Ready Player One

Peer2peer platforms (e.g. Grab, AirBnB), crypto-currency, artificial intelligence. Novel technologies that displace the established order. Easier to use, less costly. Disruptive innovation that undermines the incumbent landscape of products, firms, models, alliances or industries.

Every generation has had its own share of these breakthrough discoveries. To name a few, the Internet and its progeny, ultrasound imagery, the personal computer, cellular phones and cameras, e-cigarettes. We tend to forget that TV and radio, the mass produced car (Ford Model T), the disposable stainless steel blade, among others, also changed paradigms.  

Paradoxical regulation. As with every game changer that suddenly emerges from the pack, how do you fit them into the existing regulatory framework designed to deal only with the status quo that they have outmoded? The LTFRB had no guidance on how to treat Transport Network Companies like Grab and Uber; was clueless on what to do with surge pricing. Now Grab has been prodding them on the righteousness of the additional P2/minute charge which they invoke under their right to set their own fare. Interests of public convenience, health, safety and ideals of fair competition make it impossible to just ignore these new players when government is player No. 1.

The easiest course is to enforce regulations as written. This even if the technology was clearly not contemplated by extant rules or covered by guiding adjudication. Critics rightly argue that this would be counter productive. Scholars even tie up economic growth with innovations that is unrestricted. Just navigating the lattice of regulations from different agencies becomes a stifling exercise.

But are we supposed to reward those astute enough to exploit gaps in the law to escape regulatory capture? What do we say to those who do not see these parvenus as pioneers but, instead, as pirates? Steve Jobs famously said that its more fun to be a pirate than to join the navy. The trouble with this picture is that you can be hanged as a pirate.

March of progress. How do we arrive at a balance when regulation seeks to level the playing field while innovation exists to obliterate it? How do we fashion outside the zone regulatory responses to deal with the out of the box situations? New paradigm solutions have emerged as a result of our changing administrative landscape: soft law, new public governance models. In this context, we never do outgrow the growing pains of regulating innovation.

In the end, the choice of government has been to embrace innovation not for its owns sake but to serve the public good. Like intellectual property laws which secure to the authors of writings and discoveries for a limited time the exclusive right to their creation, it is important to understand that all these innovations are ultimately meant to benefit the public.

At our Universidad de Manila, Chair designate of our University’s Board of Regents, former Agriculture Secretary Dr. William Dar constantly reminds us of our mandate to keep our constituencies ahead or, at least, abreast of the curve. We continue to revisit our curriculum, refine it as to produce thinking graduates agile enough to grow with the endless cycles of change. Specifically, we put in the effort to cultivate the entrepreneurial mindset that kindles innovation. To be complacent would be to waste the advantage of having a broader world view.

The Court denying her a day in Court. At last week’s column, we wondered aloud why the Senate was silent instead of filing its own “indignant” intervention at the Supreme Court (SC) quo warranto proceeding against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno. Should the quo warranto be granted, it would impact greatly on our common understanding of the power to remove impeachable officials. The Constitution entrusted this to the Senate only. Even if the Court were to deny the petition, on the merits, it would also be an arguably injudicious advance warning to a waiting Senate Court. The message would be that an impeachment article based on SALN misfeasance or nonfeasance is problematic. Either way, the party has been crashed.

The opposition Liberal Party certainly made their sentiments known when they warned that the SC was courting a constitutional crisis. Minority leader Senator Frank Drilon worried that we are going down a slippery slope that makes all impeachable officials vulnerable to having their qualifications questioned even belatedly. No office holder is ever safe. Senators Sonny Trillanes and Leila de Lima have waded into the controversy with their manifestation before the Court to dismiss the quo warranto case.

Its still alive! Last Thursday, Senate President Koko Pimentel came closest to an institutional protest when he also wondered aloud whether the SC wouldn’t be circumventing the law if it should grant the petition. Of course, this was his personal opinion but the sentiment of the leader of the Senate and administration stalwart (a No. 1 Bar Topnotcher) against any such erosion of its Constitutional assignment cannot be lightly disregarded. Another majority pillar, the Harvard Law trained Senator Sonny Angara has also spoken out in defense of the Senate’s prerogatives. These two men, sons of giants of the Senate, are not about to idly watch these proceedings go by.

At the very least, this cross spectrum posse of Senators signals the institution’s steadfast belief  in its role in the scheme of checks and balances so carefully calibrated in our Constitution.

Fight season cometh. We eagerly anticipate the upcoming title bout between Senator Manny Pacquiao and Lucas Matthysse. Senator Manny will be competing for a record 11th world title. It promises to provide more thrills and excitement than the humdrum, disgusting fights we’ve seen breaking out lately among our high government officials in all three branches.