THE proposal to change colored photographs in the Philippine Identification System ID (PhilSys ID), also known as the Philippine Identification Card (PhilID), to monochrome is “legally infirm,” Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla said.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) earlier sought the legal opinion of the Department of Justice on whether such modification may be legally undertaken.

The modification was part of the recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) to shift from the current digital colored printing (using drop-on-demand or DOD technology) to monochrome laser engraving of the PhilID’s front-facing photograph to enhance photo quality.

The NEDA also sought to replace the DOD printers with laser engraving printers to increase the capacity of card personalization.

The PhilSys Policy and Coordination Council later issued a resolution approving the recommendation at no additional cost to the government.

The council also approved the signing of the amended technical specifications indicating monochrome printing, which shall form part of the memorandum of agreement (MoA).

The MoA dated June 2, 2020, was entered into by the BSP and the Philippine Statistics Authority for the production of the PhilID.

In fulfillment of this MoA, BSP signed a contract on Oct. 1, 2020, with AllCard Inc. for the supply of the PhilID.

The move to modify certain technical specifications in the PhilID will result in specific amendments to the said MoA.

Remulla said that no amendments should be made to any government contract after it has been signed.

In his legal opinion issued last November 9 but made public only over the weekend, he said that the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 9184, the “Government Procurement Reform Act,” states that amendments can only be done during “emergency cases or during fortuitous events.”

“Based on the foregoing, it is mandatory to establish the existence of the above conditions to warrant amendment to order, or in this case, any change in the technical specifications or terms of reference of already awarded government contracts,” Remulla said.

He reminded the BSP that the existing terms of reference state that the PhilIDs have “colored photograph on the cards through a combination of laser engraving and digital colored printing/ drop-on-demand technology.”

“The foregoing provision is categorical that the photograph must be colored, and it should be done through a combination of laser engraving and digital colored printing/ drop-on-demand technology. There is nothing in the TOR which authorizes the parties to (i) shift from colored photograph; and (ii) remove digital colored printing from the TOR and instead, replace DOD printers with laser engraving printers,” Remulla said.

“Colored is very much different from monochrome, and DOD printers (colored) provide very much different outputs than laser engraving printers (monochrome). Thus, the shift from colored printing to monochrome laser engraving, and the replacement of DOD printers with laser engraving printers are substantial amendments which would render such executed contract, if amended, to be an entirely different contract from the one that was bidded upon,” he added.

Remulla stressed, “the rationale behind the stringent guidelines is to safeguard the public from unlawful schemes where the technical specifications initially set out as basis for bidding will later be modified during contract implementation without sufficient legal basis.”