GR 167798; (April, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167798 & G.R. No. 167930; April 19, 2006
KILUSANG MAYO UNO, ET AL. and SATUR C. OCAMPO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ET AL. and EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
These consolidated petitions seek to nullify Executive Order No. 420 (EO 420), issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, which directs all government agencies and government-owned corporations to adopt a unified multi-purpose identification system. The order aims to streamline government ID systems to reduce costs, eliminate redundancies, and provide public convenience. It authorizes the NEDA Director-General to harmonize these systems and specifies the personal data to be collected, including name, address, biometrics like fingerprints, and the Tax Identification Number (TIN).
Petitioners, comprising labor groups, party-list representatives, and civil society organizations, argue that EO 420 is unconstitutional. They contend it constitutes an impermissible executive legislation, infringes on the right to privacy, and violates statutory laws, particularly the law governing the TIN system which prohibits its use as a general identification number. They assert the order paves the way for a national ID system without proper legislative authority.
ISSUE
Whether Executive Order No. 420 is unconstitutional for violating the right to privacy, constituting executive legislation, and contravening specific statutes.
RULING
The Supreme Court declared EO 420 CONSTITUTIONAL, with a qualification. The Court ruled that the President validly exercised her executive power under the Administrative Code to promote efficiency and economy in government operations. EO 420 is a legitimate directive to harmonize existing agency-specific ID systems to reduce costs and bureaucratic redundancy, not the creation of a new, single national ID card. It does not legislate but implements existing policies on cost reduction found in statutes like the Revised Administrative Code.
Regarding privacy, the data collected under Section 3 is limited to basic personal information and biometrics reasonably necessary to establish identity. The Court found these are generally required in existing transactions and do not, by themselves, constitute an unlawful intrusion into privacy. However, the inclusion of the TIN in the common data field was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Court held this directly contravenes Section 7 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which explicitly states the TIN is for tax purposes and shall not be used as a means of identification outside the tax administration. This provision is a specific legislative prohibition that the executive cannot override. Thus, EO 420 is upheld but with the TIN requirement severed and declared void.