KILUSANG MAYO UNO vs. NEDA Case Digest


CASE DIGEST
KILUSANG MAYO UNO vs. NEDA Case Digest
G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006

BAYAN MUNA vs. ERMITA Case Digest
G.R. No. 167930, April 19, 2006

FACTS: EO 420, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 13 April 2005, required all government agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations to streamline and harmonize their Identification (ID) systems. Under said EO, all government agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations were ordered to adopt a uniform data collection and format for their existing identification (ID) systems. Herein petitioners, sought to enjoin the Director-General from implementing the said EO alleging that it is unconstitutional because it constitutes usurpation of legislative functions by the executive branch of the government and infringes on the citizen’s right to privacy. Thus, filing these two consolidated petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking the nullification of Executive Order No. 420 (EO 420).

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not EO 420 is a usurpation of legislative power by the President.
2. Whether or not EO 420 infringes on the citizen’s right to privacy.

RULING:
1.    No. The President may by executive or administrative order direct the government entities under the Executive department to adopt a uniform ID data collection and format. 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 the President to "ensure that the laws be faithfully executed." Certainly, under this constitutional power of control the President can direct all government entities, in the exercise of their functions under existing laws, to adopt a uniform ID data collection and ID format to achieve savings, efficiency, reliability, compatibility, and convenience to the public. The President’s constitutional power of control is self-executing and does not need any implementing legislation. There are several laws mandating government entities to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and in general, improve public services. The adoption of a uniform ID data collection and format under EO 420 is designed to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and in general, improve public services. Thus, in issuing EO 420, the President is simply performing the constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Clearly, EO 420 is well within the constitutional power of the President to promulgate. EO 420 is an exercise of Executive power – the President’s constitutional power of control over the Executive department.
Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them. In issuing EO 420, the President did not make, alter or repeal any law but merely implemented and executed existing laws. EO 420 reduces costs, as well as insures efficiency, reliability, compatibility and user-friendliness in the implementation of current ID systems of government entities under 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 necessary personal data for imprinting on the ID card does not require legislation. Private employers routinely issue ID cards to their employees. Private and public schools also routinely issue ID cards to their students. Even private clubs and associations issue ID cards to their members. What require legislation are three aspects of a government maintained ID card system. First, when the implementation of an ID card system requires a special appropriation because there is no existing appropriation for such purpose. Second, when the ID card system is compulsory on all branches of government, including the independent constitutional commissions, as well as compulsory on all citizens whether they have a use for the ID card or not. Third, when the ID card system requires the collection and recording of personal data beyond what is routinely or usually required for such purpose, such that the citizen’s right to privacy is infringed. In the present case, EO 420 does not require any special appropriation because the existing ID card systems of government entities covered by EO 420 have the proper appropriation or funding. EO 420 is not compulsory on all branches of government and is not compulsory on all citizens. EO 420 requires a very narrow and focused collection and recording of personal data while safeguarding the confidentiality of such data.

2.    No. All these years, the GSIS, SSS, LTO, Philhealth and other government entities have been issuing ID cards in the performance of their governmental functions. There have been no complaints from citizens that the ID cards of these government entities violate their right to privacy. There have also been no complaints of abuse by these government entities in the collection and recording of personal identification data. Petitioners have not shown how EO 420 will violate their right to privacy. Petitioners cannot show such violation by a mere facial examination of EO 420 because EO 420 narrowly draws the data collection, recording and exhibition while prescribing comprehensive safeguards. EO 420 applies only to government entities that already maintain ID systems and issue ID cards pursuant to their regular functions under existing laws. In the present case, EO 420 does not establish a national ID system but makes the existing sectoral card systems of government entities like GSIS, SSS, Philhealth and LTO less costly, more efficient, reliable and user-friendly to the public. Hence, EO 420 is a proper subject of executive issuance under the President’s constitutional power of control over government entities in the Executive department, as well as under the President’s constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.




   * KMU vs. NEDA Case Digest

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LEE vs. CA Case Digest

RAMON C. LEE and ANTONIO DM. LACDAO vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SACOBA MANUFACTURING CORP., PABLO GONZALES, JR. and THOMAS GONZALES LEE vs. CA (Case Digest) G.R. No. 93695, February 4, 1992 FACTS: A complaint for a sum of money was filed by the International Corporate Bank, Inc. against the private respondents who, in turn, filed a third party complaint against ALFA and the petitioners. The trial court issued an order requiring the issuance of an   alias   summons upon ALFA through the DBP as a consequence of the petitioner's letter informing the court that the summons for ALFA was erroneously served upon them considering that the management of ALFA had been transferred to the DBP. The DBP claimed that it was not authorized to receive summons on behalf of ALFA since the DBP had not taken over the company which has a separate and distinct corporate personality and existence. Subsequently, the trial court issued an order advising the private respond...
Read more

PEOPLE vs. AYCARDO

CASE DIGEST PEOPLE vs. AYCARDO Case Digest G.R. No. 218114, JUNE 5, 2017 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SALVADOR AYCARDO) FACTS: Sometime in September 2007, AAA was in a room inside the house of accused-appellant, when the latter entered, attempted to remove her shorts and panties and tried to insert his finger into her vagina. Accused-appellant failed to undress AAA because she resisted his advances, but accused-appellant was able to touch her vagina with his finger. AAA then ran to the house of her cousin Joy. Later in the evening that same day, accused-appellant came by to fetch her. Thus, returned to accused-appellant’s house where she prepared supper as instructed and had dinner with accused-appellant. In the middle of the night, AAA was roused from her sleep when she felt somebody removing her panties and shorts, who turned out to be accused-appellant. AAA resisted but accused-appellant told her he would do it slowly. Accused-appellant then undressed and insert...
Read more