Thursday, June 2, 2016

CHR on Kidapawan dispersal: Both protesters, gov’t forces at fault



"x x x.

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) found that both protesters and government officials have erred during the violent dispersal of farmers in Kidapawan City, North Cotabato last April 1 which left two farmers dead, two police officers seriously wounded and scores of farmers and police officers injured.

In a 46-page report released on Wednesday, the CHR noted that the protest was sparked by the "farmers' right to ask for and claim their right to receive rice from the government" as their crops withered due to the harsh El Niño weather phenomenon, compounded by the failure of the provincial government led by North Cotabato Governor Emmylou Talino-Mendoza to release food supplies despite the availability of resources.
READ: Cops, farmers clash in Kidapawan; 2 dead
"Access to rice by the farmers-protesters was not timely addressed. Neither was a gradual nor prompt, much less sustainable, response from the government felt by the farmers-protesters. The State, as duty-bearer, failed to address the hunger problem of the farmers-protesters and their families, who are holders of the right to adequate," the CHR said in its report.
Meanwhile, the CHR also cited evidence proving that some protesters were induced to join the rally "through deceit by the organizers and 'unknown persons' who went to various areas to persuade people to join the protest." It lamented that such "instrumentalization" of the poor should be stopped.
"People cannot be viewed as mere tools for the promotion of an agenda, propaganda or for a campaign. Their free consent, based upon full information of all the purposes as well as manner of the proposed action, must at all times be obtained," it said.
The rights body also noted that while the organizers did not apply for a rally permit in accordance with BP 880 and blocked the national highway, the protesting farmers were "acting to avoid an evil or injury to themselves" as they are suffering from hunger.
"Though it can be argued that the farmers-protesters' assembly blocked the highway and, in effect, curtailed the use of the same by the public, the protesting farmers were hungry---their families were in danger of suffering illnesses and even death from starvation."
READ: 6,000 North Cotabato farmers block highway, demand food, farm aid; cops blame activists
"At their current state, it can be said that the farmers-protesters, as rights-holders, were acting to avoid an evil or injury to themselves and their families and the protest action was their desperate move to call on government to immediately fulfill its obligation to provide assistance in the time of calamity," the report read.
'PNP fired first shot'
CHR's investigation found that violence sparked after the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) dispersed the farmers-protesters, prompting the latter to retaliate with rocks.
"It is clear that the violence erupted after the PNP called for the dispersal of the farmers-protesters. It was the dispersal with the use of water cannons initiated by the police that agitated the young men from the group of farmers-protesters to start throwing stones and wood planks at the police," the group said.
With this finding, the CHR slammed the authorities for not implementing "peaceful dispersal, negotiations and maximum tolerance prescribed under the PNP Operations Manual."
They also maintained that nothing can justify PNP's bringing and using weapons during the dispersal.
"Whatever violence may have come from the side of the farmers-protesters, there is no justifying the use by the PNP of firearms, and from all narratives, even those from the witnesses of the PNP itself, it is clear that the PNP fired the first shot, in a situation where they were not even supposed to bring guns," the report read.
It also noted that the PNP erred in using unjustified and excessive force in the arrest and detention of the farmers-protesters.
The CHR concluded that the PNP officers led by the P/SSupt. Alexander C. Tagum and Kidapawan City Chief of Police P/Supt. John Miridel R. Calinga committed civil and political rights violations against the farmers-protesters and innocent civilians.
On the other hand, the CHR called out Kilusang Mambubukid ng Pilipinas Regional Chair Pedro Arnado, Regional Chair, Kilusang Mambubukid ng Pilipinas Cotabato Chairperson Jerry Alborme; and Apo Sanadawa Lumadnong Panaghiusa Chairperson Norma Capuyan for the "instrumentalization" of some farmers-protesters and failing to secure their safety.
The CHR said it will provide financial assistance for the families of the two victims killed and 10 persons injured.
The report will then be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman and the Justice Department, the CHR said. RAM
x x x."
Posted by at

CEGP hits Duterte’s ‘faulty logic’ on media killings



"x x x.

THE College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) on Wednesday expressed its "deepest concerns" after incoming President Rodrigo Duterte made shocking statements on media killings.

