TOPIC: CONTROL OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (ARTICLE VII, SECTION 17)

G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998 293 SCRA 141

TITLE: BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner, vs. RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, HECTOR
VILLANUEVA, CIELITO HABITO, ROBERT BARBERS, CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO,
RENATO VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA, HEAD OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER and
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.

PONENTE: PUNO, J.:

FACTS:
Then Senator Blas Ople filed a petition before the Supreme Court to declare the Administrative
Order no. 308 issued by then President Fidel Ramos as unconstitutional. Senator Ople raised the issues
that the said Administrative Order no. 308 is an usurpation by the President of the powers of the
legislature and said Administrative Order violates the right to privacy which is well amply protected in the
Bill of Rights.
The objective of this Administrative Order no. 308 is to create a national computerize
identification reference system that will eradicate fraudulent transaction with the government by properly
and efficiently identify persons seeking basic services on social security. The said order will require the
collection of personal information from the population reference number generated by the National
Statistics Office. The end goal of this Administrative Order is to provide convenience in transacting
business between Filipino citizens and foreign residents with the government.
Senator Ople in his petition filed before the Supreme Court, said that the President has usurp the
power of Congress because the establishment of a National Computerized Identification Reference
System requires a legislative act. In addition to that, the Senator also said in his petition that only the
Congress has the right to appropriate funds for government agencies and therefore the appropriation in
the said Administrative Order is another usurpation of the power of Congress. He therefore prayed that
the said Order by President Ramos be struck down as unconstitutional.

PETITIONER CONTENDS:

A. THE ESTABLISNMENT OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE

SYSTEM REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE ACT. THE ISSUANCE OF A.O. NO. 308 BY THE PRESIDENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS, THEREFORE, AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION
OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.
B. 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.

C. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. NO. 308 INSIDIOUSLY LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR A
SYSTEM, WHICH WILL VIOLATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

RESPONDENTS COUNTER-ARGUE:

A. THE INSTANT PETITION IS NOT A JUSTICIABLE CASE AS WOULD WARRANT A JUDICIAL

REVIEW;

B. A.O. NO. 308 [1996] WAS ISSUED WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF
CONGRESS;

C. THE FUNDS NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IDENTIFICATION

REFERENCE SYSTEM MAY BE SOURCED FROM THE BUDGETS OF THE CONCERNED
AGENCIES;

D. A.O. NO. 308 [1996] PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST IN PRIVACY.

ISSUES:

WHETHER OR NOT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 308 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the said Administrative Order is unconstitutional because it encroaches on
the power of the legislative since it establishes for the first time a National Computerized Identification
Reference System which in protecting the information that will be gathered from the public as one of the
reasons for striking down the Administrative Order.

Petitioner's sedulous concern for the Executive not to trespass on the lawmaking domain of Congress is
understandable. The blurring of the demarcation line between the power of the Legislature to make laws
and the power of the Executive to execute laws will disturb their delicate balance of power and cannot be
allowed. Hence, the exercise by one branch of government of power belonging to another will be given a
stricter scrutiny by this Court.
The line that delineates Legislative and Executive power is not indistinct. Legislative power is "the
authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them." 8 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. The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general and
comprehensive. The legislative body possesses plenary power for all purposes of civil government. Any
power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless
the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere. In fine, except as limited by the Constitution, either expressly or
impliedly, legislative power embraces all subjects and extends to matters of general concern or common
interest.

While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the President executes the laws. The executive
power is vested in the Presidents. 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 all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his
department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has
the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office or interfere
with the discretion of its officials. 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. 2To this end, he can issue administrative orders,
rules and regulations.

Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws.  The right to privacy is one of the most
threatened rights of man living in a mass society. The threats emanate from various sources —
governments, journalists, employers, social scientists, etc. In the case at bar, the threat comes from the
executive branch of government which by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the people to surrender their
privacy by giving information about themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of basic
services. Given the record-keeping power of the computer, only the indifferent fail to perceive the danger
that A.O. No. 308 gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting
citizens.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and Adminisrative Order No.
308 entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" declared null
and void for being unconstitutional.
Separate Opinions:

Several justices made their own separate opinion either joining the opinion of Justice Puno or in
dissenting to it. One of the dissenters, Justice Kapunan stated that striking down the said order as
unconstitutional is premature at that point. One of the requisites in order for a law to be struck down is
that there should be an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of rights. In the said case, there
has yet none. The said Administrative Order was still in the process of being implemented as the
implementing rules and regulations are still being drafted. But despite the heavy dissent of the other
Justices, the vote to declare it unconstitutional won. Many of the Justices who voted against the might
affect the primacy of national security and the extent of privacy against dossier. The Court pointed out
the lack of proper safeguard said order favoured the possibility of abuse of discretion among the data
collectors because of lack of laws to safeguard data privacy.