OPLE VS TORRES AO 308 seeks to create a unified ID system (3) The funds used for

G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 for all basic services of the government.
Justice Puno
PETITIONER: Blas Ople
RESPONDENTS: Ruben Torres, Alexander
Aguirre, Hector Villanueva, Cielito Habito,
Robert Barbers, Carmencita Reodica, Cesar
Sarino, Renato Valencia, Tomas Africa,
Head of the National Computer Center
and Chairman of the Commission on Audit
TOPIC: Legislative Standing
LAWS INVOLVED:
 AO 308
 Sec. 3, Title I, Book III, of the
Administrative Code
 Sec. 3(1), Art III, 1987 Constitution
FACTS: Petitioner Ople questions the
validity of Administrative Order No. 308
(Adoption of a National Computerized
Identification Reference System) issued by
President Ramos on the following
grounds:
(1) it is a usurpation of the power of
Congress to legislate
(2) it intrudes on the protected zone
of privacy
The respondents in this case are members
of the Inter-Agency Coordinating
Committee charged with the
implementation of AO 308.
CONTENTIONS:
Petitioner:
(1) The establishment of a national ID
system requires a legislative act,
and therefore a usurpation of
Legislative powers
(2) The appropriation of public funds
for the implementation of AO 308
is a usurpation of Congress’
exclusive right to appropriate
public funds
(3) The implementation of AO 308
violates the Bill of Rights,
particularly on the rights to
privacy
Respondents:
(1) The case is not justiciable
(2) The issuance of AO 308 was within
the executive powers of the
President
implementation are from the
budgets of the concerned agencies
(4) AO 308 protects the individual’s
right to privacy
ISSUES:
(1) W/N Ople has legal standing
(2) W/N the case is justiciable or ripe
(3) W/N the issuance of AO 308 is a
usurpation of the powers of
Congress
(4) W/N the AO violates the right to
privacy
HOLDING:
On legal standing of Ople – Yes, Ople has
standing to sue as a Senator and as a
taxpayer.
As a Senator, petitioner is possessed of the
requisite standing to bring suit raising the
issue that the issuance of AO 308 is a
usurpation of legislative power.
As taxpayer and member of the
Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the
legality of the misuse of GSIS and public
funds to implement AO 308.

On the ripeness/justiciability of the case –
Yes, the petition at bar is not affected by
the fact that the IRR of AO 308 have yet
to be promulgated.
Petitioner Ople assails AO 308 as invalid
on its face. His action is not premature
because the subsequent promulgation of
the IRR will not cure the defects of the AO
itself. Moreover, the respondents have
started the implementation of AO 308
without waiting for the rules.
The dissenters’ insistence that the Court
tighten the rule on standing would
prejudice an important constitutional
principle and a fundamental right.
On whether the issuance of AO 308
encroaches on Legislative powers – Yes,
AO 308 involves a subject should not be
covered by an administrative order but
by a law.
Sec. 3, Title I, Book III, of the
Administrative Code states that:
Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. — Acts
of the President which relate to
particular aspects of governmental
operation in pursuance of his duties as
administrative head shall be
promulgated in administrative orders.
AOs are ordinances issued by the
President relating to specific aspects in the
administrative operation of government. It
must for the sole purpose of implementing
the law and carrying out the legislative
policy.
AO 308 does not implement the legislative
policy of the Administrative Code as
argued by the respondents. It establishes a
National Computerized ID Reference
System that requires adjustments on two
contending state policies — the primacy of
national security, and the extent of privacy
interest. Even Justice Mendoza’s dissent
states that the AO involves the all-
important freedom of thought. This
subject matter should be embodied in a
law and not on an AO.
The dissenters argue that AO 308 is not a
law because it confers no right, imposes
no duty, affords no protection, and
creates no office. This is not tenable, the
AO does confer rights. Under AO 308, a
citizen cannot transact business with
government agencies delivering basic
services without the ID. The ID would
grant a citizen the exercise of his rights
and enjoyment of his privileges.
On the alleged violation of right to
privacy – Yes, AO 308 violates the Right
to Privacy under the Constitution.
The right of privacy is recognized in
section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights:
Sec. 3(1): The privacy of
communication and correspondence
shall be inviolable except upon lawful
order of the court, or when public
safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
The right to privacy is a fundamental right
and government should show that AO 308
is justified by some compelling state
interest and that it is narrowly drawn in
order for it to be valid. Neither of the
requirements are present.
Sec. 4 of AO 308 provides for a Population
Reference Number (PRN) through the use
of "Biometrics Technology". However, the
said order does not tell us in clear and
categorical terms how these information
gathered shall he handled. The AO does
not state what specific biological
characteristics and what particular
biometrics technology shall be used and it
does not state whether the encoding of
biological information will be used for
identification purposes alone. There are
also no controls to guard against leakage
of information.

JUDGEMENT: The petition is granted and

Administrative Order No. 308 is declared
null and void for being unconstitutional.

DISSENTS:
Kapunan, J – the Admin Code has
unequivocally vested the President with
quasi-legislative powers in the form of Eos,
AOs, etc. The order will enable citizens to
conveniently transact with government
agencies, a power that is vested in the
President as the administrative head. It is
his/her duty to improve government
bureaucracy.

Mendoza, J – the case is premature and

speculative because the issuance of the
implementing rules is still pending. Ople
has no cause of action.