"The pronouncement made by President-elect Duterte is a faulty generalization in which he failed to understand how the intensifying culture of impunity perpetuates the killing of journalists and media workers in their line of duty," Marc Lino Abila, CEGP national President.
"It is without denial that as journalists, the job description to expose the truth behind the general scheme of things is above all else," he said.
In a press briefing on Tuesday night, Duterte made a declaration that some journalists were murdered because of corruption.
"Just because you're a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you're a son of a bitch," Duterte said.
"Kaya namamatay kasi nabayaran na they take sides or nasobrahan nila ang atake," he added.
Abila said Duterte's pronouncements showed that he lacked understanding on impunity in the country.
"President-elect Duterte does not grasp the reality behind the unabashed killing of journalists which usually happens when doing their job as the harbingers of news work to expose the malfeasance and corruption plaguing the government in the local and national level," he said.
Abila cited how the outgoing Aquino administration "failed to address such atrocities and instead complained that the media have been nothing but critical of his administration."
CEGP called the attention of President-elect Duterte "to not fail on his duty to protect and uphold the constitutional guarantee to freedom of the press with his hasty generalizations and faulty rhetoric."
"He should be reminded that it is within his responsibility to address the already-worsening culture of impunity in the country," he said.
"The Guild will always stand firm in the frontline of protecting and condemning whatever suppression the campus press and professional media will suffer as this reign of impunity continues," he added.
  x x x."
Posted by at

Duterte’s remarks on media slays could incite attacks on journos – Focap

See - inquirermobile.net/inqsnap/micro/63386





"x x x.

THE recent pronouncements of President-elect Rodrigo Duterte on the killings of journalists "could embolden attacks on the working press," the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (Focap) said on Wednesday.

"While saying that most of the media killings were motivated by corruption involving the victims, the president-elect did not provide evidence that can be used to bring the perpetrators to justice nor condemn the killings to discourage future attacks," Focap said in a statement.
Duterte on Tuesday night said Duterte made a declaration that some journalists were murdered because of corruption.
"Just because you're a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you're a son of a bitch," Duterte said.
Focap said his statement is another chilling reminder that journalists in the Philippines continue to work and live under threat.
"FOCAP agrees that media corruption remains a problem and that it should never be condoned. It can never be accepted, however, as a justification for murder or any form of harassment," the group said.
"Journalists, like all members of society, are constitutionally entitled to due process of law and legal defense when they're confronted by any allegation. Moreover, the state should extend protection to everyone, including journalists," it added.
While the Focap extended its greetings to Duterte, the group urged him to end impunity in the Philippines.
"We enjoin him to take steps to speed up the conviction of all those involved in the largest single attack on media workers in the world rather than issue statements that could encourage acts to muzzle the free press," it said.
On November 23, 2009, fifty-eight people, including thirty two journalists and media workers, were massacred in Maguindanao province.
x x x."
Posted by at

National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) condemns Duterte; same with Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).



"x x x.

