OPLE VS.

TORRES

FACTS:

Petitioner Senator Blas F. Ople assailed the constitutionality of the Administrative Order No. 308
entitled “Adoption of Computerized Identification Reference System” issued by President Fidel V. Ramos
with the goal of providing convenient way to transact business with basic service and social security
providers and other government instrumentalities.

ISSUE:

1. WON the administrative order issued by the executive is deemed to be a law and not a mere
administrative order thus it is a usurpation of legislative power of the congress to make laws,
and;

2. WON the AO impermissibly intrudes the citizen's constitutional right of privacy.

HELD:

1. Yes. A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order.
Legislative power is "the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them."
The Constitution, as the will of the people in their original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has vested
this power in the Congress of the Philippines. While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the
President executes the laws. It establishes for the first time a National Computerized Identification
Reference System. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a
law, still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation because facially, it violates
the right to privacy. The act of promulgating AO no. 308 is an act of legislation rather than enforcement
of a law, thus, should be struck down as unconstitutional exercise of legislative power.

2. Yes, the Administrative Order violates the constitutional right to privacy because its scope is too broad
and vague that will put people's right to privacy in clear and present danger if implemented. The A.O.
308 also lacks of proper safeguards for protecting the information that will be gathered from people
through biometrics and other means. Thus, A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the individual's liberty of
abode and travel by enabling authorities to track down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous
persons to access confidential information and circumvent the right against self- incrimination; it may
pave the way for “fishing expeditions” by government authorities and evade the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
FACTS:

This is a petition raised by Senator Blas Ople to invalidate the

Administrative Order No. 308 or the Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System issued by President
Fidel V. Ramos.

The petitioner contends that the implementation of the said A.O. will
violate the rights of the citizens of privacy as guaranteed by the
Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not A.O. No. 308 violates the right of privacy.

HELD:

Yes.

The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently

of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of
constitutional protection.

The right of privacy is guaranteed in several provisions of the

Constitution:

"Sections 3 (1), 1, 2, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights

"Sec. 3. 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."
"Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws."
"Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
"Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful
order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired
except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public
health, as may be provided by law."
"Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged."

"Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against

himself."
The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the
Constitution, hence, it is the burden of government to show that A.O.
No. 308 is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is
narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two considerations:
(1) the need to provide our citizens and foreigners with the facility to
conveniently transact business with basic service and social security
providers and other government instrumentalities and (2) the need
to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions and
misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. It is
debatable whether these interests are compelling enough to warrant
the issuance of A.O. No. 308.

But what is not arguable is the broadness, the vagueness, the

overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if implemented will put our
people's right to privacy in clear and present danger. The
possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometrics and
computer technology are accentuated when we consider that the
individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID,
much less verify the correctness of the data encoded. They threaten
the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.

The petition is granted and declared the Administrative Order No.

308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification
Reference System" null and void for being unconstitutional.

Facts:

A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos On December 12, 1996 providing for a
national computerized identification system with the goal of providing convenient way to transact
business with basic service and social security providers and other government instrumentalities.
Petitioner and Senator Blas Ople filed a case seeking to declare the act unconstitutional, claiming that
A.O. No. 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law and hence, beyond the power of the President
to issue.

Issue:

Whether the issuance of the President of AO No. 308 is an unconstitutional usurpation of the
legislative powers of the Congress.

Ruling:

Yes. A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative
order. Legislative power is "the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal
them." The Constitution, as the will of the people in their original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has
vested this power in the Congress of the Philippines. While Congress is vested with the power to enact
laws, the President executes the laws. It establishes for the first time a National Computerized
Identification Reference System. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that A.O. No. 308 need not be the
subject of a law, still it cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation because facially,
it violates the right to privacy. The act of promulgating AO no. 308 is an act of legislation rather than
enforcement of a law, thus, should be struck down as unconstitutional exercise of legislative power.