The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

1

H

THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THEARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWE-LAW CENTER AND IT LAW SOCIETY

VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1IT Law Journal

THE PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY

by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero

“H“H“H“H“HACKINGACKINGACKINGACKINGACKING” ” ” ” ” THETHETHETHETHE M M M M MERCANTILEERCANTILEERCANTILEERCANTILEERCANTILE L L L L LAWAWAWAWAW B B B B BARARARARAR E E E E EXAMXAMXAMXAMXAM Q Q Q Q QUESTIONSUESTIONSUESTIONSUESTIONSUESTIONS

Hacking?

acking what? Technicalpeople would argue that there is no such athing as “Hacking the Mercantile Law BarExam Questions.” Cracking maybe, but nothacking. Obviously, confusion will arise onthe usage of the word “hacking” if one is notparticular to one’s audience.

For the technically inclined, to hack means towrite a program code; or to modify aprogram, often in an unauthorized manner,by changing the code itself. A hacker, thus, isa computer enthusiast, or a person who enjoyslearning programming languages andcomputer systems and can often be consideredan expert on the subject(s). To crack, on theother hand, is to break into a computer systemor to copy commercial software illegally bybreaking (cracking) the various copy-protection and registration techniques beingused. A cracker, therefore, is distinct from ahacker. The sole aim of crackers is to breakinto secure systems, while hackers are moreinterested in gaining knowledge aboutcomputer systems and possibly using thisknowledge for playful pranks. [ 1 ]

To illustrate the technical distinction to the legalmind, decompilation allowed in Section 185of the Philippine Intellectual Property Code(Republic Act No. 8293) [ 2 ] is part and parcelof the technical concept of hacking. On theother hand, effecting transactions with oneor more access devices issued to anotherperson or persons to receive payment or anyother thing of value (Section 9 [n] of the AccessDevices Regulation Act, Republic Act No.8484) – especially if construed in a virtual orInternet transaction – constitutes cracking.

Insidewhat’s

2

1“H“H“H“H“HACKINGACKINGACKINGACKINGACKING” ” ” ” ” THETHETHETHETHE

MMMMMERCANTILEERCANTILEERCANTILEERCANTILEERCANTILE B B B B BARARARARAR E E E E EXAMXAMXAMXAMXAM

QQQQQUESTIONUESTIONUESTIONUESTIONUESTION

EDITORIAL

PHILIPPINE FACTS &

FIGURES

EEEEE L E C T R O N I CL E C T R O N I CL E C T R O N I CL E C T R O N I CL E C T R O N I C

AAAAAUTHENTICATIONUTHENTICATIONUTHENTICATIONUTHENTICATIONUTHENTICATION S S S S SYSTEMYSTEMYSTEMYSTEMYSTEM:::::

A BA BA BA BA BREAKTHROUGHREAKTHROUGHREAKTHROUGHREAKTHROUGHREAKTHROUGH INININININ

NNNNNOTARIZATIONOTARIZATIONOTARIZATIONOTARIZATIONOTARIZATION

THE PHILIPPINE RULES ON

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: AN

OUTLINE

JURISPRUDENCE IN

CYBERLAW

OPTICAL MEDIA ACT: A

PANACEA TO PIRACY?

THE DOMAIN NAME

SYSTEM (DNS) AND

ADMINISTERING THE ROOT

CCTLD .PH

SPAMMING THE WORLD

A SA SA SA SA SYNOPSISYNOPSISYNOPSISYNOPSISYNOPSIS OFOFOFOFOF THETHETHETHETHE EEEEE-----

CCCCCOMMERCEOMMERCEOMMERCEOMMERCEOMMERCE L L L L LAWAWAWAWAW

OOOOOVERVIEWVERVIEWVERVIEWVERVIEWVERVIEW OFOFOFOFOF S S S S SELECTEDELECTEDELECTEDELECTEDELECTED

LLLLLEGALEGALEGALEGALEGAL ANDANDANDANDAND R R R R REGULATORYEGULATORYEGULATORYEGULATORYEGULATORY

IIIIISSUESSSUESSSUESSSUESSSUES INININININ E E E E ELECTRONICLECTRONICLECTRONICLECTRONICLECTRONIC

CCCCCOMMERCEOMMERCEOMMERCEOMMERCEOMMERCE (UNCTAD) (UNCTAD) (UNCTAD) (UNCTAD) (UNCTAD)

LLLLLEXICONEXICONEXICONEXICONEXICON OFOFOFOFOF C C C C CYBERLAWYBERLAWYBERLAWYBERLAWYBERLAW

TTTTTERMINOLOGIESERMINOLOGIESERMINOLOGIESERMINOLOGIESERMINOLOGIES

91 NEW LAWYERS FROM THE

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW

[L[L[L[L[LEGALEGALEGALEGALEGAL W W W W WEBEBEBEBEB]]]]]

LLLLLAWPHILAWPHILAWPHILAWPHILAWPHIL.....NETNETNETNETNET: A S: A S: A S: A S: A STEPTEPTEPTEPTEP INININININ

THETHETHETHETHE R R R R RIGHTIGHTIGHTIGHTIGHT D D D D DIRECTIONIRECTIONIRECTIONIRECTIONIRECTION

DIGITAL LAW & THE

IMPERATIVES OF THE E-LAW

CENTER

THE BIRTH OF THE IT

LAW SOCIETY

8

18

19

14

10

4

7

9

>> [ 3 ] Mercantile Law Bar Exam

Nevertheless, similar to the failure of massmedia to distinguish between cracking andhacking, the terms cracking and hackingunder the Philippine Electronic Commerce Act(Republic Act No. 8792) are usedinterchangeably. The Act provides specificallythat “hacking or cracking ... refers tounauthorized access into or interference in acomputer system / server or information andcommunication system; or any access in orderto corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using acomputer or other similar information andcommunication devices, without theknowledge and consent of the owner of thecomputer or information and communicationssystem, including the introduction of computerviruses and the like, resulting in the corruption,destruction, alteration, theft or loss ofelectronic data messages or electronicdocument.” [ 3 ]

The simplification of the definition of hacking,made synonymous to cracking, in theElectronic Commerce Act, allows theprosecution of a person, not necessarily acomputer expert, who simply accessedanother person‘s computer or electronicdocuments without the latter’s permission.

“Hacking the Mercantile Law Bar ExamQuestions,” therefore, may be technically anincorrect title, but may be legally correct withinPhilippine jurisdiction.

Leakage of the 2003 Mercantile LawBar Exams

The 21 September 2003 Mercantile Law BarExaminations, one of the eight bar subjectsand one given 15% weight, was annulled after

12

16

22

24

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

2

T hree years ago, onthe occasion of the centenarycelebration of the Philippine SupremeCourt, Arellano University School ofLaw was invited to co-sponsor the lawand technology lecture. In the responseI delivered for the school, I announcedto the distinguished members of theHighest Court and their guests that asfar back as 1997, the school hadalready anticipated the need to developglobally-oriented lawyers andprofessors. This can be gleaned fromthe school’s vision statement draftedon th same year where we sawourselves as a globally competitiveinstitution that harnesses world-class,state-of-the-art technologies andmethodologies, responsive and attunedto the demands of the times.

In 1999, true to our vision, we openedan Information Technology Center(ITC) to handle all of the school’scomputer requirements. On the sameyear, we set up at least 30 computerstations with Internet access for theexclusive use of law students. Lawphilwas developed and introduced on theweb in the year 2000 and has becomethe country ’s most visited legalresearch website. The Arellano Law

and Policy Review (ALPR), a journalfeaturing mainly articles oninternational law and policydevelopments, was published starting2001 to which the law libraries of Yaleand Harvard are now subscribers. AnInstitute of Special Studies (ISS) wasopened to engage in research andencourage discussion in the field ofinternational law, particularlyinternational trade law. It holds monthlybrown bag lectures mostly on theburning local and international legalissues of the day.

In 2001, the ISS worked with theInternational Trade Centre, a technicalcooperation agency of the UNCTADand the World Trade Organization(WTO) in authoring a handbook entitled“Arbitration and Alternative DisputeResolution,” now considered by manyPhilippine law schools as the mostauthoritative on the subject. Changesin the curriculum were made in theyear 2000. Among them were theintroduction of courses like AlternativeDispute Resolution, Environmental Law,International Trade Law, ProjectFinance, CorporateFinance,Telecommunications Law, Technologyand the Law, and Human Rights toaddress the globalization of bothCommercial Law and Public InterestLaw.

With the establishment in 2003 ofAUSL’s Center for e-Law, it is clear thatthe school is ready to meet thechallenges posed by the advent of thedigital age. The formation of an IT LawSociety with members composed oftechnologically proficient law studentsis a most welcome development thatwill set the school apart from even theso-called elite law institutions.

I congratulate the movers behind theCenter for E-Law and the IT LawSociety for the work they have beendoing, and in particular for coming outwith an ambitious project like the ITLaw Journal. May your tribe increaseand may you indeed be at the forefrontof law and technology concerns in thecountry and beyond.

CHAIRMAN

Atty. Jaime N. Soriano, CPA, MNSA

MEMBERS

Ailyn L. CortezCharilyn A. DeeJhonelle S. EstradaPeter Joseph L. FauniCarlyn Marie Bernadette C. Ocampo-

GuerreroMichael Vernon M. GuerreroMa. Cristina A. Ramos

Editorial Board

Message from the Dean

For subscriptions, contact:

TTTTTHEHEHEHEHE P P P P PHILIPPINEHILIPPINEHILIPPINEHILIPPINEHILIPPINE Q Q Q Q QUARTERLYUARTERLYUARTERLYUARTERLYUARTERLY

It Law Journal

e-Law Center2/F Heilbronn HallArellano University School of LawTaft Avenue corner Menlo StreetPasay City 1300 PhilippinesTels. +63 2 404-3089, 404-3090, 404-3091http://www.arellanolaw.netitlawjournal@arellanolaw.net

Volume 1, Issue 1

The Philippine Quarterly IT LawJournal is the official publication of the e-Law Center and the IT Law Society of theArellano University School of Law. It ispublished quarterly.

Contributions to the Philippine Quarterly ITLaw Journal express the views of their authorsand not necessarily the views of the ArellanoUniversity School of Law.

Philippine IT Facts and Figures

Internet users (thousands), 2000-2002 1

2000 1 5402001 and 2002 2 000% change 2000-2001 29.87

Internet users per 1000 person, 2000-2002 2

2000 2012001 and 2002 256

Network Readiness Index (NRI) & Ranking bythe Economist Intellegence Unit (EIU) 3

NRI Score 3.25NRI Rank 62ERI Score 3.93ERI Rank 47

Sources:1 ITU (2003a) and UNCTAD calculations2 ITU (2003a) and UNCTAD calculations3 Dutta, Lanvin and Paua (2003) and

Economist Intelligence Unit (2003).

© 2004. All Rights Reserved.

Reconstituted November 2006. Proportionsmay differ slightly from original printed copy.

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

3

<< [ 1 ] Mercantile Law Bar Exam

a massive leakage – comprising 82percent of the questions asked in thebar subject – occurred. The nullificationof the examination on the subject wasmade in order to preserve the integrityand protect the sanctity of theexamination and avoid any doubt orsuspicion on the outcome of saidexamination. The Supreme Court,instead of having the examinees retakethe Mercantile Law examination,distributed the weight assigned toMercantile Law to other Bar subjects.Examinees in 2003 numbered to5,349 law graduates.

The Supreme Court, on 4 February2004, disbarred Danilo de Guzman,a lawyer from the Balgos and Perezlaw firm and the one responsible forthe Mercantile Law Bar Examinationleakage, and reprimanded Marcial OTBalgos, examiner in the 2003Mercantile Law Exam, whosenegligence was the root cause of thesaid bar leakage.

It appeared, on investigation, thatBalgos prepared three sets of testquestions on Mercantile Law on hispersonal computer in his law office.His computer, running on MicrosoftWindows 98 operating system, isinterconnected with other computersin the law office through a local areanetwork (LAN). De Guzman activitatedfile-sharing of pertinent file folder(s)in Balgos’ computer without the latter’sknowledge, and was able to accessBalgos’ files using his own computerin the network. De Guzman faxed thequestions to Ronan Garvina, afraternity brother. Garvina, in turnfaxed the questions to Randy Iñigo andJames Bugain. Iñigo passed a copy ofthe questions to Allan Guiapal, whogave a copy to Ronald Collado. Colladoordered the printing of the questions,with the logo and initials of the fraternityand distributed copies to 30 Barcandidates of the Manuel L. QuezonUniversity (MLQU).

is not authorized to access. So if a filefolder in Windows 98-based machinehas been shared, one can access saidfolder in another computer in thenetwork. Unlike in Windows 2000, forexample, only one havingadministrator capabilities can add anew user to the computer.Furthermore, when a computer in anetwork does not contain a similar userprofile as in the one accessed, a log-in and password dialogue box appearsbefore one can access the othercomputer. [ 4 ]

Second. Find out if you’re sharingmore than you are willing to share.Clicking on your computer’s name onNetwork Neighborhood would showthe folder(s) or drive(s) your computeris sharing over the network. Betterunshare the folder(s) or drive(s) whichyou are not really willing to share, orotherwise create a specific foldercontaining only the files that you wouldwant to share. Furtther, you may wantto limit the number of people that canaccess the shared folders at one time.[ 5 ]

Third. Password-protect yourdocuments. If you are using MicrosoftWord and Excel, these documents andspreadsheets may be protected frombeing opened by unauthorizedpersonnel. [ 6 ]

Fourth. Don’t let your ultra-sensitivefiles stay in your computer. Better storethem in reliable removable storagedevices, such as those heavy-dutyportable ones that can be plugged inyour USB port.

