The Philippines has a growing and important business process management and health

information technology industry. Total IT spending reached $4.4 billion in 2016, and
the sector is expected to more than double by 2020. Filipinos are heavy social media
users, 42.1 million are on Facebook, 13 million on Twitter, and 3.5 million are LinkedIn
users. The country is also in the process of enabling free public Wi-Fi. In the context of
the rapid growth of the digital economy and increasing international trade of data, the
Philippines has strengthened its privacy and security protections.

In 2012 the Philippines passed the Data Privacy Act 2012, comprehensive and strict
privacy legislation “to protect the fundamental human right of privacy, of
communication while ensuring free flow of information to promote innovation and
growth.” (Republic Act. No. 10173, Ch. 1, Sec. 2). This comprehensive privacy law also
established a National Privacy Commission that enforces and oversees it and is endowed
with rulemaking power. On September 9, 2016, the final implementing rules and
regulations came into force, adding specificity to the Privacy Act.

Scope and Application

The Data Privacy Act is broadly applicable to individuals and legal entities that process
personal information, with some exceptions. The law has extraterritorial application,
applying not only to businesses with offices in the Philippines, but when equipment
based in the Philippines is used for processing. The act further applies to the processing
of the personal information of Philippines citizens regardless of where they reside.

One exception in the act provides that the law does not apply to the processing of
personal information in the Philippines that was lawfully collected from residents of
foreign jurisdictions — an exception helpful for Philippines companies that offer cloud
services.

Approach

The Philippines law takes the approach that “The processing of personal data shall be
allowed subject to adherence to the principles of transparency, legitimate purpose, and
proportionality.”
Collection, processing, and consent

The act states that the collection of personal data “must be a declared, specified, and
legitimate purpose” and further provides that consent is required prior to the collection
of all personal data. It requires that when obtaining consent, the data subject be
informed about the extent and purpose of processing, and it specifically mentions the
“automated processing of his or her personal data for profiling, or processing for direct
marketing, and data sharing.” Consent is further required for sharing information with
affiliates or even mother companies.

Consent must be “freely given, specific, informed,” and the definition further requires
that consent to collection and processing be evidenced by recorded means. However,
processing does not always require consent.

Consent is not required for processing where the data subject is party to a contractual
agreement, for purposes of fulfilling that contract. The exceptions of compliance with a
legal obligation upon the data controller, protection of the vital interests of the data
subject, and response to a national emergency are also available.

An exception to consent is allowed where processing is necessary to pursue the

legitimate interests of the data controller, except where overridden by the fundamental
rights and freedoms of the data subject.

Required agreements

The law requires that when sharing data, the sharing be covered by an agreement that
provides adequate safeguards for the rights of data subjects, and that these agreements
are subject to review by the National Privacy Commission.
Sensitive Personal and Privileged Information

The law defines sensitive personal information as being:

 About an individual’s race, ethnic origin, marital status, age, color, and religious,
philosophical or political affiliations;

 About an individual’s health, education, genetic or sexual life of a person, or to

any proceeding or any offense committed or alleged to have committed;

 Issued by government agencies “peculiar” (unique) to an individual, such as

social security number;

 Marked as classified by executive order or act of Congress.

All processing of sensitive and personal information is prohibited except in certain

circumstances. The exceptions are:

 Consent of the data subject;

 Pursuant to law that does not require consent;

 Necessity to protect life and health of a person;

 Necessity for medical treatment;

 Necessity to protect the lawful rights of data subjects in court proceedings, legal
proceedings, or regulation.

Surveillance
Interestingly, the Philippines law states that the country’s Human Security Act of 2007
(a major anti-terrorism law that enables surveillance) must comply with the Privacy Act.

Privacy program required

The law requires that any entity involved in data processing and subject to the act must
develop, implement and review procedures for the collection of personal data, obtaining
consent, limiting processing to defined purposes, access management, providing
recourse to data subjects, and appropriate data retention policies. These requirements
necessitate the creation of a privacy program. Requirements for technical security
safeguards in the act also mandate that an entity have a security program.

