TOPIC: RIGHT TO PRIVACY

BLAS OPLE vs. RUBEN TORRES

G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998

FACTS:

Senator Blas F. Ople seeks prevent the shrinking of the right to privacy, and prays invalidate Administrative
Order No. 308 by the President Fidel Ramos, entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification
Reference System" as it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy.

The assailed AO seek to create a decentralized Identification Reference System to properly and efficiently
identify persons seeking basic services on social security and reduce, if not totally eradicate fraudulent
transactions and misrepresentations. (GSIS, SSS, DOH, etc.)

Note: Petitioner here is a member of the Senate, thus, he is accorded with legal standing, also as a taxpayer and
a member of the GSIS.

Petitioner claims that A.O. No. 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law and hence, beyond the power
of the President to issue. He alleges that A.O. No. 308 establishes a system of identification that is all-
encompassing in scope, affects the life and liberty of every Filipino citizen and foreign resident, and more
particularly, violates their right to privacy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the assailed Administrative Order violates the Right to Privacy under the constitution; and a
usurpation of legislative power.

RULING:

Yes, it violates the right to privacy and is a usurpation of legislative power of the congress. It is hereby declared
unconstitutional.

USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER –

It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely implements the Administrative Code of 1987 as the
Respondents argued, 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. (The AO gives right to citizens to access even without an ID, so it is a LAW, it confers right.)

RIGHT TO PRIVACY- (assuming in arguendo, as if the AO is valid, *because it is not)

The essence of privacy is the "right to be let alone.”
In Griswold v. Connecticut, held that the right of privacy has a constitutional foundation, there is a right of privacy
which can be found within the penumbras (shadow) of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments.

The language of Prof. Emerson is particularly apt: "The concept of limited government has always included the
idea that governmental powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citizen.

***The burden is at the government to show that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling state interest.
BUT what is very clear 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." (ex. FINGERPRINT, Retinal Scan, Artificial
Nose, Heat Signature.") 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. Thus, in a
way provide different OPTIONS to implementers that might put right to privacy at RISK. Also, it gives the
government RIGHT to restore data.
The potential for misuse of the data to be gathered under A.O. No. 308 cannot be
underplayed/underestimated.

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. 61 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. 62 They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights
seeks to prevent. 63

IMPORTANT Reasoning: Existence of this vast reservoir of personal information constitutes a covert invitation to
misuse, a temptation that may be too great for some of our authorities to resist. (Said order does not tell us in
clear and categorical terms how these information gathered shall he handled. It does not provide who shall
control and access the data, under what circumstances and for what purpose.)

The Court will not be true to its role as the ultimate guardian of the people's liberty if it would not
immediately smother the sparks that endanger their rights but would rather wait for the fire that could
consume them.

NOTES:

RIGHT TO PRIVACY is recognized in these following Bill of Rights provisions:

Sec. 3. (1) 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.

Other facets of the right to privacy are protected in various provisions of the Bill of Rights, viz: 34

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 including the CIVIL CODE, the RPC such
as Special Laws.
In Griswold vs. Connecticut
Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras formed by emanations from these guarantees that help
give them life and substance . . . various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association
contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its
prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is
another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ''right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its
Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to
surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."