Fifth. If you have money to spare, buyreliable software which would provideyour computer personal firewall. It isadditional protection to safeguard yoursensitive files.

These are some of the precautions onecan do to safeguard one’s files fromthe prying eyes of other people,especially if the security of documentsaffect the lives of a lot of people.

Atty. Ivan Uy, chief information officerof the Supreme Court, and hiscomputer forensic experts were ableto uncover De Guzman’s activitiesthrough his computer’s and thenetwork’s logs. Inasmuch as access toBalgos’ computer was unauthorized,De Guzman is deemed to havecommitted “hacking” pursuant to thedefinition given by Section 33(a) of theElectronic Commerce Act.

Protecting files

Interconnectivity and security are twoopposing, but not necessarilyincompatible, concepts. Getting onestep ahead of potential security threatswould be a costly endeavor. But onemust at least find ways to secure one’sfiles from an unauthorized user, whohas basic knowledge of computers andtheir systems.

LAN may be practical in connecting anumber of computers so as to shareperipherals and resources, such asprinters, hard disk storage, and evenInternet connection when applicable.File transfer between computers withinthe network is made easier, especiallyif the file is above the 1.44MB diskettelimit, or if the other computer does nothave or support a large removablemedia drive. Unauthorized file accessthrough shared folders, however, mayoccur if the user is unaware of meansto control access. Therefore, whatshould be done to control access?

First. Choose the proper operatingsystem. A lot of organizations purchase“home-based” operating systems suchas Windows 95, 98, ME and XP Homefor their personal computers as theyare relatively cheaper than the moresecure operating systems Windows NT,2000, and XP Pro; or more popularthan the various flavors of Linux orsimilar operating systems. Thedrawback in the use of Windows 98,for example, is that one can accessthe computer by merely cancelling thelogin box and thus create an accountfor oneself in the computer where one

>> [ 21 ] Mercantile Law Bar Exam

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

4

ELECTRONIC AUTHENTICATION SYSTEM:

A BREAKTHROUGH IN NOTARIZATION

By Ma. Cristina A. Ramos

NIntroduction

otaries public, as weknow them today, originated as scribes.Scribes, Latin scribae, are literate clerkswho took notes of important events anddiscussions and made copies both ofpublic and private documents. The roleof these scribes can be traced back topre-Biblical times in Ancient Egypt andGreece. The importance of thesescribes became more and moreimportant when the value of officialrecord-keeping was recognized andwhen societies began to formalize theirrules and decisions. [ 1 ]

In Ancient Rome, scribes whoperformed the function of the notarywere known as tabellions. Instead ofpaper, these tabellions used tabulae ortables or plates covered with wax. Lateron, a new system of shorthand writingcalled notae tironinae was developed.It was a system of arbitrary marks orsigns called notae. The person whoadopted this method was called anotarius. Although originally applied toa shorthand writer, the term notariusbecame used exclusively to a publiclyappointed official who performed thefunctions similar to that of a present-day notary. [ 2 ]

The Philippine Notarial Law

In the Philippines, notaries public aremembers of the Bar commissioned by,and are under The supervision of,Executive Judges of the territory wherethey perform their notarial functions.The laws and regulation governingnotaries public include the following:

· Sections 231 to 252 and Sections2632 to 2633 of the 1917

Revised Administrative Code ofthe Philippines.

· Section 11, Rule 141 of the Rulesof Court.

· A.M. No 02-8-02-SC,promulgated by the SupremeCourt (En Banc) on August 13,2002 effective September 2,2002.

Notarization converts a privatedocument into a public document andrenders the document admissible incourt as evidence without need forfurther proof of its authenticity. Anotarized document is entitled, by law,to full faith and credit upon its face. [ 3

] Notarization also vests upon thedocument the presumption ofregularity unless it is impugned bystrong, complete and conclusiveproof.[4 ]

When a notary public affixes hissignature and notarial seal to aninstrument, after putting the affiantsunder oath, he makes the followingwarranties:

· The party or parties personallyappeared before him and signedthe instrument in his presence

· The party or parties madethemselves known to him to be thesame person or persons whoexecuted, and whose namesappeared in the instrument.

· In cases of acknowledgements, theparties made known to him thevoluntary execution of theinstrument.

In short, notarization under existinglaws necessitates personal appearance

of the affiants or the parties before anotary public to satisfy the foregoingwarranties.

e-Notarization under the e-Commerce Act

To keep pace with the globaldevelopments in informationtechnology, Congress enacted into lawRepublic Act No. 8792, also knownas the Electronic Commerce Act of2000) on June 14, 2000. The lawgave validity and legal recognition toelectronic documents and electroniccontracts as the functional equivalentof paper-based documents. [ 5 ]

Corollary to this is the legal recognitionof electronic and digital signaturesaffixed on electronic documents andelectronic contracts. These signaturesare now legally recognized asequivalent to the signature of a personon a written document. [ 6 ] Electroniccontracts and documents would not bedenied validity, enforceability andadmissibility as evidence for as longthey preserved their integrity andreliability and can beauthenticated in accordance with thelaw and established rules of procedure.

Section 11 of the ElectronicCommerce Act of 2000 authorized theSupreme Court to determine theappropriate rules governing theauthentication of electronic documentsand electronic contracts "including theuse of electronic notarization systemsas necessary and advisable, as well asthe certificate of authentication onprinted or hard copies of the electronicdocument or electronic data messagesby electronic notaries, service providersand other duly appointed certificationauthorities."

Features

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

5

Electronic notarization is theperformance of a legal act that willfacilitate the conversion of privatedocuments in electronic form into"public documents" and provide themwith the legal attributes and characteras such. It is the digitalization" of theperformance of the function of anotary public.

Current efforts of the SupremeCourt [ 7 ]

At present, the ManagementInformation System Office (MISO) ofthe Supreme Court, headed by Atty.Ivan John Uy, has completed ninetypercent (90%) of the Rules onElectronic Notarization. According toAtty. Uy, the Rules will be presented tothe Supreme Court for considerationin July this year. The rules on electronicnotarization is expected to beapproved, released and implementedbefore the end of 2004.

Critics of the implementation of theelectronic notarization system arguethe possible conflict of this set up withthe legal requirements of the existingnotarial law. Atty. Uy, however, saidthat this issue has already beenaddressed. He explained that theelectronic notarization system is a suigeneris. It is a concept of its own, aunique one. Nevertheless, it will havethe same effect as the notarization ofpaper-based documents. Simply put,it will also have the "functionalequivalent" of the notarization ofpaper-based documents.

Atty. Uy recognized that "electronicnotarization is like putting a square pegin a round hole." For this reason, theproposal is to denominate the systemas "Electronic Authentication Systemfor Electronic Documents".

The MISO has conceptualized two (2)types of Electronic AuthenticationSystem. The first type is an "on-lineauthentication system" while the secondsystem would require the personalappearance of the parties. The Rules

that MISO is preparing are intendedfor these two types of electionauthentication system.

On-line authentication system

The first type or the on-lineauthentication system is intended tocater to parties who are physicallyremote from each other but wish tohave their document authenticated toconvert the same as a publicdocument. In this system, there wouldbe a virtual room where the partieswill meet on-line via NetMeeting ornet conference. An officer dulyauthorized by the court to conductelectronic authentication should alsobe present in the virtual room and aftertaking proper procedural safeguards,the parties and the authenticatingofficer similar to a notary public, shallaffix their electronic signatures in theelectronic document.

Prior to the drafting of the rules, somelegal practitioners have commented onthe potential dangers of this type ofauthentication system particularly onthe authenticity of the document. Theprimary concern is how can the otherparties and the authenticating officerbe assured that the person attachingthe digital signature is indeed theperson he or she should be. Accordingto Atty. Uy, they are going to requirein the rules the use of mechanisms thatwill verify or ascertain the identity ofthe parties including probably the useof a video camera to see the personat the other end of the screen.

Utilization of biometrics technology isalso being considered. "Biometricsrefers to the authentication techniquesthat rely on measurable physicalcharacteristics that can beautomatically checked." [ 8 ] A commonlyused biometrics is the computeranalysis of fingerprints. In order to availof this type of authentication system,the personal computers of the partiesshould have, for example, afingerprint scanner, where each ofthem could place his or her index

finger. The computer would analyzethe fingerprint to determine the identityof the person at the other end of thescreen. With this mechanism, the riskof the digital signature being accessedor used without authority will beavoided.

Another potential danger of this typeof electronic authentication system isthe risk that the owner of the digitalsignature be coerced to put his digitalsignature on the electronic documentwithout the notary public knowing ofsuch fact. This danger is something thatthe Electronic Authentication Systemmay not resolve. However, It is worthyto note that even in the notarization ofpaper-based documents, such vitiationof consent cannot be avoided. "Whenyou introduce something new, youshould not expect that it is a 'cure-all'thing. It will definitely improve thesystem but it will not cure all thedefects," said Atty. Uy.

Personal appearance before anauthentication officer

The second type of ElectronicAuthentication System being proposedrequires the personal appearance ofthe parties before an authenticatingofficer. This type of authenticationsystem aims to do away with bulkypaper documents. With this system, theparties who wish to have theirelectronic document authenticated arerequired to appear before anauthenticating officer dulycommissioned by the Court. Theparties, after reading the electronicdocument, shall affix their electronicsignatures thereon, while theauthenticating officer acts as witness.The authenticating officer shall thenaffix his digital signature in thedocument, store the said document ina compact disc, reproduce a numberof copies thereof as may be requiredby the rules and give each party hiscopy of the electronic document. Theauthenticating officer shall also keephis copy of the document.

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

6

The original of an electronicdocument

Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules ofCourt provides that when the subjectof inquiry is the contents of adocument, no evidence shall beadmissible other than the originaldocument itself, also known in legalparlance as the best evidence rule.

The E-Commerce Act of 2000 and theRules on Electronic Evidence [ 9 ]

promulgated by the Supreme Courtmodified the concept of the bestevidence rule to capture legalrecognition and admissibility ofevidence of electronic documents andelectronic contracts.

In electronic documents, the E-Commerce Act provides that where thelaw requires information to bepresented or retained in its originalform, that requirement is met by anelectronic document if the integrity ofthe information from the time when itwas first generated in its final form asan electronic document, is shown byevidence allunde or otherwise. [ 10 ]

Rule 4 of the Rules on ElectronicEvidence provides that "an electronicdocument shall be regarded as theequivalent of an original under the BestEvidence Rule if it is a print out or outputreadable by sight or other means,shown to reflect the data accurately."[11 ] Thus, every copy of the electronicdocument, whether a print out, an e-mail message, or a copy in a hard disk,compact disc or diskette may beregarded as the original. The greatestapprehension with the said provisionsis the possibility that "all manner ofalterations can be perpetrated in thecyberspace before the document iseven printed. [ 12 ]

The Rules on Electronic Evidencefurther provides that "[w]hen adocument is in two or more copies

executed at or about the sametime with identical contents, or is acounterpart produced by the sameimpression as the original, or from thesame matrix, or by mechanical orelectronic recording, or by chemicalreproduction, or by other equivalenttechniques which accuratelyreproduces the original, such copiesor duplicates shall be regarded as theequivalent of the original." [ 13 ] Thus,for a document to be considered asequivalent of the original, it must beexecuted at or about the sametime as the original.

In the soon-to-be implemented Ruleson Electronic Authentication System ofElectronic Documents, Atty. Uydeclared that a mechanism to ensurethat only copies intended to be theequivalent of the original will bepresented. He further explained thatwith the 'time and date stamp' or digitalstamping, the integrity of an electronicdocument would be proved. Uponsigning an electronic document, theparties will secure a time and datestamp. Such stamp assures theexistence of an electronic documentat one certain moment. Hence, theoriginal of the electronic document andthe equivalent copies of the originalbear the same digital stamp.Subsequent copies of the electronicdocument will certainly bear a differenttime and date. Therefore, there wouldbe no problem in ascertaining whethera particular electronic document is theoriginal, an equivalent of the original,or a subsequent reproduction thereof.

