Validity of 2nd Sale of Software under EULA

Can a 2nd sale of a used software be valid under a EULA?

A re-sale of a used software program to the public may be valid under an End-User License Agreement (or EULA) where the doctrine of first sale finds application.




The New Civil Code is clear and straightforward. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent[i]. The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof[ii]. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law.[iii]

For physical products, the aforementioned provisions make perfect sense. For virtual and intangible products, the application of these laws may not be that clear and straightforward.

In the case of software programs, the sale transaction is accompanied by a software license or a user license or what is termed as an End-User License Agreement or EULA.

In a typical EULA, the first buyer (or a buyer of an original software) does not pay for the software itself. The first buyer actually paid for a license or a right to use the copy of the software in accordance with the provisions of the EULA. An interesting situation arises when the first buyer decides to sell the used software.

Can a re-sale, to the public, of a used software be valid under a typical EULA?


Scope of the Discussions

Discussions on this paper will focus on the nature of the EULA and the application of the so-called first sale doctrine, in the Philippine setting.

The software programs contemplated in these discussions are the typical software coming from giant software makers from outside the Philippines. As such, controversies are likely to likely to cite the relevant case laws. Due to the dearth of local jurisprudence on the matter, relevant case laws from foreign jurisdiction may be important to review.

For purposes of this paper, application of the principles of the conflicts of laws, while relevant and material, will not be dealt with in detailed fashion. To simplify discussions, Philippine courts acquire jurisdiction and the point of contact will be US Copyright Laws and case laws. It will be presumed that these software makers copyright laws will assert their rights under US Copyright laws and the relevant case laws decided recently, at least as far as this paper is concerned.


Nature of the EULA

A EULA is a legal contract between the manufacturer and/or the author and the end user of an application. The EULA details how the software can and cannot be used and any restrictions that the manufacturer imposes. [iv]  The license may define ways under which the copy can be used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the first sale doctrine.[v]

Not every EULA is the same. To avoid soaring transaction costs of forming custom-tailored licensing agreements with countless customers in scattered markets, many copyright holders have resorted to standardized mass-market licenses.[vi]Some contracts stipulate acceptance of the agreement simply by opening the shrink-wrapped package; some require the user to mail back to the manufacturer a signed agreement or acceptance card; some require the user to accept the agreement after the application is installed by clicking on an acceptance form that appears on the user’s monitor. This last method is typical of applications that can be downloaded from the Internet. In all instances, the user has the option of not accepting the EULA, subsequently surrendering the rights and ability to use the software.[vii]

As in typical legal contracts, the EULA protects both parties from liability if the software is used in a way not intended by the manufacturer or author.

Digital technology has rapidly increased the availability of copyrighted material. Controversies and the subsequent rulings of the courts are likely to evolve into balancing the rights of the copyright owner and the first buyer.


The first sale doctrine or the exhaustion doctrine

Section 106 of the US Copyright Act of 1996 expressly grants copyright owners six exclusive rights. Among these is the exclusive right to distribute copies of their works to the public, including by offering copies for sale, lease or auction.

Under the first sale doctrine, however, in most circumstances, the distribution right is extinguished when a copyright owner transfers ownership of a particular copy of a work to another person as provided in Section 109 of the US Copyright Act.[viii].

The first sale doctrine provides a defense to copyright infringement. Section 109(a) further provides that the defense extends only to “the owner of the particular copy”. Once the copy is sold, the copyright holder has no further power over it. For the first sale doctrine to apply, lawful “ownership” of the copy or phonorecord is required. As Sec 109(d) prescribes, first sale doctrine does not apply if the possession of the copy is “by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise without acquiring ownership of it.”[ix]

A contentious issue is the phrase “distribute copies…to the public” in Sec 16(3) of the US Copyright Law. The contrary view – that the right of distribution need not be necessarily be to the public at large because Sec 16(3) incorporates both the right to vend and right to publish under Sec 1 of the US Copyright Act of 1909, the latter right applying to any sale, not just a sale to the public at large – effectively strips the phrase “to the public” of all its meaning.[x]

The doctrine of exhaustion refers to the analogous doctrine applicable to patents. For purposes of this paper, the first sale doctrine (as against exhaustion doctrine) is more relevant as US laws and jurisprudence refer to the re-sale of software as a copyright issue.



