Ople v.
Torres ● Infringed on Congress’ right to
G.R. No. 127685 | July 23, 1998
Supreme Court
PETITIONER: Blas Ople
RESPONDENTS: Ruben D. Torres, Alex
Habito, Robert Barbers, Carmencita
Reodica, Cesar Sarino Renato Valencia,
Tomas Africa, Head of the Natl Computer
Center and Chairman of the Commision on
Audit
FACTS
● Sen. Blas Ople filed a PETITION
to the SC to review a decision of
the Exec. Sec. & Members of the
Inter-agency coordinating
committee
● A TRO was issued to enjoin the
implementation of AO No. 308
Petitioner’s Arguments:
(1) Establishment of Nat’l Computerized
Identification Ref. System requires a
legislative act
● Unconstitutional since president
was the one who issued this
(2) Appropriation of public funds by the
president
● unconstitutitonal
(2) Eradicate fraud by avoiding
appropriate funds
(3) AO 308 will violate the bill of rights
Respondents counter-argue:
(1) instant petition is not a justiciable case
(2) AO 308 was issued within exec. And
administrative powers of the president
w/o encroaching on the leg. Powers of
Congress
(3) funds for the implementation of the
reference system may be sourced from
concerned agencies’ budget
(4) AO 308 protects an individual’s interest
in privacy
Court said:
Petitioner Ople has standing as a Senator
can question issuance of the AO
As taxpayer and member of GSIS, he can
question the legality of the use of public
funds
Action not premature because the
committee has begun the AO’s
implementation already without waiting for
the rules
SSS already issued a notice to bid for the
National ID card
SolGen argues that the Court should
validate the A.O. because of the rational
relationship test on the ff. Grounds
(1) Streamline and speed up the
implementation of basic gov’t
services
duplication of services
(3) Generate population data for dev’t
planning
The ff. Cases are not on point with the
case at bar
● Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices
(Act RA3019) → but court said
this is different because the law
was enacted for morality in public
administration
→ RA 3019 is clearly stated and is statute
NOT an admin order
● Controlled Substances Act 1972
Record of the names of persons who
obtained certain drugs with possibility of
abuse → statute did not pose a grievous
threat to establish a consti violation
→ orderly and rational legislative decision:
Specified who can access data
Procedure and reqs for retrieval of
information was clear in the provisions
→ as compared to A.O. 308 these were
not laid out
ISSUE
● W/N the A.O. 308 is not a mere
administrative order but a law.
Did the president exercise a legislative
power belonging to the Congress?
● W/N A.O. 308 establishes a
system of identification that is all-
encompassing in scope and will
violate the citizen’s right to privacy.

JUDGMENT
● Yes. A.O. 308 resembles a law
because it establishes a Nat’l
Computerized ID Reference
System for the first time; as such,
will require a delicate adjustment
of various contending state
policies. (primacy of national
security, extent of privacy interest)
● Yes. A.O. 308 violates the
constitutional right to privacy. (cites
penumbra of the bill of rights from
Griswold v. Connecticut)
Administrative Orders:
> acts of the president which relate to
particular aspects of gov’t operation
> should be in harmony with the law
Legislative power is the authority under the
Constitution to make laws, and to alter
and repeal them.
President has the power to execute the
laws.
Duty to supervise enforcement of laws
HOLDING (RATIO)
● Petition granted.
● A.O. 308 declared null and void
for being unconstitutional
The court does not discredit the value of
technology, however, the A.O. should be
backed with proper safeguards and well-
defined standards to prevent mishaps and
abuse of privacy.
DICTA
SEPARATE OPINION
Romero (concur)
No to “Big Brother” / authoritarian rule
> however, the word privacy is not in the
lexicon of Filipinos
Vitug:
> cannot give the discretion to enforcers if
the provisions are unclear
Panganiban:
> Concur with AO 308 going beyond exec.
Powers
> dissent with the issue of privacy:
Topic is still unripe / speculative because it
is until after the Congress passes it into a
law when they can scrutinize the provisions
through a proper petition
DISSENTING OPINION
Kapunan:
> ID will aid in facilitation of public
transactions; speed up
> Primer given by SSS mentions that the
ID is voluntary, will just standardize ID
cards for SSS and GSIS
> quasi-legislative power of President
comes in
> issue is still unripe, Inter-Agency
Coordinating Committee is not yet fully
established
> essential guidelines not yet laid out, no
need to fear advanced Biometrics
technology because it will be used only for
basic services and to reduce fraudulent
transactions
> cites that SolGen says that the SSS and
GSIS are already self-sustaining;
expenses-wise
> President has administrative powers to
make sure laws are enforced
On the issue of illegal transfer of
appropriations:
Member agencies are the ones
implementing this
> supplies and materials system for the
improved ID card
Mendoza:
> A.O. involves the all-important
freedom of thought
> redefines parameters of basic rights
of our citizenry
> A.O. 308 is not law because it
confers no right, imposes no duty,
affords no protection and creates no
office

Majority argues that → a citizen cannot

transact business with gov’t without the
ID card
> citizen will have difficulty exercising
rights and enjoying his privileges