Time to rewrite our IP laws
The law must recognize that intellectual property is no longer merely a legal concern. It is an economic asset.
Text size
The law must recognize that intellectual property is no longer merely a legal concern. It is an economic asset.
In 1997, the Philippines took an important step toward recognizing the growing importance of intellectual property (IP).
Republic Act (RA) 8293, or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, was signed into law on 6 June 1997 and took effect on 1 January 1998. It created the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) and established the legal framework for patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and other forms of intellectual property.
It was a landmark law for its time. But nearly three decades later, the world that the law was designed to govern has fundamentally changed.
The IP Code is now almost 30 years old.
Think about how much has happened since 1997. There was no Facebook, YouTube, TikTok or generative artificial intelligence (AI) then. The internet was in its infancy. Digital content, streaming platforms, NFTs, blockchain, AI, e-commerce and the creator economy were not part of our everyday vocabulary.
Yet today, many of the fundamental rules governing intellectual property in the Philippines still trace their origins to that era.
This is why amending the IP Code is no longer simply a matter of updating old provisions. It is about preparing the Philippines for an economy increasingly driven by ideas, creativity, technology and intangible assets.
The need for reform has not gone unnoticed. In the 19th Congress, several measures were filed seeking to amend RA 8293, including proposals to strengthen IPOPHL’s enforcement powers and modernize various provisions of the law. The House approved House Bill 7600 on third reading in May 2023, but nothing happened in the Senate.
The question is: How much longer should we wait?
An updated IP Code should address the realities of the digital economy. It should provide clearer rules for copyright in the digital environment, strengthen enforcement against online piracy and counterfeiting, modernize trademark protection, facilitate technology transfer and improve the protection and commercialization of innovations.
It should also strengthen IPOPHL. An IP office operating in today’s global economy cannot be constrained by powers and procedures designed nearly three decades ago.
But modernization should not mean merely giving the government more powers. It should also make the IP system faster, simpler, more accessible and more responsive, particularly for Filipino inventors, startups, MSMEs, universities, researchers, artists, indigenous communities and individual creators.
More importantly, the law must recognize that intellectual property is no longer merely a legal concern. It is an economic asset.
Countries that successfully create, protect and commercialize intellectual property create jobs, attract investments and build globally competitive industries. For the Philippines, where creativity and innovation are abundant, a modern IP system can help transform Filipino ideas into Filipino enterprises and Filipino enterprises into global brands.
I have always believed that the IP Code should evolve with the economy it serves. The Philippines cannot aspire to become an innovation-driven economy while relying on a legal framework conceived in the last century.
RA 8293 served us well. It established the foundation upon which IPOPHL was built and helped institutionalize intellectual property protection in the country.
But good laws must evolve.
The IP Code has reached the stage when it deserves more than another amendment here and there. It needs comprehensive modernization.
The Philippines has waited long enough.
It is time Congress gave our innovators, creators, entrepreneurs and investors an IP law worthy of the economy they are helping to build.
