The Politics of Circumvention
by admin
HAVE we forgotten that landmark case of Ople v. Torres (1998) where the Supreme Court nullified Administrative Order 308 entitled “Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System” for being violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy? Specifically, it was declared unconstitutional for the government to collect in one ID the basic personal information of individuals consisting of the individual’s full name, place of birth, date of birth, photograph, signature and thumb mark.
In Ople, the “all-in-one” national ID system proposed by A.O. 308 which sought for a centralized database of individual information (thumb marks and tax information included) was declared unconstitutional. The government then was attempting to have a single ID or system filled with personal confidential information. How come we failed to see the same reason now?
Because of Ople, not a single thumb mark was collected for the purpose.
More than ten (10) fruitful years after Ople, we find ourselves freely giving thumb marks even happily waiting in line for hours just to get our thumb marks registered in the COMELEC computer database. The finger-print biometrics. Of course and ideally, only for purposes of elections as provided in the law.
But, wait there’s more! Recently, the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means has recommended for plenary approval the proposed amendment of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, allowing the exchange of information by the Bureau of Internal Revenue on tax matters pursuant to Internationally Agreed Tax Standards (IATS). (Read the Official Press Release) Simply put, your tax information would soon be conveniently available for consumption in the sea of international kibitzers.
In the meantime, the Arroyo administration issued E.O. 420 in April, 2005. This issuance directs all government agencies and government-owned and controlled corporations to adopt a uniform data collection and format for their existing identification (ID) systems.
In 2006, the Supreme Court in the case of KMU v. The Director-General held that EO 420 does not establish a national ID system like what was prohibited in Ople 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. Further held, EO 420 is under the President’s constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
Yes, a hundred ways to peel a potato.
Effectively, the picture paints a simple pattern: What the government may not achieve at once, it can do so in seriatim. If the door is locked, the window might be open. However, the people failed to see this indirect contravention of the principles laid down in Ople. Either that or the people would not seriously care anymore about their right to privacy topped by the dawn of social networking websites. Circumvention really has its awful throne in our legal system.
At point is the thought that we should not be surprised that these patches of information collected by the government may sooner or later be lumped into one database that would function towards and serve practically the same goals that A.O. 308 sought to reach in the first place.
Was it not held in the abstract of Ople that the possibilities of abuse and misuse of the biometrics and computer technology threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent? And was it not held that the use of biometrics and computer technology does not assure the individual of a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Really, to pursue a less costly, more efficient, reliable and user-friendly ID-system is not objectionable. But that is not the point.
One may claim that we have not forgotten the lessons of Ople, we only said goodbye to it. Try politics of circumvention. ##
—
The images used are from sxc.hu. All copyrighted materials above as used remain to be that of its owners and no trademark or copyright infringement or destructive exploitation is herewith intended in any form whatsoever other than use for discussion and academic purposes.
