Presidential elections postscript

One month after the elections, during the conference on New Paradigms of Copyrights Protection held in Taipei in June 6, 2004, I was asked repeated questions by participants from other countries on the result of the presidential contest. Much to my embarrassment, I could not give any definite answer because its canvassing by Congress had yet to start at that time. My fellow resource speakers expressed disbelief that the canvassing had not even begun about a month after the election.

During the conference, I delivered the Philippine report that highlighted, among others, a well-developed copyright law system in the Philippines:

1. The Philippines has more than a century or copyright law protection. Our copyright law tradition dates back to the Spanish period when the Spanish law on intellectual property was extended to the Philippine Islands by royal decree in 1887.

2. As early as 1972, and long before Microsoft became a byword, the Philippines had the distinction or expressly giving copyright protection to computer programs.

3. As early as 1965, a collecting society for musical composers and publishers was organized in the Philippines and Japan is the only other country in Asia that preceded us in organizing a similar society.

4. We have pertinent laws governing contributory infringement in copyright infringement cases.

5. The Civil Code provisions pertaining to contracts or adhesion may be made applicable to "shrink wrap licenses" found in software programs.

6. Unlike other countries, the Philippine Intellectual Property Code expressly states that the use of intellectual property bears a "social function."

7. The Philippines has acceded to the WIPO Copyright Treaty that calls for protection to electronic rights management information.

As I see it, the legal infrastructure protecting copyrights and other intellectual properties in the Philippines is far more developed than those found in most other Asian countries.

However, when one compares our country’s economic development with that of our Asian neighbors, it makes one wonder and say why the Philippines has not achieved the industrial development our Asian neighbors have achieved. This is quite puzzling considering that the Philippines was way ahead in protecting intellectual property rights than most of our Asian neighbors. The intellectual property system is supposed to be a tool for attracting and developing in the country the desired foreign and local technologies that will lead to industrial development.

On hindsight, it dawned on me that the questions during the conference on the result of the presidential contest by the foreign participants and other disbelief on the delayed canvassing provide a clue as to why industrial development has lagged in our country despite our early establishment of an adequate intellectual property system. The foreign perception that our political system is flawed might have contributed to the lack of interest among foreign intellectual property owners in looking at the Philippines as a possible investment area. Political stability is a key factor that will give foreign investors the impression that there is good governance in the country, our laws will be enforced and intellectual property rights will be respected.

It takes more than an impressive legal infrastructure to attract intellectual property owners. At the very least, we need the ability to answer with certitude the result of the presidential contest.

(Atty. Fidel is a Partner of ACCRALAW. He can be contacted at tel. no. 830-8000 and e-mail address [email protected])