But this time and at this stage, any objection to the present proposal is premature.It is still on the drawing boards.The objections raised in the 1996 ID system, that led to its being declared null and void by the Supreme Court, are either non existent or can still be avoided.
The 1996 "National Computerized Identification Reference System" was invalidated by the Supreme Court on two main grounds: "one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two,it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry’s protected zone of privacy."(Ople vs. Torres G.R.127685 July 23,1998)
The Supreme Court(SC) declared the said 1996 ID system as a usurpation of legislative power because it was adopted only by means of an Administrative Order issued by the President( A.O. 308).According to the SC,the President can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations only in the exercise of administrative power.And administrative power is only concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs to enable the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of its agents.An administrative order is an ordinance which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of the government.The national ID system established byA.O.308 redefines the parameters of some basic rights of the citizenry vis-a-vis the State; it imposes a duty on a citizen to get an ID before he can be given the right to deal with government agencies delivering basic services. So it deals with a subject of general concern or common interest that should be covered by law enacted by Congress.It can not be covered by a mere administrative order.
With respect to the present national ID system being proposed, the President has already announced in no uncertain terms that its adoption needs the act of Congress, not a mere administrative order.So it will not certainly go the way of the 1996 ID system because the first constitutional objection has been properly addressed and eliminated.Its adoption will no longer be a usurpation of the Congressional power to legislate.
The second and more important constitutional objection is the violation of the right to privacy. This is the main concern of Congress as it proceeds in the enactment of the law. According to the SC in the same case of Ople vs. Torres supra, although a law may have been impelled by a worthy purpose, it must "satisfactorily show the presence of compelling state interest and it must be narrowly drawn to preclude abuses".
The compelling state interest in the proposed ID system has been openly disclosed.The government has been honest enough to say that it is designed in the interest of national security, or to put it more bluntly, as a tool to "crackdown" on crime and terrorism.The government did not conceal its intention despite being aware that the proposal may encounter objections precisely because of the dangerous tendency to indiscriminately invoke "national security" to justify abuses.Such openness is therefore a clear sign of its sincere desire to preclude any abuse; or at least its assurance that the danger of abuse will be properly addressed and minimized.
In the defunct 1996 ID system, the goal was sugarcoated apparently to forestall possible objections. A.O. 308 was promulgated purportedly (1) to provide our citizens and foreigners with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic service and social security providers and other government instrumentalities and (2) to reduce, if not totally eradicate fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. Whether these interests are compelling enough is still open to question, according to the SC. But what is not doubtful is the " broadness,the vagueness, the overbreath of A.O. 308 which if implemented will put our people’s right to privacy in clear and present danger".
The proposed bill for the planned national ID system must therefore carefully steer clear of the objectionable features of the previous administrative order on the same subject that was invalidated by the Supreme Court. And more importantly, it must not breach the inviolable boundaries around the zones of privacy accessible to every citizen. (To be continued)