Duterte triggers outrage

President-elect Rodrigo Duterte's endorsement of killing corrupt journalists has sparked public outrage, fueling fears that it could incite more murders in a nation already listed as one of the world's most dangerous for reporters.
"Even if you're a journalist, you are not exempted from assassination if you're a son of a bitch," Duterte told reporters in Davao City on Tuesday when asked how he would address the problem of media killings in the Philippines after a reporter was shot dead in Manila last week.
He said there was justification for killing journalists who took bribes or engaged in other corrupt activities, but "if you are an upright journalist, nothing will happen to you."
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) said it was appalled by the Davao mayor's comments justifying media assassinations by "playing the corruption card."
Ryan Rosauro, NUJP chair, said in a statement that while the group recognized corruption as one of the most pressing problems facing the Philippine press, "it is one thing to recognize a possible reason for murder; it is a totally different thing to present this as a justification for taking life."
"Duterte tries to explain his thesis by claiming assassination is retribution from private individuals unjustly pilloried by errant journalists. He could not be farther from the truth," Rosauro said.
Accused from gov't
"While there may be instances where private individuals may have sought revenge against journalists for soiling their reputations, the data show that of the handful of media killings that have actually made it to the courts, the accused are invariably from the government---elected officials, government executives or members of the security services---and invariably accused of corruption," he said.
"We also stress that journalists were killed because of their work in exposing corruption and malfeasance in the government. Hence, no matter the weaknesses of Philippine media, it will be a major factor in any effort to cleanse the government of the scourge of graft and corruption," he added.
The NUJP cited some of the most prominent cases, such as the murders of Edgar Damalerio of Pagadian City, Marlene Esperat of Tacurong City, and Gerry Ortega of Puerto Princesa City, and, the "most heinous of all," the Nov. 23, 2009, massacre in  Maguindanao province, where 32 of the 58 victims were media workers.
At least 75 journalists have been killed since 1992, making the Philippines the second-deadliest country for journalists, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).
"What he (Duterte) has done with these irresponsible comments is give security officials the right to kill for acts that they consider defamation," the CPJ's Southeast Asian representative, Shawn Crispin, told Agence France-Presse from Bangkok.
"This is one of the most outrageous statements we have ever heard from a president in the Philippines," Crispin said.
Malacañang reminded Duterte that "it is the duty of the government to arrest, prosecute and punish those responsible for violence against members of the media."
"We recognize the vital role played by journalists as purveyors of information in a democratic society. As citizens, they have a fundamental right to due process and equal protection of the laws of the land," Presidential Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said in a statement.
"Hence, we deplore the proposition that some journalists may have been assaulted or killed in view of their alleged involvement in media corruption," Coloma said.
The Center for International Law (Centerlaw), a nonprofit dedicated to the promotion and free expression in the Philippines and Asia, said Duterte's remark "will only serve to embolden, rather than deter, those who kill without compunction."
"He only shows a cynical attitude toward what is a serious concern to the international community and a scourge to any society founded on democratic ideals," said Centerlaw executive director Romel Regalado Bagares.
Still a crime
In a statement, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility said Duterte "was correct in saying that irresponsible, biased, paid-for reporting and comment do lead to a journalist's being killed. But the killing of anyone is nevertheless still a crime, and it doesn't matter whether the victim is a journalist or not."
Francis Allan Angelo, president of the Iloilo Press Club, described the mayor's statement as "crass and irresponsible, to a point that it could be interpreted as an overt approval of media harassment and killings."
"Many of the slain journalists were only doing their jobs and died fighting for just cause. And even if they did something wrong, they do not deserve to be killed," said Glenda Sologastoa, NUJP-Iloilo president.
Silencing media
Vicky Arnaiz, vice president of NUJP-Leyte, said the statement was shocking and could be used as a license to silence and kill members of the media.
"We are in for silencing the media. President-elect Duterte's statement could incite more murders. Any assassination is not justified. It's an atrocious statement coming from a president against the media," Arnaiz said.
In Puerto Princesa City in Palawan province, relatives of a slain broadcaster said they were "shocked" by the statement.
"Doc Gerry Ortega was killed for his courage and integrity. He was murdered precisely because he was honorable," his daughter, Michaella, said in a statement issued by his family.
Reynafe Momay-Castillo, whose father was one of the 32 journalists killed in the Maguindanao massacre in 2009, said on a Facebook post: "My dad was not a corrupt journalist. He was killed along with 31 other journalists by just merely covering an election-related [activity]. It is unfair to be branded as such. They were brutally killed."
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) on Wednesday expressed outrage over Duterte's comment on journalists, and urged the media to boycott his press conferences and take legal action against him.
"Not only are these statements unworthy of a president but they could also be regarded as violations of the law on defamation or even the law on inciting hatred and violence,'' said Benjamin Ismail, head of RSF's Asia-Pacific desk.
Duterte should "be pleased by the existence of these laws because without them he would also be exposed to violent repercussions, according to his own words,'' he added.
"We urge organizations that represent the media to not overlook comments of this kind and to bring lawsuits. We also urge the media to boycott the Duterte administration's news conferences until the media community gets a public apology.''  With reports from Nikko Dizon, DJ Yap and Marlon Ramos; Germelina Lacorte, Inquirer Mindanao; Redempto D. Anda, Inquirer Southern Luzon; Nestor P. Burgos Jr. and Joey A. Gabieta, Inquirer Visayas; and AFP
x x x."
Posted by at

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Witness; qualifications and disqualifications - The RTC clearly erred in ordering the dismissal of the subject application for land registration for failure to prosecute because petitioner’s witness did not possess an authorization to testify on behalf of petitioner.


FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 188956, March 20, 2013, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.


"x x x.

