convened at the IP Philippines the first case conference between members of the
TFAIPP and the OMB. Among the matters discussed were the ninety-nine (99)
complaints filed by the OMB against John/Jane Does. The cases were eventually
dismissed due to material defects.
On 11 August 2006, Secretary Gonzalez issued Department Order No. 595
reconstituting the TFAIPP, this time composed of ten (10) members and chaired
by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor (ACSP) Pedrito L. Rances. A total of 1,068
cases were turned over by ACSP Leah C. Tanodra-Armamento, former TFAIPP
Chairperson, and were re-assigned to the new members. Subsequently, on 12
October 2006, Department Order No. 823 was issued adding six (6) more
members to the TFAIPP.
As the new chair of the TFAIPP, ACSP Rances held monthly regular
meetings with the members to discuss the status of cases, submission of monthly
reports, issues encountered during preliminary investigation and other concerns.
The task force agreed that each member should resolve and submit at least one
(1) case a week.
A number of the new TFAIPP members attended seminars/trainings
sponsored by IP Philippines, in coordination with IP owners and trade groups
such as the PCTA, CASBAA, Motorcycle Development Program Participants
Association and Lacoste. During the Strategic Planning Workshop of the NCIPR
in Clark, Pampanga on 28-30 November 2006, the DOJ proposed for the conduct
of a training seminar on the Optical Media Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9239)
and relevant rules by the Optical Media Board in the 1st quarter of 2007, wherein
plants and warehouses visits will also be part of the said activity.
On 28-30 November 2006, four (4) TFAIPP members attended the NCIPR
planning seminar workshop sponsored by IP Philippines and discussed, among
others, the procedures in filing cases with the DOJ, including the basic
documentary requirements supporting the affidavit complaint; the intellectual
property cases digital library initiated by IP Philippines and future seminars and
trainings for the TFAIPP members.
As of 31 December 2006, the new TFAIPP received 1,068 cases (carried
over from old Task Force). Out of these cases turned over to the new TFAIPP, 245
cases were disposed.
3. The Judiciary
In 2005, the NCIPR enhanced considerably its relationship with the
Philippine Judiciary. Through its proposal for the creation of Specialized IP Trial
courts, IP Philippines and the Judiciary started establishing cooperative
endeavors for more effective IPR prosecution and adjudication. The Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) of the Supreme Court of the Philippines (SC) is a
31
regular member of the NCIPR and an active participant in the TIC process. The
process for specialized IP courts went off to an encouraging start.
a)
Special Intellectual Property Trial and International
Trade Courts: One of the main strategic pillars for effective prosecution and
adjudication is the designation or creation of Special IP Trial and International
Trade courts. Expert judges and courts will force the other agencies of
government to align their knowledge, skills and activities towards IP
specialization.
In several meetings and discussions with the Chief Justice, the Court
Administrator and the PHILJA in 2005, it was agreed that, though the volume of
IP cases at that time do not justify the creation of a special court, the process in
specialization in IP for the judiciary must be implemented immediately.39
After the 21 July 2005 meeting between the Director General of IP-Philippines and Supreme
Court Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a Resolution (A.M. No.
05-7-15-SC) on 26 July 2005 referring the proposal of the IP-Philippines entitled “The Need for
Special IP Courts” to the Office of the Court Administrator for study and recommendation as to
“which of the courts in the areas indicated in the proposal may be designated as IP courts and
which other courts in areas where there are many IP cases may similarly be designated.”
On 18 October 2005, IP-Philippines submitted its proposed Memorandum of Agreement
to the Supreme Court of the Philippines that would specify the objectives of the undertaking for
specialized training and support for IP courts. On the same date, the Supreme Court issued an en
banc resolution referring the proposed memorandum to the Philippine Judicial Academy and the
Office of the Court Administrator for study and recommendation.
On 27 October 2005, the Director General of IP Philippines met with Justice Ameurfina
A. Melencio-Herrera, Justice Justo P. Torres (Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the Philippine
Judicial Academy [PHILJA] respectively), and members of the IPR Group of PHILJA (Court of
Appeals Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Makati Regional Trial Court Executive Judge Sixto C.
Marella, Jr. (now Court of Appeals Justice), and Manila Regional Trial Court Executive Judge
Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.
On 15 November 2005, IP Philippines submitted the Project Document on Training of IP
Court Judges and Personnel, and the Training Module.
On 16 November 2005, Director Carmen G. Peralta and Atty. Anton M. Elicaño, IP Philippines
Consultant, represented the IP Philippines in the PHILJA Academic Council Meeting, which
deliberated on the proposed Project Document and the Training Module.
At this stage of the talks, the designation of special IP courts is going through a process that starts
with special IP training for the judges and staff of three selected courts in Manila (Executive
Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.), Quezon City (Judge Reynaldo B. Daway) and Makati (Executive
Judge Sixto Marella Jr.). It was also agreed to study as a model Thailand’s Intellectual Property
and International Trade Court. Aware that the Thai special court also had to justify the volume of
cases before creating a special court, there is a possibility that IP cases will be put together with
international trade cases.
To start the study of the Thai court, Deputy Court Administrator of the Supreme Court of
the Philippines Jose P. Perez, Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Reynaldo B. Daway
and Atty. Joy Amethyst A. Martinez, Attorney III, Office of the Executive Secretary of the
Philippine Judicial Academy were sent to Bangkok to attend the Study Visit to the Central
Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (CIPITC) and Thai Supreme Court (28-30
November 2005) and the EU-ASEAN Symposium on IP Enforcement by Specialized Courts,
Challenges and the Recent Developments in IPR (01-02 December 2005).
In addition, Makati Regional Trial Court, Branch 138, Judge Sixto Marella, Jr. and
Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe of the Court of Appeals were sent to Singapore to
attend the WIPO CISAC Joint Regional Colloquium for the Judiciary on Copyright and Related
Rights (14-15 November 2005).
39
32
On 25 April 2006, the Supreme Court of the Philippines en banc approved
the Intellectual Property Program for Judges (outlining the activities through
which the Judges will be instructed on matters relating to IP Laws). The subjects
include international covenants and domestic IP law, copyright issues and IP
issues relative to digitalization, the law on patents, trademarks and unfair
competition, problems of jurisdiction and procedure and the writ of search and
seizure and other remedies in IP cases, and emerging issues in IP.
The course is seen to help court personnel (Judges, Clerks of Court,
Sheriffs, Stenographers and Legal Researchers) in adjudicating IP cases that are
pending before their salas in a fair and more efficient manner and at a faster
pace, and could be the first step towards the creation of special IP courts, which is
the long-term goal of the government. The IP Philippines training program for
court personnel will be done in partnership with the Philippine Judicial Academy
(PhilJA) and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Supreme Court
of the Philippines.
