Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Issues:

(1) Whether or not the provisions of R.A. 9090 violate the equal protection clause.
(2) Whether or not the provisions of R.A. 9090 violate the right to privacy.

Decision:
Petition GRANTED.
R. A. 9090 entitled, AN ACT TO ESTABLISH DNA NATIONWIDE
DATABASE SYSTEM AND REPOSITORY, violates the equal protection clause of
the Constitution. Its application only to a specific portion of the population,
namely, convicts and persons who are under prosecution for a crime is not only
discriminatory, but is inconsistent with the title of the law which seeks to establish
a nationwide database for DNA samples.
In a number of cases, this Court held that the right to equal protection is
not violated so long as there is a reasonable classification. For classification to
be reasonable, (a) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (b) it must rest
on substantial distinctions; (c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only;
and, (d) it must apply equally to all members of the same class. Clearly, by
singling out convicts and persons under criminal prosecution, R.A. 9090 falls
short in giving life to the purpose of the law which is to curb the rising rates of sex
crimes and drug-related offenses and other acts of violence in our country. It
presumes that only the DNA samples of these persons are useful and helpful in
preventing or curbing the rising rate of crimes, and that samples from nonoffenders are of little or no significance. Therefore, the law banks upon repeat
offenders, recidivists, habitual delinquents in carrying out its primary purpose. It
is as if the law anticipates present and future crimes to be committed only by
those whose DNA samples already exist in its databasethose from convicts
and persons under criminal prosecution. The law favors those whose criminal
slates are clean by somehow considering their DNA samples irrelevant or
unimportant in its purpose of crime prevention. With only these, the law already
fails to satisfy the first two requisites for a valid classification and must therefore
be declared unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause.

R.A. 9090 also violates the right to privacy of convicts and persons under
criminal prosecution, the particular subjects of this law. The act or process of
collecting DNA samples constitutes unwarranted acquisition and examination of
evidence which may work for or against them. The test of reasonable expectation
of privacy is applicable in this case because convicts and persons under criminal
prosecution have a right to be secured in their persons especially against the
broad scope provided for under Section 3 of the law, for the use of the DNA
samples to be taken from them. R.A. 9090 creates a dangerous ground for its
subjects as it opens up to the possibility of violating their rights against selfincrimination. It is also a potential springboard for unscrupulous persons or
officers to access the information provided for in the DNA database and use them
for corrupt ends. The law is susceptible to misuse or abuse because it does not
provide for safeguard measures as to data handling, storage, and access. This
again runs the risk of further intrusion to privacy which is prejudicial to the interest
of the laws individual subjects.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a TRO
and a writ of preliminary injunction is granted. The decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Negros Occidental and the Court of Appeals are reversed.