71. The representative of the Philippines said that Members should preserve the legal certainty in the patent system and keep the burden on patent offices and users at a reasonable level. Nevertheless, this policy consideration had to be balanced against the equally compelling need to address the unfair exploitation of biological and genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. This need was demonstrated by the Philippines' national experience in the last ten years. As early as 1995, the Philippines had passed "Guidelines Establishing a Regulatory Framework for the Prospecting of Biological and Genetic Resources", building on which it had also passed the "Indigenous People’s Rights Act" in 1997. Thereafter, the "Traditional and Alternative Medicines Act" and the "Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act" had entered into force. Despite all these laws, biopiracy and the inequitable exploitation of genetic and biological resources had continued unabated and unchecked.
72. He said that, although most Members conceded that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD were mutually supportive and that there was no conflict between these two Agreements, they arrived at different conclusions. From the perspective of developing Members, it was time to use the patent system to combat biopiracy. The draft amendment constituted a solid and reasonable basis for Members' collective engagement with a view to finding a resolution to the problem of biopiracy.
73. He posed the following questions to the proponents of the draft amendment: whether the proponents would consider an additional implementation period as the draft Article 29bis would require domestic legislative action; whether the scope of "biological resources" was broader than that of "genetic resources"; what the meanings of "reasonable inquiry" and "with reasonable grounds to know" were; whether a mere declaration by patent applicants that the providing country did not have prior informed consent and access and benefit-sharing regimes would be considered as compliance with the disclosure requirement; whether the disclosure requirements would apply retroactively to the patentee who had been granted the patent before the adoption of the amendment; and whether Members could impose fees as might be necessary to cover the cost of publishing additional information.
