in forcenot yet in forceblocked by a courtproposedno longer in force
AI law1 instrument, 1 in force
Research summary (238 words)
The Philippines has no comprehensive AI-transparency, AI-risk-obligations, AI-training-data, or AI-governance statute.
The Anti-OSAEC and Anti-CSAEM Act (Republic Act No. 11930, 2022) extends its definition of a "child" for its child sexual abuse and exploitation offenses to a computer-generated, digitally, or manually crafted image or graphic of a person represented or made to appear to be a child, binding any person regardless of the child's consent and regardless of whether a real child was depicted.
Three measures would create a general AI regulatory framework: the Senate's Artificial Intelligence Regulation Act (Senate Bill No. 25, 20th Congress, filed ), which remains with committee; the House's Anti-Deepfake Personality Rights Protection Act (House Bill No. 2312, 20th Congress); and a House ICT Committee consolidation around an Artificial Intelligence Development Authority (House Bill No. 7396 and related deliberations). None had been enacted as of .
A Commission on Elections resolution reported to require a disclaimer on AI-generated political content (Resolution No. 11064) has not been located in a readable copy, so its own text is not described here.
The National Privacy Commission's NPC Advisory No. 2024-04 () applies the Data Privacy Act of 2012 to AI systems that process personal data; it is a Commission advisory interpreting an existing statute rather than a statute or regulation in its own right, and the duty it construes attaches to personal data rather than to the AI system as such.
Section 3(a) defines "child", for purposes of the Act's offenses, to include not only a natural person below eighteen and a person presented, depicted, or portrayed as a child regardless of actual age, but also a "computer-generated, digitally or manually crafted image, or graphic of a person who is represented or who is made to appear to be a child".
Section 4 makes it unlawful for any person, through online or offline means, to commit the Act's listed acts against a "child" as so defined, regardless of the child's consent, so an entirely synthetic, AI-generated depiction of what appears to be a child in a sexual context falls within the same prohibition as a depiction of a real child. Section 10(a) punishes a violation of most Section 4 offenses with life imprisonment and a fine of not less than two million pesos.
Section 45 provides that the Act takes effect after fifteen (15) days following its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. No notice stating the day of that publication has been located.
The Philippines' comprehensive private-sector data-protection law is the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173), enforced by the National Privacy Commission (NPC).
Section 3(l)'s enumerated sensitive personal information categories do not name biometric data, and the Act does not use the word "biometric", so a faceprint or voiceprint is regulated under the base Act only as ordinary personal information; neither NPC Advisory No. 2024-04 (on AI systems processing personal data) nor NPC Advisory No. 2026-01 (on scraping of publicly available personal data) names biometric data.
Advisory 2024-04 applies the Act's general privacy principles (transparency, accountability, fairness, accuracy and data minimization), the duty to determine an appropriate lawful basis and the security duties to the development and deployment of AI systems that process personal data, and Advisory 2026-01 requires a controller that scrapes publicly available personal data to define a specific and legitimate purpose, determine a lawful basis under Section 12 or 13 and conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment.
Section 21's accountability principle governs cross-border transfer, requiring the controller to use contractual or other reasonable means to secure comparable protection wherever the data goes, with no data-localization mandate found. Section 37 routes an aggrieved data subject's restitution through the general Civil Code rather than a dedicated statutory tort, a lighter mechanism than the purpose-built civil-liability clauses found elsewhere.
Section 20(f) requires a personal information controller to promptly notify the National Privacy Commission and affected data subjects when sensitive personal information, or other information that may enable identity fraud, is reasonably believed to have been acquired by an unauthorized person, where the controller or the Commission believes the acquisition is likely to give rise to a real risk of serious harm. The Act itself sets no fixed numeric deadline.
Section 17(A) of NPC Circular 16-03 requires the Commission to be notified within seventy-two (72) hours upon knowledge of, or reasonable belief that, a personal data breach has occurred. Section 38(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations sets the same 72-hour period for notifying the Commission and affected data subjects.
