THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL ID SYSTEM

WILL BE CHAOTIC.

Definition of terms:
National ID: refers to the non-transferable identification document issued to every citizen registered
under the FilSys.
Biometrics Information: data about a person’s external characteristics that provides a positive
identification of an individual. Voice, iris, photo, fingerprint, signature, or palm.
System: refers to the national ID System
Based on HB 6221.
Policy:
National ID system will be chaotic as the government is not yet competent and equipped to facilitate
such a feat.
Safeguards:
But we’re not on the opinion that such national ID system has no actual benefit.
Zzzz:
It could be any minimalist’s dream: One identification (ID) for seamless transactions with all public
and private agencies.
Or it could be any private citizen’s nightmare: all your personal data conveniently packaged in a single
ID — one that could easily fall into the hands of unscrupulous people.
One thing is certain, though: The dream — or nightmare — of a national ID system has moved closer
to becoming a reality.

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL ID SYSTEM

WILL BE CHAOTIC.
Chaotic- in a state of complete confusion and disorder.
Issues:
No proponent would ever enumerate the disadvantages of the very system it is proposing to
implement. It is our responsibility to have our eyes peeled against actual and potential
opportunities prejudicial to our constitutionally-vested rights which are clothed in sheep’s clothing
but inside are ravening wolves, moreover, a ticking time-bomb.
First, and we believe deserves utmost regard, is the issue on Privacy of Information and Human
Rights. The national ID system is a double-edged sword that might serve purposes beyond its
original intent. The state might use it as a mechanism for reproach against political opponents, and
to a graver extent, discriminate on the basis of ethnicity such as the case of the Rwanda genocide
of 1995. (cite the Lumads, the moros, etc). The environment where the ID system is implemented
is not static. The president, heads of government agencies, IT team managers are not permanent.
This fact makes the potential for leakage and abuse very imminent. (like a balloon that might
explode anytime) Time and again we hear of top executives turning rogue and ransacking all they
can muster. The recent RCBC case is an example how.
In this world of possibilities, there will always be a tech-savant who can pierce through the
toughest security measure and hack the database where our information is ‘safely’ nestled. Is this
possible? Yes. Many times over, government websites have been defaced by anonymous hackers.
Have you ever experienced receiving promotional text messages offering you ‘SSS Loan, low-
interest loans, or invitations to apply for Car loan’? This is a simple example how easy our
‘information’ can be passed to a 3rd party and without our consent. My point here is potentially
porous sheath of ‘secured protection’ that we are being assured.
The chaos is when we have already received complaints of identity fraud where personal
information was used to apply for loans. Right now, to inform everyone, you can apply for loan
online by simply submitting ‘Valid IDs’. We are preventing an epidemic before a fallout, an
information outbreak occurs.
Suppose they create it like this ATM. How easy is it to use this and you’re not the owner.
Cost
In the United States, the cost estimate of their ID system is about $24.4 billion within its ten-year
phased implementation (French, 2005). Ultimately, the cost of an ID system depends on the level
of technology, the coverage and system specifications.
To set things in perspective, the COMELEC spent Php9.1 Billion for the 2016 National Elections.
This is a one time event with everything in place. Imagine the cost of scaling this at a consistent
rate. Include the cost for the biometric gadget, training of the staff, IT personnel, ID manufacturers.
To implement the national ID system would mean neglecting the more important problems of the
society: free public healthcare, better hospital and educational facilities,
Administrative Efficiency
The most commonly used reason for having a national ID system is that it reduces government red
tape and makes the delivery of public services more efficient. An ID system is particularly useful
in public transactions involving a huge segment of the population such as voting and benefits
availment. Studies however argue that an ID system may in fact disenfranchise a significant
segment of the population.
It is also difficult to see how an ID system can minimize fraud in voting and social security benefits
availment if the endemic problems of the bureaucracy (overlapping of functions, lack of careerism,
etc.) are unresolved. Interestingly, New Zealand, the country that is regarded as having one of the
most efficient bureaucracies in the world, has no ID system in place. The Philippines is ranked 36
in government efficiency and 41 in technological infrastructure in 2016. By the way, the ranking
involved 61 countries.

First, when the implementation of an ID card system requires a special appropriation because there
is no existing appropriation for such purpose. Second, when the ID card system is compulsory on
all branches of government … [and] on all citizens whether they have a use for the ID card or not.
Third, when 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 citizen’s right to privacy is infringed.

Purpose. What is the End goal.

In the United Kingdom, the government enacted the Identity Cards Act in 2006, which made use
of a biometric-based identity card. The system called for the creation of a centralized National
Identity Register which stored vast amounts of personal data, including biometric information.
Four years later, the law was repealed, leading to the permanent cancelation of the identity scheme.
One reason cited for the law’s failure was its supposed fixation on collecting biometric data despite
having no clear underlying purpose or use. For critics, it was all just ―one massive data collection
exercise ―that offered little to no benefit to the people.
India tried the same thing. Different experience but same old problem. Even with national IDs,
marginalized members of society still find formal banking difficult.

Improving our identity systems should be a national priority – regardless of what happens with
immigration reform. Every single day people are inconvenienced, marginalized, and find
themselves victims of identity theft because of our country’s faulty identity systems. The
American people deserve better than to be presented with a false choice. They shouldn’t have to
choose between trusting in a relic from the last century that keeps failing them, and being forced
into carrying an experimental document they don’t need.

The opposition to the proposed national ID revolves principally on the perceived threat to security
and violation of privacy by the government’s collection of personal information.

Admittedly, the proposed ID card is susceptible to abuse or misuse by corrupt government officials
or the cardholder himself. And so are many other government licenses, permits or similar
documentary issuances.
Even developed countries suffer from the same problem. The only difference is they are able to catch
the guilty parties faster and make them pay for their crimes.

There will always be an evil genius who can come up with ways and means to game a government
program for selfish purposes. But this fact of life should not paralyze the government to inaction.