Conclusion

Electronic notarization is certainly anew and novel concept in legal andjudicial systems not only in thePhilippines but worldwide. Like anyprocess of change, it is susceptible toresistance particularly from the legalcommunity.

The flexibility of the legal mandateaccorded to the Supreme Court by theE-Commerce Act of 2000 to adopt asystem of e-notarization andauthentication of electronic documentsas maybe "necessary and advisable" [14 ] is consistent with the internationally-accepted principle that 'law should betechnology neutral' and effectivelyarrests any legal inconvenience posedby existing notarial laws.

Unfortunately, global trends in legalpractice leave our judicial authoritiesno choice but to start the process ofchange in our legal system in responseto the information technologyrevolution. The enactment of the E-Commerce Law, the Rules on ElectronicEvidence and the prospective Rules onElectronic Authentication System ofElectronic Documents is certainly a stepin the right direction.

Endnotes

1. Tom Halliwell, "The Notary: A ShortHistory" (2000, May). Retrieved on 2April 2004. http://w w w . l e a r n e d c o u n s e l . c o m /notaryhistory.html

2. Ibid.3. Nunga vs. Viray, A. M. 4758, 30 April

19994. Sales vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.

L40145, 29 July 19925. Sec. 7, R. A. No. 87926. Sec. 8, ibid.7. Based on the author's interview of Atty.

Ivan John Uy on 1 April 20048. Definition from www.webopedia.com.

Copyright, 2004 Jupitermedia . All rightsreserved. Reprinted with permissionfrom http://www.internet.com.

9. A.M. No. O 1-7-01-SC10. Sec. 10, R.A. No. 8792.11. Sec. 1, ibid.12. Jaime C. N. Arroyo, "The law and the

Internet Legal Community slams ruleson electronic evidence," Cyberdyaryo,22 August 2001, Retrieved on 2 April2004. http://www,cyberdyaryo.com/features/2001_0822_02.htm

13. Sec. 2, Rule 4 of the Rules on ElectronicEvidence

14. Sec. 11, R. A. No. 8792

“THE PRESENT DAY GLOBAL ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE IS DEFINED BY TWO MAIN FEATURES -- THE VAST IMPACT OF THE INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY REVILUTION AND THE DRAMATIC EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE. THE INTERNET IS REDEFINING BUSINESS MODELS

WORLDWIDE AND CREATING NEW PARADIGMS AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS.” - GOV. JAMES S. GILMORE III, GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA ANDCHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMISSION ON INTERNET TAXATION (1999)

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

7

THE PHILIPPINE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: AN OUTLINE

By Jaime N. Soriano

The Philippine

Supreme Court, through A. M. No.01-7-01-SC, approved en banc theRules of Electronic Evidence on July20, 2001 in accordance with RepublicAct No. 8792, otherwise known as the"e-Commerce Act of 2000".

Scope and effectivity

The Rules became effective on 1August 2001 and initially applied tocivil, quasi-judicial and administrativeproceedings pending after that date.On 24 September 2002, it wasamended to include from its coveragecriminal cases effective 24 October2002.

Electronic signature vs. digitalsignature

Electronic signature refers to anydistinctive mark or characteristic inelectronic form representing theidentity of a person and associated withan electronic data message orelectronic document and thereforeincludes digital signature. Electronicsignatures have the "functionalequivalent" of the signature of a personon a written document.

Digital signature refers to an electronicsignature consisting of a transformationof an electronic data message orelectronic document using acryptographic system: asymmetric orsymmetric through a certificationauthority.

Recognition of electronicevidence

Whenever the rules on evidence referto a written document it shall include

electronic documents (or anyinformation sent, received, or storedby electronic, optical or similar meansas electronic data). Thus:

1. An electronic evidence isadmissible in evidence providedit is competent, relevant and canbe authenticated in the mannerprovided for by the rules.

2. The fact that it is in electronic formwill not diminish the confidentialnature of a privilegedcommunication.

Best evidence rule in electronicdocuments

Electronic documents refer toinformation or representation ofinformation that establishes a right orextinguishes an obligation and isreceived, recorded, transmitted,stored, processed, or retrieved inelectronic form.

All copies of an electronic documentexecuted at or about the same timewith the same impression and identicalin contents are regarded as equivalentof the original, unless there is aquestion on the authenticity of theoriginal or it would be unjust to admitthe copy in lieu of the original.

Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Records, data or information kept inelectronic form in the regular courseof business are excepted from thehearsay rule, provided (i) they areproven or shown by the testimony ofthe custodian or other qualified witnessand (ii) it is proven that compilation ofsuch data, records or information is a

regular practice. To overcome this, theadverse parry must present proof ofthe untrustworthiness of the source ofinformation, or the method orcircumstance of the preparation,transmission or storage.

Authentication of electronicdocuments

Burden of proving authenticity: Theparty introducing the electronicevidence.

Manner of proving authenticity ofprivate documents: The electronicevidence must be proved before it isoffered as authentic in any of thefollowing manner: (i) evidence that ithas been signed digitally by the person,(ii) evidence that appropriate securityprocedures were applied as may beauthorized by law or the SC, or (iii)other evidence showing integrity andreliability to the satisfaction of the court.Manner of proving authenticity ofpublic document: To be proven as anelectronically notarized document inaccordance with SC rules (NB: No suchrule at the moment)

Manner of authenticating electronicsignature: (i) evidence to prove themethod to establish and verify a digitalsignature, (ii) other means providedby law, (iii) any means to satisfy thecourt of its genuineness.

Methods of proving electronicdocuments

By Affidavit Evidence: based onpersonal knowledge and indication ofthe competence of the affiant to testifyon the matters contained therein. Thecontents of the affidavit shall be

Features

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

8

affirmed in open court and may becross-examined as a matter of rightby the adverse party in a summaryhearing.

Electronic testimony: When anexamination of a witness is doneelectronically, the entire proceedingsshall be transcribed stenographically.The transcript must be certified andindicate that the proceedings wereelectronically recorded. The electronicevidence, the recording and thetranscript shall form part of the recordsof the case and shall be deemed asprima facie evidence of theproceedings.

Disputable presumptions (afterauthentication is proved)

Electronic signature: (i) it correlates tothe identity of the person, (ii) it wasaffixed with intent to authenticate, (iii)it was affixed to indicate consent to thetransaction, and (iv) the process to affixthe signature operated without erroror fault.

Digital signature: In addition to theabove, (i) information contained in the

certificate (of the certification authority)is correct, (ii) the signature was createdduring the operational period of thecertificate, (iii) there is no cause torender certificate revocable or invalid,(iv) the message associated to thesignature has not been altered fromthe time of signing, and (v) it has dulyissued by the certification authority.

Factors to consider indetermining evidentiary weightof electronic documents

1. Reliability of manner or methodin which it was generated, storedor communicated.

2. Reliability of the manner in whichthe originator was identified.

3. Integrity of the information andcommunication system in which itis recorded or stored.

4. Familiarity of the system by theperson who made the entry.

5. The nature and quality of theinformation that went into thecommunication system where theelectronic document was based.

6. Other factors affecting accuracyand integrity of the electronicdocuments.

Admissibility and proof ofephemeral electronic evidence

Ephemeral electronic evidence refersto telephone conversation, textmessages, chat sessions, streamingaudio or video or other forms ofcommunication that is not recorded orretained.

It should be proven by the testimonyof the person who was a party to thesame, or has personal knowledge ofthe same, or in the absence thereof,by other competent evidence. If thecommunication is recorded, it shall beproven as an electronic document.

Admissibility and proof of audio,video or photographic evidence

The evidence is admissible providedthey are shown, presented or displayedto the court and identified, explainedor authenticated by the person whoproduced the same or by a competenttestimony on the accuracy thereof.

IBM PHILIPPINES INC., ET AL. VS. NLRC, ET AL.

Jurisprudence in CyberLaw

(G.R. No. 117221, 13 April 1999, Supreme Court - 2nd Division)

(This section will be a regular feature of thejournal to highlight significant cases decidedin the Philippines and in foreign jurisdictionsrelating to information technology)

Facts: IBM Philippines Inc. terminatedthe employment of Angel D. Israel forhabitual absences and tardiness.Alleging that he was dismissed withoutdue process and without just cause,Israel filed a complaint before theNational Labor Relations Commission(NLRC).

To prove Israel's habitual absences andtardiness, IBM attached to its positionpaper print-outs of alleged computerentries or messages sent to Israelthrough the company's internalcomputer system to prove the legalbasis for the termination and

compliance with the noticerequirements of procedural dueprocess.

Later, the NLRC ruled in favor of Israeland found his dismissal to be illegalcontending that the computer printoutspresented in evidence, to prove thatIsrael's attendance was poor, wereinsufficient to show that he was guiltyof habitual absences and tardiness.Issue: Whether or not the computerprint-outs attached by IBM in its positionpaper were inadmissible in evidenceto prove just cause and due process inthe termination of Israel.

Ruling: The Supreme Court refusedto recognize the admissibility andevidentiary weight of an unsigned

computer print-out of the exchangesof e-mails between the company andthe dismissed employee that wouldhave proven the latter's habitualtardiness and absenteeism, without therequisite proof of its authenticity andreliability. The Court said:

"The computer print-outs, whichconstitute the only evidence ofpetitioners, afford no assuranceof their authenticity because theyare unsigned. The decisions ofthis Court, while adhering to aliberal view in the conduct ofproceedings before administrativeagencies, have nonethelessconsistently required some proofof authenticity or reliability as

>> [21] Jurisprudence in CyberLaw

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

9

OPTICAL MEDIA ACT : A PANACEA TO PIRACYBy Ailyn L. Cortez

A year ago,the Philippines was on the US prioritywatch list of international intellectualproperty protection organizations,notwithstanding government efforts tocut back violation of intellectual propertyrights (IPR). This was shown in the 2003"Special 301" annual review whichexamined the sufficiency and efficacyof intellectual property protection indifferent countries including thePhilippines. [ 1 ]

The swift increase in optical disk piracyin the Philippines brought about by thepace of change in, and speed andease of, electronic communication andcopying are both threatening to thebasic concept of IPR. It was noted thatdespite concentrated efforts to clearout video pirates, no one was convictedbecause of the government's lack ofoperational means to penalize thebootleggers. As such, the PhilippineGovernment intensified its effortsacross the board and enacted strongerlaws and regulations on the productionof optical disk. The clamor to punishnot only the street vendors, as well asthe manufacturers of sham materials,led to the competent enforcement oflaw which spells out that there are realcosts, genuine deterrence and actualpenalties to be paid for piracy.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyorecently signed Republic Act No. 9239known as the "Optical Media Act of2003." This law was enacted in accordwith the Intellectual Property Code ofthe Philippines to ensure the protectionand promotion of intellectual propertyrights. This act seeks to regulate opticalmedia by imposing stern regulationsin the licensing, copying anddistribution of optical media such asDVD's, CD's, VCD's, DVD-ROMS, CD

Features

ROMS, CD recordables andrewritables.

To implement the new law, theVideogram Regulatory Board (VRB),which was created under PresidentialDecree 1987, was reorganized as theOptical Media Board (OMB) under theOffice of the President. The board wastasked to institute the means to"regulate the manufacture, mastering,replication, importation andexportation of optical media." [ 2 ] TheOMB shall be composed of four ex-officio members -- composed ofsecretaries of the Department of Tradeand Industry (DTI), Department of theInterior Local Government (DILG),Department of Finance (DOF), and theDirector General of the IntellectualProperty Office (IPO) or their dulyauthorized representatives; and fiveregular member to be appointed bythe President. [ 3 ]

There are two mechanisms providedto protect the intellectual propertyrights, which serve as gatekeepersystems to address the problems onpiracy from the very source. First, theOMB shall have the authority to issue,cancel or suspend licenses ofestablishments or entities registeredwith the OMB to engage in business ofmastering, manufacture, replication,importation or exportation of opticalmedia. [ 4 ] The registration and licenseissued by the OMB are conditionsprecedent for securing the necessarybusiness permits or licenses fromappropriate authorities and shall alsobe necessary for the release ofmanufacturing equipment fromcustoms or economic zones. Second,the OMB shall determine, developand/or adopt a system of SourceIdentification (SID) codes. These are

system of codes embedded in theoptical media to identify the source ofall optical media mastered,manufactured or replicated by anyestablishment or entity. The SID codesshall be visible and legible and mustconform to such specification asprescribed by the OMB for all persons,establishments or entities registeredwith and licensed by the OMB. [ 5 ]

For the purpose of this Act, it is crucialto define a Manufacturing Equipment.Under the law, a manufacturingequipment refer to "any and allequipment, machine or device, nowknown or to be known in the future,intended or design for the productionor manufacture, by mastering and/ orreplication of optical media, opticalmedia masters, or production partsthereof, including but not limited to,those which shall be listed in theImplementing Rules and Regulations(IRR) of this Act or as prescribed by theOMB. " [ 6 ] Optical disc writers and suchother devices used in personalcomputers not for commercialpurposes shall not be considered asmanufacturing equipment.

