Fadriquelan vs. Monterey

Fadriquelan vs. Monterey

GR 178409, June 8, 2011

Facts:

The negotiations for the CBA between the Union and the Company reached a deadlock and led to the filing of the Union for a notice of strike. After the holding of a strike was enjoined by the DOLE, the Union filed a second notice of strike, alleging that the Company committed unfair labor practice. The Company sent first and second notices to the Union officers for intentional acts of slowdown and to inform them of their termination from work, respectively. The third notice of strike filed by the Union alleged that the Company had engaged in union busting and illegal dismissal of Union officers.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of all 17 Union officers was justified

Held: No, it was not.

A distinction exists between the ordinary workers’ liability for illegal strike and that of the union officers who participated in it. The ordinary worker cannot be terminated for merely participating in the strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during its conduct. On the other hand, a union officer can be terminated upon mere proof that he knowingly participated in the illegal strike.

But, the participation of the union officers has to be properly established. The CA held that the Company illegally terminated some union officers, there being no substantial evidence that would connect them to the slowdown.

In termination cases, the dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges against him. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the employee’s dismissal was for just cause. The employer’s failure to do so means that the dismissal was not justified.¹⁶ Here, the company failed to show that all 17 union officers deserved to be dismissed.

ALPAP vs. PAL

AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (ALPAP) vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL)

GR 168382, June 6, 2011

Facts:

Claiming that PAL committed unfair labor practice, ALPAP filed a notice of strike against PAL. Despite reminders to the parties prohibiting all strikes and lockouts at PAL, ALPAP went on strike on June 5, 1998. The DOLE issued a return-to-work order on June 7, 1998. However it was only on June 26, 1998 when ALPAP officers and members reported back to work as shown in a logbook signed by each of them. As a consequence, PAL refused to accept the returning pilots for their failure to comply immediately with the return-to-work order. On June 29, 1998, ALPAP files a complaint for illegal lockout. On June 1, 1999, the DOLE Resolution declared the June 5, 1998 strike as illegal and pronounced the loss of employment status of ALPAP’s officers and members who participated in the strike in defiance of the June 7, 1998 return-to-work order.

Issue:

Whether all of ALPAP’s officers and members are bound by the June 1, 1999 DOLE Resolution for participating in an illegal strike and for defying the DOLE return-to-work order

Held: No, only the returning pilots are bound by the June 1, 1999 DOLE Resolution.

A review of the records reveals that the DOLE Secretary declared the ALPAP officers and members to have lost their employment status based on either of two grounds, viz: their participation in the illegal strike on June 5, 1998 or their defiance of the return-to-work order of the DOLE Secretary. The records of the case unveil the names of each of these returning pilots. The logbook with the heading "Return To Work Compliance/ Returnees" bears their individual signature signifying their conformity that they were among those workers who returned to work only on June 26, 1998 or after the deadline imposed by DOLE. From this crucial and vital piece of evidence, it is apparent that each of these pilots is bound by the judgment. Besides, the complaint for illegal lockout was filed on behalf of all these returnees. Thus, a finding that there was no illegal lockout would be enforceable against them. In fine, only those returning pilots, irrespective of whether they comprise the entire membership of ALPAP, are bound by the June 1, 1999 DOLE Resolution.

GENERAL MILLING CORP. - INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU) vs. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION

G.R. No. 183122, June 15, 2011

Facts:

On 28 April 1989, GMC and the Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which provided, among other terms, the latter’s representation of the collective bargaining unit for a three-year term made to retroact to 1 December 1988. On 29 November 1991 or one day before the expiration of the subject CBA, the Union sent a draft CBA proposal to GMC, with a request for counter-proposals from the latter. In view of GMC’s failure to comply with said request, the Union commenced the complaint for unfair labor practice which was dismissed for lack of merit. On appeal, said dismissal was reversed and set aside in the 30 January 1998 decision rendered by the NLRC, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated December 21, 1993 is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE and a new one issued ordering the imposition upon the respondent company of the complainant union[‘s] draft CBA proposal for the remaining two years duration of the original CBA which is from December 1, 1991 to November 30, 1993…

SO ORDERED.

Since the abovementioned decision was reconsidered and set aside by the NLRC, the Union filed the petitions for certiorari before the CA, which in turn reversed and set aside the NLRC’s resolution and reinstated the aforesaid 30 January 1998 decision. Aggrieved by the CA’s resolution denying its motion for reconsideration, GMC elevated the case to this Court via the petition for review on certiorari. In a decision dated 11 February 2004 rendered by the Court’s then Second Division, the CA’s 30 January 1998 decision and 26 October 2000 resolution were affirmed,¹² upon the following findings and conclusions, to wit:

GMC’s failure to make a timely reply to the proposals presented by the union is indicative of its utter lack of interest in bargaining with the union. Its excuse that it felt the union no longer represented the worker, was mainly dilatory as it turned out to be utterly baseless.

We hold that GMC’s refusal to make a counter proposal to the union’s proposal for CBA negotiation is an indication of its bad faith. Where the employer did not even bother to submit an answer to the bargaining proposals of the union, there is a clear evasion of the duty to bargain collectively.

Failing to comply with the mandatory obligation to submit a reply to the union’s proposals, GMC violated its duty to bargain collectively, making it liable for unfair labor practice. Perforce, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding that GMC is, under the circumstances, guilty of unfair labor practice.

x x x x

x x x (I)t would be unfair to the union and its members if the terms and conditions contained in the old CBA would continue to be imposed on GMC’s employees for the remaining two (2) years of the CBA’s duration. We are not inclined to gratify GMC with an extended term of the old CBA after it resorted to delaying tactics to prevent negotiations. Since it was GMC which violated the duty to bargain collectively, it had lost its statutory right to negotiate or renegotiate the terms and conditions of the draft CBA proposed by the union.

x x x x

Under ordinary circumstances, it is not obligatory upon either side of a labor controversy to precipitately accept or agree to the proposals of the other. But an erring party should not be allowed with impunity to schemes feigning negotiations by going through empty gestures. Thus, by imposing on GMC the provisions of the draft CBA proposed by the union, in our view, the interests of equity and fair play were properly served and both the parties regained equal footing, which was lost when GMC thwarted the negotiations for new economic terms of the CBA.

With the ensuing finality of the foregoing decision, the Union filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution dated 21 March 2005, to enforce the claims of the covered employees which it computed in the sum of P433,786,786.36 and to require GMC to produce said employee’s time cards for the purpose of computing their overtime pay, night shift differentials and labor standard benefits for work rendered on rest days, legal holidays and special holidays. GMC filed a petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether the imposed CBA has full force and effect considering that it was not agreed upon by the Union and GMC.

Held:

Anent its period of effectivity, Article XIV of the imposed CBA provides that "(t)his Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years from 1 December 1991, provided that sixty (60) days prior to the lapse of the third year of effectivity hereof, the parties shall open negotiations on economic aspect for the fourth and fifth years effectivity of this Agreement." Considering that no new CBA had been, in the meantime, agreed upon by GMC and the Union, we find that the CA correctly ruled in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 02226 that, pursuant to Article 253 of the Labor Code, the provisions of the imposed CBA continues to have full force and effect until a new CBA has been entered into by the parties. Article 253 mandates the parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period prior to the expiration of the old CBA and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. In the same manner that it does not provide for any exception nor qualification on which economic provisions of the existing agreement are to retain its force and effect, the law does not distinguish between a CBA duly agreed upon by the parties and an imposed CBA like the one under consideration.

Cruzvale vs. Laguesma

Cruzvale, Inc. vs. Laguesma
GR No. 107610, November 25, 1994

Facts:
Union of Filipino Workers (UFW) filed a petition for certification election (CE) among the rank-and-file workers of Cruzvale. Cruzvale sought for the denial of such petition, alleging among other things, that the Regional Office No. IV of the Department of Labor and Employment has no jurisdiction over the petition since Cruzvale's place of business is at Cubao, Quezon City, which is under the National Capital Region-DOLE's jurisdiction. Petitioner's basis is Section 1, Rule V, book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which states:

Where to file. A petition for certification election shall be filed with the Regional Office which has jurisdiction over the principal office of the Employer. The petition shall be in writing and under oath.

Issue:
Whether the venue of the petition for CE must be where it would be convenient for the worker

Held: Yes, it must.
The word "jurisdiction" as used in said provision refers to the venue where the petition for certification must be filed. Unlike jurisdiction, which implies the power of the court to decide a case, venue merely refers to the place where the action shall be brought. Venue touches more the convenience of the parties rather than the substance of the case.

The mentioned provision refers only to cases where the place of work of the employees and the place of the principal office of the employer are within the same territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Office where the petition for certification election is filed. It does not apply where the place of work of the employees and the place of principal office of the employer are located within the territorial jurisdictions of different regional offices. The Court assumes that in the drafting of the Omnibus Rules, the Secretary of Labor and Employment took into consideration the fact that there are many companies with factories located in places different from places where the corporate offices are located.

The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party whether as complainant, petitioner or respondent, as the case may be, the nearest governmental machinery to settle a labor dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal and the employer must in no case be allowed a choice in favor of another competent agency sitting in another place to the inconvenience of the worker.

Unlike in the Rules governing the procedure before Regional Offices, the New Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission prescribes that all cases in which labor arbiters have jurisdiction should be filed in the branch office which has territorial jurisdiction over the "workplace of the complainant/petitioner" (Rule IV, Sec. 1[a]). The NLRC Rules defines the workplace as follows:

For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned when the cause of action arose. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail, assignment or travel. . . .

National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU-MIF) vs. Secretary of Labor

National Mines and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU-MIF) vs. Secretary of Labor
GR No. 106446, November 16, 1993

Facts:
NAMAWU-MIF is the exclusive bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file employees of Quality Container Corporation (QCC). 38 days before the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between NAMAWU-MIF and QCC, Federation of Free Workers-Samahang Mangagawa sa Quality Container Corporation (FFW-SMQCC) filed a petition for certification election (CE).

Attached to the original petition for CE was a list of 141 supporting signature out of the 300 employees belonging to the appropriate bargaining unit to be represented by FFW-SMQCC. QCC sought to delete from the list some 36 signature which were allegedly forged and falsified. NAMAWU-MIFF likewise submitted a joint affidavit of 13 employees, disclaiming the validity of the signatures therein.

Issue:

Whether employees' refusal to be represented dispenses with the need for a CE

Held: No, it does not.

If indeed there are employees in the bargaining unit who refused to be represented by respondent FFW-SMQCC, with all the more reason should a certification election be held where the employees themselves can freely and voluntarily express by secret ballot their choice of bargaining representative. A certification election is the most effective and expeditious way to determine which labor organization can truly represent the working force in the appropriate bargaining unit of the company.

George & Peter Lines, Inc. vs. Associated Labor Unions (ALU)

George & Peter Lines, Inc. vs. Associated Labor Unions (ALU)
GR No. L-51602, January 17, 1985

Facts:
ALU filed for a petition for Direct Certification, praying that it be certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all rank and file employees of G&PL.
G&PL opposed the petition stating that ALU does not represent the majority of the employees concerned, especially in the light of the claim of more than 80% of the licensed and unlicensed crew of its vessels that they are not members of any union and have no desire to join any.
The Med-Arbiter issued an Order directly certifying ALU as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of G&PL employees.
G&PL moved for reconsideration alleging that a certification election (CE) should be called for the interest of fairness and justice.

Issue:
Whether a direct certification would suffice to prove the alleged majority representation status of a union

Held: No, it would not suffice.
Certification election is the best and most appropriate means of ascertaining the will of the employees as to their choice of an exclusive bargaining representative. That there are no competing Unions involved should not alter that principle, the freedom of choice by the employees being the primordial consideration besides the fact that the employees can still choose between ALU and No Union. Even if the withdrawals of the employees concerned were submitted after the Petition for direct certification had been filed, the doubt as to the majority representation of the Union has arisen and it is best to determine the true sentiment of the employees through a certification election.

Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex (SMP) vs. Secretary of Labor

Samahang Manggagawa sa Permex (SMP) vs. Secretary of Labor
GR No. 107792, March 2, 1998

Facts:
The employees of Permex Producer and Exporter Corporation voted "No Union" during the January 15, 1991 certification election (CE).
On March 11, 1991, the SMP, which is composed of some employees of Permex Producer, was registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
On August 16, 1991, SMP requested Permex Producer to recognize SMP as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of Permex Producer.
On October 19, 1991, Permex Producer recognized SMP, and because of such recognition, Permex entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with SMP on December 1, 1991. The CBA was ratified on December 9 & 10, 1991 by the majority of the rank and file employees of Permex. On December 13, 1991, such CBA was certified by the DOLE.
On February 25, 1992, the National Labor Federation (NFL) filed a petition for CE, but was dismissed. NFL's appeal led to its inclusion in the options for CE. SMP moved for reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether support by the majority of the employees makes a CBA entered by a union valid and binding

Held: No, it does not.

It is not enough that a union has the support of the majority of the employees. It is equally important that everyone in the bargaining unit be given the opportunity to express himself.

This is especially so because, in this case, the recognition given to the union came barely ten (10) months after the employees had voted "no union" in the certification election conducted in the company. As pointed out by respondent Secretary of Labor in his decision, there can be no determination of a bargaining representative within a year of the proclamation of the results of the certification election. Here the results, which showed that 61% of the employees voted for "no union," were certified only on February 25, 1991 but on December 1, 1991 Permex Producer already recognized the union and entered into a CBA with it.

Algire vs. De Mesa

Algire vs. De Mesa
GR No. 97622, October 19, 1994

Facts:
Universal Robina Textile Monthly Salaried Employees Union (URTMSEU) filed a petition for the holding of an election of union officers to represent the union in the collective bargaining agreement with the management of Universal robina Textile. the employees were to choose between Algire, et al. and de Mesa et al.

Issue:
Whether the election held was a consent election

Held: Yes, it was.
The election held on November 15, 1990 was a consent election and not a certification election. It was an agreed one, the purpose being merely to determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate collective bargaining unit. It is a separate and distinct process and has nothing to do with the import and effort of a certification election.

At a Crossroad: On Copyright Reform

Earlier this week, I was invited by a friend to listen to a presentation by the Intellectual Property Office-Philippines (IPOPHL) to the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. IPOPHL Deputy Director General Allan Gepty discussed the strategic plans of the organization, how it is coordinating with other government agencies in the implementation of the Intellectual Property Code, and the challenges faced by the organization in pursuing copyright infringers, especially in Quiapo and Greenhills. The Americans were grateful to have known that the government is exerting zealous efforts on protecting the rights of the investors in terms of the new technology that they introduce into the country and chasing after those who attempt or who have been violating the IP Code. According to such presentation, the foreign investors devote a less amount on litigations because of such efforts and assistance from the Philippine government.

            With the proposals in both Houses of Congress to amend the IP Code, we are faced with the question of whether to lean towards the liberal or conservative side of implementing the IP Code. The task before us is to strike the balance between the interest of the copyright owners and those who enjoy copyrighted works.

Our IP code was enacted in 1997 or 15 years ago. A lot of significant things happen within one year’s time, how much more after 15? More so with the fast-paced change in technology, we can expect some loopholes or obsolete parts in the 1997 enactment. But before we delve into the details, let us go back into what the law aimed to improve or curtail at the time of its enactment. A perusal of the State policies in the IP Code[i] reveals that the State was and still is trying with all their powers to ascertain that we will have an effective intellectual and industrial property system that will in turn develop domestic and creative activity, facilitate transfer of technology, attracts foreign investments and ensure market access for our products. The law gives special mention and treatment to the rights of scientists, inventors, artists and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the people. The law has for its purpose the promotion of the diffusion of knowledge and information that will hopefully promote national development and progress of the public.

I stumbled upon the spicy critique of Raissa Robles[ii] on the proposed amendments to the IP Code to which IPOPHL Director General Blancaflor had a point-by-point reply.[iii] Robles had a follow up.[iv] I realize that there are really a lot of issues that entail the amendments.

I think I am leaning towards wanting a liberalized aura in terms of the amendments in the IP Code. Of course this is not a free for all kind of society, we still would have some protection available for the copyright owners but not to the point of having lots of hassles just to download and enjoy or study a certain file needed.

I am thinking about the impact of educating young people would have. We would be the ones reaping the good or bad fruits of technology anyway, so we better be equipped with sufficient knowledge about these things. I am imagining something like semester-long courses or 3-day seminars conducted by the IPOPHL in high schools, colleges and even graduate schools discussing the provisions that affect a netizen or somebody who enjoys the use of copyrighted work (which I suppose includes EVERYBODY). I am imagining something attractive for the young people, something NOT entitled as formally as “Copyright Convention”, maybe something in Tag-lish or in terms that the young people use nowadays, colorful posters and lots of freebies! And oh, let us have dynamic and entertaining speakers, please? Maybe informative yet concisely made videos can cope with the very short attention span of the youngsters. I am thinking of an event that has a lot of sponsors of softwares, gadgets or other accessories that are very luring for the young ones and why not, even the young once. Maybe the event organizers could also invite artists who support the cause, so that they can tell everybody the negative implications of infringing upon their own profits and to the whole Filipino music industry or whatever field is at stake.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am guessing that the main reason why netizens are so tempted to give in to the lures of copyright infringement is that doing so entails less or no cost upon the end user. For example, if one could get a music file for free via bluetooth with his or her friend's phone, why would he still spend just to get a legit copy of the audio file? File transfers via thumb drives are free. Not everybody can afford to get an Apple gadget and buy legally from iTunes. But I was also thinking, it would be difficult for producers to make the files available to the public at a cheaper price or for free because producing it does not come for free as well. Not all research papers can be made available to the public for free. If you are expecting high-quality research material, I think it would only be just to pay some amount. Good papers entail good research and good research entails a lot of cash.

Or maybe, the educational institutions can come up with an arrangement with the research company wherein their students or researchers can have a special access to the research company's materials. Raissa Robles' article on the disadvantage of the IP Code amendments on students and researchers[v] gave us an example of what I think is a religious compliance by the Philippine Science High School in Davao City. They have a rule that the students can only photocopy a maximum of 10 pages a day, but the students are required to study readings way beyond 10 pages. We cannot expect all the parents to buy their kids their own books, especially in public schools where most of the students enrolled belong to families who are financially challenged. So although I recognize that the school administration was just trying to obey the law, I think there should be some lenience with their compliance to the IP Code in consideration of the convenience of the students. Besides, it is the school requirements that the students are working on so I think a little help from the school administration and/or faculty would not hurt.

            I looked at the materials available on copyright from the elib.gov.ph. I was surprised to find out that what we have are as dated as before year 2000. Those would not even be good as reference for research anymore. Let us use our government funds to buy new books, apps and software that would be enticing for everybody to study.

            A friend who recently moved to Australia to study was telling me about her surprise when she learned that the students in her school could borrow iPads for I think 3 days. She said that the books in their libraries were all new. They pay the photocopying by swiping their credit cards before they can proceed. I wish we can have something like that here. If they can do it like that, why can't we? We have the smartest kids around so let's join hands in maximizing that potential.

---

[i] Section 2. Declaration of State Policy. - The State recognizes that an effective intellectual and industrial property system is vital to the development of domestic and creative activity, facilitates transfer of technology, attracts foreign investments, and ensures market access for our products. It shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists and other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the people, for such periods as provided in this Act.

    The use of intellectual property bears a social function. To this end, the State shall promote the diffusion of knowledge and information for the promotion of national development and progress and the common good.
        It is also the policy of the State to streamline administrative procedures of registering patents, trademarks and copyright, to liberalize the registration on the transfer of technology, and to enhance the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the Philippines.

[ii] “Congress erased every Filipino’s right to bring home music, movies and books from         abroad” http://raissarobles.com/2013/02/14/congress-erased-every-filipinos-right-to-bring-home-music-movies-and-books-from-abroad/ Accessed March 7, 2013

[iii] “IP Code Amendment Gives Filipinos Better Access To Copyrighted Works From Abroad” http://www.ipophil.gov.ph/ Accessed March 7, 2013

[iv]“Reply to Ricardo Blancaflor, Intellectual Property Office Director-General” http://raissarobles.com/2013/02/15/reply-to-ricardo-blancaflor-intellectual-property-office-director-general/ Accessed March 7, 2013

[v] “Amended IP Code “disadvantageous” to students, teachers, researchers – says copyright expert-lawyer Ping Peria” http://raissarobles.com/2013/02/16/amended-ip-code-disadvantageous-to-students-teachers-researchers-says-copyright-expert-lawyer-ping-peria/ Accessed March 7, 2013

On Senate Bill 3327: Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF)

This entry will not be a comprehensive discussion on Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF). This would rather be an insight of a person that you can consider a mere mortal when it comes to technical terms on technology.

The senator felt the need to formulate a bill that would fill up the gaps that Republic Act 10175 had. If you may recall, its passage into law caused a lot of commotion over cyberspace. A lot of netizens participated in the heated discussions over the law’s effects and restrictions. The Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order on RA 10175’s implementation is about to be lifted this January and oral arguments are to be started promptly.

You are about to read the things I like and observe about the proposed bill.

The bill makes me appreciate that the State remains true to the Constitution’s mandate of pursuing policies that promote the internet as it recognizes in Section 2(4) that through technology in devices, we can create art, beauty and culture. I am proud that our laws are dynamic, there being effort to ride the tides of times and even technology, something so volatile, unpredictable. Nobody knows where it will lead us. I am also amazed that though we are looking at introducing changes on how we do things, it has not escaped the minds of our legislators to establish safeguards because this new thing about technology might actually be abused by some or a lot of people.

I understand that we really have to exert efforts on ironing out the provisions because it is undeniable, the internet has paved the way for participative governance. A lot of people, especially the young people are involved with what is happening around them because of Twitter. It has become very easy for heated but interesting insights come to the fore. It’s amazing how fresh ideas of young people are.

We have seen how swift help has come by especially in times of natural calamities or emergencies because everybody has maximized the connection we can have on cyberspace.

Knowing that people might be watching and have devices that could actually capture on picture or video anything good or bad, especially the bad, there has been something like a prompt at the back of everybody's head that I better behave or else, I’d be famous in the net in a really bad way and there's no taking it back once it spreads! So we police each other somehow.

I went over the terms and observe that it’s quite difficult to differentiate between some of them. Example, cyberspace and cyber environment? Among cyber attack, cyber warfare, cyber terrorism, and cyber crime? How about cyber defense and cyber security? And I snickered a bit when I read, “Section 31.1 Data processing equipment -Equipment used to process data” and “31.3 Storage equipment -Equipment used to store data” Really? Can’t we come up with a definition that does not use the same terms?

I like the idea of network neutrality (Chapter 3, Section 5). No favoritism. No one can restrict nor favor one class of data over another, subject to certain exceptions. It encourages free flow of ideas, encourages participation especially of the young ones. Now we care, because we have been given (consciously or otherwise) a chance to care, a power to speak up, a “microphone” so everybody can hear what we have to say.

I like the idea of parents having accountability in Section 12 (4 & 5). It forces them to keep watch over the sites that their minor kids are surfing. But I think it’ll be quite difficult for the parents to comply, considering the busyness in some other things like businesses and jobs and what have you.

I like the idea of interplay and cooperation among government agencies relevant to the implementation, but I hope the government agencies formed will not be a source of corruption because the purpose of the bill is noble. All of us Filipinos will benefit if funds are properly allocated and disbursed. A lot of doors will open if we have a decent information and communications technology. The world will get smaller, life will be easier. For all of us.

“Citing a 2012 report by the Department of Science and Technology, the business process outsourcing industry, the information technology outsourcing industry and other outsourcing industries, also known as knowledge worker industries strongly dependent on fast and reliable ICT and Internet networks, have contributed $11 billion in export revenues, or an estimated 5.4 percent contribution to the country’s gross domestic product in 2011.” (By Marvin SY, http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2012/12/01/877657/miriam-files-cyber-bill-ver-20, accessed January 11, 2013)

I hope the government will really exert efforts in finding the best tech guys for the job. I’m not saying that they didn’t, but I cringe at the idea that the cyber criminals are snickering over how inexperienced the law enforcers are when it comes to catching them and over how flimsy the security features of our ICT are. Please find the best! That’s where our money should go!

So, as imperfect as it may be, the laws our legislators come up with bring us closer to hopefully a better society. A wiser one. More responsible. Unselfish. More vibrant.

It would not hurt to read through it:

RA 10175 http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/

SB 3327 http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1446312119!.pdf