DFA in trou­ble

The Freeman - - OPINION -

There is trou­ble in the DFA. After some­one com­plained about hav­ing to present his birth cer­tifi­cate when re­new­ing his pass­port when the DFA should al­ready have his per­sonal in­for­ma­tion, DFA Sec­re­tary Loc­sin dis­cov­ered that the for­mer com­pany that pro­duces the pass­ports, left and took with them all the per­sonal in­for­ma­tion in their data­base. This is why those with pass­ports is­sued on or be­fore 2009 had to sub­mit their birth cer­tifi­cates again, so the DFA can in­clude them in their dig­i­tal data­base. Those re­new­ing pass­ports is­sued in 2010 on­wards do not need to do so, as the DFA al­ready has them in their data­base.

This is ac­tu­ally alarm­ing. Per­sonal in­for­ma­tion can be ob­tained, even sold to those with ma­li­cious in­ten­tions. Which is why it is the gov­ern­ment's re­spon­si­bil­ity to safe­guard it. Why it al­lowed the for­mer com­pany to just leave and take with them all the in­for­ma­tion is ques­tion­able. Ac­cord­ing to Loc­sin, the com­pany was "pissed". Scorched earth, so to speak. Loc­sin added that the gov­ern­ment did not sue the con­trac­tor be­cause they were in the wrong. It prob­a­bly did not want this prob­lem to be­come pub­lic. Loc­sin is also al­lud­ing with his “kach­ing, kach­ing” tweet that some­one made money from hir­ing an­other con­trac­tor. I would guess that the for­mer com­pany still had a con­tract with the gov­ern­ment, so whether or not his re­place­ment was le­gal still re­mains to be seen. The con­trac­tor has not been named. Loc­sin only de­scribes it as a very re­spectable French com­pany. Still, it should ex­plain what it did, re­turn the in­for­ma­tion as it is gov­ern­ment prop­erty, and tell us why it was “pissed”. The French com­pany prob­a­bly could not con­test its sit­u­a­tion, know­ing the ar­ro­gance of some of­fi­cials of this ad­min­is­tra­tion.

The re­ac­tion of some law­mak­ers is also in­ter­est­ing. Known op­po­si­tion­ists are call­ing for a thor­ough in­ves­ti­ga­tion, and for the gov­ern­ment to pur­sue said con­trac­tor to be held ac­count­able. While the known al­lies of the ad­min­is­tra­tion seem to be un­con­cerned, feel­ing con­fi­dent the in­for­ma­tion will be re­trieved. For­mer DFA sec­re­taries must also shed light on the sit­u­a­tion. Sec­re­tary Loc­sin is the third DFA sec­re­tary of this ad­min­is­tra­tion. For­mer Sec­re­tary Yasay has al­ready made some state­ments, say­ing this has gone on since past ad­min­is­tra­tions. So why did he not speak out? If a wrong­do­ing was done, is it enough to just point out past ad­min­is­tra­tions, which we know this ad­min­is­tra­tion rel­ishes do­ing, and not cor­rect it? We have yet to hear from the nor­mally elo­quent for­mer DFA sec­re­tary Cayetano.

The cur­rent pri­or­ity of the DFA is to put out the fire. Safe­guards will also be placed so as not to in­con­ve­nience peo­ple, and for the prob­lem not to re­peat it­self. For now, it is def­i­nitely in­con­ve­nient for those re­new­ing to have to ob­tain their birth cer­tifi­cates. The agency pro­vid­ing this must be mak­ing a killing in fees. How many hun­dreds of thou­sands, if not mil­lions have pass­ports 2009 or ear­lier?

Kach­ing!

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines

© PressReader. All rights reserved.