As part of the training program of the IP Philippines for court personnel,
six (6) judges40 and one (1) deputy court administrator41 and one (1) assistant
court administrator42 of the OCA-SC, were sent abroad to attend specialized
trainings in 2006.
Significantly, in November 2006, the Philippine Judicial Academy
(PhilJA), IP Philippines and the National Judicial Institute-Canada (NJI-Canada)
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to conduct the first “Advanced
Course on Intellectual Property Law for Commercial Court Judges.” The four-day
course was attended by twenty-six (26) judges participated, wherein nine (9) of
them were from the National Capital Region (NCR).
b)
Monitoring Appellate Courts: There are encouraging signs in
the judiciary that shows clear directions towards greater attention to IP cases.
The database of the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines (OCA-SC), for case monitoring nationwide already segregates IP
violations as a separate category in court dockets whereas before cases were put
under the traditional categories of “criminal, civil and commercial.” Even at the
appellate level, through the efforts of Court of Appeals Justice Estela M. PerlasBernabe, the appealed IP cases have also been identified and segregated from the
dockets for easier monitoring.
The database of OCA-SC shows that there are four hundred forty-two
(442) IPR cases pending nationwide, wherein three hundred thirty-four (334)
cases are pending in courts in the National Capital Region (NCR), and with the
following courts having the largest volume: Quezon City-Branch 90 (95), ManilaBranch 24 (77) and Manila-Branch 46 (45).
40 ASEAN-USPTO Workshop on IPR Enforcement for Judges, Bangkok, Thailand, 07-09 March
2006.
41 Asia and the Pacific Sub-Regional Colloquium for the Judiciary on the Protection of IPR, New
Delhi, India, 29-30 June 2006.
42 ASEAN-USPTO Workshop on IPR Enforcement for Judges, Bangkok, Thailand, 07-09 March
2006.
33
Moreover, there is a deliberate effort now to include appealed cases in the
enforcement database of the NCIPR and a specific team to follow up these cases
in the Court of Appeals.
4. Bureau of Legal Affairs – Intellectual Property Philippines
(BLA-IP Philippines)
One of the functions of IP Philippines is to administratively adjudicate
contested proceedings affecting intellectual property rights exercised.
As part of its program to strengthen the BLA, IP Philippines hired
additional Hearing Officers. It also amended its rules for Inter Partes Cases (IPC)
providing for a summary procedure. It also put in place mandatory mediation
proceedings for IPR violation cases filed in the BLA.43
As a result of the hiring of new lawyers and the implementation of the
Office Order No. 79 providing for summary procedure in IPC, the BLA increased
its disposal to about ninety six (96%). Meaning, the BLA was able to dispose 284
IPC cases in 2006 compared to the 145 IPC cases it disposed in 2005. Out of the
284 cases disposed, 170 of these were old cases resulting to the reduction of
backlog of IPC cases. The summary procedure also has significantly reduced the
timeframe in resolving IPC cases from four (4) years to only 10 months to 14
months.
In addition, the BLA was also able to dispose 26 Intellectual Property
Violation (IPV) cases in 2006. Out of the 26 cases disposed, 19 of these were old
cases, thus, reducing the backlog of IPV cases. Significantly, amendments to the
Rules and Regulations of Intellectual Property Violations are also underway,
which is seen to contribute to the reduction of the period in resolving IPV cases.
To increase the competency of the Hearing Officers of BLA, a training on
substantive and procedural laws including IP Law and related laws was
conducted in cooperation with the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) on 1013 October 2006. Hearing Officers of the different regional offices of the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the legal assistants of the IP
Philippines also attended the said training.
To prepare the BLA lawyers for the influx of cases involving cable
television piracy once the NTC-IP Philippines MOA is implemented in the 1st
quarter of 2007, the IP Philippines, in coordination with the PCTA and CASBAA,
conducted a seminar in the cable and satellite industry for the NTC lawyers and
engineers and IP Philippines hearing officers and legal assistants on 28 July
2006. Moreover, four (4) hearing officers of the BLA were sent to Bangkok,
Thailand, to attend the ASEAN-USPTO Workshop on Intellectual Property Rights
For this purpose, IP Philippines reactivated twenty-two (22) employees who were trained in
mediation under a project with the USAID. The “pilot” mediation of actual cases in 2004 resulted
in 23 out of 28 cases resolved satisfactorily.
43
34
in Broadcasting and Effective Practices in Anti-Piracy Enforcement on 15-16
November 2006.
The IP Philippines offers its administrative adjudication process and
mediation system of the BLA as an alternative venue to IP owners. 44 The Director
General has offered this alternative to most of the IP owners and associations in
his dialogues with them.
From January to December 2006, the BLA has disposed 284 inter partes
cases and 26 intellectual property violations cases.
R.A. No. 8293, Section 10. The Bureau of Legal Affairs.- The Bureau of Legal Affairs shall have
the following functions:
10.1 Hear and decide opposition to the application for registration of marks; cancellation of
trademarks; subject to the provisions of Section 64, cancellation of patents, utility models, and
industrial designs; and petitions for compulsory licensing of patents;
10.2 (a) Exercise original jurisdiction in administrative complaints for violations of laws involving
intellectual property rights: Provided, That its jurisdiction is limited to complaints where the total
damages claimed are not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000): Provided further,
That availment of the provisional remedies may be granted in accordance with the Rules of Court.
The Director of Legal Affairs shall have the power to hold and punish for contempt all those who
disregard orders or writs issued in the course of the proceedings.
(b) After formal investigation, the Director for Legal Affairs may impose one (1) or more of the
following administrative penalties: (i) The issuance of a cease and desist order which shall specify
the acts that the respondent shall cease and desist from and shall require him to submit a
compliance report within a reasonable time which shall be fixed in the order;
(ii) The acceptance of a voluntary assurance of compliance or discontinuance as may be imposed.
Such voluntary assurance may include one or more of the following: (1) An assurance to comply
with the provisions of the intellectual property law violated; (2) An assurance to refrain from
engaging in unlawful and unfair acts practices subject of the formal investigation; (3) An
assurance to recall, replace, repair, or refund the money value of defective goods distributed in
commerce; and (4) An assurance to reimburse the complainant the expenses and costs incurred
in prosecuting the case in the Bureau of Legal Affairs.