However, there is no substantive or procedural rule which requires a witness for a party to present some form of authorization to testify as a witness for the party presenting him or her. No law or jurisprudence would support the conclusion that such omission can be considered as a failure to prosecute on the part of the party presenting such witness.  All that the Rules require of a witness is that the witness possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided therein.  Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence provides:
SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications.–Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
x x x x
Cavili v. Judge Florendo⁠3 speaks of the disqualifications:
Sections 19 and 20 of Rule 130 provide for specific disqualifications. Section 19 disqualifies those who are mentally incapacitated and children whose tender age or immaturity renders them incapable of being witnesses. Section 20 provides for disqualification based on conflicts of interest or on relationship. Section 21 provides for disqualifications based on privileged communications. Section 15 of Rule 132 may not be a rule on disqualification of witnesses but it states the grounds when a witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called.
x x x The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules. It is a maxim of recognized utility and merit in the construction of statutes that an express exception, exemption, or saving clause excludes other exceptions. (In ReEstate of Enriquez, 29 Phil. 167) As a general rule, where there are express exceptions these comprise the only limitations on the operation of a statute and no other exception will be implied. (Sutherland on Statutory Construction, Fourth Edition, Vol. 2A, p. 90) The Rules should not be interpreted to include an exception not embodied therein. (Emphasis supplied.)
A reading of the pertinent law and jurisprudence would show that Ms. Aban is qualified to testify as a witness for the petitioner since she possesses the qualifications of being able to perceive and being able to make her perceptions known to others. Furthermore, she possesses none of the disqualifications described above.
The RTC clearly erred in ordering the dismissal of the subject application for land registration for failure to prosecute because petitioner’s witness did not possess an authorization to testify on behalf of petitioner.  The court a quo also erred when it concluded that the subject case was not prosecuted by a duly authorized representative of the petitioner.  The OSG and the court a quo did not question the Verification/Certification⁠4  of the application, and neither did they question the authority of Mr. Azcueta to file the subject application on behalf of the petitioner. Case records would reveal that the application was signed and filed by Mr. Azcueta in his capacity as the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the petitioner, as authorized by petitioner’s Board of Trustees.⁠5   The authority of Mr. Azcueta to file the subject application was established by a Secretary’s Certificate⁠6 attached to the said application. The asseveration that the subject case was not prosecuted by a duly authorized representative of the petitioner is thus unfounded.
Interestingly enough, the respondent itself agrees with the petitioner that the dismissal of the subject application by the court a quo on the ground of failure to prosecute due to lack of authority of the sole witness of the petitioner is unfounded and without legal basis.⁠7

x x x."
Posted by at

Cyberlibel






"x x x.

By: Oscar Franklin Tan
@inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:08 AM May 30th, 2016

x x x.

Ironically, the #NonLibelousTweet campaign failed to emphasize that it cannot be libel to comment on public affairs in a democracy. It is not libel to comment on a matter of public interest or a public figure, someone who has voluntarily thrust himself into the limelight and attracts public discussion. On such topics, it is only libel if there is “actual malice,” if one knew statements were false or recklessly disregarded possible falsity. The bar is so high on such topics that even false or inaccurate statements are not libel, to make room for honest error.

A confidential disbarment case was filed against Ampatuan massacre lead defense lawyer Sigfrid Fortun for allegedly delaying the trial. In the 2013 Fortun case, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio refused to punish media, including the Inquirer, for reporting this after another lawyer leaked it.

First, we are free to discuss matters of public interest, such as a shocking case’s conduct. Such matters are no less public if a private person is intertwined, voluntarily or not. Second, we are free to discuss public figures. Fortun was a key player in the high-profile case and, previously, in former president Joseph Estrada’s impeachment.

On Election Day, Robin Padilla posted a picture of a ballot shaded with a vote for incoming President Rodrigo Duterte. Miss Krizzy (@krizzy_kalerqui) tweeted: “This is a clear violation of election law. Throw him in jail!”

Taking Carpio’s lead, this is not libel. First, a democracy must discuss election violations on Election Day. Actors Kathryn Bernardo and Daniel Padilla were accused of such violation. Second, Padilla is a public figure, a celebrity who campaigned for Duterte all the way to Hong Kong.

Robin Padilla astoundingly filed a libel case with the National Bureau of Investigation. He argued he posted a sample ballot and his 1994 conviction for illegal possession of firearms disqualifies him from voting. This is irrelevant; discussing his alleged election violation is still not libel.

Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. claimed that “numerous academicians” cited statistical irregularities in election results. Sen. Bam Aquino, a summa cum laude Ateneo management engineering graduate, countered that only two did. Contreras, a DLSU political science professor, and former Ateneo economics professor, Dave Yap, cried statistical irregularity from Facebook to mass media to an aborted University of the Philippines forum.

