This report is part of the “Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia” (D4DAsia) initiative, which critically examines how data governance is evolving across the region, including both formal frameworks and informal norms. In the Philippines, the absence of a comprehensively organized legal or policy framework has resulted in a patchwork of approaches shaped by sector-specific laws, presidential directives, and administrative regulations. In recent decades, policies have emerged in response to growing data use, such as updates to intellectual property laws aligned with international practices and the enactment of personal data protection legislation addressing cross-border data processing. Despite recent developments, the Philippines still lacks a unified data governance framework. The only broad measure is the 2016 presidential ordinance on public access to government data. 
This report is part of the “Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia” (D4DAsia) initiative, which critically examines how data governance is evolving across the region, including both formal frameworks and informal norms. In the Philippines, the absence of a comprehensively organized legal or policy framework has resulted in a patchwork of approaches shaped by sector-specific laws, presidential directives, and administrative regulations. In recent decades, policies have emerged in response to growing data use, such as updates to intellectual property laws aligned with international practices and the enactment of personal data protection legislation addressing cross-border data processing. Despite recent developments, the Philippines still lacks a unified data governance framework. The only broad measure is the 2016 presidential ordinance on public access to government data.
Recently, I had to explain my aversion to Intellectual Property law, despite my PhD work being on copyright law and policy. I said it was the most inelegant and dishonest branch of the law. The central dictum is “ideas are free, only expression is protected.” Yet, even lists of addresses and telephones numbers were protected by copyright (this was subsequently changed in the US). There just did not seem to be an intellectual foundation; just a series of post hoc rationalizations.
I recently learned that a colleague, John Ure, who has been active in telecom reforms efforts in Hong Kong for many years, has been appointed to head the Asian Internet Coalition. Appears they have been quite active in East and South East Asia, with emphasis on privacy and intellectual property issues. I hope they will link up with our friends at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore and become active in South Asia as well.
Now that Android has taken a bigger market share than Apple in the smartphone market, the lawsuits are coming hot and heavy, according to the Economist. Eventually, even lawsuits must come to an end. How much harm they will cause remains to be seen. If Apple wins against HTC, that would be bad news for upstart handset firms. Until a few years ago, HTC only made devices for others, but now it has become a brand of its own.