Circulating in various email groups today is a joke about a man who, ordering pizza by phone, is refused the flavor he wanted because his ID, which the pizza man demanded, showed he has high blood pressure and cholesterol. He was also advised to pay cash since his ID number also showed he has overdrawn his credit card. When the customer cursed in exasperation, the man advised him to keep his cool since his ID number said he already has a police record. Although the story brings out smiles, it also underlines the public’s anxiety over the National Identification System which the government is raring to implement.
BY RONALD B. ESCANLAR and AILEEN T. ESTOQUIA
Bulatlat
Part 1: Signed in secret
On April 13, President Arroyo signed Executive Order No. 420, which required government agencies and government-owned and -controlled corporations to unify their ID systems under the direction of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).
The EO was released to the public on April 21 – one week later.
The mystery that shrouded the EO befuddled human rights groups, including an administration senator.
That same day, Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan issued a statement labeling the signing of EO 420 as “ironic.”
“The national ID system relies on openness because we would be making public important personal information. If the circumstances surrounding the alleged signing of this EO are not transparent, then we have basis to doubt the eventual implementation of the system itself,” the senator said.
The government defended the secrecy of the signing, saying they withheld the release of the signed EO pending the resolution of legal issues.
According to Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Macapagal-Arroyo wanted all legal issues resolved to ensure the order’s implementation.
In 1996, President Fidel V. Ramos signed EO 308, which ordered the adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System. Acting on a petition, the Supreme Court declared EO 308 unconstitutional on July 23, 1998, stating that the executive order usurped the power of Congress to legislate and violated the citizen’s right to privacy.
Turning people into numbers
Under EO 420, the government will harness the available data stored at virtually all government agencies – the National Statistics Office (NSO), Land Transportation Office (LTO), Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), Social Security System (SSS), Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and government-owned and controlled corporations, such as the Philippine Health and Insurance Corporation – and centralize everything under the supervision of the National Economic Development Authority (Neda).
“All government agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations issuing ID cards to their members or constituents shall be covered by this executive order,” states Section 2 of EO 420.
The order mandates that the information to be collected “shall be limited to the following: name, home address, sex, picture, signature, date of birth, place of birth, marital status, names of parents, height, weight, two index fingers and two thumb marks, any prominent distinguishing features like moles and others, Tax Identification Number (TIN).”
A corresponding common reference number will form part of the data, which means that there will be an assigned number for every Filipino who holds a national ID.
According to EO 420, the unified government ID system is expected to be in place by June.
Money for the ID
According to May Narag of All Card Plastics Philippines, a company that manufactures and supplies plastic ID cards, a regular ID card with a size of 2.18 inches by 3.45 inches will cost around PhP100.
Such card still does not have advanced security features and cryptographic technology that EO 420 mandates.
IBON Foundation computes that about PhP2.5 billion will be needed, assuming that 50 million Filipinos 15 years and above will be issued with an ID that costs only PhP50 each.
“It is questionable where government will get the budget for the implementation of the ID system, given its dire fiscal situation. Besides, such amount can be more judiciously spent for education, health and other social services,” says IBON Research Director Antonio Tujan.
Funds for the national ID, states EO 420, will come from “such funds as may be recommended by the Department of Budget and Management.”
Part 2: The Legal Issues
On Dec.12, 1996, former President Fidel Ramos issued Administrative order No. 308, which pushed for the adoption of a national ID, the purpose of which was to provide the people with the facility to conveniently transact business with the government.
However, then Sen. Blas Ople filed a petition against the AO 308 in the Supreme Court, which ruled in Ople’s favor. The order was declared unconstitutional on the primary ground that the president has no power to make laws. The court considered the national ID a law because it would force the people to comply. Otherwise, they would be barred access from government services.
Second, the court said the order would violate the people’s right to privacy. Granting that the computer data file will be limited to basic personal information, the court said the order did not provide “in clear and categorical terms how the information will be handled, who shall have control and access to data, under what circumstances and for what purpose.”
Arroyo’s EO 420 is in no way different. While Palace officials said that the national ID was aimed at protecting the people from terrorism, there is no mention of that in EO 420. The order only said that it is to streamline government to increase the bureaucracy’s efficiency.
There is no mention, however, as to why Arroyo is pushing the ID even with the knowledge of AO 308’s unconstitutionality.
