Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Kmu V Director General

    Uploaded by

    8LYN LAW
    This case concerns the validity of Executive Order 420 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which directed a unified ID system among government agencies. Kilusang Mayo Uno challenged the executive order, arguing it infringed on citizen privacy rights and usurped legislative powers. The Supreme Court upheld the executive order, finding that the president has constitutional power to ensure executive agencies follow the law. It also found the data collected for IDs, such as name and address, did not violate privacy rights as sensitive personal information was not included. The executive order was held to not usurp legislative powers or infringe privacy rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kmu V Director General

    Uploaded by

    8LYN LAW
    1K views2 pages
    This case concerns the validity of Executive Order 420 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which directed a unified ID system among government agencies. Kilusang Mayo Uno challenged the executive order, arguing it infringed on citizen privacy rights and usurped legislative powers. The Supreme Court upheld the executive order, finding that the president has constitutional power to ensure executive agencies follow the law. It also found the data collected for IDs, such as name and address, did not violate privacy rights as sensitive personal information was not included. The executive order was held to not usurp legislative powers or infringe privacy rights.

    Original Title

    Kmu v Director General

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerns the validity of Executive Order 420 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which directed a unified ID system among government agencies. Kilusang Mayo Uno challenged the executive order, arguing it infringed on citizen privacy rights and usurped legislative powers. The Supreme Court upheld the executive order, finding that the president has constitutional power to ensure executive agencies follow the law. It also found the data collected for IDs, such as name and address, did not violate privacy rights as sensitive personal information was not included. The executive order was held to not usurp legislative powers or infringe privacy rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Kmu V Director General

    Uploaded by

    8LYN LAW
    This case concerns the validity of Executive Order 420 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which directed a unified ID system among government agencies. Kilusang Mayo Uno challenged the executive order, arguing it infringed on citizen privacy rights and usurped legislative powers. The Supreme Court upheld the executive order, finding that the president has constitutional power to ensure executive agencies follow the law. It also found the data collected for IDs, such as name and address, did not violate privacy rights as sensitive personal information was not included. The executive order was held to not usurp legislative powers or infringe privacy rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case: Kilusang Mayo Uno vs NEDA Director General

    Facts: President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued Executive Order No.


    420 that directs a unified ID system among government agencies and
    Government owned and controlled corporations in order to have a
    uniform ID for all government agencies. Kilusang Mayo Uno and other
    respondents assailed this executive order for being a usurpation of
    legislative powers by the president and it infringes the citizens right
    to privacy.
    Issue: Whether or not Executive Order No. 420 is valid.
    Decision: Executive Order 420 is a proper subject of executive
    issuance under the presidents constitutional power of control over
    government entities in the executive department, as well as the
    presidents constitutional duty to ensure that all laws are faithfully
    executed, thus said executive order is not a usurpation of legislative
    power. Furthermore, it is not usurpation of legislative power because
    the act of issuing ID cards and the collection of some necessary
    information to imprint in them do not require legislation. What needs
    legislation is the system of appropriation to enforce the unified ID
    system, when unified ID system includes the citizens and when
    personal data that are beyond of what is routinely needed is collected
    for the ID.

    KMU VS DIRECTOR (-GENERAL, NEDA & SECRETARY OF DBM) GR NO. 167798, APRIL 19,
    2006 CARPIO,

    Facts: - EO 420, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on 13


    April 2005, reads: REQUIRING ALLGOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENTOWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS TO STREAMLINE AND HARMONIZE THEIR
    IDENTIFICATION (ID) SYSTEMS, AND AUTHORIZING FOR SUCH PURPOSE THEDIRECTORGENERAL, NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT THE
    SAME, ANDFOR OTHER PURPOSES

    - Section 3 of the said EO provides that the data to be collected


    and recorded by the participating agencies shall be limited to the
    following: Name; Home Address; Sex; Picture; Signature; Date of
    Birth; Place of Birth; Marital Status; Names of Parents; Height;
    Weight; Two index fingers and two thumb marks; Any Prominent
    distinguishing features like moles and others; Tax Identification
    Number (TIN)-Petitioners allege that EO 420 is void because it
    violates the constitutional provision on the right to privacy :
    (i) It allows access to personal confidential data without the owners
    consent;
    (ii) EO 420 is vague and without adequate safeguards or penalties
    for any violation of its provisions;
    (iii) There are no compelling reasons that will legitimize the
    necessity of EO 420.Issue: WON EO 420 infringes on the citizens
    right to privacy.
    Ruling: Petition without merit. RD: - On its face, EO 420 shows no
    constitutional infirmity because it even narrowly limits the data
    that can be collected, recorded and shown compared to the existing

    ID systems of government entities. Moreover the data to be


    collected are routine data for ID systems and are less personal
    compared to the medical records of patients taking prescription
    drugs
    (Whalen v. Roe, 429 US 589 (1977), good to note, see * below).-EO
    420 further provides strict safeguards to protect the confidentiality
    of the data collected, in contrast to the prior ID systems (which
    even before were not complained of) which are bereft of strict
    administrative safeguards.-The right to privacy does not bar the
    adoption of reasonable ID systems by government entities.

    You might also like