ID System Legal Aspect

8/2/2019 ID System Legal Aspect

1/19

THE ID SYSTEM (Legal Aspect)

I. CONSTITUTIONALITY: LEGALITY

I.A THE SUPREME COURT CASE AND ITS RULING

I.B DILGs ANALYTICAL OBSERVATION ON THESUPREME COURT CASE

II. ID SYSTEM: NATIONAL CONCEPT

III. ID SYSTEM: LOCAL CONCEPT

III.A POWER OF LGUs

III.B BARANGAY ID SYSTEM


2/19

I. CONSTITUTIONALITY: LEGALITYTHE CASE OF OPLE VS. TORRES, 23 JULY 1998,

DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT EN BANC

Facts:

Former PFVR issued on 12 December 1996Administrative Order No. 308, which is hereby reproduced in

toto, viz:

ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZEDIDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM

WHEREAS, there is a need to provide Filipino citizensand foreign residents with the facility to conveniently transactbusiness with basic service and social security providers andother government instrumentalities; (underlining ours)


3/19

WHEREAS, this will require a computerized system toproperly and efficiently identify persons seeking basicservices on social security and reduce, if not totallyeradicate, fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations;(underlining ours)

WHEREAS, a concerted and collaborative effortamong the various basic services and social security

providing agencies and other government instrumentalities isrequired to achieve such a system;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of theRepublic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in

me by law, do hereby direct the following:

SECTION 1. Establishment of a National ComputerizedIdentification Reference System.- A decentralized


4/19

Identification Reference System among the key basicservices and social security providers is hereby established.

SEC. 2. Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee.- AnInter-Agency Coordinating Committee (IACC) to draw-up theimplementing guidelines and oversee the implementation ofthe System is hereby created, chaired by the Executive

Secretary, with the following as members:

Head, Presidential Management Staff

Secretary, National Economic Development AuthoritySecretary, Department of the Interior and Local GovernmentSecretary, Department of Health

Administrator, Government Service Insurance SystemAdministrator, Social Security SystemAdministrator, National Statistics OfficeManaging Editor, National Computer Center


5/19

SEC. 3. Secretariat.- The National Computer Center(NCC) is hereby designated as secretariat to the IACC and assuch shall provide administrative and technical support to the

IACC.

SEC. 4. Linkage Among Agencies.- The PopulationReference Number (PRN) generated by the NSO shall serveas the common reference number to establish a linkage

among concerned agencies. The IACC Secretariat shallcoordinate with the different Social Security and ServicesAgencies to establish the standards in the use of BiometricsTechnology and in computer application designs of theirrespective systems. (underlining ours)

SEC. 5. Conduct of Information DisseminationCampaign.- The Office of the Press Secretary, in coordinationwith the National Statistics Office, the GSIS and SSS as leadagencies and other concerned agencies shall undertake a


6/19

massive tri-media information dissemination campaign to educateand raise public awareness on the importance and use of the PRNand the Social Security Identification Reference.

SEC. 6. Funding.- The funds necessary for theimplementation of the system shall be sourced from the respectivebudgets of the concerned agencies.

SEC. 7. Submission of Regular Reports.- The NSO, GSIS andSSS shall submit regular reports to the Office of the President, throughthe IACC, on the status of implementation of this undertaking.

SEC. 8. Effectivity. This Administrative Order shall take effectimmediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 12th day of December in theyear of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Six.

(SGD) FIDEL V. RAMOS


7/19

ISSUE:

The said AO 308 was challenged by the late Senator Opleon two (2) grounds: (1) the AO is a usurpation of the powerof Congress; and (2) the AO intruded into the citizens protectedzone of privacy.

RULING:

In resolving Mr. Oples first issue, the SC ruled that AO 308dealt with a subject that should have been made through a law.Providing an ID System would require legislation and not a mereexecutive fiat.

In resolving the second issue: right to privacy, the courtdeclared it unconstitutional for being an intrusion into the right toprivacy.


8/19

The Supreme Courts observation:

The SC made the following observations that warranted thedeclaration of unconstitutionality of the said AO, to wit:

1. AO 308 failed to present enough justification on thestates compelling interests on its issuance; and

2. AO 308 was not narrowly drawn, meaning, it wasa) Broad;b) Vague; andc) Over Breadth

which, if not stricken down, will put the peoples right to privacy inclear and present danger.


9/19

Anent the first observation of the court, AO 308was found to have been issued for purposes other thanmere identification, as the same was admitted by no lessthan the Solicitor General to be used for the generationof population data for development planning, which thecourt found to have a remote relation to the avowedpurposes of AO 308.

Anent the second observation, the SC scrutinized the

minute details of the AO, particularly Section 4 thereofregarding the use of biometrics technology and computerapplication designs.

The court observed that A.O. No. 308 does not state

what specific biological characteristics and what particularbiometrics technology shall be used to identify people. TheSC also feared the clear implication that the implementationof the AO had a banquet of options, which threatens thepeoples right to privacy.


10/19

The SC pointed out the lack of vital safeguardsand safety mechanisms for the protection of the datacollected, from unscrupulous intruders, considering the

fast paced improvement of computer applications.

The court noted the lack of vital safeguards topreclude misuse or abuse of information gathered thatwould infringe into the persons right to privacy.

I.B THE DILGs ANALYTICAL OBSERVATION

OF THE SC RULING:

The Supreme Court did not outright condemn

the adoption of a National ID System.

The SC did not per se oppose the idea of a NationalID, but the SC merely strongly objected to the lacklusterprovisions of the AO for fear of misuse, or worse, abuse.


11/19

The SC even noted that in the case of Morfe vs.Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424, 445, the SC upheld theconstitutionality of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act) as a valid police power measure. The

court declared that in compelling a public officer to

make an annual report disclosing his assets and

liabilities, his sources of income and expenses, did notinfringe on the individuals right to privacy. The law was

enacted to promote morality in public administration by

curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official

corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the

public service. The court further ruled that RA 3019 itselfis sufficiently detailed. The law is clear on what

practices were prohibited and penalized, and it was

narrowly drawn to avoid abuses.


12/19

The Supreme Court further ruled that: in no uncertainterms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does notbar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is notintended to stifle scientific and technological advancementsthat enhance public service and the common good. Itmerely requires that the law be narrowly focused and acompelling interest to justify such intrusions. Intrusions into the

right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions.

II. THE ID SYSTEM: NATIONAL CONCEPT

Having been clarified of the ruling and principlesenunciated by the SC in the above-mentioned case, theNational ID System program of the National Government canstill be pursued provided that:


13/19

1. The National ID System shall be done through an

act of Congress by enacting a law for thatpurpose.

2. The law must consider two things: (a) that it mustshow compelling interest of the State in enactingthe law; and (b) the law must also narrow downthe details of implementation and to providesafeguards against abuse or misuse of

information gathered.

III. THE ID SYSTEM: LOCAL CONCEPT

Every Local Government Unit (LGU) is conferred by

Section 16 (General Welfare Clause) of the Local GovernmentCode the power to exercise Police Power.

The enactment of an ordinance can be premised onthe exercise of the LGU of its Police Power.


14/19

Section 16, Local Government Code, provides:

SEC. 16. General Welfare.- Every local government

unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, thosenecessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effectivegovernance, and those which are essential to the promotionof the general welfare. Within their respective territorial

jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support,among other things, the preservation and enrichment ofculture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of thepeople to a balanced ecology, encourage and support thedevelopment of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and

technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhanceeconomic prosperity and social justice, promote fullemployment among their residents, maintain peace andorder, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their

inhabitants.


15/19

PolicePower means the exercise of legislative powerthrough the enactment of regulatory measures in restraint of

the right to property or liberty of individuals to protect orpromote vital social interests, such as public safety, nationalsecurity, public health, public morals, public order, publicinterest, and general welfare. In short, it is the power of theLGU to regulate the use of property and the enjoyment of lifeand liberty for the common good.

Accordingly, pending enactment by Congress of a lawproviding for the National ID System, LGUs can alreadyprovide ordinances invoking its Police Power, which arelocal laws, providing for their local ID system.

LGUs only need to be guided by the principlesenunciated in the Ople case and the following requisites tomaintain the validity of their ordinances, to wit:


16/19

a) Must not contravene the Constitution and any

statute;b) Must not be unfair and oppressive;c) Must not be partial or discriminatory;d) Must not prohibit, but may regulate trade;e) Must not be unreasonable; andf) Must be general in application and consistent with

public policy. (as held in the case of Magtajas vs.Pryce Properties, G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994)

On top of the above requisites, the LGUs must be ableto present compelling interests in adopting the Local ID

system and must also be able to narrow down the details ofimplementation and provide safeguards against misuse andabuse.


17/19

IV. ID SYSTEM AT THE BARANGAY LEVEL:

Section 394 (d) (6) of the Local Government Codeprovides:

SEC. 394. Barangay Secretary.- (d) The BarangaySecretary shall: xxx (6) Keep an updated record of all

inhabitants of the barangay containing the following items ofinformation: name, address, place and date of birth, sex,civil status, citizenship, occupation, and such other items ofinformation as may be prescribed by law or ordinances.

In operationalizing this particular provision, thebarangay government may issue IDs to its inhabitants

containing the informations enumerated by Section 394 (d)(6) of the Local Government Code and such other informationas may be prescribed by law or ordinance.


18/19

In the implementation of the ID System at thebarangay level, note that the Punong Barangays may

issue Executive Orders in furtherance of Section 394 (d) (6)of the Local Government Code. However, should there beadditional information/data on top of those enumeratedunder Section 394 (d) (6) of the same Code to be requiredreflected on the said Barangay ID, then proper barangay

legislation should first be enacted.

With respect to the funding, the city or municipalgovernment, depending on availability of funds, mayappropriate funding support for the project in aid to

barangays. This Barangay ID System is envisioned to beintegrated in one repository agency and to be

coordinated with other agencies of the government.


19/19

Documents

ID System Legal Aspect