AMID the “pepe-dede-pederalismo” controversy, there were concerns other than the damage the Mocha Uson fiasco inflicted on the campaign for the proposed new system of government. And at least two voices that raised one such concern were heard:

[] Jason A. Baguia, a U.P. Cebu mass-com lecturer and newspaper columnist, noted Tuesday (Aug. 7) in a Facebook post: “Uproar over Ms. Uson, and PDut quiet(ly) signs national ID law.”

[] Mel Sta. Maria, a law professor, columnist and book author based in Manila, tweeted Monday (Aug. 6): “In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that a national ID system is unconstitutional. Today (Aug. 6), he signed a national ID system... Rule of law?”

The national ID system, which used to set off a firestorm, is finally being adopted, minus the heat and noise.

Public reaction

Did Duterte use the Uson flap to minimize opposition to the national ID system, officially titled Philippine ID System Act of 2018 or Philsys law? The controversy did crowd out from Page 1 and premium news space the birth of the law. And the issue of privacy intrusion seemed to have been ignored by media opinion makers.

But then there’s scant basis to expect heavy flak against the law. Besides, Duterte won’t be fazed by public opposition; the man doesn’t even fear God’s wrath. Opposition to the Philsys law, as of this writing, was still to take form and life. And very likely, it won’t come. The Uson blunder could be just as coincidental as it was unnecessary.

The reason: major weapon against the national ID system was that Congress, not the president, should enact the rules. The argument the Supreme Court used 20 years ago has been disabled. Unlike past presidents Fidel Ramos and Gloria Arroyo, who each set up his and her version of the ID system via executive order, Duterte did not follow suit. Instead he asked, or told, Congress to pass the national ID bill and then he signed it into law.

The 1998 case

Indeed the high tribunal (in Ople vs. Torres, July 23, 1998) struck down as not constitutional then president FVR’s administrative order #308, which sought to implement a comprehensive ID reference system.

The SC’s reasons: (a) it was not within the president’s power to do, as his A.O. wouldn’t merely implement existing laws but would “redefine some basic rights of citizens”; and (b) the A.O. lacked safeguards on people’s right to privacy.

Under the recently enacted Philsys law, Duterte did not issue an E.O.; Congress legislated. That takes the wind from the first SC objection in its 1998 ruling. Should Sta. Maria not have considered that in his tease about rule of law?

As to the SC’s second objection, on privacy of citizens, the Philsys law has different standards. The new law’s constitutionality still have to be litigated. The SC case Sta. Maria cited cannot be used as argument that Duterte rejected rule of law. Maybe a number of his other acts, such as firing the deputy ombudsman, but not this.

Scary part

Any lawsuit over the new national ID system may have to attack the law’s privacy provision, particularly that requiring a “record history.”

Disclosing your mobile phone or other contact information is optional but you are required to give your full name, sex, date and place of birth, facial image, fingerprints, iris scan, and identification features.

But the scary part is what they call “record history,” which tracks each transaction in which the ID is used. Critics say this “data-veillance” may lead to a mass surveillance of citizens, a device in the arsenal of despotism and strong-armed rule.

Sen. Franklin Drilon who welcomed the new law says another law, Data Privacy Act of 2012 protects the privacy that the Philsays law might infringe. Would that work with data bases vulnerable to devices spawned by the new technology itself or where the assault on privacy is state-sponsored? Drilon didn’t say.