FACTS:

This case involves two consolidated petitions filed against Eduardo Ermita, Executive Secretary, and Romulo Neri, Director-General of the NEDA and Administrator of the NSO. The petitioners seek to nullify Executive Order No. 420 (EO 420) issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on April 13, 2005.

EO 420 aims to streamline and harmonize government identification (ID) systems to promote good governance, reduce redundancies, and enhance the delivery of government services. It mandates the adoption of a unified multi-purpose ID system for all government agencies and corporations, with limited personal information to be collected.

The petitioners in G.R. No. 167798 argue that EO 420 is unconstitutional as it usurps legislative functions and violates the right to privacy. Similarly, the petitioners in G.R. No. 167930 claim that EO 420 is void for various reasons, such as disregarding a Supreme Court decision, infringing on constitutional provisions, and resulting in discrimination.

The issues raised in the petitions revolve around whether EO 420 constitutes a usurpation of legislative power and infringes on the right to privacy. Respondents challenge the legal standing and ripeness of the petitions, but the Court considers the issues to be of paramount public concern and justiciable controversies.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the issuance of executive order 420, which mandates government entities to adopt a unified multi-purpose ID system, usurps legislative power.

2. Whether the President has the power to direct government entities under the Executive department to adopt a uniform ID data collection and format.

3. Whether Executive Order (EO) 420 is an exercise of legislative power.

4. Whether the issuance of EO 420 constitutes usurpation of legislative power.

5. Whether the unified ID system under EO 420 infringes on the right to privacy.

6. Whether the State can collect and store information on citizens gathered from public records across the country.

7. Whether the State can withhold such information from the press.

8. Whether the disclosure requirements under EO 420 violate the right to privacy.

9. Whether Executive Order No. 420 establishes a national ID system.

10. Whether Executive Order No. 420 is a proper subject of executive issuance.

RULING:

1. The petitions are without merit. The Court held that the issuance of executive order 420 does not usurp legislative power. The executive order only mandates government entities to adopt a uniform data collection and format for their IDs. It aims to reduce costs, achieve efficiency and reliability, insure compatibility, and provide convenience to the people. The limited and specific data required to be collected are usual data for personal identification. The Court also emphasized that government entities can individually limit the collection and recording of their data and adopt the ID format specified in the executive order. A unified ID system can be achieved through a memorandum of agreement among the government entities or through the President's executive or administrative orders. These actions fall within the administrative power and do not require legislative action.

2. The President has the power to direct government entities under the Executive department to adopt a uniform ID data collection and format. This is based on Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which provides that the President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. The President's constitutional power of control allows them to direct government entities in the exercise of their functions under existing laws, without the need for implementing legislation.

3. EO 420 is an exercise of Executive power and not an act of legislation. It is well within the constitutional power of the President to issue EO 420 as it does not make, alter, or repeal any law but merely implements and executes existing laws. EO 420 reduces costs, increases efficiency, and improves public services in the implementation of current ID systems of government entities.

4. The issuance of EO 420 does not constitute usurpation of legislative power.

5. The unified ID system under EO 420 does not infringe on the right to privacy.

6. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the State can collect and store information on citizens gathered from public records across the country.

7. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the State can withhold such information from the press, as it falls under the category of exempt information under the Freedom of Information Act.

8. The disclosure requirements under EO 420 do not violate the right to privacy, as the data required are routine for ID purposes and cannot embarrass or humiliate anyone.

9. Executive Order No. 420 does not establish a national ID system. It only aims to make the existing sectoral card systems of government entities more efficient and user-friendly to the public.

10. Executive Order No. 420 is a proper subject of executive issuance under the President's constitutional power of control over government entities in the Executive department and the President's constitutional duty to ensure the faithful execution of laws.

PRINCIPLES:

• The President has the power to issue executive orders and administrative orders within the scope of administrative power.

• Government entities can limit the collection and recording of data for their ID systems and adopt the ID format specified in executive orders or existing laws.

• Administrative matters, such as the adoption of a uniform ID system, do not involve the exercise of legislative power.

• The President has control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices and can direct government entities in the exercise of their functions under existing laws.

• The President's power of control is limited to the Executive branch and does not extend to the Judiciary or independent constitutional commissions.

• The President has a constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

• Legislation is needed to establish a single compulsory ID system for all branches of government and all citizens.

• The act of issuing ID cards and collecting necessary personal data does not require legislation.

• Legislation is required when the implementation of an ID card system requires a special appropriation, when the system is compulsory on all branches of government and citizens, and when it requires the collection and recording of personal data beyond routine requirements that infringe on the citizen's right to privacy.

• EO 420 does not require any special appropriation, is not compulsory on all branches of government and citizens, and only requires a narrow and focused collection and recording of personal data while safeguarding confidentiality.

• The unification of existing ID systems within the Judiciary and government entities under the Executive department does not involve the exercise of legislative power.

• The right to privacy does not bar the adoption of reasonable ID systems by government entities.

• The Philippines will still fall under countries that do not have compulsory national ID systems but allow only sectoral cards for specific purposes.

• Without a reliable ID system, government entities cannot effectively and efficiently perform their mandated functions.

• The validity of EO 420 is supported by international precedents and the existence of strict safeguards to protect the confidentiality of collected data.

• The Freedom of Information Act expressly exempts release of information that would "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

• Personal matters are exempt or outside the coverage of the right to information on matters of public concern.

• The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the validity of laws that require disclosure of personal data for purposes such as preserving maternal health and conducting medical research.

• The disclosure requirements under EO 420 are far less sensitive and far less personal compared to the personal medical data required for disclosure in Whalen v. Roe.

• The need for appropriate legislation is decisive when it comes to the validity of a law or executive issuance.

• The establishment of a national ID system requires legislation.

• Executive orders that make existing systems more efficient and user-friendly are within the President's power of control and duty to execute laws.