#49 OPLE v TORRES AUTHOR: Kylie Dado

[GR No. 127685 | 23 July 1995] NOTES: (if applicable)

TOPIC: Legislatives Standing
PONENTE: Puno, J.
FACTS:

A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos. Petitioner filed the petition against respondents, then Executive Secretary
Ruben Torres and the heads of the government agencies, who as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee, are
charged with the implementation of A.O. No. 308. Petitioner Ople prays to 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.
He also contends that:
1. The establishment of a national computerized identification reference system requires a legislative act. the issuance of
A.O. No. 308 by the president is, therefore, an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative powers of the congress of the
republic of the Philippines;
2. 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;
3. 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 that:

1. The instant petition is not a justiciable case as would warrant a judicial review;
2. A.O. No. 308 was issued within the executive and administrative powers of the president without encroaching on the
legislative powers of congress;
3. The funds necessary for the implementation of the identification reference system may be sourced from the budgets of
the concerned agencies;
4. A.O. No. 308 protects an individual's interest in privacy.

More specifically, respondents aver that petitioner has no legal interest to uphold and that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308
have yet to be promulgated.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner has legal interest to bring the petition

HELD: YES.

The Court said, These submissions do not deserve our sympathetic ear. 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.

OTHER ISSUES:
1. W/N the case is justiciable considering the fact that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated
YES. 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. Petitioner Ople assails A.O. No. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face. His action
is not premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects. Moreover, the respondents themselves have
started the implementation of A.O. No. 308 without waiting for the rules. 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.
Respondent Executive Secretary Torres has publicly announced that representatives from the GSIS and the SSS have
completed the guidelines for the national identification system. All signals from the respondents show their unswerving will to
implement A.O. No. 308 and we need not wait for the formality of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionality. 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. W/N A.O. No. 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law and hence, beyond the power of the President to issue
YES. 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.
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. Indeed, the dissent of Mr. Justice Mendoza states that the A.O. No. 308 involves the
all-important freedom of thought. 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. Nor is it correct to argue
 as the dissenters do that A.O. No. 308 is not a law because it confers no right, imposes no duty, affords no protection, and
creates no office. Under A.O. No. 308, a citizen cannot transact business with government agencies delivering basic services
to the people without the contemplated identification card. No citizen will refuse to get this identification card for no one can
avoid dealing with government. It is thus clear as daylight that without the ID, a citizen will have difficulty exercising his
rights and enjoying his privileges. Given this reality, the contention that A.O. No. 308 gives no right and imposes no duty
cannot stand.
3. A.O. No. 308 violates the right to privacy
YES. 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 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."
Today, biometrics is no longer limited to the use of fingerprint to identify an individual. It is a new science that uses various
technologies in encoding any and all biological characteristics of an individual for identification. 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 implementors of A.O. No. 308,
the fear that it threatens the right to privacy of our people is not groundless.
A.O. No. 308 should also raise our antennas for a further look will show that it does not state whether encoding of data is
limited to biological information alone for identification purposes. In fact, the Solicitor General claims that the adoption of the
Identification Reference System will contribute to the "generation of population data for development planning. This is an
admission that the PRN will not be used solely for identification but for the generation of other data with remote relation to
the avowed purposes of A.O. No. 308. 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 lack of proper safeguards in this regard of 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. 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.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

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.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINIONS:
1. Kapunan, J.
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. It would promote, facilitate and speed up legitimate transactions with
government offices as well as with private and business entities.
The Administrative Code of 1987 has unequivocally vested the President with quasi-legislative powers in the form of
executive orders, administrative orders, proclamations, memorandum orders and circulars and general or special
orders. An administrative order, like the one under which the new identification system is embodied, has its peculiar
meaning under the 1987 Administrative Code: SEC. 3. Administrative Orders. Acts of the President which relate
to particular aspects of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be
promulgated in administrative orders.
2. Mendoza, J.
Given the fact that no right of privacy is involved in this case and that any objection to the Identification Reference
System on the ground that it violates freedom of thought is premature, speculative, or conjectural pending the
issuance of the implementing rules, it is clear that petitioner Blas F. Ople has no cause of action and, therefore, no
standing to bring this action. Indeed, although he assails A.O. No. 308 on the ground that it violates the right of
privacy, he claims no personal injury suffered as a result of the Order in question. Instead, he says he is bringing this
action as taxpayer, Senator, and member of the Government Service Insurance System.