As a deterrent to piracy, the OpticalMedia Act provides stiff penalties onestablishments caught violating theprovisions of the law. Those engagingin illegal importation, exportation,mastering, manufacture, andreplication of optical media shall sufferimprisonment of 3 years in theminimum and six years in themaximum and a fine of not less thanfive hundred thousand pesos but notexceeding one million five hundredpesos. Violators who will employarmed assistance shall face a stifferpenalty of nine years imprisonment in

>> [20] Optical Media Act

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

10

TTTTTHEHEHEHEHE D D D D DOMAINOMAINOMAINOMAINOMAIN N N N N NAMEAMEAMEAMEAME S S S S SYSTEMYSTEMYSTEMYSTEMYSTEM (DNS) (DNS) (DNS) (DNS) (DNS)

ANDANDANDANDAND A A A A ADMINISTERINGDMINISTERINGDMINISTERINGDMINISTERINGDMINISTERING THETHETHETHETHE ROOTROOTROOTROOTROOT CCCCCCCCCCTLD .TLD .TLD .TLD .TLD .PHPHPHPHPH

Features

TIntroduction to domain names

he Internet providesdiverse content that changes hour afterhour and renders the Internet to be, inits totality, a virtual heap of sparselyorganized data and resources. Onecan only imagine the tedious processand the near impossible feat ofmemorizing numerical IP (InternetProtocol) addresses, like209.50.251.234, to reach soughtresources or websites, if host namesor domain names, likewww.arellanolaw.net, do not exist. [ 1 ]

A domain name identifies one or moreIP addresses [ 2 ] and is used in the globaladdresses of documents and otherresources in the World Wide Web, orthe Uniform Resource Locators (URLs),which identify particular Web pages.Every domain name has a suffix thatindicates which top level domain (TLD)it belongs to: such as .com forcommercial business, .net for networkorganizations, .org for non-profitorganizations, .gov for governmentagencies, .edu for educationalinstitutions, to name a few. A domainname may further admit an additionalsuffix that indicates country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD), a two-lettercodes in the ISO 3166-1 standardcodes for the representation of namesof countries or territories, such as .phfor the Philippines.

The Internet Corporation for AssignedNames and Numbers (ICANN) is theinternationally organized, non-profitcorporation that has responsibility forInternet Protocol (IP) address spaceallocation, protocol identifierassignment, generic (gTLD) andcountry code (ccTLD) Top-Level

Domain name system management,and root server system managementfunctions. These services wereoriginally performed under UnitedStates Government contract by theInternet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA) and other entities. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicatedto preserving the operational stabilityof the Internet, to promotingcompetition; to achieving broadrepresentation of global Internetcommunities, and to developing policyappropriate to its mission throughbottom-up, consensus-basedprocesses. [ 3 ] DotPH Inc. is the ICANNDesignated Registry Operator of the.ph ccTLD since 1990.

Trade names and trademarks vis-a-vis domain names

A domain name locates anorganization or other entity on theInternet, usually by appending a gTLDsuffix (such as .com, .net or .org) tosaid organization’s trade name. Theselection and acquisition of domainnames, thus, stir up property issues asit involves goodwill, trade names andtrademarks, which are recognizedintangible properties. [ 4 ] As theregistries for trademarks / tradenamesand domain names are separate anddistinct but that both recognize the “firstto file” rule, the situation providesopportunity for enterprising entities topurchase domain names that maycorrespond to another entity ’strademark purposed for a possibleresale of such domain name at ahigher price to an obviously interestedentity, or purposed for a virtual forumcontaining adverse opinions againstsaid obviously interested entity. Theinstitutionalization of procedures as to

Uniform Domain Name DisputeResolution and the deployment ofNameholder warranty clauses inregistration contracts with domainregistries minimize, but do noteliminate, the conflicting interestsbetween trademark owners anddomain name registrants.

Chronic intellectual property issues stillremain involving the gTLD names –which are supposed to be United StatesTLDs – because the registries of whichare open or available to all possibleregistrants worldwide. A cleardevelopment in the protection ofcountry specific domains involves thatof the .us TLD of the United States.The United States, through its appointedcentral registrar Neustar, providedstricter guidelines for .us TLDregistration. For an entity to register a.us domain name, the entity shouldeither be (1) a natural person (i) whois a United States citizen, (ii) who is apermanent resident of the United Statesof America or any of its possessions orterritories, or (iii) whose primary placeof domicile is in the United States ofAmerica or any of its possessions; or(2) a United States entity ororganization that is (i) incorporatedwithin one of the 50 US states, theDistrict of Columbia, or any of theUnited States possessions or territories,or (ii) organized or otherwiseconstituted under the laws of a state ofthe United States of America, theDistrict of Columbia or any of itspossessions or territories (including afederal, state, or local government ofthe United States or a politicalsubdivision thereof, and non-commercial organizations based in theUnited States); or (3) a foreign entityor organization that has a bona fide

by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

11

presence in the United States ofAmerica or any of its possessions orterritories. [ 5 ] On the other hand, foran entity to register a .ph domainname in the Philippines, the DomainName Applicant need only to be either(1) an identifiable human individual(over the age of 18 years); or (2) alegally recognized statutory entity (suchas a corporation, limited liabilitycompany, partnership, or PLC). [ 6 ]

gTLD name registrations from thePhilippines are relatively highinasmuch as having a gTLD name isperceived to have a greater prestigethan having a ccTLD name in light ofthe former’s “international” stature; oron the economic side, that the cost ofpurchasing a gTLD name is relativelycheaper than purchasing a ccTLDname. [ 7 ]

Domain name wait-list

ICANN approved the creation ofVeriSign Inc.'s "wait-listing service" on6 March 2004, allowing people to bidon domain names that are about toexpire. Only one person is allowed tospeculate or reserve a domain name,owned by somebody else, at a time.Speculation is fraught with risk as oneis not sure whether a domain namewould even return to open market.Speculators would pay $20 a year,excluding markup, year on endwithout any return on their investment.

The waitlist service is not new in thePhilippines. DotPH has been offeringa wait-list service since September2002, where a prospective registrantwho signs up for the Waitlist is first inline to get a domain that expires andis not renewed. The cost of signing upfor the Waitlist service is the same asregistering a domain. If the currentregistrant renews the domain or theperson on the Waitlist simply gets tiredof waiting for the domain to expire,he can use the Waitlist fee to registeran available domain. The registrantcan even choose to Waitlist anotherdomain instead, at no extra charge. [ 8]

The US model on the wait-list serviceis different inasmuch as one cannotrecover the wait-listing fee if thecurrent registrant of the coveteddomain name renew his subscription.The opportunity to shift the applicationof the wait-listing fee in the Philippinesto an available domain name or toanother domain name that may bewaitlisted very much considersparagraph 3, Article 1461 of the NewCivil Code of the Philippines (RA No.386) which provides that the “sale ofa vain hope or expectancy is void.”

Proposed Philippine governmentcontrol on the .ph ccTLD

On 13 January 2004, the NationalTelecommunications Commission(NTC) issued a working draft of its“Guidelines in the Administration of the.Ph Domain Name.” The NTC statedin the guidelines’ preamble that the.ph domain name is a public resourceand is part of the Philippine nationalpatrimony; that the State has thesovereign right over Internet-relatedpublic policy issues; that the Internetcommunity must be ensured with anefficient, stable, fair and transparentadministration of the .ph domain; andthat the administrator of the .ph domainis the trustee of the country code toplevel domain for the Philippines andthe global Internet community, and thusis accountable to the local Internetcommunity and must be able to carryout the necessary responsibilities, andhave the ability to do an equitable, just,honest and competent job. It outlinedthe qualifications, delegation andrecognition, and technical competenceof the Administrator; the managementand delineation of functions as to theregistry and the various registrars; theregistration of domain names, and allmatters pertaining to transparency andaccountability, fairness, service,privacy in the registration thereof; theuse, marketing and promotion of the.ph domain; dispute resolution; and re-delegation of the registry.

On 4 February 2004, the PH domainRegistry (dotPH) submitted its commentsstating thereon, among others, thatspecific problems must be identifiedand solutions found via a collaborativeeffort of both parties. DotPHannounced its intention not to attendthe 30 March 2004 hearing as (1) noproblems in PH domain operation/administration have been pointed outby the government despite DotPH’srepeated requests; (2) that thegovernment has not shown that thereis a need for Guidelines at all and thatthese will not result in new, additionalproblems; and that government has notresponded to inputs previously given,preventing the Guidelines to bediscussed on its own merits. DotPHhowever reiterated its intent tocontinue participating in the process,hoping for a comprehensive solution.

The crux of contention revolves aroundthe issue whether the .ph domain is“part of Philippine patrimony” subjectto “sovereign right” of the State; orwhether the .ph domain is a USGovernment resource inasmuch asICANN reports its proposed actions ondomain registry re-delegation,including ccTLDs, to the USDepartment of Commerce. Fromthereon flows the issue whether thePhilippine Government, in the exerciseof its police power, is the ultimateauthority on the .ph ccTLD so as toformulate separate guidelines on there-delegation of the administration ofthe Registry; or whether the delegationor re-delegation of the ccTLD is withinthe jurisdiction of ICANN where thegovernment is only in the same levelas the local Internet community, whoseinterest is given equitable considerationin the processing of a request for re-delegation.

It must be noted that ICANN handlesall requests for redelegation and thus,has the responsibility to neutrallyinvestigate and assess requests on allmatters relating to changes in the DNSroot, including ccTLD delegations and

>> [20] The Domain Name System (DNS)

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

12

SSSSSPAMMINGPAMMINGPAMMINGPAMMINGPAMMING THETHETHETHETHE W W W W WORLDORLDORLDORLDORLD

Features

S pam, spam, spam,spam.....no, no, no it is not the kindthat we eat. This one is a technicalterm referring to unsolicited e-mailmessages appearing in your inbox.These messages are called by manyother names, but the most commonlyused term to describe it is "spam."There are a lot of theories aboundingin the Internet as to the reason behindthe name but the most reliable is astory, rumored to have originated fromthe MUD/MUSH community, told byblue haired former news administratorNathan J. Mehl and summarized inwww.cybernothing.org:

"My friend-who-shall-remain-nameless was, ah, a youngerand callower man, circa 1985or so, and happened onto oneof the original Pern MUSHesduring their most Sacred Event- a hatching. After trying toconverse sanely with two orthree of the denizens, he camequickly to the conclusion thatthey are all a bunch ofobsessive compulsive nitwitswith no life and less literarytaste. (Probably true.)

Cybernothing editor's Note:another source tells me that thisactually happened in thesummer of 1991.

So, as the 'eggs' were'hatching', he assigned akeyboard macro to echo theline:

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAMSPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

...and proceeded to invoke itonce every couple of seconds,until one of the wizards finallybooted him off.

...which would have probablybeen that last that anyone everheard or thought of it, exceptthat it apparently ingrained itselfinto the memory of thePernMUSHers, and foreverafter there was the legend of'that asshole who spammed us.'Every once in a while, this storymakes it back to my friend, andhe tries very hard to keep astraight face... " [ 1 ]

Spam, a formerly harmless form ofelectronic advertisement, is nowgaining attention from the legislativearm of various governments, notablyof the United States, Australia, and theEuropean Union. Complaints of theend-users inconvenienced byspamming are mounting. TheAustralian government drafted itsversion of an anti-spam law because50% of e-mails received by end-usersare spam that resulted in increaseddownload time and Internet accesscosts. [ 2 ] In the United States, averageAmericans spend fifteen hours deletingspam compared to two hours in 2002.[ 3 ] Roughly the same numbers applyin other countries harassed by spam.Marketers who use this form ofadvertisement are seldom reputableas can be deduced from the mostcommon forms of spam. Examplesare:

1. Chain letters

2. Pyramid schemes (includingMultilevel Marketing, or MLM)

3. Other "Get Rich Quick" or "MakeMoney Fast" (MMF) schemes

4. Offers of phone sex lines and adsfor pornographic web sites

5. Offers of software for collectinge-mail addresses and sendingUCE

6. Offers of bulk e-mailing servicesfor sending UCE

7. Stock offerings for unknownstartup corporations

8. Quack health products andremedies

9. Illegally pirated software ("Warez")[ 4 ]

The problem

There are many spam-causedproblems but the most pertinent is thecost borne by the end users. Sendingspam mail is amazingly cheap since itonly requires a 28.8 kbps dial-upmodem and a PC. A spammer cansend hundreds of bulk e-mails perhour. However, the effect of this fallson the end-users especially those whopay for personal e-mail services.

In the technical sense, the Internet is aworldwide system of computernetworks that allows data to be routedand rerouted before the data arrivesto its destination. Each data passingthrough this network system containsthe address of the source and thedestination. The routers read theaddress and then send it to theappropriate router which repeats thesame process until the data arrive toits destination. For example, atypical

by Charilyn A. Dee

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

13

e-mail is virtually divided into "packets"for transmission because its mere sizewould limit the possibility of a singletransmission. Dividing information intopackets makes it more manageableand thus avoids data loss. The routercan only read the packet at a time.This creates the delay in sending andreceiving mails via the Internet.

So just imagine if there was delay insending and receiving e-mails beforespams, how much more with theintroduction of spams? The problemdoesn't end there. Instead of processingonly important mails, spams create adrag on the CPU of ISPs resulting inlost time and resources of end users.Data are lined up in queues ofunsolicited mails, or SPAMS. [ 5 ]

Spam abuse legislation

In answer to the growing problem ofspams, some countries tookappropriate measures. Thesecountries differ in whether subscribersshould "opt-in" or "opt-out" spam. Opt-in is for the user to give consent beforereceiving spam, whereas optout iswhen the user automatically receivesspam and expresses his/her refusal toaccept such messages to the spammervia e-mail to whatever address thespammer gave.

United States

Last 1 January 2004, the Can-SpamAct of 2003 went into effect. The lawprohibits e-mail senders to falsify ordisguise their identity by usingmisleading subject lines, improperlyharvesting e-mail addresses, or takingadvantage of automated systems forgenerating electronic addresses bycombining names, letters andnumbers.

Business should not market themselvesthrough false or misleading e-mails,and a true return e-mail and postaladdress must be provided along witha means to optout of receipt of furthere-mails.

Pornographic sites are required to giveconspicuous notice that the email is asolicitation or advertisement andsexually-oriented and plainly labeledas such. [ 6 ]

European Union

A directive was drawn up in July 2002and came into force in October 2003,but only four countries brought theirnational legislation up to the newstandards.

The directive requires the consent ofthe customer before the message canbe sent. Within the existing customerrelationship, it is reasonable to offersimilar products or services providedthat with each message the customershould be informed about their furtheruse of the customer's email address ina clear and distinct manner, and begiven the opportunity to refuse suchusage. [ 7 ]

South Korea

The revised anti-spam law of SouthKorea was successful in curbing theincrease of spam. The law prohibitsthe harvesting of e-mail addressesfrom websites and the use of technicalmeans to get around spam blocks. Italso strengthened control of illegallabeling of commercial e-mails andprotection of juveniles fromspamming.[8 ]

Australia

The anti-spam laws of Australia adoptedthe opt-in policy in receiving unsolicitedcommercial e-mails. It banned thedistribution and use of email harvestingand list-generating software that allowspammers to make a list of e-mailaddresses. Furthermore, it providesthat all commercial messages will haveto include full details of the sender'sname and physical address, as well asan unsubscribe option allowingrecipients to stop any further messages.[ 9 ] Violators will have a fine of morethan $A1 million. [ 10 ]

Malaysia

A country that chose to take anotherroute in tackling the issue is Malaysia.Malaysian authorities preferred toeducate the people in using the Internetto protect themselves. So far, it is theonly country waging an active waragainst spamming through education.

Effective?

Despite the best intentions oflawmakers, the power of anti-spamlegislation is still highly criticized anddoubted. The survey released by PewInternet and American Life Projectshows that even after theimplementation of Can-Spam Act,spamming continues to be a problem.The survey further shows that:

"In terms of emails received onpersonal email accounts,24%of respondents arereceiving more spam thanbefore January 1, 53% havenot noticed a change, 3% donot know, and only 20% reportthat they are receiving lessspam.

With respect to work-relatedemail accounts, 19% ofrespondents say that they arereceiving more spam, 53%.have not noticed a change,18% do not know, and only11% state that they arereceiving less spam.

The survey shows an overallincrease of email users whohave reduced their use ofemail because of spam from25% last June to 29% now.While last June 52% of userssaid that they are less trustingof email because of spam, thatpercentage now has jumped to63%.

Moreover, the percentage ofusers who report that spam,has made being online

>> [21] Spamming the World

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

14

consummation of contracts maybe expressed or executed bymeans of electronic data messageor electronic documents. Thesecontracts shall not be deniedvalidity or enforceability simplybecause they are in electronicform.

6. The law was also made applicableto actions related to contracts ofcarriage of goods, including butnot limited to: [ 5 ] (a) statements,declaration or information aboutthe goods, (b) confirmation on thedelivery, loading or receipt of thegoods, (c) notices orcommunication on terms andconditions of contract; instructionsto carrier; any loss of, or damageto, the goods; specific instructionsfor the release or delivery ofgoods; or, any other notice aboutthe performance of the contract,(d) granting, acquiring,renouncing, surrendering,transferring or negotiating rightsin goods, (e) acquiring ortransferring rights and obligationsunder the contract. Contract ofcarriage of goods can thereforebe in the form of electronicdocuments under the E-Commerce Act. However, in casescontemplated in (d) and (e), "nopaper document used to effect anysuch action is valid unless the useof electronic data message orelectronic document has beenterminated and replaced by theuse of paper documents. A paperdocument issued in thesecircumstances shall contain astatement of such termination. Thereplacement of electronic datamessages or electronic documentsby paper documents shall not

I n response to theglobal devastation of computernetworks brought about by the "I LoveYou" virus suspected to have originatedfrom the Philippines, Congressimmediately enacted Republic Act No.8792 on 14 June 2000. Also knownas the "Electronic Commerce Act of2000", the law was hailed by observersas a landmark piece of legislation thatfinally placed the Philippines on themap of electronic commerce. [ 1 ] ThePhilippines was the fourth country, afterMalaysia, Singapore, and Korea, thatlegislated a law on e-commerce.The Implementing Rules andRegulations of the e-Commerce Actwere adopted on 13 July 2000.

This law "aims to facilitate domestic andinternational dealings, transactions,arrangements, agreements, contractsand exchanges and storage ofinformation through the utilization ofelectronic, optical and similar medium,mode, instrumentality and technologyto recognize the authenticity andreliability of electronic documentsrelated to such activities and to promotethe universal use of electronictransaction in the government andgeneral public." [ 2 ]

Essentially, the law provides:

1. It shall have application to any kindof data message or documentgenerated, sent, received orstored by electronic, optical orsimilar means, regardless ofwhether the activity or transactionis commercial or non-commercial, private or public, ordomestic or international.

2. Electronically generateddocuments have the legal effect,

A SYNOPSIS OF THE E-COMMERCE LAW

validity and enforceability as anyother legal document. Electronicdocuments are recognized as thefunctional equivalent of a writtendocument for evidentiarypurposes.

3. It gives legal recognition tocontracts and transactions in theform of electronic data messageor electronic documents carryingelectronic or digital signatures.Electronic signature can be anydistinctive mark, characteristic,and/or sound in electronic formthat represents the identity of aperson and logically associatedwith the electronic document. [ 3 ]

Digital signatures, on the otherhand, are provided through asecret code, known as "electronickey," which secures and defendssensitive information that crossesover public channel into a formdecipherable only with a matchingelectronic key [ 4 ] normally obtainedfrom an Internet securitycompany. Both electronic anddigital signatures are necessary toensure the integrity, reliability andauthenticity of electronicdocuments, particularly those thatqualify as an electronic contract.

4. Electronic documents, signaturesand data messages are admissiblein evidence in a legal proceedingdepending upon their reliability,integrity, nature and quality. Forthis purpose, the Supreme Courtpromulgated A. M. No. 02-7-02-SC or the Rules on ElectronicEvidence that took effect on 1August 2001.

5. Offer, acceptance, and other legalrequisites for the formation and

by Jaime N. Soriano

Features

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

15

affect the rights or obligations ofthe parties involved." [ 6 ]

7. Government offices, includinggove rnmen t -owned-and -controlled corporations, shouldconduct their transactionselectronically within two (2) yearsfrom the effectivity of the law.

8. Internet service providers merelyproviding access to electronic datamessage or electronic documentsin the ordinary course of itsbusiness are generally not subjectto any civil or criminal liability.Only persons having legal right tothe possession of electronic filescan have access, and make, orauthorize, alterations thereof.Unless consent is given to anotherperson or party, electronic key foridentity and integrity is onlyavailable to the person or entity inlawful possession of the electronickey. Any person who has authorityto access an electronic file orinformation is bound by the ruleson confidentiality of such file orinformation.

9. Penalties of fine and/orimprisonment are imposed forviolations as defined under the lawspecifically: (a) hacking, crackingor unauthorized access orinterference, or corruption and

destruction of computer,information and communicationsystems, without the consent of theowner, including the introductionof virus; (b) piracy, reproduction,distribution, transmission, oralteration of protected materialsand intellectual property includingelectronic signatures; (c) violationsof the Consumer Act [ 7 ] throughelectronic means; and, (d) otherviolations of the provisions of thee-Commerce Law.

The Philippine law on e-Commercewas patterned after the "UNCITRALModel Law on Electronic Commerce"adopted by the United NationsCommission on International TradeLaw (UNCITRAL) in 1996. [ 8 ] The modellaw is intended to promote theharmonization and unification ofinternational trade low and removeunnecessary obstacles to internationaltrade caused by inadequacies anddivergences in the law affecting tradeas a result of the informationtechnology revolution.

The Model Law was prepared andadopted in response to a majorchange in the means by whichcommunications are made betweenparties using computerized or othermodern techniques in doing business.It is intended to serve as a model tocountries for the evaluation and

modernization of certain aspects oftheir laws and practices in the field ofcommercial relationships involving theuse of computerized or other moderncommunication techniques, and for theestablishment of relevant legislationwhere none presently exists.

The Internet, being the backbone ofthe digital age, has gainedconsiderable interests, not only amongthe millions of net users, but alsoamong legal and policy stakeholders.Internet law continues to evolve as e-commerce dramatically flourishes. Asmore and more rules are beingadopted and applied governingInternet activities, there is compellingneed for the crafting or re-crafting oflaws, policies and regulation, both inlocal and international levels, as digitaltechnology continue to develop and re-define business models in theinformation economy.

Endnotes

1. Bagares, Romel, "New Rules (of Court)for the New Economy", The PhilippineStar, 27 July 2001, p. B-1.

2. Sec. 3, R.A. No. 87923. Sec. 5 (e), R.A. No. 87924. Sec. 5 (f), ibid.5. Sec. 25, R.A. No. 87926. Sec. 25 (5), R.A. No. 87927. R.A. No. 73948. During its twenty-ninth session (605th

Meeting) on 12 June 1996

“TWENTY-FOUR HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN EVERY NOOK AND

CORNER OF THE PLANET EARTH ARE HOOKED IN REAL TIME TO THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY

AND PARTAKING THE BOUNTY OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY. CERTAINLY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

HAS CHANGED THE WAY PEOPLE LIVE, THE WAY THEY INTERACT, THE WAY THEY PURSUE KNOWLEDGE,

THE WAY THEY ENTERTAIN THEMSELVES, AND THE WAY THEY TRANSACT BUSINESS. THE DIGITAL

ERA HAS TRANSFORMED THE WORLD INTO A VIRTUAL GLOBAL COMMUNITY THAT IS GRADUALLY

EVOLVING AND DEFINING A TOTALLY NEW CULTURE OF HUMAN INTERACTION.

AS IN ANY PROCESS OF DRAMATIC CHANGE, THERE ARE INHERENT THREATS AND WEAKNESSES, BUT

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS

CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES AND BENEFITS. NOW IS THE BEST TIME FOR PRACTITIONERS OF LAW

TO SET THE STAGE FOR WIDER AND DEEPER INVOLVEMENT IN THE PARADIGM SHIFT TO HELP DEFINE

THE RULES OF THE GAME AND MAKE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WORK.” - J. N. SORIANO, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR E-LAW, ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

16

generates outcomes - to most otherODR providers that offer disputesettlement with human intervention.Parties may contract for a range ofODR services from mediation, whichaims at encouraging the parties toreach an amicable settlement of theirdisagreement, to binding arbitration,which imposes on the parties a legallyenforceable arbitral award. As ofDecember 2000, more than 40 ODRproviders had been identified.

Jurisdiction: is your enterprisewebsite regarded as a branch?

Concerning jurisdiction, two mainquestions are addressed: (i) can anInternet site be regarded as a branchor establishment for any legalpurpose? and (ii) is the level ofinteractivity relevant? As regards thefirst question, it seems that the tendencyis to consider that a website does notqualify as a branch or permanentestablishment. Thus, the place ofestablishment of a company providingservices via an Internet website is notthe place at which the technologysupporting its website is located or theplace at which its website is accessible,but the place where it pursues itseconomic activity. The answer to thesecond question for a large numberof countries is also clear: whatever thelevel of interactivity of the website, itwill not change the answer to the firstquestion. However, if a site is aninteractive one, it may lead somecountries, which apply a doing businessconcept for court jurisdiction to assertjurisdiction as long as the interactivitycan be seen as a clear link with theState whose courts assert jurisdiction.