The Director of Legal Affairs may also require the respondent to submit periodic compliance
reports and file a bond to guarantee compliance of his undertaking;
(iii) The condemnation or seizure of products which are subject of the offense. The goods seized
hereunder shall be disposed of in such a manner as may be deemed appropriate by the Director of
Legal Affairs, such as by sale, donation to distressed local governments or to charitable or relief
institutions, exportation, recycling into other goods, or any combination thereof, under such
guidelines as he may provide;
(iv) The forfeiture of paraphernalia and all real and personal properties which have been used in
the commission of the offense;
(v) The imposition of administrative fines in such amount as deemed reasonable by the Director
of Legal Affairs, which shall in no case be less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) nor more than
One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000). In addition, an additional fine of not more than
One thousand pesos (P1,000) shall be imposed for each day of continuing violation;
(vi) The cancellation of any permit, license, authority, or registration which may have been
granted by the Office, or the suspension of the validity thereof for such period of time as the
Director of Legal Affairs may deem reasonable which shall not exceed one (1) year;
(vii) The withholding of any permit, license, authority, or registration which is being secured by
the respondent from the Office;
(viii) The assessment of damages;
(ix) Censure; and
(x) Other analogous penalties or sanctions.
10.3 The Director General may by Regulations establish the procedure to govern the
implementation of this Section.
44
35
D. Public Outreach: IP Information and Education Campaign
1. Information Dissemination Projects of IP Philippines:
To promote IP as a tool for national development and to make IP relevant
to the greater majority of Filipinos, we will be more proactive in disseminating IP
information and in encouraging the utilization of the IP system. Moreover, the
establishing of the IP Philippines Research and Training Institute (IPRTI) will
complement IP Philippines’ efforts at IP education and information
dissemination. The IPRTI aims to foster IP creation, utilization, and education by
building up the capabilities of IP Philippines employees, IP professionals,
students, researchers, and generators of IP.
From January to December 2006, IP Philippines organized and
participated in a total of fifty-two (52) seminars and workshops all over the
Philippines. In these activities IP Philippines gave lectures on IPR and
distributed IPR literature. These seminars were designed to target several key
and influential sectors in society. Twenty-five (25) IPR Awareness seminars were
conducted for government agencies.
For the private sector, twenty-two (22) seminars were conducted.
Targeting universities and schools to promote IPR awareness was also part of
public outreach activities, wherein a total of five (5) seminars were conducted.
For the NCIPR, forty-five (45) participants were sent by IP Philippines to
foreign seminar and training courses on the enforcement of IPR, wherein nine (9)
participants were from IP Philippines and thirty-six (36) were external: BOC (9),
OCA-SC (1), DOJ (6), Regional Trial Court (10), NBI (2), PNP (4), NTC (2), other
government agencies (2).
2. Media Management
Proactive engagement with the media has produced more than 35945 news
reports on IPR enforcement, published almost daily in all nine (9) major dailies
and its online versions, covered in the Nation, Metro Manila and Business
sections, which in turn, serves as a warning to violators of IPR.
Most IPR stories were on raids conducted by the enforcement agencies of
the government, anti-piracy drives launched by LGUs and public-private
partnerships to counter the proliferation of counterfeiting in the country.
3. Radio Broadcasting
In addition to print media, IP Philippines has also used radio broadcast to
increase public awareness about the importance of IP. The Director General cohosted a weekly radio program, Konsyumer ATBP (KATBP), for consumers at
45 January (28), February (28), March (90), April (32), May (26), June (17), July (18), August
(19), September (18), October (21), November (45) and December (17).
36
DZMM, considered as the most credible and trusted AM station in the country
because of its consistent high ratings and numerous awards.46
The radio program provides information to the consumers about the
Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. No. 7394)47 and other consumer related
laws, including the IP Code of the Philippines. The program also has a segment
that warns consumers about sub-standard and fake products that can endanger
their lives. In addition, there is a segment devoted to Filipino innovations, which
promote the importance of IP and the IP System.
In 2006, IP Philippines Director General co-hosted thirty-seven (37)
KATBP programs.
4. Internet
Complementing the public information reach of regular press coverage is
the website of the IP Philippines. The website has more information about IP
news and events and data about enforcement and prosecution.
In 2006, the IP Philippines’ website received a total of 178,12948 hits.
5. Department
Education
of
Education
(DepEd):
Mainstreaming
IP
The most ambitious project for public education about IPR is the
mainstreaming of IPR in the curricula of elementary and high schools
nationwide. This is the only effective way to promote respect and appreciation of
IP.
In the initial discussions about the project between the IP Philippines
Director General and Department of Education (DepEd) former Secretary Fe
Hidalgo, the latter requested IP Philippines to conduct orientation seminars on
intellectual property for public school teachers, particularly on copyright. Further
discussions led to agreements for mainstreaming children and user-friendly
modules on copyright and intellectual property rights into the elementary and
high school system.
As mentioned earlier, on 26 January 2006, the DepEd has approved the
proposal of NBDB Chairman Gonzalez, to include the analysis of “intellectual
property, copyright and intellectual property rights” to the list of standard
ABS-CBN has been of service to the Filipino people for more than 50 years. Part of their service
is having an AM station with a 24-hour programming, which contains different types of programs
that cater to the needs of the Filipino people.
47 Protects the interest of the consumer, promotes his general welfare and establishes standards of
conduct for business and industry.
48 January (14,187), February (13,576), March (14,701), April (4,172), May (17,080), June
(15,266), July (no data), August (17,069), September (35,256), October (16,370), November
(18,657) and December (11,832).
46
37
learning competencies for Economics in Secondary
implemented beginning school year 2006-2007.
Education,
to
be
After a series of meetings, it was agreed that the Bureau of Secondary
Education shall be responsible in the preparation and development of the IPR
Teachers’ Manual, the IP Philippines will take the lead in fund sourcing as well as
in providing technical assistance and resource speakers, and the NBDB shall
provide secretariat support during the ten-day IPR Seminar Orientation and
Teachers’ Guide Development Write Shop involving curriculum writers and
Master Teachers in Economics from DepEd. It is expected that new editions of
textbooks in High School Economics shall introduce competencies in intellectual
property, copyright and intellectual property rights to the list of standard
learning competencies for Economics Subject.
In 2004,49 Senator Luisa “Loi” P. Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill
No. 1869 entitled “An Act Requiring The Teaching Of Intellectual Property
Ownership Particularly Copyright Law As Part Of The Curriculum Of All Primary,
Secondary And Tertiary Schools In The Country, And For Other Purposes,
wherein it was referred to the committees on Education, Arts and Culture, Trade
and Commerce and Finance. The bill mandates the teaching of IP ownership
particularly copyright law as part of the curriculum of all primary, secondary and
tertiary schools in the country. The measure emphasize that it is imperative that
the importance of copyright be imparted to our citizenry at an early age as well as
in later life. The bill also recognized that with proper education piracy will be
curtailed.
IP Philippines has included this Bill in its IP Legislative Agenda.