The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173) uses a criteria-based consent model under Section 12 for ordinary personal information, with a stricter standard under Section 13 for sensitive personal information, and adopts personal information controller and personal information processor terminology, a controller and processor style split. The National Privacy Commission (NPC) enforces the Act.
The Act applies to an act done or practice engaged in and outside of the Philippines by an entity where three conditions are met: the act, practice or processing relates to personal information about a Philippine citizen or a resident; the entity has a link with the Philippines and is processing personal information in the Philippines, or, even if the processing is outside the Philippines, it is about Philippine citizens or residents; and the entity has other links in the Philippines.
Section 6 gives as links a contract entered in the Philippines, a juridical entity unincorporated in the Philippines that has central management and control in the country, and an entity with a branch, agency, office or subsidiary in the Philippines whose parent or affiliate has access to personal information, and as other links carrying on business in the Philippines and personal information collected or held by an entity in the Philippines.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations, Rule II, Section 4, state the reach as applying to an act done or practice engaged in and outside of the Philippines if the person processing is found or established in the Philippines, the processing relates to personal data about a Philippine citizen or resident, the processing is done in the Philippines, or the entity has links to the Philippines such as using equipment located in the country or maintaining an office, branch or agency there, with due consideration to international law and comity.
The Act applies to the processing of all types of personal information by any natural or juridical person, including a controller or processor not found or established in the Philippines that uses equipment located in the Philippines or maintains an office, branch or agency there.
Section 4 excludes seven kinds of information: information about a government officer or employee that relates to the position or functions; information about an individual performing service under contract for a government institution that relates to the services performed; information about a discretionary financial benefit such as a license or permit; personal information processed for journalistic, artistic, literary or research purposes; information necessary to carry out the functions of public authority; information that banks and other financial institutions under the central monetary authority need to comply with the Credit Information System Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act; and personal information originally collected from residents of foreign jurisdictions under their own laws and processed in the Philippines.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations apply the exclusions only to the minimum extent of collection, access, use, disclosure or other processing necessary to the purpose, function or activity concerned, and limit the research exclusion to research intended for a public benefit.
The Rules put the burden of proving that the Act does not apply on the party claiming the non-applicability, have the controller or processor keep upholding data subjects' rights and the general data privacy principles where they are not incompatible with the exclusion, and have any exemption read liberally in favor of the data subject.
Section 21's Principle of Accountability makes a personal information controller responsible for personal information under its control or custody, including data transferred to a third party for processing domestically or internationally, and requires the controller to use contractual or other reasonable means to provide a comparable level of protection while the data is processed abroad.
This is an accountability-based transfer regime rather than an adequacy list or a localization mandate; no data-localization requirement was found.
Section 16 grants a data subject rights including to be informed, to object, to access, to rectification or correction, to erasure or blocking, and to damages for inaccurate, unlawfully obtained, or unauthorized use of personal information, alongside the right to file a complaint before the Commission. Section 17 makes these rights transmissible to lawful heirs after the data subject's death or incapacity.
Section 18 grants a right to data portability, obtaining personal data in an electronic or structured, commonly used format that allows further use by the data subject; this right was already present in the original 2012 Act, unlike some regimes that added it only by later amendment.
The National Privacy Commission is the supervisory authority, with Chapter VIII (Sections 25-36) setting criminal penalties, including imprisonment and fines, for unauthorized processing, negligent access, improper disposal, unauthorized purposes, unauthorized access due to negligence, malicious disclosure, unauthorized disclosure, and combinations of these acts, scaling with whether sensitive personal information is involved.
Section 37 provides that restitution for any aggrieved party is governed by the general Civil Code, a private civil remedy but one routed through general civil law rather than a freestanding, Data Privacy Act-specific statutory cause of action with its own procedural rules.
National Privacy Commission Circular No. 2022-04, dated , requires a covered personal information controller or processor to register its Data Protection Officer and its data processing systems with the Commission. Section 5 covers a controller or processor that employs 250 or more persons, one that processes the sensitive personal information of 1,000 or more individuals, and one whose processing will likely pose a risk to the rights and freedoms of data subjects.
