BLAS F. OPLE, petitioner, vs. RUBEN D.

TORRES,

FACTS:

The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of Senator Blas F. Ople to
prevent the shrinking of the right to privacy, which the revered Mr. Justice Brandeis
considered as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized
men." 1 Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 entitled
"Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" on two
important constitutional grounds, viz: one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to
legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy.
We grant the petition for the rights sought to be vindicated by the petitioner need
stronger barriers against further erosion.

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.

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.

Respondents counter-argue:

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

A JUDICIAL REVIEW;

ISSUE:

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

HELD:

Yes.
We hold that A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered
by an administrative order. The essence of privacy is the "right to be let alone

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."

Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil
Code provides that "[e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons" and punishes as
actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy
of another. 35 It also holds a public officer or employee or any private individual
liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another
person, 36 and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private
communications. 37 The Revised Penal Code makes a crime the violation of
secrets by an officer, 38the revelation of trade and industrial secrets, 39 and
trespass to dwelling. 40 Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the
Anti-Wiretapping Law, 41 the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act 42 and the Intellectual
Property Code. 43 The Rules of Court on privileged communication likewise
recognize the privacy of certain information. 44

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 (Population Reference
Number), 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.