Influencing the tertiary level of education is also underway with the
formation of the IP professors’ network, composed of lecturers on IP from
different disciplines. Currently, there are twelve (12) law schools that offer IP law
as a two or three unit subject while other universities offer basic IP courses
integrated with other disciplines, such as Engineering and Business Ethics.50
E. Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building
A crucial component in strengthening the IP system is institution building
and a comprehensive and systematic HRD program for the IP community (IP
creators and users, law enforcers, prosecutors, judges, etc). IP Philippines will
lead this component of the Action Plan and has started coordinating the training
programs.
01 December 2004.
(a) Ateneo de Manila University Law School, (b) Manuel L. Quezon University School of Law,
(c) University of the Philippines College of Law, (d) San Beda College of Law, (e) Arellano
University Law Foundation, (f) Lyceum of the Philippines College of Law, (g) San Sebastian
College Recoletos Manila Institute of Law, (h) Cagayan Colleges of Tuguegarao College of Law, (i)
San Carlos University in Cebu City, (j) Jose Rizal University, (k) Manila law College Foundation,
and (l) University of Perpetual Help – Rizal.
49
50
38
1. The Intellectual Property Research and Training Institute
(IPRTI)
With the full support of the WIPO Worldwide Academy, and other foreign
IP institutions, the IPRTI is envisioned to be the center of IP education, training
and research in the country. IP Philippines envisions a strong community of IP
advocates, educators, trainers, and researchers consisting not only of IP
practitioners and IP Philippines officials and employees, but also of
academicians, scientists, entrepreneurs, inventors and business executives.
The IPRTI will foster IP creation and utilization by:
a. Raising the level of IP awareness and knowledge among academic and
R&D institutions, SMEs, business, IP users and right holders through
training programs;
b. Providing continuing education and training to: IP Philippines’
employees and IP professionals (lawyers, enforcers, prosecutors,
judges, policy-makers, teachers, researchers, creators, inventors,
innovators and other IP generators);
c. Developing partnerships and networks with universities and individual
educators for the institutionalization of IP courses/programs;
d. Promoting the inclusion of IP in basic and secondary education;
e. Developing information materials to promote public awareness in IP;
f. Conducting research to broaden IP knowledge and strengthen the
competencies of IP professionals; and
g. Build up policy research capacity to improve the legal and policy
infrastructure and to advance the country’s interests in international
fora.
The BOC, among the law enforcement agencies now in the NCIPR, has the
most comprehensive plan of institutional reform that, when in place, will boost
tremendously IPR enforcement. Listed below are the “big-ticket” projects of the
BOC:
a)
Permanent Bureau of Customs Intellectual Property Office (BOCIPO) - In connection with the Presidential directive (Executive Order No. 366) for
Philippine Government agencies to rationalize their operations, the BOC grabbed
this opportunity to establish a permanent BOC-IPO in its revised organizational
structure. The BOC has submitted its proposed Rationalization Plan to the
Department of Finance (DOF). The plan included the creation of a regular
Intellectual Property Rights Division with its own personnel and budget. The unit
will have at least twenty-five (25) personnel engage in border protection of IPR.
39
A permanent IP Office/Unit will strengthen the institutional and
organizational links across the whole organization and with nationwide coverage,
on matters involving intellectual property rights (IPR). The BOC expects its
revised organizational structure (chart) to be in effect during the first quarter of
2007.
b)
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Postal Service –
Through the collaboration between the BOC and the Philippine Postal
Corporation (PhilPost), there have been a number of recent seizures of optical
media and other prohibited cargoes, which utilized or coursed through the
country’s postal mailing and cargo services. The BOC and PhilPost technical
committees have been working hand-in-hand on the revision of the thirty-two
(32) year-old MOA. The current thrust to review the MOA is geared to foster
closer and seamless coordination between BOC and PhilPost personnel,
especially in cases of seizure of pirated or IPR infringing goods and regulated
goods. The revision of the MOA is underway.
c)
Improved Risk Management System – The European Commission
approved a Euro 1.3 Million grant to BOC for three (3) components, namely:
upgrade of the computerized risk-management system; valuation database
(international) system for value-referencing in connection with the risk
management system, and training ware. This selectivity system will allow for
better and more intelligent selection of cargoes earmarked for inspection. This
will also allow for early detection of possible IPR violations of incoming
shipments. The BOC is finalizing the Terms of Reference and other preparations
for the bidding.
d)
ASEAN Single Window – The ASEAN Single Window (ASW)
System will provide for the use of a common ASEAN declaration form and the
use of export data of one country as the import data of another, among the 10member states. The features of the system are: single submission; single
synchronized processing, and single decision-making. The system will enable
advance processing and profiling, and will stop the submission of spurious
import data. The ASEAN Economic Ministers (AEM) will accede to a Protocol to
implement the ASW by 2008 for six (6) countries, by 2010 for two (2) other
countries and by 2012 for the remaining two. The Commissioner of BOC and
Director General of Thailand Customs signed a MOA last November 2005 for a
pilot ASW project between the two (2) Customs agencies. The European
Commission has committed to fund the pilot project, which will include capacity
building. The ASW is expected to prevent the movement of IPR-violating goods
within ASEAN.
e)
Executive Order for a National Single Window – The BOC has
proposed for the issuance of an Executive Order that will mandate the
establishment of a National Single Window for Cargo Clearance. This will provide
organizational and computerized connection between the BOC and all of over
twenty (20) agencies from whom clearances, permits and authority are required
prior to the release of imports and exports.
40
f)
Procurement of Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems – The BOC
procured ten (10) units of non-intrusive container inspection system (x-ray
machines). The initial units of the x-ray machines are deployed and monitored at
Cebu, Davao, the Port of Manila (POM) and Manila International Container Port
(MICP). Thirty (30) units more are coming and will be deployed in all ports.
These equipment will definitely and immensely improve the capability of BOC to
detect and profile IPR violations at the ports.
The procurement was approved by the National Economic Development
Authority-Investment Coordinating Council (NEDA-ICC) of the Philippine
Government, and funded by a concessional loan from the Government of the
Peoples’ Republic of China.
g)
Full Computerization/Automation – The Philippine Government
will invest Php500 Million (approximately USD9.0 Million) for the full
computerization project of BOC. This will cover the automation of all procedures
in the import and export processes (of twenty-six [26] sub-components) utilizing
the Internet, wireless and cellular phone technologies. The systems will provide,
among other things, the following:
a. Profiling of incoming shipments
b. Tracking of transactions of suspected firms, which could now be
more quickly done
c. Legal case tracking
d. Passenger baggage system
e. Accreditation system
These systems are critical in detecting IPR violations. Commenced during
the second quarter of 2005, the project is already in full swing. Initially, each
office/bureau will be given one (1) unit of computer hooked to the system. The
automation of all procedure is now in process.
h)
Baggage X-ray Machine at Clark Airport – The Clark
Development Corporation (CDC) and the BOC, together with the DOF, installed a
baggage X-ray machine for arriving passengers at Clark Airport and a mobile xray machine operated by BOC. Considering that the airport receives fifty (50)
flights weekly, mostly intra-Asia, the equipment is seen as a big help in detecting
and profiling IPR-violating products.
i)
Data warehousing and data mining – The Assessment Mission
from Japan in respect of the prospective grant has already recommended the
grant in mid-2005. The grant, amounting to USD 10 Million from the Japanese
government, covers data-warehousing and data mining, which are critical in the
detection of IPR-violating imports. BOC sees the completion of the project in
2007.