I doubt Contreras’ first assumption that election results were randomly transmitted. Certain regions transmitted first, and voting patterns per region are different. Arguments fall apart without this key randomness assumption, for reasons explained in the first week of a statistics class.

So many argued Contreras misapplied basic statistics. The Ateneo Mathematics Society launched a Facebook “crash course” on statistics on May 15. One hundred four scientists signed “Call for Responsible Data Science in National Discourse” on May 24.

UP physics professor Ian Vega reacted to this:

“[Contreras is] either slow, too proud or paid. Whatever the case, he’s a sorry excuse for an academic.”

The next day, Contreras publicly posted he would sue Vega for libel.

Rey Soriano posted after May 27’s canvass: “Academics like you… allowed falsities to gain currency by providing a semblance of ‘science’ to your madness.” Within half an hour, Contreras posted: “Another candidate for libel?”

Contreras posted on May 26 that “many people are now busy editing or even deleting their derogatory posts,” but he took pictures. “So the next question is who will be next,” he wrote. “I just hope your science will now be able to save you from jail.”

Academics are alarmed by these threats, including a Dec. 9, 2015, post where Contreras cited students “maligning” him on a website “Profs to Pick and Avoid.” He said if he sees a post “where you can be identified, then I promise you that I will make sure that DLSU will not only kick you out, but you will also land in jail.”

Vega and Soriano’s posts are not libel. First, Marcos and Aquino cited Contreras in the Senate. Any citizen may debate his credibility, even rudely, just as one is free to call Marcos or Aquino a sorry excuse for a senator or mad. Second, Contreras is a public figure. He so publicly pursued his accusations and previously sued Sen. Grace Poe over her citizenship.

The greatest evil is that Miss Krizzy and Vega actually deleted their original messages. Democracy dies when citizens hesitate to speak and cold silence replaces vibrant speech.

Our Constitution demands that speech be met with more speech. Cyberlibel is the weapon of the intellectual and moral coward, someone so bankrupt in the marketplace of ideas that he must dragoon law into silencing competitors. We must etch onto our culture that threatening libel is more despicable than posting “Game of Thrones” spoilers. We must make it socially unthinkable for someone to cry libel instead of simply replying— or for a prosecutor or judge not to immediately throw out a Facebook libel charge.

The next time you hesitate on Facebook, just cite Carpio. If he stares down the Chinese Navy with ancient maps, he can scare off internet trolls.

For more on libel’s limits, read “Articulating the Complete Philippine Right to Privacy,” 82(4) Phil., L.J. 78 (2008).

* * *

React: oscarfranklin.tan@yahoo.com.ph, Twitter @oscarfbtan, facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.

x x x."

Posted by at

Bill of rights to protect insurance policyholders issued | Inquirer Business





"x x x.

Bill of rights to protect insurance policyholders issued

@BenArnolddeVera
04:28 AM May 30th, 2016


THE INSURANCE Commission has come out with a bill of rights detailing an insurer’s obligations to consumers to better protect policyholders, specifying sanctions for noncompliance.

Circular No. 2016-30 issued by Insurance Commissioner Emmanuel F. Dooc last May 26 laid down the “Bill of Rights of Policyholders” that listed down the basic rights of the insured under the Amended Insurance Code as well as its implementing rules and regulations.

Policyholders refer to owners of insurance policies, who might be the insured or assured in a life or non-life insurance policy or the beneficiary, Dooc noted.

The bill of rights also protects insured members and covered dependent of mutual benefit associations as well as prospective clients or the insuring public as a whole.

The specific rights of policyholders are as follows: Right to a financially sound and viable insurance company; right to access insurance companies’ official financial information; right to be informed of the license status of insurance companies, intermediaries and soliciting agents; right to be offered a duly approved insurance product, and right to be informed of the benefits, exclusions and other provisions under the policy.

Also, planholders have the right to receive the policy; right to confidentiality of information; right to efficient service from insurance companies, intermediaries and soliciting agents; right to prompt and fair settlement of claims, as well as the right to seek assistance from the Insurance Commission.

x x x."

Posted by at

Republic Act No. 10844 - “Department of Information And Communications Technology Act of 2015”.



