Case: Kilusang Mayo Uno vs NEDA Director General

Facts: President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Executive Order No.

420 that directs a unified ID system among government agencies and
Government owned and controlled corporations in order to have a
uniform ID for all government agencies. Kilusang Mayo Uno and other
respondents assailed this executive order for being a usurpation of
legislative powers by the president and it infringes the citizens right
to privacy.
Issue: Whether or not Executive Order No. 420 is valid.
Decision: Executive Order 420 is a proper subject of executive
issuance under the presidents constitutional power of control over
government entities in the executive department, as well as the
presidents constitutional duty to ensure that all laws are faithfully
executed, thus said executive order is not a usurpation of legislative
power. Furthermore, it is not usurpation of legislative power because
the act of issuing ID cards and the collection of some necessary
information to imprint in them do not require legislation. What needs
legislation is the system of appropriation to enforce the unified ID
system, when unified ID system includes the citizens and when
personal data that are beyond of what is routinely needed is collected
for the ID.

KMU VS DIRECTOR (-GENERAL, NEDA & SECRETARY OF DBM) GR NO. 167798, APRIL 19,
2006 CARPIO,

Facts: - EO 420, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 13

April 2005, reads: REQUIRING ALLGOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENTOWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS TO STREAMLINE AND HARMONIZE THEIR
IDENTIFICATION (ID) SYSTEMS, AND AUTHORIZING FOR SUCH PURPOSE THEDIRECTORGENERAL, NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE
SAME, ANDFOR OTHER PURPOSES

- Section 3 of the said EO provides that the data to be collected

and recorded by the participating agencies 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)-Petitioners allege that EO 420 is void because it
violates the constitutional provision on the right to privacy :
(i) It allows access to personal confidential data without the owners
consent;
(ii) EO 420 is vague and without adequate safeguards or penalties
for any violation of its provisions;
(iii) There are no compelling reasons that will legitimize the
necessity of EO 420.Issue: WON EO 420 infringes on the citizens
right to privacy.
Ruling: Petition without merit. RD: - On its face, EO 420 shows no
constitutional infirmity because it even narrowly limits the data
that can be collected, recorded and shown compared to the existing

ID systems of government entities. Moreover the data to be

collected are routine data for ID systems and are less personal
compared to the medical records of patients taking prescription
drugs
(Whalen v. Roe, 429 US 589 (1977), good to note, see * below).-EO
420 further provides strict safeguards to protect the confidentiality
of the data collected, in contrast to the prior ID systems (which
even before were not complained of) which are bereft of strict
administrative safeguards.-The right to privacy does not bar the
adoption of reasonable ID systems by government entities.