Fully aware of the continuing challenges to the organization, the BOC
remains committed in its drive to remain one of the best models of Customs
services world-wide.
41
With a multi-million grant from the President’s e-Government fund, which
was specifically created to finance mission-critical and high-impact ICT projects
of government agencies, the BOC again embarked on a major computerization
project. Launched in January 2005, the project called ASYCUDAWorld (eCustoms) Project is intended to upgrade and enhance the existing computer
system.
The e-Customs Project aims primarily to enhance and upgrade BOC’s core
and support systems, including the hardware and network infrastructure, such as
servers and workstations.
The Project uses the new e-Customs web-based platform called
ASYCUDAWorld, which was developed by the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD). To date, over 80 countries around the world
are using the same Customs IT system - - ASYCUDA (Automated System for
Customs Data).
The Project is composed of four (4) major components: Applications
System, Implementation Roll-out, Operations Facilities and Technical
Architecture, and Change Management and Training.51
The full implementation of these components is expected to result in:
o an automated import and export cargo clearance process, decision
support system, and support infrastructure that will further sharpen
and strengthen BOC’s ability to meet strategic thrusts, to more
51 The first component, Application System, covers design and implementation of the following
system groups that will automate the majority of BOC processes:
- BOC Portal
- Imports and Assessment System
- Export Processing System
- Operations Support System
- Enterprise Resource Planning and Customer Relationship Management System
The second component, Implementation Roll-out, covers civil works, site preparation and IT
infrastructure improvements. Included are:
- Workplace Modernization
- Computer Site Preparation
- IT Facilities Improvement
- Hardware and Network Upgrade
The third component, Operations Facilities and Technical Architecture, handles preparation and
maintenance of the technical environment and IT facilities. It includes the following:
- Technical Environment
- Network LAN/WAN
- System Security
- Disaster Recovery
The fourth component, Change Management and Training, which ensures the smooth transition
from the old systems and ways of working, covers the following:
- Change Management
- Communications
- ISO Certification Plan
- Customer Relations Management
- Basic and Technical Trainings
42
effectively carry out its mandated tasks and to satisfy current and
future information requirements for better trade facilitation, enhanced
revenue collection, and more reliable and effective enforcement;
o a streamlined process between the BOC and other agencies in the
electronic exchange of information such as license and permits
required for cargo clearance;
o a realization of the ASEAN Single Window’s vision of ensuring prompt
clearance of imports through single submission and processing of
Customs data and single decision-making for cargo release; and
o an extensive use of e-Commerce solutions that will allow non face-toface transaction process that will be more convenient to the transacting
public.
Benefits: The ASYCUDAWorld Project brings the BOC closer to its vision
of a Customs organization that delivers services anytime, anywhere through
various channels. A compelling scenario, which it envisions, is – queueless,
cashless and paperless. As an e-government project, it has far-reaching benefits.
For BOC Stakeholder –
o Greater BOC accountability to stakeholders, government and the public
due to more transparent dealings and efficient systems;
o Reduced processing time on low risk transactions
o Lower cost of doing business due to streamlined processes
For the BOC – The ASYCUDAWorld Project will support and strengthen
BOC’s core functions of trade facilitation, revenue collection, and law
enforcement. Expected benefits of the Project are:
o Development of BOC as a model Customs service
o Increase in efficiency resulting to faster service delivery
o Improved quality of service
o Increased revenue collection resulting from simplified and
standardized procedures and processes
o Timely, accurate and quality information for decision-making
o Timely information delivery from the Bureau to other government
agencies, and stakeholders
o Highly professional and well-trained workforce
o More transparent business transactions
o Enhanced risk management capability
o Greater customer satisfaction
For the Employees –
o Enhanced professionalism
o Greater ease, speed and efficiency in doing work
o Increased work productivity
o Modern working environment
o Knowledge and skills upgrading
For the International Community – Since ASYCUDAWorld is based on
international standards and uses the Internet, BOC can achieve compliance to
various international/regional/bi-lateral/multi-lateral trade agreements, more
43
trade cooperation with other countries, and more efficient exchange of
information.
3. Intellectual Property Rights Protection Training Program
(IPROTECT)
One of the major challenges identified during the crafting of the 2005-06
enforcement action plan was the lack of institutional and personnel capacities of
the IP community, particularly the enforcers, prosecutors and judges, resulting in
difficulties in implementing the IP Code and related laws. Thus, IP Philippines
institutionalized a mechanism, the Intellectual Property Rights Protection
Training Program (IPROTECT), that will improve institutional and personnel
capability for IPR implementation by implementing a systematic HRD program
for the different inter-agency IP units, particularly enforcement operations,
evidence gathering, prosecution and judicial decision-making.
In partnership with international organizations and industry associations
(NJIC-Juris Project, PSIA, BSA, PCTA, CASBAA, Lacoste and Bengzon Negre
Untalan Intellectual Property Attorneys) and concerned government agencies
(NTC, SC and PHILJA), IP Philippines conducted five (5) IPROTECT training
programs,52 wherein one hundred eighty-six (186) participants were from the
government sector and forty-five (45) participants were from the private sector.
Significantly, the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJA), IP Philippines and
the National Judicial Institute-Canada (NJI-Canada) entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to conduct the first “Advanced Course on
Intellectual Property Law for Commercial Court Judges” in November 2006. The
course was conducted under the IPROTECT Training program of IP Philippines.
The four-day course was attended by twenty-six (26) judges participated, wherein
nine (9) of them were from the National Capital Region (NCR).
The objective of the course was to provide judges in commercial courts
with a more in-depth knowledge on IP law as well as develop the skills necessary
to apply said knowledge to resolve frequently raised issues in cases before
Philippine courts. The curriculum focused on the three main areas of IP law,
namely: trademarks, patents and copyrights, and comprised general discussions
thereof as well as practical exercises designed to permit the participants to work
on their skills in adjudicating IP law cases.
(1) Intellectual Property Rights in the Software Industry – A Training Seminar on Law
Enforcement, Dusit Hotel Makati City, 26 April 2006.
