{"id":169987,"date":"2018-07-09T03:47:23","date_gmt":"2018-07-09T07:47:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=169987"},"modified":"2018-07-09T03:47:23","modified_gmt":"2018-07-09T07:47:23","slug":"ipophl-may-not-be-able-to-comply-with-eodbs-3-7-20-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/07\/09\/ipophl-may-not-be-able-to-comply-with-eodbs-3-7-20-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"IPOPHL may not be able to comply with EODB\u2019s 3-7-20 rule"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"She<\/a>
She added that the turnaround time in IPOPHL complies with the international standard. (Photo<\/a>: Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0— The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) finds it challenging to comply with the Republic Act 11032 or the Ease of Doing Business (EODB) and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018, as its complex transactions take processing time of four to 18 months.<\/p>\n

IPOPHL Director General Josephine Santiago told reporters that her office will be closely coordinating with agencies that are crafting the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for the EODB Act to give consideration to IPOPHL.<\/p>\n

Under the EODB Act, all government offices shall complete transactions within three, seven, or 20 days depending on the complexity of the process.<\/p>\n

However, complex transactions in IPOPHL such as trademark applications take an average of four months processing period and around 18 months for patent applications, Santiago said.<\/p>\n

She added that the turnaround time in IPOPHL complies with the international standard.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re consulting huge databases, and this is not just local, these are international and complicated database,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis would require additional manpower, additional infrastructure. It cannot be just said, \u2018tomorrow you do this\u2019. It\u2019s going to be difficult for us,\u201d she pointed out.<\/p>\n

Santiago noted that IPOPHL \u201cunderstand the objective of the law\u201d — to fast-track transactions of businesses with government offices, particularly those frontline transactions. But she said IPOPHL\u2019s transactions should be considered as non-business.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor example, a patent application is not just a single application like what the LGUs (local government units) receive,\u201d the IPOPHL chief said.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are still thinking of creative ways to comply, yet without also sacrificing the quality,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n

RA 11032 has a two-strike policy, wherein civil servants who will not be able to comply with the 3-7-20 rule will be suspended in the first offense and will be terminated from public service in the second offense.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0— The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) finds it challenging to comply with the Republic Act 11032 or …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":169991,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[52965,52966,14897,50380],"class_list":["post-169987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","tag-ease-of-doing-business","tag-efficient-government-service-delivery-act-of-2018","tag-intellectual-property-office-of-the-philippines","tag-josephine-santiago","mauthors-kris-crismundo","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169987","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169987"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169987\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/169991"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}