In an interview with Bulatlat, lawyer Harry Roque, director of the Institute of International Legal Studies at the University of the Philippines Law Center, said that the Supreme Court cannot contradict itself. Thus, the decision it gave years ago will stand.
However, in an interview with Strictly Politics in ABS-CBN News Channel, Bayan Muna (People First) Party-list Representative Satur Ocampo expressed doubts that the EO, might still push through because eight out of 13 Supreme Court justices are Arroyo appointees.
When asked about this, Roque said he does not think it will happen: “I have full faith and trust in the justices of the court, regardless of who appointed them,” he said.
Temporary
Malacañang said that EO 420 was not released immediately because President Arroyo wanted to iron out all legal questions.
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales, however, said the EO is temporary, pending possible congressional approval.
“It’s a test project or a pilot project that if successful will make it easier for us to make it into law on a national scale, if that is what is needed,” said Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye in an interview over radio station dzBB.
However, as early as first week of March, Interior and Local Government Secretary Angelo Reyes already urged city and municipal mayors nationwide to update records of barangay residents.
Reyes said this is pursuant to Section 394 d (6) of the Local Government Code, which mandates barangay secretaries to maintain and update records of all inhabitants containing information on their name, address, place and date of birth, sex, civil status, citizenship and occupation. However, the updated records, he said, could also serve as a basis for the establishment of the ID system.
Reyes said a directive was already being drafted, but employees at DILG said no such directive was issued to them as of April 27.
Learning from others’ experiences
So far, around a hundred countries have national IDs for a variety of purposes. These countries include Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain.
Many developed countries, however, still do not have a card. Among these are the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, and Sweden.
But not all of the people who have IDs are happy.
In South Korea, a professor reported that “many government employees make a lot of money selling information in cards to politicians during election season.” Police could also ask anyone to show this card and check whether their identity number is on the wanted list or not.”
In Singapore, a man who was about to serve in the army service was surprised when he discovered that the army actually knew what his occupation and salary was.
There is also the issue of increase in power of the police. In Brazil, violent police beatings occurred in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo because people didn’t have their cards with them.
A Brazilian said, “The police can ask for my identity card with or without a valid motive, it’s an intimidation act that happens in Brazil very, very often. The problem is not confined to the police. Everybody asks for your ID when you are for example shopping, and this is after you have shown your cheque guarantee card. We also have other similar cards. Nobody trusts anybody basically.”
In China, the card had to be used even in petty transactions such as renting a hotel room, getting legal service from lawyers, contacting government agencies, buying a plane tickets and train tickets, applying for a job, or getting permit to live with one’s parents. Otherwise, one’s residence becomes illegal.
In Vietnam, the card differentiates citizens and non-citizens. People without it “are considered as being denied of citizenship and all the rights that come with it… They cannot get legal employment, get a business license, travel, and even go to school.”
The power of the card is so immense in many countries that the national ID campaign in Australia referred to the card as a license to live.
The real mission
In an April 2 statement, Congressman Ocampo said of the national ID: “It will no less set the stage and give rise to a police state where citizens are spied upon and their movements controlled. Such a policy is prone to abuse both by military and civilian authorities as it may be manipulated to harass, arbitrarily arrest, and detain political dissenters, oppositionists and ordinary citizens.”
A study by Privacy International revealed that race, politics, and religion were at the heart of older ID systems. The threat of insurgents and the exercise for religious discrimination have been common motivation to force possible enemies of the state into registration and to make them vulnerable in the open, the study said.
Talk of the national ID began to intensify in the wake of the Sept 11 attacks. The system was part of the ways and means to combat terrorism. Countries, including the Philippines whose government is a staunch supporter of Bush’s anti-terrorism campaign, began seriously considering having one.
Even people who conceptualized the idea of national IDs admit that it may violate the people’ right to privacy, but the threat of terrorism is still uppermost in their minds.
In a meeting last February, Reyes mobilized officials of the Metro Manila peace and order Council and Metro Manila mayors in the fight against terrorism and urged residents to monitor suspicious-looking elements. In the same meeting, Reyes and the mayors agreed to adopt the national ID system.
Rep. Mary Bono of California said: “When we consider ourselves to be at war, people are going to have to recognize that some of their freedoms are going to be gone..”
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales added: “An individual’s rights are bounded by the rights of others. Not everyone can be allowed entry into a public or private property, transact business or other activities without his identification to guarantee protection and safety.”
Bono recanted her remark, however.