An infringer may rely on the first sale doctrine as a defense to an alleged violation if he overcomes the burden of proving that he lawfully owned the copy he distributed.[xi]

The first sale doctrine was first recognized in 1908 US Supreme Court case of Bobbs-Merill Co vs. Straus. This principle was reaffirmed in the US Copyright Act of 1909 and in the current US Copyright Act.[xii]

The first sale doctrine only limits copyright holders’ distribution right. However, occasionally this principle clashes with the copyright owner’s other rights such as reproduction and adaptation rights.

In 1997, in the case of Lee v. A.R.T. Co., the defendant bought plaintiff’s artworks in the form of notecards and then mounted them on ceramic tiles, covering the artworks with transparent epoxy resin. Despite plaintiff’s assertion of violation of his adaptation right, the 7th Circuit held that the adaptation right was not violated and that defendant’s sale of the tiles was protected under the first sale doctrine[xiii]. However, based on very similar facts, the 9th Circuit in Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Company held that plaintiff’s adaptation right was infringed and that the first sale doctrine did not protect the defendant under such circumstances[xiv].

Between 2000 and 2001, two cases involved the software company, Adobe.  The application of the first sale doctrine boiled down to the issue of ownership. The doctrine applied, thus no infringement, when the first sale conferred ownership to the first purchaser.

In the first case, the Northern California District Court in 2000, recognized the unique nature of distributing software and trade usage, as well as the express restrictive language of the contract. The Court held that Adobe’s EULA provided purchasers with a mere license, rather than ownership[xv]. In the second case, the Central California District Court ruled, in 2001, that EULA’s are mere “labels” and in reality, Adobe sells its software to distributors.[xvi]

In 2008, in the case of Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. In Vernor, Autodesk‘s license agreement specified that it retains title to the software and the user is only granted a non-exclusive license.[xvii]

On July 3, 2012, the European Court of Justice ruled on July 3, 2012, that it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first-sale doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an unlimited amount of time, as such sale involves a transfer of ownership, thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software by any of their legitimate owners.[xviii]

Jurisprudence have shown that the courts have taken different approaches to sort out when only a license was granted to the end user as compared to ownership. Most of these cases involved software-licensing agreements. In general, the courts looked beyond the face of the EULAs to conclude whether the agreements create licensing relationship or if they amount to sales subject to first sale doctrine under Section 109 of the US Copyright Laws. Thus, specifying that the agreement grants only a “license” is necessary to create the licensing relationship, but not sufficient. Other terms of the agreement should be consistent with such a licensing relationship[xix]. Otherwise, there is a sale.



The clash among technology, the law, and the ensuing rights and obligations of contracting parties seem apparent. Nevertheless, a balanced tension is very workable and will serve to sustain the integrity of the copyright laws in the Philippines.

The rapid changes in the software technology will lead to faster obsolescence of software programs. The Philippines will be no exception. Newer and better software programs will always be available. A good portion of these software users will continue to upgrade. Other software users may simply decide to re-sell. These phenomena create a supply of “obsolete” and unwanted software products which will find its way into the second-hand software market.

As these transactions grow in number, the validity of such re-sale will always be put into question by the parties, before the proper courts of jurisdiction.  At the heart of the controversy is what the EULA actually provides the purchaser. Is it a mere license, or is it a sale which confers ownership to the purchaser? If the EULA is not clear enough, the court’s interpretation of the EULA will govern.

Like any other contracts, the EULA is the law between the first buyer and the copyright owner. The rights and obligations of the former depends on the terms of the EULA which he agreed to by an overt act which may include, signing or “clicking” the appropriate portion of the on-line form. Thus, a re-sale of a used software program to the public is valid under an End-User License Agreement which confers ownership to the first buyer. In this case, the first-sale doctrine applies.



