DOJ Opinion No. 246, s. 1982

DOJ OPINION NO. 246 , s. 1982 November 9, 1982 Director General Placido L. Mapa, Jr. National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) c/o The Economic Planning and Research Staff NEDA, Padre Faura, Manila Sir : This refers to Parliamentary Bill No. 2447, entitled "An Act Establishing a National Identification System in the Philippines" which you have referred to us for "comments and recommendations". At the outset, we submit that we find no necessary for the passage of the aforestated Bill, for the reasons set forth hereunder: Firstly, Presidential Decree No. 278 promulgated on August 24, 1973 has already instituted a national system of identification of all Filipino citizens and foreign nationals in the Philippines. Pursuant to the said Decree, the President issued on November 11, 1980 Executive Order No. 630, creating the National Identification System Committee (NISC) which is charged with the function of formulating a national identification system consistent with the objectives of Presidential Decree No. 278. The NISC is composed of the Chairman of the National Intelligence Board as Chairman of the said Committee and the following as members: (1) the Commissioner, Commission on Immigration and deportation; (2) the Managing Director, National Computer Center; (3) the Executive Director, National Census and Statistics Office; (4) the Commissioner, Bureau of Internal Revenue; and (5) the Director for Information Systems, NISA. It was reported that the NISC, headed by AFP Chief of Staff General Fabian C. Ver, submitted to the President on August 17, 1982 the proposed guidelines on the national system of identification. (Bulletin Today, August 18, 1982) A few days prior to the submission of the aforementioned guidelines prepared by the NISC, the President had instructed the Cabinet to draw up the mechanics for a national identification system. The Ministry of Justice is currently coordinating with other government offices for the purpose of implementing the aforesaid Presidential directive. Secondly, assuming that Parliamentary Bill No. 2447 is intended as an amendatory legislation to P.D. No. 278, we beg to express our view that confusion may only result from the passage of the bill for the following reasons: 1. Under P.D. No. 278, it is clear that all citizens of the Philippines and citizens and nationals of foreign countries resident of the Philippines, are covered by its provisions (paragraph 1 and 2). On the other hand, the provisions of P.B. No. 2447 are ambiguous as to the bill's coverage. It establishes a national identification system for "all citizens" in the country under Section 1 thereof, although in the immediately succeeding section (Section 2), "[A]ny person residing in the Philippines" is required to apply for registration and issuance of an identification card; and 2. There are five classes of acts or omissions prejudicial to the national identification system which are penalized under P.D. No. 278. Under P.B. No. 2447, only two categories of acts or omissions are considered offenses: (a) failure or refusal to apply for registration, and (b) making false statements in the application for registration or procuring the issuance of an identification card through fraud. These acts are also penalized under P.D. No. 278. In addition, the said Decree prescribes a penalty for certain acts on which P.B. No. 2447 is silent. These are: (a) unauthorized printing, preparation or issuance of a National Reference Card by any person; (b) willful falsification, mutilation, alteration of or tampering with a National Reference Card by any person; and (c) use or unauthorized possession of a National Card by any person other than the one to whom it was issued or the possession of a false, falsified or altered National Reference Card. [Paragraph 4[b], [c] and [d], P.D. No. 278) If P. B. 2447 is passed, questions may arise as to whether or not the aforementioned offenses ceased to be such because of their omission in the subsequent enactment. Besides, it is believed that the retention of the said offenses in the statute would enhance the efficacy of the national identification system. LexLib Thirdly, it is further observed that if P.B. No. 2447 is enacted into a law, the function of promulgating the rules and regulations as are necessary to implement the provisions of said bill would no longer be the collective responsibility of concerned government agencies as provided for in P.D. No. 278 and Executive Order No. 360, but solely of the minister of Justice. While the Minister of Justice would be pleased and honored to assume the responsibility, it is believed to be more advantageous to draw upon the variety of expertise of the different government agencies enjoined under the present law and presidential directive to participate in the setting up of the system. In view of all the foregoing, we reiterate our opinion that there is no need to pass P.B. No. 2447. The objectives of said bill may be adequately and even more effectively attained by the expeditious implementation of P.D. No. 278. LexLib Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice