NPC Issuance Wiki

CID CDO 25-001: World App — Motion for Clarification (30 January 2026)

Issued Resolution

Source

Source Tags

  • Motion for Clarification
  • Compliance
  • Cease and Desist Order
  • Biometric Data
  • Section 13
  • NPC Circular No. 20-02
  • rules on the Issuance of Cease and Desist Orders

Resolution Text

IN THE MATTER OF WORLD APP PROCESSING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

CID CDO 25-001

For: Violation of the Data Privacy Act of 2012

x-----------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

BELARMINO, D.P.C.;

Before the Commission is the Motion for Clarification dated 03 December 2025 (Motion for Clarification) filed by Tools for Humanity Corporation (TFH).1

Facts

On 06 October 2025, the Commission issued a Cease and Desist Order dated 23 September 2025 (CDO) against TFH, ordering it to cease and desist from the processing of personal information within the Philippines through the Orb and the World App.2

On 13 November 2025, the Commission issued a Resolution dated 30 October 2025 (Resolution) extending the effectivity of the CDO and ordering TFH to submit the necessary compliance report within the period prescribed.3 The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, given the foregoing and the reasoning provided in the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) dated 23 September 2025, this Commission resolves to EXTEND the effectivity of the said CDO pertaining to the processing of TFH within the Philippines in the World App and through the Orb.

xxx

Further, TFH is ORDERED to SUBMIT the necessary compliance report within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Additionally, the Enforcement Division of the NPC is hereby tasked to MONITOR the compliance of TFH with this Resolution and to SUBMIT to the Commission a report every three (3) weeks after receipt of this Resolution, unless the CDO is lifted or modified.4

Subsequently, TFH, through counsel, filed a Motion for Clarification dated 03 December 2025, praying for the Commission to “issue an Order specifying the particular topic-specific compliance items with which Respondent must comply”.5 On 15 December 2025, TFH, through counsel, submitted its compliance with the Resolution.6

Issue

Whether the Motion for Clarification should be granted.

Discussion

The Commission resolves to deny the Motion for Clarification of TFH.

A motion for clarification is denied when no issues remain pending in a case which need to be further clarified.7 TFH, through its Motion for Clarification, prays for the issuance of an Order specifying the particular topic-specific compliance items:

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays that this Honorable Commission ISSUE an Order specifying the particular topic-specific compliance items with which Respondent must comply.

Other reliefs just and reasonable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.8

A perusal of the Motion for Clarification reveals that it does not genuinely seek to elucidate any ambiguity or interpretive aspect of the Resolution. Rather, it effectively requests the Commission to furnish a detailed list of items necessary for compliance. In substance, the Motion seeks the issuance of a separate directive in the nature of a compliance checklist—relief that is neither provided for nor contemplated by the Resolution.

In this case, the Resolution extending the effectivity of the CDO expressly directs TFH to submit the necessary compliance report within the prescribed period, and tasks the Enforcement Division to monitor compliance and report to the Commission, unless the CDO is lifted or modified. Pursuant to Rule II, Section 13 of the NPC Circular No. 20-02 or the Rules on the Issuance of Cease and Desist Orders, when the CDO is extended, it shall also include an order to submit the necessary compliance report within the time prescribed for monitoring purposes.9 Accordingly, the directive to submit a compliance report in the Resolution10 pertains to compliance with the extended CDO for monitoring purposes.

The CDO dated 23 September 202511 and the Resolution dated 30 October 2025,12 already set out the factual findings and legal bases for the issuance and extension of the CDO, including the Commission’s determination, based on substantial evidence, that the acts or practices covered by the CDO constitute acts or practices in violation of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA) and relevant NPC issuances.

In both the Order and the Resolution, the Commission discussed the matters under topic-specific headings and provided illustrative examples to aid in understanding the bases and directives therein.

The prayer of TFH under its Motion for Clarification goes beyond clarification as it specifically requests the Commission to specify “topic-specific compliance items”13 which are additional details not typically addressed through a motion for clarification.

To the extent TFH’s request is premised on the position that the factual or legal basis for the CDO no longer exists, the Resolution itself identifies the appropriate remedy: to file a Motion to Lift the CDO on the ground that the factual or legal basis for its issuance no longer exists at any time during the effectivity of the extended CDO.14 Should TFH opt to file such motion, the Commission has set forth the required contents, providing clear guidance on the matter.15

Accordingly, TFH’s Motion presents no ambiguity requiring clarification, and the Motion must be denied.

In view of the foregoing, and as resolved during the Adjudication Meeting held on 30 January 2026, the Commission hereby rules as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission resolves to DENY the Motion for Clarification dated 03 December 2025 filed by Tools for Humanity Corporation.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines.
30 January 2026.

JOSE AMELITO SUTTON BELARMINO II, MSc
Deputy Privacy Commissioner

NERISSA N. DE JESUS
Deputy Privacy Commissioner

Copy furnished:

GAC
Counsel for Respondent

NAN
Senior Director and Head of Government Relations & Public Policy

NTM
Associate General Counsel

JPW
Data Protection Officer

COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATION DIVISION
NATIONAL PRIVACY COMMISSION
25th-27th Floors, The Upper Class Tower, Quezon Ave.