The application of the first-sale doctrine needs to be responsive to the realities of the digital age. In the Philippines, the application of the first sale doctrine will be shaped by statutes and rulings of the Supreme Court. The very integrity of the whole intellectual property system might be in jeopardy if interpretations of the EULA will not be consistent. In this case, enforceability of the EULA provisions and the application of the first sale doctrine (or non-application, as the case maybe) must be sustained in a manner consistent with the spirit and letter of the relevant laws and jurisprudence.

To achieve this under current Philippine settings, the EULA must be simple and clear. It should clearly define whether it grants a mere license or it is actually a sale. The EULA should make it easy for the consumer to understand what he is actually paying for.

Giant software companies cannot be compelled to produce consumer friendly EULA formats for the lowly Filipino consumer. But with a steady stream of consumer education activities, coupled by subtle compulsions from local policy makers, the Filipino software consumer may not be forced to agree to a EULA which, more often than not, constitutes a contract of adhesion.

When the Filipino consumer is able to clearly discern a licensing relationship from a sale transaction, natural market forces will take over. The consumer will now be able to decide between a licensing arrangement and a straight sale. Software offerings will be shaped by consumer preferences. Market segments will arise – one for licensed software, the other one for sold ones, where re-sale will be allowed. Bottom line, consumer rights are well-protected.

A simple and clear EULA also paves the way for enhanced protection of the intellectual property rights of the owners of the copyrighted software. The same market forces that benefitted the software users will likewise provide benefits for the software makers.

The sustained and increased demand for software programs will increase market size and provide specific entry points for prospective, as well, current software suppliers. The resulting market segments will provide the software suppliers more flexibility in terms of production planning as well as marketing strategies.

The motivation to produce “pirated” software will likewise be reduced. The barriers to entry to what was once a monolith industry for the giant software company suddenly, will be gone. Fringe players who chose to “pirate” will now have more reasons to comply and compete in accordance with industry regulations.



[i] Article 1458, New Civil Code

[ii] Article 1477, New Civil Code

[iii] Article 428, New Civil Code



[vi] Graham, Justin. “Preserving the Aftermarket in Copyrighted Works: Adapting the First Sale Doctrine to the Emerging Technological Landscape”. Stanford Technology Law Review. Retrieved from


[viii] Rostein, RH, et al. “The First Sale Doctrine in the Digital Age”. Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal. Retrieved from attachment1114.pdf


[x] Graham, Justin. “Preserving the Aftermarket in Copyrighted Works: Adapting the First Sale Doctrine to the Emerging Technological Landscape”. Stanford Technology Law Review. Retrieved from

[xi] Rostein, RH, et al. “The First Sale Doctrine in the Digital Age”. Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal. Retrieved from attachment1114.pdf

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Lee v A.R.T. Company, 125 F.3d 580 (US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit, 1997)as cited in

[xiv] Mirage Editions Inc. v. Albuquerque ART Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 1988) as cited in

[xv] Adobe Sys. Inc v One Stop Micro, Inc, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2000), as cited by Rostein, RH, et al. “The First Sale Doctrine in the Digital Age”.

[xvi] Softman Products Co. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (C.D. Cal 2001). As cited by Rostein, RH, et al. “The First Sale Doctrine in the Digital Age”.

[xvii] Vernor v Autodesk, Inc., 555 F.Supp. 2d 1164 (WD Wash 2008) as cited in


[xix] Ibid.



Effect of TPP if PHL adopts it

What would be the effect of the currently negotiated TransPacific Partnership (TPP) if the US would adopt it and, if the Philippines would adopt it based on US influence?


The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a multilateral agreement being negotiated among the United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

The TPP aspires to become a state-of-the-art trade agreement linking 12 countries on both sides of the Pacific. In addition to establishing a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) among these countries, negotiators are pursuing a long list of other issues, both trade-related and non-trade related[i]. The TPP is proposed to be a free trade agreement or FTA. In FTAs, member countries reduce to zero all tariffs on imports from other member countries of all or almost all products.


