KILUSANG MAYO UNO vs. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NEDA (GR No.

167798, 4/19/06) Facts: On April 13, 2005, PGMA issued EO No. 420, directing all government agen cies and government-owned and controlled corporations to adopt a uniform data co llection and format for their existing identification (ID) systems. The EO was a ssailed as unconstitutional based on the same grounds used in the earlier case o f Ople vs. Torres EO 420 is a usurpation of legislative power by the President a nd that it is an infringement on the citizens right to privacy. Issues: Won EO 420 is a usurpation of legislative power by the President. Won EO 420 infringes on the citizens right to privacy. Rulings: No. EO 420 applies only to govt entities that issue ID cards as part of t heir functions under existing law. (ex. GSIS, SSS, Philhealth, Mayors office, LTO , PRC, and similar other govt entities) The purposes of the uniform ID data colle ction and ID format are to reduce costs, achieve efficiency and reliability, ens ure compatibility, and provide convenience to the people served by govt entities. EO 420 does not require any special appropriation because the existing I D card systems of govt entities covered by this have the proper appropriation or funding. EO 420 is not compulsory on all branches of government and is not compu lsory on all citizens. EO 420 does not establish a national ID card system. EO 4 20 does not compel all citizens to have an ID card. EO 420 requires a very narro w and focused collection and recording of personal data while safeguarding the c onfidentiality of such data. In fact, the data collected and recorded under EO 4 20 are far less than the data collected and recorded under the ID systems existi ng prior to EO 420. Clearly, EO 420 is well within the constitutional power of the President to promulgate. The President has not usurped legislative power. It is an exerci se of the Presidents power of control over the Executive department. In issuing EO 420, the President did not make, alter, or repeal any law but merely implemen ted and executed existing laws. Thus, EO 420 is simply an executive issuance and not an act of legislation. The act of issuing ID cards and collecting the neces sary personnel data for the imprinting does not require legislation. No. Prior to EO 420, govt entities had a free hand in determining the kind, natu re and extent of data to be collected and stored for their ID systems. Under EO 420, govt entities can collect and record only 14 specific data. In addition, govt entities can show in their ID cards only eight of these specific data. Also, pr ior to EO 420, there was no executive issuance to govt entities prescribing safeg uards on the collection, recording, and disclosure of personal identification da ta to protect the right to privacy. Now, under Section 5 of EO 420, certain safe guards are instituted. The assailed executive issuance in Ople v. Torres sought to establish a National Computerized Identification Reference System, a national ID system that did not exist prior to the assailed executive issuance. Obviously, a national ID card s ystem requires legislation because it creates a new national data collection and card issuance system where none existed before. EO 420 does not establish a nat ional ID system but only sectoral cars systems.