Nevertheless, this talk of terrorism may all be just paranoia. Simon Davies, a visiting fellow in the department of information systems at the London School of Economics and director of Privacy International, said: “No one has been able to identify any country where cards have deterred terrorists.”
Part 3: State terrorism?
A Social Weather Station (http://www.sws.org.ph) study released on April 11 reveals that 60 percent of Filipinos surveyed believe that a national ID can help fight terrorism, while 45 percent trust that the government will not violate their right to privacy.
The same study says that support for the national ID as a tool versus terrorism is high across socio-economic classes.
However, according to Privacy International (http://www.privacy.org), simple ID cards amplify the authority of the police.
A Privacy International survey of ID cards found claims of police abuse in all countries surveyed. Most cases involved the arbitrary detention of people who fail to present an ID card.
Their survey even found cases of virtual discrimination based on the data supplied by the ID cards.
“While it is true that cards containing non-sensitive data are less likely to be used against the individual, cards are often alleged to be the vehicle for discriminatory practices,” says the group in their website.
The group further explains that police authorities who have the power to demand IDs usually have corresponding powers to detain people who fail to prove their identity. The group cited Germany, a highly industrialized country, where police can legally detain people for up to 24 hours.
“The question of who is targeted for ID checks is left largely to the discretion of police,” Privacy International concludes.
‘Sugarcoated’ guarantees against state intrusion
In an interview with a local cable news program, Bayan Muna (People First) party-list Rep. Satur Ocampo said in terms of protecting the constitutional right to privacy, EO 420 is “sugarcoated with some supposedly protective provisions.”
The EO states six safeguards against invasion of privacy – that the data to be stored shall be limited to the 14 items specified in the order; that collection or compilation of other data shall be neither be allowed nor tolerated; that stringent access control systems shall be employed; that data collected and stored shall be kept and treated as strictly confidential, requiring personal and written authorization of the owner for data access and disclosure; that issued ID cards shall have advanced security features and cryptographic technology; and that a written request of the owner shall be required for data correction and revision.
However, Rep. Ocampo said what was worrisome was the centralization of data, and what the government could do with the huge amount of data.
During the same broadcast, Parañaque City Rep. Roilo Golez downplayed Ocampo’s worries, saying that the only worrisome set of data in the national ID was the date of birth and marital status.
Golez, who chairs the House Committee on National Defense, was a former national security adviser.
If you had nothing to hide, asked Golez, why fear?
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, nothing illegal
Executive Secretary Ermita and Interior Secretary Angelo Reyes, both former generals, carry the same line in defense of the national ID – if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear.
“No one can search for bank records without securing a court order. The point is, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear,” Interior Secretary Reyes said during a recent dialogue with mediamen in Cagayan de Oro City.
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales, in a recent speech before a provincial chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), said “If there’s nothing to conceal, why would we not like this national ID system?”
Budget Secretary Emilia Boncodin said there was nothing illegal in pursuing a “harmonized multi-purpose ID,” explaining that the ID would contain the same data in existing IDs issued by government agencies.
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye, meanwhile, told critics of the national ID to go to the courts.
At the Senate, Senate President Franklin Drilon virtually “legalized” EO 420. In a statement, Sen. Drilon said, “There will be no need for a law to establish a new national identification system if only the various government offices can integrate all existing personal data and ID cards issued to Filipino citizens.”
Both the Mayors’ League of the Philippines and the Governors’ League of the Philippines have expressed support for a national ID system.
Fearful prediction
In a statement, AnakPawis party-list Representative Crispin Beltran predicted that President Arroyo would also release an executive order legalizing the anti-terrorism law.
Rep. Beltran explained that the President and her advisers, together with anti-terror experts from the US government, have created a plan to hurdle legislative and judicial blocks to anti-terrorism measures.
“This plan entails Pres. Arroyo’s release of a series of executive orders that will directly bypass congressional authority. Already, the EO on the national ID system has been released. On its heels will come an EO on anti-terrorism, and this EO will legitimize and legalize the prosecution and even perhaps neutralization of the government’s political targets,” Rep. Beltran said. Bulatlat
Published in Bulatlat.com, Vol. V No. 12 May 1- 7, 2005
Legislative hearings on the anti-terrorism bill have begun since May 4. It may just be a matter of time before an anti-terrorism law is enacted, especially considering that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared the bill as urgent as early as last February.