A data processing system involving automated decision-making or profiling must be registered in all instances. Under Section 7, a newly implemented data processing system or a first Data Protection Officer must be registered within 20 days from the commencement of the system or the effectivity of the appointment. Under Section 7, a minor amendment to the registration, including a change of Data Protection Officer, must be updated within 10 days.
Section 39 gives covered controllers and processors 180 days from the effectivity of the Circular to complete their registration. The Commission states that covered controllers and processors were allowed until to comply under Section 39.
The Philippines has no scraping-specific statute; open-web collection is governed by the general computer-misuse, copyright, and data-privacy regimes. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) criminalises illegal access, illegal interception, and data interference, each defined around defeating a right or authorization rather than reading an unauthenticated public page.
The Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293) protects compilations of data as derivative works only where the selection, coordination, or arrangement is original, excludes mere data and news of the day from protection outright, and lets fair use reach quotation and current-events reproduction; the Code has no sui generis database right and no dedicated text-and-data-mining exception, so a scraper or model trainer reproducing a copyrighted work relies on the general fair-use standard of Section 185.
The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173) reaches personal data collected by scraping regardless of the data's public availability, a position the National Privacy Commission's NPC Advisory No. 2026-01 () states as guidance rather than as a binding rule of its own: publicly available personal data still requires a lawful basis under the Act's own processing criteria before it may be scraped and reused.
Section 4(a) makes illegal access (accessing the whole or any part of a computer system without right), illegal interception (intercepting a non-public transmission of computer data without right), and data interference (intentionally or recklessly altering, damaging, deleting, or deteriorating computer data without right) offenses against the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and systems.
On a plain reading each offense turns on acting "without right", so reading a public, unauthenticated page without defeating any access control does not itself fall within any of the three. Section 8 punishes a Section 4(a) or 4(b) offense with imprisonment of prision mayor (six years and one day to twelve years) or a fine of at least two hundred thousand pesos up to an amount commensurate to the damage incurred, or both.
Section 21 gives the Regional Trial Court jurisdiction over any violation of the Act, including a violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction lies if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country, or if the commission damages a natural or juridical person who was then in the Philippines.
Only the ground for a Filipino national mentions nationality; the others turn on where an element was committed, which computer system was used, or where the person damaged was. Section 31 of the Act provides that it takes effect fifteen (15) days after the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. No notice stating the day that publication was completed has been located.
Republic Act No. 8293 (1997), Section 185Official text of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, reproduced by the Lawphil Project (Arellano Law Foundation)
In force since .Binds public and private bodies.
What this law does
Section 185 makes the fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and similar purposes a defense to infringement, weighed on the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount used, and the effect on the work's potential market.
The same section treats decompilation, reproducing and translating a computer program's code to achieve interoperability with another independently created program, as a use that may also constitute fair use. Section 216.1 makes any person infringing a right protected under the Code liable to an injunction and to damages.
Section 173.1(b) protects "compilations of data and other materials which are original by reason of the selection or coordination or arrangement of their contents" as a derivative work: an unoriginal compilation, one that merely reproduces facts without a protectable selection or arrangement, earns no copyright under this section.
Section 175 excludes "mere data as such" and "news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information" from protection outright, regardless of Sections 172 and 173. Section 216.1 makes any person infringing a right protected under the Code liable to an injunction and to damages.
Section 12 permits the processing of personal information only if not otherwise prohibited by law and only when at least one of several listed conditions exists, most commonly the data subject's consent or another enumerated lawful basis; the section draws no exception for personal data that is publicly available online.
The National Privacy Commission's NPC Advisory No. 2026-01 (), Guidelines on Data Scraping of Publicly Available Personal Data, states as guidance that the public availability of personal data does not by itself constitute the data subject's consent to its processing, so a controller scraping publicly available personal data must still identify one of Section 12's lawful bases for the specific purpose of that processing.
Section 45 of the Act provides that it takes effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. No notice stating the day of that publication has been located.
