WE have been here before. The House of Representatives has just passed a bill establishing a national identification (ID) system for the Philippines “to streamline government transactions and help promote a progressive society through efficient delivery of basic services.” Once passed into law, it will require all Filipinos in the country and abroad to register under it.
The first time we confronted this matter of a national ID system was in 1996, when President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order (AO) 308 establishing a National Computerized Identification Reference System for the country “to provide Filipino citizens and foreign residents with the facility to conveniently transact business with basic and social-services providers.”
The order was challenged by Sen. Blas F. Ople on two grounds: Its issuance was an encroachment of legislative power and was in violation of the citizen’s right to privacy. The Supreme Court (SC) found the challenge meritorious and ruled the AO as unconstitutional on those grounds.
The second time was in 2005, when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order (EO) 420, mandating government agencies to streamline and harmonize their ID systems under a Unified Multi-Purpose Identification System.
The order was questioned on the same two grounds. This time, the SC upheld the legality of the EO, saying that, rather than creating a new initiative that required legislative action, the order merely sought to modify an administrative procedure, a process that the Executive branch could well pursue as part of its normal duties; further, the order sought less information than that sought by existing ID systems, showing that it was not driven by any surveillance purpose; last, the order had enough safeguards against abuses of the citizen’s right to privacy.
Perhaps, the action of the House of Representatives is merely to provide a legal basis for the ID system. Whatever its motivation, it remains vulnerable to the charge that it is basically an instrument of political persecution by the government of its own citizens.
Is the purpose of the system to give citizens ready access to government services? Under the present arrangement, no citizen has ever complained of inability to obtain a government service because of a lack of ID.
Is the objective to identify people deemed in violation of the law? As a London School of Economics study that is applicable to the Philippines found, “Police in developed countries believe that lack of identification does not pose a problem in investigation. It is evidence-gathering and prosecution that remain big obstacles to the resolution of crimes.”
But there are safeguards against the misuse of the information gathered. Really? No government has ever bothered with safeguards when pursuing perceived enemies. In fact, the current administration has made use of all conceivable measures in the prosecution of its political adversaries.
Let’s make sure that we do not provide governments, however well-intentioned, with the ammunition to invade our individual privacy or violate our human rights. Let’s strongly oppose a national ID system for Filipinos.
5 comments
If you have gone to Saudi Arabia, probably you would appreciate the National ID system. It is very useful in banks, hospitals and government agencies when doing transactions. I think that if you have nothing to hide why be bothered about privacy.
Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say. Imagine upon exiting your house one day you find a person searching through your trash painstakingly putting the shredded notes and documents back together. In response to your stunned silence he proclaims ‘you don’t have anything to worry about – there is no reason to hide, is there? So, Noel, would you feel comfortable about handing a total stranger your unlocked phone and puling down your pants? You have nothing to hide, right?
In the US you cannot even buy a six pack of beer, cash a check, or any other legal activities without an ID, but voter ID has met strong objections from the Democrats. There were some accusations that since there were no proof that the voters had voted already, they may done so for several times. Maybe objections have similar aims.
Main reason of opposition to the ID?
Distrust of the government, plain and simple.
We have passports and driver’s licenses. How does it differ with a National ID?