Case Summary (G.R. No. 167798)
Allegation of Legislative Usurpation
Petitioners contend EO 420 exceeds purely administrative action by effectively creating a nationwide ID regime without legislative enactment. They argue the order:
• Imposes uniform data standards and reference numbering across agencies
• Mandates program funding not appropriated by Congress
• Substitutes executive policymaking for the lawmaking prerogatives of Congress
• Contravenes separations of power by prescribing substantive policy measures
Allegation of Infringement of Privacy
Petitioners assert EO 420 violates constitutional privacy guarantees by:
• Allowing state collection and central storage of personal and biometric data
• Lacking adequate scope-and-purpose limitations on data use
• Failing to impose criminal or administrative penalties for unauthorized access or misuse
• Being vague as to public-hearing requirements and equal-protection implications for individuals without IDs
Court’s Jurisdiction and Standing
The Court found the petitions ripe and of transcendental public importance, and it assumed legal standing despite respondents’ challenges, because EO 420’s mandatory effect on government agencies directly implicates constitutional questions under the 1987 Constitution.
Majority: EO 420 Within Executive Power
The majority held that EO 420:
• Implements existing agency powers to issue IDs and manage databases under enabling statutes (e.g., GSIS, SSS, PhilHealth, LTO, PRC)
• Falls squarely within the President’s control and oversight of the Executive branch (Art. VII, Sec. 17) and duty to ensure faithful execution of laws
• Does not create new compulsory obligations on citizens or independent constitutional bodies (Judiciary, COMELEC)
• Merely standardizes data fields and formats, an administrative effort to reduce costs, improve efficiency, enhance reliability, and promote user convenience
• Requires no special appropriation beyond existing agency budgets
Majority: EO 420 Does Not Violate Privacy
On privacy, the majority reasoned that:
• Pre-EO 420 ID systems already collected more extensive personal and sensitive data without constitutional challenge
• EO 420 narrows data collection to routine identification fields and prescribes stricter confidentiality safeguards, access controls, and owner consent requirements
• Analogous U.S. precedents (Whalen v. Roe, Planned Parenthood v. Casey) uphold state-mandated reporting and limited central record-keeping where necessary for regulatory purposes and accompanied by safeguards
• EO 420 does not constitute a national ID system or compel issuance to all citizens, but harmonizes existing sectoral IDs
Dissent: Overreach and Legislative Encroachment
The dissenting justice argued EO 420:
• Lacks any specific constitutional or statutory grant authorizing the President to impose a cross-agency ID regime of general application
• Encroaches on Congress’s exclusive legislative power and exceeds internal administrative regulation, given its broad multipurpose scope beyond cost-saving directives
• Mirrors the disallowed Administrative Order No.
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167798)
Procedural Posture
- Two consolidated petitions filed under Rule 65 seeking certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to nullify Executive Order No. 420 (EO 420) as unconstitutional
- G.R. No. 167798 filed by labor unions and individuals; G.R. No. 167930 filed by party-list representatives and civil society groups
- Issues argued en banc before the Supreme Court; respondents questioned standing and ripeness
Subject Matter: Executive Order No. 420
- Issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 13 April 2005
- Mandates all government agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) issuing IDs to adopt a unified, multi-purpose identification system
- Aims to streamline and harmonize existing government ID systems
Key Provisions of EO 420
- Purposes: cost reduction, convenience to public, facilitation of private transactions, integrity and reliability of IDs, improved service delivery
- Coverage: all government agencies and GOCCs issuing ID cards
- Data requirement limited to 14 items: name; home address; sex; picture; signature; date and place of birth; marital status; parents’ names; height; weight; two index fingers and two thumbprints; distinguishing features; Tax Identification Number; agency-issued ID number; common reference number
- Director-General of NEDA authorized to harmonize systems, adopt unified ID within 60 days, enter into agreements, call for assistance, promulgate implementing rules
- Safeguards: strict limitation of data; prohibition on additional data collection; access controls; confidentiality; owner’s written authorization and correction procedures; advanced security features and cryptographic protection
- Funding: to be recommended by DBM; no special appropriation required
- Repealing clause for inconsistent orders; effectivity 15 days post-publication
Petitioners’ Contentions
- EO 420 usurps legislative power by creating new national ID policy without c