[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10844]
AN ACT CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, DEFINING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

SECTION 1. Short. Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Department of Information And Communications Technology Act of 2015”.
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared the policy of the State:
(a) To recognize the vital role of information and communication in nation-building;
(b) To ensure the provision of £ strategic, reliable, cost-efficient and. citizen-centric information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure, systems and resources as instruments of good governance and global competitiveness;
(c) To ensure universal access to quality, affordable, reliable and secure Id’ services;
(d) To promote the development and widespread use of emerging ICT and foster and accelerate the convergence of ICT and ICT-enabled facilities;
(e) To ensure the availability and accessibility of ICT services in areas not adequately served by the private sector
(f) To foster an ICT sector policy environment that will promote a broad market-led development of the ICT and ICT-enabled services (1CT-ES) sectors, a level playing field, partnership between the public and private sectors, strategic alliance with foreign investors and balanced investments between high-growth and economically-depressed areas;
(g) To promote and assist the development of local ICT content, applications and services which may include support for ICT-based start-up enterprises through strategic partnerships;
(h) To promote the use of ICT for the enhancement of key public services, such as education, public health and safety, revenue generation, and socio-civic purposes;
(i) To encourage the use of ICT for the development and promotion of the country’s arts and culture, tourism and national identity;
(j) To promote digital literacy, ICT expertise, and knowledge-building among citizens to enable them to participate and compete in an evolving ICT age:
(k) To empower, through the use of ICT, the disadvantaged segments of the population, including the elderly, persons with disabilities and indigenous and minority groups;
(l) To ensure the rights of individuals to privacy and confidentiality of their personal information;
(m) To ensure the security of critical ICT infrastructures including information assets of the government, individuals and businesses; and
(n) To provide oversight over agencies governing and regulating the ICT sector and ensure consumer protection and welfare, data privacy and security, foster competition and the growth of the ICT sector.
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act the following terms are defined as follows:
(a) Information and Communications Technology or ICT shall mean the totality of electronic means to access, create, collect, store, process, receive, transmit, present and disseminate information:
(b) Convergence shall mean the interface between and among various telephony, radio, video, broadcasting and multimedia infrastructure, devices and services, enabling users or subscribers thereof to communicate with one another;
(c) Electronic Government or E-Government shall mean the use of ICT by the government and the public to enhance the access to and delivery of government services to bring about efficient, responsive, ethical, accountable and transparent government service:
(d) ICT Sector shall mean those engaged in providing goods and services primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information processing and communication by electronic means. The ICT sector includes telecommunications and broadcast information operators, ICT equipment manufacturers, multimedia content developers and providers, ICT solution providers, internet service providers, ICT training institutions, software developers and ICT-ES providers;
(e) ICT-Enabled Services or ICT-ES Sector shall mean those engaged in providing services that require the intrinsic use of Id’s including engineering or architectural design, informatics service providers, offshoring and outsourcing service providers such as call centers, back office processing, software development, medical or legal transcription, animation, game development, and other services that require the intrinsic use of a networked information infrastructure; and
(f) Chief Information Officer or CIO shall mean a senior officer in all national government agencies (NGAs), including constitutional offices, state universities and colleges (SUCs), government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs), and government financial institutions (GFIs) responsible for the development and management of the agency’s ICT systems and applications.
SEC. 4. Creation of the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT). – There is hereby created the Department of Information and Communications Technology7, hereinafter referred to as the Department.
SEC. 5. Mandate. – The Department shall be the primary policy, planning, coordinating, implementing, and administrative entity of the Executive Branch of the government that will plan, develop, and promote the national ICT development agenda
SEC. 6. Powers and Functions. – The Department shall exercise the following powers and functions:
I. Policy and Planning
(a) Formulate, recommend and implement national policies, plans, programs and guidelines that will promote the development and use of ICT with due consideration to the advantages of convergence and emerging technologies;
(b) Formulate policies and initiatives, in coordination with the Department of Education (DepED). the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), to develop and promote ICT in education consistent with the national goals and objectives., and responsive to the human resource needs of the ICT and ICT-ES sectors;
(c) Provide an integrated framework in order to optimize all government ICT resources and networks for the identification and prioritization of all E-Government systems and applications as provided for m the E-Government Masterplan and the Philippine Development Plan (PDP);
II. Improved Public Access
(d) Prescribe rules and regulations for the establishment, operation and maintenance of ICT infrastructures in unserved and underserved areas, in consultation with the local government units (LGUs), civil society organizations (CSOs). private sector, and the academe;