(2) Training for IP Philippines and NTC Lawyers in the Cable and Satellite Industry, IP
Philippines Multi-Purpose Hall, 28 July 2006.
(3) Protecting IPR to Drive Growth in the Cable and Satellite Industry, EDSA Shangri-La
Mandaluyong City, 09 October 2006.
(4) Advanced Course on IP Law for Commercial Court Judges, The Rockwell Club Makati City, 1417 November 2006.
(5) Strengthening Border Controls: The Role of Public and Private Alliances, The Rockwell Club
Makati City, 21 November 2006.
52
44
F. Enhancing the Policy Environment
The Director General is mandated under Section 7 of the IP Code to
manage and direct all functions and activities of the IP Philippines, including the
promulgation of rules and regulations to implement the objectives, policies,
plans, programs and projects of the Office. By virtue of Office Order No. 61,
Series of 2005, the IP Philippines Policy Study Team was formed to assist the
Director General in policy formulation and determination on intellectual
property.
The Policy Study Team is composed of IP Philippines’ employees who act
as internal point or resource persons and are responsible in the formulation and
recommendation of policies in current and emerging issues on IP in the local and
international fora.
By virtue of Office Order No. 88, Series of 2005, issued on September
2005, the Office of the Legal Counsel and Policy Coordination (OLCPC) was
formed to assist the Director General in coordinating and consolidating the IP
Philippines’ and the government’s policy position, among others. The IP Policy
Study Team was incorporated in the said Office, with members being assigned
specific policy areas of concerns.
From the OLCPC, the IP Policy Study Team is transferred under the
umbrella of the Office of Policy Research and International Relations (OPRIR)
which was created by virtue of Office Order No. 91, Series of 2006, issued on 05
September 2006, as the primary unit responsible for crafting position papers,
commentaries, recommendations, concept papers, research papers, and
presentations on IP and IP-related issues in the local and international arena; for
crafting of IP-legislative agenda; for reviewing/formulating implementing rules
and regulations, guidelines and other issuances; for networking and coordination
with internal and external resource persons; and for handling the IP Philippines’
international relations (bilateral agreements with international IP Offices and
organizations and other national IP Offices, among others).
At present, the team is also responsible in monitoring the national and
international IP environment. It also networks with the IP Philippines’ national
partners [Congress, Department of Foreign (DFA), DOJ, etc.], regional partners
[Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Asia Pacific Economic ForumIntellectual Property Experts Group (APEC-IPEG)], and international partners
[World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Trade Organization
(WTO), European Patent Office (EPO), United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO), and Japan Patent Office (JPO), among others].
For the past several years, the GRP has laid the foundations for a legal and
policy environment conducive for IPR – from the passage of the Intellectual
Property Code (IP Code) to the Optical Media Act (OMA). The GRP continues to
enhance the policy environment.
45
1. Internet Treaties
IP Philippines and the NCIPR has supported two (2) House Bills pending
at the House of Representatives, seeking the amendment of the copyright
provisions of Republic Act No. 8293 (IP Code) to incorporate the provisions of
the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms
Treaty (WPPT), collectively known as the WIPO Internet Treaties. These bills are
the following:
a) House Bill No. 322 – introduced by Representative Imee R. Marcos
entitled: An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No.
8293, Entitled “An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code and
Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Its Powers
and Functions and For Other Purposes.
b) House Bill No. 3308 – introduced by Representative Joey Sarte
Salceda entitled: An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act
No. 8293, Entitled “An Act Prescribing the Intellectual Property Code
and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Its
Powers and Functions and For Other Purposes.
While the GRP’s accession to the WCT and WPPT in October 2002 made
the provisions of the treaties part of the laws of our land, the IP Philippines is of
the view that the amendments will make our organic laws one of the most
modern in the world.
IP Philippines conducted briefings and proactively participated in the
Committee hearings and Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings of the House
of Representatives.53
On 13 March 2006, the 1st TWG meeting was held. On 03 April 2006, IP
Philippines submitted its position paper to the Committee on Trade and
Industry. Currently, the bills are being studied by the TWG.
Moreover, Senator Edgardo J. Angara introduced Senate Bill No. 1973
entitled: An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 8293 Also
Known As “The Intellectual Property Code Of the Philippines And For Other
Purposes” on 05 April 2005. The measure was referred to the Committee on
Trade and Commerce.
In 07 May 2005, the Director General of IP Philippines conducted an Executive Briefing on the
implementation of the IP Code before the Committee on Trade and Industry of the House of
Representatives.
On 21 November 2005, the Director General and Deputy Director General Ireneo M. Galicia of IP
Philippines attended the briefing called by Representative Junie E. Cua, Chairman of the
Committee on Trade and Industry, and lectured on Copyright Law and the features of the WIPO
Internet Treaties.
On 06 December 2005, IP Philippines participated in the meeting of the Committee on Trade and
Industry, wherein a Technical Working Group (TWG) was created.
53
46
2. Bills on Cybercrime:
The IP Philippines and the NCIPR also supported the bills on cybercrime.
The Committee on Information Communications Technology of the House of
Representatives deliberated four (4) cybercrime bills, namely:
a) House Bill No. 1246 – introduced by Representative Eric D. Singson
entitled: An Act Preventing and Penalizing Computer Fraud, Abuses
and Other Cyber-Related Fraudulent Activities, and Creating for the
Purpose the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center,
Prescribing Its Powers and Functions, and Appropriating Funds
therefore.
b) House Bill No. 2093 – introduced by Representative Amado T.
Espino, Jr. entitled: An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for
Prevention, Suppression and Imposition of Penalties Therefor, and for
Other Purposes.
c) House Bill No. 2528 – introduced by Representative Nanette
Castelo-Daza entitled: An Act Providing Protection Against Computer
Fraud, Abuses and Other Cyber-Related Fraudulent Activities,
Providing Penalties Therefor and For Other Purposes.
d) House Bill No. 3777 – introduced by Representative Harlin Cast
Abayon entitled: “An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for
Prevention, Suppression and Imposition of Penalties Therfor, and For
Other Purposes.”
The bills were referred to the Technical Working Group for consolidation.
The consolidated version was approved during the Regular Committee meeting
on 24 August 2005.
3. Senate Bill No. 2263:
Also pending before the Senate of the Philippines is Senate Bill No. 2263,
which seeks to amend the IP Code to make affordable prices of patented
medicines.
Generally, the bill amends the framework of the IP Code so that the
protection given to the intellectual property owners will be balanced with the
greater public health interest of providing a more sustainable access to affordable
medicines for the benefit of the greater populace. It is also flexible enough to
remedy various possible challenges to Philippine public like biological and/or
chemical terror attacks as well as global pandemics like bird flu or SARS. It
provides three ways by which these goals may be achieved: (a) the improvement
of the supply of drugs and medicines to meet the large demand; (b) the
establishment of greater support for Filipino pharmaceutical generic companies;
and (c) the rationalization and strengthening of government use options.
