The real “flaw” in the national ID

I agree with the editorial in this paper last Tuesday that the national ID is flawed. But I do not agree that it is the absence of a signature on the card that is the flaw. Neither do I agree that no amount of threatening can force acceptance or recognition of a “flawed” card if the “flaw” refers to the absence of a signature.

During the registration process for the national ID card, all applicants had to comply with a number of requirements. Aside from documentary proof of identity, biometrics were also captured. An iris scan was taken and so was a facial recognition image, thumbprints, and, tra-la, written signatures. Everything went into the system database.

At this point, please allow me to recall something that Teddy Boy Locsin Jr. did when he was still the Foreign Affairs secretary that, to me, meant a great service to the Filipino people. Locsin ordered the doing away with the birth certificate requirement for those applying for the renewal of their passports.

Locsin saw the problem for what it is, acted swiftly and resolutely, and hit the nail right on the head. Locsin perfectly understood that a person who is renewing a passport means he already has a passport and that to get that passport he already went through the process and complied with the requirements.

Among the requirements is a birth certificate. A person cannot get a passport without this document. It drove the volatile but no-nonsense Locsin nuts that a person merely renewing a passport, whose original issuance already entailed submission of a birth certificate, to be made to submit a birth certificate again for the renewal.

Now back to the national ID. The national ID is a piece of rectangular plastic that is something like 2x3 inches in dimension. There could be many reasons why it carries no signature. That does not necessarily make it flawed, unless one starts pointing out that it does not carry the other identification parameters either, like the iris scan or the photo.

I am not a techie guy but I think there is a reason why, instead of a signature, the card carries a QR code. Whatever is in the code must be in fulfillment of a need, like establishing identity beyond doubt, beyond even what a signature can guarantee. To me, if you have the card, that means you went through a process, including submitting a signature.

The real flaw in the multi-billion-peso national ID project lies in the failure of those in charge to ensure that, given the gigantic budget they have been given, they can deliver the product swiftly and efficiently. As it is, more than half of the population has yet to receive their cards, years after the project was launched.

As to threatening those who refuse to recognize the cards for lacking a signature, why, they not only can be threatened, they can actually be prosecuted and fined. The national ID is not a frivolous imposition that just about anybody can dismiss with a careless flick of the hand. It is in fact a product of a law, RA 11055.

Just because it is the opinion of one that the national ID is flawed does not justify violating the law that created it. Until such law is amended or repealed, that law remains in effect and should be complied with and any and all violators prosecuted and punished. If not, then let us abolish all laws and let it be every man for himself, with signature or not.