The Philippines has no enacted statute that sets security requirements a software product or connected device must meet before it reaches the market, no enacted general duty to report an exploited vulnerability or a security incident that binds an ordinary software or digital-service provider, and no standalone reasonable-security or information-security-programme statute of the kind New York's SHIELD Act or Massachusetts' 201 CMR 17.00 impose on a business generally; the Anti-Financial Account Scamming Act (Republic Act No. 12010) separately requires the banks, non-banks and payment providers the Bangko Sentral supervises to protect their clients' financial accounts with risk management systems and controls, and is filed as a row of its own.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) defines 'critical infrastructure' and raises the penalty for an offense under Section 4(a) when it is committed against critical infrastructure, and its Section 13 requires a service provider to preserve traffic data, subscriber information, and, on a law-enforcement order, content data for six months, but neither provision creates a duty on an operator to secure its own systems: both bind the party who attacks a system, or who assists an investigation into that attack, which is the scraping side of the seam where this Act's illegal-access, interception, and data-interference offenses are already researched.
The Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8792) uses the phrase 'security procedure' only to describe how an electronic signature or electronic document is authenticated for evidentiary reliability in a legal proceeding, not a duty to secure a system or a product, so it carries no product-security or baseline-security duty either.
The Data Privacy Act of 2012's own security-of-processing duty and breach-notification duty are this jurisdiction's privacy-topic instrument and are not restated here, consistent with the rule that a comprehensive data-protection regime's own security clause stays with that regime.
Executive Order No. 58 (s. 2024) adopted the Department of Information and Communications Technology's National Cybersecurity Plan 2023-2028 and directed national government agencies, instrumentalities, and local government units to support its implementation; it commits the executive branch to a plan rather than creating a legal duty on a private operator, so it is named here rather than filed as an instrument.
The one measure that would change this picture, House Bill No. 9605, the 'National Cybersecurity and Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 2026' (as reported out by the House Committees on Information and Communications Technology and Appropriations, Committee Report No. 423, Twentieth Congress, consolidating twenty-eight prior bills), passed the House of Representatives on third reading on by a reported vote of 198 to 3 with one abstention and was transmitted to the Senate, where it was pending as of .
The bill declares itself applicable to 'all persons, natural or juridical, whose activities affect or are affected by the cybersecurity of Philippine cyberspace,' but every operative duty it actually creates, a minimum cybersecurity standard, a Chief Information Security Officer position, a cybersecurity audit and risk-assessment report at least once every two years, and mandatory disclosure of a critical or high-risk cybersecurity incident, binds only an entity the bill's new National Cybersecurity Agency has individually designated as a critical information infrastructure operator under a five-year, case-by-case notice procedure, or a national government agency, government-owned or -controlled corporation, state university or college, or local government unit.
The bill's own coverage section preserves, rather than displaces, the existing supervisory authority of sector regulators, naming the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Telecommunications Commission, the Insurance Commission, and the Energy Regulatory Commission, over the institutions each already regulates; the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas' information technology risk management rules for banks (Section 148 of its Manual of Regulations for Banks) are filed as rows of their own, and the other regulators' rules are a further role-gated layer.
No published enforcement record exists under House Bill No. 9605, which had passed only the House of Representatives as of . Section 6 of Republic Act No. 12010 requires banks, non-banks and other financial institutions under the jurisdiction of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to protect access to clients' financial accounts with adequate risk management systems and controls.
Section 148 of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Manual of Regulations for Banks requires a supervised financial institution to notify the Bangko Sentral within two hours of discovering a reportable major cyber-related incident, and that duty is filed as a row of its own. Section 148 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks also sets information technology governance and information security requirements for supervised financial institutions, and those requirements are filed as a row of their own.
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 12010 requires Institutions to ensure that access to their clients' Financial Accounts is protected by adequate risk management systems and controls such as multi-factor authentication, fraud management systems, and other Account Owner enrollment and verification processes. Section 6 requires those systems and controls to be proportionate and commensurate to the nature, size and complexity of the Institution's operations.