The Philippines first expressed its interest to be part of the TPP in mid-2010, when President Aquino took office. In an interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Trade Secretary Gregory L. Domingo said, “The TPP is an avenue for us to get access to broader markets primarily, the United States. It is something we have to engage in. We have no choice because the US is our second or third largest trading partner. Many of our neighbors will become members of TPP. If they have duty free access, for example, to the US and we don’t, it will really handicap the Philippines and affect us in a very significant way. So, even as a defensive measure, it’s something that we have to really try to get in,” Domingo stressed[ii].


This paper will discuss the effects of the currently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) if the US would adopt it and, if the Philippines would adopt it under perceived influence from the US.

  1. The Trans-Pacific Partnership  agreement

The aim of the TPP is to bring all tariffs down to zero by 2015. The coverage of the deal spans trade in goods, trade in services, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers, intellectual property, government procurement, and competition policy[iii].


The TPP proposed to extend beyond the limits of trade and trade policies, including a host of other issues. Some of these, such as trade in services, technical barriers to trade, and intellectual property, have been included previously both in the World Trade Organization and in other regional agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but the TPP intends to go further in these directions than ever before. At the same time, the TPP negotiators are addressing new issues that have never, or hardly ever, been part of trade agreements, such as competition policy, regulatory coherence, and standards for labor and environment. All of these issues will take the included Asian countries well beyond what they have included previously in their existing trade agreements.[iv]


The TPP aspires to be far more than just a trade agreement or an FTA. Deardoff[v] listed issues currently being subject to negotiation in the TPP, based on his own take as well as those from a US Trade Representative (USTR) document or from other commentators as indicated. Said issues relevant to this paper are as follows:


  1. Trade issues

a)      Tariffs – eliminate tariffs on intra-TPP trade

b)     Non-tariff barriers – remove technical barriers to trade, open procurement to imports from member countries; and harmonize customs valuation rules and procedures

  1. Non-trade issues

a)      Intellectual property protection – reinforce and extend protection of patent, copyright, trademark and other intellectual property protection provided by the TRIP’s Agreement of the WTO

b)      Temporary movement of business persons – “promote transparency and efficiency in the processing of applications of temporary entry” USTR (2011)

c)      Digital Technologies – “The US has proposed that TPP countries commit to not blocking cross-border transfer of data over the Internet and not require that serves be located in the country in order to conduct business in that country”. Krist (2012)

  1. Issues often mentioned by not explicitly part of  TPP

a)      State-owned Enterprises (SOE’s) – prevent SOE’s from receiving support in the form of regulatory and tax advantages or access to capital and other inputs at below-market prices”, Petri eta al (2011)

b)     Currency manipulation – “There will also need to be careful wording on ‘currency manipulation’ to please US manufacturers” Pilling (2013)


In its November 13, 2013 release, WikiLeaks made available a copy of the “Secret TPP Treaty: Advanced Intellectual Property chapter, for all 12 nations with negotiating positions”. It describes the TPP and the progress of the talks, with excerpts below:


“The treaty is being negotiated in secret by delegations from each of the 12 countries, who together account for 40% of global GDP. The chapter covers proposed international obligations and enforcement mechanisms for copyright, trademark and patent law, and includes the combined positions of all of the parties as they were by the end of August 2013. The document was produced and distributed to the Chief Negotiators on August 30, 2013, after the 19th Round of Negotiations at Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei.”


  1. Commentaries on the TPP
    1. Issues representing potential positive effects in relation to the Philippines joining TPP

a)      The trade pact will remove trade barriers as well as set standards for intellectual property, labor rights and environmental protection.[vi]

b)     A number of industries are expected to greatly benefit from the TPP. Those that stand to gain are the manufacturers of processed food, electronics, garments, oils and furniture.[vii]

c)      TPP is about eliminating barriers to trade and investment, reducing the costs of doing business and enhancing the operation of regional supply chains, according to Calman Cohen, president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade.[viii]

d)     Free-trade agreements can benefit the country’s exports, by opening access to more market destinations. [ix]


  1. Issues representing potential negative effects in relation to the Philippines joining TPP

a)      The government should be ready to implement drastic changes, possibly even including a Constitutional amendment.[x] These possible changes include the 60-40 ownership structure and the numerous restrictions on the practice of certain profession.