(e) Establish a free internet service that can be accessed in government offices and public areas using the most cost-effective telecommunications technology, through partnership with private service providers as may be necessary;
III. Resource-Sharing and Capacity-Building
(f) Harmonize and coordinate all national ICT plans and initiatives to ensure knowledge, information and resource-sharing, database-building and agency networking linkages among government agencies, consistent with E-Government objectives in particular, and national objectives in general;
(g) Ensure the development and protection of integrated government ICT infrastructures and designs, taking into consideration the inventory of existing manpower, plans, programs, software, hardware, and installed systems;
(h) Assist and provide technical expertise to government agencies in the development of guidelines in the enforcement and administration of laws, standards, rules, and regulations governing ICT;
(i) Assess, review and support ICT research and development programs of the government in coordination with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and other institutions concerned;
(j) Prescribe the personnel qualifications and other qualification standards essential to the effective development and operation of government ICT infrastructures and systems;
(k) Develop programs that would enhance the career advancement opportunities of ICT workers in government;
(l) Assist in the dissemination of vital information essential to disaster risk reduction through the use of ICT:
(m) Represent and negotiate for Philippine interest on matters pertaining to ICT in international bodies, in coordination with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and other institutions concerned;
IV. Consumer Protection and Industry Development
(n) Ensure and protect the rights and welfare of consumers and business users to privacy, security and confidentiality in matters relating to ICT, in coordination with agencies concerned, the private sector and relevant international bodies;
(o) Support the promotion of trade and investment opportunities in the ICT and ICT-ES sectors, in coordination with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and other relevant government agencies and the private sector;
(p) Establish guidelines for public-private partnerships in the implementation of ICT projects for government agencies; and
(q) Promote strategic partnerships and alliances between and among local and international ICT, research and development, educational and training institutions, to speed up industry growth and enhance competitiveness of Philippine workers, firms, and small and medium enterprises in the global markets for ICT and ICT-ES.
SEC. 7. Composition. – The Department shall be headed by a Secretary. The Department proper shall be composed of the Office of the Secretary, the Offices of the Undersecretaries and the assistant secretaries.
SEC. 8. Secretary of Information and Communications Technology. – The Secretary shall be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The Secretary shall have the following functions:
(a) Provide executive direction and supervision over the entire operations of the Department and its attached agencies,
(b) Establish policies and standards for the effective, efficient and economical operation of the Department, in accordance with the programs of government;
(c) Review and approve requests for financial and manpower resources of all operating offices of the Department:
(d) Designate and appoint officers and employees of the Department, excluding the undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and regional and assistant regional directors, in accordance with the civil service laws, rules and regulations;
(e) Exercise disciplinary powers over officers and employees of the Department in accordance with law, including their investigation and the designation of a committee or officer to conduct such investigation:
(f) Coordinate with IX5Us. other agencies and public and private interest groups, including nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs) on Department policies and initiatives;
(g) Prepare and submit to the President through the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) an estimate of the necessary expenditures of the Department during the next fiscal year, on the basis of the reports and estimates submitted by bureaus and offices under him/her;
(h) Serve as a member of the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) as established by Republic Act No. 9184;
(i) Advise the President on the promulgation of executive and administrative orders and formulation of regulatory and. legislative proposals on matters pertaining to ICT development;
(j) Formulate such rules and regulations and exercise such other powers as may be required to implement the objectives of this Act: and
(k) Perform such other tasks as may be provided by law or assigned by the President.
SEC. 9. Undersecretaries. – The Secretary shall be assisted by three (3) undersecretaries, who shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary: Provided, That two (2) of the undersecretaries shall be career officers.
SEC.10. Assistant Secretaries. – The Secretary shall be assisted by four (4) assistant secretaries who shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary: Provided, That two (2) of the assistant secretaries shall be career officers: Provided, further, That at least one (1) of the assistant secretaries shall be a licensed Professional Electronics Engineer (PECE), or any suitably qualified person in accordance with Civil Service Commission (CSC) rules and regulations.
SEC.11. Qualifications. – No person shall be appointed Secretary, Undersecretary, or Assistant Secretary of the Department unless he or she is a citizen and resident of the Philippines, of good moral character, of proven integrity and with at least seven (7) years of competence and expertise in any of the following: information and communications technology, information technology service management, information security management, cybersecurity, data privacy. e-Commerce, or human capital development in the ICT sector.