EFinding global solutions toaddress global transactions

nsuring users and consumerseffective redress for disputes arisingfrom transactions in the onlineenvironment is a key element inbuilding trust. There is a widespreadawareness of the potential legalbarriers arising from recourse to courtsin disputes resulting from cross-borderonline interactions. Which law applies?Which authority has jurisdiction in thedispute? Which forum is competent tohear the dispute? Is the decisionenforceable? These are some of thequestions that all too often arise andfor which there is not yet a clearanswer. Electronic commerce hasincreased the need to rely on partyautonomy, the choice-of-court clausesbecoming central to any discussion ofcourt jurisdiction. Thus, it is essentialthat national legal systems clearlyprovide for rules on which parties canrely in order to ensure that their choice-of-court clauses will be deemed valid.Uncertainty in this respect isdetrimental to the trust which privateoperators will have in the judicial andlegal systems of a particular country.To assist States in their efforts toaccommodate e-commerce, thischapter analyses a number of optionsfor countries wishing to develop a setof choice-of-court rules. A differenceis made in this regard within business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts, as well asbetween (i) contracts concluded onlineand performed offline, and (ii)contracts concluded and performedonline.

OVERVIEW OF SELECTED LEGAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES

IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

Disputes in cyberspace: onlinesolutions needed for onlineproblems

It is well known that public lawmakingis too rigid, too slow in responding tothe need for immediate adjudication,and too slow adapting to changes tothe social, technological andcommercial customs of cyberspace. Incontrast, private lawmaking andprivate adjudication are more flexibleand readily adapt to the diverseevolving technological and socialnature of cyberspace and its changingcommercial practices. Given thattraditional dispute settlementmechanisms may not provide effectiveredress in electronic commercetransactions for a large number of thesmall claims and low-valuetransactions arising from B2C onlineinteractions, this chapter analyses thevarious alternative dispute resolution(ADR) mechanisms that would providespeedy, low-cost redress. When ADRtakes place using computer-mediatedcommunications in the onlineenvironment, it is often referred to asonline dispute resolution (ODR). Bothe-disputes and bricks-and-mortardisputes can be resolved using ODR.The system could be used in a varietyof contexts, including within aparticular online market place (e.g.mediation in online auction sites,arbitration in the domain name systemand in the automated negotiationprocess for insurance disputes), as partof a trustmark or seal programme, oron an independent basis. These ODRmechanisms range from those whichare fully automated - in that a computerprogram without human intervention

Reprinted from E-Commerce and Development Report 2001 of the UnitedNations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) [ * ]

Features

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

17

Applicable law: a new conceptof consumer protection

As regards applicable law, animportant difference has to be madebetween B2B and B2C contracts.Concerning B2B contracts, there is arenewed interest in codes of conduct.Thus, States are confronted with anever-increasing duty to define carefullythe limits of their public policy rules,since operators over the Internet oftendevelop their own codes of conduct.Whether or not operators can includea choice-of-law clause in theircontracts will be determined by thepublic policy of each State. In the caseof B2C contracts, and for a largemajority of countries where consumersare protected, the law applicable wouldbe the one which is more favourableto the consumer. Therefore, if the lawof the location of the consumer is morefavourable, it will apply; but if, on thecontrary, it is not, the law of theprofessional who supplied the serviceor the goods will apply. This is the mainreason why Internet operators havebeen so keen to block all adoption ofrules of the same nature for theInternet. This is one of the areas thatwould greatly benefit from aninternational agreement on commonrules of protection for consumers.Concerning torts, most decisions whichhave been taken by national courtsaround the world apply the law of theplace where the effect is felt, and notthat of the country where the tort wascommitted. This rule needs to bereassessed against Internet specificity.

Data protection: convenience atthe cost of privacy?

The question of privacy and dataprotection over the net is anotherimportant issue. It is well known thatthe value of many Internet corporationsdepends on the amount of data theyare able to gather. Thus, personal dataabout consumer habits, tastes and thelike are of great value to anycorporation wishing to operate over thenet. A consumer may want to limit the

availability and use of each of thesetypes of information and may makedecisions about entering into atransaction_ based on the extent towhich the information will be protected.The problem is not new, what is new isits scale. It is this dilemma - keepingour personal information private, whileallowing use of that information tomake our lives easier - that is the cruxof the current data protection debate.The more legal protection and controlindividuals are provided with asregards their personal information, themore costly it becomes for companiesto comply with those protections, andfor Governments to investigate andprosecute violations of those rights.Removing legal barriers to the free flowof information, while allowing for moreinnovation, development, and morepersonalized service, will lessen legalprotection of personal information.Although the unification of substantivelaw remains the best solution forinternational protection of privacy andpersonal data, in practice it is notalways possible to unify all aspects ofthe law. Therefore, the question ofapplicable law (e.g. the law of thelocation of the person whose data arecollected) is still pertinent in this context.However, when the conflict rule clasheswith the economic needs of Internetoperators, it must remain a default ruleto be applied only if substantiveunification is not possible.

Legal recognition of electronicsignatures: the options

As regards encryption and electronicsignatures, there seems to be aconsensus that a mechanism for secureauthentication of electroniccommunication is critical to thedevelopment of electronic commerce.Such a mechanism must provide forconfidentiality, authentication (enablingeach party in a transaction to ascertainwith certainty the identity of the otherparty) and non-repudiation (ensuringthat the parties to a transaction cannotsubsequently deny their participation).This chapter provides a review of the

basic approaches to electronicsignature legislation together with somerecent samples of regional legislationthat might guide States wishing toprepare legislation on electronicsignatures. Cybertaxation: No escapeSo far, businesses have enjoyed alargely tax-free e-commerceenvironment. In other words, goodsand services transmitted electronicallyhave not been subject to taxation.However, fears of revenue losses fromuncollected taxes and duties on Internettransactions have prompted manyGovernments to work towardsinternationally agreeable solutions withregard to changing existing taxlegislation to take account of e-commerce.

Who pays the VAT: buyer orseller?

At the centre of the e-commercetaxation debate are two issues:consumption and income taxation. Asfar as consumption taxes areconcerned, the question arises whetherthe tax should be collected in thejurisdiction of the supplier or theconsumer. Under current legislationforeign suppliers are often exemptedfrom VAT This provides incentives forsuppliers to locate abroad and givesan unfair competitive advantage toforeign suppliers. Therefore, thereseems to be a growing tendencytowards applying taxation in the placeof consumption. Given thedisappearance of intermediaries whopreviously collected the VAT, it is notclear yet who should collect the taxesnow. The EU has proposed that theforeign supplier should register in aEU country for VAT purposes. TheUnited States, being the largestexporter and a net exporter of e-commerce, tends towards an origin-based consumption tax. Furthermore,it has little interest in collecting VAT forEuropean tax authorities on their e-commerce goods and services exportsto the EU. Developing countries, whichwill be largely e-commerce importersin the short to medium run, would

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

18

have an interest in not eroding theirtax base by switching to an origin-basedtax system.

Is my website a taxable business?

As far as income taxation is concerned,much of the debate has focused onthe issue of the "permanentestablishment" (PE) of a business. Thiswill determine to what extent anInternet-based business will be subjectto taxation. The definition of PE isimportant for countries that applysource-based income taxation (themajority of countries). Agreement hasbeen reached at the OECD on thefollowing issues: (i) a website by itselfcannot constitute a PE; (ii) a web serverhosted by an Internet service provider(ISP) cannot constitute a fixed place ofbusiness if the ISP does not carry onbusiness through the server; (iii) a webserver can constitute a fixed place ofbusiness and thus a PE if it is owned bya business that carries on business

through the server; and (iv) ISPs cannotbe PEs of the businesses whosewebsites they host. Developingcountries, even if they are not part ofan OECD agreement on Internettaxation, should use the agreed-uponrules as a basis for adjusting their ownlegislation. Since they are net importersof e-commerce, they will run a greaterrisk of losing revenues if traditionalimports are replaced by onlinedelivery, and should thus start todevelop efficient tax collection systemsfor e-commerce.

No customs duties on digitalgoods: a fiscal concern?

In accordance with a WTOmoratorium, no customs duties shouldbe imposed on electronictransmissions. While a large numberof (mainly developed) countries preferto extend the moratorium, somedeveloping countries have expressedconcern about potential revenue losses

resulting from uncollected bordertariffs. The question of how to definedigital goods (books, CDs, software,music etc.) - as goods or as services -has held up progress on e-commercein the WTO. While border tariffs arenormally collected on goods, they arenot collected on services. Developingcountries have therefore raised thequestion of potential fiscal implicationsif digital products are imported duty-free. UNCTAD calculations show apotential fiscal loss of approximatelyUS$ 1 billion on border tariffs and US$8 billion if other import duties(including VAT) are taken intoconsideration. While these amountsare small relative to total governmentrevenue, absolute losses from forgonetariff revenues are much higher in thedeveloping countries, owing to theirhigher tariffs applied to digital products.

Endnotes

* Citations omitted

LLLLLEXICONEXICONEXICONEXICONEXICON OFOFOFOFOF C C C C CYBERLAWYBERLAWYBERLAWYBERLAWYBERLAW T T T T TERMINOLOGYERMINOLOGYERMINOLOGYERMINOLOGYERMINOLOGY

(This will be a regular section to acquaint lawpractitioners, students and researchers onlegal terms in IT law preferably from the

Philippine context).

"Computer" refers to any device orapparatus which, by electronic,electromechanical or magneticimpulse, or by other means, is capableof receiving, recording, transmitting,storing, processing, retrieving, orproducing information, data, figures,symbols or other modes of writtenexpression according to mathematicaland logical rules or of performing anyone or more of those functions. (Sec.5 (b), R.A. No. 8792)

"Information and communicationsystem" refers to a system intendedfor and capable of generating,sending, receiving, storing or otherwiseprocessing electronic data messages

or electronic documents and includesthe computer system or other similardevice by or in which data is recordedor stored and any procedures relatedto the recording or storage ofelectronic data message or electronicdocument. (Sec. 5 (d), R.A. No. 8792)

"Ephemeral electroniccommunication" refers to telephoneconversations, text messages,chatroom sessions, streaming audio,streaming video, and other electronicforms of communication the evidenceof which is not recorded or retained.(Sec. 1 (k), Rule 2, Rules on ElectronicEvidence)

"Optical Media" refers to the storagemedium or device in whichinformation, including sounds and/ orimages, or software code, has been

stored, either by mastering and/orreplication, which may be accessedand read using a lens scanningmechanism employing a high intensitylight source such as a laser or any suchother means as may be developed inthe future. (Sec. 3 (i), R.A. No. 9239)

"Electronic Document" refers toinformation or the representation ofinformation, data, figures, symbols orother modes of written expression,described or however represented, bywhich a right is established or anobligation extinguished, or by which afact may be proved and affirmed,which is received, recorded,transmitted, stored, processed,retrieved or produced electronically.(Sec. 5 (f), R.A. No. 8792)

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

19

OT he Philippine IT LawJournal welcomes the submission ofcontributions with a view to publication,which should be sent to:

The Board of EditorsThe Philippine QuarterlyIT Law JournalArellano University School of LawTaft Avenue, corner Menlo StreetPasay City 1300 PhilippinesTels. (2) 404-3089 to 91Fax. (2) 521-4691eMail: itlawjournal@arellanolaw.net

as should all correspondence, books forreview, orders and othercommunications.

The Board of Editors will only considermaterial which complies with thefollowing:

1. The submission is an original,unpublished work which is notbeing submitted for publicationelsewhere.

2. The manuscript must be typed,double-spaced, on one side only ofa uniform sized paper, and beaccompanied by the text on floppydisk in a recognized software.

3. Footnotes must be numberedconsecutively throughout the article.

4. Authors may use graphs, tables,figures, or mathematics only whenits application is necessary forachieving the stated objective of thepaper. When mathematics is used,the necessity for doing so shouldbe explained, and the major stepsin the argument and the conclusionsmade intelligible to a non-mathematical reader.

Authors are asked to refer to a recentissue of the Philippine IT Law Journal forstyle. More detailed guidance will be senton request. Authors are encouraged tocarefully edit their own works.

