OPLE vs TORRES

FACTS:
President Fidel Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 308 entitled Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System, which requires a computerized system to properly and
efficiently identify persons seeking basic services on social security and reduce, if not totally eradicate,
fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations.
(P) Petitioner Senator Blas Ople prays to invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 on two important
constitutional grounds, one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and two, it
impermissibly intrudes on our citizenrys protected zone of privacy.
(P) Petitioner contends that:
The establishment of national computerized identification reference system requires a
legislative act. The issuance of A.O. No. 308 by the president is an unconstitutional
usurpation of the legislative powers of the congress.
The appropriation of public funds by the president for the implementation of A.O. No. 308
is an unconstitutional usurpation of the exclusive right of congress to appropriate public
funds for expenditure
The implementation of A.O. 308 insidiously lays the groundwork for a system which will
violate the bill of rights enshrined in the constitution.
(R) On the other hand, Respondent argues that:
The instant petition is not a justiciable case as would warrant a judicial review.
A.O. 308 was issued within the executive and administrative powers of the president
without encroaching on the legislative powers of congress.
The funds necessary for the implementation of the identification reference system may be
sourced from the budgets of the concerned agencies
A.O. 308 protects an individuals interest in privacy
Petitioner has no legal standing to sue because the implementing rules of A.O. 308 have
not yet been promulgated

ISSUES:
1.) Whether the petitioner has standing to sue?
2.) Whether the issuance of AO 308 constitutes a usurpation of the power of the Congress and is
unconstitutional?
3.) Whether AO 308 violates a persons constitutional right to privacy?

HELD:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and Administrative Order No. 308 entitled
Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System declared null
and void for being unconstitutional. SO ORDERED.
1.) YES. Petitioner Ople is a distinguished member of our Senate. As a Senator, petitioner is possessed
of the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.O. No. 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 misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds
to implement A.O. No. 308. The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected by the fact
that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. His action is not premature for
the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects. As early as January 19, 1997, respondent
Social Security System (SSS) caused the publication of a notice to bid for the manufacture of the National
Identification (ID) card. In this light, the dissenters insistence that we tighten the rule on standing is not a
commendable stance as its result would be to throttle an important constitutional principle and a
fundamental right.

2.) YES. Legislative power is the authority to make laws, and to alter and repeal them. The Constitution
has vested this power in the Congress. The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general, and
comprehensive. Any power deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by
Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere. The executive power, on the other hand, is
vested in the President. It is generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws. It is the
power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance. As head of the
Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole
and sees to it that the officials and employees of his department enforce all laws. He has control over the
executive department, bureaus and offices. Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the
duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus,
he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge
his duties effectively. Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing
orders as determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of
administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue
administrative orders, rules and regulations. From these precepts, the Court holds that A.O. No. 308
involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order.
An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President, which relates to specific aspects
in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the
sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. The Court rejects the
argument that A.O. No. 308 implements the legislative policy of the Administrative Code of 1987. The
Code is a general law and incorporates in a unified document the major structural, functional and
procedural principles of governance and embodies changes in administrative structure and procedures
designed to serve the people. It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely implements the
Administrative Code of 1987. It establishes for the first time a National Computerized Identification
Reference System. Such a System requires a delicate adjustment of various contending state policies
The primacy of national security, the extent of privacy interest against dossier-gathering by government,
the choice of policies, etc. As said administrative order redefines the parameters of some basic rights of
our citizenry vis-a-vis the State as well as the line that separates the administrative power of the President
to make rules and the legislative power of Congress, it ought to be evident that it deals with a subject that
should be covered by law. Petition is granted and A.O. No. 308 is declared null and void for being
unconstitutional.
3.) 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 concept of limited government has always
included the idea that governmental powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the
citizen. If we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in
several provisions of our Constitution. (i.e. Right to privacy of communication and correspondence; Right
to life, liberty and property, and equal protection; Right against warrantless arrest and seizures).
The heart of A.O. No. 308 lies in its Section 4, which provides for a Population Reference Number
(PRN) as a "common reference number to establish a linkage among concerned agencies" through the
use of "Biometrics Technology" and "computer application designs."
It is noteworthy that A.O. No. 308 does not state what specific biological characteristics and what
particular biometrics technology shall be used to identify people who will seek its coverage. Considering
the banquet of options available to the implementers of A.O. No. 308, the fear that it threatens the right to
privacy of our people is not groundless. Clearly, the indefiniteness of A.O. No. 308 can give the
government the roving authority to store and retrieve information for a purpose other than the
identification of the individual through his PRN. 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. A.O. No. 308 is so widely drawn that a
minimum standard for a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of technology used, cannot be
inferred from its provisions.