SEC. 12. Regional Offices – The Department may establish, operate, and maintain a regional office in the different administrative regions of the country as the need arises. Each regional office shall be headed by a Regional Director, who may be assisted by one (1) Assistant Regional Director. The Regional Director and Assistant Regional Director shall be appointed by the President. The regional offices shall have, within their respective administrative regions, the following functions:
(a) Implement laws, policies, plans, programs, projects, rules and regulations of the Department:
(b) Provide efficient and effective service to the people:
(c) Coordinate with regional offices of other departments, offices, and agencies;
(d) Coordinate with the LG Us; and
(e) Perform such other functions as may be provided by law or assigned by the Secretary.
SEC. 13. Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council. – The Department shall facilitate the creation of the CIO Council, which shall consist of CIOs, with the Secretary serving as the Chairman, to assist the Department in the implementation of government ICT initiatives.
SEC. 14. Sectoral and Industry Task Forces. – The Department may create sectoral and industry task forces, technical working groups, advisory bodies or committees for the furtherance of its objectives. Additional private sector representatives, such as from the academe, CSOs, and federation of private industries directly involved in ICT, as well as representatives of other NGAs. LGUs and GOCCs may be appointed to these working groups. Government IT professionals may also be tapped to partake in the work of the Department through, these working groups.
SEC. 15. Transfer of Agencies and Personnel. –
(a) The following agencies are hereby abolished, and their powers and functions, applicable funds and appropriations, records, equipment, property, and personnel transferred to the Department:
(1) Information and Communications Technology Office (ICTO);
(2) National Computer Center (NCC);
(3) National Computer Institute (NCI);
(4) Telecommunications Office (TELOF):
(5) National Telecommunications Training Institute (NTTT); and
(6) All operating units of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) with functions and responsibilities dealing with communications.
All offices, services, divisions, units and personnel not otherwise covered by this Act for transfer to the Department shall be retained under the DOTC which is hereby renamed the Department of Transportation.
(b) The following agencies are hereby attached, to the Department for policy and program coordination, and shall continue to operate and function in accordance with the charters, laws or orders creating them, insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Act:
(1) National Telecommunications Commission;
(2) National Privacy Commission; and
(3) Cybercrime Investigation and Coordination Center (CICC)
(i) All powers and functions related to cybersecurity including, but not limited to the formulation of the National Cybersecurity Plan, establishment of the National Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), and the facilitation of international cooperation on intelligence regarding cybersecurity matters are transferred to the Department; and
(ii) The CICC shall be chaired by the DICT Secretary.
(c) The laws and rules on government reorganization as provided for in Republic Act No. 6656, otherwise known as the Reorganization Law, shall govern the reorganization process of the Department.
SEC. 16. Separation and Retirement from Service. – Employees who are separated from service within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act as a result of the consolidation and/or reorganization under the provisions of this Act shall receive separation benefits to which they may he entitled under Executive Order No. 366, s. 2004: Provided, That those who are qualified to retire under existing retirement laws shall be allowed to retire and receive retirement benefits to which they may be entitled under applicable laws and issuances.
SEC. 17. Structure and Staffing Pattern. – Subject to the approval of the DBM, the Department shall determine its organizational structure and create new divisions or units as it may deem necessary, and shall appoint officers and employees of the Department in accordance with the civil service law, rules, and regulations.
SEC. 18. Magna Carta. – Qualified employees of the Department and its attached agencies shall be covered by Republic Act No. 3439, which provides a magna carta for scientists, engineers, researchers and other science and technology personnel in tie government.
SEC. 19. Transition Period. – The transfer of functions, assets, funds, equipment, properties, transactions, and personnel of the affected agencies, and the formulation of the internal organic structure, staffing pattern, operating system, and revised budget of tin Department, shall be completed within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, during which time, the existing personnel shall continue to assume their posts in holdover capacities until new appointments are issued:Provided, That after the abolition of tie agencies as specified in Section 15(a) of this Act, the Department, in coordination with the DBM, shall determine and create new positions, the funding requirements of which shall not exceed the equivalent cost of positions abolished.
SEC 20. Appropriation,. – The amount needed for the initial implementation of this Act shall be taken from the current fiscal year’s appropriation of the ICTO and all agencies herein absorbed. by or attached to the Department. Thereafter, the amount needed for the operation and maintenance of the Department shall be included in the General Appropriations Act
SEC 21. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The ICTC, the DBM, the CSC, and other government agencies concerned shall issue within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act. the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act.
SEC. 22. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other provisions not otherwise affected shall remain in full force and effect.
SEC. 23. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations and other issuances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.
SEC. 24. Effectivtiy. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15; days after its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)