47
IP Philippines understands the objective of the bill wherein the country, in
the exercise of its sovereign authority, will avail of the flexibilities under the
TRIPS Agreement to address public health concerns. The proposed mechanism
therein is in accordance with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and already
exist in the legal regimes of other countries, in particular, those which pertains to
new uses, international exhaustion, early working or “bolar” exception, and
parallel importation.
4. Other amendments to the IP Code:
The IP Philippines, as part of its legislative agenda, is reviewing the IP
Code, in particular, with regard to the law on patents, trademarks and copyrights.
We participate in the legislative process regarding the amendment to the
laws on patents and trademarks by submission of position papers and as a
resource person or authority on IP matters.
5. Accession to the Madrid Protocol (on Trademark):
The IP Philippines is studying the benefits and the legal, technical and
administrative implications of accession to the Madrid Protocol and other
international agreements concerning trademarks like the Nice Agreement on the
international classification of goods and services and the Vienna Agreement on
the classification of figurative marks. In view of this, we may conduct
consultations with our stakeholders.
Moreover, as part of our process in coming up with our legislative agenda,
we also participate in the international meetings on the Patent Law Treaty (PLT),
and the Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT). We are also studying the ways by
which Geographical Indications (GIs) can be protected in the country, including
the benefits and appropriateness of protecting it under a separate GI system or
registering it as a collective mark.
G. International Cooperation
As part of a national program to improve the level of IPR protection in the
Philippines, and the appreciation of the benefits of IPR protection, the Director
General of IP Philippines held meetings with heads of American IP Associations
in Washington D.C. in 24-25 July 2006 in order to be able to better understand
and address their concerns on IPR protection in the IP Philippines, and at the
same time explain the background to the responses that the Philippines is taking
on said concerns.
It is the first time that the IP Philippines’ Director General visited
Washington D.C. to dialogue directly with the officials of said associations
(Commercial Law Development Program, US Department of Commerce, United
States Trade Representatives Office, and USTR 301 Inter-Agency Committee).
The meetings improved the lines of communication between the two parties and
paved the way for more interaction between the IP Philippines and the
representatives of the U.S. IP Associations in the Philippines. The Director
48
General also met with the officials of International Intellectual Property Alliance
(IIPA), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhrMA),
Association of American (AAP), the Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors
(PIIPA) and IPR stakeholders in the U.S. ASEAN Business Council.
Moreover, in the official travel of the Director General of IP Philippines in
Australia in January 2007, he had bilateral meetings with the officials of the IP
Australia, USPTO, the Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong, European
Patent Office (EPO), and met with officials/representatives of private
associations (Motion Picture Association, IFPI, International Confederation of
Societies of Authors and Composers, International Federation of Reproduction
Rights Organization).
In September 2006, the Philippines and the European Patent Office (EPO)
signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to strengthen technical
cooperation on IPR.
On 27 January 2007, RP and
US signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOU) on Intellectual
Property
Rights
(IPR).
The
cooperation aims to further strengthen
IPR in its acquisition, utilization and
protection in both countries.
In the MOU, the three main
activities that the two offices will
undertake
are
improving
the
administration of intellectual property
(IP) protection system; identifying the
effectiveness of legal protection for
and in the use of IP; and developing professional skills through information
sharing and exchange and capacity building. “This technical cooperation
agreement is a clear recognition of the importance of IP to economic
development and growth,” IP Philippines Director General Adrian S. Cristobal
Jr., said. “With this MOU, our strategic partnership with USPTO has gone
beyond enforcement strategies, it now includes capacity-building for patent
examinations in biotechnology, strategies for commercialization of patented
technologies, and raising public awareness and education on the importance of IP
in today’s knowledge economy,” he added.
On its part, the Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) also announced the MOU signing. “The USPTO
appreciates this opportunity to work with the Philippines,” said Undersecretary
of Commerce for Intellectual Property Mr. Jon Dudas. “We are confident that,
together, we will contribute to enhancing administration of intellectual property
rights for IP users in both the Philippines and the United States.” As trading
partners, the United States and the Philippines enjoy a close economic
49
relationship that depends on strong IP protection for their innovators and
businesses.54
IV. CONCLUSION AND LOOKING FORWARD
Execution of the GRP’s Strategic Action Plan (2005-2006) proved to be a
watershed in strengthening IPR in the Philippines. By the end of 2006, the efforts
of the GRP in strengthening the IPR regime were recognized by the U.S.
government, the European Union and different IP stakeholders.
The GRP has successfully strengthened linkages and inter-agency
coordination. The NCIPR has convened 10 times in 2006 and the P3CIPR has
been institutionalized as a mechanism for public-private partnership.
On 19 December 2006, the central database for anti-piracy and
counterfeiting was turned over to the end-users. The database will be launched
on 22 February 2007 during the P3CIPR 1st regular meeting for 2007.
In enforcement, an estimated total of 2.4 billion pesos worth of fake goods
were seized in 2005-2006.
In the prosecution front, forty-two (42) convictions were reported in
2005-2006.
In its public outreach programs, IP Philippines has organized and
participated in 96 seminars in 2005-2006, engaged media proactively and
worked closely with the department of Education.
To strengthen capacity building for the IP community, the IP Philippines
has established the IPRTI, institutionalized the IPROTECT Training Program
and successfully conducted the first Advanced Course on IP Law for Commercial
Court Judges in November 2006.
In enhancing the policy environment, IP Philippines support the WIPO
Internet Treaties; bills on Cybercrime; Senate Bill No. 2263; and other
amendments of the IP Code. Accession to the Madrid Protocol (on Trademark) is
also being seriously considered.
In international cooperation, IP Philippines signed an MOU with EPO and
USPTO in September 2006 and January 2007, respectively. In his official visit to
Washington D.C. in July 2006, IP Philippines’ Director General met with the
officials of the U.S. government (CLDP, US Department of Commerce, USTR)
and the IIPA, PhrMA, AAP, PIIPA, and IPR stakeholders in the U.S. ASEAN
Business Council. Moreover, in his official visit to Australia in January 2007, the
IP Philippines’ Director General met with the officials of IP Australia, USPTO,
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/07-06.htm.
Other
http://www.lowtax.net/asp/story.asp?storyname=26288
http://technology.inquirer.net/infotech/infotech/view_article.php?article_id=48315
54
50
Links:
and
IPO Hong Kong, EPO and the private associations (MPA, CISAC, IFPI and
IFFRO).