Data subjects' rights

The law enumerates rights that are familiar to privacy professionals as related to the
principles of notice, choice, access, accuracy and integrity of data.

The Philippines law appears to contain a “right to be forgotten” in the form of a right to
erasure or blocking, where the data subject may order the removal of his or her personal
data from the filing system of the data controller. Exercising this right requires
“substantial proof,” the burden of producing which is placed on the data subject. This
right is expressly limited by the fact that continued publication may be justified by
constitutional rights to freedom of speech, expression and other rights.

Notably, the law provides a private right of action for damages for inaccurate,
incomplete, outdated, false, unlawfully obtained or unauthorized use of personal data.

A right to data portability is also provided.

Mandatory personal information breach notification

The law defines “security incident” and “personal data breach” ensuring that the two are
not confused. A “security incident” is an event or occurrence that affects or tends to
affect data protection, or may compromise availability, integrity or confidentiality. This
definition includes incidents that would result in a personal breach, if not for safeguards
that have been put in place.

A “personal data breach,” on the other hand, is a subset of a security breach that actually
leads to “accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorized disclosure of,
or access to, personal data transmitted, stored, or otherwise processed.

Requirement to notify 

The law further provides that not all “personal data breaches” require notification.,
which provides several bases for not notifying data subjects or the data protection
authority. Section 38 of the IRRs provides the requirements of breach notification:

 The breached information must be sensitive personal information, or

information that could be used for identity fraud, and

 There is a reasonable belief that unauthorized acquisition has occurred, and

 The risk to the data subject is real, and

 The potential harm is serious.

The law provides that the Commission may determine that notification to data subjects
is unwarranted after taking into account the entity’s compliance with the Privacy Act,
and whether the acquisition was in good faith.

Notification timeline and recipients

The law places a concurrent obligation to notify the National Privacy Commission as
well as affected data subjects within 72 hours of knowledge of, or reasonable belief by
the data controller of, a personal data breach that requires notification.

It is unclear at present whether the commission would allow a delay in notification of

data subjects to allow the commission to determine whether a notification is
unwarranted. By the law, this would appear to be a gamble.

Notification contents
The contents of the notification must at least:

 Describe the nature of the breach; 

 The personal data possibly involved;

 The measures taken by the entity to address the breach;

 The measures take to reduce the harm or negative consequence of the breach;

 The representatives of the personal information controller, including their

contact details;

 Any assistance to be provided to the affected data subjects.

Penalties

The law provides separate penalties for various violations, most of which also include
imprisonment. Separate counts exist for unauthorized processing, processing for
unauthorized purposes, negligent access, improper disposal, unauthorized access or
intentional breach, concealment of breach involving sensitive personal information,
unauthorized disclosure, and malicious disclosure.

Any combination or series of acts may cause the entity to be subject to imprisonment
ranging from three to six years as well as a fine of approximately $20,000 to $100,000.

Notably, there is also the previously mentioned private right of action for damages,
which would apply.

Penalties for failure to notify

Persons having knowledge of a security breach involving sensitive personal information

and of the obligation to notify the commission of same, and who fail to do so, may be
subject to penalty for concealment, including imprisonment for 1 1/2 to five years of
imprisonment, and a fine of approximately $10,000 - $20,000.

