J M
- FEU Institute of Law Dean explained the possible dangers or risks of the National ID System.
- Mel Sta. Maria also cited the 1998 Supreme Court decision to rule out the ID system as it “lacked safeguards on people’s right to privacy.”
Far Eastern University Institute of Law Dean Mel Sta. Maria has once again expressed his doubts regarding the upcoming Philippine National ID System.
On August 12, Sta. Maria posted a lengthy status of in his Facebook account about the potential dangers of the ID system.
WHAT IS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS IN THE UPCOMING PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ID SYSTEM?
When you present your Senior Citizen Card to a restaurant or to a government agency to be given priority, that is just about it. FINISHED. When you show your election ID during election time. Again that is just all about it. FINISHED.
He explained the use of the upcoming Philippine Identification Card, which will record every transaction you make and shall be accessible through a said Philsys Number (PSN) assigned to an individual.
The dean elaborated what a citizen’s record will contain as soon as the system would get implemented and how he the thought can be “appalling”.
Now, when you show your Philippine Identification Card in a public and/or private transaction pursuant to the Philippine Identification Law ( Republic Act No. 11055) signed by President Duterte, such Phil ID will be “authenticated” ( defined in the law as verification of your identity) through a centralized “resilient digital system” which will effectively record your transaction (wherever, however and whichever agency or entity made). You will be accessible through the Philsys Number (PSN) assigned to you.
Even the “requesting entity” seeking authentication will be logged in. This information will be stored in a database specifically about you. This is what the law calls “Record History” in the Philippine Identification System administered by the Philippine Statistics Authority ( formerly NSO). An isolated singular transaction may seemingly be harmless, but when recorded transactions have accumulated to a significant number detailing where you have paid your taxes, restaurant bills, deposited your bank accounts, records of your going in and out of the Philippines, the precinct where you voted, the hotel you slept in, the theaters you watched a movie, the birth of a new baby, the school where your children are enrolled, the hospital you checked in, the police HQ you reported to, and many others , then that is appalling .
Sta. Maria reiterated that this has a visible potential violation to one’s privacy and is a contradictory of the Supreme Courts’ decision to rule out the National ID System as it is “unconstitutional“.
Again I just want to state this: despite the “safeguards” provided by the law and the penalties for violation, the potential of using the information obtained from this system to violate one’s right to privacy is so discernable. This was discussed quite clearly in a 1998 Supreme Court decision, thus: “the data may be gathered for gainful and useful government purposes; but the existence of this vast reservoir of personal information constitutes a covert invitation to misuse, a temptation that may be too great for some of our authorities to resist.”
The Supreme Court further warned:”The ability of sophisticated data center to generate a comprehensive cradle-to-grave dossier on an individual and transmit it over a national network is one of the most graphic threats of the computer revolution. The computer is capable of producing a comprehensive dossier on individuals out of information given at different times and for varied purposes. It can continue adding to the stored data and keeping the information up to date. Retrieval of stored data is simple. When information of a privileged character finds its way into the computer, it can be extracted together with other data on the subject. Once extracted, the information is putty in the hands of any person. The end of privacy begins.”
It can be remembered back in 1998 when the SC turned down former President Fidel V. Ramos’ and Gloria Arroyo‘s versions of ID system via executive order.
Accordint to an article published on SunStar, the SC’s reasons are because it’s not a President’s power to do so, and it “lacked safeguards on people’s right to privacy.”
