1. THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD
Replacements shall be
ADOPT A NATIONAL ID
SYSTEM NOW.
AFFIRMATIVE
At least 3 lawmakers are re-introducing
bills seeking to establish a national
identification (ID) system for all Filipinos
here and abroad.
Feliciano Belmonte Jr authored House
Bill (HB) Number 12 or the Filipino
Identification System Act. AKO Bicol
Representatives Rodel Bacobe and
Christopher Co also co-authored a bill
with the same title, HB Number 523.
The Philippines is one of only 9 countries
in the world without a national
identification system, according to
Belmonte. Under his proposal,
the Filipino Identification System will
consolidate all government-issued ID
systems into one to "improve government
services and limit red tape in government
transactions."
The national identification card will
lower costs, streamline transactions, and
provide ease and convenience,
The ID may also be used for applications
for passport, driver's license, Social
Security System (SSS), Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS),
PhilHealth, Home Development Mutual
Fund (Pag-IBIG), and the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
The Filipino ID card may also be used to
identify voters, schools, and employees,
as well as to avail of senior citizens'
benefits. It may also be used for court,
prosecutor, and police clearances, and in
banking and financial institutions.
The ID shall have the capability to store
at least the biometric data of the
cardholder. The initial application shall
be free of charge.
paid by the cardholder.
the card will include the person's
photograph, name, birth date, gender,
date of issue, signature of owner, and
corresponding individual serial number
issued by the Philippine Statistics
Authority.
The Philippine Statistics Authority shall
implement this for Filipinos in the
country, while the Department of Foreign
Affairs will handle the ID of Filipinos
overseas.
The proposed law also guarantees
protection against unlawful disclosure of
information. Information may be
disclosed only upon the following
conditions: the authorization of the
cardholder, the event of accident disaster
or fortuitous events, in the interest of
public health and safety and the order of
a competent court.
"Contrary to some beliefs, there is no
need to fear this measure because its only
purpose is to consolidate the cardholder's
data which are already contained in other
government IDs and documents so that
we could do away with so many other IDs
and at the same time provide
identification to those who do not have
access to government issued IDs, such as
the minors and the unemployed. No
invasion of privacy will occur and no
violation of due process will happen since
no other unwarranted data will be
featured in this ID. The biometrics alone
can already identify the person, enough to
warrant service from the government and
private sectors,"
"In cases however, where incriminating
data appear in the computers and
databases of the transacting offices based
on the identification of the person as
 contained in the FilCard, it is by no means
a product of this system but a
consequence of the person's own personal
activities which will normally be
recorded by the proper authorities and
sent out to all government agencies, as a
matter of fact and information,"
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, author of a
Senate bill on the national ID system,
however said "It won't violate privacy
rights because access to the database will
be limited to authorized government
agencies with the necessary penal
provisions in case of misuse and abuse,''
Trillanes explained his proposal's
rationale is "for us to have a centralized
database of basic and biometric
information for all Filipino citizens and
be the primary identification card for all
transactions. It will facilitate the delivery
of social services and also be the
backbone of our anti-crime campaign."
If passed into law, the Filipino
Identification System Act would make
the following offenses punishable:
o Falsifying information in
applying for the issuance of a
Filipino ID card or procures
through fraud
o Utilizing the card in an
unlawful manner
o Any person or establishment
refusing to recognize the
Filipino ID card of a member
o Any public official or
employee conniving in the
application or issuance of an
unauthorized Filipino ID card
Violators shall be punished with a fine of not
less than P50,000 but not more P500,000, or
an imprisonment of not less than 6 months
but not more than two years or both.
NEGATIVE
In 1996, a similar plan was also adopted.
It was denominated as a "national
computerized identification reference
system" ostensibly for a purpose that has
nothing to do at all with the problems of
national security and criminality
confronting the present government
although they were already existing then.
But such plan was shot down before
taking off the ground. It encountered a lot
of objections because in reality it was
likewise designed and adopted as a
security measure that gives the
government the "power to compile
devastating dossier against unsuspecting
citizens."
