I.

Summary of RA 8293

Appearing to be a novel law to most Filipinos, the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines was signed into law twenty-two years ago and had relevant development along
colonization period of the Philippines. Republic Act 8293, in its declaration policy, puts
emphasis on domestic and creative activity by securing exclusive rights to the inventor, and
providing and storing corresponding data relating to it. The act designates the Intellectual
Property Office (IPO) as the primary body that carries the objective of the property code. 

Aside from these principles laid out in the act, the property code expands its provisions on
the organizational structure of IPO. IPO is composed of six (6) bureaus representing the broad
types of intellectual property. Such are the following, but not limited to, The Bureau of Patent
(1), Bureau of Trademarks (2), The Bureau of Legal Affairs (3), The Documentation,
Information and Technology Transfer Bureau (4), The Management Information System and
EDP Bureau (5), and The Administrative, Financial and Personnel Services Bureau (6).

Under the direct the appointment and guidance of the president of the IPO, the Director
General, Deputies Director General, Directors, and Assistant Directors also form part of the
office. The act also defines and sets parameters relating to Trademarks, Grant for Patents,
Licensing, Transmission of Rights, Registration of Utility Models, Industrial Design and Layout-
Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits, Copyrights, Original Works, Moral Rights, and
Terms of Protection.

II. Application of RA 8293

These rights are entitled to everyone as maybe identified as a citizen of the Philippines by
birth or acquisition. The provisions stated in the code, and the authority ascribed to the IPO by
the passage of this bill, shall also apply to any person who is a national or who is domiciled or
has a real and effective industrial establishment.
 III. Current Status on the Implementation of RA 8293

Despite the nitty-gritty process involved in claiming exclusive rights, and reporting violations
of property rights, upon the effectivity of the act, several community reviews were conducted to
underline which provisions of the code weigh heavily upon the citizens. The Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) were duly effective in February 2, 2012. Community reviews aided the
implementing rules such that this intervention was added to the act. Changes in the IRR involved
spurring a speedy transmission of patent, utility model, and industrial design applications into the
Intellectual Property Satellite Office (IPSO), and the Innovation and Technology Support Office
(ITSO). The offices are also mandated to identify and deliver the published information to
persons and groups of the same interests and field. Thus asrcibed are the changes as to the
implementing guidelines of this act. 

Aside from this development, the provisions and tenets of the Philippine Competition Act
may run in conflict with the Intellectual Property Act. As espoused by Bernabe (2019), the
Philippine Competition Act exacts penalty on abuse of monopolies or of dominant position while
intellectual property law is intended to protect the rights of inventors, artists, writers and
businesses through the grant of patents, copyright and trademarks in their favor to the exclusion
of others. Competition law aims to maximize intellectual product, to offer solutions, and
products to the general public, while intellectual property law intends to give exclusive rights to
inventors whether they can disclose their discoveries or be utilized by a different party. 

Considerations between the Philippine Competition Act and the Intellectual Property code
are, however, on a case-to-case basis. In the European Union, the Magill case ruled that refusal
to provide basic information, even if protected by copyright, which results in preventing the
appearance of a new product, which is publicly demanded, constitutes abuse. 
In another case, (IMS Health v NDC Health), the competition act can prevail where the refusal to
grant a license prevents the development of a secondary or a neighboring market to the detriment
of consumers.  

Although, that the implementation of the RA 8293 is not fully bared to as with the IPO
having the particular hand maneuvering the decisions, processes and actions needed to be done,
the act itself needed to extend itself to programs or policies that initiate and offer protection to
intellectual property especially among those who didn't have the capacity to. 

IV. Comments to RA 8293

Republic Act 8293, is lengthy however briefly and comprehensively laid down the details as
to how intellectual property rights can be preserved, protected and furthered. It is an area of
concern, however whether certain provisions have to incorporated to deal with the contrary
premise of the intellectual property law and Philippine competition act. It is therefore in the
following circumstances that an amendment or additional major provision on the following must
be pursued in order to achieve protection of intellectual property fairly, and equally justified.
First there must be an expansion of protection of IP rights by mandating whole of
government and local policies and programs that is beyond the boundaries of the office. To
better secure the drive for further innovation, individuals regardless of status must receive
sufficient knowledge on how their intellectual rights can be violated, and retained. This goes
equally on expanding Role of the IPO, in collaboration with civil society, and local government
units as valuable linkages towards that end. Lastly, it is best to include free Legal Assistance on
Protection of Intellectual Property among rural and urban areas.

Specific Provisions of RA Proposed Amendments to Bases/Reasons for

8293
1 ARTICLE 1, Section 10
(10.1-10.3) The Bureau of
Legal Affairs.
RA 8293
To expand and define more
in-depth the functions of the
Bureau of Legal Affairs.
Such as the power on the
declaration of ownership or
to intellectual property, and
granting original and
exclusive jurisdiction over
administrative complaints
violation of the act.
Amending RA 8293
Such functions that we
could be added to the
Bureau of Legal Affairs
could be well delivered by
the team. It fills in the
gaps for which the
declarations of ownership
or the giving of original
and exclusive jurisdiction
over violation complaints

2 ARTICLE 1, Section 7 (7.1) Granting additional mandate This is so that the conflict
The Director General and to the decision making
Deputies Director General. powers of the Director
7.1. Functions. General of the IPOPHL to
grant compulsory license so
as to maximize patented
invention even without the
agreement of the patent
owner.
3 ARTICLE 1, Section 11. That the Documentation,
The Documentation, Information and Technology overlapping function of
Information and Transfer Bureau shall be
Technology Transfer further defined by
Bureau. separating or dividing their
functions into two bureaus:
Namely, (a) the Bureau of
Innovation and Business
Development, (b) creating
the IP Academy.
V. Conclusion
can be dealt with since this
is not given attention in
the provisions.
between the Philippine
Competition Act and the
Intellectual Property Law
are mediated and dealt
with. It is important that
while we protect
intellectual property, we
must seek ways to
negotiate over patents that
are in-demand, and
publicly needed.
With the wide and
the Bureau, it is ideal that
the work be disseminated
and that leaves the bureau
automatically divided into
two, as suggested, the (a)
the Bureau of Innovation
and Business
Development, (b) creating
the IP Academy.
 What inference could be made of how Intellectual Property is given priority and viewed
of by many today, is set by the long history of protecting the interests of these creators, and
inventors, whose position is valuable in the arena of global innovation. Under the Spanish
colonialism, in 1880 an Intellectual Property law came into force. The royal decrees of that time
were evidentiary to the question of patents placed under the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals in
the Philippines. A more constrained intellectual property agreement was then a included in the
Treaty of Paris, as America took over possession of the Philippines since its victory over Spain.
Still under the colony of America, the Philippines passed Act 3134, then by the time it became
an independent state the IP law were separated into two namely, RA 165, and RA 166. The
Philippines has had this long commitment to protect Intellectual Property rights, from Marcos
Sr.'s Presidential Decree 49, then sealing international agreements and joining alliances that
further its dialogue and efforts, up until the present time where a final, permanent law by RA
8293 was enacted in consonance with the 1987 Constitution. 

VI. REFERENCES:
https://wipolex-res.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ph/ph162en.pdf
https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/news/jan-sept-2020-reports-complaints-on-ip-infringement-
surpasses-2015-2019-total/
https://www.phcc.gov.ph/column28-bm-cjrb-ipo-comp-conflict-of-laws/
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1997/06/06/republic-act-no-8293/
https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/news/the-intellectual-property-system-a-brief-history/#:~:text=In
%201913%2C%20the%20Philippine%20legislature,from%20the%20US%20in%201945.