PALMARIA- PRACTICABILITY (LAW DEBATE)

Running a government is no easy task. Law enforcement, service delivery and social security
benefits availment entail voluminous documents that have compelled states to devise tools that
simplify and manage these tasks. One such device is the establishment of a national
identification (ID) system.

ID system can be a double-edged sword because it can suffer from “functionality creep” which
means it can serve purposes other than its original intent. Thus, even if the original rationale for
an ID system is simply to cut government red tape, a government may eventually use it as a
mechanism for repression against political opponents or to discriminate on the basis of race or
ethnicity.

In the Philippines, several proposals though varied in scope and coverage, seeking to
implement a national identification system have been filed in the Senate and in the House of
Representatives.

Good evening Mr.∕ Madam Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen.

My name is Ms. Mary Grace R. Palmaria and I will discuss regarding the practicability of the
topic with respect to the National ID System: Whether or not it is an infringement of the
constitutional right to privacy.

We, the affirmative team believe that this statement is true.

Let me cite some important points:

First, Under the 2018 National Budget, the government allotted Php. 2 Billion for the initial
implementation of the program, lodged under the Philippine Statistics Authority’s Budget. The
initial funding allotted will be used to undertake activities in support of the Philippine ID System
(PhilSys) rollout and these includes the creation of a Project Management Office, the creation of
work streams for the identification of technical specifications for the national ID System Design,
the publication of the Implementing Rules and Regulations; and the registration of one million
household heads, among others. Mr. Benjamin Diokno, our Budget Secretary says that it will be
turned over to the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) once the
system is put in place by the PSA. Hence, the Philippine ID System (PhilSys) will establish a
single national ID system for all residents and resident aliens in the country. Thus, every Filipino
and resident alien will be identified through the use of a unique PhilSys number that is randomly
generated. The PhilSys number will be automatically recognized by the government systems. In
line with this, the data to be collected for the National ID will be the following: (1) Demographic
Data such as the following: Full Name, Gender, Date of Birth, Place of Birth, Blood Type,
Address, Filipino or Resident Alien, Marital Status, Mobile Number and E- mail addresses
(which are both optional). (2) Biometrics information will also be collected such as the front
facing photograph, full set of fingerprints, iris scan and other identifiable features that are
necessary as may be determined in the implementing rules and regulations (IRR). Any data
collection initiative poses privacy concerns. At the age of digitization, when everyday
transactions pass through digital channels, a leak or any unauthorized disclosure of any
information, even the seemingly minor ones, could very well lead to security and financial
consequences. The advent of biometrics and microchips technology also has profound
implications. Critics argue that the potential for abuse and invasion of privacy is even greater
with the use of biometrics since it is vulnerable to identity fraud. The citizen is no longer in
control of his personal information. For instance, the research claims that “facial recognition and
iris scanning can sometimes be defeated by presenting a picture of someone else’s face or iris”.
Further, the government naturally has to continually shoulder expenses for acquiring and
maintaining equipment, devices, logistics and processes to issue an identification card to every
citizen. As Mr. Jamael Jacob, the director of Ateneo de Manila University’s Data Protection

Page 1 of 2
Office wrote on GMA News, “Identity management programs are expensive to establish and
maintain, and require significant financial commitment from the government”.

Second, Sec. 9 of the Republic Act 11055 known as the “Philippine Identification System Act”
states that every citizen or resident alien shall register personally with the following registration
centers that have the necessary facilities to capture the information required to be obtained to
wit: (1) Philippine Statistics Authority’s Regional and Provincial Offices; (2) Local Civil Registry
Offices (LCROs); (3) Government Service Insurance System (GSIS); (4) Social Security System
(SSS); (5) Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth); (6) Home Development Mutual
Fund (HDMF); (7) Commission on Election (COMELEC); (8) Philippine Postal Corporation
(PhilPOST); (9) Other Government Agencies and GOCC’s. As such, the institution of this
various government agencies further adds to the numerous complications to our fellow Filipino
citizens and resident alien with respect to this Act because there is “no only one government
agency authorized for the registration” that will be responsible for this and as a result various
government agencies will have access in line with the private information of the Filipino citizen
or the resident aliens enough to envade our right to privacy.

Third, Legal and Policy Environment. In the Philippines the 1987 Constitution’s concept of
privacy leans more on the citizen’s right to privacy in one’s abode than privacy of one’s personal
information. The only laws that can be cited that somehow protects citizens against government
intrusion in one’s affairs are the decades- Bank Secrecy Law and the Anti-Wiretapping laws.
And

Fourth, the Level of Computerization in most Philippine government agencies is low. This can
be gleaned from a recent study by the National Computer Center (NCC) on the use of
information technology in government agencies. The study showed that as of 2017, 50 percent
of national government agencies still use dial-up connections. The study also showed that
networking among government agencies is still not prevalent. As such, it is unimaginable how a
proposed ID system which presupposes huge investments in information technology can even
be thought of at this time. Moreover, according to the National Statistics Office (NSO), ten
percent of Filipino children are unregistered or do not possess birth certificates. This is a
perennial problem that can pose a big constraint to a planned ID system as this would
marginalize millions of Filipinos. The implications of the proposal to the welfare of indigenous
people who often lack identification should also be looked into.

Finally, Mr.∕ Madam Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, For the National ID System to succeed it
is just but necessary for “the government to first and foremost establish and enhance the trust
and security among its citizens.”

Page 2 of 2