Section 6 relieves an Institution that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas determines to be compliant with the risk management requirements of liability for loss or damage arising from the offenses in sections 4 and 5. Section 6 makes an Institution liable for restitution of funds to the Account Owner where it failed to employ adequate risk management systems and controls, or failed to exercise the highest degree of diligence in preventing loss or damage from the offenses in sections 4 and 5.
Section 3(f) defines Institutions as banks, non-banks, other financial institutions, and payments and financial services providers under the jurisdiction of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Section 26 provides that the Act takes effect after fifteen days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in a national newspaper of general circulation. The President approved the Act on . No day of publication of the Act has been located.
Manual of Regulations for Banks Section 148 (Information Technology Risk Management), IT governance, information security and annual IT profileText of Section 148 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks, as published by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Section 148 sets out guidelines on information technology risk management that serve as the Bangko Sentral's baseline requirement for all Bangko Sentral-supervised financial institutions. Section 148 applies its guidelines to banks, non-banks with quasi-banking function, non-bank electronic money issuers and other non-bank institutions under Bangko Sentral supervision or regulation. Section 148 provides that these institutions must establish an effective IT governance framework.
Section 148 provides that the board and senior management should appoint a chief information security officer responsible and accountable for the organization-wide information security program. Section 148 requires these institutions to submit an Annual IT Profile to the supervising department of the Bangko Sentral within twenty-five days from the end of the reference year.
Section 148 provides that the Bangko Sentral may deploy applicable enforcement actions on the institution and its directors, officers and employees for violations of its reporting requirement. Section 148 rests on six circulars of the Bangko Sentral dated between and , and no notice stating the day the provisions this entry describes came into force has been located.
Section 148 requires the Compliance Officer or a designated officer of a Bangko Sentral-supervised financial institution to notify the supervising department of the Bangko Sentral within two hours from discovery of a reportable major cyber-related incident or a disruption of financial services and operations.
Section 148 describes a reportable major cyber-related incident as an event that may seriously jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity or availability of critical information, data or systems of the institution, its customers and other stakeholders. Section 148 treats as a reportable disruption a disruption of critical operations that lasts for more than two hours.
Section 148 provides that a follow-up report should be sent by e-mail within twenty-four hours from the time of discovery of the incident or disruption. Section 148 requires the notice to disclose at least the nature of the incident and the specific system or business function involved. Section 148 subjects non-compliance with the event-driven reporting procedure to the High penalty level of monetary sanctions under section 1102 of the Manual.
Section 148 rests on six circulars of the Bangko Sentral dated between and , and no notice stating the day the provisions this entry describes came into force has been located.
The Philippines has a physical adult-content age-verification duty on cinema and theater licensees, but no social-media minor-access restriction, no app-store age-verification requirement, and no age-appropriate design code.
The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board's charter (Presidential Decree No. 1986) bars a person below eighteen from admission to a moviehouse or theater screening a film the Board has classified "Restricted" or "For Adults Only", requiring proof of age where doubt exists, but this duty is not extended to an online or on-demand exhibition channel.
The Children's Television Act (Republic Act No. 8370) sets child-viewing-hour scheduling and program-quality standards for broadcast television rather than an age-verification or access-gating duty.
The Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (Republic Act No. 9775) and the Anti-OSAEC and Anti-CSAEM Act (Republic Act No. 11930, 2022) impose reporting, blocking, and content-filtering duties on internet service providers and internet intermediaries directed at child sexual abuse material as such, rather than an age-verification or minor-access-gating duty triggered by a user's age.
The Safe Spaces Act's online provisions (Republic Act No. 11313) address gender-based online sexual harassment and carry no age-verification or minor-access duty.
Section 9 makes it unlawful for a person below eighteen years of age to enter, or to misrepresent or use false evidence of age to gain admission into, a moviehouse or theater showing a motion picture the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) has classified "Restricted" or "For Adults Only". It is likewise unlawful for a theater employee to sell or accept from such a person an admission ticket to such a screening.
