Research G.R. No. 167798.

Explain and justify: 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,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and THE
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET and MANAGEMENT, Respondents.

The Case
This petition happened on April 19, 2006 between Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. The director-
general, national economic development authority, and the secretary, department of budget and
management.

The case was about the Executive Order No. 420, issued by the former President Macapagal-
Arroyo in 2005. EO 420 is about ordering/requiring all government agencies and local
government units to have a single or unified multipurpose ID card. This is for the purpose of:
1. To save money by using a single ID card and not having to maintain duplication
databases with the same or similar data, as well as to make life easier on the government
and the public.
2. Ensuring smoother business transactions and services with the government.
3. To make it easier for private firms to operate and encourage the widespread use of the
unified ID card, as stipulated in the executive order.
4. To make government issued ID cards to be more accurate and secured from identity
information.
5. And facilitating access to and delivery of quality and e"ective government services
But to Kilusang Mayo Uno, the executive order is unlawful and against the law. According to
them: “it constitutes usurpation of legislative functions by the executive branch of the government. It
violates the citizen’s right to privacy.”
The Petition/Statements:
The petitioners of the case stated that EO 420 opposes the law. According to them:
1. It ignores and violates the decision in the case Ople v. Terres et al. (G.R. no. 127685).
2. It is contrary to the law specifically R.A. 8282 known as the Social Security Act of 1997.
3. The funds for implementation of EO 420 is not included for the uses of public funds
4. Violates the rights of privacy
5. Granting the issuance of EO without public hearing
6. Violates the equal protection laws in accordance with the Constitutional provision.

The Court’s Ruling and Counter Statements:

Counter statement/explanation based on Court’s Ruling in accordance with the President’s
issuance of Executive order no. 420 (EO no. 420) which includes the following sections:

In Section 1. Adoption of a unified multi-purpose identification (ID) system for

government. = According to the Court’s Ruling, the issuance of ID cards in government entities
requiring uniform data collection and format are already under the existing laws.
In Section 2. Coverage = According to the Court’s Ruling, even prior to EO 420, the
issuance of ID cards for the members of government entities are already under the existing laws.
In Section 3. Data requirement for the unified ID system = All items included in the
issuance of ID limits with 14 items in government entities like LTO. Even private sectors have a
requirement to fill those 14 items. Therefore, EO 420 did not go beyond the 14 necessary items.

The statements of the petitioners were dismissed and void due to lack of basis in
accordance with the existing laws. The President’s issuance of EO 420 was declared valid due to
the concreteness of basis in accordance with the law contradicting the petition of the petitioners.
And more importantly, the EO 420 only a"ects the government entities which already have
systems for identification and have issued cards.

References:
Case: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_167798_2006.html
EO 420: https://www.okcialgazette.gov.ph/2005/04/13/executive-order-no-420-s-2005/
Ople v. Torres et al., G.R. No. 127685: https://lawyerly.ph/digest/c8cf2?user=1740
Social Security System: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8282_1997.html