b)     TPP will extend pharmaceutical and medical device patents and provide other tools to keep the prices of these necessities high. This will make medications and treatments unaffordable for millions of people and raise the costs of national health programmes.  In fact, the TPP goes farther than previous agreements by also requiring that surgical techniques, medical tests and treatments be patented. This will restrict the availability of these treatments, especially in health systems that have limited resources.[xi]

c)      The proposed TPP foreign investor privileges would provide foreign firms greater “rights” than those afforded to domestic firms. This includes a “right” to not have expectations frustrated by a change in government policy.[xii] 

d)     The TPP is more like a shuffling of protectionist economic policies, rather than an overall liberalization. Producers and manufacturers in developing countries, ironically enough, have been pushing to reduce trade barriers in order to capitalize on markets in more developed economies. On the other hand, U.S. corporations are lobbying to keep protective tariffs in place.[xiii]

e)      TPP plans to reinforce patent monopolies, strengthen innovation-crushing intellectual property rights, and extend copyright protections. This is a boon for big business, but it’s a bad deal for consumers, impoverished sick people, and anyone who cares about preserving internet freedom. The measures would also call for harsher penalties for Internet Service Providers (ISP) for carrying pirated content on their networks, something that could end up restricting access to the internet.[xiv]

f)      Much of the treaty’s text is secret. Congress is almost completely shut out of the negotiations. But, as the WikiLeaks press release explained, “600 ‘trade advisers’ – lobbyists guarding the interests of large U.S. corporations such as Chevron, Halliburton, Monsanto, and Walmart – are granted privileged access to crucial sections of the treaty text.”[xv]


    1. Positive effects if the Philippines join TPP

The commentaries indicate that, the Philippines will stand to benefit from increased competitiveness and market access for its export products.  TPP will lower tariffs for Philippine export markets which results in increased competitiveness. Being part of TPP confers preferential trading partner status for the Philippines with respect to countries who will be part of TPP but currently not a country where the Philippines has a standing free trade agreement.

      Not explicitly stated in the commentaries is the impact of an affirmation of Philippine support for an American initiative. The TPP, envisioned as a free trade agreement, is one of the priorities that US President Barak Obama has tagged for 2013.[xvi] If and when the Philippines decides to join the TPP, a strong and clear signal is sent to Washington that it can continue to count on the Philippines as an ally. In return, the Philippines expects to remain under the good graces of a super power like the US. 

  1. Negative effects if the Philippines join TPP

Most of the potential negative effects revolve around the looming presence of big US-based multinational companies.  If the WikiLeaks press release is to be believed, lobbyists are making sure interests of large US companies are well-secured. Unfortunately, these interests will, more often than not, be inconsistent with those of small countries like the Philippines.

The TPP arrangement proposes to allow foreign firms to even challenge government policies on a wide array of issues including, but not limited to, environmental, energy, consumer health and other non-trade domestic that represent a threat to expected future profits.

The TPP also proposes to extend patents pharmaceutical and medical devices, in consideration of big US corporations rather than the collective interest of TPP countries. The domestic firms manufacturing and distributing cheaper products will fall by the wayside. Consumers will have no choice but buy similar patented products with higher prices.

  1. Other relevant issues

a)      Is the TPP really a free trade agreement?

If the TPP is a free trade agreement, one cannot help but wonder why a major trade player like China is not among the current members. Once finalized, will China be ever, a part of the TPP? Will the current membership allow China to be part of the TPP?

b)     Will the Philippines be invited to the TPP?

All discussions about the potential effects of TPP may be mooted given a realistic scenario that the Philippines is not likely to become a part of TPP. It is not likely to secure an invitation from the current 12-nation group currently finalizing the agreement. Vietnam and Malaysia, among others, will not be too keen in seeing a potential trade competitor offering the same products to get the same preferential tariffs in the TPP. On the other hand, if the TPP does extend the Philippines an invitation to join, the Philippines will be better off rejecting such offer. Countries which compete with Philippine export products will make sure TPP provisions are favorable to them. 

c)      If ever, will the Philippines be ready?

