The tamely-worded four-page EO, dated April 13, was titled: "Requiring all government agencies and government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs) to streamline and harmonize their identification systems, and authorizing for such purpose the Director-General, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) to implement the same and for other purposes."
It also mandates that the ID system be adopted within 60 days from issuance of the EO.
But except for the term "multi-purpose," the EO makes no reference at all to whether the ID would be part of the government’s anti-terrorism measures as had been repeatedly announced by Malacañang and administration proponents in Congress.
The EO initially covers only those in government but Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said yesterday that the ID system would be "nationalized" or required of every citizen once the measure has been successfully implemented in the government.
Ermita said its main purpose is to help "facilitate transactions with government."
The EO states the existing multiple identification systems in government "have created unnecessary and costly redundancies and higher costs to government, while making it inconvenient for individuals to be holding several identification cards.
"A unified identification system will facilitate private businesses, enhance the integrity and reliability of government-issued identification cards in private transactions, and prevent violations of laws involving false names and identities," the EO said.
"There’s no such thing (in the EO) that specifies it (ID) as a tool to fight terrorism," Ermita said. "But of course, it would be a very good tool in our counter-insurgency effort, especially in the barangays as soon as we have this place (where) everyone would be registered with their specific numbers. That is when we shall have nationalized it."
He said once the ID system covers all Filipino citizens, newborns would be issued individual numbers that they would use for a lifetime.
Ermita said Malacañang expects — and is ready to face — any challenge or opposition, particularly from legal groups, over the legality of the EO, particularly over its possible infringement on individual privacy.
He said the EO is much different from Administration Order No. 308 issued by former President Fidel Ramos, which was unanimously shot down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
"This (Supreme Court ruling on AO 308) has been taken into consideration in coming up with the EO, which has the effect of law, so anybody can challenge it but our legal officers are ready to face any question," Ermita said.
A Palace statement said the President set limits on the information that would be collected under the ID system, while providing safeguards against the use of such data to violate any person’s privacy.
The EO authorizes the NEDA to harmonize all government ID systems and enter into agreements with local governments, through their respective leagues of governors or mayors, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and with other instrumentalities of the government, for the adoption of a common ID.
Under the order, the data to be collected shall be limited to the name of the ID holder, his or her home address, sex, picture, signature, date of birth, place of birth, marital status, names of parents, height, weight, the marks of two index fingers and two thumbs, any prominent distinguishing features such as moles and others, and the citizen’s tax identification number.
Aside from the ID number issued by the concerned agency, a reference number unique to the holder would be issued with the ID. The reference number would form part of the stored data, the EO said.
Section 6 of the EO specifically mandates that "in no case shall the collection or compilation of other data in violation of a person’s right to privacy be allowed or tolerated under this order."
The EO requires the adoption of "stringent systems of access control to data in the identification system," while ensuring that "data collected and stored for this purpose shall be kept and treated as strictly confidential."
"A personal or written authorization of the owner (of the ID) shall be required for access and disclosure of data," section 6, paragraph D of the EO states.
To ensure confidentiality of information, the EO mandates that "the identification card to be issued shall be protected by advanced security features and cryptographic technology."
Any change or correction of the information supplied on the ID can only be made upon the submission of a written request by its owner.
The EO passes on to the Department of Budget and Management the responsibility of recommending how funds are to be allocated for the implementation of the unified ID system.
Mrs. Arroyo last February ordered NEDA chief Romulo Neri to draft an EO to implement a national ID system. The rationale for giving the task to NEDA was that the agency supervises the National Statistics Office, which has the widest coverage, representing data for 76 million out of 84 million Filipinos.
Neri was given 15 days to draft the EO but it was only yesterday that it was released by Malacañang to the public.
In a press conference last April 12, Mrs. Arroyo said she was not sure if she had already signed the EO. She said if she had already signed it, it was not yet released because NEDA was still fine-tuning it.
On Wednesday, Palace officials, including Ermita, said Mrs. Arroyo already signed the EO but they had not yet seen a copy of it.
Malacañang sources said the delay had been caused by debates over the legality of the EO. Its language was toned down because some Cabinet officials were worried that it may be found unconstitutional.
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said the order could face another legal challenge. "If President Arroyo has signed the executive order, it is another manifestation of her cavalier attitude towards the Constitution because imposing new rights and obligations on the people with the national ID can be done only through legislation," he said. — With Marvin Sy