Ople v Torres, 293 SCRA 141

Case Digest

Ponente: J Puno

Petitioner: Blas Ople

Respondent: Ruben Torres, et al.

Facts:

A.O. No. 308, or the ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION

REFERENCE SYSTEM, was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on December 12, 1996.

On January 24, 1997, petitioner filed the instant 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. On April 8, 1997, we
issued a temporary restraining order enjoining its implementation.

The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of Senator Blas F. Ople to prevent the
shrinking of the right to privacy, which the revered Mr. Justice Brandeis considered as "the most
comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 entitled "Adoption of a
National Computerized Identification Reference System" on two important constitutional grounds, viz:

(1) it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate; and

(2) it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy. We grant the petition for
the rights sought to be vindicated by the petitioner need stronger barriers against further
erosion.

Issue:

(1) WON the establishment of AO No 308 by the President is unconstitutional as it is a

usurpation of the legislative powers of the Congress?

(2) WON the case calls for judicial review? In corollary, does petitioner have locus standing on
the case?

Ratio:

(1) Yes. Unlike the dissenters, we prescind from the premise that the 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:
a) 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
 b) 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.

(2) Yes. As is usual in constitutional litigation, respondents raise the threshold issues
relating to the standing to sue of the petitioner and the justiciability of the case at bar. 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.

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.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and Administrative Order No. 308 entitled
"Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" DECLARED null and
void for being unconstitutional.