The 1996 "National Computerized
Identification Reference System" was
invalidated by the Supreme Court on two
main grounds: "one, it is a usurpation of
the power of Congress to legislate, and
two,it impermissibly intrudes on our
citizenry’s protected zone of
privacy."(Ople vs. Torres G.R.127685
July 23,1998) < READ
The second and more important
constitutional objection is the violation of
the right to privacy. This is the main
concern of Congress as it proceeds in the
enactment of the law. According to the
SC in the same case of Ople vs. Torres
supra, although a law may have been
impelled by a worthy purpose, it must
"satisfactorily show the presence of
compelling state interest and it must be
narrowly drawn to preclude abuses".
 The compelling state interest in the What happens when an ID card is
proposed ID system has been openly stolen? What proof is used to decide
disclosed. The government has been who gets a card? A national ID would
honest enough to say that it is designed in require a governmental database of every
the interest of national security, or to put person in the U.S. containing continually
it more bluntly, as a tool to "crackdown" updated identifying information. It would
on crime and terrorism. The government likely contain many errors, any one of
did not conceal its intention despite being which could render someone
aware that the proposal may encounter unemployable and possibly much worse
objections precisely because of the until they get their ""file"" straightened
dangerous tendency to indiscriminately out. And once that database was created,
invoke "national security" to justify its use would almost certainly expand.
abuses. Such openness is therefore a clear Law enforcement and other government
sign of its sincere desire to preclude any agencies would soon ask to link into it,
abuse; or at least its assurance that the while employers, landlords, credit
danger of abuse will be properly agencies, mortgage brokers, direct
addressed and minimized. mailers, landlords, private investigators,
civil litigants, and a long list of other
Reason #2: An ID card system will lead parties would begin seeking access,
to a slippery slope of surveillance and further eroding the privacy that
monitoring of citizens. Americans have always expected in their
personal lives.
A national ID card system would not protect
us from terrorism, but it would create a Reason #4: ID cards would function as
system of internal passports that would "internal passports" that monitor
significantly diminish the freedom and citizens' movements
privacy of law-abiding citizens. Once put in
Americans have long had a visceral aversion
place, it is exceedingly unlikely that such a
to building a society in which the authorities
system would be restricted to its original
could act like totalitarian sentries and
purpose. Social Security numbers, for
demand ""your papers please!"" And that
example, were originally intended to be used
everyday intrusiveness would be conjoined
only to administer the retirement program.
with the full power of modern computer and
But that limit has been routinely ignored and
database technology. When a police officer
steadily abandoned over the past 50 years. A
or security guard scans your ID card with his
national ID system would threaten the
pocket bar-code reader, for example, will a
privacy that Americans have always enjoyed
permanent record be created of that check,
and gradually increase the control that
including the time and your location? How
government and business wields over
long before office buildings, doctors'
everyday citizens.
offices, gas stations, highway tolls, subways
and buses incorporate the ID card into their
Reason #3: A national ID card system
security or payment systems for greater
would require creation of a database of
efficiency? The end result could be a nation
all Americans
where citizens' movements inside their own
country are monitored and recorded through
these ""internal passports.""
Reason #5: ID cards would foster new
forms of discrimination and
harassment
Rather than eliminating discrimination, as
some have claimed, a national identity card
would foster new forms of discrimination and
harassment of anyone perceived as looking or
sounding "foreign." That is what happened
after Congress passed the Employer
Sanctions provision of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1985: widespread
discrimination against foreign-looking
American workers, especially Asians and
Hispanics. A 1990 General Accounting
Office study found almost 20 percent of
employers engaged in such practices. A
national ID card would have the same effect
on a massive scale, as Latinos, Asians,
Caribbeans and other minorities became
subject to ceaseless status and identity checks
from police, banks, merchants and others.
Failure to carry a national I.D. card would
likely come to be viewed as a reason for
search, detention or arrest of minorities. The
stigma and humiliation of constantly having
to prove that they are Americans or legal
immigrants would weigh heavily on such
groups.
