| |
LEGAL OPINION
ID System in Sulu, an Experimental Implementation of National ID System?
By: Commission on Human Rights – IX
Legal Section
The launching and implementation of the “citizen identification card system” or the so-called “ID system” in Sulu has generated controversies and serious doubts among Filipino citizens as to its true motive and purpose. Many people speculate that the sudden implementation of ID system in Patikul, Sulu is a mere experimentation and part of the proposed national ID system which is being pushed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and Philippine National Police (PNP).
Reports reveal that the implementation of the ID System in Patikul, Sulu was made possible through the efforts of the local government, the AFP, PNP and other stake holders of peace and development in the province. The ID card’s signatory, however, is the commanding officer of the 3 rd Marine Brigade, Col. Natalio C. Encarma showing thereon the seal of the Philippine Marine Corps on the upper right and the seal of the local government of Patikul on the upper left. It also appears the photograph of the bearer, the name, address, age, sex, civil status, ID number and the signature of the cardholder as well as the thumbmark, blood type, date of birth, place of birth and contact persons in case of emergency.
Governor Sakur Tan denied the allegations that the same is part of the proposed national ID system. Sulu officials claim that the mandatory issuance and wearing of identification cards of their locals was their initiative. Its purpose is to protect the people, to curb crimes and to deter terrorism within the province since it would be easy to identify those who are not from Sulu as well as to serve as the “database for local census”. The implementation in Patikul, Sulu covers the residents thereof who are 12 years old above. Governor Sakur Tan is likewise contemplating on issuing identification cards in the rest of the towns in Sulu, namely, Hadji Panglima Tahil, Indanan, Jolo, Kalingalang Caluang, Lugus, Luuk, Maimbung, Panamao, Omar, Pandami, Panglima Estino, Pangutaran, Parang, Pata, Siasi, Talipao Tapul and Tongkil.
The revival of the proposed national ID system was disclosed on 07 January 2008 during the command conference with President Arroyo meeting all the police and military chiefs. The AFP claimed that such proposal shall curb threats to national security and help them defeat the communist and terrorist groups in the country and it would also provide services to the people. However, militant groups are very vocal about their opposition on the proposed ID system as it would lead to violations of human rights.
It is recalled that during the term of Former President Fidel V. Ramos, the latter tried to implement a national ID system by issuing Administration Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System". However, in 1998, the Supreme Court of the Philippines declared the same unconstitutional on grounds that only the Congress can establish a National ID system. As such, it is beyond the powers of the President to regulate without a legislative enactment. In Blas F. Ople Vs. Ruben D. Torres, et. al., (G.R. No. 127685, 1998 July 23, En Banc), resolving the constitutionality of said AO No. 308, the Supreme Court exhaustively explained and held, to wit:
“In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justify such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. We reiterate that any law or order that invades individual privacy will be subjected by this Court to strict scrutiny. The reason for this stance was laid down in Morfe v. Mutuc, to wit:
"The concept of limited government has always included the idea that governmental powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen. This is indeed one of the basic distinctions between absolute and limited government. Ultimate and pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is the hallmark of the absolute state. In contrast, a system of limited government safeguards a private sector, which belongs to the individual, firmly distinguishing it from the public sector, which the state can control. Protection of this private sector-- protection, in other words, of the dignity and integrity of the individual-- has become increasingly important as modern society has developed. All the forces of a technological age-- industrialization, urbanization, and organization-- operate to narrow the area of privacy and facilitate intrusion into it. In modern terms, the capacity to maintain and support this enclave of private life marks the difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society."
The right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man living in a mass society. The threats emanate from various sources - governments, journalists, employers, social scientists, etc. In the case at bar, the threat comes from the executive branch of government which by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the people to surrender their privacy by giving information about themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of basic services. Given the record-keeping power of the computer, only the indifferent will fail to perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308 gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens. It is timely to take note of the well-worded warning of Kalvin, Jr., "the disturbing result could be that everyone will live burdened by an unerasable record of his past and his limitations. In a way, the threat is that because of its record-keeping, the society will have lost its benign capacity to forget." Oblivious to this counsel, the dissents still say we should not be too quick in labelling the right to privacy as a fundamental right. We close with the statement that the right to privacy was not engraved in our Constitution for flattery.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" declared null and void for being unconstitutional”.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court has previously invalidated Administrative Order No. 308 for being unconstitutional, President Arroyo is now reviving the proposal on national ID system on the pretext of deterring terrorism and to maintain internal security despite opposition of the people including the congress. Many argued that the proposed national ID is in consonance with the Executive Order 420, which was declared constitutional and valid in an en banc resolution of the Supreme Court on April 19, 2006. As early as 2006, President Arroyo expressed her goal of implementing the national ID system and she even cited the resolution of the SC in her speech during the ceremonial change of command of the AFP at Camp Aguinaldo in Quezon City on 21 July 2006 saying that the ruling on the constitutionality of EO 420 paves the way for the full implementation of the National ID System.
However, the Supreme Court expressly clarified in their ruling that EO 420 is not similar to Administrative Order No. 308 as the former does not establish a national ID system. It applies only to the Executive branch of government and government entities that already maintain ID systems and issue ID cards pursuant to their regular functions such as the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Social Security System (SSS) Philhealth and Land Transportation Office (LTO). Likewise, the Supreme Court took note that the President, having control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices, can direct a uniform ID system by executive order to government entities under the executive department pursuant to Sec. 17, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Thereby, it is apparent that the only way that a national or local ID system can be legally implemented is for congress to enact a law mandating all Filipino citizens to carry with them an ID. The reason or motive of the Sulu Governor, local government, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police in enforcing ID system in Sulu province is now a mystery not only to their locals but also to all concerned Filipinos all over the country. There is no doubt that said officials responsible behind the implementation of the questioned ID system in Sulu have acted beyond their powers in the absence of any law supporting the ID system.
The Commission on Human Rights-IX strongly opposes the implementation of ID system in Sulu as it violates people’s right to privacy and freedom of movement and for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Since the time of the campaign on “war on terror” by the administration, it cannot be denied that many people have been suffering from illegal arrests and detention. Obviously, the ID system is not the answer and does not give assurance in terminating terrorism in the province or in the country. Instead, it would bring more terror and would heighten human rights violations. It will also give license or authority to those people in power to violate people’s civil and political rights. This office supports the call and move for the cessation and revocation of ID system in Sulu considering that oppression and harassment is highly possible and will justify arbitrary arrests and detentions of those who are found not wearing ID cards on suspicion of being terrorists/criminals. As such, it would be a blatant violation of human rights of the people of Sulu who are left with no other option but to abide the implementation of the ID System.
This 14th day of February 2008, at the City of Zamboanga Philippines.
ATTY. JOSE MANUEL S. MAMAUAG, MNSA
Regional Director
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS-IX
|
