G.R. No.

167798 April 19, 2006 KILUSANG MAYO UNO, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG MAYO UNO (NAFLU-KMU), JOSELITO V. USTAREZ, EMILIA P. DAPULANG, SALVADOR T. CARRANZA, MARTIN T. CUSTODIO, JR. and ROQUE M. TAN vs. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET and MANAGEMENT FACTS: In order to lessen the financial burden on the government and to achieve efficiency, reliability, insure compatibility, and provide convenience to the people served by the government, former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 420 which requires all government agencies that issue ID cards as part of their functions under existing laws, to adopt a unified multi-purpose ID system. As provided under Section 3 of E.O. No. 420, the collection of data is limited only to the following items and requires at least at least the first five items listed plus the fingerprint, agency number, and the common reference number: (1) Name; (2) Home Address; (3) Sex; (4) Picture; (5) Signature; (6) Date of Birth; (7) Place of Birth; (8) Marital Status; (9) Name of Parents; (10) Height; (11) Weight; (12) Two index fingers and two thumbmarks; (13) Any prominent distinguishing features like moles or others; and (14) Tax Identification Number. ISSUES: 1) 2)

Whether or not E.O. No. 420 is a usurpation of legislative powers by the president Whether or not E.O. No. 420 infringes on the citizens right to privacy

RULING: 1) The president has not usurped legislative power in issuing E.O. No. 420. It is an exercise of the presidents constitutional power of control over the executive department and constitutional duty to ensure the faithful execution of the laws mandating government entities to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and in general impose public services. E.O. No. 420 is simply an executive issuance and not an act of legislation. The president did not make, alter, or repeal any law but merely implemented and executed existing laws. The act of unifying ID data collection and the ID card issuance systems does not involve the exercise of any legislative power. Legislation is required with respect to a government maintained ID system in the following cases: (1) where a special appropriation for the ID card system is required; (2) where the ID card system is compulsory on all branches of government as well as compulsory on all citizens; and (3) where 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 citizens right to privacy is infringed. In the present case, E.O. No. 420 does not require legislation because there is no existing appropriation for such purpose, it is not compulsory on all branches of government and is not compulsory on all citizens for it applies only to government entities that under existing laws are already collecting data and issuing ID cards as part of their governmental functions, and it requires a very narrow and focused collection and recording of personal data while safeguarding the confidentiality of such data. 2) The data collected and stored for the unified ID system under E.O. No. 420 will be limited to only 14 specific data, and the ID card itself will show only eight specific data. Prior to E.O. No. 420, there was no executive issuance to government entities prescribing safeguards on the collection, recording, and disclosure of personal identification data to protect the right to privacy. Now under Section 5 of E.O. No. 420, safeguards have been instituted in order to protect the confidentiality of data collected. Furthermore, the disclosure requirements under EO 420 are far benign and cannot therefore constitute a violation of the right to privacy as compared to the following American decisions which the U.S. Supreme Court held not to be violative of the rights to privacy: (a) Griswold v. Connecticut, wherein a law prohibiting the use and distribution of contraceptives was declared unconstitutional for being repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship; (b) U.S. Justice Department v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, wherein it was ruled that the release of information to the press that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy was an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act; (c) Whalen v. Roe, wherein it was ruled that the disclosure to representatives of the State, having responsibility for the health of the community, of private medical information of patients who received prescription drugs that have a potential for abuse, does not automatically amount to an impermissible invasion of privacy.

Notes: *How a unified ID system for all these government entities can be achieved: (1) the heads of these existing government entities can enter into a memorandum of agreement making their systems uniform. If the government entities can individually adopt a format for their own ID pursuant to their regular functions under existing laws, they can also adopt by mutual agreement a uniform ID format, especially if the uniform format will result in substantial savings, greater efficiency, and optimum compatibility. This is purely an administrative matter, and does not involve the exercise of legislative power; (2) 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. *The President, through Section 17 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which states that the "President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices", 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 Presidents constitutional power of control is self-executing and does not need any implementing legislation. But the same is limited to the Executive branch of government and does not extend to the Judiciary or to the independent constitutional commissions.

G.R. No. L-32166 October 18, 1977 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. MAXIMO A. MACEREN CFI, JOSE BUENAVENTURA, GODOFREDO REYES, BENJAMIN REYES, NAZARIO AQUINO and CARLO DEL ROSARIO FACTS: Jose Buenaventura, Godofredo Reyes, Benjamin Reyes, Nazario Aquino, and Carlito del Rosario were charged with having violated the Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1 which penalizes electro fishing in fresh water fisheries. This was promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law and the law creating the Fisheries Commission. It was alleged in the complaint that the five accused in the morning of March 1, 1969 resorted to electro fishing in the waters of Barrio San Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz using a device used to catch fish through electric current. The municipal court quashed the complaint and held that the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing, hence the executive and judicial departments cannot consider the same. On appeal, the CFI affirmed the dismissal. Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court. ISSUES: Whether or not the administrative order penalizing electro fishing in fresh water fisheries is valid RULING: NO. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing the administrative order. The old Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. As electro fishing is not banned under that law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have been easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law. The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare what acts should constitute an offense. It can authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. Where the legislature has delegated to executive or administrative officers and boards authority to promulgate rules to carry out an express legislative purpose, the rules of administrative officers and boards, which have the effect of extending, or which conflict with the authority granting statute, do not represent a valid precise of the rule-making power