National ID system; Federalism 102

The Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), an organization of eminent economists, recently asked for the institution of a national ID system to promote inclusive growth, and to safeguard peace and order.

Advantages of ID system. The FEF believes that the national ID system will, among others: 1) promote financial inclusion because it will enable many poor and “unbanked” Filipinos to open bank accounts, something not possible without a government-issued ID; 2) help the government identify the beneficiaries of welfare services; 3) deter identity fraud online and offline, thereby enhancing e-commerce; and 4) prevent criminals from faking their identities.

This proposal reminds me of Ople vs Torres (July 23, 1998) and KMU vs Neda (April 19, 2006). In the first case, the President issued on Dec. 12, 1996, Administrative Order 308 (AO 308) establishing a National Computerized Identification Reference System for the entire country. This ID system was intended to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions in government and private transactions.

Despite the good intentions of the President, the Supreme Court voided AO 308 for being unconstitutional, it being ultra vires or beyond his powers to issue.

In the second case, Executive Order 420 (EO 420) directed all government agencies and government-owned and -controlled corporations to adopt a common multipurpose ID system to reduce costs, to provide greater convenience for those transacting business with the government, and to prevent the use of false names and identities.

Requirements for constitutionality. In contrast with the first case, the Court, in KMU vs Neda, upheld the validity of EO 420. Why? Let me quote the answer from its decision, ably written by Justice Antonio T. Carpio:

“EO 420 applies only to government entities 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. In contrast, the assailed executive issuance in Ople v. Torres sought to establish a ‘National Computerized Identification Reference System,’ a national ID system that did not exist prior to the assailed executive issuance. Obviously, a national ID card system requires legislation because it creates a new national data collection and card issuance system where none existed before.”

Equally important, EO 420 limited the data to be collected and recorded under the uniform ID system to only 14 specific items: 1) name; 2) home address; 3) sex; 4) picture; 5) signature; 6) date of birth; 7) place of birth; 8) marital status; 9) name of parents; 10) height; 11) weight; 12) two index fingers and two thumbmarks; 13) any prominent distinguishing features like moles; and 14) tax identification number.

As a guide for legislators, the Court further explained: “What require legislation are three aspects of a government-maintained ID card system. First, when the implementation of an ID card system requires a special appropriation because there is no existing appropriation for such purpose. Second, when the ID card system is compulsory on all branches of government … [and] on all citizens whether they have a use for the ID card or not. Third, when the ID card system requires the collection and recording of personal data beyond what is routinely or usually required for such purpose, such that the citizen’s right to privacy is infringed.”

* * *

Federalism 102. Last week’s column was intended to stimulate public discussion on federalism. And a lively public debate indeed ensued among readers, study groups and academics on five topics:

1. Is federalism advisable and feasible, given our history, aspiration and experience as a people and given the fact that from the Spanish and American colonial rule up to the present, our government has always been paternalistic, unitary and centralized? True, these colonizers were not able to subdue the sultanates in Mindanao and the indigenous tribes in the Cordilleras, which up to this day still aspire for full autonomy, if not independence, from “Imperial Manila.” But it is equally true that they have been able to conquer and unite the rest of the country under one central authority.
2. What sovereign powers should be devolved to the states, and what should be retained by the federal government? The present Constitution already granted more autonomy to these sultanates and indigenous tribes when it “created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras…”
3. How many states should be created in the federation? The new ruling party, the PDP-Laban, envisions the following: Northern Luzon; Central Luzon; Southern Tagalog; Mimaropa (Mindoro, Marinduque, Palawan and Romblon); Bicol; Eastern Visayas; Central Visayas; Western Visayas; Northern Mindanao; Southern Mindanao; Bangsamoro; and Federal Administrative Region of Metro Manila. Dr. Salvador Araneta proposed only five states; Dr. Jose Abueva recommended 11.
4. Should the federal state be parliamentary in form, like Canada, Malaysia and Germany? Or should it be presidential, like the United States?
5. Should the Constitution be overhauled? If so, by what method—constitutional convention, constituent assembly, or people’s initiative? Or would a more generous autonomous law for Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras, coupled with more proactive and resolute leaders suffice?

Let the debate continue.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com