In a Memorandum55 issued on 16 November 2006, the President stated
that protecting and promoting intellectual property rights (IPR) is a strategic and
critical component for our country’s socio-economic development and our efforts
to raise the level of competitiveness of Philippine businesses.
The President also said that through improved inter-agency coordination
and intensified enforcement operations, our country’s determination to eradicate
piracy and counterfeiting has been appropriately recognized by the international
community, especially our major trading partners.
However, the President reminded the concerned agencies that there is still
a pressing need to sustain the gains from the past year and a half. Hence, the
following directives based on the 1st Semester 2006 IPR Enforcement Report:
1. Intensify public information and education campaign on the
importance of IPR in promoting creativity, innovation and
competitiveness, and educate our people, particularly the youth,
on this matter, through our education system, in order to
develop an IP conscious culture;
2. Intensify regular and effective (a) raids and “spot” inspections
on factories that produce illegal optical discs, trademarked and
copyrighted goods, (b) seizure and destruction of pirated and
counterfeited goods and equipment used to produce them, and
(c) arrests and prosecutions leading to deterrent level sentences
served;
3. Consider, and as appropriate, enforce criminal, civil or
administrative liability of owners of buildings, such as malls and
the like, that lease space to establishments selling pirated and
counterfeited goods, or ensure implementation of contracts of
lease that prohibit tenants from selling pirated goods in the
premises of the lessor;
4. Allocate sufficient resources for the conduct of raids and
inspections leading to effective prosecution of pirates and
counterfeiters of trademarked goods, especially of products
affecting public health and safety, such as medicines, cosmetics,
food products and auto parts at the retail, distribution,
production and importation points;
5. Consider, and as appropriate, implement measures that include
suspension, revocation or denial of pertinent national and local
government permits or licenses of individuals, firms or
55
Entitled: “Sustaining Our Gains In Protecting Intellectual Property Rights.”
51
establishments that engage in, allow or tolerate the production,
importation or sale of pirated and counterfeited goods;
6. Vigorously enforce copyright protection of printed materials.
However, formulate and implement effective strategies that
would provide affordable access to copyrighted works, especially
textbooks, such as copyright licensing and establishment of
copyright collection societies or organizations;
7. Maintain appropriate coordination with the Judiciary in
ensuring that courts are adequately skilled in intellectual
property cases, and in consultation with the Judiciary and
Congress, explore the designation or creation of Special
Intellectual Property and International Trade Courts;
8. Continue to provide the Executive and the Legislative with
policy and legislative proposals in order to update the country’s
intellectual property laws, ensuring that these are in compliance
with the country’s existing international obligations embodied
in treaties and other agreements; and
9. The DTI, through IPO, shall continue to coordinate inter-agency
efforts against piracy and counterfeiting, maintain a database
and enforcement monitoring system, consolidate information
and reports from other agencies, and submit quarterly progress
reports to the President, and provide copies to the Executive
Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary.
The comprehensive strategy to protect and promote IPR and the Action
Plan for 2007 of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) will be
anchored on these directives. And those strategies under the 2005-06 Action
Plan that were not implemented because they require time to do, and those that
were implemented but must be continued because it turned out to be effective,
will be included in the 2007 Action Plan of the GRP.
On its part, IP Philippines will continue to play its role as the oversight
agency for the anti-piracy and counterfeiting efforts, and the lead agency for
crafting a National Intellectual Property Policy and Strategy, to ensure that IP
becomes an effective tool for national development.
The IP case database will be a critical tool for analysis and decisionmaking, as well as, in ensuring transparency in government operations, in 2007.
The database, which was turned over to the end-users (DOJ, BOC, OMB, NBI and
PNP) on 19 December 2006, will be launched in the 1st quarter of 2007.
IP Philippines will continue to hold IPR education programs for relevant
government officials, particularly those with specific enforcement and
prosecution authority. As such, IP Philippines will enhance its IPROTECT
Training Program it institutionalized in 2006, which is seen to improve
institutional and personnel capability for IPR implementation. Moreover, IP
52
Philippines will also continue to hold education programs for the general public
that will inform them of the value of protecting IPR as well as the consequences
for violating intellectual property rights. The establishment of the IP Academy
will be significant in this endeavor as it is envisioned to be the center of IP
education, training and research in the country. Significantly, the DepEd has
approved the proposal of NBDB Chairman Gonzalez to include the analysis of
“intellectual property, copyright and intellectual property rights” to the list of
standard learning competencies for Economics in Secondary Education in 2006.
New editions of textbooks in High School Economics are expected to introduce
competencies in intellectual property, copyright and intellectual property rights
to the list of standard learning competencies for Economics Subject.
The IP Philippines and the inter-agency group will continue crafting and
implementing agreements with strategic partners in the government and private
sectors.
The special sectoral campaigns (software piracy, cable piracy and book
piracy) of the NCIPR, which have been proven to be effective in focusing public
attention on this area of violations, will be intensified.
Though there was a remarkable improvement in this area, and with the
President’s memorandum of January 2006 categorically stating convictions is the
target, prosecution and adjudication will remain the priority in the 2007 Action
Plan of the GRP. Prosecution and adjudication will remain the most challenging
tasks faced by the GRP. As mentioned in the past, this is where all the efforts of
the different government agencies converge and work towards convicting a felon,
or forcing a satisfactory settlement out of court. On this note, Specialized IP Trial
Courts remains as one of the strategic pillars for effective prosecution and
adjudication.
In the past year, the GRP has shown political will and national
commitment to strengthen IPR regime because it is in its national interest. It
gained substantial progress in its fight against intellectual property theft in the
country. With the improved inter-agency coordination and intensified
enforcement operations, and the directives from the President, the gains from the
past will be sustained.
Significantly, the initial enforcement reports for 01-31 January 2007
received by IP Philippines from the government agencies concerned already
shows a total of 198,279 pieces, 10 sacks/boxes/cartons and 4
replicating machines of goods seized with an estimated value of
P221,129,913.20.
Lowering the Philippines from the Priority Watch List to the Watch List
was earned through hard work and patience. With the present sustained
momentum of the campaign against piracy in the country, the increase in
convictions for 2005-2006, and intensified public outreach activities, the
Philippines deserves to be removed from the notorious Special 301 Watch List of
the U.S. government.
53

2007 - Intellectual Property Office

Transcription

Similar documents

Higher profitability and increased customer satisfaction!

Loida Nicolas Lewis, Chair - Commission on Filipinos Overseas

Mr. Benel D. Lagua Chief Development Officer Development Bank of

Anna Marie Periquet Profile JL

bdbdbd - Barnahjalp.fo

Technology Entrepreneurship in the Philippines

Science HS Grade 7 4rth Q.indd

AC Project boroucher(fold in three)Ver.1

Living in the Philippines

zs - Bureau of Customs