SC upholds EO on gov’t workers’ ID

Voting 12-2, the Supreme Court declared as constitutional yesterday an executive order issued by President Arroyo last year creating a unified identification (ID) system for government employees and personnel.

In a 21-page en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the High Tribunal said Executive Order 420 did not infringe on the public’s right to privacy and that Mrs. Arroyo did not usurp legislative power.

EO 420, issued on April 13 last year, requires all government agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations to streamline and merge their respective identification systems into one ID system.

Its opponents, mostly left-leaning groups, lodged separate petitions with the Supreme Court, arguing that the ID system was virtually a national ID system which infringed on individuals’ right to privacy and that only Congress has the power to establish a national ID system.

The Supreme Court rejected critics’ arguments, saying the presidential order "makes only the existing sectoral card systems of government entities like the Government Service Insurance System, PhilHealth and Land Transportation Office less costly, more efficient, reliable and user-friendly to the public."

"Hence, EO 420 is a proper subject of executive issuance under the president’s constitutional power of control over government entities in the executive department, as well as under the president’s constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed," the court ruled.

It also argued that EO 420 applies only to government agencies that already maintain ID systems and issue ID cards pursuant to their regular functions under existing laws.

"EO 420 does not grant such government entities any power that they do not already possess under existing laws," the high court said. "Obviously, a national ID card system requires legislation because it creates a new national data collection and card issuance system where none existed before."

The court, therefore, found the petitions without merit because the ID system applies only to government employees and personnel.

"In short, the purposes of the uniform ID data collection and ID format are to reduce costs, achieve efficiency and reliability, insure compatibility, and provide convenience to the people served by government entities."

It also noted that the EO limited the information to be collected to 14 specific items, particularly name, home address, sex, picture, signature, date of birth, place of birth, marital status, name of parents, height, weight, two index fingerprints and two thumb marks, any prominent distinguishing features like moles or others and tax identification number.

"These limited and specific data are the usual data required for personal identification by government entities, and even by the private sector. Any one who applies for or renews a driver’s license provides to the (Land Transportation Office) all these 14 specific data," the court said.

It added that the LTO and some other government offices require even more information.

"Various laws allow several government entities to collect and record data for their ID systems either expressly or impliedly by the nature of the functions of these government entities. Under their existing ID systems, some government entities collect and record more data than what EO 420 allows."

The court even cited itself as an example, pointing out that its employees — including the justices on the bench — have to provide 15 specific data.

Standardizing the government ID system would also offer added benefits for the country in the long term.

"These benefits are savings in terms of procurement of equipment and supplies, compatibility in systems as to hardware and software, ease of verification and thus increased reliability of data and the user-friendliness of a single ID format for all government entities."

The SC rejected arguments that EO 420 usurped the powers of Congress.

"EO 420 is an exercise of executive power, the president’s constitutional power of control over the executive department. EO 420 is also compliance by the president of the constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed," it said in its ruling.

Mrs. Arroyo, it further ruled, did not make, alter or repeal any law but merely implemented and executed existing laws.

"Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the president shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices. The same section also mandates the president to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed," the court said.

"Certainly, under this constitutional power of control the president can direct all government entities, in the exercise of their functions under existing laws, to adopt a uniform ID data collection and ID format to achieve savings, efficiency, reliability, compatibility and convenience to the public. The president’s constitutional power of control is self-executing and does not need any implementing legislation."

The court said this showed that EO 420 "does not establish a national ID system because legislation is needed to establish a single ID system that is compulsory for all branches of government."

Associate Justices Consuelo Santiago and Adolfo Azcuna dissented. Santiago maintained that EO 420 "constitutes usurpation of legislative functions by the executive branch of the government; infringes on the citizenry’s right to privacy."

Efforts to implement a national ID system mainly as a crime prevention measure failed in the past due to public opposition fueled mainly by memories of the brutal Marcos dictatorship.

On Dec. 12, 1996, the Supreme Court, voting 8-6, shot down Administrative Order 308 issued by President Fidel Ramos that sought to create a "‘national computerized identification reference system."

The court said the order was unconstitutional because it involved a subject not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order and that it infringed on the right to privacy.

It also said only Congress had the authority to establish a national ID system.

The six dissenting justices, however, argued that the order merely merged the ID systems of government agencies such as the Social Security System, the Government Service Insurance System and the Land Transportation Office.

Santiago said the court ruling yesterday disregarded the 1996 decision. "Although couched differently, AO 308 and EO 420 are similar in their effects and intent," she said in her dissenting opinion.

Malacañang hailed the ruling, saying the ID system would help curb crime and combat the threat of terrorism.

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita assuaged fears that the ID system would be used against political opponents or could be abused by corrupt law enforcement officers.

Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez, Mrs. Arroyo’s former national security adviser, is in favor of the national ID system. "It will simplify commerce, help minimize fraudulent voter registration and flying voters."

Ramos said yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling would "help in the apprehension of suspected criminals, especially suspected terrorists."

"But that is only one half of the tools that can be used by our law enforcement authorities," he told reporters at Ninoy Aquino International Airport upon his arrival from a summit in Indonesia.

"This is a signal to us that we must work on one half of our possible arsenal of weapons to protect the general public," he said. — With Artemio Dumlao, Aurea Calica, Rainier Allan Ronda