Where there is doubt as to a person's age, the person seeking admission must exhibit a residence certificate or other proof of age. Section 11 punishes a violation of the Decree, including this admission restriction, with imprisonment of three months and one day to one year and a fine of not less than fifty thousand pesos nor more than one hundred thousand pesos.
Section 24 provides that the Decree takes effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette and/or in newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. No notice stating the day of that publication has been located.
The Philippines has no press-publisher neighbouring right, no compelled platform-to-publisher bargaining regime, and no hot-news or misappropriation doctrine distinct from ordinary copyright law.
News aggregation is governed by the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293), which excludes "news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information" from copyright protection outright and separately lets fair use reach quotation, including press summaries, and reproduction of current events by mass media to the extent necessary for that purpose. No linking or framing case, and no text-and-data-mining opt-out mechanism bearing on news indexing, was found.
Section 175 excludes "news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information" from copyright protection outright, regardless of Sections 172 and 173, so a bare news item carries no protection an aggregator could infringe.
Section 184.1(b) separately permits quotations from a published work, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries, where compatible with fair use and the source and author's name are mentioned.
Section 184.1(c) permits reproducing or communicating to the public by mass media an article on a current political, social, economic, scientific, or religious topic, or a public address of the same nature, for information purposes, unless the rightsholder has expressly reserved the use, provided the source is clearly indicated.
Section 184.1(d) separately permits reproducing and communicating to the public a literary, scientific, or artistic work as part of a report of current events, by photography, cinematography, or broadcasting, to the extent necessary for that purpose.
No press-publisher neighbouring right, comparable to the EU's Digital Single Market (DSM) Article 15 or Germany's Leistungsschutzrecht, exists in the Code; a news aggregator's reproduction of headlines and short extracts is addressed instead by these copyright limitations, and by the Code's own exclusion of news items as such from protection.
No current case law for Philippines cybersecurity law
No current case law for Philippines communications law
No current case law for Philippines content moderation law
No current case law for Philippines product and AI liability law
No current case law for Philippines digital accessibility law
No current case law for Philippines age gating law
No current case law for Philippines reuse law
Reporting clocks that run here2 instruments
The instruments whose obligation lines set a deadline for reporting an incident, a vulnerability or a personal-data breach, each deadline read from the sentence that carries it and listed shortest first. The law of the Philippines comes first, then the law of the bodies above it that applies here.
Each flag is one law, and a link to it. Read down the scale: the clocks document's time axis, with the empty stretches shortened so the deadlines sit close. Flags on one line set the same duty at the same deadline, and the laws behind them are named to the right, with what each clock counts from.
The deadlines above on one time axis, shortest at the top. The axis keeps its order and, between neighbors, its proportion, but a stretch with no deadline on it is shortened, so the hour marks on the left are what say how far apart two stations really are. Beside each action, the laws that set it, what each counts from, and a status where the law is not yet in force. The List tab has the same data in full, with the sentences.
Notify the appropriate supervising department of the Bangko Sentral, through your Compliance Officer or a designated officer, within two hours from discovery of a reportable major cyber-related incident or of a disruption of financial services and operations (Section 148, reporting and notification standards, item b(1)).
Send a follow-up report by e-mail to the same department within twenty-four hours from the time of discovery, covering the nature of the incident, how and when you first detected it, its initial impact, your initial response, and whether the business continuity or crisis management plan was activated (item b(3)).
An app that is a personal information controller and reasonably believes that sensitive personal information or identity-fraud-enabling information of an individual in the Philippines has been acquired by an unauthorized person must promptly notify the National Privacy Commission and the affected individuals, where the controller or the Commission believes the acquisition is likely to give rise to a real risk of serious harm to an affected individual.
Which of these one incident starts turns on the facts: the incident method works that through. The clocks document draws every clock in the LexLint law library on one axis, with the sentence beside every rung.
AIDrafted with AI
Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made
This page covers the instruments LexLint has researched
to a stage. Instruments named in the law library but not yet researched are
counted in the head and are not listed here. Every entry carries its own
primary source on its note page. This is a research index, not legal
advice.