Depending upon the circumstances additional violations might apply.

photo credit: Storm Crypt For the 12th of June via photopin (license)

Author

Alex Wall, CIPP/E, CIPP/US, CIPM, FIP

 Tags

Asia-Pacific
 

Privacy Law

8 Comments

If you want to comment on this post, you need to login.

 comment Jeeae Kim • May 2, 2017

Thank you for giving me good information regarding Philippines Data Privacy Act. I would like to
ask a question about penality. That's because I don't understand the meaning of 11/2 in the final
paragraph. I don't know how long it is. 5 years and 5 months? It would be helpful for me if you let
me know how long it is.

 comment Karis Williams • Dec 13, 2017

Thank you for your information, but I have a question concerning your statement on the DPA right to
erasure as a data subject rights. I have read the DPA regulation and the IRR by the NPA and I have
not read anything about the right to erasure or the right to be forgotten. From what documents did
you conclude that the DPA also have a right to erasure?

 comment Maria Cecilia Soria • Mar 5, 2018

@Jeeae Kim, the penalty for concealment of security breaches involving personal information is one
year and six months to five years.

 comment Maria Cecilia Soria • Mar 5, 2018

@Karis Williams, the right to erasure is provided under Rule VIII, Section 34, paragraph e of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Data Privacy Act (Republic Act No. 10173).

 comment Christopher Tano • Apr 17, 2018

How can I get RegEx of Philippine Government ID (like SSS)? This regex will input in our DPA
system to check if the numbers were part of personal info.

 comment Chelin Bello-Macalanda • Apr 22, 2019

 Now that the IRR of the Republic Act 11165, also known as “An Act Institutionalizing
Telecommuting as an Alternative Work Arrangement for Employees in the Private Sector", is in
place, are there additional and specific actions or requirements we need to implement other than the
Data privacy notice and trainings?

 comment Harris Co • Aug 30, 2019

The law is still in its infancy, response to violation reports are non existent. Case in point, I
discovered a massive violation by an online payment channel where sensitive data like email, name,
address, phone number, policy amount, etc are out in the open. Possibly millions are affected. I
contacted the commission via email (they do not have toll free numbers) and got a response after a
week telling me to submit a notarized complaint for them to proceed. Despite sending them all the
details, including how to duplicate/simulate the steps, so they themselves can validate. No wonder
companies continue to violate laws. As any government agency in the Philippines, red tape is
prevalent and most laws are for show only. By having these laws in paper somehow elevates the
country to higher level in the international stage, or so they thought.

 comment Gayle Gestiada • Sep 2, 2019

I applied for a position in a company and was scheduled for an interview. I sent them an email
requesting if the interview can be rescheduled- but did not get any response. One of my former
colleagues messaged me and advised that the interviewer disclosed that I was one of the applicants
for the job. Does this constitute breach of privacy and data? Please advise. You may also get in touch
with me at gayle628709@gmail.com thank you.

Related Stories

Podcast: Should we give up our data to protect the herd?

Telecommunications companies across the world, including in Germany, Brazil and China,
have granted their governments access to customers' cellphone data in an effort to help
track COVID-19. Other countries are more cautious; the Dutch DPA called for emergency
legislation before sharing occurs, and ...
READ MOREQUEUE SAVE THIS

Why the Brussels appeals court overturned the DPA's GDPR fine

On Feb. 19, the Brussels Court of Appeal overruled one of the first decisions of the Belgian
Data Protection Authority in a case involving the use of an electronic ID to get a loyalty card.
A liquor store was fined 100,000 euros for alleged violations of the EU General Data
Protection Regulation for...
READ MOREQUEUE SAVE THIS

The latest COVID-19 privacy news from the EU, New Zealand and US

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, here are the latest stories on how the outbreak has
affected privacy: According to Internal Market and Services Commissioner Thierry Breton,
the European Commission is monitoring apps used to track COVID-19, EURACTIV.com
reports. Politico Pro reports European ...
READ MOREQUEUE SAVE THIS

APF concerned with Australia's telecom bill

ZDNet reports the Australian Privacy Foundation does not support the pending
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020.
APF described the bill as "deeply flawed" and "a manifestation of a drip by drip erosion of
privacy protection in the absence of a justic...
READ MOREQUEUE SAVE THIS

Class-action brought against Marriott over latest breach

Marriott has been hit with a class-action lawsuit a day after revealing a data breach
involving more than 5 million customers, Law.com reports. Filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, the lawsuit alleges Marriott failed to implement
appropriate measures to protect its custom...