BLAS F. OPLE v. RUBEN D.

TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, HECTOR VILLANUEVA, CIELITO HABITO,

ROBERT BARBERS, CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO, RENATO VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA, HEAD
OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER and CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Facts:
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.
A.O. No. 308 was published in four newspapers of general circulation on January 22, 1997 and January 23, 1997. 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.

Issue: WON the petitioner has the stand to assail the validity of A.O. No. 308

Ruling: YES

Rationale:
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. 4 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.

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.