Kilusang Mayo Uno v.
Director General, NEDA (April 19, 2006) The Constitution also mandates the President to ensure that the laws are faithfully
FACTS:
In April 13, 2005, President GMA issued EO 420 which authorized the director-
general of NEDA to streamline and harmonize the ID systems of all government
agencies and government-owned and -controlled corporations that. EO 420 aims to
reduce cost, achieve efficiency and reliability, insure compatibility and provide
convenience to the people.
The data required for the unified ID system are: (1) Name, (2) Home Address, (3)
Sex, (4) Picture, (5) Signature, (6) Date of Birth, (7) Place of Birth, (8) Marital Status,
(9) Names of Parents, (10) Height, (11) Weight, (12) Two index fingers and two
thumbmarks, (13) Any prominent distinguishing features like moles and other and
(14) TIN. At least the first 5 items and the print of fingerprints shall appear on the
front or back of the ID card. These are the only data/information that the unified ID
system is limited to collect. The data collected are strictly confidential and shall be
protected by advanced security. A personal or written authorization of the datas
owner is needed for access and disclosure of the data. A written request of the
owner is also needed for any correction or revision of relevant data.
ISSUES:
1) Whether EO 420 is unconstitutional because it constitutes usurpation of
legislative functions by the President (executive)
2) Whether EO 420 infringe the citizens right to privacy
RULING:
On the Alleged Usurpation of Legislative Power
NO. Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the President
shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. The same
section also mandates that the President to ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.
Under this constitutional power of the President can direct all government entities
to adopt a uniform ID data collection and ID format to achieve savings, efficiency,
reliability, compatibility, and convenience to the public. However, the power of the
President is limited to the Executive branch. Given this, EO 420 does not apply to
the Judiciary or to the COMELEC which issues voters ID. Thus, EO 420 does not
establish a national ID system because legislation is needed to establish a single ID
system that is compulsory for all branches of government.
executed. There are several laws mandating government entities to reduce cost,
increase efficiency, and improve public services. The ID format provided by EO 420
only includes the first 5 items, fingerprints, agency number and a common
reference number, which is used to cross validate Owners data among govt
entities. The ID format, as such, only contains 8 items which is less than the IDs
issued by the Court which has 16 items. Under the unified ID system of EO 420,
benefits such as savings in procurement of equipment and supplies, compatibility in
systems, ease of verification, increased data reliability and user-friendliness of a
single ID format for all government entities are achieved. Thus, the issuance of the
President of EO 420 ensures that laws are faithfully executed.
Furthermore, legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal
them. EO 420 does not alter or repeal any law but ensures that the existing laws are
faithfully executed. What require legislation in terms of ID card system are (1) when
a special appropriation is needed for the implementation of the system, (2) when
the ID card is compulsory on all branches of government and (3) when the system
requires personal data beyond what is routinely used for identification purposes.
EO 420 does not require any special appropriation because the govt entities
covered by the EO already have proper appropriation. EO 420 is not compulsory to
all govt entities since it does not establish a national ID card system. The data
needed under EO 420 are less than the data collected under ID systems prior to EO
420.Even the Supreme Court has its own ID system and is even trying to unify this
system. There is nothing legislative in this initiative of the Judiciary which is the
same for the entities under the Executive branch.
On the Alleged Infringement of the Right to Privacy
NO. Prior to EO 420, govt entities were free to determine the nature and extent of
data were collected and there were also no executive issuances which prescribe
safeguards to the collected data. However, there were no complaints from the
citizens that their rights to privacy were violated and that govt entities abuse the
collection and recording of identification data. EO 420 further provides a strict set
of safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the data and the right to privacy.
In US Justice Department v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the press, the
issue is whether the State could withhold information of individuals from the press.
In pursuant to Freedom of Information Act, a reporter demanded the criminal
records of 4 members of a family. The US Supreme court ruled that the Freedom of
Information Act expressly exempts release of information that constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and the demanded information falls
under the category of exempt information.

In Whalen v Roe, the law that required doctors to furnish govt reports identifying
patients who received prescription drugs that have a potential for abuse was
assailed because the database alleged infringe the right to privacy of individuals
who want their personal matters confidential. The US Supreme Court rejected the
petition because the disclosure of private medical information to the State which
has responsibility for the health of the community does not automatically amount
to an impermissible invasion of privacy. The US Supreme Court reiterated Whalen in
cases where right to privacy was allegedly infringed because personal medical
information was disclosed to the State. Since the collected information for the
unified ID system is less sensitive as compare to personal medical info, EO 420
cannot violate the right to privacy.

Ople v Torres is not authority to hold that EO 420 violates the right to privacy. In
Ople v Torres, the petition is granted because the assailed executive issuance
sought to establish a National Computerized Identification where legislation is
needed.

The petitions are DISMISSED. EO 420 is declared VALID.