Corner Scout Reyes Street, Quezon City

cid@privacy.gov.ph

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
GENERAL RECORDS UNIT

National Privacy Commission

IN THE MATTER OF WORLD APP PROCESSING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

CID CDO 25-001

For: Violation of the Data Privacy Act of 2012

x-----------------------------------------------------x

Dissenting Opinion

BARCENA, P.C.;

The Commission issued a Cease-and-Desist Order (CDO) dated 23 September 2025 ordering Tools for Humanity Corporation (Respondent) to cease and desist from processing personal data through the Orb and World App. Subsequently, the Resolution dated 30 October 2025 extended the effectivity of the CDO.

On 03 December 2025, Respondent submitted through counsel a Motion for Clarification praying for the issuance of an Order specifying the compliance items with which the Respondent must comply, to wit:

“5. While Respondent acknowledges that the CDO and the Resolution identify certain compliance areas of concern, Respondent respectfully prays for this Honorable Commission’s direction and guidelines on the scope and any specific remedial action that is expected to be undertaken by Respondent. Such clarification is essential for Respondent to properly gather the necessary documentation, consult with the appropriate personnel, and implement all required measures in faithful accordance with this Honorable Commission’s directives.”

While most of the members of the Commission en banc resolve to deny Respondent’s Motion for Clarification, I dissent.

At the outset, it bears emphasis that under the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), the Commission performs not only adjudication functions but is also the mandated advisory body on matters affecting protection of personal data that informs and educates stakeholders on data privacy, data protection, and fair information rights and responsibilities.16 To an extent, these advisory and public education functions of the Commission are fulfilled through the contents of its rulings in the exercise of its adjudication functions.

Together with its rule making, monitoring, and enforcement functions,17 the desired outcome is compliance by Personal Information Controllers (PICs) and Personal Information Processors (PIPs) with the laws, rules, and regulations that protect the right of privacy while ensuring free flow of information for innovation, growth, and national development.

To ensure such compliance from PICs and PIPs, it is incumbent upon the Commission to provide directives that are sufficiently clear and be responsive to legitimate requests for clarification, particularly where regulated parties seek to understand how to faithfully implement such directives that the Commission has issued. For while the contents of the Orders and Resolutions may be clear and unambiguous to the body that issued it, the same may not be the case for the recipient. In the instant case, the Respondent expressed that clarification is essential in order for them “[t]o implement all required measures in faithful accordance with this Honorable Commission’s directives.”

The submission of the Motion for Clarification indicates good faith in that it shows that Respondent does not seek to evade regulation. It is not to be construed as seeking separate or different directives, but rather, should be treated as one that seeks guidance on the specific compliance items and areas of concern with which it was directed to comply.

Meaningful compliance necessarily presupposes sufficient clarity and guidance from the very authority mandated to regulate and assist in matters relating to data protection. By seeking clarification, Respondent presumably aims to properly implement the required measures to comply with the Commission’s directives, address legitimate concerns raised for the benefit of all stakeholders concerned, and ultimately satisfy the compliance items contained in the Resolution dated 30 October 2025 and Cease-and-Desist Order dated 23 September 2025.

Presumably, the clarifications sought to be obtained by Respondent is intended to guide it in the preparation and subsequent submission of the Motion to Lift required under NPC Circular No. 20-02.

As a final note, there is no legal obstacle preventing the Commission from favorably acting upon the Motion for Clarification. To deny the same outright, however, would be counterproductive to compliance.

FOR THESE REASONS, I vote to GRANT the Motion for Clarification dated 03 December 2025 filed by Tools for Humanity Corporation.

JOHANN CARLOS S. BARCENA, CESO III
Privacy Commissioner

Footnotes

  1. Motion for Clarification dated 03 December 2025, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  2. Cease and Desist Order dated 23 September 2025, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  3. Resolution dated 30 October 2025, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  4. Id. ↩

  5. Motion for Clarification dated 03 December 2025, at p. 2, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  6. Compliance dated 15 December 2025, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  7. Republic of the Philippines vs. Unimex Micro-Electronics GmBH, G.R. Nos. 166309-10, (25 November 2008). ↩

  8. Motion for Clarification dated 03 December 2025, at p. 2, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  9. Rule II, Section 13, NPC Circular No. 20-02, Rules on the Issuance of Cease and Desist Orders. ↩

  10. Resolution dated 30 October 2025, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  11. Cease and Desist Order dated 23 September 2025, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  12. Resolution dated 30 October 2025, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  13. Motion for Clarification dated 03 December 2025, at p. 2, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  14. Resolution dated 30 October 2025, at p. 37, in CID CDO 25-001. ↩

  15. Id. ↩

  16. See Rule III, Section 9, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 10173. ↩

  17. Id. ↩

Backlinks

  • No backlinks found