CASE: OPLE VS. TORRES
- We can even grant, arguendo, that the
computer data file will be limited to the
name, address and other basic personal
information about the individual.[57] Even
that hospitable assumption will not save A.O.
No. 308 from constitutional infirmity for
again said order does not tell us in clear
and categorical terms how these
information gathered shall be handled. It
does not provide who shall control and
access the data, under what circumstances
and for what purpose. These factors are
essential to safeguard the privacy and
guaranty the integrity of the information.[58]
Well to note, the computer linkage gives
other government agencies access to the
information. Yet, there are no controls to
guard against leakage of information.
When the access code of the control
programs of the particular computer system
is broken, an intruder, without fear of
sanction or penalty, can make use of the data
for whatever purpose, or worse, manipulate
the data stored within the system.
- It is plain and we hold that A.O. No. 308 falls
short of assuring that personal information which
will be gathered about our people will only be
processed for unequivocally specified
purposes.[60] The lack of proper safeguards in
this regard of A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the
individual's liberty of abode and travel by
enabling authorities to track down his movement;
it may also enable unscrupulous persons to access
confidential information and circumvent the right
against self-incrimination; it may pave the way
for "fishing expeditions" by government
authorities and evade the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.[61] The
possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN,
biometrics and computer technology are
accentuated when we consider that the
individual lacks control over what can be read
or placed on his ID, much less verify the
correctness of the data encoded.[62] They
threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights
seeks to prevent.
- 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[85] 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.[88] 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."[89] 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.
efforts to reach a compromise on the areas of
disagreement will focus on such issues as:
- specific restrictions on the types of
information that either a private or public
entity can collect
restrictions on which public agencies are
authorized to collect information
requirements that any identification card put
into use by private entities be of a voluntary
nature
laws and regulations regarding who may
have access to the relevant data
laws and regulations regarding to whom
such data can be released
laws and regulations as to who and what
entities can demand presentation of the card
measures to ensure that the data systems
employed have the highest possible security
specific guidelines for use by law
enforcement and penalties for abuse by law
enforcement
COST
There is much disagreement over how much
establishing and implementing a national
identification system would cost. Those who
oppose such a system say a national identification
card would cost billions of dollars to administer,
and that a system able to reliably identify forged
cards would be particularly expensive. The Social
Security Administration has estimated that
creating counterfeit resistant Social Security
cards would cost $4 billion.17 The ACLU says
the cost of such a system has been estimated at as
much as $9 billion.18 Simple smart cards cost
$10-$35 a person.19
The costs of a national system would include
paying for card readers, staff and overhead,
essentially, opponents argue, creating a new
bureaucracy to administer the system. Even
implementing a biometric identification system
just for immigrants would be costly. For example,
the reader machines that the INS currently uses to
scan laser visas used by some Mexican
immigrants cost $2,400 each.20 Foreign tourists,
workers and students enter this country more than
thirty million times every year, so the cost of
issuing the cards and assembling the databases
could be enormous. Moreover, integration of the
databases of the various government agencies
would cost a great sum as well, given their current
state of disconnect.
POSSIBLE INVASION OF PRIVACY
National identification cards can be used to track
an individual. In order for the national
identification card to be usable by the
government, a national database containing
personal information would have to be created.
This database could be considered an invasion of
privacy. However, if the government chooses not
to create this database, then it will be too easy for
individuals to commit fraud by having multiple
cards with different identities.

FEASIBILITY
In many countries, it is not feasible to implement
a program that would issue national identification
cards to its citizens, permanent residents and legal
immigrants. In order to be able to distribute the
national identification cards, staff would need to
be trained and maintained. It would also be
difficult to ensure that the majority of the
population would register for a national
identification card. Some, such as the homeless,
might have trouble proving their identities in
order to receive a card because of a lack of Social
Security numbers or birth certificates.

REDUNDANCY
Because most people already have forms of state-
issued identification through driver's licenses,
requiring everyone to obtain and carry another
national identification card would be redundant.
It would also seem silly because the costs that a
national identification card would incur greatly
outweigh the benefit of having two identification
cards. There is no point in having a separate
national identity card when the state driver's
license system is already in place.