LIBRT: National ID system – whether or not an infringement of the constitutional

right to privacy

The enactment of RA11055, otherwise known as the Philippine Identification

System Act, is a careless and thoughtless move that sets aside the core rights of the
people to constitutional privacy over a meager goal to achieve procedural
convenience. When this act has been signed, the government neglected in totality
the very basic issue why it has not been successful in the past two decades: (1)
Administrative Order No. 308 (AO 308 – Dec. 12, 1996) under then president Fidel V.
Ramos and (2) Executive Order No. 420 (EO 420 – Apr. 13, 2005) under then
president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, both calling for a centralization of all the
citizens personal information through a unification of identification system. Now it
has been enacted under a new face and name. But the issue still remains the same –
that these systems are directly infringing on each citizen’s constitutional right to
privacy.

Ladies and gentlemen, judges, good evening.

We at the affirmative find it necessary that the National ID System is an

infringement of the constitutional right to privacy.

(Hun, gawa ka na lang dito ng iyong intro ha, basta latag ko lang lahat ng pwede
arguments hun)

Argument 1 – That RA11055 does not guarantee its citizen the security of personal
data information because of the questionable and illegal appointment of a third
party foreign data management agency – Unisys.

Section 2 of RA 11055 states that “a resilient digital system shall be deployed to

secure the data collected and ensure that the people’s right to privacy, confidentiality
and other basic rights are at all times upheld and protected”

This they are referring to as to be managed by Unisys Corporation with its

headquarter based in Blue Bell Pennsylvania, USA. Unisys’ appointment as the
agency to implement the computerization of the civil registry system of the now
defunct National Statistics Office (currently PSA) has been clouded with various
anomalies that makes us question Unisys’ true intentions on taking this project.

Party-list Representative Carlos Isagani Zarate of Bayan Muna, a lawyer:

1. Explained that a sole bidder is a contradiction in terms since a single
company cannot compete against itself but the PSA declared it as the sole
complying bidder;
2. Questioned PSA about its failure to discipline Unisys, which had failed to
comply with the original contract provisions for 12 years (2000 – 2012 but
has been extended until 2015).
It should be noted that Unisys is the company that controlled Phase 1 and Phase 2 of
PSAs Civil Registry System-Information Technology Project (CRS-ITCP), Phase 1
being the NSO Serbilis Centers.

Representative Zarate filed Resolution 592:

1. Which argued that the Commission on Audit (COA) itself “raised
apprehension over a foreign company having a full and unbridled control
over the country’s civil registry system, as this would surely be
compromising to public interest and security. The COA, in its 2004 Sectoral
Performance Audit of the Civil Registry project, noted the government’s
inadequacy of controls to protect the interest of the government and the
public.”
2. Which raised the possibility that “having foreign companies Unisys and
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (who shall supervise the project) control the
country’s civil registry system would permit them to collect and retrieve
stockpile of information about Filipino citizens and share the same with their
other clients, such as various branches of the US armed services and possibly,
US intelligence agencies.
3. He also added “what is more alarming is that the PSA could not even disclose
safeguarding measures to monitor how troves of information would be kept
and managed by these foreign companies”
4. He warned that, with Unisys having unbridled control of the civil registry
system, the US government can easily have undiminished access to all civil
documents of more than 100 million Filipinos.

In the same 2004 Sectoral Audit Report of the CRS-ITP1, COA observed that Unisys
had not trained the PSA personnel to operate the system. Moreover, the PSA has
neither possession nor took part in the monitoring of records on actual purchases
and inventory of items to be turned over to the PSA.

(Hun, masyado mahaba tong part na to. Paki summarize mo pa tapos pakirelate
dun sa ating argument 1 statement at sa Section 2 ng RA11055)

Argument 2 – That RA11055 is a duplication of systems and processes that will

further complicate, not simplify, the country’s identification system and that the
establishment of this act shall further expose the citizens to data theft thereby
violating their constitutional rights to privacy.

RA11055, under Section 3 – Objectives, aims to “provide a valid proof of identity for
all citizens and resident aliens as a means of simplifying public and private
transactions. It also aims to eliminate the need to present other forms of identification
when transacting with the government and the private sector. “
Currently, there are 20 primary and 17 secondary forms of government IDs that can
serve as a valid proof of identity. Addition of a National ID into the list will not at all
make any difference. Instead it will further expose the country to an additional
source of information data system that is prone to data breach.
As defined, data breach occurs when a cybercriminal successfully infiltrates a data
source and extracts sensitive information. Based on a report from Trend Micro, a
security firm, there were billions of data records that have been stolen from various
institutions (retail shops, financial institutions, healthcare services, etc.) from 2006
to 2018, including the US Federal agency of Office of Personnel Management (22
million records from 2012 to 2014). One UK military contractor has also been
victimized of data theft on 2017.

In the Philippines, there were recent incident of data breaches that affected the
education sector. On Apr 23, 2018, 2,000 personal information has been exposed
and were made available for download through posted Facebook links. These
victims of data breach came from three schools (Taguig City University, Republic
Central Colleges in Angeles City, and Laguna State Polytechnic University), and four
government offices (Department of Education offices in Bacoor City and Calamba
City, Bulacan provincial government and Philippine Carabao Center).

The data breach that happened to the Commission on Elections last March 27, 2016
putting at risks around 55 million registered voters. [Comelec is one of the
government institutions that offer a primary ID.]

Argument 3 – That RA 11055 is a source of a probable cause to monitor extensively

the detailed transaction and movement of any individual as stipulated in Section 5
Definition of Terms (i) Record history.

Paragraph (6) of Section 5(i) states that “details of authentication requests processed
by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), including the date the request was made
and processed, the requesting entity, and the response provided by PhilSys.” And
Paragraph (7) of the same Section states that “disclosure, conveyance, dissemination,
publication and use of information by third parties”

This means that the PSA will record details of authentication requests which are
made whenever a government-issued identification card is used in any transaction
by a registered individual. The record will also include a log of times of disclosure,
conveyance, dissemination, publication and use of information of 3rd parties and
whenever relevant information is modified.

Privacy lawyer Jam Jacob, legal and policy advisor for technology and rights
advocacy group Foundation for Media Alternative (FMA) said maintaining a record
history may pave way for dataveillance and can result in a centralized file that will
give a detailed history of an individual’s activities over an extended period.

Another data privacy lawyer, Cecilia Soria, said maintaining a record history
simultaneously with the national ID is worrisome, as it seems akin to “actually
trying to build a dossier of each person. She furthers that it is not just about the
data but the insights that can be gleaned about an individual’s beliefs, outlook and
character from the record.

Soria and Jacob both agreed that maintaining a record of history is completely
unnecessary if the National ID system is indeed all about identity verification. Soria
said: “if the objective of the law is just to provide a valid proof of identity to simplify
transactions, then the keeping of a detailed record history appears to go far beyond
the boundaries set by this purpose”.

(Can cite the following as being directly affected by the enactment of RA11055)
Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution provides us with a listing of rights
that will be violated with the enactment of RA11055, specifically Sections 2, 6, 8, 12
and 14.

Article III – Bill of Rights

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary
to law shall not be abridged.
Section 12. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the
free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado,
or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as
well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.
Section 14. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Argument 4 – That the enactment of RA11055 is a cover up for a massive personal

data collection as clearly evidenced under Section 20 Transitory Provisions.

(Hun, I don’t have enough references pala to support this argument.

Which means that you can end your case with argument 3.
Pwede ka na din gawa ng closing speech mo hun.
Mukhang over ng 4 minutes tong piece na to.
Pa edit nah un ah.)