An invitation from current TPP members or an interest to join from the Philippines, or both, may not be sufficient justification for the Philippines to jump into the TPP bandwagon. Is the Philippines ready to go through the process of amending the Constitution just for purposes of preparing for TPP membership? Does the Philippines have the necessary legal structure to enforce the new rights created and the regulate the new prohibitions contained in the preliminary versions of the TPP?

d)     Will the TPP really provide real net benefits to the Philippines?

Will the Philippines be better off tying itself to trade partners in the TPP, at least (3) of them considered direct competitors of the Philippines in the export market? Given the trade-offs and the concessions that the country may give up to be part of the TPP, will it be all worth for the Philippines? The small, local entrepreneurs are likely to be displaced by similarly-sized enterprises from other TPP members. Maybe it will make more sense if efforts and resources are focused on these local enterprises.

e)      Why is a superpower like the US aggressively pushing for TPP?

It is worth asking why the US is aggressively pushing for the finalization of the TPP. On its domestic front, American commentators have voiced out concerns if TPP will really produce the kind of benefits the Obama administration projects for this proposed free trade agreement. In the international arena, promoting US non-economic agenda in the Pacific region present a more realistic justification on why the US is bent on seeing the TPP through.


    1. No net benefits for PHL

The drastic changes and preparations the Philippines will need to undergo to be part of the TPP, will not be worth it. The Philippines has simply more pressing matters and issues to deal with right now.

  1. US v China is real issues

The exclusion of China, at the moment, raises very serious questions about the character of the TPP as a true-blue free trade agreement for the Pacific region. It simply cannot dismiss the suggestion that the US is gearing up for some confrontation with China, not necessarily on the economic arena. For all we know, the Philippines and the other similarly-sized countries, knocking on the door to be invited to be TPP members, may just be some collateral players in a virtual showdown between two superpowers in the Pacific area.

  1. PHL not ready

The Philippines will never be ready for the TPP. There are far more urgent issues which can be the subject of a Constitutional amendment. Even if the current administration is able to get itself invited as a TPP member, the government will never be able to convince the Filipino public that the TPP will be all worth it.

  1. TPP will be detrimental to development of local enterprises

TPP will drive local enterprises out of business. They will not be able to effectively compete with cheap imports from other TPP members. Making these local entrepreneurs to focus on other business will always be easier said than done. Bureaucracy is well institutionalized in the Philippines, making it more difficult to start new businesses.

  1. Real US agenda

The TPP is nothing more than a realization of an inevitable. American factories will never be a match to the cost-efficient production of certain goods elsewhere. In exchange for opening a US domestic market for TPP members, the US will play to its strengths, particularly in areas of extended patent and copyright protection.



[i] Deardoff, Alan. (2013). Trade Implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership for ASEAN and Other Asian Countries.The University of Michigan, A Paper Presented at the 2nd 2013 Asian Development Review Conference, August 1-2, 2013, Manila, Retrieved from

[ii] Remo, Amy R. (2013). Charter said to hinder PH bid to join crucial bloc. Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 10th, 2013,

[iii] Ho, Abigail. (2011). Drastic changes needed for Philippine entry to TPP. Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 24, 2011, Retrieved from

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Deardoff, supra.

[vi] PHL lobbying to be included in regional partnership TPP says Trade official, November 3, 2013, Retrieved from

[vii] Remo, Amy R. (2013). PH Firms Risk Losing US Market share says exec. Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 3, 2013, Retrieved from

[viii] Galang, Jose M. (2013). Why is the Philippines ignoring Obama’s Pacific trade initiative? Retrieved from

[ix] Bisara, Dion. (2013). Benefits of Free Trade Outweigh Disadvantages’: Philippines Trade Minister. October 14, 2013. Retrieved from

[x] Ho, Abigail, supra.

[xi] Sairah. (2013).TransPacific Partnership in the Philipines: Recipe for Disaster?. October 21, 2013, Retrieved from

[xii] The Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Empower Corporations to Attack U.S. Policies in Foreign Tribunals and Demand Taxpayer Compensation for Our Environmental, Health and Other Laws, Retrieved from

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Ibid

[xvi] Galang, Jose. Why is the Philippines ignoring Obama’s Pacific trade initiative. Retrieved from