Citizens’ ID

The idea of a national identification system as a security measure or a "tool" to combat criminality and terrorism is nothing new. It was first introduced in 1996 as the "National Computerized Identification Reference System" under Administrative Order 308. But it was torpedoed by the Supreme Court because the said A.O. reset the parameters of some basic rights of the citizens vis-a-vis the State and should therefore be covered by a law enacted by Congress not by a mere A.O. The SC also said that AO 308 "impermissibly intrudes into the citizenry’s protected zone of privacy" (Ople vs. Torres G.R. 127685, July 23,1998).

Last year, the President tried to revive the idea of a national ID when criminality remained rampant and terrorism became a real threat. To avoid the fate of AO 308, GMA suggested that the adoption of the system be done through a Congressional act that will eliminate all Constitutional objections. Since then nothing has been heard of the proposal. It must have been lost among the maze of the slow grinding legislative mill or just died of political suffocation in a Congress preoccupied with too much sensational investigations that produced not a single piece of legislation.

But the President really need not wait for Congress to enact a law on the National ID system. A mere Administrative Order will suffice to establish it while Congress is taking their time and crime statistics keep on rising. Maintenance of peace and order is unquestionably an executive function. To effectively perform this function, the President can definitely issue an AO to combat criminality and terrorism, like the implementation of an ID system.

The Ople case did not rule out the issuance of an AO to implement the National ID system. The SC simply said that the AO issued (No.308) usurped Congressional power because it contains provisions no longer concerned with the specific aspects in the administrative operation of the government.

But this AO to be valid must not contain the objectionable features of the defunct AO (308) on the matter. The AO must assure that the personal information gathered will be purposes of identification alone. Whatever method or technology to be used in identifying people shall be specified, leaving no options available to its implementors. The AO must provide who shall control and access the data, under what circumstances and for what purpose they are going to be used be it political, economic or for maintenance of peace and order. There must also be controls to guard against leakage of information so that no "intruder" can access any data gathered, make use of them or even manipulate them.

All told, the AO must assure that the system will not be abused to violate the right to privacy of an individual; neither should it interfere with an individual’s liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities to track down his movement; it should also not enable unscrupulous persons to access confidential information and circumvent the right against self-incrimination, or evade the right against unreasonable searches and seizures; nor should it pave the way for fishing expeditions by government authorities. But most of all, the AO must assure that the IDs will not be vulnerable to the faking artists plying their trade in Recto avenue in Quiapo.

With all the foregoing safeguards in place, the National ID System will definitely be a big boost in the drive against crime and terrorism.