Contributions are Welcome

91 N91 N91 N91 N91 NEWEWEWEWEW L L L L LAWYERSAWYERSAWYERSAWYERSAWYERS FROMFROMFROMFROMFROM THETHETHETHETHE

AAAAARELLANORELLANORELLANORELLANORELLANO U U U U UNIVERSITYNIVERSITYNIVERSITYNIVERSITYNIVERSITY S S S S SCHOOLCHOOLCHOOLCHOOLCHOOL OFOFOFOFOF L L L L LAWAWAWAWAW

n 2 April 2004, the Supreme Court released the namesof 1,108 successful examinees of the 2003 Bar Examinations, representing20.71 percent of the total examinees. The 91 new lawyers from the ArellanoUniversity School of Law are:

1. AGACITA, Romeo Jr. E.2. AGBAYANI, Rommel Chrisante F.3. AGUILAR, Jose Jr. P.4. AGUIRRE, Ma. Luisa L.5. ALAMADA-MAGAYANES, Sharon M.6. ALONDAY, Pearl Joy A.7. APARICIO, Romel A.8. AQUINO, Robertson R.9. BABANO, Wilfred S.10. BARRION, Zennia C.11. CABASUG, Elegio D.12. CADER, Sittie Phamy G.13. CALINGASAN, Karlo L.14. CASTRO, Joselito C.15. CAYABYAB, Odgie C.16. CHUN, Ian Steven C.17. CLEMENTE, Clemente M.18. COTAY, Cathleen Elizabeth L.19. DELA CRUZ, Remelito M.20. DE LEON, Sheila B.21. DELMORO, Joebil B.22. DEOCAMPO, Leo B.23. DIZON, Clarence S.24. DUMBRIQUE-VILLAVICENCIO, Rose

Anne B.25. DY, Dennis L.26. FAJARDO, Agapito E.27. FAJARDO, Leilanie R.28. FAJARDO, Rey Christopher D.29. FALCOTELO, Rochelle Ann L.30. FULTON, Kenneth P.31. GALICIA, Noel M.32. GAMBOL, Jessica A.33. GAYAPA, Kristine Marie Therese O.34. GENESELA, Cliff Richard E.35. GIANAN, Fredeswindo Jr. M.36. GOLEZ, Norman T.37. GRIMALDO, Rodel R.38. GUERZON, Elmer Joseph R.39. GUILLERMO, Adela S.40. GUILLERMO, Maria Vida M.41. HERNANDEZ, Arsenio Jr.42. IROG, Arnel C.43. JACOB, Louella C.44. JAMORA, Alfred Joseph T.45. JIMENO, Jennifer A.

46. KATIGBAK, George S.47. LABO, Eduardo Jr. L.48. LAVARIAS, Lope Jr. A.49. LILAGAN, Freddie V.50. LIWANAG, Geraldine C.51. MACALDO, Felipe Jr. E.52. MACARAIG, Allan Dexter P.53. MACARAYA, Alan Felix Jr. J.54. MACARINE, Ingemar P.55. MADELAR, Ma. Ramona P.56. MANAIG, Michelle C.57. MARASIGAN, Arth Jhun A.58. MARIANO, Rizaldy C.59. MARTINEZ, Michelle D.60. MELLA, Danny J.61. MIRABUENO, Marion Gay C.62. MONTEFALCO, Romeo Jr. M.63. NAIG, Franklin A.64. NATIVIDAD, Ma. Teresita A.65. NAVARRO, Dexter L.66. OCAMPO, John Vincent P.67. PASCUA, Edward S.68. PUNCIA, Maria Alma Corazon H.69. RAMA, Lorelee Anne Y.70. RAMOS, Regina Paz A.71. RAMOSO, Ian P.72. REYES, Maria Rehgeis C.73. RIVERA, Neil Randy P.74. SACRO, Roderick P.75. SALGADO, Alwin N.76. SALVADOR, Barry Boy A.77. SANTILLAN-VISTO, Sta. Cecilia M.78. SAYAGO, Felix S.79. SIAYNGCO, Jeremy C.80. SINGZON, Loralaine S.81. SOLIS, Ronald L.82. SOMERA, Dencio Jr. G.83. SUBIERA, Cielita S.84. TAGALICUD, Nonilon L.85. TALON, Mae Antonnette F.86. TAN, Dante E.87. TENORIO, Grachielle E.88. TOBIAS, Ludovino Joseph Augusto Jr. L.89. TORRES, Francisco Jr. E.90. TUAZON-ALBERTO, Cristina T.91. ZAPANTA, Jason J.

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

20

<< [9] Optical Media Disc

<< [24] IT Law Society

<< [24] e-Law Center

the maximum and fine not exceedingthree million pesos. Those who buy andsell pirated discs shall face at least oneyear but not more than three years ofimprisonment and a fine of not lessthan one hundred thousand pesos butnot exceeding five hundred thousandpesos. Employment of armedresistance will double the impositionof penalty of uniform imprisonment tothree years but not more that six yearsand a fine not exceeding one millionfive hundred pesos. [ 7 ]

The large-scale piracy in the country,which completely disregards the rightsof the creators and performers of filmsand musical recording, is a stumblingblock to the economic growth of thecountry. Hopefully, the Optical MediaAct will serve as an adequate legalsupport for the enforcement ofintellectual property rights in thePhilippines.

Endnotes

1. 2003 Special 201 Report, United StatesTrade Representative (1 May 2003).Accessed 9 April 2004. http://w w w. u s t r. g o v / r e p o r t s / 2 0 0 3 /specia1301.htm

2. RA No. 9239, Section 2, 2nd paragraph3. Ibid, Sec. 64. Ibid., Sec. 135. Ibid., Sec. 186. Ibid, Sec. 3, par. f7. Ibid., Sec. 19

· Regularly organize and holdlectures, trainings, seminars,conferences or presentations ontechnology law, particularly tomake its students, faculty andgraduates, and the academiccommunity at-large always attunedto, and be recognized as a leaderin, legal developments in this field.

· Assist in the development of anappropriate infrastructure to makethe law school the mosttechnology-friendly institution inthe field of law by promoting andenhancing its on-line legalresearch and interactive legalinstructions capabilities.

· Establish appropriate linkages withother institutions, organizations, orbodies, in and out of the country,with the end of view of promotingcommon objectives, sharingresources, study exchange, andinstitution of networks along thelines of technology law particularlyas it affects the Philippine legalcommunity.

· Generate grants, sponsorship, orfunds to subsidize specific studies,research, projects or investigationson a distinct or difficult aspect oftechnology law.

The Center was organized on 22November 2002 and is headed byProfessor Jaime N. Soriano, acyberlaw practitioner.

<< [24] e-Law Center

abreast with the developments in thisfield. Lastly, the Advocacy Group willpursue policy initiatives and advocacieson the development of information andcommunications technology as theyaffect Philippine laws and law practice,including the crafting of proactiveproposals for legislative or regulatoryaction. The activities of these groupswould be under the direction, auspicesand thrusts of the e-Law Center.

redelegations. It uses RFC 1591 [ 9 ] asa basis, along with ICP-1, [ 10 ] and theICANN Governmental AdvisoryCommittee Principles for theDelegation and Administration ofCountry Code Top Level Domains(GAC Principles).

Global issue whether nationalgovernments or the private sectorshould control the Internet

The issue whether government(s) orthe private sector should control theInternet is not locally isolated. InDecember 2003, United Nations (UN)member countries requested the UNSecretary General to put together apanel of experts from government,industry and the public to study whoshould control the regulation of theInternet. Some developing countrieshave urged the UN to assume controlover many of ICANN's primaryfunctions, but US and Europeanleaders have urged the UN to affirmICANN's role. The high-tech summitreconvenes in Tunisia in 2005.

Endnotes

1. It must be noted, however, that theInternet is based on IP addresses, andnot on domain names, and thus everyWeb server requires a Domain Name

System (DNS) server to translate domainnames into IP addresses so that suchcomputers in the Internet may be ableto communicate with each other.

2. Identifiers for computers or devices on aTransmission Control Protocol/InternetProtocol [TCP/IP] network, the formatof which is a numeric address written asfour numbers – each between 0 and255 – separated by periods. Definitionsfor “domain name”, “IP addresses,”“TLD,” and “URL” acquired or retrievedon 28 March 2004 fromwww.webopedia.com. Copyright, 2004Jupitermedia . All rights reserved.Reprinted with permission from http://www.internet.com.

3. ICANN website. Retrieved on 28 March2004 . www. icann.org/general/

4. Article 520 to 522 of the Civil Code ofthe Philippines; Sections 121 to 160 ofthe Philippine Intellectual PropertyCode (R.A. No. 8293).

5. Neustar website. Retrieved on 28 March2004 . http://www.neustar.us/

6. Policies, DotPH website. Retrieved 28March 2004. http://www.domains.ph/Policies4.asp

7. .com, .net registration may be as low asPhP 800 per year (or US$14.28 as oflate March 2004 exchange rates) while.ph remains at US$70 per two years.

8. News, dotPH website. Retrieved on 28March 2004. http://www.domains.ph/n e w s . a s p ? m o r e = h t t p : / /registrarnews.ph/dotphnews/archives/000063.html#more

9. “Request for Comments.” RFC 1591,entitled “Domain Name SystemStructure and Delegation” was issuedby Dr. Jon Postel on March 1994.

10. Entitled “Internet Domain Name SystemStructure and Delegation” (ccTLDAdministration and Delegation, May

1999).

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

21

<< [3] Mercantile Law Bar Exam

<< [8] Jurisprudence in Cyberspace

Endnotes

1. Definitions for “hack,” “crack,” and“hacker ”acquired or retrieved on 2 April2004 from www.webopedia.com.Copyright, 2004 Jupitermedia . All rightsreserved. Reprinted with permissionfrom http://www.internet.com.

2. Section 185, R.A. No. 8293 provides inpart, “Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work.— xxx Decompilation, which isunderstood here to be the reproductionof the code and translation of the formsof the computer program to achieve theinter-operability of an independentlycreated computer program with otherprograms may also constitute fair use. ”

3. Section 33 (a), RA No. 8792.4. Windows 95, 98, ME, XP Home, NT,

2000, XP Professional are trademarks ofthe Microsoft Corporation. On the otherhand, visit www.linux.org for informationon Linux.

5. The last option, however, is not availableunder Windows 98.

6. To do so, within the word processing(Word) or spreadsheet (Excel)application, click on “File,” then “SaveAs.” When the Save As dialog boxappears, click on “Tools“on the tool baron top right, and click “GeneralOptions...” on the drop-down menuappearing. A Save dialog box willappear. Key-in a password on the boxunder “File Sharing Option”, “Passwordto open.” A Confirm Password dialogbox will appear, key-in the samepassword. The file saved would only beopened if the password so determinedwould be keyed-in.

condition for the admission ofdocuments.

xxx xxx xxx

Not one of the 18 print-outcopies submitted by petitionerswas ever signed, either by thesender or the receiver. There isthus no guarantee that themessage sent was the samemessage received.

xxx xxx xxx

Neither were the print-outscertified or authenticated by anycompany official who couldproperly attest that these camefrom IBM's computer system or -the data stored in the system werenot and/or could not have beentampered with before the somewere printed out. xxxx"

<< [13] Spamming the World

unpleasant and annoying hasjumped from 70% last June to77% now. At this point, 86% ofernail users report some levelof distress caused by spam." [11

Admittedly, legislation alone cannotstem the flood of spam in electronicmailboxes. "There's no silver bullet,"Roger Dean, founder of EEMA, toldElectricNews.Net. "The solution is acombination of legislation, technologyand educated users." [ 12 ]

Anti-spam law in the Philippines?

The spam issue in the Philippines isalmost insignificant because thenumber of Filipinos hooked up to theInternet is sparse compared to othercountries. Nevertheless, the Philippinegovernment should also take up armsagainst spam in order to alleviate anycost that businesses and individualsmay bear as a result of the malpractice.It is preferable if Congress adopts anopt-in policy. Generally, spams thatclogged the end-user's inbox areunwanted and to make the receptionof spams automatic will only give thespammer the freedom to send onemessage after another should therecipient opt to unsubscribe. Thisdefeats the purpose of the law whichwas to save the end-user cost and time.The possibility that the end-user willspend more time unsubscribing to thespams should be avoided. Anotheradvantage of an opt-in policy is that itcan minimize the possibility of a minor'sexposure to adult materials becausemajority of spams sent arepornographic.

Sparnmers must provide trueaddresses to which the recipients willbe able to send their refusal to receiveany further spam. This is to make surethat the end-user is not robbed of hisright to make a choice. If anunscrupulous spammer provides afalse address, the end-user will beforced to bear the continual receptionof message he no longer wants.

Those two features of an anti-spammeasure are most relevant for now.

