OPLE V.

TORRES
GR No. 127685
July 23, 1998

Facts:

On December 12, 1996, then President Ramos enacted Administrative order no. 308, which
laid down the ground work for the implementation of a National ID system. The A.O. mandated
major government agencies to pool their resources together to implement a centralized data bank
of all citizens which shall be used to streamline day to day government transactions and minimize
rampant red taping and corruption among government employees.

Herein petitioner Senator Blas Ople, filed the case at bar questioning the said A.O. on 3
grounds 1) implementation of a national ID system requires a legislative act, as such A.O. no. 308
is usurpation of legislative functions. 2) that said A.O. tends to infringe the right to privacy of
citizens 3) the appropriation of funds for the implementation of said A.O. is also an exclusive
legislative function.

Issue:

Whether the implementation of AO No. 308 violates the Rights to Privacy?

Held:

Yes. This A.O. orders the creation of the national ID for us to transact with offices. This
A.O. is challenged for two grounds:

1. It is a usurpation on the powers of the Congress to legislate; and,

2. It impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy.

The Court said this A.O. is unconstitutional for these two (2) grounds. This A.O. involves
a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by a mere administrative order. Administrative orders
are issued by the President insofar as administrative concerns are running the Executive
Department. It affects every citizen in the country. In other words, he is exercising powers he does
not have. Therefore, this national ID system should be done by way of a law. An administrative
order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative
operation of government. This ID system rules beyond that violation.
 On the other hand, 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.

But these interests are not compelling enough to warrant the issuance of A.O. No. 308. . Pr

It does not protect the privacy because the order does not tell us in clear and categorical
terms how this information gathered should be handled. We cannot preserve the right to privacy
insofar as these data are concerned. It doesn’t provide or control or access the data for what
circumstances or purposes. These factors are essential to safeguard the privacy and
guarantee the integrity of the information. There are no controls to guard against leakage of
information. In other words, the Administrative Order falls short in protecting the privacy
of this personal data.

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.

The Court said that the use of biometrics and computer technology in this AO does not
assure us of a reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, as technology advances, the level of
reasonably expected privacy decreases. The measure of protection granted by the reasonable
expectation diminishes as relevant technology becomes more widely accepted. That is why this
Administrative Order is unconstitutional and beyond the President’s power to issue and violative
of the right to privacy.