Endnotes

1. Southwick, Scott and Falk, J.D.(1998).The Net Abuse FAQ. Retrieved on 31March 2004. http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html

2. Barton, Lindsay. Spain. Retrieved on 2April 2004, from AustralianGovernment: National Office for theInformation Economy. http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/confidence/Improving/spam.htm

3. Studies Find More Spam Leaves BadTaste In Inboxes(30 March 2004).Retrieved on 2 April 2004 fromWBALChannel.com http://www.thewbalchannel .com/news/2961291/detail.html

4. The Problem. Retrieved on 2 April 2004from CAUSE Coalition AgainstUnsolicited Commercial E-mail http://www.cauce.org/about/problem.shtml

5. Ibid.6. Junk e-mail runs rampant despite Can

Spam Act (25 March 2004) Retrieved on2 April 2004, from Yahoo! News http://story.news.yahoo com/news?tmpl=story&cid=711&ncid=711&e=2&u=/usatoday/ 20040325/tc_usatoday/junkemailrunsrampantdespitecanspanract

7. Carter, Richard (27 January 2004). No'silver bullet' for the monster of junkemail. Retrieved on 2 April 2004 fromEUobserver. http://w w w . e u o b s e r v e r . c o m /index.phtml?aid=14227

8. Williams, Martin (15 September 2003)Spam falls after South Korea strengthense-mail law. Retrieved on 29 March 2004,from InfoWorld. http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/15/HNkoreaspam_1.html

9. Perrone, Jane (24 July 2003). AustraliaTries to Can Spam. Retrieved on 29March 2004 from Guardian Unlimited.http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/spam/story/0,13427,1005158,00.html

10. AFP (22 March 2004). Asian countriesjoin US-led coalition against spa,.Retrieved on 2 April 2004 fromsmh.com.au. http://www.smh.com.au/a r t i c l e s / 2 0 0 4 / 0 3 / 2 2 /1079823278794.html

11. Sinrod, Eric J. (25 March 2004). Junkemail runs rampant despite CAN-SpamAct. Retrieved on 2 April 2004 fromUSATODAY.com. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2004-03-25-sinrod_x.htm

12. Clark, Mathew (5 November 2003). Nosilver bullet for spam, says expert.Retrieved on 2 April 2004 fromelectricnews.net. http://www.enn.ie/news.html?code=9380566

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

22

L

LegalWeb

(This section is a continuing series of articlesfeaturing various websites which may berelevant to legal practitioners, legalresearchers, and law students.)

awphil is a legal web siteproject of Arellano Law Foundationthru its Information Technology Center.Arellano Law Foundation is a non-stocknon-profit institution specializing inlegal education. Realizing the essenceof making the law accessible andunderstandable not only to the legalcommunity but to all sectors of society,the Foundation has embarked todigitize and make available throughthe Internet all Philippine laws, statutes,jurisprudence, presidential decrees,executive orders, administrativeorders, lawyers' tools and other legalmaterials.

Hence, the LawPhil Project of theArellano Law Foundation(www.lawphil.net) is one of the moreambitious projects in the legal field thathave been initiated to provide lawpractitioners and law students with toolsfor legal research. It is so far the mostcomprehensive repository of Philippinejurisprudence and laws.

Composition, structure, and lookand feel

The website is encoded according toHTML 4.0 standards, with javascripts,imagemaps, and standard web imagefiles (.gif and .jpg). The website isstructured in a three-panel frameset:a masthead, a navigation bar, and themain body itself. The framesetstructure allows flexibility in the gradualexpansion of the website. The websiteis composed of 11 sections: (1) the

LAWPHIL.NET: A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTIONby Carlyn Marie Bernadette C. Ocampo-Guerrero and Michael Vernon M. Guerrero

Constitution, (2) Statutes, (3) ExecutiveIssuances, (4) Jurisprudence, (5)Courts, (6) Administrative Agencies,(7) Congress, (8) News and LegalUpdates, (9) International Law, (10)Legal Links, (11) and Lawyer's Tools.Sections 1 to 4, and 9 contain the bulkof relevant laws, treaties andjurisprudence. Sections 5 to7 areinformative as to the kind of politicaland legal system that exists in thePhilippines.

The section on the "Constitution"contains all Philippine Constitutions: theMalolos, the 1935, the 1973, and the1987 Constitutions. "Statutes" containssubsections pertaining to various kindsof statutes in different era in Philippinehistory - Acts, Commonwealth Acts,Republic Acts, Batas Pambansa andPresidential Decrees. "ExecutiveIssuance" contains the subsectionsExecutive Orders, General Orders,Memorandum Orders, andProclamation. "Jurisprudence" containsdecisions and resolutions promulgatedfrom 1901 to 2003, as of this writing.The section on "International Law"contains the subsections Treaties,International Agreements, InternationalOrganizations, and InternationalCourts.

"Courts" contains information involvingthe Philippine Court System, Rules ofCourt, Jurisdiction, Legal Ethics, BarMatters, Roll of Attorneys and theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines; while"Administrative Agencies" containsinformation pertaining to theConstitutional Commissions (TheCommission on Audit, Commission onCivil Service, and Commission onElections), the National Commissions

(Commission on Human Rights,National Commission on IndigenousPeople, and the National Commissionon the Filipino Language), the Officeof the President, the Office of the VicePresident, the various departments, theBases Conversion DevelopmentAuthority (BCDA), Social SecuritySystem (SSS), Government ServiceInsurance System (GSIS), Housing andLand Use Regulatory Board, Housingand Urban Development CoordinatingCouncil, Pag-IBIG Fund, Career-Executive Service Board, Local WaterUtilities Administration, NationalCommission for Culture and the Arts,National Youth Commission (NYC),Professional Regulation Commission,and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Thesection on "Congress" includes thedirectory, officers and committees andthe rules of both the Senate and theHouse of Representatives.

"News and Legal Updates" includesLegal News, Current Issues, LatestLaws, and Latest Supreme CourtDecisions; while "Legal links" includessubsections on General LegalResources, Online Law Libraries,Online Publications, GovernmentResources, General Resources, andInternational Resources. Lastly, thesection on "Lawyers' Tools" includesLegal Forms, Legal Dictionaries, andMiscellaneous items.

The website's look and feel correspondsto the familiar online experience oneacquires when browsing through thecentral repository of Supreme Courtissuances, the Philippine SupremeCourt website(www.supremecourt.gov.ph).

The P

hilip

pin

e Q

uarte

rly IT La

w Jo

urn

al :: V

olu

me 1

, Num

ber 1

23

Development

The development of the site is clearlyone that is aggressive and distributed.It is aggressive in such a way that thesite has at least 41,400 site elementsby October 2003, a leap from 21,700site elements existing March 2003, ora 198 percent increase in site contentfor a period of only seven months. It isdistributed as additional content is beinggenerated to include more recentlaws, jurisprudence, etc. withoutcompromising the inclusion of olderlaws, jurisprudence, etc. which havenot been previously included in therepository. It is likely that the inclusionof older laws and jurisprudence,promulgate for a span of a hundredyears would be completed within acouple of years or so, considering thepace of development as to theconsolidation of legal content.

Surfers' comments

"The site is user-friendly. The mainpage readily shows the laws that havebeen recently passed, as well as thecurrent legal issues. There is a searchtool which I can use to locate certainissues or topics. The scroll bars on theleft side of the page which include theConstitution, statutes, executiveissuances, jurisprudence, courts,administrative agencies, congress,news and legal updates, Internationallaw, legal links and lawyer's tools,encompass various subject matters,though not as comprehensive as awell-known CD based research tool,in general. As to the design, it is simpleyet appealing, specially the photos thatare captured on the front page.Lawphil.net, as a whole, is a helpfuland easy access research tool whichwill definitely be of use to me as I hurdlemy remaining years in law school." -MI

"The site is a step in the right direction,considering that the website providesthe ordinary surfer a whole range oflegal resources, without fees, and thusprovides a means to avoid theinvocation of 'ignorantia legis non

The homepage of the LawPHil Project (http://www.lawphil.net).The website was launched in year 2000.

excusat.' It is aconcrete step ofbringing the law tothe people. Still,by way ofp r o v i d i n gunsolicited advise,the search toolmay be a featurethat needs to beimproved on, tohighlight thewords beinglooked up(although this isavailable throughthe use of the site'scached pages in avery popularsearch engine,but the starting point resulting to thiskind of search right now is through thesearch engine and not the website),or to find cases corresponding to theproprietary citations of casecompilations of the two biggest lawbook publishers in the country, amongothers. Inter-linked pages, whereincases are linked to the cases and lawscited are linked, are also suggested.These, of course, after the site hascompleted the incorporation of mostof the older laws and jurisprudenceinto the website." -RS

"Quite inconspicuously, with the adventof the computer age, the endeavorsinvolved in the justice system took anabrupt giant leap from manual tomechanical. The justice system asunderstood five (5) years ago or so isvery much different from how it is now.The element which greatly affected thischange is the birth of cyber-legalresearch tools which are made readilyavailable in just a click of the mouse.With the proliferation of these researchtools, the quality of legal services thatlawyers cater to litigants, the quality ofthe decisions promulgated by courts,the legal knowledge of the "laymen"(litigant or otherwise); and the legalresearch methods for public or privateconsumption, to name a few, have allbeen significantly enhanced. With thismodern method, we may call what we

have now as a "modern justice system"."In the Philippines, one of theforerunners of "cyber-legalinformation dissemination" is theLawphil.net. Among all of the availablelocal websites concerned with the sameobjectives, Lawphil has an idiosyncraticbrand of having the most updatedmaterials as far as Supreme Courtdecisions are concerned. This positivedistinction has been brought about bythe ingenious idea of its creators to startcompiling these Court decisionsstarting, and concentrating more, fromthe more recent rulings, while striving,in equal pace, to complete the files ofthe earlier ones. This is just a brilliantway to start establishing the site for afterall, only subsequent rulings supersedethe rest. Lawphil's layout is justsystematic and user-friendly. Even first-timers find using it orderly andcomprehensible. Laws and statutesupdates and segments on current legalissues are very instructive andenlightening.

"The publication and distribution oflegal information, in forms of laws,jurisprudence and legal opinions, etc.,(local or global), generated by Lawphilhas rendered the maxim "ignorantialegis neminem excusat" almost mootand academic, at least as far as thosewho have comparatively usual accessthereto are concerned." -JL

The P

hili

ppin

e Q

uart

erly

IT L

aw

Journ

al

:: V

olu

me 1

, N

um

ber

1

24

TT

The Center and the Society

The global development in informationtechnology resulting from thephenomenal convergence ofcomputers and communications hasbrought about a new face andchallenges in law practice and legaleducation. As information technologydramatically affects the way peoplelive, it also affects in the samedegree almost every aspect ofexisting legal systems andrelationships. Needless to say,the law must be technologyneutral and must always adaptto the needs of the times.

Governments, internationalbodies, and the general publicall over the world have startedto prepare for this technologyrevolution, so to speak. Manylaw schools and bar associationskicked-off the formation of unitsdedicated to informationtechnology developments withintheir respective institutions. In thePhilippines, much has to bedesired in this area from the academiccommunity because of its strongadherence to the highly conservativeand traditional approach to legaleducation. Unfortunately, the paradigmshift is inevitable.

In the light of the foregoingimperatives, the Arellano UniversitySchool of Law caused the creation ofthe "e-Law Center", a body, functioningwithin its organizational framework, totake the lead within the academic circlein the areas of research, policyadvocacy, and legal education thataddresses the developments intechnology law.

The Center has the following objectives:

DIGITAL LAW & THE IMPERATIVES

OF THE E-LAW CENTER

by Jaime N. Soriano

· Conduct research and studies inthe field of information andcommunication technology as itaffects the Philippine legal systemincluding the monitoring, critiqueand publication of papers of globaland local developments in thisarea.

· Maintain the most complete,comprehensive, organized, andup-to-date information system,database, and library of resourceson information technology that willcater and be accessible, not onlyto the students and faculty of thelaw school, but also to researchers,policy makers and the public, ingeneral.

· Pursue policy initiatives andadvocacy on the development ofPhilippine law on information andcommunication technologyincluding the crafting of proactiveproposals for legislative orregulatory action.

>> [20] IT Law Society

THE BIRTH OF THE

IT LAW SOCIETYby Carlyn Marie Bernadette C. Guerrero

(From left) Peter Joseph Fauni, Carlyn Marie Bernadette Ocampo-Guerrero, Atty. Jaime Soriano, Ailyn Cortez, Michael VernonGuerrero, and Ma. Cristina Ramos.

>> [20] e-Law Center

he information TechnologyLaw Society (ITLS) is the supportorganization of the e-Law Center ofthe Arellano University School of Law.The Society intends to take a lead rolein promoting growth and developmentof Cyberlaw in the country.

The Society formally convenedon 10 January 2004. Electedofficers of the organization for2004-2005 were: MichaelVernon M. Guerrero,president; Carlyn MarieBernadette C.OcampoGuerrero, secretary;Ailyn L Cortez, treasurer:Charilyn A. Dee, webdevelopment head; PeterJoseph L. Fauni, publicationhead; Ma. Cristina A. Ramos,seminars head; and Aileen T.Forteza, advocacy head. AttyJaime N. Soriano, ExecutiveDirector of the e-Law Center,is the organization's adviser.

The organization is divided into fourgroups: 1 ) Web Development, 2;Research and Publication, 3) Seminarsand Education, and 4) Advocacy. TheWeb Development Group will beinvolved in updating, conductingresearches and studies in the field ofinformation technology as it affects thePhilippine legal system. Research andPublication will be engaged in thepublication of papers on global andlocal developments in the field of ITlaw. Seminars and Education will beactive in organizing and holdinglectures, trainings, seminars,conferences or presentations on IT lawto enable law students, faculty andother members of the academiccommunity always attuned to, and